text:
# Homotopy complex projective spaces with 𝑃𝑖𝑛(2)-action

## 1 Introduction

Let $`M`$ be a smooth closed manifold homotopy equivalent to the complex projective space $`P^m`$ and let $`G`$ be a compact Lie group which acts smoothly and non-trivially on $`P^m`$. We consider the problem to determine how close $`M`$ and $`P^m`$ are as differentiable manifolds if $`M`$ also supports a non-trivial action by $`G`$. In this paper we give an answer to this problem if $`G`$ is equal to $`Pin(2)`$, the normalizer of a maximal torus in $`S^3`$, and the dimension of $`M`$ is less than $`24`$.

By simply-connected surgery theory one knows that for fixed $`m3`$ the set of diffeomorphism classes of homotopy $`P^m`$’s is infinite and partitioned into finite subsets by their total Pontrjagin class. In view of this classification one may think of a homotopy complex projective space $`M`$ as being close to $`P^m`$ if the total Pontrjagin class of $`M`$ is standard, i.e. if $`p(M)`$ takes the standard form $`(1+x^2)^{m+1}`$, where $`x`$ is a generator of $`H^2(M;)`$.

To be more specific on the problem above we ask the following strong (resp. weak) question: Is the total Pontrjagin class of a homotopy complex projective space $`M`$ standard (resp. standard up to finite ambiguity), if $`M`$ also supports a non-trivial action by $`G`$?

The strong question has been answered in special cases by Petrie, Hattori, Masuda and many others (cf.  for a survey). Some of their work is stated below. Here we point out that by a result of Petrie (cf. ) the total Pontrjagin class of $`M`$ is standard if $`M`$ admits an effective action by the $`m`$-dimensional torus. The weak question has been considered for certain $`S^3`$-actions in . The questions above are motivated by the following conjecture of Petrie (cf. ).

###### Conjecture 1.1.

Let $`M`$ be a homotopy $`P^m`$. If $`M`$ supports a non-trivial smooth $`S^1`$-action then its total Pontrjagin class is standard.

Petrie’s conjecture has been verified in several special cases (again cf.  for a survey). In particular, it holds for $`m4`$ (cf. , ) or if the number of fixed point components of the $`S^1`$-action is $`4`$ (cf. , , , ). In contrast the conclusion of the conjecture is known to fail if the $`S^1`$-action is only locally linear or if the group acting on $`M`$ is finite of arbitrary size (cf. , ).

One may argue that the positive results towards Petrie’s conjecture described above merely express the general principle that the presence of a symmetry group imposes strong restrictions on the topology if the dimension of the symmetry group is ‘large’ compared to the dimension of the manifold or if the orbit structure is ‘simple’. Note however, that by a result of Hattori (cf. ) the conclusion of Petrie’s conjecture holds in any dimension if $`M`$ admits an $`S^1`$-equivariant stable almost complex structure with standard first Chern class. Hattori’s argument is based on vanishing results for equivariant $`Spin^c`$-Dirac operators derived from the Lefschetz fixed point formula in equivariant index theory (cf. , ).

In  generalizations of the rigidity theorems for elliptic genera (cf. , , , ) to $`Spin^c`$-manifolds were given. These results led to a proof of Petrie’s conjecture (cf. ) in the special case that the first Pontrjagin class of $`M`$ is standard and $`M`$ carries a smooth $`Pin(2)`$-action with fixed point which is cohomologically trivial and almost effective (i.e. the action has finite kernel). We shall call such an action nice with fixed point. Note that such actions exist on any $`P^m`$ for $`m>1`$. The main purpose of this paper is to show that in small dimensions the assumption on the first Pontrjagin class can be removed. This gives a partial answer to the strong question stated above.

###### Theorem 1.2.

Let $`M`$ be a smooth closed homotopy $`P^m`$ which supports a nice $`Pin(2)`$-action with fixed point. If $`m<12`$ then the total Pontrjagin class of $`M`$ is standard.

To prove the theorem we first give a lower bound for the first Pontrjagin class of $`M`$ (see Section 4) which we obtain by relating equivariant index theory to the theory of Jacobi functions (see Section 3). Then we combine results of  with the homotopy invariance of $`p_1(M)mod24`$ to complete the proof (see Section 5).

Note that for $`m`$ odd the $`Pin(2)`$-action on $`M`$ is trivial on cohomology if and only if $`Pin(2)`$ acts by orientation preserving diffeomorphisms. For $`m`$ even the $`Pin(2)`$-action has a fixed point if it acts trivially on cohomology (see Section 2). In particular, a non-trivial smooth $`S^3`$-action on a homotopy $`P^{2N}`$ induces a nice $`Pin(2)`$-action with fixed point by restricting the $`S^3`$-action to the normalizer of a maximal torus. Hence, Theorem 1.2 implies

###### Corollary 1.3.

Let $`M`$ be a smooth closed homotopy $`P^{2N}`$ which supports a non-trivial smooth $`S^3`$-action. If $`2N<12`$ then the total Pontrjagin class of $`M`$ is standard. $`\mathrm{}`$

This paper is structured in the following way. In the next section we give some information on the weights of equivariant vector bundles with vanishing first Pontrjagin class. In Section 3 we define certain series of $`S^1`$-equivariant twisted $`Spin^c`$-Dirac operators and express their indices in terms of Jacobi functions. In Section 4 we establish a lower bound for the first Pontrjagin class of a cohomology $`P^m`$ which admits a nice $`Pin(2)`$-action with fixed point. In the final section we give the proof for a slightly more general version of Theorem 1.2.

