text:
# On an Algebro-Geometric Discretization of KP Hierarchy

## 1. The Relation Between the Discretization and Algebro-Geometric Data

### 1.1. Description of the system

Acknowledgements: This paper is based on the author’s dissertation at U.C.L.A.. I am indebted to my advisor David Gieseker for his ideas, guidance and support

We assume that $`N`$ and $`M`$ are positive integers such that $`\mathrm{gcd}(N,M)=1`$.

Gieseker describes a family of lattice equations parameterized by $`(N,M)`$ in \[Gie1\]. These are two dimensional generalizations of the periodic Toda lattice equations and reduce to the latter when $`M=1`$ . The solutions of the KP equation coming from Riemann $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ functions can be approximated by solutions of the lattice equations, taking $`M=N^2+1`$ and $`N\mathrm{}`$.

Here, we are going to define the system in a roundabout way. Consider the following problem: We are looking for functions $`\mathrm{\Psi }(n,m,t)`$ where $`(n,m,t)/N\times /M\times `$ that are almost periodic in the two space directions of the lattice, i.e.:

(1.1)
$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill \mathrm{\Psi }(n+N,m)=\alpha \mathrm{\Psi }(n,m)\\ \hfill \mathrm{\Psi }(n,m+M)=\beta \mathrm{\Psi }(n,m)\end{array}$$

where $`\alpha ,\beta `$ are independent of $`(n,m)`$. Moreover, we require that $`\mathrm{\Psi }(n,m+1)`$ (suppressing the time variable $`t`$) is expressible in terms of three of the $`\mathrm{\Psi }(k,m)`$, more specifically that $`\mathrm{\Psi }(n,m+1)`$ is of the form:

(1.2)
$$\mathrm{\Psi }(n,m+1)=\mathrm{\Psi }(n+1,m)A(n,m)\mathrm{\Psi }(n,m)B(n,m)\mathrm{\Psi }(n1,m)$$

where $`A(n,m)`$ and $`B(n,m)`$ are periodic in both space entries, with respective periods $`N`$ and $`M`$. Given such a set of $`A(n,m),B(n,m)`$ the presence of a nontrivial solution for $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ forces an algebraic relation between $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$. There exists a matrix $`W`$ such that the conditions above translate as $`\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{ker}(W)`$. To get this $`W`$, order $`\mathrm{\Psi }(n,m)`$ keeping the second index more significant than the first (i.e. use the order $`(\mathrm{\Psi }(1,1),\mathrm{\Psi }(2,1),\mathrm{}`$ $`\mathrm{\Psi }(N,1);\mathrm{\Psi }(1,2),\mathrm{})`$). $`W`$ then becomes an $`NM`$ by $`NM`$ matrix. We present it in block form with $`N`$ by $`N`$ blocks:

(1.3)
$$W=\left[\begin{array}{ccccc}\beta I_N(1)& 0_N& & 0_N& X(M)\\ X(1)& I_N(2)& 0_N& & 0_N\\ 0_N& X(2)& I_N(3)& 0_N& \\ & & & & \\ & \mathrm{}& & \mathrm{}& \\ & & & & \\ 0_N& & 0_N& X(M1)& I_N(M)\end{array}\right]$$

$`W`$ is in block circulant form. It has two nonzero circulants. Block $`(1,1)`$ of $`W`$ is $`\beta I_N(1)`$, and for $`i1`$, block $`(i,i)`$ is $`I_N(i)`$. Block $`(i+1,i)`$ of $`W`$ is $`X(i)`$ for all $`i`$. (Here, regard $`i`$ in $`/M`$.) $`I_N(i)`$ and $`0_N`$ represent the $`N`$ by $`N`$ identity and zero matrices respectively. The sole purpose of indexing $`I_N`$’s is making references possible. $`X(m)`$ is:

(1.4)
$$X(m)=\left[\begin{array}{cccccc}A(1,m)& 1& 0& & 0& B(1,m)/\alpha \\ B(2,m)& A(2,m)& 1& 0& & 0\\ 0& B(3,m)& A(3,m)& 1& 0& \\ & & & & & \\ & \mathrm{}& & \mathrm{}& & \mathrm{}\\ & & & & & \\ \alpha & 0& & 0& B(N,m)& A(N,m)\end{array}\right]$$

$`X(m)`$ is a circulant matrix, this time with three nonzero circulants. The $`(i,i)`$ entry is $`A(i,m)`$, the $`(i,i1)`$ entry is $`B(i,m)`$ , and the $`(i,i+1)`$ entry is $`1`$ for all $`i`$ (Here regard $`i`$ in $`/N`$).

We label entries of $`W`$ with two pairs of numbers. Entry $`((n,m),(k,l))`$, where $`1n,kN`$ and $`1m,lM`$, means the entry $`(n,k)`$ of block $`(m,l)`$ of $`W`$. For instance $`W((n,m),(n,m1))`$ is $`A(n,m1)`$, whereas $`W((n,m),(n1,m1))`$ is $`B(n,m1)`$.

In order for $`W\mathrm{\Psi }=0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ be nontrivial, $`det(W)`$ should be 0. Given a set of $`A(n,m),B(n,m)`$, this is the defining equation of a plane algebraic curve in the variables $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$. We look at a generic element of this family of curves. Such a curve has a certain definite behaviour at the loci $`\beta =0,\beta =\mathrm{},\alpha =0`$ and $`\alpha =\mathrm{}`$ which we will see in a moment. Normalize $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Psi }(0,0)=1`$. Then, apart from finitely many points of the curve $`det(W)=0`$, $`\mathrm{\Psi }(n,m)`$ is a rational function in $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$. We realize each $`\mathrm{\Psi }(n,m)`$ as sections of certain line bundles on the normalization $`𝒳`$ of the curve. Under this connection, the line bundle corresponding to $`\mathrm{\Psi }(0,0)`$ turns out to be of degree $`g=`$genus of the curve. We view this line bundle, $``$, as a point of the lifted Jacobian parameterizing line bundles of degree $`g`$ on $`𝒳`$.

The interesting thing about this correspondence is that it is possible to move the $`A`$’s and $`B`$’s in certain ways keeping the curve fixed. This can be seen simply by counting dimensions on either side. On the other hand, under the correspondence, these degrees of freedom precisely correspond to moving $``$ in the Jacobian. From a given curve and a line bundle one can retrieve $`A`$’s and $`B`$’s.

The discrete KP hierarchy is the set of flows corresponding to moving $``$ in linear directions on the Jacobian. Since the curve is fixed for these flows, one can immediately deduce that there are many conserved quantities: the coefficients of the curve equation. Since the flows on the Jacobian are linear, the discrete KP flows have to commute. This is a completely integrable system. For a discussion of these matters, see \[Gie1\].

### 1.2. The correspondence

We now look at the implications of $`det(W)=0`$. We are going to derive most of our results from information about monomials $`f_{i,j}(A,B)\alpha ^i\beta ^j`$ that appear in $`det(W)`$. First of all, we state the correspondence between the algebro-geometric data and the discrete KP data. $`𝒳`$ denotes the normalization of the curve $`detW=0`$.

###### Theorem 1.1.

There is a natural correspondence between the following sets of data:

1) A generic smooth curve $`𝒳`$ of genus $`g`$ which possesses points $`P,Q`$ such that $`N(PQ)=\mathrm{div}(\alpha )`$, an additional list of points $`R_i,S_i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},M`$ so that $`M(P+Q)(R_i+S_i)=\mathrm{div}(\beta )`$, where $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$ are meromorphic functions on $`𝒳`$; and a line bundle $``$ of degree $`g`$ on $`𝒳`$ such that

(1.5)
$$H^0(X,((n+m1)P+(mn)Q\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}(R_i+S_i))=0$$

for all $`(n,m)`$.

2) Generic functions $`A(n,m),B(n,m)`$, periodic in the two space directions with periods $`N`$ and $`M`$.

The relation between $`g`$, $`N`$ and $`M`$ is $`g=(N1)M`$. The $`\mathrm{\Psi }(n,m)`$ obtained from $`W\mathrm{\Psi }=0`$, if properly normalized, are holomorphic sections of the line bundles $`((n+m)P+(mn)Q_{i=1}^m(R_i+S_i))`$.

The construction of (2) from (1), and hence the introduction of this correspondence is the subject of \[Gie1\]. It will be described here later. \[Gr\] studies the reverse construction as well, from the point of view of deformation theory. Our approach is more combinatorial, more in the spirit of \[vM-M\].

The equation of the plane curve is $`det(W)=0`$. We want to analyze the behaviour of this curve when $`\beta `$ or $`\alpha `$ tend to $`\mathrm{}`$. We make some linguistic conventions: A “monomial” will mean a full multiplicative expression involving $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$, $`A`$, $`B`$. We distinguish one specific piece of a given monomial: the “coefficient” of the monomial is the piece formed by $`A`$’s and $`B`$’s, in accordance with our treatment of $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$ as variables.

Expand the determinant using all permutations of $`n`$ letters. A monomial is said to “appear” in the expansion of $`det(W)`$ if there exists a permutation $`\pi `$ of $`NM`$ letters so that the product associated to $`\pi `$ in the expansion of $`det(W)`$ is a nonzero multiple of this monomial.

###### Lemma 1.1.

A monomial appearing in the expansion of $`det(W)`$ with a nonconstant coefficient cannot cancel another monomial with the same properties in the evaluation of $`det(W)`$.

Proof: It will be sufficient to prove that a monomial with these properties cannot be associated to more than one permutation. Suppose that $`\pi `$ is one permutation that such a monomial $`𝐦`$ is associated to. Remove the rows and columns of $`W`$ that the $`A`$’s and $`B`$’s in $`𝐦`$ are on. We obtain a certain minor $`H`$ of $`W`$. Assign all other $`A`$,$`B`$’s the value 0, and call the new matrix $`H_0`$. Clearly, $`H_0`$ has at most two nonzero elements in each row or column. Suppose that there is more than one permutation on $`H_0`$ that picks no zero entries. Then, there exists a row where these two permutations differ, hence collectively they pick both nonzero entries of that row. It follows that they also have to pick different entries on the columns of these entries, and so on. The complete set of entries picked by one permutation but not the other form at least one closed loop that can be traversed by changing either the row or column but not both at one move. But this is impossible. Indeed, without loss of generality suppose that the diagonal entry $`((b,a),(b,a))`$ belongs in such a loop. Then, the only other nonzero entry of $`W`$ in this column, $`((b1,a+1),(b,a))`$ should also belong in the loop. Going one step further, the only other nonzero entry in this new row, $`((b1,a+1),(b1,a+1))`$ should belong in the loop. Continued, this list contains $`((bk,a+k),(bk,a+k))`$ for all $`k`$, which exhausts the diagonal of $`W`$ before coming back to the initial point since $`\mathrm{gcd}(N,M)=1`$. Therefore $`H=W`$, which is contradictory to the assumption that $`\pi `$ picks at least one $`A`$ or $`B`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

The lemma says that the list of $`A`$,$`B`$’s in $`𝐦`$ determines the associated permutation $`\pi `$ uniquely, if such a permutation exists.

###### Definition 1.1.

We assign degrees $`d`$ to multiplicative expressions in $`\alpha ,\beta ,A,B`$ as follows:

(1.6)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill (i)& d(\alpha )=N\hfill \\ \hfill (ii)& d(\beta )=M\hfill \\ \hfill (iii)& d(A)=1\hfill \\ \hfill (iv)& d(B)=2\hfill \\ \hfill (v)& d(c)=0,c\hfill \end{array}$$

and the degree of a product is the sum of the degrees.

The following lemma suggests that this degree assignment is natural:

###### Lemma 1.2.

If $`𝐦`$ is a nonzero monomial appearing in $`det(W)`$, then $`d(𝐦)=NM`$.

