text:
# Commensurability of 1-cusped hyperbolic 3-manifolds

## 1. Introduction

For over 20 years, progress in 3-manifold theory has been stimulated by:

###### 1.1 Thurston’s Virtual Fibration Conjecture.

Let $`M`$ be a finite volume hyperbolic 3-manifold. Then $`M`$ has a finite cover which is a surface bundle over $`S^1`$.

Little progress has been made towards the resolution of this conjecture since it was proposed \[Thu\]. In fact, there are few 3-manifolds which do not fiber over $`S^1`$ but are known to have finite covers which do fiber (see the references in \[Kir, Prob. 3.51\]). Moreover, Boileau and Wang \[BW\] produced infinitely many examples of closed hyperbolic 3-manifolds for which no solvable cover fibers over $`S^1`$. However, fundamental groups of hyperbolic 3-manifolds have huge numbers of finite index subgroups with a variety of quotients \[Lub\], and many 3-manifolds fiber over $`S^1`$ in many different ways. Thus it is likely that more complicated classes of covers provide numerous examples.

A relatively tractable class of 3-manifolds are knot complements in $`S^3`$, or more generally, knot complements in rational homology spheres. If such a 3-manifold fibers over $`S^1`$, the fiber is a minimal genus Seifert surface of the knot. Complements of knots in rational homology spheres rarely cover each other, but much more frequently they share a common finite cover—that is, they are commensurable. For this class of manifolds, the natural analogue of Thurston’s question is:

###### 1.2 Question.

Let $`M`$ be a knot complement in a rational homology sphere. When is $`M`$ commensurable with a fibered knot complement in a rational homology sphere?

Here, we give conditions on a knot complement which ensure that it is not commensurable with a fibered knot complement. These conditions are satisfied in many examples, including the complements of a large number of 2-bridge knots in $`S^3`$. These conditions are somewhat subtle, but we give examples showing that the subtleties are essential.

Recall the basic:

###### 1.3 Criterion.

Let $`M`$ be a knot complement in a rational homology sphere. If the Alexander polynomial $`\mathrm{\Delta }_M`$ of $`M`$ is not monic, then $`M`$ does not fiber over $`S^1`$.

Our main idea is to combine this criterion with the fact that the roots of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_M`$ are related to eigenvalues of reducible $`\mathrm{PSL}_2`$-representations of $`\pi _1(M)`$.

We’ll now state the main result. A 1-cusped hyperbolic 3-manifold $`M`$ is *generic* if it is not arithmetic and its commensurator orbifold has a flexible cusp. The latter condition holds if the cusp shape of $`M`$ is not in $`(i)`$ or $`(\sqrt{3})`$. Our condition concerns reducible representations $`\rho :\pi _1(M)\mathrm{PSL}_2`$ whose image is non-abelian. A representation $`\rho :\pi _1(M)\mathrm{PSL}_2`$ is called *integral* if the trace of $`\rho (\gamma )`$ is an algebraic integer for all $`\gamma \pi _1(M)`$. Otherwise, $`\rho `$ is *non-integral*. As discussed in Section 5, whether $`M`$ has a non-abelian reducible representation which is non-integral is closely related to whether $`\mathrm{\Delta }_M`$ has a non-integral root. When $`M`$ fibers, its Alexander polynomial $`\mathrm{\Delta }_M`$ is *monic*, that is, has lead coefficient $`\pm 1`$, and so all the roots are integral. Using the connection between $`\mathrm{\Delta }_M`$ and reducible representations, it is easy to show that every non-abelian reducible representation of $`\pi _1(M)`$ is integral.

Let $`X_0(M)`$ denote the geometric component of the $`\mathrm{PSL}_2`$-character variety of $`\pi _1(M)`$ (see Section 3). We will show:

###### 6.1. Theorem.

Let $`M_1`$ be a generic hyperbolic knot complement in a $`/2`$-homology sphere. Suppose that the geometric component $`X_0(M_1)`$ contains the character of a non-integral reducible representation. Then $`M_1`$ is not commensurable to a fibered knot complement in a $`/2`$-homology sphere.

Suppose $`M_1`$ and $`M_2`$ are commensurable manifolds. Given a representation $`\rho _1:\pi _1(M_1)\mathrm{PSL}_2`$ one cannot in general induce a representation $`\rho _2:\pi _1(M_2)\mathrm{PSL}_2`$ which is *compatible*, that is, agrees with $`\rho _1`$ on the fundamental group of the common cover of $`M_1`$ and $`M_2`$. However, when $`M_1`$ and $`M_2`$ are generic commensurable 1-cusped hyperbolic 3-manifolds one knows more. Here, the existence of a commensurator \[Bor\], together with Thurston’s Hyperbolic Dehn Surgery Theorem \[Thu\], gives a natural birational isomorphism between the geometric components of the character varieties of $`M_1`$ and $`M_2`$ (this is due to the first author (unpublished) and \[LR\]). Moreover, representations of $`\pi _1(M_1)`$ coming from its geometric component $`X_0(M_1)`$ correspond to compatible representations of $`\pi _1(M_2)`$ coming from its geometric component $`X_0(M_2)`$. The key to Theorem 6.1 is showing that for a reducible representation of $`\pi _1(M_1)`$ in $`X_0(M_1)`$, the corresponding compatible representation of $`\pi _1(M_2)`$ is also reducible. Then if $`X_0(M_1)`$ contains the character of a non-integral reducible representation, there is a corresponding reducible representation of $`\pi _1(M_2)`$. This representation has to be non-integral as well, and so $`M_2`$ can’t be fibered.

We end this section with an outline of the rest of the paper. In Section 2, we give basic topological restrictions on when fibered and non-fibered 1-cusped manifolds can be commensurable. We also provide constructions of pairs of commensurable 1-cusped manifolds satisfying these restrictions. Section 3 contains background material about character varieties. Section 4 discusses representations of commensurable 3-manifolds. Section 5 discusses the Alexander polynomial and its connection to reducible representations. Section 6 is devoted to the proof of Theorem 6.1.

In Section 7, we show that Theorem 6.1 applies to the complements of many 2-bridge knots, in particular, to all non-fibered 2-bridge knots $`K(p,q)`$ where $`q<p<40`$.

In Section 8, we give examples of pairs of commensurable 1-cusped hyperbolic 3-manifolds exactly one of which fibers. These illustrate the necessity and subtlety of the hypotheses of Theorem 6.1.

### Acknowledgements

The first author was partially supported by an NSF Graduate Fellowship and a NSF VIGRE grant. The second author was partially supported by an NSF Postdoctoral Fellowship. We also thank the referee for helpful comments, especially those clarifying the definition of an integral representation.

## 2. Commensurability of 1-cusped 3-manifolds

In this section, we’ll discuss some basic necessary conditions for a 1-cusped non-fibered 3-manifold to be commensurable with a 1-cusped fibered 3-manifold. We’ll also describe some constructions of pairs of commensurable manifolds which show that these necessary conditions are satisfied in many examples.

Let $`M`$ be a 3-manifold. Given $`A`$ in $`H^1(M;)`$ we can think of it in several ways: as a homomorphism of $`\pi _1(M)`$ to $``$, as a homotopy class of maps from $`M`$ to $`S^1`$, or as a surface representing a class in $`H_2(M,M)`$ (via Lefschetz duality). Thought of as a class of maps from $`M`$ to $`S^1`$, it makes sense to say that $`A`$ is *representable by a fibration over $`S^1`$.*

We’ll begin with the question: Suppose $`M`$ is a 3-manifold which does not fiber over $`S^1`$; when does a finite cover of $`M`$ fiber? The fundamental fact here is:

###### 2.1 Lemma (Stallings).

Suppose $`M`$ is an orientable 3-manifold which does not fiber over $`S^1`$. Let $`N`$ be a finite cover which does fiber over $`S^1`$, with $`\varphi :NM`$ the covering map. If $`A`$ is a class in $`H^1(M;)`$ then the pullback $`\varphi ^{}(A)`$ in $`H^1(N;)`$ cannot represent a fibration over $`S^1`$. In particular,

$$\mathrm{rank}H^1(N)>\mathrm{rank}H^1(M).$$

###### Proof.

Let $`A`$ be in $`H^1(M,)`$. Stallings showed that $`A`$ can be represented by a fibration over $`S^1`$ if and only if the kernel of the map $`A:\pi _1(M)`$ is finitely generated \[Sta\]. So as $`M`$ does not fiber, the kernel of the $`A:\pi _1(M)`$ is not finitely generated. As $`\pi _1(N)`$ has finite index in $`\pi _1(M)`$, it follows that the kernel of the restricted map $`\varphi ^{}(A):\pi _1(N)`$ is also not finitely generated. So $`\varphi ^{}(A)`$ cannot represent a fibration. ∎

Now suppose two manifolds $`M_1`$ and $`M_2`$ are *commensurable*, that is, they have a common finite sheeted cover $`N`$. The following theorem gives a restriction on when a non-fibered 1-cusped 3-manifold can be commensurable to a fibered one:

###### 2.2 Theorem.

Let $`M_1`$ and $`M_2`$ be two commensurable hyperbolic knot complements in rational homology spheres. Suppose $`M_2`$ fibers over $`S^1`$ but $`M_1`$ does not. Then a common regular cover must have at least $`2`$ boundary components.

###### Proof.

First, let’s make some basic observations. Throughout, all (co)homology will have coefficients in $``$. Suppose $`\varphi :NM`$ is a *regular* finite cover of 3-manifolds. Let $`G=\pi _1(M)/\pi _1(N)`$ be the covering group. The homomorphism $`\varphi ^{}:H^1(M)H^1(N)`$ is injective, and $`\varphi ^{}(H^1(M))`$ is exactly the $`G`$-invariant cohomology.

Now let’s prove the theorem. Suppose $`N`$ is a common regular cover of $`M_1`$ and $`M_2`$. Let $`\varphi _i:NM_i`$ be the covering maps, and $`G_i=\pi _1(M_i)/\pi _1(N)`$ the covering groups. By Mostow rigidity, we can assume that the covering groups $`G_i`$ act via isometries of some fixed hyperbolic metric on $`N`$. As the isometry group of $`N`$ is finite, so is the group $`G=G_1,G_2`$.

From now on, assume that $`N`$ has only one cusp. We will show there is a non-zero $`G`$-invariant class $`A`$ in $`H^1(N)`$. This gives a contradiction for the following reason. Every non-zero class in $`\varphi _2^{}(H^1(M_2))`$ can be represented by a fibration, while by Lemma 2.1 no non-zero class in $`\varphi _1^{}(H^1(M_1))`$ can be represented by a fibration. But because $`A`$ is $`G`$-invariant, $`A`$ is in $`\varphi _i^{}(H^1(M_i))`$ for both $`i`$, which is impossible.

Let $`S`$ be a Seifert surface for $`M_2`$ which is a fiber, and let $`F=\varphi _2^1(S)`$ be the lift to $`N`$. The surface $`F`$ represents a non-trivial class in $`H_2(N,N)`$. Moreover, since $`[S]`$ in $`H_1(M_2)`$ is nontrivial, so is $`[F]`$ is in $`H_1(N)`$. Look at the the class in $`H_2(N,N)`$ which is

$$X=\underset{gG}{}g_{}([F]).$$

Consider the restricted coverings $`\varphi _i:NM_i`$. Now the covering group $`G_i`$ acts freely on the torus $`N`$. Hence $`\varphi _i`$ induces a rational isomorphism on $`H_1`$, and $`G_i`$ acts identically on $`H_1(N;)`$. Therefore $`G`$ acts identically on $`H_1(N;)`$. Thus

$$X=\underset{gG}{}g_{}([F])=\left|G\right|[F]0.$$

So $`X`$ is non-zero. If $`A`$ is the dual class in $`H^1(N)`$, then $`A`$ is the non-zero $`G`$-invariant class we sought. ∎

###### 2.3 Remark.

Suppose $`M_1`$ and $`M_2`$ have a common manifold quotient $`M`$ with a torus cusp. In this case, there are Seifert surfaces generating $`H_2(M_i,M_i)`$ which are pullbacks of a single Seifert surface in $`M`$. In particular, if $`M_2`$ fibers but $`M_1`$ does not, the commensurator cannot be a manifold, but must be an orbifold.