## 2 Weights and the first Pontrjagin class

In this section we give some information on the weights of $`Pin(2)`$-equivariant vector bundles with vanishing first Pontrjagin class. Let $`M`$ be a $`2m`$-dimensional smooth oriented closed manifold with smooth $`Pin(2)`$-action. We assume that the $`Pin(2)`$-action is trivial on integral cohomology. This property guaranties that the action lifts to complex line bundles over $`M`$. For the induced action of $`S^1Pin(2)`$ let $`Y`$ denote a connected component of the fixed point manifold $`M^{S^1}`$.

Let $`\widehat{\xi }M`$ be a $`Pin(2)`$-equivariant $`s`$-dimensional complex vector bundle. Since $`Y`$ is a trivial $`S^1`$-space the restriction of $`\widehat{\xi }`$ to $`Y`$ (viewed as an $`S^1`$-equivariant vector bundle) splits as a finite sum $`\widehat{\xi }_{|Y}=_k\widehat{\xi }_k\lambda ^k`$. Here $`\widehat{\xi }_k`$ is a complex vector bundle over $`Y`$ which is trivial as an $`S^1`$-space and $`\lambda `$ denotes the standard complex one-dimensional representation of $`S^1`$ (to lighten the notation we suppress the dependence of $`\widehat{\xi }_k`$ on $`Y`$). Let $`u_1,\mathrm{},u_s`$ denote the roots of $`_k\widehat{\xi }_k`$ defined using the splitting principle. Then the equivariant roots of $`\widehat{\xi }_{|Y}`$ are defined as $`u_1+\omega _1z,\mathrm{},u_s+\omega _sz`$, where $`\omega _i`$ is equal to $`k`$ if $`u_i`$ is a root of $`\widehat{\xi }_k`$ and $`z`$ is a formal variable. We call $`\omega _1,\mathrm{},\omega _s`$ the weights of $`\widehat{\xi }`$ at $`Y`$. Note that the character of the complex $`S^1`$-representation $`\widehat{\xi }_{|y}`$, $`yY`$, is equal to $`_i\lambda ^{\omega _i}`$.

Next assume $`\widehat{\xi }`$ is the complexification of an oriented $`Pin(2)`$-equivariant real $`2t`$-dimensional vector bundle $`\xi `$. Then $`\widehat{\xi }`$ is invariant under conjugation and the equivariant roots of $`\widehat{\xi }_{|Y}`$ occur in pairs $`(u_i+\omega _iz,u_{t+i}+\omega _{t+i}z)`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},t`$, where $`u_{t+i}+\omega _{t+i}z=(u_i+\omega _iz)`$. We call $`\pm (u_i+\omega _iz)`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},t`$, the equivariant roots and $`\pm \omega _i`$ the weights of $`\xi _{|Y}`$. A spectral sequence argument for the Borel construction of $`\xi `$ shows (cf. , Prop. 3.7)

###### Proposition 2.1.

If the first Pontrjagin class $`p_1(\xi )`$ is torsion then $`_{i=1}^t\omega _i^2`$ is independent of $`YM^{S^1}`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

We apply the proposition in the case that $`M`$ is a cohomology $`P^m`$, i.e. $`H^{}(M;)H^{}(P^m;)`$, and $`p_1(M)`$ is equal to $`nx^2`$, where $`xH^2(M;)`$ is a generator and $`n`$ is a non-negative integer. Let $`\pm (x_i+m_{Y,i}z)`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},m`$, denote the equivariant roots of $`TM_{|Y}`$. Consider the complex line bundle $`\gamma `$ over $`M`$ with $`c_1(\gamma )=x`$. Since $`Pin(2)`$ acts trivially on integral cohomology there exists a unique lift of the $`Pin(2)`$-action to $`\gamma `$ (this follows from , cf. , Prop. 3.6). Let $`a_Y`$ be the weight of the induced $`S^1`$-action on $`\gamma `$ at $`Y`$.

Note that by the assumption on $`p_1(M)`$ the first Pontrjagin class of the bundle $`\xi =TM+n\gamma `$ vanishes. Hence, Proposition 2.1 implies

###### Corollary 2.2.

There is a constant $`C`$ such that $`_{i=1}^mm_{Y,i}^2+na_Y^2=C`$ for any connected component $`Y`$ of $`M^{S^1}`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Next we assume that the $`Pin(2)`$-action is nice with fixed point, i.e. we assume in addition that the $`Pin(2)`$-action has a fixed point $`ptM`$. A simple application of the Lefschetz fixed point formula for the Euler characteristic shows that such a fixed point exists if the Euler characteristic of $`M`$ is odd (cf. , Lemma 3.8). Let $`Y_0`$ denote the connected component of $`M^{S^1}`$ which contains $`pt`$. Note that the representation $`\gamma _{|pt}`$ is trivial since it is a complex one-dimensional $`Pin(2)`$-representation. Hence $`a_{Y_0}`$ vanishes and we conclude from the corollary above that

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}m_{Y,i}^2+na_Y^2=\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}m_{Y_0,i}^2$$
($``$)
for any fixed point component $`Y`$. This formula is used in Section 4 to give a lower bound for the first Pontrjagin class.

## 3 Twisted $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐩𝐢𝐧}^𝐜`$-Dirac operators and Jacobi functions

In this section we consider certain series of equivariant twisted $`Spin^c`$-Dirac operators closely related to elliptic genera and describe their indices in terms of Jacobi functions. Let $`M`$ be a $`2m`$-dimensional closed connected manifold with $`Spin^c`$-structure given by a $`Spin^c(2m)`$-principal bundle $`PM`$.222Together with a fixed isomorphism between the induced $`SO(2m)`$-principal bundle and the frame bundle. The $`Spin^c`$-structure induces a complex line bundle over $`M`$ and we denote its first Chern class by $`cH^2(M;)`$.

