text:
# Cyclic and finite surgeries on pretzel knots

## 1. Introduction

Thurston \[Th\] has shown that all but a finite number of Dehn surgeries on a hyperbolic knot result in manifolds which are again hyperbolic. Those which produce a manifold having cyclic or finite fundamental group are important examples of exceptional (i.e., non-hyperbolic) surgeries. The theory of Culler-Shalen seminorms has proven to be a useful tool for understanding these kinds of exceptional surgeries. These seminorms were first introduced as part of the proof of the Cyclic Surgery Theorem \[CGLS\] and later extended by Boyer and Zhang \[BZ1\] to the study of finite surgeries, eventually leading to a proof of the Finite Filling Conjecture \[BZ4\].

While those results establish global bounds on the number of cyclic or finite surgeries a knot may have, the current paper shows how they may be refined by focusing on a particular family of knots, the $`(p,q,r)`$ pretzel knots. To be specific, we have the following theorems.

###### Theorem 1.1.

The only non-torus pretzel knot which admits a non-trivial cyclic surgery is the $`(2,3,7)`$ pretzel knot. The non-trivial cyclic surgeries on this knot are of slope $`18`$ and $`19`$.

###### Theorem 1.2.

If a non-torus pretzel knot $`K`$ admits a non-trivial finite surgery, then one of the following holds.

* $`K`$ is a $`(2,p,q)`$ pretzel knot with $`5pq`$ odd and the filling is not cyclic.
* $`K`$ is the $`(2,3,7)`$ pretzel knot and the filling is along slope $`17,18`$, or $`19`$.
* $`K`$ is the $`(2,3,9)`$ pretzel knot and the filling is along slope $`22`$ or $`23`$.

Note that a torus knot admits an infinite number of finite cyclic fillings and that the torus pretzel knots are well understood \[K\]. In particular, if $`|p|,|q|,|r|>1`$, then a $`(p,q,r)`$ pretzel knot is torus only if $`\{p,q,r\}=\{2,3,3\}`$ or $`\{2,3,5\}`$. (We consider the $`(p,q,r)`$ and $`(p,q,r)`$ knots equivalent as they are mirror images of one another.)

The surgeries listed for the $`(2,3,7)`$ and $`(2,3,9)`$ pretzel knots were discovered by Fintushel and Stern \[FS\] and Bleiler and Hodgson \[BH\]. The content here is that there are no other cyclic surgeries and that the possibilities for a finite surgery are restricted. On the other hand, we know of no instances of a finite surgery on a knot $`(2,p,q)`$ with $`5pq`$. Indeed, we expect that there are none.

Our results can be seen as complementing the work of Delman \[De\] and others who have been using laminations to study Dehn surgery. In particular, if a hyperbolic arborescent knot admits a non-trivial cyclic or finite surgery, then it must either be a $`(p,q,r)`$ pretzel knot or else belong to a certain family of $`3`$-tangle Montesinos knots (see \[Wu2\], especially Theorem 2.1). The current article deals with the first case and naturally suggests the following:

Problem: Complete the analysis of cyclic and finite surgeries on hyperbolic arborescent knots by investigating Montesinos knots of the from $`M(x,1/p,1/q)`$ where $`x\{1\pm 1/2n,2+1/2n\}`$ and $`p`$, $`q`$, and $`n`$ are positive integers.

Our main theorems are consequences of the following two results and work of Delman \[De\].

###### Theorem 1.3.

Suppose $`K`$, a $`(2,p,q)`$ pretzel knot ($`p,q`$ odd and positive), admits a non-trivial cyclic surgery. Then one of the following holds.

1. $`K`$ is a torus knot and therefore admits an infinite number of cyclic surgeries. In this case either $`\{p,q\}=\{3,3\}`$ or $`\{p,q\}=\{3,5\}`$ or $`\{p,q\}=\{1,n\}`$ for some $`n>0`$.
2. $`K`$ is the $`(2,3,7)`$ pretzel knot and the surgery is $`18`$ or $`19`$.

###### Theorem 1.4.

A $`(p,q,r)`$ pretzel knot, with $`4r`$ even and $`3pq`$ odd admits no non-trivial finite surgeries.

Proof: (of Theorem 1.1) Delman \[De\] has shown that if such a knot admits a cyclic filling, then it is of the form $`(p,q,r)`$, with $`2r`$ even and $`3pq`$ odd. As only the trivial knot admits a $``$ filling \[Ga\], Theorem 1.4 implies further that $`r`$ must be $`2`$. Theorem 1.3 completes the proof. ∎

Proof: (of Theorem 1.2) Again, Delman \[De\] allows us to reduce to the case of a $`(p,q,r)`$ pretzel knot and Theorem 1.4 further shows that $`r=2`$. The finite surgeries on $`(2,3,n)`$ pretzel knots are classified in \[M2\]. That a non-trivial finite filling of $`(2,p,q)`$ with $`p5`$ is not cyclic follows from Theorem 1.1. ∎

Thus, the main part of this paper is given over to proving Theorems 1.3 and 1.4. The latter in turn depends largely on

###### Theorem 1.5.

If $`K`$ is a $`(p,q,r)`$ pretzel knot with $`p,q`$ odd, $`r`$ even and $`1/|p|+1/|q|+2/|r|<1`$, then $`K`$ admits at most one non-trivial finite surgery. Moreover such a surgery slope $`u`$ is odd integral and there is a non-integral boundary slope in $`(u1,u+1)`$.

Theorems 1.3, 1.5, and 1.4 will be proved in Sections 3, 4, and 5. Section 2, which follows, introduces notation and provides a brief review of Culler-Shalen theory which will play a central role in our arguments.

## 2. Notation and Culler-Shalen Theory

In this section let $`K`$ denote a $`(p,q,r)`$ pretzel knot. Our sign conventions are illustrated by Figure 1

which shows the $`(3,3,4)`$ pretzel knot. Pretzel knots whose indices $`p,q,r`$ agree up to permutation are ambient isotopic. Moreover, taking the mirror reflection corresponds to changing the signs of all the indices. As this reduces to an isomorphism of the knot group $`\pi `$, we will consider the knots $`(p,q,r)`$ and $`(p,q,r)`$ equivalent.

By \[Oe\], $`K`$ is small in the sense that the knot complement $`M=S^3K`$ contains no closed essential surfaces. The knot is therefore either torus or hyperbolic. The torus pretzel knots are classified in \[K\].

The fundamental group of the $`2`$-fold branched cyclic cover $`\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma }_2)`$ of $`K`$ is a central extension of the triangle group $`\mathrm{\Delta }(p,q,r)`$. Let $`\mu `$ denote the class of a meridian in $`\pi `$ and $`\lambda `$ that of a preferred longitude. We will use $`\{\mu ,\lambda \}`$ coordinates to identify the surgery slopes on $`K`$ with $`\{1/0\}`$ and denote Dehn surgery along slope $`a/b`$ by $`M(a/b)`$. Surgery along the meridian $`M(1/0)=M(\mu )=S^3`$ is called trivial surgery. The distance between two surgery slopes $`a/b`$ and $`c/d`$ is the minimal geometric intersection number $`\mathrm{\Delta }(a/b,c/d)=|adbc|`$. We will say that $`a/b`$ is a boundary slope if there is an essential surface in $`M`$ which meets $`M`$ in a non-empty set of curves having slope $`a/b`$. An essential surface is one which is properly embedded, orientable, incompressible, $``$-incompressible, and non-$``$-parallel.

We now briefly introduce Culler-Shalen theory under the assumption that $`K`$ is a small, hyperbolic knot. A more detailed account may be found in \[CGLS, Chapter 1\] and \[BZ2\].