###### 2.4 Example.

Suppose $`M_1`$ and $`M_2`$ have a common finite regular cover $`N`$ with covering deck groups $`G_1`$ and $`G_2`$. If the $`M_i`$ are not hyperbolic, it is not always true that there are actions $`G_i^{}`$ isotopic to $`G_i`$ so that $`G=G_1^{},G_2^{}`$ is finite. For example, let $`M_1`$ be the unit tangent bundle of the $`(2,4,4)`$ Euclidean triangle orbifold, and $`M_2`$ the unit tangent bundle of the $`(2,3,6)`$ Euclidean triangle orbifold. These manifolds have $`T^3`$ as a common regular cover, with deck groups $`G_1/4`$ and $`G_2/6`$ respectively. But the action of $`G_1,G_2`$ on $`H_1(T^3;)`$ generates a group isomorphic to $`SL(2,)`$. Thus, we can’t isotope the $`G_i`$ so that together they generate a finite group.

In light of Theorem 2.2, it is worth producing examples of commensurable 1-cusped manifolds whose common covers have multiple cusps.

###### 2.5 Example.

Let $`N_0=T^2\times I`$. There are two orientation-preserving involutions $`\varphi _1,\varphi _2`$ of $`N_0`$ defined by

$$\varphi _1(x,y,t)=(x,y,1t),\varphi _2(x,y,t)=(x,y,1t)$$

where $`(x,y)`$ are angular coordinates on $`T^2`$ and $`t`$ is the coordinate on $`I=[0,1]`$.

Now, the union of the fixed point sets of $`\varphi _1`$ and $`\varphi _2`$ is a graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }T^2\times 1/2`$. A regular neighborhood $`N(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a genus $`5`$ handlebody. Let $`N_1=N_0N(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$, and let $`N_2`$ be the double of $`N_1`$. Then $`N_2`$ has two sets of cusps, $`\{C_1,C_2\}`$ and $`\{D_1,D_2\}`$, where $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$ are the original pair of cusps from $`N_0`$. The involutions $`\varphi _1`$ and $`\varphi _2`$ extend to fixed-point–free involutions of $`N_2`$ which interchange $`C_1`$ with $`C_2`$ and $`D_1`$ with $`D_2`$. Notice that

$$\varphi _2\varphi _1^1:T^2\times 0T^2\times 0$$

is just the involution $`(x,y)(x,y)`$. It follows that these involutions descend to the manifold obtained by equivariantly Dehn filling $`D_1`$ and $`D_2`$. Let $`N_3`$ be obtained from $`N_2`$ by Dehn filling on both $`D_1`$ and $`D_2`$, so that $`\varphi _1`$ and $`\varphi _2`$ both act on $`N_3`$. We can also equivariantly surger $`N_3`$ along some collection of links to destroy any “accidental” additional symmetry to get $`N_3^{}`$, so that the quotients $`M_1=N_3^{}/\varphi _1`$ and $`M_2=N_3^{}/\varphi _2`$ are not homeomorphic, and have no common regular cover with fewer than two cusps. This equivariant surgery can also be used to kill off rational homology and ensure $`N_3`$ is hyperbolic, so that $`M_1`$ and $`M_2`$ can be chosen to be knot complements in rational homology spheres.

These examples have the property that for $`S`$ a Seifert surface in $`M_2`$, the class $`[\varphi _1\varphi _2^1(S)]`$ is trivial in $`H_2(M_1,M_1)`$. So the proof of Theorem 2.2 does not apply here, and we cannot conclude anything about whether $`M_1`$ and $`M_2`$ mutually fiber or do not fiber over $`S^1`$.

These examples cannot be chosen to be knot complements in $`/2`$-homology spheres because of the very existence of a $`2`$-fold cover. A modification of this construction gets around this difficulty.

###### 2.6 Example.

Let $`L`$ be the unlink in $`S^3`$ on $`n`$ components. Arrange these symmetrically so that there is a rotation $`r`$ with axis $`\alpha `$ permuting the components of $`L`$. Let $`s`$ be a rotation of order $`n`$ fixing each component, translating $`\alpha `$, and fixing another axis $`\beta `$ which links each component of $`L`$. Let $`\varphi _1=rs`$ and $`\varphi _2=rs^k`$ for some $`k>1`$ coprime with $`n`$. Then $`M_i=(S^3L)/\varphi _i`$ is a knot complement in a lens space which is a $`/2`$-homology sphere for $`n`$ odd. By equivariant surgery, we can make the $`M_i`$ hyperbolic knot complements in $`/2`$-homology spheres whose smallest common cover has $`n`$ cusps.

## 3. Character varieties

Here, we review the part of the theory of character varieties of 3-manifolds that we will need for Theorem 6.1. For details, see \[CS, Sha\]. For the technicalities of the $`\mathrm{PSL}_2`$ as opposed to $`\mathrm{SL}_2`$ case see \[BZa\].

###### 3.1 Definition.

For $`M`$ a compact 3-manifold, we let

$$R(M)=\text{Hom}(\pi _1(M),\mathrm{PSL}_2)$$

denote the $`\mathrm{PSL}_2`$ representation variety of $`M`$.

Further, let

$$X(M)=\underset{\rho R(M)}{}\mathrm{tr}_\rho ^2^{\pi _1(M)}$$

denote the $`\mathrm{PSL}_2`$ character variety of $`M`$.

Since $`\pi _1(M)`$ is finitely generated, $`R(M)`$ is an affine algebraic variety over $``$. For each $`\gamma \pi _1(M)`$, the function $`\tau _\gamma :R(M)`$ defined by

$$\tau _\gamma (\rho )=\mathrm{tr}_\rho ^2(\gamma )$$

is a regular function on $`R(M)`$. As $`\pi _1(M)`$ is finitely generated, the ring of functions generated by the $`\tau _\gamma `$ is finitely generated. It follows that $`X(M)`$ in $`^{\pi _1(M)}`$ projects isomorphically to an algebraic subvariety of $`^G`$ for some finite subset $`G\pi _1(M)`$. Therefore $`X(M)`$ has the structure of an affine algebraic variety over $``$.

Away from the reducible locus, the action of $`\mathrm{PSL}_2`$ on $`R(M)`$ by conjugation is transverse, and the natural projection $`R(M)/\mathrm{PSL}_2X(M)`$ is injective on a Zariski open set. Let $`t:R(M)X(M)`$ be the projection. For a character $`\chi `$ in $`X(M)`$, $`t^1(\chi )`$ either consists solely of the conjugates of a single irreducible representation, or $`t^1(\chi )`$ consists of reducible representations. In the latter case, the reducible representations in $`t^1(\chi )`$ may not all be conjugate (it is easy to see that the closure of the orbit of a non-abelian reducible representation contains an abelian reducible representation).

We will need the following, which is Proposition 6.2 of \[CGLS\].

###### 3.2 Lemma.

Let $`X`$ be an irreducible component of $`X(M)`$ which contains the character of an irreducible representation. Let $`\chi X`$ be the character of a reducible representation. Then there is a non-abelian reducible representation with character $`\chi `$.

The lemma follows from the fact that the fibers of $`t`$ over $`X`$ are all at least 3-dimensional whereas the orbit under conjugation of an abelian reducible representation is 2-dimensional.

If $`M`$ is an orientable finite volume hyperbolic 3-manifold, there is a unique discrete faithful representation

$$\rho _\delta :\pi _1(M)\mathrm{PSL}_2$$

up to conjugacy in $`O(3,1)\mathrm{PSL}_2/2`$. Up to conjugacy in $`\mathrm{PSL}_2`$, there are a pair of such representations which differ by complex conjugation, and their characters may occur in different irreducible components of $`X(M)`$. Fixing an orientation of $`M`$ fixes a $`\mathrm{PSL}_2`$-conjugacy class of discrete faithful representations. We will assume our manifolds are oriented in what follows, and therefore that $`\rho _\delta `$ is well-defined up to conjugacy in $`\mathrm{PSL}_2`$.

###### 3.3 Definition.

Let $`M`$ be a finite volume hyperbolic 3-manifold. Let $`X_0(M)`$ denote the irreducible component of $`X(M)`$ containing the character of the discrete faithful representation $`\rho _\delta `$. The component $`X_0(M)`$ is called the *geometric component* of $`X(M)`$.

## 4. Representations of commensurable manifolds

Let $`M_1`$ and $`M_2`$ be commensurable hyperbolic 3-manifolds with common finite cover $`N`$. Two representations $`\rho _i:\pi _1(M_i)\mathrm{PSL}_2`$ are said to be *compatible* if they agree on $`\pi _1(N)`$. For instance, if $`\rho _1`$ is a discrete faithful representation for $`M_1`$, then Mostow rigidity implies that there is a discrete faithful representation $`\rho _2`$ of $`\pi _1(M_2)`$ which is compatible with $`\rho _1`$. The property of having compatible representations extends to other representations whose characters are in $`X_0(M_1)`$.

###### 4.1 Proposition.

Suppose $`M_1`$ and $`M_2`$ are generic commensurable orientable hyperbolic 3-manifolds with one cusp. Let $`\chi _1`$ be a character in the geometric component $`X_0(M_1)`$. Then there exist compatible representations $`\rho _i`$ of $`\pi _1(M_i)`$ such that $`\rho _1`$ has character $`\chi _1`$ and the character of $`\chi _2`$ lies in a geometric component $`X_0(M_2)`$.

The reason for weaseling around with $`\chi _1`$ instead of just starting with $`\rho _1`$ is that for characters of reducible representations, there can be different conjugacy classes of representations with that character. It turns out that you can’t always specify $`\rho _1`$, but only $`\chi _1`$, in this case.

###### Proof.

As the $`M_i`$ are non-arithmetic, they cover a common orientable commensurator orbifold $`Q`$ \[Bor\]. Let $`p_i:M_iQ`$ be the (orbifold) covering maps. The inclusion of $`\pi _1(M_i)`$ into $`\pi _1(Q)`$ induces a map $`p_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{}:X_0(Q)X_0(M_i)`$ via restriction of representations. Because the $`M_i`$ are generic, $`Q`$ has a flexible cusp, and the variety $`X_0(Q)`$ is also a complex curve. In fact, $`p_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ is a birational isomorphism, though we will not need this \[LR\]. The main step is:

###### 4.2 Lemma.

The map $`p_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}:X_0(Q)X_0(M_1)`$ is onto.