Let $`VM`$ be a complex vector bundle of dimension $`s`$. We fix connections on $`V`$ and the $`U(1)`$-part of $`P`$. Let $`_\text{c}V`$ denote the associated twisted $`Spin^c`$-Dirac operator acting on sections of the tensor product of the complex spinor bundle and $`V`$. By the Atiyah-Singer index theorem (cf. ) its index $`ind(_\text{c}V)`$ is a topological invariant given by

$$ind(_\text{c}V)=e^{c/2}\widehat{𝒜}(M)ch(V),\mu _M.$$

Here $`\widehat{𝒜}(M)`$ denotes the multiplicative series for $`M`$ associated to the $`\widehat{A}`$-genus, $`\mu _M`$ is the fundamental cycle of $`M`$ and $`,`$ denotes the pairing between cohomology and homology.

Next assume $`M`$ carries an $`S^1`$-action and the action lifts to the $`Spin^c`$-structure $`P`$ and to the complex vector bundle $`V`$. In this situation the twisted $`Spin^c`$-Dirac operator $`_\text{c}V`$ refines to an $`S^1`$-equivariant operator and its index refines to an element $`ind_{S^1}(_\text{c}V)`$ of the complex representation ring $`R(S^1)`$. For any topological generator $`\lambda _0S^1`$ the equivariant index $`ind_{S^1}(_\text{c}V)(\lambda _0)`$ may be computed from the Lefschetz fixed point formula (cf. , ) in terms of local data at the fixed points

$$ind_{S^1}(_\text{c}V)(\lambda _0)=\underset{Y}{}\stackrel{~}{\nu }_Y(\lambda _0).$$

Here the sum runs over the connected components $`Y`$ of the fixed point manifold $`M^{S^1}`$. To describe the local data $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_Y`$ it is convenient to replace the $`S^1`$-action by the two-fold action.333This is not necessary but makes formulas easier. In particular, some functions which are only well defined on the covering $`^{}^{},\lambda \lambda ^2`$, are defined on the base after passing to the two-fold action. Having done so it follows from the Lefschetz fixed point formula that each local contribution $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_Y(\lambda )`$ is a rational function in $`\lambda `$ which only depends on the restriction of the $`Spin^c`$-structure $`P`$ and the bundle $`V`$ to $`Y`$. Since $`ind_{S^1}(_\text{c}V)R(S^1)`$ is a finite Laurent polynomial in $`\lambda `$ the sum $`_Y\stackrel{~}{\nu }_Y(\lambda )`$ extends to a meromorphic function on $``$ without poles on $`^{}`$.

Below we shall consider a certain series of $`S^1`$-equivariant twisted $`Spin^c`$-Dirac operators for which the equivariant index is related to a Jacobi function (see Prop. 3.1). In the next section we employ this relation to study the first Pontrjagin class of a homotopy complex projective space which admits a nice $`Pin(2)`$-action with fixed point.

We digress and recall the definition of Jacobi functions. Let $`SL_2()`$ act on $`^2`$ by matrix multiplication from the right, i.e. $`(\alpha ,\beta )(\alpha ,\beta )A`$ for $`ASL_2()`$, and let $``$ denote the upper half-plane.

A meromorphic function $`F(\tau ,z)`$ on $`\times `$ is called a Jacobi function for $`SL_2()^2`$ of weight $`k`$ and index $`I`$ if

$$F(\tau ,z+\alpha \tau +\beta )=F(\tau ,z)e^{2\pi iI(\alpha ^2\tau +2\alpha z)}$$

for $`(\alpha ,\beta )^2`$ and

$$F(\frac{a\tau +b}{c\tau +d},\frac{z}{c\tau +d})=F(\tau ,z)(c\tau +d)^ke^{2\pi iI\frac{cz^2}{c\tau +d}}$$

for $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ c& d\end{array}\right)SL_2()`$. In view of these equations one may also define Jacobi functions of weight $`k`$ and index $`I`$ as fixed points under an action of $`SL_2()^2`$ on the ring of meromorphic functions on $`\times `$ (cf.  where the definition also involves conditions for the cusps).

In topology Jacobi functions occur naturally as local contributions in the Lefschetz fixed point formula of elliptic genera for $`Spin`$, stable almost complex or $`BO8`$-manifolds (cf. , , , ).

We shall now consider some generalizations of elliptic genera to $`S^1`$-equivariant $`Spin^\text{c}`$-manifolds. As before let $`V`$ be an $`S^1`$-equivariant $`s`$-dimensional complex vector bundle over $`M`$. We define a $`q`$-power series $`𝒰_VK_{S^1}(M)[[q]]`$ of virtual $`S^1`$-equivariant vector bundles by

$$𝒰_V:=\underset{n=1}{\overset{}{}}S_{q^n}(\stackrel{~}{TM}_{})\mathrm{\Lambda }_1(V^{})\underset{n=1}{\overset{}{}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{q^n}(\stackrel{~}{V}_{}).$$

Here $`q`$ is a formal variable, $`\stackrel{~}{E}`$ denotes the reduced vector bundle $`Edim(E)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_t:=\mathrm{\Lambda }^it^i`$ (resp. $`S_t:=S^it^i`$) denotes the exterior (resp. symmetric) power operation. The tensor product is, if not indicated otherwise, taken over the complex numbers.

The index of the equivariant $`Spin^c`$-Dirac operator twisted with $`𝒰_V`$ is a $`q`$-power series of representations $`ind_{S^1}(_\text{c}𝒰_V)R(S^1)[[q]]`$. By the Lefschetz fixed point formula the equivariant index at a topological generator $`\lambda _0`$ of $`S^1`$ is a sum of local data

$$ind_{S^1}(_\text{c}𝒰_V)(\lambda _0)=\underset{Y}{}\stackrel{~}{\nu }_Y(q,\lambda _0).$$

Each local datum $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_Y(q,\lambda )`$ is an element of $`(\lambda )[[q]]`$ which only depends on the restriction of the $`Spin^c`$-structure $`P`$ and $`𝒰_V`$ to $`Y`$. In order to explain its relation to Jacobi functions we need to introduce some notation for the local data at the $`S^1`$-fixed points.