Let $`R=\text{Hom}(\pi ,\text{SL}_2())`$ denote the set of $`\text{SL}_2()`$-representations of the fundamental group of $`M`$. Then $`R`$ is an affine algebraic set, as is $`X`$, the set of characters of representations in $`R`$. Since $`M`$ is small, the irreducible components of $`X`$ are curves \[CCGLS, Proposition 2.4\]. Moreover, for each component $`R_i`$ of $`R`$ which contains an irreducible representation, the corresponding curve $`X_i`$ induces a non-zero seminorm $`_i`$ on $`V=H_1(M;)`$ \[BZ2, Propositon 5.7\] via the following construction.

For $`\gamma \pi `$, define the regular function $`I_\gamma :X`$ by $`I_\gamma (\chi _\rho )=\chi _\rho (\gamma )=\text{trace}(\rho (\gamma ))`$. By the Hurewicz isomorphism, a class $`\gamma L=H_1(M;)`$ determines an element of $`\pi _1(M)`$, and therefore an element of $`\pi `$ well-defined up to conjugacy. The function $`f_\gamma =I_\gamma ^24`$ is again regular and so can be pulled back to $`\stackrel{~}{X}_i`$, the smooth projective variety birationally equivalent to $`X_i`$. For $`\gamma L`$, $`\gamma _i`$ is the degree of $`f_\gamma :\stackrel{~}{X}_i^1`$. In practice, this degree can often be calculated using $`Z_x(f_\gamma )`$, the degree of zero of $`f_\gamma `$ at a point $`x`$ in the character variety. The seminorm is extended to $`V`$ by linearity. We will call a seminorm constructed in this manner a Culler-Shalen seminorm.

Let $`_T`$ denote the sum of the Culler-Shalen seminorms, i.e., $`v_T=_iv_i`$ (here $`vV`$) and let $`S=\mathrm{min}\{\gamma _T;\gamma L,\gamma _T>0\}`$ be the minimal norm. Note that, as $`K`$ is hyperbolic, $`_T`$ will be a norm (and not just a seminorm) \[CGLS, Chapter 1\].

## 3. Proof of Theorem 1.3

In this section, let $`K`$ be a $`(2,p,q)`$ pretzel knot ($`p,q`$ odd and positive, $`pq`$). The following lemma can be proved using the methods of Hatcher and Oertel \[HO\].

###### Lemma 3.1.

Assume $`3pq`$. If $`p7`$ (respectively $`q7`$) then

$$\frac{p^2p5}{\frac{p3}{2}}(\text{resp. }\frac{q^2q5}{\frac{q3}{2}})$$

is a non-integral boundary slope of $`K`$. Moreover, these are the only non-integral boundary slopes of $`K`$.

###### Lemma 3.2.

$`M(2(p+q))`$ contains an incompressible torus.

Proof: Use the double cover of the “obvious” spanning surface of the knot (which is a punctured Klein bottle). ∎

###### Theorem 1.3.

Suppose $`K`$ admits a non-trivial cyclic surgery. Then one of the following holds.

1. $`K`$ is a torus knot and therefore admits an infinite number of cyclic surgeries. In this case either $`\{p,q\}=\{3,3\}`$ or $`\{p,q\}=\{3,5\}`$ or $`\{p,q\}=\{1,n\}`$ for some $`n>0`$.
2. $`K`$ is the $`(2,3,7)`$ pretzel knot and the surgery is $`18`$ or $`19`$.

Proof: Theorem III of \[K\] shows that $`K`$ is torus iff it is as characterized in 1.

Since $`K`$ is small \[Oe\], we can assume that $`K`$ is hyperbolic. The cyclic surgeries $`18`$ and $`19`$ of the $`(2,3,7)`$ pretzel knot were first observed by Fintushel and Stern (see \[FS, Section 4\]). Our task is to show that there is no other choice for $`p`$ and $`q`$ leading to a cyclic surgery.

The case $`p=3`$ is the subject of \[M2\] where we show that there are no non-trivial cyclic surgeries when $`q9`$ and that the cyclic surgeries of the $`(2,3,7)`$ pretzel knot are as stated.

If $`p=5`$, the boundary slopes \[HO\] are $`0,14,15,\frac{q^2q5}{\frac{q3}{2}},2q+10`$, and $`2q+12`$. By \[Du, Theorem 4.1\], a non-trivial cyclic surgery could occur only at $`2q+4`$ or $`2q+5`$. However, as we explain below, a cyclic surgery would have to be within distance $`5`$ of the toroidal surgery $`2q+10`$ (see Lemma 3.2). So the only candidate is $`2q+5`$. Now the $`(2,5,5)`$ pretzel has no non-integral boundary slopes so (\[Du, Theorem 4.1\]) it has no non-trivial cyclic surgeries. As for $`(2,5,7)`$, SnapPea \[We\] shows that $`2q+5=19`$ surgery on this knot is hyperbolic. So we can assume $`q9`$.

Suppose (for a contradiction) that $`2q+5`$ is indeed a cyclic surgery. By \[BZ1, Lemma 6.2\], the (total) norm can be written

$`\gamma _T`$ $`=`$ $`2[a_1\mathrm{\Delta }(\gamma ,0)+a_2\mathrm{\Delta }(\gamma ,14)+a_3\mathrm{\Delta }(\gamma ,15)`$
$`+a_4\mathrm{\Delta }(\gamma ,{\displaystyle \frac{q^2q5}{\frac{q3}{2}}})+a_5\mathrm{\Delta }(\gamma ,2q+10)+a_6\mathrm{\Delta }(\gamma ,2q+12)]`$
where the $`a_i`$ are non-negative integers. If $`2q+5`$ is cyclic it has minimal norm $`S`$, as does the meridian surgery $`\mu `$ (\[CGLS, Corollary 1.1.4\]). The norm of $`2q+4`$ will also be of interest, and it will be bounded by the minimal norm $`S`$.

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`\mu _T=2[a_1+a_2+a_3+{\displaystyle \frac{q3}{2}}a_4+a_5+a_6]`$
$`S`$ $`=`$ $`2q+5_T=2[(2q+5)a_1+(2q9)a_2+(2q10)a_3+{\displaystyle \frac{q5}{2}}a_4+5a_5+7a_6]`$
$`S`$ $``$ $`2q+4_T=2[2q+4a_1+(2q10)a_2+(2q11)a_3+a_4++6a_5+8a_6]`$
Subtracting the first two equations, we have

(1)
$$a_4=(2q+4)a_1+(2q10)a_2+(2q11)a_3+4a_5+6a_6,$$

while subtracting the second from the third leaves

$`a_5+a_6a_1+a_2+a_3+{\displaystyle \frac{q7}{2}}a_4,`$
$``$ $`\eta (a_5+a_6a_1a_2a_3)a_4,`$
where $`\eta =\frac{2}{q7}1`$.

Combining this with Equation 1, we have

$$0(2q+4+\eta )a_1+(2q10+\eta )a_2+(2q11+\eta )a_3+(4\eta )a_5+(6\eta )a_6.$$

Since $`a_i0`$, this shows $`a_1=a_2=a_3=a_5=a_6=0`$. On the other hand, for a norm, at least two of the $`a_i`$ must be non-zero. This contradiction shows that there can be no non-trivial cyclic surgery when $`p=5`$.