###### Proof of Lemma..

The map $`p_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ is a non-constant map of irreducible affine algebraic curves over $``$. Let $`\overline{X}_0(Q)`$ denote the smooth projective model of $`X_0(Q)`$. The curve $`\overline{X}_0(Q)`$ is the normalization of $`X_0(Q)`$ compactified by adding an ideal point for each end of $`X_0(Q)`$ \[CGLS, §1.5\]. Similarly, let $`\overline{X}_0(M_1)`$ be the smooth projective model of $`X_0(M_1)`$. The map $`p_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ induces a regular map of the same name between $`\overline{X}_0(Q)`$ and $`\overline{X}_0(M_1)`$ (this map is just a branched covering of closed Riemann surfaces). Let $`\chi _1`$ be a point in $`\overline{X}_0(M_1)`$ which corresponds to a character—that is, not an ideal point. As the map from $`\overline{X}_0(Q)`$ to $`\overline{X}_0(M_1)`$ is surjective, choose $`\chi _0`$ in $`\overline{X}_0(Q)`$ with $`p_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(\chi _0)=\chi _1`$. We need to show that $`\chi _0`$ is not an ideal point. Suppose that $`\chi _0`$ is an ideal point. By Proposition 1.4.4 of \[CS\] there is some $`\gamma `$ in $`\pi _1(Q)`$ for which $`\mathrm{tr}_\gamma ^2(\chi _0)=\mathrm{}`$. That is, there is some element of $`\pi _1(Q)`$ which acts by a hyperbolic isometry on the simplicial tree associated to the ideal point $`\chi _0`$. Now for any $`n>0`$, $`\gamma ^n`$ also acts by a hyperbolic isometry on the tree and so $`\mathrm{tr}_{\gamma ^n}^2(\chi _0)=\mathrm{}`$. As $`\pi _1(M_1)`$ is of finite index in $`\pi _1(Q)`$, we can choose $`n`$ so that $`\gamma ^n`$ is in $`\pi _1(M_1)`$. But then $`\mathrm{tr}_{\gamma ^n}^2\chi _0=\mathrm{tr}_{\gamma ^n}^2\chi _1=\mathrm{}`$, contradicting that $`\chi _1`$ is the character of a representation. So $`\chi _0`$ is not an ideal point and hence $`p_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}:X_0(Q)X_0(M_1)`$ is onto. ∎

Now to finish the proof of the theorem, let $`\chi _1X_0(M_1)`$. By the lemma, there is some character $`\chi _0`$ in $`X_0(Q)`$ with $`p_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(\chi _0)=\chi _1`$. Let $`\rho _0`$ be a representation with character $`\chi _0`$. Then the restrictions of $`\rho _0`$ to the subgroups $`\pi _1(M_i)`$ give a pair of compatible representations with the required properties. ∎

## 5. The Alexander polynomial and reducible representations

Let $`M`$ be a knot complement in a rational homology sphere. Let $`N`$ denote the universal free abelian cover of $`M`$. That is, set $`H=H_1(M;)/(\mathrm{torsion})`$ and take the covering corresponding to the kernel of the natural homomorphism $`\pi _1(M)H`$. Then $`N`$ is a regular covering of $`M`$, and the group $`\pi _1(M)/\pi _1(N)=H`$ acts on $`N`$ by deck transformations. It follows that $`H_1(N;)`$ has the natural structure of a $`[H]`$-module. If $`t`$ denotes the generator of $`H`$, then $`H_1(N;)`$ is a $`[t,t^1]`$-module. The *Alexander polynomial* $`\mathrm{\Delta }_M`$ of $`M`$ is an invariant of this module. In the case that $`H_1(N;)`$ is cyclic, that is $`H_1(N;)=[t,t^1]/p(t)`$, the polynomial $`\mathrm{\Delta }_M`$ is just $`p(t)`$. In general, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_M`$ is the greatest common divisor of the $`0`$-th elementary ideal of a matrix which presents $`H_1(N;)`$ as a $`[t,t^1]`$-module. The Laurent polynomial $`\mathrm{\Delta }_M`$ is only defined up to multiplication by a unit $`\pm t^n`$ in $`[t,t^1]`$. A key property for us is that the Alexander polynomial is symmetric, that is $`\mathrm{\Delta }_M(t^1)=\pm t^n\mathrm{\Delta }_M(t)`$ \[Tur\]. For more on the Alexander polynomial see \[Rol\].

If $`M`$ is a surface bundle over $`S^1`$ with fiber $`F`$ and monodromy $`\varphi :FF`$, then $`N=F\times `$ and the action of $`t`$ on $`H_1(N;)`$ is exactly equal to the action of $`\varphi _{}`$ on $`H_1(F;)=H_1(N;)`$. In this case, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_M`$ is the characteristic polynomial of $`\varphi _{}`$. Since $`\varphi `$ is a homeomorphism, $`\varphi _{}`$ is an automorphism, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_M`$ is monic.

Now consider a non-abelian reducible representation $`\rho :\pi _1(M)\mathrm{SL}_2`$. Conjugate $`\rho `$ so that its image is upper-triangular. Given $`\gamma \pi _1(M)`$ we will say that the *primary eigenvalue* of $`\rho (\gamma )`$ is the $`(1,1)`$ entry of the matrix $`\rho (\gamma )`$. This is well defined for the following reason. Since $`\rho `$ has non-abelian image, there is a unique line $`L`$ in $`^2`$ which is left invariant by all $`\rho (\pi _1(M))`$. The primary eigenvalue of $`\rho (\gamma )`$ is just the eigenvalue of $`\rho (\gamma )`$ with eigenspace $`L`$.

A reducible representation into $`\mathrm{SL}_2`$ has meta-abelian (two-step solvable) image. The Alexander polynomial of $`M`$ is an invariant of the maximal meta-abelian quotient of $`\pi _1(M)`$, so it’s not surprising that it is related to non-abelian reducible representations of $`\pi _1(M)`$ into $`\mathrm{SL}_2`$. For knots in $``$-homology spheres, the statement is:

###### 5.1 Theorem (de Rham).

Let $`M`$ be a knot complement in a $``$-homology sphere. Let $`\mu `$ in $`\pi _1(M)`$ be a meridian. The following are equivalent:

* There is a non-abelian reducible representation

$$\rho :\pi _1(M)\mathrm{SL}_2$$

such that $`\rho (\mu )`$ has primary eigenvalue $`m`$.
* $`m^2`$ is a root of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_M(t)`$.

More generally, for knots in $``$-homology spheres there is a similar connection that is a bit harder to state. Let $`\rho :\pi _1(M)\mathrm{SL}_2`$ be a non-abelian reducible representation. Then $`\rho `$ acts on $`\text{P}^1`$ and has a unique fixed point. Translating that point to $`\mathrm{}`$, $`\rho `$ can be interpreted as a homomorphism from $`\pi _1(M)`$ into the (complex) affine group of $``$:

$$\mathrm{Affine}()=\left\{\text{maps }zaz+b\right\}\left\{\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)\right\}\text{where }a^\times \text{ and }b\text{.}$$

Define a homomorphism $`x_\rho :\pi _1(M)^\times `$ by setting $`x_\rho (\gamma )=a`$, where $`a`$ is the homothety part of $`\rho (\gamma )`$ thought of as an element of $`\mathrm{Affine}()`$. Note that $`x_\rho (\gamma )`$ is just the square of the primary eigenvalue of $`\rho (\gamma )`$ regarded as being in $`\mathrm{SL}_2`$. The map $`x_\rho `$ is often called the character of $`\rho `$ but to prevent confusion we’ll avoid this practice. The case of knots in $``$-homology spheres is more complicated than the $``$ case because not every homomorphism $`x:\pi _1(M)^\times `$ factors through the *free* abelianization of $`\pi _1(M)`$. For those homomorphisms that do, Theorem 5.1 in this context is just:

###### 5.2 Theorem.

Let $`M`$ be a knot complement in a $``$-homology sphere. Let $`H`$ be the free abelianization of $`\pi _1(M)`$. Let $`x:H^\times `$ be a homomorphism. Then the following are equivalent:

* There is a non-abelian reducible representation

$$\rho :\pi _1(M)\mathrm{SL}_2$$

with $`x_\rho =x`$.
* $`x^{}(\mathrm{\Delta }_M)=0`$, where $`x^{}`$ is the map $`x`$ induces from $`[H]`$ to $``$.

For a proof, see e.g. \[McM, §3\].

### 5.3. Non-integral reducible representations

From the introduction, recall that a representation $`\rho `$ of $`\pi _1(M)`$ into $`\mathrm{PSL}_2`$ is *integral* if the trace of every $`\rho (\gamma )`$ is an algebraic integer. Otherwise $`\rho `$ is *non-integral*. Let’s reformulate this a little. Consider a matrix $`A\mathrm{PSL}_2`$. An eigenvalue $`\lambda `$ of $`A`$ (well-defined up to sign) is a root of the monic polynomial $`x^2\pm \mathrm{tr}(A)x+1`$. Therefore if $`\mathrm{tr}(A)`$ is integral, the eigenvalues of $`A`$ are also algebraic integers. The converse is clearly true, so $`A`$ has integral trace if and only if *both* eigenvalues of $`A`$ are integral. Now if $`\lambda `$ is an eigenvalue of $`A`$, then the other eigenvalue is $`1/\lambda `$. Thus we see that $`A`$ has integral trace if and only if the eigenvalues of $`A`$ are algebraic units. In the terminology of the last section, a reducible representation $`\rho `$ is integral if and only if the primary eigenvalues of all the $`\rho (\gamma )`$ are algebraic units. Since the primary eigenvalue of $`\rho (\gamma ^1)`$ is the inverse of the primary eigenvalue of $`\rho (\gamma )`$, we see that a reducible representation is integral if and only if every primary eigenvalue is an algebraic integer. If we think of $`\rho `$ as a homomorphism to $`\mathrm{Affine}()`$, we see that $`\rho `$ is integral if and only if the homothety of each $`\rho (\gamma )`$ is integral.

For knots in $``$-homology spheres, the Alexander polynomial determines the existence of non-abelian reducible representations which are non-integral:

###### 5.4 Proposition.

Let $`M`$ be a knot complement in a $``$-homology sphere. Then $`M`$ has a non-abelian reducible representation into $`\mathrm{PSL}_2`$ which is non-integral if and only if $`\mathrm{\Delta }_M`$ is not monic.

###### Proof.

As $`M`$ is a knot complement in a $`/2`$-homology sphere, the cohomology group $`H^2(M;/2)`$ vanishes and every representation into $`\mathrm{PSL}_2`$ lifts to $`\mathrm{SL}_2`$, so we’re free to think about $`\mathrm{SL}_2`$-representations instead. Consider a reducible representation $`\rho `$. Since $`H_1(M)=`$ is generated by $`\mu `$, we see that the primary eigenvalue of any $`\rho (\gamma )`$ is a power of the primary eigenvalue of $`\rho (\mu )`$. Thus, it follows from Theorem 5.1 that $`M`$ has a non-integral reducible representation if and only if $`\mathrm{\Delta }_M`$ has a root which is not an algebraic unit.

Suppose that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_M`$ is not monic. Then $`\mathrm{\Delta }_M`$ has a non-integral root provided that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_M`$ is not an integer multiple of a monic integer polynomial. As we’re in the $``$-homology sphere case, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_M(1)=\pm 1`$, and this can’t happen. So $`\mathrm{\Delta }_M`$ has a non-integral root, and thus a non-abelian reducible representation which is non-integral.