For a connected component $`Y`$ of $`M^{S^1}`$ define $`d(Y):=dim(Y)/2`$ (since $`M`$ is of even dimension the same holds for $`Y`$). The tangent bundle $`TM`$ restricted to $`Y`$ splits equivariantly as the direct sum of $`TY`$ and the normal bundle $`𝒩(Y)`$ which inherits a complex structure from the $`S^1`$-action. Let $`x_i+m_{Y,i}z`$, $`d(Y)<im`$, denote the equivariant roots of $`𝒩(Y)`$ (to lighten the notation we suppress the dependence of $`x_i`$ on $`Y`$).

On $`Y`$ we choose the orientation which is compatible with the orientation of $`M`$ and the complex normal bundle $`𝒩(Y)`$. Let $`\pm x_1,\mathrm{},\pm x_{d(Y)}`$ denote a set of roots of $`TY`$ such that $`x_1\mathrm{}x_{d(Y)}`$ is equal to the Euler class of the oriented vector bundle $`TY`$ and let $`m_{Y,i}=0`$ for $`id(Y)`$. Note that $`\pm (x_i+m_{Y,i}z)`$ are the equivariant roots of $`TM_{|Y}`$ as introduced in Section 2.

Recall that the $`Spin^c`$-structure induces a complex line bundle over $`M`$. Let $`l_Y`$ be its weight at $`Y`$. The equivariant roots of $`V`$ at $`Y`$ shall be denoted by $`v_1+s_{Y,1}z,\mathrm{},v_s+s_{Y,s}z`$. Next let

$$I_Y:=\frac{1}{2}(\underset{j}{}s_{Y,j}^2\underset{i}{}m_{Y,i}^2),$$

which is an integer since we are looking at the two-fold action. Finally, define $`n(V_{|Y}):=dim_{}(V_0)`$, where $`V_0:=(V_{|Y})^{S^1}`$ denotes the subbundle of $`V_{|Y}`$ which is fixed under the $`S^1`$-action.

We are now in the position to state the main result of this section which we use in the following section to derive a lower bound for the first Pontrjagin class of a cohomology $`P^m`$ with $`Pin(2)`$-action.

###### Proposition 3.1.

For $`q=e^{2\pi i\tau }`$, $`\tau `$, and $`\lambda _0=e^{2\pi iz_0}`$ a topological generator of $`S^1`$ the series $`\nu _Y(\tau ,z_0):=\stackrel{~}{\nu }_Y(q,\lambda _0)`$ converges to a meromorphic function on $`\times `$ also denoted by $`\nu _Y(\tau ,z)`$. The sum $`_Y\nu _Y(\tau ,z)`$ has no poles on $`z`$.

1. If $`n(V_{|Y})>d(Y)`$ then $`\nu _Y(\tau ,z)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_Y(q,\lambda )`$ vanish identically.
2. If $`n(V_{|Y})=d(Y)`$ then $`\nu _Y(\tau ,z)`$ is the product of a holomorphic function $`e(z)`$ and a Jacobi function $`F_Y`$ for $`SL_2()^2`$ of index $`I_Y`$. For any fixed $`\tau `$ the set of poles of $`F_Y`$ is contained in $`\tau +`$.

Proof: We describe the local datum $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_Y(q,\lambda _0)`$ in terms of the Weierstraß’ $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-function and the equivariant roots. Recall that $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\tau ,z)`$ is a holomorphic function on $`\times `$ defined by the normally convergent infinite product

$$\varphi (q,\lambda ):=(\lambda ^{\frac{1}{2}}\lambda ^{\frac{1}{2}})\underset{n1}{}\frac{(1q^n\lambda )(1q^n\lambda ^1)}{(1q^n)^2}[\lambda ^{\frac{1}{2}},\lambda ^{\frac{1}{2}}][[q]],$$

where $`q=e^{2\pi i\tau }`$ and $`\lambda =e^{2\pi iz}`$. For a topological generator $`\lambda _0`$ of $`S^1`$ the power series $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_Y(q,\lambda _0)[[q]]`$ is given by

$$\stackrel{~}{\nu }_Y(q,\lambda _0)=A(q,\lambda _0),\mu _Y$$
(1)
where $`A(q,\lambda )H^{}(Y;(\lambda )[[q]])`$ is defined as444Since we have passed to the two-fold action this is an expression in $`\lambda `$ rather than $`\lambda ^{\frac{1}{2}}`$.

$$e^{\frac{1}{2}(c_jv_j)}\lambda ^{\frac{1}{2}(l_Y_js_{Y,j})}\times $$

$$\times \underset{m_{Y,i}=0}{}\frac{x_i}{\varphi (q,e^{x_i})}\underset{m_{Y,i}0}{}\frac{1}{\varphi (q,e^{x_i}\lambda ^{m_{Y,i}})}\underset{j=1}{\overset{s}{}}\varphi (q,e^{v_j}\lambda ^{s_{Y,j}}).$$

Here $`\mu _Y`$ is the fundamental cycle of $`Y`$, the characteristic classes are expressed in terms of their formal roots and $`,`$ denotes the pairing between cohomology and homology. Recall that $`l_Y`$ is the weight at $`Y`$ of the complex line bundle associated to the equivariant $`Spin^c`$-structure. To prove formula (1) one computes the Chern character of $`𝒰_V`$ and applies the Lefschetz fixed point formula to $`ind_{S^1}(_\text{c}𝒰_V)(\lambda _0)`$ (for details cf. ).