So let us assume $`7pq`$. Dunfield\[Du, Theorem 4.1\] has shown that any non-trivial cyclic surgery on a knot such as $`K`$ must lie near a non-integral surgery. Combining this with Lemma 3.1, the only candidates for a non-trivial cyclic surgery are $`2p+4`$, $`2p+5`$, $`2q+4`$, and $`2q+5`$. Suppose that $`u`$ is one of these candidates slopes and $`M(u)`$ is a cyclic filling. Since $`K`$ is strongly invertible, the Orbifold Theorem implies that $`M(u)`$ admits a geometric decomposition (see \[CHK, Corollary 1.21\]). Now, as $`\mathrm{\Delta }(u,2(p+q))>5`$, $`M(u)`$ is irreducible \[Oh, Wu1\] and atoroidal \[Go1\] and therefore has a geometric structure.

Note that $`\pi _1(M(u))`$ (see \[Ga\]), so $`\pi _1(M(u))`$ is finite. The geometry is therefore $`S^3`$, and as $`\pi _1(M(u))`$ is finite cyclic, we deduce that $`M(u)`$ is a lens space. However, this contradicts \[Go2, Theorem 1.1\] which states that the distance between a lens space surgery such as $`u`$ and a toroidal surgery such as $`2(p+q)`$ is at most $`5`$. We conclude that there are also no non-trivial cyclic surgeries in this case. ∎

## 4. Proof of Theorem 1.5

Let $`K`$ be a $`(p,q,r)`$ pretzel knot where $`p=2k+1`$, $`q=2l+1`$ and $`r=2m`$. We will be assuming that $`1/|p|+1/|q|+1/|m|1`$, and this ensures that $`K`$ is hyperbolic \[K\].

###### Lemma 4.1.

Let $`1/|p|+1/|q|+1/|m|1`$. If $`b`$ is odd, then the Dehn filling $`M(2a/b)`$ of the knot complement $`M`$ has infinite $`\pi _1`$.

Proof: As $`\mathrm{\Delta }(p,q,m)`$ is infinite, our strategy is to construct a representation of $`\pi _1(M(2a/b))`$ with image $`\mathrm{\Delta }(p,q,m)`$. Changing the sign of $`p`$, $`q`$, or $`r`$ will not change the triangle groups $`\mathrm{\Delta }(p,q,m)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }(p,q,r)`$, so we will assume $`p,q,r>0`$ in order to simplify the notation. For the general case, use $`|p|`$, $`|q|`$, and $`|r|`$ instead.

First note that there is a faithful $`\text{PSL}_2()`$-representation of $`\mathrm{\Delta }(p,q,m)`$. Indeed, either $`\{p,q,m\}=\{3,3,3\}`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }(p,q,m)`$ is a set of isometries of the Euclidean plane $`𝔼^2`$, or else $`\frac{1}{p}+\frac{1}{q}+\frac{1}{m}<1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }(p,q,m)`$ represents isometries of the hyperbolic plane $`^2`$. Now, both $`𝔼^2`$ and $`^2`$ imbed isometrically into hyperbolic $`3`$-space $`^3`$. For example, in the upper half space model, the set $`\{z=1\}`$ is a Euclidean plane, while the $`xz`$ plane is $`^2`$. Moreover, isometries of these planes are restrictions of isometries of $`^3`$. Thus, in either case, $`\mathrm{\Delta }(p,q,m)`$ embeds in $`\text{PSL}_2()`$, the set of orientation preserving isometries of $`^3`$. This provides the required faithful representation.

Let $`\overline{\rho }_0`$ be a representation of $`\mathrm{\Delta }(p,q,r)`$ obtained by composing the obvious homomorphism $`\mathrm{\Delta }(p,q,r)\mathrm{\Delta }(p,q,m)`$ with a faithful representation of $`\mathrm{\Delta }(p,q,m)`$ in $`\text{PSL}_2()`$. Then (as in \[M2, Proposition 1.1\]) $`\overline{\rho }_0`$ “extends” to a $`\text{PSL}_2()`$-representation $`\overline{\rho }`$ of the knot group $`\pi `$ which in turn lifts to an $`\text{SL}_2()`$-representation $`\rho `$. (The obstruction to such a lift is in $`H^2(\pi ;/2)`$ \[BZ2, Section 3\]. For a knot in $`S^3`$, the second cohomology is trivial and there is no obstruction.) Moreover, $`\overline{\rho }(\mu ^2)=1`$.

On the other hand, we can determine the image of $`\lambda `$ in $`\mathrm{\Delta }(p,q,r)=f,g,hf^r,g^p,h^q,fgh`$ to be $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }=g^kf^mg^{k+1}h^lf^mh^{l+1}`$ (compare \[Tr\]). Now, as $`\overline{\rho }_0`$ factors through a representation of $`\mathrm{\Delta }(p,q,m)`$, we have $`\overline{\rho }_0(f^m)=1`$ and consequently $`\overline{\rho }_0(\stackrel{~}{\lambda })=1`$. Then $`\overline{\rho }(\lambda )=1`$ as well.

So, for any filling of the form $`\alpha =2a/b`$, we have $`\overline{\rho }(\alpha )=1`$ whence $`\overline{\rho }`$ factors through $`\pi _1(M(\alpha ))`$. Since $`\overline{\rho }`$ is an extension of $`\overline{\rho }_0`$, which factors through a faithful representation of the infinite group $`\mathrm{\Delta }(p,q,m)`$, we see that $`\pi _1(M(\alpha ))`$ must also be infinite. ∎

So under the hypothesis of the lemma, every $`2a/b`$ filling of $`K`$ is infinite. This means that any finite surgeries would have to be of the form $`(2a+1)/b`$ and therefore would have norm $`(2a+1)/b_TS+8`$ \[BZ1, Theorem 2.3\]. On the other hand, the $`2a/b`$ fillings will have norm larger than $`S+8`$.

###### Lemma 4.2.

Let $`1/|p|+1/|q|+1/|m|<1`$. If $`b`$ is odd, then $`2a/b_TS+12`$.

Proof: Again, we assume $`p,q,r>0`$.

We first observe that there are at least three irreducible $`\text{PSL}_2()`$-characters of $`\mathrm{\Delta }(p,q,m)`$. Indeed, by \[BB, Proposition D\], the number of $`\text{PSL}_2()`$-characters of $`\mathrm{\Delta }(p,q,r)`$ is

(2) $`(p{\displaystyle \frac{p}{2}}1)(q{\displaystyle \frac{q}{2}}1)(r{\displaystyle \frac{r}{2}}1)+{\displaystyle \frac{p}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{q}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{r}{2}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{gcd}(p,q)}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{gcd}(p,r)}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{gcd}(q,r)}{2}}+1`$
where $`x`$ denotes the largest integer less than or equal to $`x`$. This count includes characters of reducible representations. The character of a reducible representation is also the character of a diagonal (hence abelian) representation. So, to count the characters of reducible representations we can look at representations of $`H_1(\mathrm{\Delta }(p,q,r)).`$ Let $`a=\mathrm{gcd}(p,q,r),`$ $`b=\mathrm{gcd}(pq,pr,qr).`$ Then $`H_1(\mathrm{\Delta }(p,q,r))=/a/(b/a)`$ and hence $`|H_1(\mathrm{\Delta }(p,q,r))|=b.`$ Consequently, the number of characters of $`H_1(\mathrm{\Delta }(p,q,r))`$ is

(3)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\frac{b}{2}+1,& \text{if }a1(mod2),\hfill \\ \frac{b}{2}+2,& \text{if }a0(mod2).\hfill \end{array}$$

Thus, by taking the difference of (2) and (3), we see that $`\mathrm{\Delta }(p,q,m)`$ has at least three irreducible $`\text{PSL}_2()`$-characters. Using the method of the previous lemma, these can be used to construct irreducible $`\text{PSL}_2()`$-characters of $`\pi _1(M(\alpha ))`$ when $`\alpha `$ is of the from $`2a/b`$. None of these characters are dihedral, so each is covered twice in $`\text{SL}_2()`$ (see \[BZ1, Lemma 5.5\]). As they are the characters of irreducible representations of a triangle group, they are smooth points of $`X(M)`$ (see \[BZ3, Proposition 7\]).