Now suppose that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_M`$ is monic. Then all the roots of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_M`$ are algebraic integers. Let $`\alpha `$ be a root of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_M`$. Because $`\mathrm{\Delta }_M`$ is symmetric, $`1/\alpha `$ is also a root of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_M`$ and so is integral. Thus all the roots of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_M`$ are algebraic units. So all the non-abelian reducible representations of $`\pi _1(M)`$ are integral, completing the proof of the theorem. ∎

In the general $`/2`$-homology sphere case, there isn’t an easy statement like this because Theorem 5.2 only applies to representations coming from certain homomorphisms to $`^\times `$. It is true that if $`M`$ has a non-integral representation then $`\mathrm{\Delta }_M`$ is non-monic (to prove this, a nice point of view is the theory of BNS invariants \[Dun, BNS, Bro\]). However, if $`\mathrm{\Delta }_M`$ is non-monic, $`M`$ need not have a non-integral reducible representation (e.g. the SnapPea census manifold $`m261`$). Nor is the above proposition true for the $`/2`$-homology sphere case if one replaces the non-monic hypothesis with “has a non-integral root” (to see that the “only if” direction is false, take the complement of a fibered knot in $`S^3`$ connected sum with a lens space).

Regardless, the following proposition, which in the $``$-homology sphere case follows immediately from Proposition 5.4 and Criterion 1.3, is easy to prove in general.

###### 5.5 Lemma.

Let $`M`$ be a knot complement in a $`/2`$-homology sphere. If $`M`$ fibers over $`S^1`$ then every non-abelian reducible representation of $`\pi _1(M)`$ into $`\mathrm{PSL}_2`$ is integral.

###### Proof.

Let $`\rho :\pi _1(M)\mathrm{Affine}()`$ be a lift of a given non-abelian reducible $`\mathrm{PSL}_2`$ representation. As $`M`$ fibers over $`S^1`$, the universal abelian cover of $`M`$ is of the form $`F\times `$ where $`F`$ is a compact surface (here $`F`$ is some finite abelian cover of a fiber in the fibration of $`M`$). As $`\pi _1(F)`$ is the commutator subgroup of $`\pi _1(M)`$, the representation $`\rho `$ takes $`\pi _1(F)`$ to a finitely generated abelian subgroup $`G`$ consisting of translations. The subgroup $`G`$ is non-trivial as $`\rho `$ is non-abelian. For each $`\gamma \pi _1(M)`$ we need to show that if $`A=\rho (\gamma )=(zaz+b)`$ then the homothety $`a`$ is an algebraic integer. The action of $`A`$ by conjugation on the normal subgroup $`G`$ takes an element $`(zz+\tau )`$ to $`(zz+a\tau )`$. So $`A`$ is a group automorphism of the lattice $`G^n`$. Thought of as an element of $`\mathrm{SL}_n`$, the map $`A`$ satisfies its characteristic polynomial $`f(t)`$, which is a monic polynomial with integer coefficients. Let $`B=(zz+\tau )`$ be a non-identity element of $`G`$. If we act on $`B`$ via $`f(A)`$ we get that $`f(a)\tau =0`$. Thus $`f(a)=0`$ and $`a`$ is an algebraic integer. So $`\rho `$ is integral. ∎

## 6. Inducing reducible representations of commensurable manifolds

This section is devoted to proving:

###### 6.1 Theorem.

Let $`M_1`$ be a generic hyperbolic knot complement in a $`/2`$-homology sphere. Suppose that the geometric component $`X_0(M_1)`$ contains the character of a non-integral reducible representation. Then $`M_1`$ is not commensurable to a fibered knot complement in a $`/2`$-homology sphere.

###### Proof.

Suppose that $`M_1`$ is commensurable to another knot complement $`M_2`$ in a $`/2`$-homology sphere. Call the common finite cover $`N`$. We will show that $`M_2`$ has a non-abelian reducible representation which is non-integral, and so cannot fiber.

Let $`\chi _1`$ in $`X_0(M_1)`$ be the character of a non-integral reducible representation. As $`M_1`$ is generic, by Proposition 4.1, there are representations $`\rho _i:\pi _1(M_i)\mathrm{PSL}_2`$ which agree on $`\pi _1(N)`$ where the character of $`\rho _1`$ is equal to $`\chi _1`$. In particular, $`\rho _1`$ is reducible and non-integral ($`\rho _1`$ may be abelian, because we don’t get to pick $`\rho _1`$, just $`\chi _1`$). Also, the character of $`\rho _2`$ is in $`X_0(M_2)`$.

We will show

###### 6.2 Claim.

The representation $`\rho _2`$ of $`\pi _1(M_2)`$ is reducible.

Assuming the claim, let’s prove that $`M_2`$ is not fibered. Pick $`\gamma `$ in $`\pi _1(M_1)`$ such that $`\rho _1(\gamma )`$ has non-integral trace. Then for any $`n>0`$, the matrix $`\rho _1(\gamma ^n)`$ also has non-integral trace as its eigenvalues are powers of those of $`\rho _1(\gamma )`$. Since $`\pi _1(N)`$ is of finite index in $`\pi _1(M_1)`$, choose an $`n`$ such that $`\gamma ^n`$ is in $`\pi _1(N)`$. But then $`\gamma ^n`$ is in $`\pi _1(M_2)`$ as well, and so $`\rho _2(\gamma ^n)=\rho _1(\gamma ^n)`$ has non-integral trace. Thus $`\rho _2`$ is non-integral. Since the character of $`\rho _2`$ is in $`X_0(M_2)`$, by Lemma 3.2 there is a non-abelian reducible representation $`\rho _2^{}`$ which has the same character as $`\rho _2`$. As $`\rho _2^{}`$ has the same character as $`\rho _2`$, it is non-integral. By Lemma 5.5, $`M_2`$ does not fiber over $`S^1`$. This completes the proof of the theorem modulo the claim.

Now let’s go back and prove Claim 6.2. Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\pi _1(M_2)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}=\pi _1(N)`$. Now $`\rho _2`$ restricted to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ is the same as $`\rho _1`$ restricted to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$, and $`\rho _1`$ is reducible. Thus $`\rho _2`$ is reducible on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$. The subgroup $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ is of finite index in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, so we can replace it by a finite index normal subgroup of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Let $`G=\rho _2(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ and $`G^{}=\rho _2(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{})`$, two subgroups of $`\mathrm{PSL}_2`$. Note that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ is not the trivial subgroup because $`\rho _1`$ is non-trivial, in fact non-integral, on any finite index subgroup of $`\pi _1(M_1)`$.

Now suppose that $`\rho _2`$ is irreducible, that is, the fixed point set of $`G`$ acting on $`^3`$ is empty. As $`G^{}`$ is reducible, $`\mathrm{fix}(G^{})`$ is either 1 or 2 points. As $`G^{}`$ is normal in $`G`$, the set $`\mathrm{fix}(G^{})`$ is $`G`$-invariant. So if $`\mathrm{fix}(G^{})`$ consisted of a single point, $`G`$ would be reducible as well. So $`\mathrm{fix}(G^{})`$ is 2 points. Look at the homomorphism $`h:G/2`$ where $`/2`$ is thought of as the symmetric group on $`\mathrm{fix}(G^{})`$. The homomorphism $`h`$ is non-trivial as $`G`$ is irreducible. Any $`AG`$ leaves invariant the geodesic $`g`$ joining the two points $`\mathrm{fix}(G^{})`$. If $`h(A)=1`$ then $`A`$ acts on $`g`$ by an orientation reversing isometry, and $`A`$ has order $`2`$. Note that $`G`$ is meta-abelian, as the kernel of $`h`$ is abelian because it consists of isometries which fix the pair of points $`\mathrm{fix}(G^{})`$.

To finish the proof of the claim, we look at $`H=\rho _2(\pi _1(M_2))`$. We claim that $`H`$ is finite. Let $`\mu _2`$ in $`\pi _1(M_2)`$ be a meridian, that is, Dehn filling in along $`\mu _2`$ yields a $`/2`$-homology sphere. Let $`\lambda _2`$ in $`\pi _1(M_2)`$ be a longitude, that is, a generator of the kernel $`H_1(M_2,)H_1(M_2,)`$. If $`M`$ were the complement of a knot in a $``$-homology sphere, $`(\mu _2,\lambda _2)`$ would be a basis of $`\pi _1(M_2)`$. In general, $`(\mu _2,\lambda _2)`$ generate a finite index subgroup of $`\pi _1(M_2)`$. As $`\mu _2`$ generates $`H_1(M_2,_2)`$, we must have $`h\rho _2(\mu _2)=1`$ and $`\rho _2(\mu _2)`$ has order two.

We claim that since $`M_2`$ is a knot complement in a $`/2`$-homology sphere, if $`K`$ is the kernel of the unique surjection $`\pi _1(M_2)/2`$ then $`\lambda _2[K,K]`$. Consider a Seifert surface $`S`$ for $`M`$. The surface $`S`$ has $`[S]`$ equal to $`[\lambda _2]`$ in $`H_1(M)`$. We can explicitly construct the cover $`M_2^{}`$ corresponding to $`K`$ by gluing together two copies of $`M_2`$ cut along $`S`$. Thus we see that $`S`$ lifts to $`M_2^{}`$. This shows that the boundary of $`S`$, namely $`[\lambda _2]`$, is $`0`$ in $`H_1(M_2^{},)`$. Thus $`\lambda _2`$ is in $`[K,K]`$. Therefore, as $`\rho _2(K)`$ is an abelian group of isometries fixing $`\mathrm{fix}(G^{})`$, we have $`\rho _2(\lambda _2)=I`$. So the subgroup of $`H`$ generated by the images of $`(\mu _2,\lambda _2)`$ is finite, in fact has order 2. Thus $`H`$ itself is finite.

Now we’ll argue that $`H`$ is infinite, yielding a contradiction. Look at $`M_1`$ and in particular at $`\rho _1(\pi _1(M_1))`$. Let $`\mu _1`$ be a meridian in $`\pi _1(M_1)`$. As $`\rho _1`$ is non-integral, it is easy to see from the homomorphism $`x_{\rho _1}:\pi _1(M_1)^\times `$ that the $`\gamma `$ in $`\pi _1(M_1)`$ with non-integral trace are exactly those $`\gamma `$ which are non-zero in $`H_1(M_1,)/(\mathrm{torsion})`$. Therefore, $`\rho (\mu _1)`$ has non-integral trace. In particular, $`\rho _1(\mu _1)`$ has infinite order, and hence $`\rho _1(\pi _1(M_1))`$ is infinite. As $`\pi _1(M_1)`$ shares a finite index subgroup with $`\pi _1(M_2)`$, $`H`$ shares a finite index subgroup with $`\rho _1(\pi _1(M_1))`$. Thus $`H`$ is infinite. But we’ve already shown that $`H`$ is finite. This is a contradiction, and so $`\rho _2`$ must be reducible. This proves Claim 6.2 and thus the theorem. ∎

## 7. 2-bridge knots to which the theorem applies

Theorem 6.1 applies to many 2-bridge knots in $`S^3`$. A 2-bridge knot is determined by a pair of relatively prime odd integers $`(p,q)`$ with $`0<q<p`$ (for background see \[BZb, §12\], \[HT\]). In this section, we describe computations which show:

###### 7.1 Theorem.

Let $`K(p,q)`$ be a 2-bridge knot such that $`p<40`$. Let $`M`$ be the exterior of $`K(p,q)`$. If $`M`$ does not fiber over the circle, then $`M`$ satisfies the hypotheses of Theorem 6.1, and so $`M`$ is not commensurable to a fibered knot complement in a $`/2`$-homology sphere.

Let $`K(p,q)`$ be a 2-bridge knot, and $`M`$ be its exterior. We will follow \[HLM\], where Hilden, Lozano, and Montesinos, building on work of Burde and Riley, give a simple method for computing the $`\mathrm{PSL}_2`$-character variety $`X(M)`$.