Recall that $`\varphi (q,\lambda )`$ converges normally to $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\tau ,z)`$. This implies that for fixed $`\lambda _0=e^{2\pi iz_0}`$ and any $`q=e^{2\pi i\tau }`$, $`\tau `$, the series $`A(q,\lambda _0)H^{}(Y;)[[q]]`$ converges to a well defined element $`𝒜_{z_0}(\tau )`$ in the cohomology of $`Y`$ with values in the ring of holomorphic functions on $``$. Moreover, there exists an element $`𝒜(\tau ,z)`$ in the cohomology of $`Y`$ with values in the ring $`(\times )`$ of meromorphic functions on $`\times `$ such that $`𝒜(\tau ,z_0)=𝒜_{z_0}(\tau )`$ for any irrational $`z_0`$ (for details cf. ). Changing variables we conclude from formula (1) that the series $`\nu _Y(\tau ,z)`$ converges for any irrational real number $`z`$ to the meromorphic function $`𝒜(\tau ,z),\mu _Y`$ (in the following also denoted by $`\nu _Y(\tau ,z)`$).

Note that each coefficient of the $`q`$-power series $`ind_{S^1}(_\text{c}𝒰_V)`$, being a finite Laurent polynomial in $`\lambda `$, is holomorphic on $`S^1`$. This implies that the sum $`_Y\nu _Y(\tau ,z)`$ has no poles on $`z`$ (again cf.  for details). Next we consider the statements involving the dimension $`n(V_{|Y})`$ of $`V_0`$.

Ad (1): Assume $`n(V_{|Y})>d(Y)`$. Recall that the Weierstraß’ $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-function $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\tau ,z)`$ has a simple zero in $`z=0`$ for any $`\tau `$. This implies that $`𝒜(\tau ,z)`$ contains the Euler class $`e(V_0)=_{s_{Y,j}=0}v_j`$ of $`V_0`$ as a factor. Since $`n(V_{|Y})>d(Y)`$ the function $`\nu _Y(\tau ,z)=𝒜(\tau ,z),\mu _Y`$ vanishes for any irrational $`z`$. Being meromorphic this forces $`\nu _Y(\tau ,z)`$ (and also $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_Y(q,\lambda )`$) to vanish identically.

Ad (2): Assume $`n(V_{|Y})=d(Y)`$. Then $`e(V_0)`$ is in the top degree of the cohomology of $`Y`$. The local datum $`\nu _Y(\tau ,z_0)`$ is equal to the product of the Euler number of $`V_0`$ and $`𝒜_0(\tau ,z_0)`$, where $`𝒜_0(\tau ,z)=e^{\pi i(l_Y_js_{Y,j})z}F_Y(\tau ,z)`$ and

$$F_Y(\tau ,z)=\underset{m_{Y,i}0}{}\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Phi }(\tau ,m_{Y,i}z)}\underset{s_{Y,j}0}{}\mathrm{\Phi }(\tau ,s_{Y,j}z).$$

To see this consider $`A(q,\lambda )`$, recall that $`\varphi (q,\lambda )`$ converges to $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\tau ,z)`$ and note that $`\varphi (q,e^x)`$ has the form $`x+O(x^3)`$. Whereas $`𝒜(\tau ,z)`$ depends on the equivariant roots $`𝒜_0(\tau ,z)`$ only depends on the weights of $`TM`$ and $`V`$ at $`Y`$.

We proceed to identify $`F_Y(\tau ,z)`$ with a Jacobi function. The Weierstraß’ $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-function is a holomorphic Jacobi function for $`SL_2()^2`$ of weight $`1`$ and ‘index $`\frac{1}{2}`$ with character’ (cf. ). More precisely, $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is holomorphic and satisfies

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(\tau ,z+\alpha \tau +\beta )=\mathrm{\Phi }(\tau ,z)e^{\pi i(\alpha ^2\tau +2\alpha z)}(1)^{\alpha +\beta }$$

for $`(\alpha ,\beta )^2`$ and

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(\frac{a\tau +b}{c\tau +d},\frac{z}{c\tau +d})=\mathrm{\Phi }(\tau ,z)(c\tau +d)^1e^{\pi i\frac{cz^2}{c\tau +d}}$$

for $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ c& d\end{array}\right)SL_2()`$. In particular, if $`s`$ is even, then $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\tau ,sz)`$ is a holomorphic Jacobi function of weight $`1`$ and index $`\frac{s^2}{2}`$ (as defined in the beginning of this section). For fixed $`\tau `$ the divisor of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\tau (z):=\mathrm{\Phi }(\tau ,z)`$ is equal to $`\tau +`$, i.e. $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\tau `$ has a simple zero in each lattice point. From these properties it follows that $`F_Y(\tau ,z)`$ is a Jacobi function for $`SL_2()^2`$ of index $`I_Y`$ with poles in $`\tau +`$. This completes the proof of the proposition.  $`\mathrm{}`$

## 4 A lower bound for the first Pontrjagin class

In this section we give a lower bound for the first Pontrjagin class of a cohomology complex projective space which supports a nice $`Pin(2)`$-action with fixed point. Let $`M`$ be a $`2m`$-dimensional manifold with $`H^{}(M;)H^{}(P^m;)`$. We assume that $`Pin(2)`$ acts almost effectively on $`M`$ and trivially on cohomology. Also we assume that the action has a fixed point. As mentioned before the latter assumption is automatically satisfied if the Euler characteristic of $`M`$ is odd, i.e. if $`m`$ is even.

Let $`\gamma `$ denote the complex line bundle with $`c_1(\gamma )=x`$, where $`x`$ is a fixed generator of $`H^2(M;)`$. Since the $`Pin(2)`$-action is trivial on integral cohomology, we can lift the action uniquely to $`\gamma `$ (this follows form , cf. , Prop. 3.6). Let $`a_Y`$ denote the weight of $`\gamma `$ at a connected component $`Y`$ of $`M^{S^1}`$ for the induced $`S^1`$-action.