Moreover, they are zeroes of $`f_\alpha `$ which are not zeroes of $`f_\mu `$. (As in the previous lemma, these are characters of representations which take $`\mu `$ to an element of order two.) It follows from \[BB, Theorem A\] that $`Z_x(f_\alpha )=Z_x(f_\mu )+2`$, and since we have six such characters $`x`$, we see that $`2a/b_T=\alpha _T\mu _T+12=S+12`$. ∎

###### Theorem 1.5.

If $`K`$ is a $`(p,q,r)`$ pretzel knot with $`p,q`$ odd, $`r`$ even and $`1/|p|+1/|q|+2/|r|<1`$, then $`K`$ admits at most one non-trivial finite surgery. Moreover such a surgery slope $`u`$ is odd integral and there is a non-integral boundary slope in $`(u1,u+1)`$.

Proof: The conditions on $`p,q,r`$ ensure that $`K`$ is hyperbolic \[K\].

Let $`\alpha `$ be a finite surgery of such a knot. We have already observed (Lemma 4.1) that $`\alpha =(2a+1)/b`$. Since meridional surgery is cyclic, we can apply \[BZ1, Theorem 1.1\] to see that $`b2`$.

If $`\alpha =(2a+1)/2`$ were a finite filling, then, by \[BZ1, Theorem 2.3\], $`\alpha _TS+8`$. At the same time, $`\mu _T=\mu _T=S`$. The line joining $`\alpha =(2a+1,2)`$ and $`\mu =(1,0)`$ in surgery space $`VH_1(M;)^2`$ passes through $`(a+1,1)`$ while the line through $`\alpha `$ and $`\mu `$ passes through $`(a,1)`$. It follows that $`a+1_T`$ and $`a_T`$ are both less than $`S+4`$. Since one of them is even, this contradicts Lemma 4.2.

So any non-trivial finite fillings must be odd integral. Suppose there were two such. Each would have norm at most $`S+8`$. The line joining them would necessarily pass through some even integral surgeries which would therefore also have norm at most $`S+8`$. This again contradicts Lemma 4.2.

Now suppose that $`2a+1`$ is a non-trivial finite filling. Then $`2a+1,1_TS+8`$ while $`2a,1_TS+12`$ by Lemma 4.2. Let $`PV`$ denote the norm-ball of radius $`S+8`$. By \[CGLS, Proposition 1.1.2\], $`P`$ is a finite-sided convex polygon whose vertices are multiples of boundary slopes. In particular, $`(2a+1,1)`$ is not a vertex of $`P`$ (otherwise \[CGLS, Theorem 2.0.3\], $`M(2a+1)S^2\times S^1`$ which is absurd).

We now construct the non-integral boundary slope $`c/d`$ and show that it lies in the interval $`(2a,2a+2)`$. Since $`(2a+1,1)`$ is inside $`P`$ and $`(2a,1)`$ is not, there is a segment of $`P`$ which intersects the line $`y=1`$ between them. Let $`k(c,d)`$ be the vertex of this segment which lies on or above $`y=1`$, i.e., $`k`$ and $`c/d`$ is a boundary slope. Consider the segment from the origin to $`k(c,d)`$. As both endpoints are in $`P`$, this segment is also. It crosses $`y=1`$ at $`(c/d,1)`$ which must lie between $`(2a,1)`$ and $`(2(a+1),1)`$. (Otherwise, the segment joining $`(2a+1,1)`$ and $`(c/d,1)`$ passes through $`(2a,1)`$, say. Since both endpoints are in $`P`$, this segment is in $`P`$ and in particular $`(2a,1)`$ is in $`P`$, a contradiction.)

Thus $`|2a+1c/d|<1`$, as required. ∎

###### Corollary 4.3.

If a knot satisfies the conditions of the theorem and has no non-integral boundary slopes, then it admits no non-trivial finite surgeries.

###### Corollary 4.4.

Alternating $`(p,q,r)`$ pretzel knots with $`1/|p|+1/|q|+2/|r|<1`$ admit no non-trivial finite surgeries.

Proof: This follows since pretzel knots are Montesinos knots and alternating Montesinos knots have no non-integral boundary slopes (see \[HO\]). ∎

Remark: Note that the second Corollary also follows from Delman and Robert’s \[DR\] proof that alternating knots satisfy strong property P.

## 5. Proof of Theorem 1.4

We turn now to the case of a $`(p,q,r)`$ pretzel knot $`K`$ where $`4r`$ is even and $`p`$ and $`q`$ are both odd. We will assume $`3pq`$. The strategy is similar to that of Section 3. We begin with two lemmas based on the work of Hatcher and Oertel \[HO\].

###### Lemma 5.1.

If $`p2r+1`$, then

(4)
$$\frac{p(p1)+13r}{\frac{p1r}{2}}\text{ and }\frac{q(q1)+13r}{\frac{q1r}{2}}$$

are the non-integral boundary slopes of $`K`$.

###### Lemma 5.2.

If $`p<r`$, and $`K`$ has a non-integral boundary slope, then that slope is

(5)
$$2(p+q+r1\frac{(p1)(q1)}{p1+q1}).$$

The proof of the following lemma is similar to that of Lemma 3.2.

###### Lemma 5.3.

$`M(2(p+q))`$ contains an incompressible torus.

###### Proposition 5.4.

If $`p>2r+1`$, then $`K`$ admits no non-trivial finite surgeries.

Proof: By Theorem 1.5, a non-trivial finite surgery would be close to one of the non-integral boundary slopes of Lemma 5.1. However,

$`2(p+q){\displaystyle \frac{p(p1)+13r}{\frac{p1r}{2}}}`$ $`=`$ $`2(p+q)2(p+r){\displaystyle \frac{(r1)^2}{\frac{p1r}{2}}}`$
$`=`$ $`2q2r{\displaystyle \frac{(r1)^2}{\frac{p1r}{2}}}`$
$``$ $`4r+62r{\displaystyle \frac{(r1)^2}{\frac{r}{2}+1}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{7r+5}{\frac{r}{2}+1}}11`$
and similarly for the other slope of Lemma 5.1. Therefore, any non-trivial finite surgery would be of distance (in the sense of minimal geometric intersection) greater than $`10`$ from the toroidal surgery $`2(p+q)`$. However this contradicts work of Agol \[A\] and Lackenby \[L\] showing that the distance between exceptional surgeries is $`10`$. ∎

###### Proposition 5.5.

If $`pr5`$, then $`K`$ admits no non-trivial finite surgeries.

Proof: As in the previous proposition, we observe that

$$|2(p+q+r1\frac{(p1)(q1)}{p1+q1})2(p+q)|>10.$$

Thus the lone non-integral boundary slope of Lemma 5.2 is too far from the toroidal boundary slope $`2(p+q)`$ (by Theorem 1.5 a finite filling could only occur at an odd-integral slope, which would therefore have to be within distance $`9`$ of the even number $`2(p+q)`$). ∎

We now have a fairly precise description of what a finite filling $`s`$ on a $`(p,q,r)`$ pretzel knot would look like. By Theorem 1.5, $`s`$ would have to be odd-integral and near a non-integral boundary slope and by Propositions 5.4 and 5.5, $`p+3r(p1)/2`$. We now propose to explicitly calculate the fundamental group of such a filling. We will then project onto a group $`G`$ and observe that $`G`$ is generically infinite.