The standard presentation of $`\pi _1(M)`$ has as generators two elements $`a`$ and $`b`$, each of which is a meridian at the top of one of the two bridges. As $`a`$ and $`b`$ are conjugate, we can take coordinates on $`X(M)`$ to be $`x=\mathrm{tr}_{a^2}`$ and $`z=\mathrm{tr}_{ab}`$ (the latter makes sense even in $`\mathrm{PSL}_2`$ because $`a`$ and $`b`$ are conjugate). Thus $`X(M)`$ is a plane curve. There is a polynomial with integer coefficients $`f(x,z)`$ such that $`X(M)`$ is the set of points in $`^2`$ satisfying $`f(x,z)=0`$. Section 5 of \[HLM\] gives a simple recursive procedure for computing this polynomial.

Let $`M`$ be the complement of a 2-bridge knot which does not fiber. Because 2-bridge knots are alternating, this is equivalent to $`\mathrm{\Delta }_M`$ being non-monic (see e.g. \[BZb, §13.C\]). To decide if $`M`$ satisfies the hypotheses of Theorem 6.1, we first need to factor the polynomial $`f(x,z)`$ into irreducible factors over $``$, and determine which component is $`X_0(M)`$. Let $`f_0(x,z)`$ be the polynomial defining $`X_0(M)`$. It is easy to check that a character in $`X(M)`$ comes from a reducible representation if and only if $`x=z`$. So $`X_0(M)`$ contains a non-integral reducible representation if and only if the polynomial $`g(x)=f_0(x,x)`$ has a non-integral root.

So the hard part of checking whether Theorem 6.1 applies is determining the factor $`f_0`$ of $`f`$. First, since $`f(x,z)`$ has rational coefficients, there is an algorithm for factoring it over $``$. This is because one can a priori determine a finite extension $`k`$ of $``$ such that the irreducible factors of $`f`$ over $`k`$ are the same as those of $`f`$ over $``$. Take a rational line $`L`$ in $`^2`$ which has simple intersections with the algebraic set $`V=\{f=0\}`$ and such that $`L`$ and $`V`$ don’t intersect at infinity in $`\text{P}^2`$. Then take $`k`$ to be $``$ adjoin the coordinates of $`LV`$. The factoring of a multivariable polynomial with coefficients in a number field is a well-studied problem (for surveys see \[Kal1, Kal2\]). It is worth mentioning that $`f`$ sometimes factors into more components over $``$ than over $``$, the lexicographically smallest example being $`K(45,29)`$. The computations for Theorem 7.1 were done using the computer algebra system Maple \[Wat\], which has a built in procedure for factoring polynomials over $``$.

For most of the 2-bridge knots included in Theorem 7.1, every factor $`f_i`$ of $`f`$ contained a non-integral reducible representation, and so it was not necessary to determine which $`f_i`$ defined $`X_0(M)`$. In the exceptional cases $`\{(15,11)`$, $`(27,5)`$, $`(27,11)`$, $`(27,17)`$, $`(27,19)`$, $`(33,23)`$, $`(35,29)\}`$, we used the result of Section 6.4 of \[HLM\], who determined $`f_i`$ for $`p<40`$ (\[HLM\] gives an algorithm for determining $`f_0`$ in general, but it is quite involved).

Finally, to apply Theorem 6.1 we have to check that $`M`$ is generic. Reid \[Rei, §4\] showed that the only arithmetic knot complement in $`S^3`$ is the figure-8 complement, which fibers. So $`M`$ is non-arithmetic. We also need to check that the cusp of the commensurator is non-rigid. We did this by checking that the cusp shape is not in $`(i)`$ or $`(\sqrt{3})`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{PSL}_2`$ be the image of the discrete faithful representation of $`\pi _1(M)`$. Conjugate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ so that the meridian generators are:

$$a=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 1\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)\text{and}b=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ u& 1\end{array}\right)$$

for some $`u`$. Riley showed that $`u`$ is always an algebraic integer \[Ril, §3\]. Thus $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ consists solely of matrices with algebraic integer entries. A longitude in the same copy of $`\pi _1(M)`$ as $`a`$ has the form

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& \tau \\ 0& 1\end{array}\right).$$

The cusp shape of $`M`$ is $`\tau `$, and so the cusp shape of $`M`$ is always an algebraic *integer*. The integers in $`(i)`$ and $`(\sqrt{3})`$ are discrete, and so it’s easy to check numerically using SnapPea \[W\] that the cusp shape of $`M`$ is not in $`(i)`$ or $`(\sqrt{3})`$, and hence that $`M`$ is generic.

It would have been nicer to prove that every non-fibered 2-bridge knot satisfies the hypothesis of Theorem 6.1, but this seems a difficult thing to do—in some cases there are components of $`X(M)`$ which contain no reducible representations, and it is hard to see any special property $`X_0(M)`$ that would prevent this from happening there.

###### 7.2 Remark.

Actually, worrying about how $`f`$ splits up over $``$ as opposed to $``$ is not really necessary. The character varieties and all the maps between them in the proof of Theorem 6.1 are all defined over $``$. Thus we could weaken the hypothesis of having a non-integral reducible representation in $`X_0(M_1)`$ to having a such a representation in the $``$-irreducible component of $`X(M)`$ containing $`X_0(M_1)`$.

## 8. Examples of fibered and non-fibered pairs

### 8.1. The dodecahedral knots

The two dodecahedral knots $`D_f`$ and $`D_s`$ were introduced by Aitchison and Rubinstein in \[AR\]. They are a pair of knots in $`S^3`$. The complements $`M_f`$ and $`M_s`$ are hyperbolic and both are quotients of $`^3`$ by subgroups of the symmetry group of the tiling of $`^3`$ by $`\{5,3,6\}`$-ideal dodecahedra. Thus $`M_f`$ and $`M_s`$ are commensurable. In \[AR\], they show that $`M_f`$ is fibered. On the other hand, $`M_s`$ is not fibered because its Alexander polynomial is non-monic:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{M_s}=25t^4250t^3+1035t^22300t+29812300t^1+1035t^2240t^3+25t^4.$$

The commensurator of $`M_f`$ and $`M_s`$ has a rigid cusp, and so $`D_f`$ and $`D_s`$ are not generic (though they are non-arithmetic). So the hypotheses of Theorem 6.1 are not satisfied by $`M_s`$.

### 8.2. Small volume examples

Here is an example of two 1-cusped manifolds which are commensurable where one is fibered and the other not. The two manifolds are $`M_1=m035`$ and $`M_2=m039`$ from the Callahan-Hildebrand-Weeks census \[CHW\]. These manifolds have the same volume, $`3.177293278\mathrm{}`$, and same first homology group, $`/4`$. Weeks’ computer program SnapPea \[W\], checks that $`M_1`$ and $`M_2`$ have a common 2-fold cover. Presentations for the manifolds’ fundamental groups are:

$$\pi _1(M_1)=a,b|ab^3a^2b^3ab^2\text{and}\pi _1(M_2)=a,b|ab^4ab^1a^1b^2a^1b^1.$$

An easy calculation shows that the Alexander polynomials are:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{M_1}=3t2+3t^1\text{and}\mathrm{\Delta }_{M_2}=t6+t^1.$$

Because of the lead coefficient of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{M_1}`$, the manifold $`M_1`$ does not fiber over $`S^1`$. On the other hand, $`M_2`$ is the punctured torus bundle over $`S^1`$ with monodromy $`+L^4R`$.

Goodman’s program Snap \[G\], calculates that these manifolds are not arithmetic and that the cusp field is a cubic extension of $``$. Thus they are generic. It is not too hard to check that there are non-integral reducible representations on $`X_0(M_1)`$. Thus this example shows that the hypothesis of Theorem 6.1 requiring knot complements in a $`/2`$-homology sphere is necessary. Some further examples among the census manifolds are:

* The pair $`(m037,m040)`$ have a common 2-fold cover and $`m037`$ doesn’t fiber but $`m040`$ does. This pair is also commensurable with $`m035`$ and $`m039`$ via 4-fold covers.
* The pair $`(m139,m140)`$ have a common 4-fold cover, and $`m139`$ doesn’t fiber but $`m140`$ does. Both of these manifold are arithmetic and so not generic.

None of these examples are knot complements in $`/2`$-homology spheres.

The strategy for finding these examples was this. First, we used the data provided with Snap to get a list of census manifolds grouped by commensurability invariants. Then we used Lackenby’s taut ideal triangulations \[Lac\] to identify many census manifolds which fiber over $`S^1`$. From this, we selected pairs of manifolds whose trace field and cusp density were the same, one of which fibered and the other of which did not appear to fiber. Most of the census manifolds fiber, making examples rare.

### 8.3. Surgeries on the Whitehead link

Let $`W`$ be the complement of the Whitehead link in $`S^3`$. Let $`W(a,b)`$ denote the 1-cusped manifold obtained by filling in one of the two cusps of $`W`$ via $`(a,b)`$ Dehn filling. Hodgson, Meyerhoff, and Weeks gave a very elegant construction of a family of fibered/non-fibered pairs which are fillings of $`W`$ \[HMW\]. They showed that

###### 8.4 Theorem.

Let $`m`$ be a multiple of $`4`$, $`m\{0,4\}`$. Then $`M_1=W(m,1(m/2))`$ and $`M_2=W(m,1)`$ are a pair of 1-cusped hyperbolic 3-manifolds such that:

* $`M_1`$ and $`M_2`$ have a common 2-fold cover with two cusps.
* $`M_1`$ does not fiber over $`S^1`$ because its Alexander polynomial is not monic.
* $`M_2`$ fibers over $`S^1`$, being the punctured torus bundle with monodromy $`\pm RL^m`$.

These examples overlap with the ones in the preceding section. Namely, the pairs $`(m035`$, $`m039)`$ and $`(m037,m040)`$ are of this type. The manifold $`M_1`$ doesn’t satisfy the hypotheses of Theorem 6.1 because $`H_1(M_1;)=/m`$. As $`m`$ is divisible by $`4`$, $`M_1`$ is not a knot complement in a $`/2`$ homology sphere.


format: text

text:
# Resolution of causal paradoxes arising from opposing thermodynamic arrows of time

## I Introduction

The use of macroscopic initial conditions is equivalent to the imposition of a particular thermodynamic arrow of time . A non-circular study  of the origins of an arrow, or of the simultaneous coexistence of two opposing arrows , therefore requires a more general formulation, and we have used the following scheme: give data at the two endpoints of the time interval within which the arrow is to be studied. For such two-time boundary conditions one gives less information at each end than would be appropriate for, say, initial conditions (this avoids overdetermination).

Using this framework, we have argued  for Gold’s thesis  relating the thermodynamic and cosmological arrows of time. More recently we showed that systems with opposite running arrows could coexist without either destroying the order of the other . Using an extension of the Wheeler-Feynman absorber theory , it was also demonstrated that electromagnetic signals can pass between the systems. The feasibility of other kinds of signaling was shown in .

Within the opposing-arrow framework causal paradoxes occur, and in  no resolution was offered. This is a crucial issue, since those paradoxes have been used  to argue against Gold’s thesis. Furthermore, if the passage of signals (weak in energy, say, but potentially strong in their effect on the systems) were forbidden under the weak coupling assumption, then the observability of opposite-arrow regions would be called into question.

The key idea for the resolution of the paradoxes is the precise posing of the problem, and we begin by presenting a typical paradox.

## II The carpet paradox

In its narrative form  the causal paradox is phrased in terms of system A (Alice) and system B (Bob). They have opposite thermodynamic arrows. See Fig. 1. At her 8 a.m., Alice sees rain coming in Bob’s open window, ruining his carpet. It is 5 p.m. his time. At 8:20 a.m. (her time), Alice sees the rain begin near Bob. At 9 a.m. she sends a message, “It will rain. Close your window.” Bob receives this at 4 p.m., his time (40 min. “before” the rain starts), and shuts the window. What did Alice see?