Next we recall some well known facts about $`M`$ and $`\gamma `$ which may be induced from the localization theorem in $`K`$-theory applied to the $`S^1`$-action and induced $`_p`$-actions or by cohomological means (cf. for example , Th. 2.8,  Ch. VII, ):

1. The fixed point manifold $`M^{S^1}`$ is a disjoint union $`Y_0\mathrm{}Y_k`$, where the integral cohomology ring of $`Y_i`$ is isomorphic to $`P^{m_i}`$ for some $`m_i`$.
2. $`_{i=0}^k(m_i+1)=m+1`$.
3. The weights of $`\gamma `$ are distinct.

Assume $`a_{Y_0}=0`$, i.e. assume that the $`Pin(2)`$-fixed point $`pt`$ is in $`Y_0`$. Let $`V`$ be the sum of $`S^1`$-equivariant complex line bundles over $`M`$ given by

$$V:=d(Y_0)\gamma +\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}(d(Y_i)+1)\gamma \lambda ^{a_{Y_i}},$$

where $`\lambda `$ denotes the standard complex one-dimensional representation of $`S^1`$. We apply Proposition 3.1 to $`ind_{S^1}(_\text{c}𝒰_V)`$ to derive a lower bound for the first Pontrjagin class.

###### Proposition 4.1.

Let $`M`$ be a cohomology $`P^m`$ as above. If $`p_1(M)=nx^2`$ then $`n<m`$.

Proof: We may assume that $`n`$ is non-negative. Using the Atiyah-Singer index theorem one computes that the non-equivariant index $`ind(_\text{c}𝒰_V)`$ does not vanish. We proceed to describe the equivariant index in terms of local data. For technical reasons we replace the $`S^1`$-action by its two-fold action. Recall that $`d(Y_i)`$ denotes half of the dimension of $`Y_i`$, i.e. $`d(Y_i)=m_i`$, and $`n(V_{|Y_i})`$ denotes the complex dimension of the subbundle $`V_0`$ of $`V_{|Y_i}`$ which is fixed under the $`S^1`$-action. Since the weights $`a_{Y_0},\mathrm{},a_{Y_k}`$ of $`\gamma `$ are distinct and $`a_{Y_0}=0`$ we have $`n(V_{|Y_i})=d(Y_i)+1`$ if $`i>0`$ and $`n(V_{|Y_0})=d(Y_0)`$.

Next consider the local datum $`\nu _{Y_i}(\tau ,z)`$ in the Lefschetz fixed point formula for $`ind_{S^1}(_\text{c}𝒰_V)`$. By Proposition 3.1 $`\nu _{Y_i}(\tau ,z)`$ vanishes for $`i>0`$, $`\nu _{Y_0}(\tau ,z)`$ is the product of a holomorphic function $`e(z)`$ and a meromorphic function $`F_{Y_0}(\tau ,z)`$ and $`ind_{S^1}(_\text{c}𝒰_V)(\lambda )`$ converges to

$$\underset{i}{}\nu _{Y_i}(\tau ,z)=\nu _{Y_0}(\tau ,z)=e(z)F_{Y_0}(\tau ,z)$$

for $`q=e^{2\pi i\tau }`$ and any topological generator $`\lambda =e^{2\pi iz}`$. Moreover $`F_{Y_0}(\tau ,z)`$ is a Jacobi function for $`SL_2()^2`$ of index

$$I_{Y_0}:=\frac{1}{2}(\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}(d(Y_i)+1)a_{Y_i}^2\underset{j=1}{\overset{m}{}}m_{Y_0,j}^2)$$

with poles in $`\tau +`$. Note that $`F_{Y_0}(\tau ,z)`$ and $`e(z)`$ cannot vanish identically, since the non-equivariant index $`ind(_\text{c}𝒰_V)`$ does not vanish.

It follows from the proof of Proposition 3.1 that $`e(z)`$ has no zeros on $`z`$. Since $`_i\nu _{Y_i}(\tau ,z)`$ has no poles on $`z`$ the same holds for $`F_{Y_0}(\tau ,z)`$.

Next consider the action of $`A=\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ c& d\end{array}\right)SL_2()`$ on $`\times `$ given by $`A(\tau ,z)=(\frac{a\tau +b}{c\tau +d},\frac{z}{c\tau +d})`$. Note that the $`SL_2()`$-orbit of any element of $`\{\tau \}\times (\tau +)`$ intersects with $`\{\tau _0\}\times `$ for some $`\tau _0`$. Since $`F_{Y_0}(\tau ,z)`$ has poles in $`\tau +`$ but no poles on $``$ we conclude that $`F_{Y_0}`$ has no poles at all. Hence, $`F_{Y_0}`$ is a holomorphic Jacobi function of index $`I_{Y_0}`$ which does not vanish identically. Since a holomorphic Jacobi function of negative index must vanish identically (cf. ) the index $`I_{Y_0}`$ is non-negative, i.e.

$$\underset{j=1}{\overset{m}{}}m_{Y_0,j}^2\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}(d(Y_i)+1)a_{Y_i}^2.$$

Let $`Z`$ be a connected fixed point component of $`M^{S^1}`$ such that $`a_Z^2=\mathrm{max}_i\{a_{Y_i}^2\}`$. By equation $`()`$

$$\underset{j=1}{\overset{m}{}}m_{Y_0,j}^2=\underset{j=1}{\overset{m}{}}m_{Z,j}^2+na_Z^2.$$

Hence,

$$\underset{j=1}{\overset{m}{}}m_{Z,j}^2+na_Z^2\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}(d(Y_i)+1)a_{Y_i}^2.$$

This implies $`n<m`$ since $`a_Z^2a_{Y_i}^2`$ and $`_{i>0}(d(Y_i)+1)m`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

## 5 Rigidity of Pontrjagin classes

In this section we prove Theorem 1.2. In fact we show the following slightly more general result.