The Wirtinger presentation \[R, Section 3.D\] of a $`(p,q,r)`$ pretzel knot is (compare \[Tr, Equation 1\]):

$`\pi _1(M)=x,y,z`$ $``$ $`(zx)^{(p1)/2}z(zx)^{(1p)/2}=(yx)^{(q+1)/2}y(yx)^{(q+1)/2},`$
$`(yz^1)^{r/2}y(yz^1)^{r/2}=(yx)^{(1q)/2}x(yx)^{(q1)/2},`$
$`(yz^1)^{r/2}z(yz^1)^{r/2}=(zx)^{(p+1)/2}x(zx)^{(p+1)/2}.`$
The longitude being

$$l=x^{2(p+q)}(yx)^{(q1)/2}(yz^1)^{r/2}(yx)^{(q+1)/2}(zx)^{(p1)/2}(yz^1)^{r/2}(zx)^{(p+1)/2},$$

filling along an odd integral slope $`s`$ results in

$`\pi _1(M(s))=x,y,z`$ $``$ $`(zx)^{(p1)/2}z(zx)^{(1p)/2}=(yx)^{(q+1)/2}y(yx)^{(q+1)/2},`$
$`(yz^1)^{r/2}y(yz^1)^{r/2}=(yx)^{(1q)/2}x(yx)^{(q1)/2},`$
$`(yz^1)^{r/2}z(yz^1)^{r/2}=(zx)^{(p+1)/2}x(zx)^{(p+1)/2},x^sl.`$
We can obtain a more manageable factor group $`G`$ by adding the relators $`(yz^1)^{r/2}`$, $`yx^1`$, and $`(zx)^p`$:

$`G`$ $`=`$ $`y,z(yz^1)^{r/2},(zy)^p,z=(zy)^{(p+1)/2}y(zy)^{(p+1)/2},y^{s2p}`$
$`=`$ $`w,y(y^2w^2)^{r/2},w^p,(wy)^2,y^{s2p},`$
where $`w=(zy)^{(p1)/2}`$. This is an example of a group which Coxeter \[C\] has called

$$(2,a,b;c)=R,SR^a,S^b,(RS)^2,(R^2S^2)^c.$$

Thus $`G=(2,p,|s2p|;r/2)`$. Moreover, $`\pi _1(M(s))`$ will be infinite whenever $`G`$ is.

And indeed, these groups are usually infinite as Edjvet has shown:

###### Theorem 5.6 (Main Theorem of \[E\]).

If $`2ab`$, $`2c`$ and $`(2,a,b;c)(2,3,13;4)`$, then the group $`(2,a,b;c)`$ is finite if and only if it is one of the following:

| (i) | $`(2,2,b;c)`$ | $`(2b,2c)`$; |
| --- | --- | --- |
| (ii) | $`(2,3,b;c)`$ | $`(3b6,4c)`$; |
| (iii) | $`(2,3,7;c)`$ | $`(4c8)`$; |
| (iv) | $`(2,3,b;c)`$ | $`(8b9,4c5)`$; |
| (v) | $`(2,3,b;4)`$ | $`(10b11)`$; |
| (vi) | $`(2,4,b;2)`$ | $`(4b)`$; |
| (vii) | $`(2,4,4;c)`$ | $`(3c)`$; |
| (viii) | $`(2,4,5;c)`$ | $`(3c4)`$; |
| (ix) | $`(2,4,7;3)`$; |
| (x) | $`(2,5,b;2)`$ | $`(5b9)`$; |
| (xi) | $`(2,6,7;2)`$. |

Since $`p`$ is odd, if $`p|s2p|`$, then $`G`$ is infinite unless $`p=3`$ or $`5`$.

Similarly, if $`|s2p|p`$, we see that $`G`$ is infinite unless $`|s2p|=3`$ or $`5`$ ($`|s2p|`$ is also odd) whence $`s2p+5`$. On the other hand, by \[A, L\], the finite filling $`s`$ and the toroidal filling $`2(p+q)`$ (Lemma 5.3) have distance at most $`10`$. Since $`s`$ is odd and $`2(p+q)`$ is even, they in fact differ by at most $`9`$. Thus, $`92(p+q)s2(p+q)(2p+5)=2q5`$. It follows that $`2q14`$, whence $`3pq7`$.

So we can assume that $`3p7`$. That is, if $`p9`$, the knot admits no non-trivial finite surgeries.

Now, earlier work shows that there are no non-trivial surgeries unless $`\frac{p1}{2}rp+3`$. So, given $`r4`$, and assuming $`3p7`$, we see that we are left to investigate $`4r10`$. And since Theorem 1.5 does not apply to the knots $`(4,3,3)`$, $`(4,3,5)`$ and $`(6,3,3)`$ these knots must also be examined. The details may be found in \[M1\]. Note that we again use SnapPea \[We\] to resolve a few difficult cases.

In summary then, Theorems 1.5 and 5.6 combine to show that a $`(p,q,r)`$ admits no non-trivial finite surgery unless $`4r10`$ and $`3p7`$. Those cases have been investigated directly and also admit no non-trivial finite surgeries. We have therefore proved

###### Theorem 1.4.

A $`(p,q,r)`$ pretzel knot, with $`4r`$ even and $`3pq`$ odd admits no non-trivial finite surgeries.

## Acknowledgments

This work forms part of my Ph.D. thesis and I would like to thank my supervisor Steven Boyer for his substantial contributions and indispensable advice. I am grateful to Nabil Sayari and Xingru Zhang for helpful conversations and to Andreas Caranti and Rick Thomas for telling me of Edjvet’s paper.


format: text

text:
# Scattering problem of scalar wave in wormhole geometry

## I Introduction

The wormhole has the structure which is given by two asymptotically flat regions and a bridge connecting two regions. For the Lorentzian wormhole to be traversable, it requires exotic matter which violates the known energy conditions. To find the reasonable models, there had been studying on the generalized models of the wormhole with other matters and/or in various geometries. Among the models, the matter or wave in the wormhole geometry and its effect such as radiation are very interesting to us. The scalar field could be considered in the wormhole geometry as the primary and auxiliary effects. Recently the solution for the electrically charged case was also found . Scalar wave solutions in the wormhole geometry was in special wormhole model only the transmission and reflection coefficients were found. The electromagnetic wave in wormhole geometry is recently discussed along the method of scalar field case. These wave equations in wormhole geometry draws attention to the research on radiation and wave. Also there was a suggestion that the wormhole would be one of the candidates of the gamma ray bursts.

For the gravitational radiation in any forms, the scattering problem to calculate the cross section in more generalized models of wormhole should be considered. Thus the study of scalar, electromagnetic, gravitational waves in wormhole geometry is necessary to the research on the gravitational radiation.

In this paper, we study the scalar wave in static uncharged and charged wormhole and find the differential scattering cross sections. We also compare the results each other in both cases to see the charge effect on scattering problem. Here we adopt the geometrical unit, i.e., $`G=c=\mathrm{}=1`$.

E-mail address: sungwon@mm.ewha.ac.kr

## II Static Uncharged Wormhole

The spacetime metric for static uncharged wormhole is given as

$$ds^2=e^{2\mathrm{\Lambda }(r)}dt^2+\frac{dr^2}{1b(r)/r}+r^2(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2),$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(r)`$ is the lapse function and $`b(r)`$ is the wormhole shape function. They are assumed to be dependent on $`r`$ only for static case.