For this paradox to represent a bona fide inconsistency one needs a set of boundary conditions at the remote times, conditions that lead to the indicated events.

Phrasing the problem as we have in the last sentence shows that in a sense there is already a trivial resolution. If one poses a boundary value problem without solution, then these events simply do not happen. Indeed in a later section we will give an example of a two-time boundary value problem, suitable for the two-arrow framework, without solution.

What is interesting is that if one assumes continuity in nature and compactness of some of the available state spaces, then boundary conditions that lead to apparent inconsistency in the A-B-carpet story, do in fact have a solution.

### A Boundary value formulation

We rephrase that story as a two-time boundary value problem. There are two two-state systems. The first is Alice. In one state, call it “0,” she does not signal; in the other state (“1”) she does. Her initial condition (7:45 a.m., her clock) is $`A(\text{7:45 a.m.})=0`$: she will not signal unless she sees the need. The other two-state system is Bob’s window. Define this to be “0” if the window is closed, “1” if open. Bob’s “initial” condition—3:45 p.m., his clock—is open, $`B(\text{3:45 p.m.})=1`$.

Let $`\alpha A(\text{8:40 a.m.})`$, Alice’s intended message at 8:40 a.m. Take $`\beta B(\text{4:20 p.m.})`$, the state of Bob’s window at 4:20 p.m. Consider the function $`\beta =\psi (\alpha )`$. If $`\alpha =1`$, Alice sends the message, Bob closes his window, and $`\beta =0`$. If $`\alpha =0`$, she does not send and (because of Bob’s “initial” condition) $`\beta =1`$. Thus $`\psi `$, as a function, reverses 0 and 1. Define a second function $`\alpha =\varphi (\beta )`$ describing Alice’s response to the state of Bob’s window. If $`\beta =1`$, Alice will see rain entering Bob’s window and her message will be to close the window ($`\alpha =1`$). Similarly if $`\beta =0`$ no message is necessary and $`\alpha =0`$. So $`\varphi `$ is the identity.

The paradox arises by concatenating the functions, writing $`\beta `$ as a function of itself: $`\beta =\psi (\alpha )=\psi (\varphi (\beta ))`$. Using $`\varphi =`$ identity, this implies $`\beta =\psi (\beta )`$. This is a contradiction, since $`\psi `$ reverses the two values in its domain and therefore has no fixed point.

### B Resolution

We resolve the paradox by appealing to continuity in nature and to the compactness of certain of the spaces of available states. Continuity should apply to finite systems with non-singular potentials. Similar appeals were made in  and . The assignment of two-state variables to $`A`$ and $`B`$ is refined by giving them values in the interval $`I[0,1]`$, with the extreme values having their previous meanings. For example, $`B`$ no longer need represent a fully open or fully closed window. (We later discuss larger internal spaces.) Moreover, the maps should be continuous. $`\varphi `$ as identity is replaced by a more realistic function $`\varphi :II`$. This continuous function, which by a mild abuse of notation we continue to call “$`\varphi `$,” still takes the values 0 and 1 at the respective endpoints. An example of an appropriate function with a steep threshold is

$$\varphi (x)\frac{1}{2}\left[1\frac{\mathrm{cot}(\pi x)}{\epsilon +|\mathrm{cot}(\pi x)|}\right],$$

and $`\epsilon 1`$. Similarly, we can write $`\psi =1\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ for some interpolating function like $`\varphi `$.

As before, concatenate the functions to get a function $`\mathrm{\Psi }:\{\beta \}\{\beta \}`$, where now $`\{\beta \}=I`$. Again, $`\mathrm{\Psi }(0)=1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }(1)=0`$. However, this $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is continuous . By general theorems it is known that $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ must have a fixed point within the interval. This fixed point yields a solution to the boundary value problem, hence a resolution of the paradox, as we momentarily explain.

For higher dimensional internal spaces a fixed point also exists, provided at least one of the spaces is compact (e.g., the states of the window) and the maps are continuous. This is because the concatenation becomes a mapping of this space into itself, and by standard topological theorems one is guaranteed the existence of a fixed point. See , and for a similar application, .

What is the significance of the fixed point? It means that although we tried to set the boundary value problem as a contradiction, a solution exists, but it departs from a simple on/off description. Moreover, since all is determined by the boundary values, participants cannot “change their minds.” For the soggy carpet scenario, the solution could take the following form. Again, at 3:45 p.m. Bob’s window is open and at 7:45 a.m. Alice does not plan to send a signal, but is disposed to help Bob if the need should arise. At 8 a.m. she sees his window slightly open and a bit of rain entering. She wonders if this will cause damage and vacillates. Ultimately she signals, but less stridently: perhaps, “Some rain will enter; you might close your window.” He reacts by balancing his desire for fresh air with her warning by closing the window partially. A self consistent solution has been found. Similar paradox resolutions have been used in science fiction concerned with time travel . Heinlein, in particular, presented many examples of self-consistent loops, generally of greater dramatic interest than that given above. Here is an observation of his on grammar, related to the need above to put quotation marks around certain words (e.g., “before”):

> Then I caught hold of myself and realized that, out of all the persons living in 1970, he was the one I had least need to worry about. Nothing could go wrong because nothing had $`\mathrm{}`$ I meant ‘nothing would.’ No—Then I quit trying to phrase it, realizing that if time travel ever became widespread, English grammar was going to have to add a whole new set of tenses to describe reflexive situations $`\mathrm{}`$ (page 241, ).

## III Generalized two-time mixed boundary value problems

In the previous section, we argued that the formulation of causal loop paradoxes, like the formulation of any physical problem in which a thermodynamic arrow of time is not presupposed, requires giving data at the ends of the time interval of interest. The peculiarity of the opposite arrow situation (in contrast to more general studies in which the entire history of the universe is contemplated) is that we focus only on a slice out of the universe’s history. Moreover, it is assumed that the system under study breaks up naturally into two pieces. These have opposite thermodynamic arrows of time, imposed by the boundary conditions. The physical reason for the appropriateness of these boundary conditions could be differences in the individual histories of interaction or lack thereof with other parts of the cosmos.

In Sec. II we used this formulation, rephrasing a paradox as a boundary value problem, with “initial” conditions given for each subsystem—initial with respect to the clock of that subsystem. The natural next question is to go beyond the specific issue of paradoxes and ask whether this kind of mixed boundary value problem has or has not a solution in general.

### A Oscillators: a microscopic example

We begin with a simple example showing that the mixed boundary value problem need not have a solution (and will later explain how this differs from the carpet paradox).

Consider systems A and B, with $`t=0`$ conditions given for A and $`t=T`$ conditions for B. The example needs only a single one-dimensional particle in each system, particle #1 in A, particle #2 in B. Let the Hamiltonian be

$$H=\frac{1}{2}\left(p_1^2+p_2^2\right)+\frac{1}{2}\rho \left(x_1x_2\right)^2$$

with $`\rho `$ a real, positive parameter. The general solution is

$$x_{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{2}{1}\right)}=X_0+V_0t\pm a\mathrm{cos}(\omega t\varphi )$$

with $`\omega =\sqrt{2\rho }`$ and $`X_0`$, $`V_0`$, $`a`$ and $`\varphi `$ constants fixed by the boundary conditions. For simplicity we take $`x_1(0)=0`$ and $`\dot{x}_1(0)=0`$, which implies that $`X_0=a\mathrm{cos}\varphi `$ and $`V_0=a\omega \mathrm{sin}\varphi `$. The final boundary conditions take the form

$`x_2(T)=`$ $`(a\mathrm{cos}\varphi )\left(1+\mathrm{cos}\omega T\right)+(a\mathrm{sin}\varphi )\left(\omega T+\mathrm{sin}\omega T\right)`$ (1)
$`\dot{x}_2(T)=`$ $`(a\mathrm{cos}\varphi )\left(\omega \mathrm{sin}\omega T\right)+(a\mathrm{sin}\varphi )\left(\omega +\omega \mathrm{cos}\omega T\right)`$ (2)
It follows that (generically) there is no solution for the unknowns $`a\mathrm{cos}\varphi `$ and $`a\mathrm{sin}\varphi `$ if the determinant of the following matrix vanishes:

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}1+\mathrm{cos}2\theta & 2\theta +\mathrm{sin}2\theta \\ \mathrm{sin}2\theta & 1+\mathrm{cos}2\theta \end{array}\right)$$

with $`\theta =\omega T/2`$. This happens whenever either $`\mathrm{cos}\theta =0`$ or $`\theta \mathrm{tan}\theta =1`$. Therefore at those special times for which (at least) one of these equations is satisfied there exist final conditions on particle #2 (system B) for which no solution to the mixed two-time boundary value problem exist.

One can extend this to 4 particles (A and B have 2 apiece). Let all have unit mass and let the potential be

$$V=v(x_1,x_2)+v(x_3,x_4)+\rho \left[v(x_1,x_3)+v(x_1,x_4)+v(x_2,x_3)+v(x_2,x_4)\right]$$

with $`v(x,y)(xy)^2/2`$. The oscillation frequencies for this system are 0, $`\omega \sqrt{2(1+\rho )}`$ (twice), and $`\omega ^{}2\sqrt{\rho }`$. Giving zero initial positions and velocities for the particles in A, the final boundary conditions in B are expressed linearly in terms of combinations of the normal mode parameters. Again there is a matrix whose determinant fixes the invertibility of this relation. That matrix turns out to be singular for exactly the conditions given for the two particle system, but with $`\theta =\omega ^{}T/2`$.

## IV Which resolution—existence or non-existence?

Despite our exhibiting two sorts of resolution—existence and non-existence—there is still a puzzle: for the carpet paradox we proved that there is a solution to any mixed boundary value problem of the sort considered; for the oscillator example we exhibited boundary values without solution. How can the “carpet” proof be correct in the light of the oscillator example?

There are significant differences between these examples. The most obvious is the fact that in one case macroscopic reasoning is used; in the other detailed specification of the full microscopic boundary value problem is given. A second difference is that in the oscillator example the coordinate space is infinite, leading to yet another feature, unboundedness of the potential. The latter property can also arise in a finite coordinate system for an appropriate potential. Unbounded space or potential energy in turn can lead to non-compactness of the system phase space.

In the next subsection we show how changing some of these properties leads to existence proofs even with microscopic boundary conditions.

### A Existence of a microscopic solution

With assumptions that are reasonable for the carpet paradox, one can show existence, for sufficiently weak coupling, of a solution to a microscopic boundary value problem in which each subsystem, A and B, is given the correct amount of data to fully determine its motion in the absence of the other, but with the data for A given at $`t=0`$ and those for B at $`t=T`$. This will be called a mixed boundary value problem. The assumptions are these:

1. There is no exchange of particles. The subsystems retain their identities and the interaction is handled as a potential between particles.

2. The (classical) Hamiltonian can be written (in obvious notation) in the form $`H=H_A+H_B+\lambda H_{AB}`$, with $`\lambda `$ a real parameter.

3. For a fixed time interval ($`[0,T]`$) the final points (in phase space) are a continuous function of the initial points as well as of $`\lambda `$.

Note that it is not our objective to show that these assumptions must always be true, only to reconcile the “carpet” resolution with the absence of solution in the oscillator example.