Proof: According to the definition, $`d((n,1),(n,1))=M`$, and $`d((n,m),(n,m))=0`$ for $`m1`$. Observe that, for nonzero entries of an $`X(i)`$:

(1.7)
$$d((n_1,m),(n_2,m1))=n_1n_2+1$$

Suppose that $`𝐦`$ is associated to the permutation $`\pi `$. Also, suppose that the number of $`\beta `$’s that $`\pi `$ picks is $`k`$. Let $`S_1`$ be the multiset (i.e., a collection of elements, where elements may be listed more than once) of $`n_1`$ such that $`\pi ((n_1,m))=(n_2,m1)`$ for some value of $`m`$ and for some $`n_2`$. Let $`S_2`$ be the multiset of $`n_2`$’s that appear on the right hand side of such an equation for some $`n_1`$. If there are $`t`$ copies of $`n_1`$ in $`S_1`$, then $`\pi (n_1,m)=(n_2,m1)`$ for $`t`$ values of $`m`$. But for the remaining $`Nt`$ values of $`m`$, the only possibility that remains is $`\pi (n_1,m)=(n_1,m)`$. Now, this implies that $`n_1`$ appears on the right hand sides of $`Nt`$ equations of the latter form, but then $`n_1`$ satisfies an equation of the form $`\pi ((k,m+1))=(n_1,m)`$ for precisely the remaining $`t`$ values of $`m`$. This implies:

(1.8)
$$S_1=S_2$$

Using this and the previous degree calculations:

(1.9)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill d(𝐦)& =\underset{n_1S_1}{}n_1\underset{n_2S_2}{}n_2+M(Nk)+Mk\hfill \\ & =NM\hfill \end{array}$$

$`\mathrm{}`$

###### Lemma 1.3.

A monomial of the form $`f(A,B)\alpha ^k\beta ^j`$ appears in $`det(W)`$ if and only if a monomial of the form $`g(A,B)\alpha ^k\beta ^j`$ also does.

Proof: Suppose that $`f(A,B)\alpha ^k\beta ^j`$ is associated to the permutation $`\pi `$. By Lemma 1.1 we know that no combination of monomials in the expansion cancel. Thus it suffices to display a permutation that produces a monomial of the form $`g(A,B)\alpha ^k\beta ^j`$. We claim that there exists a unique permutation $`\pi ^{^{}}`$ subject to the following two conditions: $`\pi ^{^{}}`$ picks the entry $`((n,m),(n,m))`$ of $`W`$ iff $`\pi `$ picks the entry $`((n,Mm+1),(n,Mm+1))`$, and $`\pi ^{^{}}`$ picks $`((k,m+1),(l,m))`$ iff $`\pi ^{^{}}`$ picks $`((l,Mm+1),(k,Mm))`$. It is elementary to verify that $`\pi ^{^{}}`$ is a permutation that doesn’t pick any zeroes. Furthermore, $`\pi `$ and $`\pi ^{^{}}`$ pick an equal number of elements from each diagonal block, in particular an equal number of $`\beta `$’s. $`\pi ^{^{}}`$ picks $`\alpha ^j`$ from block $`(m+1,m)`$ iff $`\pi `$ picks $`\alpha ^j`$ from block $`(Mm+1,Mm)`$. Thus $`\pi ^{^{}}`$ produces a monomial of the form $`g(A,B)\alpha ^k\beta ^j`$ $`\mathrm{}`$

Notice that, by Lemma 1.2, if a monomial is of the form $`f(A,B)\alpha ^k\beta ^l`$, then $`f(A,B)`$ is of degree $`NMkNlM`$. For another pair of exponents $`(k^{^{}},l^{^{}})`$, suppose $`NMkNlM=NMk^{^{}}Nl^{^{}}M`$. Then $`(kk^{^{}})N=(l^{^{}}l)M`$. Since $`\mathrm{gcd}(N,M)=1`$, this implies $`N|(l^{^{}}l)`$. But $`0l,l^{^{}}N`$. Thus either $`l=l^{^{}}`$, in which case $`k=k^{^{}}`$, or $`l^{^{}}=N`$ and $`l=0`$. But if a permutation picks $`N`$ $`\beta `$’s, it has to be the identity permutation. Thus $`k^{^{}}=0`$ and so $`k=M`$. We conclude that except for the terms $`\alpha ^0\beta ^N`$ and $`\alpha ^M\beta ^0`$ which have constant coefficients, the degree of $`f(A,B)`$ determines $`(k,l)`$.

The following Corollary follows from Lemma’s 1.2 and 1.3.

###### Corollary 1.1.

A monomial with a coefficient of degree $`d`$ cannot appear in $`det(W)`$ unless $`d`$ is among the following list of numbers:

(1.10)
$$\begin{array}{cc}& 0\hfill \\ & N,NM,\mathrm{}\hfill \\ & 2N,2NM,2N2M,\mathrm{}\hfill \\ & \mathrm{}\hfill \\ & NM,NMM,NM2M,NM3M,\mathrm{},M,0\hfill \\ & \mathrm{}\hfill \\ & 2NM2N,2NM2NM,2NM2N2M,\mathrm{}\hfill \\ & 2NMN,2NMNM,\mathrm{}\hfill \\ & 2NM\hfill \end{array}$$

For $`1kM+1`$, row $`k`$ of this list contains the numbers $`(k1)NiM`$ for $`0i\frac{(k1)N}{M}`$ which are all nonnegative. Row $`M+1+k`$ contains $`(M+k)NiM`$ for $`0i\frac{(k1)N}{M}`$, i.e. it has the same number of entries as row $`M+1k`$.

Notice that the numbers in $`(\text{1.10})`$ are situated symmetrically across the middle row. We make a definition:

###### Definition 1.2.

Define $`i(k)`$ to be the number symmetric to $`k`$ across the middle row in the list $`(\text{1.10})`$.

Notice that $`i(k)k`$ mod $`2`$, since by definition $`i(k)k`$ is $`2lN`$ where $`l`$ is the distance between $`k`$ and the middle row.

$`(\text{1.10})`$ shows the degrees of coefficients of the monomials. The corresponding $`\alpha ^i\beta ^j`$ are:

(1.11)
$$\begin{array}{cc}& \alpha ^M\hfill \\ & \alpha ^{M1},\alpha ^{M1}\beta ^1,\mathrm{}\hfill \\ & \alpha ^{M2},\alpha ^{M2}\beta ^1,\alpha ^{M2}\beta ^2,\mathrm{}\hfill \\ & \mathrm{}\hfill \\ & \alpha ^0,\alpha ^0\beta ^1,\alpha ^0\beta ^2,\alpha ^0\beta ^3,\mathrm{},\alpha ^0\beta ^{N1},\alpha ^0\beta ^N\hfill \\ & \mathrm{}\hfill \\ & \alpha ^{M+2},\alpha ^{M+2}\beta ^1,\alpha ^{M+2}\beta ^2,\mathrm{}\hfill \\ & \alpha ^{M+1},\alpha ^{M+1}\beta ^1,\mathrm{}\hfill \\ & \alpha ^M\hfill \end{array}$$

It turns out that each of these terms appear in $`det(W)`$ for generic $`A,B`$.

We inspect the curve $`det(W)=0`$ when $`\alpha `$ or $`\beta `$ tend to $`\mathrm{}`$. $`\alpha ^M`$ and $`\beta ^N`$ appear in $`det(W)`$ with nonzero constant coefficients. $`\alpha ^M`$ has coefficient $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{n,m}B(n,m)`$; we assume that $`B(n,m)0`$ for any $`(n,m)`$ so that this coefficient is not zero. If $`\alpha `$ is finite and nonzero, it is impossible for $`\beta \mathrm{}`$ on the curve, since the $`\beta ^N`$ term dominates the others. $`\beta =\mathrm{}`$ implies $`\alpha =\mathrm{}`$ or $`\alpha =0`$, so there are two points of the curve at $`\beta =\mathrm{}`$ . Call these points $`\overline{P}`$ and $`\overline{Q}`$ respectively. Similarly, if $`\beta `$ is finite it is impossible to have $`\alpha =0`$ or $`\alpha =\mathrm{}`$.

The next thing we wish to show is that the behaviour of $`det(W)=0`$ at $`\overline{P}`$ and $`\overline{Q}`$ is locally identical to the behaviour of $`\alpha ^M+\beta ^N=0`$ and $`\alpha ^M+\beta ^N=0`$ at these points respectively. More precisely, in the normalization $`𝒳`$ of $`det(W)=0`$, there is only one point above either of $`\overline{P}`$ and $`\overline{Q}`$ (these will be denoted by $`P`$ and $`Q`$). This will imply $`\mathrm{div}(\alpha )=N(PQ)`$, and $`\mathrm{div}_{\mathrm{}}(\beta )=M(P+Q)`$ where $`\alpha ,\beta `$ on $`𝒳`$ mean composition of $`\alpha ,\beta `$ on $`det(W)=0`$ and projection from $`𝒳`$ to $`det(W)=0`$.

To prove this claim, we present algorithms to blow the curve up at the points $`\overline{P}`$ and $`\overline{Q}`$. These two algorithms are almost identical, so we explain the procedure for $`\overline{Q}`$ only. Set $`\widehat{\beta }=\frac{1}{\beta }`$. So $`\overline{Q}`$ is the point $`\alpha =\widehat{\beta }=0`$. To make all exponents nonnegative, multiply the curve equation by $`\alpha ^M\widehat{\beta }^N`$. The terms in the curve equation are:

(1.12)
$$\begin{array}{cc}& \alpha ^{2M}\widehat{\beta }^N\hfill \\ & \alpha ^{2M1}\widehat{\beta }^N,\alpha ^{2M1}\widehat{\beta }^{N1},\mathrm{}\hfill \\ & \alpha ^{2M2}\widehat{\beta }^N,\alpha ^{2M2}\widehat{\beta }^{N1},\alpha ^{2M2}\widehat{\beta }^{N2},\mathrm{}\hfill \\ & \mathrm{}\hfill \\ & \alpha ^M\widehat{\beta }^N,\alpha ^M\widehat{\beta }^{N1},\alpha ^M\widehat{\beta }^{N2},\alpha ^M\widehat{\beta }^{N3},\mathrm{},\alpha ^M\widehat{\beta }^1,\overline{)\alpha ^M}\hfill \\ & \mathrm{}\hfill \\ & \alpha ^2\widehat{\beta }^N,\alpha ^2\widehat{\beta }^{N1},\alpha ^2\widehat{\beta }^{N2},\mathrm{}\hfill \\ & \alpha ^1\widehat{\beta }^N,\alpha ^1\widehat{\beta }^{N1},\mathrm{}\hfill \\ & \overline{)\widehat{\beta }^N}\hfill \end{array}$$

This curve is singular at $`\overline{Q}`$ iff both $`M`$ and $`N`$ are greater than 1. If there is no singularity, there is nothing to prove. So suppose that the curve is singular at $`\overline{Q}`$. We blow the curve up at $`\overline{Q}`$, set $`v=\frac{\alpha }{\widehat{\beta }}`$ or $`v=\frac{\widehat{\beta }}{\alpha }`$ depending on whether $`N>M`$ or $`M>N`$ in the respective order. Without loss of generality, we assume that $`N>M`$. So we eliminate $`\alpha `$ from the equation. In the proper transform of the curve, the terms are:

(1.13)
$$\begin{array}{cc}& v^{2M}\widehat{\beta }^{N+M}\hfill \\ & v^{2M1}\widehat{\beta }^{N+M1},v^{2M1}\widehat{\beta }^{N+M2},\mathrm{}\hfill \\ & v^{2M2}\widehat{\beta }^{N+M2},v^{2M2}\widehat{\beta }^{N+M3},v^{2M2}\widehat{\beta }^{N+M4},\mathrm{}\hfill \\ & \mathrm{}\hfill \\ & v^M\widehat{\beta }^N,v^M\widehat{\beta }^{N1},v^M\widehat{\beta }^{N2},v^M\widehat{\beta }^{N3},\mathrm{},v^M\widehat{\beta }^1,\overline{)v^M}\hfill \\ & \mathrm{}\hfill \\ & v^2\widehat{\beta }^{NM+2},v^2\widehat{\beta }^{NM+1},v^2\widehat{\beta }^{NM},\mathrm{}\hfill \\ & v^1\widehat{\beta }^{NM+1},v^1\widehat{\beta }^{NM},\mathrm{}\hfill \\ & \overline{)\widehat{\beta }^{NM}}\hfill \end{array}$$

Every term except the two boxed terms contain both $`v`$ and $`\widehat{\beta }`$ with positive exponents (this will be proven below). Hence whether or not this blow-up is singular is completely determined by whether or not $`NM`$ or $`M`$ is 1. Since we assumed that $`M>1`$, it is determined by $`NM`$ only. If $`NM`$ is not $`1`$, we blow-up again by setting $`w=\frac{v}{\widehat{\beta }}`$ or $`w=\frac{\widehat{\beta }}{v}`$ depending on $`NM>M`$ or $`NM<M`$, and proceed like this until one of the two exponents in the boxed terms is one.