###### Theorem 5.1.

Let $`M`$ be a smooth cohomology $`P^m`$, $`m<12`$, which supports an almost effective smooth $`Pin(2)`$-action which is trivial on cohomology. If $`m`$ is odd assume in addition that the action has a fixed point. Then the total Pontrjagin class of $`M`$ is standard, i.e. $`p(M)=(1+x^2)^{m+1}`$.

###### Remarks 5.2.

1. The theorem above is slightly more general than Theorem 1.2 since a cohomology $`P^m`$ may have non-trivial fundamental group.
2. For $`m`$ odd there are $`S^3`$-actions on $`P^m`$ with fixed point free $`Pin(2)`$-action. The homogeneous action on $`S^3/S^1P^1`$ is an example.

Proof of Theorem 5.1: First note that the $`Pin(2)`$-action on $`M`$ always has a fixed point (for $`m`$ even this is true since the Euler characteristic of $`M`$ is odd). We order $`H^4(M;)=x^2`$ by identifying $`H^4(M;)`$ with the integers using $`x^21`$. By Proposition 4.1 the first Pontrjagin class satisfies $`p_1(M)>mx^2`$. In , Th. 4.2, it was shown that $`p_1(M)(m+1)x^2`$ using methods similar to those of Section 3. For the convenience of the reader we sketch the argument below (see Th. 5.3). Hence,

$$mx^2<p_1(M)(m+1)x^2.$$
(2)
Next note that $`p_1(M)`$ is a cohomology invariant modulo $`24`$, i.e. $`p_1(M)(m+1)x^2mod24`$. To see this choose a $`Spin^\text{c}`$-structure on $`M`$ with first Chern class $`c=(m+1)x`$ and let $`V:=(\gamma 1)^{m2}`$. By the Atiyah-Singer index theorem the index of the (non-equivariant) $`Spin^c`$-Dirac operator twisted with $`V`$ is equal to

$$e^{\frac{c}{2}}\widehat{𝒜}(M)(e^x1)^{m2},\mu _M.$$

Note that $`\widehat{𝒜}(M)=1\frac{p_1(M)}{24}+`$ terms of higher order. Let $`b`$ be the integer defined by $`p_1(M)=bx^2`$. Then the index takes the form $`\frac{b}{24}Q`$, where $`Q`$ is a rational number which only depends on the cohomology ring of $`M`$. Since the index is an integer it follows that $`\frac{b}{24}Q`$ modulo the integers. The same computation shows for the standard complex projective space that $`\frac{m+1}{24}Qmod`$. Hence, $`bm+1mod24`$, i.e. $`p_1(M)(m+1)x^2`$ modulo $`24`$. Since $`m<12`$ it follows from equation (2) that the first Pontrjagin class is standard, i.e.

$$p_1(M)=(m+1)x^2.$$

As mentioned in the introduction it was shown in  that the total Pontrjagin class of $`M`$ is standard if $`p_1(M)`$ is standard (see Th. 5.3 below). This completes the proof. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Theorem 5.3.

Let $`M`$ be a cohomology $`P^m`$ with nice $`Pin(2)`$-action. If $`m`$ is odd assume in addition that the action has a fixed point. Then the first Pontrjagin class satisfies $`p_1(M)(m+1)x^2`$. Moreover $`p(M)`$ is standard if $`p_1(M)=(m+1)x^2`$.

Proof: For a detailed proof we refer to , Th. 4.2. Here is a sketch of the argument based on the following general vanishing result. Let $`V`$ be a $`Pin(2)`$-equivariant complex vector bundle and let $`W`$ be a $`Pin(2)`$-equivariant $`2t`$-dimensional $`Spin`$-vector bundle over $`M`$. Let $`\pm (w_1+t_{Y,1}z),\mathrm{},\pm (w_t+t_{Y,t}z)`$ denote the equivariant roots of $`W`$ restricted to a connected component $`Y`$ of $`M^{S^1}`$. The equivariant roots of $`V`$ and $`TM`$ shall be denoted as in Section 3. Assume $`p_1(V+W)=p_1(M)`$. Using a spectral-sequence argument one shows that

$$I:=\frac{1}{2}(\underset{j=1}{\overset{s}{}}s_{Y,j}^2+\underset{k=1}{\overset{t}{}}t_{Y,k}^2\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}m_{Y,i}^2)$$
(3)
is independent of $`Y`$. Next consider the $`q`$-power series $`𝒰_{V,W}K_{S^1}(M)[[q]]`$ of virtual $`S^1`$-equivariant vector bundles defined by

$$𝒰_{V,W}:=𝒰_V\mathrm{}(\stackrel{~}{W})\underset{n=1}{\overset{}{}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{q^n}(\stackrel{~}{W}_{}).$$

Here $`\mathrm{}(W)`$ denotes the full complex spinor bundle associated to the $`Spin`$-vector bundle $`W`$. We fix a $`Spin^\text{c}`$-structure on $`M`$ and lift the induced $`S^1`$-action. Next one shows (by arguments similar to the ones of the previous sections) that the equivariant index $`ind_{S^1}(_\text{c}𝒰_{V,W})`$ is equal to the product of a holomorphic function and a Jacobi function (for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(2)SL_2()`$) of index $`I`$ if $`p_1(V+W)=p_1(M)`$ and $`c_1(V)`$ is equal to the first Chern class of the $`Spin^\text{c}`$-manifold $`M`$. As in the proof of the rigidity of elliptic genera one can show that the Jacobi function is in fact holomorphic. This implies that $`ind_{S^1}(_\text{c}𝒰_{V,W})`$ vanishes identically if $`I`$ is negative.