We introduce the following notation. Let $`\gamma _X(t)`$ be the phase space point for subsystem X (X is A or B) at time-$`t`$. The boundary conditions are $`\gamma _A(0)=\overline{\gamma }_A`$ and $`\gamma _B(T)=\overline{\gamma }_B`$. Our objective is to show that there exists $`\gamma _B(0)`$ such that the (total system) phase space point $`(\overline{\gamma }_A,\gamma _B(0))`$ evolves (for $`t`$ going from 0 to $`T`$) under the full time evolution (with non-zero $`\lambda `$) to the (total) system phase space point $`(\gamma _A(T),\overline{\gamma }_B)`$ (for some $`\gamma _A(T)`$).

First consider the situation for $`\lambda =0`$. The individual phase space points, $`\overline{\gamma }_A`$ and $`\overline{\gamma }_B`$ can be used to move forward or backward in A and B, separately. We evolve the point $`\overline{\gamma }_B`$ back from time-$`T`$ to time-0, yielding a point that we designate $`\overline{\gamma }_B^0(0)`$. Let $`𝒩_0`$ be a neighborhood of $`\overline{\gamma }_B^0(0)`$. We proceed in several steps.

1. Evolve $`𝒩_0`$ forward in time, with some $`\lambda 0`$. For this evolution use $`\overline{\gamma }_A`$ as the initial point for subsystem A. The time-$`T`$ image of $`𝒩_0`$ is an open set. Call it $`𝒩_F(\lambda )`$.

2. For any particular $`\lambda `$, the point $`\overline{\gamma }_B`$ may or may not be in $`𝒩_F(\lambda )`$. However, for $`\lambda =0`$, it is in the interior of $`𝒩_F(0)`$.

3. If, for a particular non-zero $`\lambda `$, $`\overline{\gamma }_B𝒩_F(\lambda )`$, then we are finished. For this means that there is a point in $`𝒩_0`$ that (together with $`\overline{\gamma }_A`$) serves as an initial condition for reaching the desired final value of subsystem B.

4. Suppose then that for the $`\lambda `$ chosen, $`\overline{\gamma }_B𝒩_F(\lambda )`$. Now decrease $`\lambda `$. Since $`\overline{\gamma }_B`$ is ultimately (i.e., for $`\lambda =0`$) in the interior of $`𝒩_F`$, it must enter and be in the interior for some finite $`\lambda `$, strictly greater than zero. For this value of $`\lambda `$ there is thus an initial condition in $`𝒩_0`$ for which subsystem B reaches the desired final state.

### B Other differences between the examples

Although there is no longer a conflict between the two cases studied, it is worth commenting on differences between them and on whether existence or non-existence of a solution should be expected in any particular situation. We list considerations that appear relevant.

1. Features of the microscopic dynamics

1a. The infinite-range linear forces of the oscillator are an idealization. It was their harmonic forces that led to special times for which the boundary value problem could not be satisfied. As an instructive example, consider the usual, single system, two-time boundary value problem: $`x(0)=0`$, $`x(2\pi )=a`$. For a unit-mass particle in the potential $`V(x)=\frac{1}{2}x^2`$ there is no solution for $`a0`$. However, for small cubic or quartic contributions to $`V`$ there is always a solution for sufficiently small $`a`$.

1b. Going beyond harmonic forces, a more interesting boundary value problem failure would occur if for sufficiently long times there were finite-measure regions of phase space for which unsolvable problems could be posed.

1c. The exhibited incompatible boundary conditions are not generic, in the sense that it is only for special times that the failure occurs.

2. Features of the macroscopic boundary value problem

2a. Macroscopic data consist of coarse grains consistent with many microscopic states. Suppose that for realistic forces one had microscopic boundary conditions without solution on a strictly-positive-measure set of phase space (as contemplated in paragraph #1b). If these regions were finely interspersed among coarse grains, with chaotic dynamics the macroscopic problem could still have a solution despite the existence of unsolvable microscopic specifications. For symmetric two-time boundary value problems this does happen (see , Sec. 5.1).

2b. The macroscopic arguments involve emergent concepts, features that can only be extracted from the microscopic state with difficulty. In particular, there is the notion of signal, used in an essential way in the carpet story.

3. Other considerations

3a. Discussion until now has ignored the quantum nature of the world. However, in a microscopic version of the paradox one should use quantum mechanics. One way to do this was proposed by Gell-Mann and Hartle . One calculates the probability of a sequence of events by sandwiching appropriate projection operators (for those events) between two density matrices, $`\rho _i`$ (initial) and $`\rho _f`$ (final). The normalization for this probability is $`N1/Tr\rho _i\rho _f`$. In their discussion, where the initial and final times are cosmologically separated, $`N^1`$ will be very small. Nevertheless, it is not expected to be zero. The same phenomenon should provide solutions to two-time boundary conditions even where classically unavailable.

It is easy to demonstrate this feature explicitly for our oscillator example. Two-time boundary conditions come naturally to quantum mechanics when the path integral formulation is used. For the oscillators, an analog of the classical problem is to give coherent state boundary conditions. Such states can be labeled by phase space points. Thus one sandwiches the propagator between initial and final $`\gamma `$s, in our earlier notation. All we must show then is that the sandwiched propagator is not zero at any time. For this purpose we can stay with the simpler center-of-mass coordinates, instead of going to $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$ as done in Sec. III A. Now before integrating the propagator with the coherent state Gaussians it does vanish. Specifically, we recall the propagator for a mass-$`m`$, frequency $`\omega `$, oscillator with coordinate $`\xi `$ (the center-of-mass coordinate of our pair), to go from $`\xi _1`$ to $`\xi _2`$ in time $`T`$:

$$G(\xi _2,T;\xi _1)=\sqrt{\frac{m\omega }{2\pi i\mathrm{sin}\omega T}}\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{im\omega }{2\mathrm{sin}\omega T}\left[\left(\xi _1^2+\xi _2^2\right)\mathrm{cos}\omega T2\xi _1\xi _2\right]\right\}.$$

For $`\omega T=n\pi `$, with $`n`$ an integer, this is a delta-function; in particular it vanishes if given inappropriate endpoints. Now sandwich $`G`$ between coherent states, $`|z_1`$ and $`|z_2`$, where we use the usual notation. The resulting quantity, $`z_2|G(T)|z_1`$ will equal $`z_2|z_1`$ whenever $`\omega T=2n\pi `$ because $`G`$ is the identity operator. The quantity $`z_2|z_1`$ never vanishes. (For odd-integer multiples of $`\pi `$ the matrix element will involve a reflected $`z`$, but again it never vanishes.) It follows that with the Gell-Mann-Hartle formulation of two-time boundary conditions, there will always be a state satisfying the quantum version of the oscillator boundary value problem given in Sec. III A.

## V Conclusions

We have found that purported causal paradoxes do not constitute a bar to logical consistency nor to the possible detection of opposite-arrow regions, should they exist. If one is confronted by a causal paradox within the context of a system possessing opposing arrows, the resolution of the paradox may allow a version of the scenario to be realized, or the resolution may be that there is no solution at all—the main point is that in all cases the paradox must be phrased as a mixed boundary value problem, and solutions sought, with no guarantee of finding them in all cases.

## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am grateful to P. Facchi, E. Mihokova, D. Mozyrsky, C. M. Newman, S. Pascazio, A. Scardicchio and L. J. Schulman for useful discussions and comments. This work was supported in part by National Science Foundation grant PHY 9721459.


text:
# Transition from Thermal to Rapid Expansion in Multifragmentation of Gold Induced by Light Relativistic Projectiles

## Abstract

Multiple emission of intermediate-mass fragments has been studied for the collisions of p, 4He and 12C on Au with the $`4\pi `$ setup FASA. In the case of 12C(22.4 GeV)+Au and 4He(14.6 GeV)+Au collisions, the deviations from a pure thermal break-up are seen in the energy spectra of the emitted fragments: the spectra are harder than calculated and than measured in p-induced collisions. This difference is attributed to a collective flow with the expansion velocity on the surface about 0.1 $`c`$ (for 12C+Au collisions).

Accepted for publication in Physics Letters B
, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Nuclear multifragmentation is a new decay mode of excited nuclei characterized by the emission of Intermediate Mass Fragments (IMF, $`3Z20`$). The development of this field has been strongly stimulated by the idea that this process might be related to a liquid-gas phase transition in nuclear matter. A recent status on multifragmentation can be found in Ref. .

Highly excited nuclei can be formed by heavy ion collisions at intermediate energies, but there are advantages in producing the excitation by light relativistic projectiles. In the first case, nuclear heating is accompanied by compression, fast rotation and shape distortion which may cause dynamic effects in the multi-fragment disintegration and it is not easy to disentangle all these effects and extract information on thermodynamic properties of hot nuclear systems. The situation becomes more transparent if light relativistic projectiles are used. In this case, dynamic effects are expected to be negligible. Another advantage is that all the fragments are emitted by a single source: a slowly moving target remainder. Its excitation energy might be almost entirely thermal. Light relativistic projectiles provide therefore an unique possibility to study “thermal multifragmentation”. It has been shown that thermal multifragmentation indeed takes place in collisions of light relativistic projectiles (p, 3He, $`\alpha `$ and recently $`\pi `$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{p}}`$) with a heavy target .

In this Letter we concentrate on studying energy spectra of the emitted fragments as they reflect, due to the “Coulomb law”, the geometry and dynamics (expansion) of the emitting source. By comparing our results from p+Au  collision with those from reactions induced by $`\alpha `$ particles and 12C projectiles with incident energies of (1 – 4) $`A`$GeV, we evidence a transition from a pure statistical process (“thermal multifragmentation”) to a behaviour reflecting dynamics. It will be shown that from the observed additional collective energy a spatial distribution of the fragments at freeze out can be infered.

The experiments were performed with beams from the JINR synchrophasotron in Dubna using the modified  $`4\pi `$-setup FASA . The device consists of two main parts : (i) Five $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ (ionization chamber) $`\times `$ $`E`$ (Si)-telescopes, which serve as a trigger for the read-out of the system allowing measurement of the charge and energy distributions of IMF’s at various angles from $`24^{}`$ to $`156^{}`$ covering together a solid angle of 0.03 sr. (ii) The fragment multiplicity detector consisting of 64 CsI(Tl) counters (with thicknesses around 30 mg$``$cm-2) which covers 89% of $`4\pi `$. This device gives the number of IMF’s in the event and their spatial distribution. A self-supporting Au target of 1.5 mg/cm2 thickness was located in the center of the FASA vacuum chamber ($`1`$ m in diameter). The following beams were used: protons at energies of 2.16, 3.6 and 8.1 GeV, 4He at energies of 4 and 14.6 GeV and 12C at 22.4 GeV. The average beam intensity was $`710^8`$ particles/spill for protons and helium and $`110^8`$ particles/spill for carbon projectiles with a spill length at 300 ms and a spill period of 10 s. See also  reporting on the p+Au experiment.

The kinetic energy of fragments is determined by four terms: thermal motion, Coulomb repulsion, rotation, and collective expansion energies of the system at freeze out, $`E=E_{th}+E_C+E_{rot}+E_{flow}`$. The additivity of the first three terms is quite obvious. For the last term, its independence of others may be considered only approximately when the evolution of the system after the freeze-out point is driven only by the Coulomb force. The Coulomb term is significantly larger than the thermal one as was shown in Ref.  for 4He (14.6 GeV)+Au collisions, where the Coulomb part of the mean energy of the carbon fragment is three times larger than thermal one using volume emission of fragments from a diluted system.