The following Lemma explains why we can go on, by establishing that the two boxes are the deciding terms in every step of the blowing up.

###### Lemma 1.4.

At any stage of the blow-up algorithm, all of the terms except the boxed terms (the term on the last row and the term on the rightmost column) contain both of the variables of that stage with positive exponents. Therefore whether or not there is a singularity is completely determined by the exponents of the boxed terms.

Proof: The proof uses a degree argument. Since we are using the local coordinate $`\widehat{\beta }`$ rather than $`\beta `$, we use a degree definition slightly different from $`d`$. Notice, by table $`(\text{1.10})`$ and $`(\text{1.12})`$, if we set $`\widehat{d}(\alpha )=N`$ and $`\widehat{d}(\widehat{\beta })=M`$, then the boxed terms have degree $`NM`$, and all the other terms have higher degrees. Whenever a new variable is introduced at some step of the algorithm, define its degree naturally as the difference of the degrees of the variables that it is a quotient of. Notice that all of these degrees are positive because the boxed terms have equal total degree, and the comparison of exponents ensures that the new variable is the quotient of the higher degree variable by the lower degree variable. Furthermore, notice that, with each proper transform, we are decreasing the degrees of all terms in the list by a fixed number. So the boxed terms always preserve their significance of being the only terms of lowest degree. Now suppose that the variables at some step are $`v`$ and $`w`$, boxed terms are $`v^k`$ and $`w^l`$ (so we should have $`k\widehat{d}(v)=l\widehat{d}(w)`$), and $`k>l`$. The new variable of the subsequent step is $`y=\frac{w}{v}`$ and we eliminate $`w`$ from the equation. Notice that $`w`$’s are replaced by $`y`$’s with the same exponent, so by induction they survive with a positive exponent away from the boxed terms. Contrary to the claim, suppose $`v^iw^j`$ is replaced by $`v^sy^j`$ where $`s0`$. But then $`i+jl=s0`$. Thus $`i+jl`$. Since $`\widehat{d}(v)<\widehat{d}(w)`$ this implies that $`\widehat{d}(v^iw^j)<\widehat{d}(w^l)`$. But this is a contradiction since $`w^l`$ has minimal degree among the terms. $`\mathrm{}`$

This lemma shows that we may keep blowing up until one of the exponents of the boxed terms becomes $`1`$. But then, suppose the sequence of variables gotten in the blowing ups is $`\alpha ,\widehat{\beta },v_1,v_2,\mathrm{},v_k`$. $`\widehat{\beta }=0`$ implies $`v_1=0`$, since in the curve equation at the relevant stage, all but one term contains $`\widehat{\beta }`$. Repeating this, we have $`v_2=0`$, $`v_3=0`$, …, $`v_k=0`$. But the last one is a nonsingular point, and $`v_k`$ has a simple zero there. Thus there is one point $`Q`$ over $`\overline{Q}`$ in the normalization. Tracing back from the last step, from the defining relations of each new variable, it is elementary to see that $`\alpha `$ has a zero of order $`N`$ and $`\widehat{\beta }`$ has a zero of order $`M`$ at $`Q`$. As we remarked, by a similar analysis at $`\overline{P}`$, there is one point $`P`$ above $`\overline{P}`$ in the normalization of the curve, $`\alpha `$ has a pole of order $`N`$, and $`\beta `$ has a pole of order $`M`$ at $`P`$.

Now, choose a local parameter $`z`$ at $`P`$. By the discussion above $`(\alpha ,\beta )=(z^N+\mathrm{},z^M+\mathrm{})`$, where the Laurent expansions are written starting from the lowest degree terms in $`z`$ . Similarly, at $`Q`$, again in a local parameter $`z`$, $`(\alpha ,\beta )=(z^N+\mathrm{},z^M+\mathrm{})`$. Here, again, the lowest degree terms in the expansion are shown.

We now know the behaviour of the curve at $`\beta =\mathrm{}`$. Notice that, when $`\beta =0`$, the curve is defined by the vanishing of a polynomial of degree $`2M`$ in $`\alpha `$. Thus there are $`2M`$ points (counted with multiplicity) at $`\beta =0`$. Call these points $`R_i,S_i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},M`$. We will describe why they are indexed like this later. It turns out that the $`2M`$ coefficients of the equation are algebraically independent, hence almost any set of $`2M`$ points can be gotten by an appropriate choice of $`A`$,$`B`$.

In order to calculate the genus, we project $`𝒳`$ to the $`\beta `$ axis, and use the Riemann-Hurwitz formula. The ramification index at $`\beta =\mathrm{}`$ is $`M1`$ at each of the two points, so the total is $`2(M1)`$. Let $`f(\alpha ,\beta )=\frac{d}{d\alpha }(\alpha ^Mdet(W))`$. Then the ramification points for finite $`\beta `$ values are the preimages of points of intersection of $`f=0`$ with $`det(W)=0`$. We need to calculate the degree of this divisor only. Since $`det(W)=0`$ is projective, this number is certainly equal to the intersection number of $`det(W)=0`$ and $`f=\mathrm{}`$. $`f`$ can be $`\mathrm{}`$ only if $`\alpha `$ or $`\beta `$ is $`\mathrm{}`$. The only points of $`det(W)=0`$ at this locus are $`\overline{P}`$ and $`\overline{Q}`$. Using the given local parameters, we inspect the behaviour of $`f`$ at these points. First of all, the terms that appear in $`f`$ are the $`\alpha `$ derivatives of the product of $`\alpha ^M`$ and the terms in figure $`(\text{1.11})`$, i.e.

(1.14)
$$\begin{array}{cc}& 2M\alpha ^{2M1}\hfill \\ & (2M1)\alpha ^{2M2},(2M1)\alpha ^{M2}\beta ^1,\mathrm{}\hfill \\ & (2M2)\alpha ^{2M3},(2M2)\alpha ^{2M3}\beta ^1,(2M2)\alpha ^{2M3}\beta ^2,\mathrm{}\hfill \\ & \mathrm{}\hfill \\ & M\alpha ^{M1},M\alpha ^{M1}\beta ^1,M\alpha ^{M1}\beta ^2,M\alpha ^{M1}\beta ^3,\mathrm{},M\alpha ^{M1}\beta ^{N1},M\alpha ^{M1}\beta ^N\hfill \\ & \mathrm{}\hfill \\ & 2\alpha ^1,2\alpha ^1\beta ^1,2\alpha ^1\beta ^2,\mathrm{}\hfill \\ & \alpha ^0,\alpha ^0\beta ^1,\mathrm{}\hfill \\ & 0\hfill \end{array}$$

Therefore at $`P`$, the only dominating terms are $`\alpha ^{2M1}`$ and $`\beta ^N\alpha ^{M1}`$, and in the local parameter $`z`$ both have Laurent expansions starting with $`z^{N(2M1)}`$. These two poles cannot cancel each other, because the $`\alpha ^{2M}`$ and $`\alpha ^M\beta ^N`$ terms cancel in $`det(W)`$, but different constants drop in front with $`\alpha `$ differentiation.

Similarly, at $`Q`$, the term $`\beta ^N\alpha ^{M1}`$ dominates by itself, using figure $`(\text{1.14})`$ again. Its local expansion is $`z^{NM+(M1)N}+\mathrm{}=z^N+\mathrm{}`$.

Therefore, the intersection number of $`f=\mathrm{}`$ and $`detW=0`$, which is the total ramification index of $`𝒳`$ at finite points, equals $`2MNN+N=2MN`$.

Now we want to show that the projection $`𝒳(\beta `$ axis) for a generic choice of $`A`$,$`B`$ does not have any other branch points. It is enough to show that generic $`𝒳`$ is nonsingular at finite points. We will prove that $`det(W)=0`$ is nonsingular at finite points for generic $`A,B`$. By upper semicontinuity theorem, it is sufficient to exhibit one such curve, and with no new singularities at $`\mathrm{}`$. Let $`\eta `$ be a primitive $`MN`$’th root of unity. Since $`\mathrm{gcd}(M,N)=1`$, $`(1,1)`$ generates the additive group $`/N\times /M`$. Therefore, each $`(a,a)`$ corresponds to a unique representative $`\overline{(a,a)}`$ on the toroidal grid for $`0a<MN`$. Let

(1.15)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill B(\overline{(a,a)})& =\eta ^a\hfill \\ \hfill A(n,m)& =0\hfill \end{array}$$

Then, first of all $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{n,m}B(n,m)=\eta ^s`$ for some $`s`$. Any coefficient in the curve equation containing an $`A`$ vanishes. Furthermore, suppose that the product $`𝐜_{(i_1,j_1),\mathrm{},(i_k,j_k)}=B(i_1,j_1)\mathrm{}B(i_k,j_k)`$ appears as a coefficient in some monomial. Since $`W`$ has toroidal symmetry, $`𝐜_{(i_1+1,j_1+1),\mathrm{},(i_k+1,j_k+1)}`$ also has to appear as part of the coefficient associated to the same $`\alpha ^i\beta ^j`$. Unless $`𝐜_{(i_1,j_1),\mathrm{},(i_k,j_k)}`$ is the product of all $`B`$’s, these two coefficients are different. When $`B`$’s assume the values in $`(\text{1.15})`$, the ratio of the second coefficient to the first is $`\eta ^k`$. But $`_{n=1}^{NM}\eta ^{kn}=0`$ for any $`k<NM`$. Thus the entire sum vanishes for such $`k`$. We deduce that the curve equation for this assignment of values is:

(1.16)
$$\alpha ^{2M}\pm \alpha ^M\beta ^N\pm \eta ^s=0$$

It easy to see that $`(\text{1.16})`$ has no singular points other than $`P`$ and $`Q`$ with the multiplicities described, so the claim is established.

Therefore, for the generic curve, the total branching is the calculated minimum, $`2NM+2M2`$, not more. By Riemann-Hurwitz formula,

(1.17)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill g& =\frac{2NM+2M2}{2}2M+1\hfill \\ & =(N1)M\hfill \end{array}$$

Next, we look at the solutions $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ of $`W\mathrm{\Psi }=0`$. By linear algebra, the components $`\mathrm{\Psi }(k,l)`$ of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ should obey

(1.18)
$$\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }(k,l)}{\mathrm{\Psi }(a,b)}=\frac{det(W^{(i,j),(k,l)})}{det(W^{(i,j),(a,b)})}$$

for any row $`(i,j)`$ (recall that we use a pair of indices to indicate a row or column). Here, $`W^{(i,j),(k,l)}`$ denotes the minor of $`W`$ obtained by removing row $`(i,j)`$ and column $`(k,l)`$.

Once and for all, we normalize $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Psi }(0,0)=1`$. Then $`\mathrm{\Psi }(k,l)`$ is a meromorphic function on $`𝒳\{P,Q\}`$ by $`(\text{1.18})`$. We first want to compare the behaviour of the $`\mathrm{\Psi }(k,l)`$’s at the $`\beta `$infinite points $`P`$ and $`Q`$ of $`𝒳`$. We look at $`\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }(k+1,l)}{\mathrm{\Psi }(k,l)}`$, and $`\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }(k,l+1)}{\mathrm{\Psi }(k,l)}`$. We make a careful choice of $`(i,j)`$ for these analyses: Use $`(i,j)=(k,l+1)`$ for both comparisons. Repeating the formula above, we have:

(1.19)
$$\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }(k+1,l)}{\mathrm{\Psi }(k,l)}=\frac{det(W^{(k,l+1),(k+1,l)})}{det(W^{(k,l+1),(k,l)})}$$

and

(1.20)
$$\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }(k,l+1)}{\mathrm{\Psi }(k,l)}=\frac{det(W^{(k,l+1),(k,l+1)})}{det(W^{(k,l+1),(k,l)})}$$

Although it is definitely difficult to find the determinants on the right hand side explicitly, it is much easier to determine their behaviour at $`P`$ and $`Q`$. Notice that the element $`((k,l+1),(k,l))`$ of $`W`$ is $`A(k,l)`$. This immediately implies that the expansion of $`det(W^{(k,l+1),(k,l)})`$ contains an $`\alpha ^a\beta ^b`$ term iff the total coefficient of $`\alpha ^a\beta ^b`$ in $`det(W)`$ contains $`A(k,l)`$. The coefficients in $`det(W)`$ are toroidally symmetric, therefore we may deduce that this happens iff the coefficient of $`\alpha ^a\beta ^b`$ contains any $`A`$. From this observation, one can easily make a list of the $`\alpha ^a\beta ^b`$ that appear in $`det(W^{(k,l+1),(k,l)})`$, but the following result will be enough for us:

###### Lemma 1.5.

In the expansion of $`det(W^{(k,l+1),(k,l)})`$, the terms $`\alpha ^M`$, $`\alpha ^M`$ and $`\beta ^N`$ are absent, the terms with coefficients of degree $`1`$ and degree $`i(1)`$ (see definition 1.2) are present.