The wave equation of the minimally coupled massless scalar field is given by

$$\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}_\mu (\sqrt{g}g^{\mu \nu }_\nu \mathrm{\Phi })=0.$$
(2)
In spherically symmetric space-time, the scalar field can be separated by variables,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{lm}=Y_{lm}(\theta ,\varphi )\frac{u_l(r,t)}{r},$$
(3)
where $`Y_{lm}(\theta ,\varphi )`$ is the spherical harmonics and $`l`$ is the quantum angular momentum.

If $`l=0`$ and the scalar field $`\mathrm{\Phi }(r)`$ depends on $`r`$ only, the wave equation simply becomes the following relation:

$$e^\mathrm{\Lambda }\sqrt{1\frac{b}{r}}r^2\frac{}{r}\mathrm{\Phi }=A=\text{const.}$$
(4)
In this relation, the back reaction of the scalar wave on the wormhole geometry is neglected. Thus the static scalar wave without propagation is easily found as the integral form of

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=Ae^\mathrm{\Lambda }r^2\left(1\frac{b}{r}\right)^{1/2}𝑑r.$$
(5)
The scalar wave solution was already given to us for the special case of wormhole in Ref. .

More generally, if the scalar field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ depends on $`r`$ and $`t`$, the wave equation after the separation of variables $`(\theta ,\varphi )`$ becomes

$$\ddot{u}_l+\frac{^2u_l}{r_{}^2}=V_lu_l,$$
(6)
where the potential is

$`V_l(r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{L^2}{r^2}}e^{2\mathrm{\Lambda }}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}e^\mathrm{\Lambda }\sqrt{1{\displaystyle \frac{b}{r}}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{r}}\left(e^\mathrm{\Lambda }\sqrt{1{\displaystyle \frac{b}{r}}}\right)`$ (7)
$`=`$ $`e^{2\mathrm{\Lambda }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{l(l+1)}{r^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{b^{}rb}{2r^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{b}{r}}\right)\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}\right)`$ (8)
and the proper distance $`r_{}`$ has the following relation to $`r`$:

$$\frac{}{r_{}}=e^\mathrm{\Lambda }\sqrt{1\frac{b}{r}}\frac{}{r}.$$
(9)
Here, $`L^2=l(l+1)`$ is the square of the angular momentum.

The properties of the potential are determined by the shape of it, if only the explicit forms of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`b`$ are given. If the time dependence of the wave is harmonic as $`u_l(r,t)=\widehat{u}_l(r,\omega )e^{i\omega t}`$, the equation becomes

$$\left(\frac{d^2}{dr_{}^2}+\omega ^2V_l(r)\right)\widehat{u}_l(r,\omega )=0.$$
(10)
It is just the Schrödinger equation with energy $`\omega ^2`$ and potential $`V_l(r)`$. When $`e^{2\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ is finite, $`V_l`$ approaches zero as $`r\mathrm{}`$, which means that the solution has the form of the plane wave $`\widehat{u}_le^{\pm i\omega r_{}}`$ asymptotically. The result shows that if a scalar wave passes through the wormhole the solution is changed from $`e^{\pm i\omega r}`$ into $`e^{\pm i\omega r_{}}`$, which means that the potential affects the wave and experience the scattering. As $`rb`$(near throat), the potential has the finite value of $`V_le^{2\mathrm{\Lambda }(b)}\frac{l(l+1)+1/2}{b^2}`$.

As the simplest example for this problem, we consider the special case $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }=0,b=b_0^2/r)`$ as usual, the potential should be in terms of $`r`$ or $`r_{}`$ as

$$V_l=\frac{l(l+1)}{r^2}+\frac{b_0^2}{r^4}\stackrel{\text{or}}{=}\frac{l(l+1)}{r_{}^2+b_0^2}+\frac{b_0^2}{(r_{}^2+b_0^2)^2},$$
(11)
where the proper distance $`r_{}`$ is given by

$$r_{}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1b_0^2/r^2}}𝑑r=\sqrt{r^2b_0^2}.$$
(12)
This is the hyperbolic relation between $`r_{}`$ and $`r`$ which is plotted in Fig. 4. The potentials are depicted in Fig. 1. The potential has the maximum value as

$$V_l(r)|_{\mathrm{max}}=V_l(r_{})|_{\mathrm{max}}=V_l(b_0)=\frac{l(l+1)+1}{b_0^2}.$$
(13)
Now we can see the characteristics of the potential Eq. (11) in the specified limits. When $`l=0`$, the potential and its asymptotic value are

$$V_l(r_{})=\frac{b_0^2}{(r_{}^2+b_0^2)^2}\stackrel{r_{}\mathrm{}}{}\frac{b_0^2}{r_{}^4}.$$
(14)
When $`l1`$, the potential and its asymptotic value are

$$V_l(r_{})\frac{l^2}{r_{}^2+b_0^2}\stackrel{r_{}\mathrm{}}{}\frac{l^2}{r_{}^2}.$$
(15)
As $`r_{}\mathrm{}(r_{}^2b_0^2)`$ independently of the value of $`l`$, the potential has the asymptotic value as

$$V_l\frac{l(l+1)}{r_{}^2}\frac{[l(l+1)1]b_0^2}{r_{}^4}.$$
(16)
From the potential Eq. (11), the transmission coefficient can be calculated by WKB approximation as

$$|T|_{(l\omega )}^2=\mathrm{exp}\left(2_a_{}^{a_+}\left(\frac{l(l+1)}{r_{}^2+b_0^2}+\frac{b_0^2}{(r_{}^2+b_0^2)^2}\omega ^2\right)^{1/2}𝑑r_{}\right),$$
(17)
where the upper and lower integration limits $`a_+`$ and $`a_{}`$ are

$$a_\pm =\pm \left(b_0^2+\frac{l(l+1)}{2\omega ^2}+\frac{\sqrt{l^2(l+1)^2+4b_0^2\omega ^2}}{2\omega ^2}\right)^{1/2}.$$
(18)
The transmission coefficient means the probability that the scalar wave can pass through the throat of the wormhole, even though it does not have enough energy to overcome the potential. A few transmission coefficients are depicted in Fig. 2.

For large $`l`$, it becomes

$$|T|^2\left(\frac{\sqrt{l^2+\omega ^2b_0^2}l}{\sqrt{l^2+\omega ^2b_0^2}+l}\right)^{2l}.$$
(19)
When $`l=0`$, it is exactly given as

$$|T|^2=e^{A(\omega )},$$
(20)
where

$`A(\omega )`$ (21)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{b_0^2\pi }{\omega ^2}}({\displaystyle \frac{2}{b_0}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\frac{\omega }{b_0})^{1/2}\sqrt{2\pi }{}_{3}{}^{}F_{2}^{}[\{\frac{1}{4},\frac{1}{4},\frac{3}{4}\},\{\frac{1}{2},\frac{5}{4}\};b_0^2\omega ^2]}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{1}{4})\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{5}{4})}}`$ (22)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{(\frac{\omega }{b_0})^{3/2}b_0^2\sqrt{2\pi }{}_{3}{}^{}F_{2}^{}[\{\frac{1}{4},\frac{3}{4},\frac{5}{4}\},\{\frac{3}{2},\frac{7}{4}\};b_0^2\omega ^2]}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{1}{4})\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{7}{4})}}).`$ (23)
Here $`{}_{p}{}^{}F_{q}^{}(\{a_1,\mathrm{},a_p\},\{b_1,\mathrm{},b_q\};z)`$ is the generalized hypergeometric function.