The contribution of the collective flow for the p+Au collisions at 8.1 GeV incident energy was estimated to $`v_{flow}<0.02c`$ in Ref. . This was done by comparing the measured IMF spectra with the ones calculated within the framework of the Statistical Multifragmentation Model (SMM)  which includes no flow. For heavy ion collisions, collective flow has been observed and it is the most pronounced in central Au+Au collisions . In this respect, it is interesting to analyse energy spectra of fragments from He+Au and C+Au collisions looking for a possible onset of collective flow phenomenon.

A comparison of the energy spectra of outgoing carbon isotopes from proton-, helium- and carbon-induced collisions on a Au target is presented in Fig. 1. The spectral shapes show an increase in the number of high-energy carbon fragments with the projectile mass.

The reaction mechanism for light relativistic projectiles is usually divided into two stages. The first one is a fast energy-depositing stage, during which very energetic light particles are emitted and a nuclear remnant (target spectator) is excited. We use a refined version of the intranuclear cascade model (INC)  for describing the first stage. The second stage is described by the Statistical Multifragmentation Model (SMM), which considers multibody decay (volume emission) of a hot expanded nucleus. But such a two-stage approach fails to describe the observed IMF multiplicities as shown in Table 1. An expansion stage is inserted between the two parts of calculation. The excitation energies and the residual masses are then fine tuned  to get an agreement with the measured IMF multiplicities, i.e. the values for the residual (after INC) masses $`A_R`$ and their excitation energies $`E_R`$ are scaled on an event-by-event basis. The average masses of nuclei which decay by multifragmentation is labelled $`A_{MF}`$ having mean excitation energies $`E_{MF}`$ as given in Table 1 together with the values of $`<M_{IMF}>`$. The lines in Fig. 1 give the spectra calculated in the framework of this combined model INC+Expansion+SMM. The fragment energies are obtained by the multibody Coulomb trajectory calculations on an event-by-event basis. In the initial state all the charged particles are assumed to have a thermal velocity only (no flow).

The calculated carbon spectrum for p+Au collisions (at 8.1 GeV) is consistent with the measured one. A similar situation occurs with 4He+Au collisions at 4 GeV, but not with 4He(14.6 GeV)+Au and 12C+Au interactions: the measured spectra are harder than the calculated ones. A careful inspection of the reaction induced with $`\alpha `$ particles shows that the maximum of the energy spectra obtained at 4 GeV is higher than obtained at 14.6 GeV. This is mainly caused by the higher $`Z`$ values of the residual nuclei at the lower incident energy and is reproduced by the model calculations. The slope of the 14.6 GeV data is much harder than for the lower incicent energy. This higher slope is underestimated by the model and this failure is most pronounced for C + Au collisions. An attempt to describe these spectra by a higher Coulomb field, caused e.g. by a more compact system at break-up fails. In such an approach the maximum shifts keeping the drop towards higher kinetic energies while the measured spectra show an increase at the higher kinetic energies without moving the maximum significantly.

The trends from Fig. 1, i.e. increasing mean energies with increasing mass and increasing energy of the projectile, is seen for many emitted fragments. This observation is summarized in Fig. 2, which shows the mean kinetic energies per fragment nucleon as a function of the charge of the detected fragments $`Z`$. This figure shows a remarkable enhancement in the kinetic energies for light fragments emitted in He+Au and C+Au collisions as compared to the p(8.1 GeV)+Au case. The calculated values of the mean fragment energies (shown by lines) are obtained with INC+Expansion+SMM model. The measured energies are close to the calculated ones for p+Au collisions in the range of the fragment charges between 4 and 9. The experimental values for 4He+Au and 12C+Au interactions, however, exceed the calculated ones, which are similar for all three cases.

The observed deviation cannot be attributed to an angular momentum effect. The rotational energy $`E_{rot}`$ of a fragment with mass $`A_{IMF}`$ can be estimated from the total rotational energy $`E_L`$ of a system with mass number $`A_R`$ using classical rotation:

$$<E_{rot}>/A_{IMF}=\frac{5}{3}<\frac{E_L}{A_R}>\frac{<R_Z^2>}{R_{sys}^2}$$
(1)
where $`R_Z`$ is the radial coordinate of the IMF and $`R_{sys}`$ is the radius of the system. According to the INC calculations for C+Au collisions, the mean angular momentum $`L`$ of the target spectator is $`36\mathrm{}`$. It might be reduced by a factor of 1.5 due to the mass loss during expansion along the way to the freeze-out point. Finally $`<E_L>`$ is estimated to be only 5 MeV and $`<E_{rot}>/A_{IMF}0.04`$ MeV/nucleon, which is by an order of magnitude smaller than the energy enhancement for light fragments. We suggest that the observed enhancement is caused by the expansion of the system, which seems to be radial, as a $`v_{}`$-versus-$`v_{}`$ plot (this will be subject of a forthcoming publication) does not show any significant deviation from circular symmetry.

An estimate of the fragment flow energy may be obtained from the difference between the measured IMF energies $`<E>`$ and those calculated (without any flow) $`<E>_{noflow}`$. This difference for C+Au collisions is shown in the lower part of Fig. 2. A drastic decrease of the flow energy with increasing charge of the fragment is seen.

In an attempt to describe the data, we modified the SMM code by including a radial velocity boost for each particle at freeze out, i.e. a radial expansion velocity was superimposed on the thermal motion in the calculation of the multibody Coulomb trajectories on an event-by-event basis. A self-similar radial expansion of a spherical nucleus is assumed, where the local flow velocity is linearly dependent on the distance of the particle from the centre of mass. The expansion velocity of particle $`Z`$ located at radius $`R_Z`$ is given by the following expression

$$\stackrel{}{v}_{flow}(Z)=v_{flow}^0\frac{\stackrel{}{R}_Z}{R_{sys}}$$
(2)
where $`v_{flow}^0`$ is the radial velocity on the surface of the system. The use of the linear profile of the radial velocity is motivated by the hydrodynamic models for an expanding hot nuclear system (see for example Ref. ). The value of $`v_{flow}^0`$ has been adjusted to 0.1 $`c`$ in order to describe the mean kinetic energy measured for the carbon fragments. The results are presented in the lower part of Fig. 2 as dashed line calculated from the difference of the fragment energies obtained for $`v_{flow}^0`$=0.1 $`c`$ and $`v_{flow}^0`$=0. The data deviate significantly from the calculated values for Li and Be. This may be caused in part by the contribution of particle emission during the early stage of expansion from the hotter and denser system. It is supported by the fact that the extra energy of Li fragments with respect to the calculated value is clearly seen in Fig. 2 even for the proton-induced fragmentation, where no significant flow is expected. This peculiarity of light fragments has been noted already by the ISIS group for 3He+Au collisions at 4.8 GeV .

For fragments heavier than carbon, the calculated curve in the lower part of Fig. 2 is higher than the data and only slightly decreasing with increasing fragment charge. The trend of the calculation is to be expected. The mean fragment flow energy is proportional to $`<R_Z^2>`$ and this value changes only little with fragment charge in the SMM code due to the assumed equal probability of IMF distribution inside the available break-up volume. The difference between data and calculations shown in Fig. 2 indicates that a uniform density distribution is not fullfilled. A preference of finding heavier fragments more in the center would reduce their Coulomb energies shown in the upper part of Fig. 2, and would increase the extracted quantity $`<E^{measured}><E>_{noflow}`$ leading then to a consistent description of a flow scenario with a non-uniform fragment distribution. The dense interior of the expanded nucleus may be favored for the appearance of larger IMF’s, if fragments are formed via the density fluctuations. Indications for such an effect could already be drawn from the analysis of the mean IMF energies performed in Ref.  for proton induced fragmentation: the measured energies are below the theoretical curve for fragments heavier than Ne. This means that our procedure of estimating the flow energy is only reliable for fragments lighter than Ne where the model calculations fit the data of the fragment energies from p+Au collisions (no flow). For heavier fragments the flow energies are underestimated and should be considered as lower limits. The interesting feature of a reduction of the flow energy for heavier fragments is observed also for the central heavy ion collisions . This effect is increasingly important at energies $``$100 $`A`$MeV, and that is in accordance with our suggestion on its relation to the density profile of the hot system at freeze out.

For the estimation of the mean fragment flow velocities $`<v_{flow}>`$ the difference between the measured IMF energies and calculated ones (without flow) has been used. The results are presented in Fig. 3. The values for Li and Be are considered as upper limits because of the possible contribution of the preequilibrium emission. The corresponding values of the fragment positions $`<R_Z>/R_{sys}`$ for the freeze-out point obtained under assumptions of the linear radial profile for the expansion velocity are given on the right-hand scale of this figure. The dotted line shows the mean radial coordinates of fragments according to the SMM code. As it has been noted above, the calculated values of $`<R_Z>/R_{sys}`$ are only slightly decreasing with $`Z`$ as expected from a uniform density distribution, but in clear contrast to the data. Calculations with the MMMC model  give the same trend as the SMM model .

Effects of the radial collective energy for 1 $`A`$GeV Au+C collisions (in inverse kinematics) were considered in  by analysing the transverse kinetic energies. The mean radial flow velocities were estimated, but it had been done only for fragments with $`Z7`$. In this charge range our analysis gives slightly lower values of the mean expansion velocities as compared to Ref. . Their interpretation of a time sequence of the emission acccording to the $`Z`$ value is largely equivalent to our interpretation.

The total expansion energy can be estimated by integrating the nucleon flow energy (taken according to Eq. (2)) over the available volume at freeze out. For an uniform system one obtains

$$E_{flow}^{tot}=\frac{3}{10}A_Rm_N(v_{flow}^0)^2(1r_N/R_{sys})^5$$
(3)
with the mass $`m_N`$ and the radius $`r_N`$ of a nucleon. For 12C+Au collisions it gives $`E_{flow}^{tot}100`$ MeV, corresponding to the flow velocity at the surface of $`0.1c`$. Similar results are obtained for 4He(14.6 GeV)+Au collisions. The total flow energy of the fragmenting nucleus is four times less than the thermal one estimated in the INC+Expansion+SMM approach.

Concluding, the energy spectra of IMF’s for reactions p+Au at 2.1, 3.6 and 8.1 GeV, 4He+Au at 4 and 14.6 GeV, 12C+Au at 22.4 GeV are compared. While the fragment kinetic energies are well described within the SMM code for p+Au collisions, the model underestimates the kinetic energies of fragments from collisions induced by 4He (14.6 GeV) and 12C (22.4 GeV) projectiles. The additional energy is attributed to collective expansion. However, a linear flow profile fails to describe the variation of flow energies extracted from the measured spectra with the fragment charge. This discrepancy might be caused by the fact that the model assumes a uniform density distribution and, hence, a rather uniform probability distribution of forming fragments in the freeze-out volume. The data indicate that heavy fragments are preferentially located more in the interior of the nucleus.

The presented study shows that in spite of the success of statistical multifragmentation models in describing the partitions, the freeze-out condition might be still too simplified. The energy spectra provide sensitive probes for the source configuration and the emission dynamics. The range of projectiles, from protons to light nuclei, seems to be quite attractive in this respect for showing a transition from “thermal break-up” to a disintegration possibly caused by rapide expansion likely together with a non-uniform density profile of the excited nucleus.

The authors are thankful to Profs. A. Hrynkiewicz, A.M. Baldin, S.T. Belyaev, A.I. Malakhov and N.A. Russakovich for support. The research was supported in part by Grant No 00-02-16608 from Russian Foundation for Basic Research, by Grant No 2P03 12615 from the Polish State Committe for Scientific Research, by Grant No 94-2249 from INTAS, by Contract No 06DA819 with Bundesministerium für Forschung und Technologie, by Grant PST.CLG.976861 from NATO, and by US National Science Foundation.