Proof: The absence result is clear. The coefficients of $`\alpha ^M,\alpha ^M`$ or $`\beta ^N`$ never contain an $`A`$. For the presence result, note that $`1`$ and $`i(1)`$ are both odd numbers. Therefore a monomial consisting in only $`B`$’s, which evidently is of even degree, cannot give them. $`\mathrm{}`$

We make a similar analysis for $`det(W^{(k,l+1),(k,l+1)})`$. The element $`((k,l+1),(k,l+1))`$ of $`W`$ is a diagonal entry. Hence the terms that appear in this determinant are precisely those whose coefficients in the expansion of $`det(W)`$ contain a diagonal entry, and consequently contain a $`\beta `$. Unless the $`((k,l+1),(k,l+1))`$ term is itself $`\beta `$ (i.e. unless $`l=0`$) the complete list of terms in the expansion of $`det(W^{(k,l+1),(k,l+1)})`$ is:

(1.21)
$$\begin{array}{cc}& \alpha ^{M1}\beta ^1,\mathrm{}\hfill \\ & \alpha ^{M2}\beta ^1,\alpha ^{M2}\beta ^2,\mathrm{}\hfill \\ & \mathrm{}\hfill \\ & \alpha ^0\beta ^1,\alpha ^0\beta ^2,\alpha ^0\beta ^3,\mathrm{},\alpha ^0\beta ^{N1},\alpha ^0\beta ^N\hfill \\ & \mathrm{}\hfill \\ & \alpha ^{M+2}\beta ^1,\alpha ^{M+2}\beta ^2,\mathrm{}\hfill \\ & \alpha ^{M+1}\beta ^1,\mathrm{}\hfill \end{array}$$

The last determinant that we need to look at is $`det(W^{(k,l+1),(k+1,l)})`$. Similarly, look at terms whose coefficients in $`det(W)`$ contain $`((k,l+1),(k+1,l))`$. This is an off-diagonal $`1`$. Again, we are going to state what we need:

###### Lemma 1.6.

In the expansion of $`det(W^{(k,l+1),(k+1,l)})`$, the $`\alpha ^M`$ and degree $`i(1)`$ terms are absent, the $`\alpha ^M`$ and degree $`i(2)`$ terms are present.

Proof: The absence of the $`\alpha ^M`$ term and the presence of $`\alpha ^M`$ term are clear. By the symmetry of Lemma 1.3 , an off-diagonal $`1`$ appears in the degree $`i(1)`$ coefficient iff a $`B`$ appears in the degree $`1`$ coefficient. This is impossible since $`d(B)=2`$. Similarly, a $`1`$ appears in the $`i(2)`$ coefficient iff a $`B`$ appears in the degree $`2`$ coefficient. This always happens: Pick $`B(r,s)`$, and now set all other $`A,B=0`$ in $`W`$. Now there are two nonzero elements in every row and column except the ones that $`B(r,s)`$ belongs to. The only nonzero element left in column $`(r,s+1)`$ is $`((r1,s+2),(r,s+1))`$. Pick this. Continuing, pick all $`((rt,s+t+1),(rt+1,s+t))`$ until this sequence comes to $`((r2,s+1),(r1,s))`$. This point appears before $`((r,s+1),(r+1,s))`$ in the sequence because $`\mathrm{gcd}(N,M)=1`$. Pick all the diagonal elements for the remaining rows and columns. This gives a valid permutation of the type we want. $`\mathrm{}`$

By using Lemmas 1.5, 1.6 and figure $`(\text{1.21})`$, we can compare the behaviour of different $`\mathrm{\Psi }(k,l)`$ at $`P`$ and $`Q`$

###### Proposition 1.1.

$`\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }(k+1,l)}{\mathrm{\Psi }(k,l)}`$ has one pole at $`P`$ and one zero at $`Q`$.

Proof: At $`P`$, the dominating term of $`det(W^{(k,l+1),(k+1,l)})`$ is $`\alpha ^M`$. Expanded in the local parameter, this is $`z^{MN}+\mathrm{}`$. The dominating term of $`det(W^{(k,l+1),(k,l)})`$ is the degree $`1`$ term, and the local series is $`z^{MN+1}+\mathrm{}`$. Thus the claim about $`P`$ is established. At $`Q`$, the dominating terms have degree $`i(2)`$ and degree $`i(1)`$ coefficients respectively. Thus one gets $`z^{MN+2}+\mathrm{}`$ and $`z^{MN+1}+\mathrm{}`$ in the local parameter respectively. This finishes the proof of the claim about $`Q`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Proposition 1.2.

$`\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }(k,l+1)}{\mathrm{\Psi }(k,l)}`$ has one pole at $`P`$ and one pole at $`Q`$.

Proof: At $`P`$, the dominating terms of $`det(W^{(k,l+1),(k,l+1)})`$ and $`det(W^{(k,l+1),(k,l)})`$ are $`\beta ^N`$ and the term with degree $`1`$ coefficient respectively. Local expansions give $`z^{MN}+\mathrm{}`$ and $`z^{MN+1}+\mathrm{}`$. And at $`Q`$, the dominating terms are $`\beta ^N`$ and the term with degree $`i(1)`$ coefficient respectively. These give $`z^{MN}+\mathrm{}`$ and $`z^{MN+1}+\mathrm{}`$ respectively. $`\mathrm{}`$

So we have obtained that ratios of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ obey this fixed structure of poles at $`\beta =\mathrm{}`$. Now we look at $`\beta =0`$. Notice that when $`\beta =0`$, $`det(W)`$ splits as $`det(X(1))\mathrm{}det(X(M))`$. Likewise, when $`\beta =0`$ the $`det(W^{(k,l+1),(k,l)})`$ and $`det(W^{(k,l+1),(k+1,l)})`$ split as a product of block determinants. Observe that in these block expansions, all $`det(X(m))`$ appear except for $`det(X(l))`$. The remaining $`N1\times N1`$ determinant has nonvanishing determinant at points $`R_i`$, $`S_i`$ of the curve for generic $`A`$,$`B`$. Therefore, these two determinants have the same zeros on the curve at $`\beta =0`$. This shows that $`\mathrm{\Psi }(k,l)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }(k+1,l)`$ have the same divisor at $`\beta =0`$. On the other hand, we saw that $`det(L^{(k,l+1),(k,l+1)})`$ vanishes identically at $`\beta =0`$. Therefore $`\mathrm{\Psi }(k,l+1)`$ has two more zeros than $`\mathrm{\Psi }(k,l)`$ at $`\beta =0`$, namely the two solutions for $`\alpha `$ of $`det(X(l))`$. Call these two points $`R_l,S_l`$.

The line bundle mentioned in the correspondence comes from a divisor $`𝒟`$ encoding the totality of remaining poles of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$’s:

###### Definition 1.3.

Let $`𝒟`$ be a minimal effective divisor such that

$$𝒟+div(\mathrm{\Psi }(n,m))+(n+m)P+(mn)Q\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}(R_i+S_i)0$$

for all $`(n,m)`$.

We remark that such a finite $`𝒟`$ exists: Suppose the condition is satisfied for $`0n<N`$ and $`0m<M`$, then it is automatically satisfied for all positive $`(n,m)`$. This happens since $`\mathrm{\Psi }(n+kN,m+lM)=\alpha ^k\beta ^l\mathrm{\Psi }(n,m)`$. The new divisors introduced by the $`\alpha `$’s and $`\beta `$’s are exactly taken care of by the extra points in definition of $`𝒟`$. Define the line bundle $`=𝒪(𝒟)`$. Furthermore, set

(1.22)
$$_{n,m}=((m+n)P+(mn)Q\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}(R_i+S_i))$$

The choice of $`𝒟`$ says $`\mathrm{\Psi }(n,m)`$ is a section of $`_{n,m}`$.

Now, fix $`m,n`$, and select $`k`$ large enough so that $`deg(𝒟)+k>2g2`$. For this particular $`k`$, Riemann-Roch theorem gives

(1.23)
$$h^0(_{n,m}(kP))=\mathrm{deg}(_{n,m})+kg+1$$

because $`h^1(_{n,m}(kP))=0`$ by the choice of $`k`$.

###### Proposition 1.3.

$`\mathrm{\Psi }(n+k,m)`$ is a section of $`_{n,m}(kP)`$ but is not a section of $`_{n,m}((k1)P)`$

Proof: $`\mathrm{\Psi }(n+k,m)`$ is a section of $`_{n,m}(kP)`$ by definition. Suppose it is a section of $`_{n,m}((k1)P)`$. Then by the pole comparisons at $`P`$, we can replace $`k`$ by any nonnegative number, and the hypothesis remains true. But then $`\mathrm{\Psi }(n,m)`$ is a section of $`_{n,m}(P)`$, and by pole comparisons again this holds for all $`(n,m)`$. In particular $`\mathrm{\Psi }(0,0)=1`$ is a section of $`(P)`$, therefore $`𝒟P`$ is effective. But these imply that we can replace $`𝒟`$ by $`𝒟P`$, which contradicts the minimality of $`𝒟`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

From the proposition we deduce that

(1.24)
$$h^0(_{n,m}(kP))=deg(𝒟)+kg+1$$

for all $`k`$, in particular $`h^0(_{n,m})=deg(𝒟)g+1`$. Indeed, increasing $`k`$ by one always gives a new section, therefore, $`h^1`$ should be zero at each step, because it is eventually zero.

The divisor $`𝒟`$ is of degree $`g`$. For a proof of this, we refer the reader to \[Gr\].

This concludes the construction of the algebro-geometric data from the difference operator. We now summarize the construction of the KP data from the algebro-geometric data.

Assume $`𝒳`$ is a smooth curve of genus $`g`$, $`P`$, $`Q`$, $`R_i`$, $`S_i`$ points on $`𝒳`$ such that $`\mathrm{div}(\alpha )=N(PQ)`$ and $`\mathrm{div}(\beta )=M(P+Q)_{i=1}^M(R_i+S_i)`$, $``$ a line bundle of degree $`g`$ on $`𝒳`$ such that

(1.25)
$$h^0(𝒳,((n+m1)P+(mn)Q\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}(R_i+S_i)))=0$$

for all $`m,n`$. Let

(1.26)
$$_{n,m}=((n+m)P+(mn)Q\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}(R_i+S_i))$$

as before. Then,

###### Proposition 1.4.

$`h^0(𝒳,_{n,m})=1`$ for each $`n,m`$.

Proof: By Riemann-Roch theorem, $`h^0(𝒳,_{n,m})g+1g=1`$. On the other hand, it is impossible to have strict inequality because of the regularity assumption. (Removing one $`P`$ prohibits at most one section.) $`\mathrm{}`$

Say $`\mathrm{\Psi }(n,m)`$ is a nonzero section of $`_{n,m}`$.

###### Proposition 1.5.

The set of sections $`\{\mathrm{\Psi }(n+1,m),\mathrm{\Psi }(n,m),\mathrm{\Psi }(n1,m),\mathrm{\Psi }(n,m+1)\}`$ is linearly dependent.

Proof: Notice that all four of them are sections of $`_{n,m}(P+Q)`$. On the other hand, by Riemann-Roch theorem, we get $`h^0(_{n,m}(P+Q))3`$, and by the regularity assumption again, equality has to be realized. $`\mathrm{}`$

The ratio $`f_{n,m}=\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }(n,m)}{\mathrm{\Psi }(0,0)}`$ has a pole of order precisely $`n+m`$ at $`P`$. Suppose $`z`$ is a uniformizing parameter at $`P`$. We can normalize $`\mathrm{\Psi }(n,m)`$ so that $`f_{n,m}z^{n+m}=1`$ at $`P`$. We can also normalize the meromorphic functions $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$ such that $`\alpha =z^N+\mathrm{}`$, $`\beta =z^M+\mathrm{}`$.