For more deep understanding on scattering problem, we should find the differential cross section. Since we discuss the low frequency case similar to the black hole case, we approach the problem with the different definition of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ by using $`R(r,t)`$ instead of $`u_l(r,t)/r`$ unlike Eq. (3) as

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=R(r,t)Y(\theta ,\varphi ).$$
(24)
The equation, in terms of $`R`$, becomes

$`e^{2\mathrm{\Lambda }}r^2\ddot{R}+e^\mathrm{\Lambda }\sqrt{1{\displaystyle \frac{b}{r}}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{r}}\left(e^\mathrm{\Lambda }\sqrt{1{\displaystyle \frac{b}{r}}}r^2{\displaystyle \frac{}{r}}R\right)`$ (25)
$`=l(l+1)R.`$ (26)
The equation can be rewritten as

$$\frac{d}{dr}\mathrm{\Delta }\frac{dR}{dr}+\left(\frac{(r^2\omega ^2)^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }}l(l+1)\frac{e^\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\sqrt{1b/r}}\right)R=0,$$
(27)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }=e^\mathrm{\Lambda }\sqrt{1\frac{b}{r}}r^2`$. If we set $`R=\mathrm{\Delta }^{1/2}u`$, the first term of the equation Eq. (27) should be

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dr}}\mathrm{\Delta }{\displaystyle \frac{dR}{dr}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{1/2}\{{\displaystyle \frac{d^2u}{dr^2}}+({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Delta }}{dr}}\right)^2`$ (29)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\mathrm{\Delta }}{dr^2}})u\}.`$
Thus the equation Eq. (27) becomes as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2u}{dr^2}}`$ $`+`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{(r^2\omega ^2)^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}l(l+1){\displaystyle \frac{e^\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\sqrt{1b/r}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Delta }}{dr}}\right)^2`$ (31)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\mathrm{\Delta }}{dr^2}}){\displaystyle \frac{u}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}=0.`$
For example, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0,b=b_0^2/r`$ like the potential problem, then $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ should be

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=\sqrt{r^4b_0^2r^2}.$$
(32)
The equation Eq. (31) is expanded in power of $`r`$ as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2u}{dr^2}}`$ $`+`$ $`(\omega ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\omega ^2b_0^2l(l+1)}{r^2}}+b_0^2{\displaystyle \frac{\omega ^2b_0^2+\frac{1}{2}l(l+1)}{r^4}}`$ (34)
$`+O(r^6))u0.`$
As $`r\mathrm{}`$ neglecting the terms $`O(r^4)`$, the equation becomes

$$\frac{d^2u}{dr^2}+\left(\omega ^2+\frac{\omega ^2b_0^2}{r^2}\frac{l(l+1)}{r^2}\right)u0.$$
(35)
When the frequency is enough low for being as $`\omega ^2b_0^2<l(l+1)`$, the scattering is elastic and the solution to the equation is

$$u_{l\omega }=rj_\lambda (\omega r).$$
(36)
Here $`\lambda (\lambda +1)=l(l+1)\omega ^2b_0^2`$ or $`\lambda =\frac{1}{2}+\sqrt{(l+\frac{1}{2})^2\omega ^2b_0^2}`$ and $`j_\lambda (r)`$ is the spherical Bessel function. The turning point is

$$r_{\mathrm{TP}}=\sqrt{\frac{l(l+1)}{\omega ^2}b_0^2}.$$
(37)
When $`\omega ^2b_0^2l(l+1)`$, there is a total absorption and no turning point. Since the solution Eq. (36) asymptotically becomes

$$u_{l\omega }\frac{1}{\omega }\mathrm{sin}(\omega r\frac{\pi }{2}\lambda ),$$
(38)
the phase shift of the wave function by the potential is

$$\delta _l=\frac{\pi }{2}\left(\sqrt{(l+\frac{1}{2})^2\omega ^2b_0^2}\left(l+\frac{1}{2}\right)\right).$$
(39)
The phase shift $`\delta _l`$ is obviously positive, which means that the potential is attractive. The scattering amplitude in partial wave expansion is

$$f(\theta )=\frac{1}{\omega }\underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(2l+1)P_l(\mathrm{cos}\theta )e^{i\delta _l}\mathrm{sin}\delta _l.$$
(40)
If $`\omega ^2b_0^2`$ and $`\delta _l`$ are very small, the scattering amplitude is given by

$`f(\theta )`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega }}{\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(2l+1)P_l(\mathrm{cos}\theta )\delta _l`$ (41)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi \omega b_0^2}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}P_l(\mathrm{cos}\theta )`$ (42)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi \omega b_0^2}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}\frac{\theta }{2}}}.`$ (43)
The relation

$$\delta _l\frac{\pi \omega ^2b_0^2}{2(2l+1)}$$
(44)
is used for the second line. The equation (44) is derived from Eq. (39) by using the fact that $`\omega ^2b_o^21`$. Therefore, the differential cross section is

$$\frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }}=|f(\theta )|^2=\frac{\pi ^2\omega ^2b_0^4}{16\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{\theta }{2}}.$$
(45)
In the case of very low frequency, $`\frac{l}{b_0\omega }\mathrm{}`$ neglecting $`b_0\omega `$ term, the equation Eq. (35) becomes

$$\frac{d^2u}{dr^2}+\left(\omega ^2\frac{l(l+1)}{r^2}\right)u0,$$
(46)
which means no scattering, since any term is not appeared except energy $`\omega ^2`$ and centrifugal term. However, it is Coulomb scattering for black hole, since there is the term $`r^1`$. The solution to the equation for black hole is

$$u=j_l(\omega r).$$
(47)
If we remain the term $`r^4`$ with low frequency approximation in Eq. (34), then

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2u}{dr^2}}`$ $`+`$ $`\left(\omega ^2{\displaystyle \frac{l(l+1)}{r^2}}+b_0^2{\displaystyle \frac{1/2l(l+1)}{r^4}}\right)u`$ (49)
$`0`$
The equation can be solved as the problem with an $`r^4`$ potential. In this case, the cross section is given in most text books on quantum mechanics. In WKB approximation, the wave function has the asymptotic form of

$$u_lD\mathrm{sin}\left(_{r_0}^r\sqrt{\omega ^2U\frac{(l+1/2)^2}{r^2}}𝑑r+\frac{\pi }{4}\right),$$
(50)
where

$$U(r)=\frac{b_0^2[l(l+1)1/2]}{r^4}.$$
(51)
The phase shift in this wave function should be

$`\delta _l`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{R\mathrm{}}{lim}({\displaystyle _a^R}\sqrt{\omega ^2U{\displaystyle \frac{(l+1/2)^2}{r^2}}}dr`$ (53)
$`{\displaystyle _{a_0}^R}\sqrt{\omega ^2{\displaystyle \frac{(l+1/2)^2}{r^2}}}dr)`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _{l/\omega }^{\mathrm{}}}U(r)\left(\omega ^2{\displaystyle \frac{l^2}{r^2}}\right)^{1/2}={\displaystyle \frac{b_0^2\omega \pi }{4l}},`$ (54)
where $`U`$ is assumed to be very small in asymptotic region comparing to the two terms in the square root, even though $`l`$ is defined as the large value. Here, the phase shift is negative and it is natural by the repulsive potential Eq. (51). With this phase shift, the differential cross section should be

$$\frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }}\frac{b_0^4\pi ^2}{16\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{\theta }{2}}.$$
(55)
This is restrictedly calculated in the limit of large angular momentum and small $`U`$. As we see, it is independent of $`\omega `$ and the $`\theta `$-dependence is the same as that of the $`r^2`$ potential case, Eq. (45).