After these normalizations it is elementary to show that the linear dependence between the four sections in Prop 1.5 has to be of the form

(1.27)
$$\mathrm{\Psi }(n+1,m)\mathrm{\Psi }(n,m+1)A(n,m)\mathrm{\Psi }(n,m)B(n,m)\mathrm{\Psi }(n,m)=0$$

for some functions $`A`$, $`B`$ on $`/N\times /M`$.

Thus we get back to $`A`$,$`B`$, having started from the algebro-geometric data. Next, we wish to calculate the flow equations explicitly by computing the effect of moving $``$ in the Jacobian in certain directions.

## 2. The flow equations

### 2.1. Some functions on $`/N\times /M`$

As before, suppose that $`N,M`$, and $`\mathrm{gcd}(N,M)=1`$. Let $`S`$ denote the set of functions $`f:/N\times /M\{1,0,1\}`$.

###### Proposition 2.1.

There is a unique function $`\kappa `$ in $`S`$ that satisfies the following conditions:

(2.1)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill (i)& \kappa (0,0)\kappa (1,1)=1\hfill \\ \hfill (ii)& \kappa (0,1)\kappa (1,0)=1\hfill \\ \hfill (iii)& \kappa (1,0)\kappa (0,1)=1\hfill \\ \hfill (iv)& \kappa (1,1)\kappa (0,0)=1\hfill \end{array}$$

and except for these four values of $`(i,j)`$, $`\kappa (i1,j+1)=\kappa (i,j)`$

Proof: Uniqueness is easy to prove, because if two such functions exist, their difference has to be a constant. But by (i) and (iv) the only possibility for $`\kappa (0,0)`$ is $`0`$. Therefore the constant is zero.

To prove existence, we note that since $`\mathrm{gcd}(N,M)=1`$, $`(1,1)`$ is a generator. Look at the sequence

(2.2)
$$(1,1),(2,2),\mathrm{},(a,a),\mathrm{}$$

We will distinguish the two cases below:

1) Suppose in the sequence $`(\text{2.2})`$, $`(1,0)`$ appears before $`(1,0)`$. Then we declare

(2.3)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \kappa (1,1)& =\kappa (2,2)=\mathrm{}=\kappa (1,0)=1\hfill \\ \hfill \kappa (1,1)& =\kappa (2,2)=\mathrm{}=\kappa (1,0)=1\hfill \end{array}$$

and $`\kappa (a,b)=0`$ if $`(a,b)`$ is not in these lists.

2) Suppose $`(1,0)`$ appears before $`(1,0)`$. We declare

(2.4)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \kappa (1,1)& =\kappa (2,2)=\mathrm{}=\kappa (0,1)=1\hfill \\ \hfill \kappa (1,1)& =\kappa (2,2)=\mathrm{}=\kappa (0,1)=1\hfill \end{array}$$

and $`\kappa (a,b)=0`$ if $`(a,b)`$ is not in these lists.

One can check that $`\kappa `$ satisfies the conditions that we asked for. $`\mathrm{}`$

Remark: One may wonder which case happens when. It turns out that the deciding quantity is the parity of the number of steps in the Euclidean algorithm for the ordered pair $`(N,M)`$. In particular we have alternate cases for $`(N,M)`$ and $`(M,N)`$.

Note that $`\kappa (n,m)=\kappa (n,m)`$.

We introduce another function $`\rho `$ in $`S`$:

###### Definition 2.1.

(2.5)
$$\rho (n,m)=\kappa (n+1,m)+\kappa (n,m)+\delta _{(n,m),(0,0)}\delta _{(n,m),(1,0)}$$

(2.6)
$$\varphi (n,m)=\rho (n1,m)\rho (n,m)$$

($`\delta `$ is the Kronecker delta function, i.e. $`\delta _{X,Y}=1`$ if $`X=Y`$, and $`0`$ otherwise, etc.)

Then the following holds:

(2.7)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \rho (n1,m+1)\rho (n,m)=& (\kappa (n,m+1)\kappa (n+1,m))\hfill \\ & +(\kappa (n1,m+1)\kappa (n,m))\hfill \\ & +\delta _{(n1,m+1),(0,0)}\delta _{(n1,m+1),(1,0)}\hfill \\ & \delta _{(n,m),(0,0)}+\delta _{(n,m),(1,0)}\hfill \end{array}$$

Therefore $`\rho `$ is the unique function in $`S`$ satisfying the following conditions:

(2.8)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill (i)& \rho (2,0)\rho (1,1)=1\hfill \\ \hfill (ii)& \rho (0,1)\rho (1,0)=1\hfill \\ \hfill (iii)& \rho (1,0)\rho (0,1)=1\hfill \\ \hfill (iv)& \rho (1,1)\rho (0,0)=1\hfill \end{array}$$

and $`\rho (n1,m+1)=\rho (n,m)`$ for all other $`(n,m)`$.

### 2.2. Derivation of the discrete KP equations

We would like to compute what happens to $`A`$ and $`B`$ when we keep $`𝒳`$ and the points fixed, but deform the line bundle $``$ linearly in the Jacobian. By choosing the direction of deformation carefully, the computation of the first few evolution equations for $`A`$ and $`B`$ becomes feasible.

$`𝒳`$ is mapped inside its Jacobian by the Abel-Jacobi map .We are going to deform the line bundle in the tangent direction to the curve at $`P`$. Assume again that $`z`$ is a local parameter at $`P`$. For small $`t`$, define

(2.9)
$$_{n,m,t}=_{n,m}(PT)$$

where $`T=z^1(t)`$. First, notice that $`h^0(_{n,m,t}(P))=0`$ by upper semicontinuity for small $`t`$, since $`h^0(_{n,m}(P))=0`$. Thus $`h^0(_{n,m,t})=1`$. Suppose $`\mathrm{\Psi }(n,m,t)`$ is a nonzero section.

###### Proposition 2.2.

The set $`\{\mathrm{\Psi }(n,m,t),\mathrm{\Psi }(n,m),\mathrm{\Psi }(n+1,m)\}`$ is linearly dependent.

Proof: This follows from the observation that all three are sections of $`_{n,m,t}(T)`$ and $`h^0(_{n,m,t}(T))=2`$ by Riemann-Roch theorem. $`\mathrm{}`$

Thus suppose

(2.10)
$$\mathrm{\Psi }(n,m,t)(z)=a_0(n,m,t)\mathrm{\Psi }(n,m)(z)+a_1(n,m,t)\mathrm{\Psi }(n+1,m)(z)$$

where $`a_0`$ and $`a_1`$ are holomorphic in $`t`$. Now, $`\mathrm{\Psi }(n,m,t)`$ vanishes at $`z=t`$ by definition. Therefore

(2.11)
$$a_0(n,m,t)\mathrm{\Psi }(n,m)(t)+a_1(n,m,t)\mathrm{\Psi }(n+1,m)(t)=0$$

Now we can expand this expression in powers of $`t`$ and calculate the first few terms of the power series expansions of the holomorphic functions $`a_i`$ in terms of the Laurent coefficients of the function $`\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }(n,m)}{\mathrm{\Psi }(0,0)}`$ whose pole behaviour at $`P`$ we know. Let’s give a name to these coefficients.

First define

(2.12)
$$f(n,m)=\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }(n,m)}{\mathrm{\Psi }(0,0)}$$

$`f(n,m)`$ has a pole of order $`n+m`$ at $`P`$. Then let $`d_i(n,m)`$ be such that

(2.13)
$$f(n,m)=z^{nm}+d_1(n,m)z^{nm+1}+d_2(n,m)z^{nm+2}+\mathrm{}$$

Then since

(2.14)
$$\mathrm{\Psi }(n+1,m)=\mathrm{\Psi }(n,m+1)+A(n,m)\mathrm{\Psi }(n,m)+B(n,m)\mathrm{\Psi }(n1,m)$$

we have

(2.15)
$$d_1(n,m)d_1(n,m+1)=A(n,m)$$

Now we can expand $`(\text{2.11})`$ in powers of $`t`$. We define one more piece of notation for this purpose: say $`a_i(n,m,t)=_ja_{i,j}(n,m)t^j`$.

One sees immediately that $`a_{1,1}(n,m)=1`$, therefore we can normalize $`\mathrm{\Psi }(n,m,t)`$ in a neighborhood of $`P`$, replacing it by $`\mathrm{\Psi }(n,m,t)t/a_1(n,m,t)`$.

Then if we compute the coefficient of $`t^{nm+1}`$ we get

(2.16)
$$a_{0,1}(n,m)=d_1(n+1,m)d_1(n,m)$$

On the other hand, one can expand the relation

(2.17)
$$\mathrm{\Psi }(n+1,m,t)=\mathrm{\Psi }(n,m+1,t)+A(n,m,t)\mathrm{\Psi }(n,m,t)+B(n,m,t)\mathrm{\Psi }(n1,m,t)$$

using equation $`(\text{2.10})`$. One can further write all $`\mathrm{\Psi }(k,l)`$ in terms of $`\mathrm{\Psi }(n+i,m)`$ by reducing $`l`$ to $`m`$ using the difference relation repeatedly. Finally, one gets a time dependent linear relation between $`\mathrm{\Psi }(k,m)`$, where $`m`$ is fixed. But these $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ all have different order poles at $`P`$ as we have seen, so they are linearly independent. Therefore many time dependent quantities (that one may calculate from the last equation) ought to vanish. The coefficients of $`t`$ in front of $`\mathrm{\Psi }(n,m)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }(n1,m)`$ give evolution equations for $`A`$ and $`B`$:

(2.18)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \dot{A}(n,m)& =a_{1,1}(n,m+1)B(n+1,m)+(a_{0,1}(n,m+1)a_{0,1}(n,m))A(n,m)\hfill \\ & a_{1,1}(n1,m)B(n,m)\hfill \\ \hfill \dot{B}(n,m)& =(a_{0,1}(n,m+1)a_{0,1}(n1,m))B(n,m)\hfill \end{array}$$

Writing $`a`$’s in terms of $`d`$’s, equations become

(2.19)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \dot{A}(n,m)& =B(n,m)B(n+1,m)+(d_1(n+1,m+1)d_1(n,m+1)\hfill \\ & d_1(n+1,m)+d_1(n,m))A(n,m)\hfill \\ \hfill \dot{B}(n,m)& =(d_1(n+1,m+1)d_1(n,m+1)d_1(n,m)\hfill \\ & +d_1(n1,m))B(n,m)\hfill \end{array}$$

$`d_1(0,0)=0`$ by definition. Now, in the light of $`(\text{2.15})`$, the terms in both parentheses are linear polynomials in $`A`$’s.

(2.20)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \dot{A}(n,m)=& B(n,m)B(n+1,m)+(g_{(n,m),(k,l)}A(k,l))A(n,m)\hfill \\ \hfill \dot{B}(n,m)=& (h_{(n,m),(k,l)}A(k,l))B(n,m)\hfill \end{array}$$

By toroidal symmetry,

(2.21)
$$g_{(n+a,m+b),(k+a,l+b)}=g_{(n,m),(k,l)}$$

for any $`(a,b)/N\times /M`$. Same result holds for $`h`$. Thus, with some abuse of notation, we may write

(2.22)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \dot{A}(n,m)=& B(n,m)B(n+1,m)+(g(kn,lm)A(k,l))A(n,m)\hfill \\ \hfill \dot{B}(n,m)=& (h(kn,lm)A(k,l))B(n,m)\hfill \end{array}$$

We subtract the terms of the first equation of $`(\text{2.22})`$ in parentheses for $`(n,m)`$ from the same terms for $`(n+1,m1)`$:

(2.23)
$$\begin{array}{cc}& (g(kn1,lm+1)A(k,l))(g(kn,lm)A(k,l))=\hfill \\ & (d_1(n+2,m)d_1(n+1,m)d_1(n+2,m1)+d_1(n+1,m1))\hfill \\ & (d_1(n+1,m+1)d_1(n,m+1)d_1(n+1,m)+d_1(n,m))\hfill \\ & =A(n+1,m)A(n,m)A(n+1,m1)+A(n,m1)\hfill \end{array}$$

And we do the same for the second equation:

(2.24)
$$\begin{array}{cc}& (h(kn1,lm+1)A(k,l))(h(kn,lm)A(k,l))=\hfill \\ & (d_1(n+2,m)d_1(n+1,m)d_1(n+1,m1)+d_1(n,m1))\hfill \\ & (d_1(n+1,m+1)d_1(n,m+1)d_1(n,m)+d_1(n1,m))\hfill \\ & =A(n+1,m)A(n,m)A(n,m1)+A(n1,m1)\hfill \end{array}$$

Equating the coefficients for all $`(k,l)`$ we obtain

(2.25)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill (i)& g(0,1)g(1,0)=1\hfill \\ \hfill (ii)& g(1,1)g(0,0)=1\hfill \\ \hfill (iii)& g(0,0)g(1,1)=1\hfill \\ \hfill (iv)& g(1,0)g(0,1)=1\hfill \end{array}$$

and $`g(n+1,m1)=g(n,m)`$ for any other $`(n,m)`$.

and

(2.26)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill (i)& h(0,1)h(1,0)=1\hfill \\ \hfill (ii)& h(1,1)h(0,0)=1\hfill \\ \hfill (iii)& h(1,0)h(0,1)=1\hfill \\ \hfill (iv)& h(2,0)h(1,1)=1\hfill \end{array}$$

and $`h(n+1,m1)=h(n,m)`$ for any other $`(n,m)`$

These are precisely the relations for $`\kappa `$ and $`\rho `$, so we have proven:

###### Proposition 2.3.

The equations of evolution are

(2.27)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \dot{A}(n,m)=& B(n,m)B(n+1,m)+(\kappa (kn,lm)A(k,l))A(n,m)\hfill \\ \hfill \dot{B}(n,m)=& (\rho (kn,lm)A(k,l))B(n,m)\hfill \end{array}$$


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

It is well known that primordial black holes (PBHs) could have formed in the early Universe . A comparison of the cosmological density at any time after the Big Bang with the density associated with a black hole shows that PBHs would have of order the particle horizon mass at their formation epoch:

$$M(t)\frac{c^3t}{G}10^{15}\left(\frac{t}{10^{23}\mathrm{s}}\right)g.$$
(1)
PBHs could thus span an enormous mass range: those formed at the Planck time ($`10^{43}`$s) would have the Planck mass ($`10^5`$g), whereas those formed at 1 s would be as large as $`10^5M_{}`$, comparable to the mass of the holes thought to reside in galactic nuclei. PBHs would could arise in various ways . Since the early Universe is unlikely to have been exactly Friedmann, they would form most naturally from initial inhomogeneities but they might also form through other mechanisms at a cosmological phase transition.

The realization that small PBHs might exist prompted Hawking to study their quantum properties. This led to his famous discovery  that black holes radiate thermally with a temperature

$$T=\frac{\mathrm{}c^3}{8\pi GMk}10^{26}\left(\frac{M}{g}\right)^1\mathrm{K}10^7\left(\frac{M}{M_{}}\right)^1\mathrm{K}.$$
(2)
This means that they evaporate on a timescale

$$\tau (M)\frac{\mathrm{}c^4}{G^2M^2}10^{64}\left(\frac{M}{M_{}}\right)^3\text{y}.$$
(3)
Only black holes smaller than $`10^{15}`$g would have evaporated by the present epoch, so eqn (1) implies that this effect could be important only for black holes which formed before $`10^{23}`$s. Despite the conceptual importance of this result, it is bad news for PBH enthusiasts. For since PBHs with a mass of $`10^{15}`$g, which evaporate at the present epoch, would have a temperature of order 100 MeV, the observational limit on the $`\gamma `$-ray background intensity at 100 MeV immediately implies that their density could not exceed $`10^8`$ times the critical density . Not only does this render PBHs unlikely dark matter candidates, it also implies that there is little chance of detecting black hole explosions at the present epoch .

Despite this conclusion, PBH evaporations could still have interesting cosmological consequences. In particular, they might generate the microwave background  or modify the standard cosmological nucleosynthesis scenario  or contribute to the cosmic baryon asymmetry . PBH evaporations might also account for the annihilation-line radiation coming from the Galactic centre  or the unexpectedly high fraction of antiprotons in cosmic rays . PBH explosions occurring in an interstellar magnetic field might also lead to radio bursts . Even if PBHs had none of these consequences, studying such effects leads to strong upper limits on how many of them could ever have formed and thereby constrains models of the early Universe. Indeed PBHs serve as a probe of times much earlier than that associated with most other “relicts” of the Big Bang. While photons decoupled at $`10^6`$y, neutrinos at $`1`$ s and WIMPs at $`10^{10}`$s, PBHs go all the way back to the Planck time. Therefore even if PBHs never formed, their non-existence gives interesting information.

We review the formation mechanisms and evaporation constraints on PBHs in Section 2. Much of this material is also contained in my contribution to the 1996 Chalonge School . However, there have been several interesting developments since then and these are covered in Section 3. The remaining sections will examine how the PBH constraints are modified if the value of the gravitational “constant” $`G`$ was different at early times.

As reviewed in Section 4, this idea has a long history and should no longer be regarded as exotic. It arises in various scalar-tensor theories of gravity and these are a natural setting for many currently popular models of the early Universe. Black hole formation and evaporation could be greatly modified in variable-$`G`$ cosmologies, since many of their properties (eg. their Hawking temperature) depend explicitly on $`G`$. However, as emphasized by Barrow  and discussed in Section 5, the nature of the modification depends upon whether the PBH preserves the value of $`G`$ at its formation epoch (corresponding to what is termed “gravitational memory”) or always maintains the changing background value. There would be interesting modifications to the cosmological consequences of PBH evaporations in both cases but they would be more dramatic in the first. Barrow & Carr  considered the implications of these two scenarios in detail and this work has been taken further with Goymer . We will review the conclusions of these papers in Section 6 and highlight a particularly interesting development in Section 7.

## 2 PBH formation and constraints on the early Universe

One of the most important reasons for studying PBHs is that it enables one to place limits on the spectrum of density fluctuations in the early Universe. This is because, if the PBHs form directly from density perturbations, the fraction of regions undergoing collapse at any epoch is determined by the root-mean-square amplitude $`ϵ`$ of the fluctuations entering the horizon at that epoch and the equation of state $`p=\gamma \rho (0<\gamma <1)`$. One usually expects a radiation equation of state ($`\gamma =1/3`$) in the early Universe. In order to collapse against the pressure, an overdense region must be larger than the Jeans length at maximum expansion and this is just $`\sqrt{\gamma }`$ times the horizon size. On the other hand, it cannot be larger than the horizon size, else it would form a separate closed universe and not be part of our Universe .

This has two important implications. Firstly, PBHs forming at time $`t`$ should have of order the horizon mass given by eqn (1). Secondly, for a region destined to collapse to a PBH, one requires the fractional overdensity at the horizon epoch, $`\delta `$, to exceed $`\gamma `$. Providing the density fluctuations have a Gaussian distribution and are spherically symmetric, one can infer that the fraction of regions of mass $`M`$ which collapse is

$$\beta (M)ϵ(M)\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{\gamma ^2}{2ϵ(M)^2}\right]$$
(4)
where $`ϵ(M)`$ is the value of $`ϵ`$ when the horizon mass is $`M`$. The PBHs can have an extended mass spectrum only if the fluctuations are scale-invariant (i.e. with $`ϵ`$ independent of $`M`$) but this is expected in many scenarios.

The fluctuations required to make the PBHs may either be primordial or they may arise spontaneously at some epoch. One natural source of fluctuations would be inflation  and, in this context, $`ϵ(M)`$ depends implicitly on the inflationary potential. PBHs formed before inflation would be drastically diluted but new ones could form from the fluctuations generated after inflation. Many people have studied PBH formation in this context  as an important way of constraining the inflationary potential. This was the focus of my 1996 Erice lecture, so it will not be covered again here. Note that the Gaussian assumption has been questioned in the inflationary context , so eqn (4) may not apply, but one still finds that $`\beta `$ depends very sensitively on $`ϵ`$.

In some situations eqn (4) would fail qualitatively. For example, PBHs would form more easily if the equation of state of the Universe were ever soft ($`\gamma `$1). This might apply if there was a phase transition which channelled the mass of the Universe into non-relativistic particles or which temporally reduced the pressure. In this case, only those regions which are sufficiently spherically symmetric at maximum expansion can undergo collapse; the dependence of $`\beta `$ on $`ϵ`$ would then have the form

$$\beta =0.02ϵ^{13/2},$$
(5)
which is much weaker than indicated by eqn (4), but there would still be a unique relationship between the two parameters. Some formation mechanisms for PBHs do not depend on having primordial fluctuations at all. For example, at any spontaneously broken symmetry epoch, PBHs might form through the collisions of bubbles of broken symmetry . PBHs might also form spontaneously through the collapse of cosmic strings  or domain walls . In these cases $`\beta (M)`$ depends, not on $`ϵ(M)`$, but on other cosmological parameters, such the bubble formation rate or the string mass-per-length. These mechanisms were discussed in more detail in my 1996 Erice contribution .

In all these scenarios, the current density parameter $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{PBH}`$ associated with PBHs which form at a redshift $`z`$ or time $`t`$ is related to $`\beta `$ by

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{PBH}}=\beta \mathrm{\Omega }_R(1+z)10^6\beta \left(\frac{t}{s}\right)^{1/2}10^{18}\beta \left(\frac{M}{10^{15}g}\right)^{1/2}$$
(6)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_R10^4`$ is the density parameter of the microwave background and we have used eqn (1). The $`(1+z)`$ factor arises because the radiation density scales as $`(1+z)^4`$, whereas the PBH density scales as $`(1+z)^3`$. Any limit on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{PBH}`$ therefore places a constraint on $`\beta (M)`$ and the constraints are summarized in Fig. 1. The constraint for non-evaporating mass ranges above $`10^{15}`$g comes from requiring $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{PBH}<1`$. Stronger constraints are associated with PBHs smaller than this since they would have evaporated by now . The strongest one is the $`\gamma `$-ray limit associated with the $`10^{15}`$g PBHs evaporating at the present epoch . Other ones are associated with the generation of entropy and modifications to the cosmological production of light elements. The constraints below $`10^6`$g are based on the (not necessarily secure) assumption that evaporating PBHs leave stable Planck mass relics, in which case these relics are required to have less than the critical density .

The constraints on $`\beta (M)`$ can be converted into constraints on $`ϵ(M)`$ using eqn (4) and these are shown in Fig. 2. Also shown here are the (non-PBH) constraints associated with the spectral distortions in the cosmic microwave background induced by the dissipation of intermediate scale density perturbations and the COBE quadrupole measurement, as well as lines corresponding to various slopes in the $`ϵ(M)`$ relationship. This shows that one needs the fluctuation amplitude to decrease with increasing scale in order to produce PBHs.

## 3 Recent Developments

Recent hydrodynamical calculations for the $`\gamma =1/3`$ case have refined the criterion $`\delta >\gamma `$ for PBH formation and this modifies the estimate for $`\beta (M)`$ given by eqn (4). Niemeyer & Jedamzik  find that one needs $`\delta >0.8`$ rather than $`\delta >0.3`$ to ensure PBH formation, and Shibata & Sasaki  reach similar conclusions. They also find that there is little accretion after PBH formation, as expected theoretically .

Another interesting development has been the application of “critical phenomena” to PBH formation. Studies of the collapse of various types of spherically symmetric matter fields have shown that there is always a critical solution which separates those configurations which form a black hole from those which disperse to an asymptotically flat state. The configurations are described by some index $`p`$ and, as the critical index $`p_c`$ is approached, the black hole mass is found to scale as $`(pp_c)^\eta `$ for some exponent $`\eta `$. This effect was first discovered for scalar fields  but subsequently demonstrated for radiation  and then more general fluids with equation of state $`p=\gamma \rho `$ .