## III Charged Wormhole

The electrically charged wormhole is given by

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{r^2}}\right)dt^2+\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{b(r)}{r}}+{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{r^2}}\right)^1dr^2`$ (57)
$`+r^2(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2).`$
When $`Q=0`$, this becomes the Morris-Thorne type wormhole spacetime and when $`b=0`$, this becomes the Reissner-Nordström black hole with zero mass. If we replace $`b\frac{Q^2}{r}`$ by $`b_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ as

$$bb_{\mathrm{eff}}=b\frac{Q^2}{r},$$
(58)
it self-consistently satisfies the field equations for the wormhole without $`Q`$. When $`b=b_0^{\frac{2\beta }{2\beta +1}}r^{\frac{1}{2\beta +1}}`$, the radius which limits the range of the wormhole becomes

$$r_0=Q^{\frac{2\beta +1}{\beta +1}}b_0^{\frac{\beta }{2\beta +1}}.$$
(59)
For the special case of $`\beta =1`$ or $`b=b_0^2/r`$, $`Q^2<b_0^2`$ is the condition that is required for maintaining the wormhole under the addition of the charge.

The metric for the charged case with scalar field is also given by

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`dt^2+\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{b(r)}{r}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{r^2}}\right)^1dr^2`$ (61)
$`+r^2(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2).`$
The substitution $`bb_{\mathrm{eff}}=b\frac{\alpha }{r}`$ does not change the equation like the electrically charged case and $`\alpha <b_0^2`$ is also the condition for being safe under the addition of scalar charge.

To see the scalar wave in the charged wormhole, we first analyze the properties of the potential. In this case, only the following substitutions will be enough for the study:

$$e^{2\mathrm{\Lambda }}=\left(1+\frac{Q^2}{r^2}\right)\text{and}bb_{\mathrm{eff}}=b\frac{Q^2}{r}$$
(62)
For the special case of $`b=\frac{b_0^2}{r}`$, the proper length will be very complicated form as

$`r_{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{e^\mathrm{\Lambda }\sqrt{1b_{\mathrm{eff}}/r}}}={\displaystyle \frac{r^2dr}{\sqrt{(r^2+Q^2)(r^2+Q^2b_0^2)}}}`$ (63)
$`=`$ $`\sqrt{Q^2b_0^2}E\left(\mathrm{sin}^1{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{b_0^2r^2Q^2}}{b_0}}|{\displaystyle \frac{b_0^2}{b_0^2Q^2}}\right),`$ (64)
where $`E(\alpha |\beta )`$ is the Elliptic integral of the second kind defined by

$$E(\alpha \beta )=_0^\alpha \sqrt{1\beta \mathrm{sin}^2\theta }𝑑\theta .$$
(65)
With the substitution Eq. (62), the potential will be

$`V_l(r)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{r^2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{l(l+1)}{r^2}}+\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{2Q^2}{r^2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^4}}(b_0^2Q^2)`$ (67)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{r^4}}>0.`$
If we examine the proper length $`r_{}`$ and potential $`V_l`$ for the limit of infinite distance ($`r\mathrm{}`$) and near the throat of the wormhole($`r^2b_0^2Q^2`$), we can figure out the rough form of the potential. Since

$$\underset{r\mathrm{}}{lim}r_{}=\pm \mathrm{}\text{and}\underset{r^2b_0^2Q^2}{lim}r_{}=0,$$
(68)
the proper length has the similar form to the uncharged case. At the asymptotic region, the potential approach

$$\underset{r\mathrm{}}{lim}V(r),V(r_{})=0.$$
(69)
Since

$$\frac{dV}{dr_{}}=\frac{dV}{dr}\frac{dr}{dr_{}}=\frac{dV}{dr}\sqrt{\left(1+\frac{Q^2}{r^2}\right)\left(1\frac{b_0^2}{r^2}+\frac{Q^2}{r^2}\right)}$$
(70)
and $`\frac{dV}{dr_{}}=0`$ when $`\frac{dV}{dr}=0`$, the potential at the throat has a finite common maximum value as

$$\underset{rb_0^2Q^2}{lim}V(r),V(r_{})=V(r)|_{\mathrm{max}},V(r_{})|_{\mathrm{max}}.$$
(71)
The potential form is compared with the case of $`Q^2=0`$, so that

$`V_{\mathrm{max}}|_{Q^20}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{l(l+1)}{(b_0^2Q^2)}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{(b_0^2Q^2)}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{b_0^2}{(b_0^2Q^2)^2}}`$ (73)
$`>{\displaystyle \frac{l(l+1)}{b_0^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{b_0^2}}=V_{\mathrm{max}}|_{Q^2=0}.`$
As we see in Eq. (73), the charge effect contract the throat size of wormhole and it causes the maximum of the potential to be increased. Since the term in the bracket of the following equation is positive for $`l1`$ in general, the potentials of both cases are given as

$`V|_{Q^20}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{l(l+1)}{r^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{b_0^2}{r^4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{r^4}}\left(l(l+1)2+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{r^2}}(b_0^2Q^2)\right)`$ (75)
$`>V|_{Q^2=0}.`$
With these results, the potentials are plotted in Fig. 3 so that the potential for $`Q^20`$ is above the potential for $`Q^2=0`$. For the relation between $`r_{}`$ and $`r`$,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dr_{}}{dr}}|_{Q^20}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{r^2}}\right)^1\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{b_0^2}{r^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{r^2}}\right)^{1/2}`$ (77)
$`<\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{b_0^2}{r^2}}\right)^{1/2}={\displaystyle \frac{dr_{}}{dr}}|_{Q^2=0}`$
is plotted in Fig. 4. It is based on the relations of $`r_{}`$ and $`r`$, i.e., Eqs. (12) and (64) for charged and uncharged wormhole. At asymptotic region, $`lim_r\mathrm{}r_{}=\pm r`$ in both cases.

Since $`V_{Q^20}>V_{Q^2=0}`$ in the form of the potentials, the transmission coefficient is $`|T|_{Q^20}^2<|T|_{Q^2=0}^2`$, which seems that the scalar wave can transmit harder in charged wormhole than neutral uncharged wormhole.

As $`r\mathrm{}`$ neglecting the terms $`O(r^4)`$, the equation becomes as

$$\frac{d^2u}{dr^2}+\left(\omega ^2+\frac{\omega ^2(b_0^23Q^2)}{r^2}\frac{l(l+1)}{r^2}\right)u0.$$
(78)
Since the $`b_0^2`$ term is simply replaced by $`b_0^23Q^2`$, the scattering cross section should be

$$\frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }}=|f(\theta )|^2=\frac{\pi ^2\omega ^2(b_0^23Q^2)^2}{16\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{\theta }{2}}<\frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }}|_{Q^2=0}.$$
(79)
In case of wormhole with scalar field, because only $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ is considered as we see in Eq. (61), the term $`b_0^23Q^2`$ for electrically charged case is just $`b_0^2\alpha `$ for scalar field case, so that the cross section should be

$$\frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }}=\frac{\pi ^2\omega ^2(b_0^2\alpha )^2}{16\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{\theta }{2}}<\frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }}|_{\alpha =0}.$$
(80)
Of course, the interaction of the wave with the scalar field is neglected here. In both cases, cross sections are reduced by the charge effect.

## IV Discussion

Here we studied the scattering problem for the scalar wave in static uncharged and charged wormholes. The interactions of the scalar wave with the charge are neglected. If we consider them, the effect would make sense. The scattering cross sections are found and the charge effects are examined in this scattering problem. As further research, we will try other waves for various wormholes, such as the rotating wormhole and cosmological model with wormhole.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was supported by Korea Research Foundation Grant(KRF-2000-041-D00128).