In all these studies the spacetime was assumed to be asymptotically flat. However, Niemeyer & Jedamzik  have recently applied the same idea to study black hole formation in asymptotically Friedmann models and have found similar results. For a variety of initial density perturbation profiles, they find that the relationship between the PBH mass and the the horizon-scale density perturbation has the form

$$M=KM_H(\delta \delta _c)^\gamma $$
(7)
where $`M_H`$ is the horizon mass and the constants are in the range $`0.34<\gamma <0.37`$, $`2.4<K<11.9`$ and $`0.67<\delta _c<0.71`$ for the various configurations. Since $`M0`$ as $`\delta \delta _c`$, this suggests that PBHs may be much smaller than the particle horizon at formation (although it is clear that a fluid description must break down if they are too small) and it also modifies the mass spectrum .

There has been particular interest recently in whether PBHs could have formed at the quark-hadron phase transition at $`10^5`$s. This is because the horizon mass is of order $`1M_{}`$ then, so such PBHs would naturally have the sort of mass required to explain the MACHO microlensing results . This is discussed in more detail in my other lecture at this meeting. One might expect PBHs to form more easily at that epoch because of a temporary softening of the equation of state. If the QCD phase transition is assumed to be of 1st order, then hydrodynamical calculations show that the value of $`\delta `$ required for PBH formation is indeed reduced below the value which pertains in the radiation case . This means that PBH formation will be strongly enhanced at the QCD epoch, with the mass distribution being peaked around the horizon mass.

One of the interesting implications of the PBH MACHO scenario is the possible existence of a halo population of binary black holes . With a full halo of such objects, there could then be $`10^8`$ binaries inside 50 kpc and some of these could be coalescing due to gravitational radiation losses at the present epoch . Current interferometers (such as LIGO) could detect such coalescences within 50 Mpc, corresponding to a few events per year. Future space-borne interferometers (such as LISA) might detect 100 coalescences per year. If the associated gravitational waves were detected, it would provide a unique probe of the halo distribution (eg. its density profile and core radius .

Kohri & Yokoyama  have recently improved the constraints on $`\beta (10^810^{10}g)`$ which come from cosmological nucleosynthesis considerations. Constraints from neutrino background have also been presented by Bugaev & Konischev . The recent detection of a Galactic $`\gamma `$-ray background , measurements of the antiproton flux , and the discovery of very short period $`\gamma `$-ray burts  may even provide positive evidence for such PBHs. This is discussed in detail elsewhere .

Some people have emphasized the possibility of detecting very high energy cosmic rays from PBHs using air shower techniques . However, recently these efforts have been set back by the claim of Heckler  that QED interactions could produce an optically thick photosphere once the black hole temperature exceeds $`T_{crit}=45`$ GeV. In this case, the mean photon energy is reduced to $`m_e(T_{BH}/T_{crit})^{1/2}`$, which is well below $`T_{BH}`$, so the number of high energy photons is much reduced. He has proposed that a similar effect may operate at even lower temperatures due to QCD effects . This is discussed further in the contribution of Kapusta at this meeting . However, these arguments should not be regarded as definitive: MacGibbon et al.  claim that Heckler has not included Lorentz factors correctly in going from the black hole frame to the centre-of-mass frame of the interacting particles; in their calculation QED interactions are never important.

## 4 Cosmology in varying-G theories

Most variable-G scenarios associate the gravitational “constant” with some form of scalar field $`\varphi `$. This notion has its roots in Kaluza-Klein theory, in which a scalar field appears in the metric component $`g_{55}`$ associated with the 5th dimension. Einstein-Maxwell theory then requires that this field be related to $`G`$ . Although this was assumed constant in the original Kaluza-Klein theory, Dirac  noted the the ratio of the electric to gravitational force between to protons ($`e^2/Gm_p^2`$) and the ratio of the age of the Universe to the atomic timescale ($`t/t_a`$) and the square-root of the number of particles in the Universe ($`\sqrt{M/m_p}`$) are all comparable and of order $`10^{40}`$. This unlikely coincidence led him to propose that these relationships must always apply, which requires

$$Gt^1,GM/R1,$$
(8)
where $`Rct`$ is the horizon scale. The first condition led Jordan  to propose a theory in which the scalar field in Kaluza-Klein theory is a function of both space and time, and this then implies that $`G\varphi ^1`$ has the same property. The second condition implies the Mach-type relationship $`\varphi M/R`$, which suggests  that $`\varphi `$ is a solution of the wave equation $`\mathrm{}\varphi \rho `$. This motivated Brans-Dicke (BD) theory , in which the Einstein-Hilbert Lagrangian is replaced by

$$L=\varphi R\frac{\omega }{\varphi }\varphi _{,\mu }\varphi _{,\nu }g^{\mu \nu }+L_m,$$
(9)
where $`L_m`$ is the matter Langrangian and the constant $`\omega `$ is the BD parameter. The potential $`\varphi `$ then satisfies

$$\mathrm{}\varphi =\left(\frac{8\pi }{2\omega +3}\right)T,$$
(10)
where $`T`$ is the trace of the matter stress-energy tensor, and this has the required Machian form. Since $`\varphi `$ must have a contribution from local sources of the form $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_i(m_i/r_i)`$, this entails a violation of the Strong Equivalence Principle. In order to test this, the PPN formalism was introduced. Applications of this test in a variety of astrophysical situations (involving the solar system, the binary pulsar and white dwarf cooling) currently require $`|\omega |>500`$, which implies that the deviations from general relativity can only ever be small in BD theory .

The introduction of generalized scalar-tensor theories , in which $`\omega `$ is itself a function of $`\varphi `$, led to a considerably broader range of variable-$`G`$ theories. In particular, it permitted the possibility that $`\omega `$ may have been small at early times (allowing noticeable variations of $`G`$ then) even if it is large today. In the last decade interest in such theories has been revitalized as a result of early Universe studies. Inflation theory  has made the introduction of scalar fields almost mandatory and extended inflation specifically requires a model in which $`G`$ varies . In higher dimensional Kaluza-Klein-type cosmologies, the variation in the sizes of the extra dimensions also naturally leads to a variation in $`G`$ . The currently popular low energy string cosmologies necessarily involve a scalar (dilaton) field  and bosonic superstring theory, in particular, leads  to a Lagrangian of the form (9) with $`\omega =1`$.

The intimate connection between dilatons, inflatons and scalar-tensor theory arises because one can always transform from the (physical) Jordan frame to the Einstein frame, in which the Lagrangian has the standard Einstein-Hilbert form

$$L=\overline{R}2\psi _{,\mu }\psi _{,\nu }\overline{g}^{\mu \nu }+L_m.$$
(11)
Here the new scalar field $`\psi `$ is defined by

$$\mathrm{d}\psi =\left(\frac{2\omega +3}{2}\right)^{1/2}\frac{\mathrm{d}\varphi }{\varphi }$$
(12)
and the barred (Einstein) metric and gravitational constant are related to the original (Jordan) ones by

$$g_{\mu \nu }=A(\varphi )^2\overline{g}_{\mu \nu },G=[1+\alpha ^2(\varphi )]A(\varphi )^2\overline{G},\alpha A^{}/A,$$
(13)
where the function $`A(\varphi )`$ specifies a conformal transformation and a prime denotes $`d/d\varphi `$. Thus scalar-tensor theory can be related to general relativity plus a scalar field, although the theories are not identical because particles do not follow geodesics in the Einstein frame.

The behaviour of homogeneous cosmological models in BD theory is well understood . Their crucial feature is that they are vacuum-dominated at early times but always tend towards the general relativistic solution during the radiation-dominated era. This is a consequence of the fact that the radiation energy-momentum tensor is trace-free \[i.e. $`T=0`$ in eqn (10)\]. This means that the full radiation solution can be approximated by joining a BD vacuum solution to a general relativistic radiation solution at some time $`t_1`$, which may be regarded as a free parameter of the theory. However, when the matter density becomes greater than the radiation density at $`t_e10^{11}`$s, the equation of state becomes that of dust $`(p=0)`$ and $`G`$ begins to vary again. For a $`k=0`$ model, one can show that in the three eras

$$G=G_0(t_0/t_e)^n,at^{(2n)/3}(t>t_e)$$
(14)
$$G=G_eG_0(t_0/t_e)^n,at^{1/2}(t_1<t<t_e)$$
(15)
$$G=G_e(t/t_1)^{(n+\sqrt{4n+n^2})/2},at^{(2n\sqrt{4n+n^2})/6}(t<t_1)$$
(16)
where $`G_0`$ is the value of $`G`$ at the current time $`t_0`$, $`n2/(4+3\omega )`$ and $`(t_0/t_e)10^6`$. Since the BD coupling constant is constrained by $`|\omega |>500`$, which implies $`|n|<0.001`$, eqns (14) to (16) imply that the deviations from general relativity are never large if the value of $`n`$ is always the same. However, as we now explain, it is also interesting to consider BD models in which $`n`$ and $`\omega `$ can vary and thus violate the current constraints.

The behaviour of cosmological models in more general scalar-tensor theories depends on the form of $`\omega (\varphi )`$ but they still retain the feature that the general relativistic solution is a late-time attractor during the radiation era. Since one requires $`GG_0`$ to $`10\%`$ at the epoch of primordial nucleosynthesis , one needs the vacuum-dominated phase to end at some time $`t_v<`$ 1 s. The theory approaches general relativity in the weak field limit only if $`\omega \mathrm{}`$ and $`\omega ^{}/\omega ^30`$ but $`\omega (\varphi )`$ is otherwise unconstrained. Barrow & Carr consider a toy model in which

$$2\omega +3=2\beta (1\varphi /\varphi _c)^\alpha $$
(17)
where $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are constants. This leads to

$$2\omega +3t^{\alpha /(2\alpha )},\omega ^{}/\omega ^3t^{(12\alpha )/(1\alpha )}(t<t_v),$$
(18)
so one requires $`1/2<\alpha <2`$ in order to have $`\omega \mathrm{}`$ and $`\omega ^{}/\omega ^30`$ as $`t\mathrm{}`$. In the $`\alpha =1`$ case, one finds

$$Gt^{2\lambda /(3\lambda )},at^{(1\lambda )/(3\lambda )},\lambda \sqrt{3/(2\beta )}(t<t_v).$$
(19)
During the vacuum-dominated era, such models can therefore be regarded as BD solutions in which $`\omega `$ is determined by the parameter $`\beta `$ and unconstrained by any limits on $`\omega `$ at the present epoch. After $`t_v`$, $`G`$ is constant and one has the standard radiation-dominated or dust-dominated behaviour.

The consequences of the cosmological variation of $`G`$ for PBH evaporation depend upon how the value of $`G`$ near the black hole evolves. Barrow  introduces two possibilities: in scenario A, $`G`$ everywhere maintains the background cosmological value (so $`\varphi `$ is homogeneous); in scenario B, it preserves the value it had at the formation epoch near the black hole even though it evolves at large distances (so $`\varphi `$ becomes inhomogeneous). On the assumption that a PBH of mass $`M`$ has a temperature and mass-loss rate

$$T=(8\pi GM)^1,\dot{M}(GM)^2,$$
(20)
with $`G=G(t)`$ in scenario A and $`G=G(M)`$ in scenario B, Barrow & Carr calculate the evaporation time $`\tau `$ for various values of the parameters $`n`$ and $`t_1`$ in BD theory . The results are shown in Fig. 3(a) for scenario A and Fig. 3(b) for scenario B. Here $`M_{}`$ is the mass of a PBH evaporating at the present epoch, $`M_e`$ is the mass of a PBH evaporating at time $`t_e`$ and $`M_{crit}`$ is the mass of a PBH evaporating at the present epoch in the standard (constant $`G`$) scenario. In scenario A with $`n<1/2`$, there is a maximum mass of a PBH which can ever evaporate and this is denoted by $`M_{\mathrm{}}`$. The results for the scalar-tensor with $`\omega (\varphi )`$ given by eqn (17) with $`\alpha =1`$ are shown in Fig. 3(c) for scenario B with various values of the parameters $`\lambda `$ and $`t_v`$. The corresponding modifications to the constraints on $`\beta (M)`$ in all three cases are shown in Fig. 3(d), which should be compared to Fig. 1.

## 5 Black holes in scalar-tensor theory

Barrow & Carr considered both scenarios A and B but did not attempt decide which was more plausible. In this section we address this question more carefully. The main argument for scenario A comes from an important result of Hawking . He showed that in BD theory, providing the weak energy condition holds, the gradient of $`\varphi `$ must be zero everywhere for stationary, asymptotically flat black holes. This means that such black holes are identical to those in general relativity. This result can be generalized to all scalar-tensor theories and suggests that such theories are in agreement with the “no-hair” theorem.

Numerical calculations support this theorem . Collapse is accompanied by outgoing scalar gravitational radiation, which radiates away the scalar mass until the black hole settles down to the Schwarzschild form with a constant scalar field. In particular, Harada et al.  have investigated Oppenheimer-Snyder collapse in which a ball of dust described by a $`k=+1`$ Friedmann interior and a Schwarzschild exterior collapses to a black hole. In these calculations the scalar field is taken to be constant before the collapse and its back-reaction on the metric is assumed to be always negligible. It is found that, as the collapse proceeds, a scalar gravitational wave propagates outwards before the scalar field settles down to being constant again.

It should be stressed that the scalar no hair theorem has only been proved for asymptotically flat spacetimes, so it is not clear that it also applies in the asymptotically Friedmann case. While the no hair theorem suggests that $`\varphi `$ should tend to a locally constant value (close to the black hole), it is not obvious that this needs to be the asymptotic cosmological value. Indeed, since the homogeneizing of $`\varphi `$ is only ensured by scalar wave emission, one might infer that this can only be achieved on scales less than the particle horizon.

One way to determine what happens is to seek a precise mathematical model for a black hole in a cosmological background. For example, one can try to match a black hole and cosmological solution over some boundary $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Such a matching is provided in general relativity by the Einstein-Straus or “Swiss cheese” model . Here a Friedmann exterior is matched with a general spherically symmetric interior. If there is no scalar field, it turns out that the latter has to be the static Schwarzschild solution but the situation may be more complicated in the present context due to the presence of scalar gravitational radiation. In general one can show that the following continuity conditions must apply at $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$:

$$[g_{\mu \nu }]=0,[G_{\mu \nu }n^\mu n^\nu ]=[G_{\mu \nu }u^\mu n^\nu ]=0,[\varphi ]=0,[\varphi _\mu n^\mu ]=0$$
(21)
where $`n^\mu `$ and $`u^\mu `$ are 4-vectors normal and tangent to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, respectively . Unfortunately, it turns out that an Einstein-Straus type solution does not exist in BD theory. This is because the only way to satisfy the junction conditions (21) is if $`\varphi `$ is spatially and temporally constant, which is just the general relativistic case.

Jacobsen  has addressed the problem analytically by looking for a spherically symmetric solution which represents a perturbation of the Schwarzschild solution near the origin but is asymptotically Friedmann at large distances, with $`\varphi `$ satisfying the appropriate cosmological conditions. He presupposes that the black hole event horizon is much smaller than the particle horizon, so that the cosmological timescale is much longer than the black hole timescale. In this case, he finds that there is little lag between the value of $`\varphi `$ at the event horizon and particle horizon, which suggests that memory can only be weak. However, it must be emphasized that this conclusion need not follow if the black hole has a size comparable to the particle horizon at formation and, as indicated in Section 2, this is expected for a PBH.

Another way to investigate the problem is to study the collapse of dust in a Tolman-Bondi background using the same approximation employed by Harada et al. , i.e. neglecting the back reaction of the scalar field, but requiring that $`\varphi `$ have the required cosmological time-dependence at large distances. One puts in an initial density perturbation for the dust but assumes that $`\varphi `$ is initially homogeneous. Our preliminary numerical calculations  use the characteristic method to determine the evolution of the scalar field perturbation along null and constant-time hypersurfaces. We find that $`\varphi `$ does initially build up near the centre but it then gets smoothed out, tending eventually to homogeneity. Although this suggests that there is no gravitational memory, it should be stressed that this conclusion only applies for dust and if one neglects the back reaction.

## 6 Variations of gravitational memory

Since we lack definite knowledge about the evolution of the scalar field when a black hole forms in a cosmological background, it is useful to consider a range of scenarios which go beyond the two possibilities envisaged by Barrow. In general, the background scalar field will have a present value $`\varphi (t_0)`$ and a value $`\varphi (t_f)`$ when the black hole first formed. However, it is likely to develop inhomogeneties for at least some intervening period. In the following discussion, we will characterize the degree of gravitational memory by comparing the value of the scalar field at the black hole event horizon ($`\varphi _{EH}`$) and the cosmological particle horizon ($`\varphi _{PH}`$). We first consider the two extreme situations described by Barrow :

$$ScenarioA:\varphi _{EH}(t)=\varphi _{PH}(t)\mathrm{for}\mathrm{all}\mathrm{t}$$
(22)
A Schwarzschild black hole forms at time $`t_f`$ with its event horizon radius being $`R_f=2G(t_f)M`$. If $`G(t)`$ evolves with time, then the black hole adjusts quasi-statically through a sequence of Schwarzschild states approximated by $`R=2G(t)M`$, see Fig. 4(a). In this scenario there is no gravitational memory.

$$ScenarioB:\varphi _{EH}(t)=\varphi _{EH}(t_f)\mathrm{for}\mathrm{all}\mathrm{t}$$
(23)
A Schwarzschild black hole of size $`R_f`$ forms at time $`t_f`$ and, while $`G(t)`$ equals the evolving background value beyond some scale-length $`R_mR_f`$, it remains constant within $`R_m`$, see Fig. 4(b). In this case the black hole size is determined by $`G(t_f)`$ even at the present epoch and this means that the region $`R<R_m`$ has a memory of the gravitational “constant” at the time of its formation.

Neither of these scenarios can be completely realistic since they both assume that $`\varphi `$ is homogeneous almost everywhere. However, even if $`\varphi `$ were homogeneous initially, one would expect it to become inhomogeneous as collapse proceeds. Indeed, in the dust case, this is confirmed by the numerical calculations described above . Therefore, if the background value is increasing (as usually applies), one would expect $`\varphi `$ in the collapsing region to become first larger than the background value on a local dynamical timescale and then smaller than it on a cosmological timescale. Such behaviour would necessarily entail a variation of $`\varphi `$ in space as well as time. We must also allow for the possibility that $`\varphi `$ may vary interior to $`R_m`$ but on a slower or faster timescale than the background. We therefore propose two further scenarios:

$$ScenarioC:|\dot{\varphi }_{EH}(t)||\dot{\varphi }_{PH}(t)|\mathrm{for}\mathrm{all}\mathrm{t}$$
(24)
where the dot represents a time derivative. This implies that the scalar field evolves faster at the event horizon than at the particle horizon until it eventually becomes homogeneous, see Fig. 4(c). We describe this as short-term gravitational memory and it reduces to scenario A as the timescale to become homogeneous tends to zero. This would apply, for example, if $`\varphi `$ were to change on the dynamical timescales of the black hole since this is usually less than the cosmological timescale.

$$ScenarioD:|\dot{\varphi }_{EH}(t)|<|\dot{\varphi }_{PH}(t)|\mathrm{for}\mathrm{all}\mathrm{t}$$
(25)
This implies that $`\varphi `$ evolves faster at the particle horizon than the event horizon, see Fig. 4(d). We describe this is as weak gravitational memory and it reduces to scenario B when the left-hand-side of eqn (25) is zero. In this case, the evolution of $`\varphi `$ is again dominated by the black hole inside some length-scale $`R_m`$. Note that, in either this scenario or the last one, the length-scale $`R_m`$ need not be fixed, since it could either grow or shrink as scalar gravitational radiation propagates. A particular example of this, to which we return shortly, would be self-similar gravitational memory, in which the ratio of $`\varphi _{EH}`$ to $`\varphi _{PH}`$ always remains the same.

## 7 Gravitational memory and the accretion of a stiff fluid

In general relativity there is an equivalence between a scalar field and a stiff fluid and this can be exploited in studying gravitational memory. In the Einstein frame, the energy momentum tensor for a perfect fluid is

$$\overline{T}_{\mu \nu }=(\rho +p)u_\mu u_\nu +\overline{g}_{\mu \nu }p$$
(26)
where $`u_\mu `$ is the velocity of the fluid. If we define a velocity field by

$$u_\mu =\frac{\overline{\varphi }_\mu }{(\overline{g}^{\rho \sigma }\overline{\varphi }_\rho \overline{\varphi }_\sigma )^{1/2}},$$
(27)
this gives

$$\overline{T}_{\mu \nu }=\frac{(\rho +p)\overline{\varphi }_\mu \overline{\varphi }_\nu }{\overline{g}^{\rho \sigma }\overline{\varphi }_\rho \overline{\varphi }_\sigma }+p\overline{g}_{\mu \nu }.$$
(28)
By comparing this to the energy-momentum tensor for a scalar field, we find that

$$p=\rho =\frac{1}{2}\overline{g}^{\rho \sigma }\overline{\varphi }_\rho \overline{\varphi }_\sigma ,$$
(29)
so we have a stiff fluid. This equivalence applies provided that the derivative of the scalar field is timelike. Otherwise the velocity field defined in (27) would be imaginary.

This is relevant to the gravitational memory problem because we can now interpret the various scenarios discussed in Section 6 in terms of the accretion of a stiff fluid. If the black hole does not accrete at all or accretes very little, this will correspond to strong or weak gravitational memory (scenarios B and D, respectively). However, if enough accretion occurs to homogenize $`\varphi `$, this will correspond to short-term gravitational memory (scenario C). The faster the accretion, the shorter the memory, so scenario A corresponds to the idealization in which homogenization is instantaneous.

A simple Newtonian treatment  for a general fluid suggests that the accretion rate in the Einstein frame should be

$$\dot{M}=4\pi \rho R_A^2v_s,$$
(30)
where $`R_A=GM/v_s^2`$ is the accretion radius and $`v_s`$ is the sound-speed in the accreted fluid. For a stiff fluid, $`v_s=c`$ and $`R_A=GM/c^2`$, while $`\rho 1/(Gt^2)`$ in a Friedmann universe at early times, so we have

$$\frac{\mathrm{dM}}{\mathrm{dt}}\frac{GM^2}{c^3t^2}.$$
(31)
This can be integrated to give

$$M\frac{c^3t/G}{1+\frac{t}{t_f}\left(\frac{c^3t_f}{GM_f}1\right)}$$
(32)
where $`M_f`$ is the black hole mass at the time $`t_f`$ when it formed. If we define a parameter $`\eta =GM_f/c^3t_f`$, then eqn (32) implies

$$MM_f(1\eta )^1\mathrm{as}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{}.$$
(33)
If $`\eta 1`$, the black hole could not grow very much. However, if $`\eta `$ is close to 1, which must be the case if $`v_sc`$, then the black hole could grow significantly. In particular, in the limit $`\eta =1`$, eqn (32) implies $`Mt`$, so the black hole grows at the same rate as the universe. This simple calculation suggests that a black hole surrounded by a stiff fluid can accrete enough to grow at the same rate as the Universe.

Since the above calculation neglects the effects of the cosmological expansion, one needs a relativistic calculation to check this. The Newtonian result suggests that one should look for a spherically symmetric self-similar solution, in which every dimensionless variable is a function of $`z=r/t`$, so that it is unchanged by the transformation $`tat,rar`$ for any constant $`a`$. This problem has an interesting but rather convolved history. By looking for a black hole solution attached to an exact Friedmann solution via a sonic point, Carr & Hawking first showed that there is no such solution for a radiation fluid  and the argument can be extended to a general $`p=\gamma \rho `$ fluid with $`0<\gamma <1`$. Lin et al.  subsequently claimed that there is such a solution in the special case $`\gamma =1`$. However, Bicknell & Henriksen  then showed that this solution is unphysical, in that the density gradient diverges at the event horizon. This suggests that the black hole must soon become much smaller than the particle horizon, after which eqn (32) implies there will be very little further accretion. Therefore the stiff fluid analysis suggests that there should be at least weak gravitational memory.

## 8 Conclusions

We have seen that studying the formation and evaporation of PBHs can place interesting constraints on models of the early universe even if they never existed. On the other hand, if they did exist, PBHs can provide unique information about times much earlier than those probed by any other relics of the Big Bang. In particular, they may provide information about the variation of $`G`$ at early times. The precise signature of such a variation depends upon the degree to which a black hole can “remember” the value of $`G`$ at its formation epoch. This is still unclear but various methods are being pursued to resolve this issue.