Now assume $`p_1(M)>(m+1)x^2`$. We want to show a contradiction. To this end fix a $`Spin^\text{c}`$-structure on $`M`$ with first Chern class equal to $`(m+1)x`$. Let $`V:=(m1)\gamma +\gamma ^2`$ and let $`W:=(bm3)\gamma `$, where $`b>m+1`$ is defined by $`p_1(M)=bx^2`$ (note that $`bm+3`$ since $`p_1(M)(m+1)x^2mod2`$). We lift the $`Pin(2)`$-action to each line bundle occurring in $`V`$ and $`W`$. Note that $`p_1(V+W)=p_1(M)`$ and $`c_1(V)`$ is equal to the first Chern class of $`M`$. Since the weights of $`V`$ and $`W`$ at the $`Pin(2)`$-fixed point vanish it follows from equation (3) that $`I`$ is negative. Hence, by the result above $`ind_{S^1}(_\text{c}𝒰_{V,W})`$ vanishes identically. In particular, the non-equivariant index vanishes. However, one computes with the help of the Atiyah-Singer index theorem that the series $`ind(_\text{c}𝒰_{V,W})`$ does not vanish. This contradicts the assumption on $`p_1(M)`$. Thus $`p_1(M)(m+1)x^2`$.

Next assume $`p_1(M)=(m+1)x^2`$. We want to show that $`p(M)`$ is standard. To this end let $`V_k:=\gamma ^2+(m32k)\gamma `$, $`W_k:=(2k)\gamma `$, $`k\{0,\mathrm{},[\frac{m3}{2}]\}`$, and choose a $`Spin^c`$-structure on $`M`$ with first Chern class equal to $`c_1(V_k)`$. Note that $`p_1(V_k+W_kTM)=0`$. Again we lift the $`Pin(2)`$-action to each line bundle occurring in $`V_k`$ and $`W_k`$ and conclude from equation (3) that $`I`$ is negative. By the result above $`ind_{S^1}(_\text{c}𝒰_{V,W})`$ vanishes identically. In particular, the constant term in the $`q`$-power series is zero, i.e.

$$\widehat{𝒜}(M)(e^xe^x)(e^{\frac{x}{2}}e^{\frac{x}{2}})^{m32k}(e^{\frac{x}{2}}+e^{\frac{x}{2}})^{2k},\mu _M=0$$

for $`k\{0,\mathrm{},[\frac{m3}{2}]\}`$. These relations together with the signature theorem completely determine $`\widehat{𝒜}(M)`$ and therefore determine the total Pontrjagin class $`p(M)`$. Since all these relations also hold true for $`P^m`$ we conclude that $`p(M)=(1+x^2)^{m+1}`$. Hence $`p(M)`$ is standard if $`p_1(M)`$ is standard. $`\mathrm{}`$

Anand Dessai
e-mail: dessai@math.uni-augsburg.de
http://www.math.uni-augsburg.de/geo/dessai/homepage.html
Department of Mathematics, University of Augsburg, D-86159 Augsburg


format: text

text:
# Strong constraint on large extra dimensions from cosmology

## I Introduction

In the past few years there has been an enormous interest in the possibility that the presence of large extra dimensions can explain the hierarchy problem , the fact that the energy scale for gravitation (the Planck scale $`10^{19}`$ GeV) is so much larger than that for the standard model (100 GeV). The idea is that the standard model fields are located on a 3+1 dimensional brane embedded in a higher dimensional bulk, where only gravity is allowed to propagate.

This already puts stringent constraints on the size of the extra dimensions. Newtons law should definitely hold for any scale which has so far been observed. At present the best experiments have probed scales down to about 1mm. Thus, if there are extra dimensions, they can only appear at a scale smaller than that. For simplicity we make the assumption that the $`n`$ new dimensions form an $`n`$-torus of the same radius $`R_n`$ in each direction ***This assumption has been made in practically all works on the subject, however see Ref.  for a different model.. If there are such extra dimensions, the Planck scale of the full higher dimensional space, $`M_{P,n+4}`$, can be related to the normal Planck scale, $`M_{P,4}`$, by use of Gauss’ law

$$M_{P,4}^2=R^nM_{P,n+4}^{n+2},$$
(1)
and if $`R`$ is large then $`M_{P,n+4}`$ can be much smaller than $`M_P`$. If this scenario is to solve the hierarchy problem then $`M_{P,n+4}`$ must be close to the electroweak scale ($`M_{P,n+4}10100`$ TeV), otherwise the hierarchy problem reappears. This already excludes $`n=1`$, because $`M_{P,n+4}100`$ TeV corresponds to $`R10^8`$ cm. However, $`n2`$ is still possible, and particularly for $`n=2`$ there is the intriguing perspective that the extra dimensions could be accessible to experiments probing gravity at scales smaller than 1 mm. From this point on we use $`M`$ instead of $`M_{P,n+4}`$ to simplify notation.

So far, the strongest constraints come from the observation of the neutrino emission of SN1987A . In the standard model, a Type II supernova emits energy almost solely in the form of neutrinos. Furthermore, the observed neutrino signal fits very well with the theoretical prediction. If extra dimensions are present, then the usual 4D graviton is complemented by a tower of Kaluza-Klein states, corresponding to the new available phase space in the bulk. Emission of these KK states can potentially cool the proto-neutron star too fast to be compatible with observations. This has lead to the tight bound that $`R0.66\mu `$m ($`M31`$ TeV) for $`n=2`$ and $`R0.8`$ nm ($`M2.75`$ TeV) for $`n=3`$ . In fact, an even stronger constraint can be obtained from considering the contribution to the diffuse gamma background from decays of the KK modes produced in cosmological supernovae. A conservative estimate yields a bound of $`R0.09\mu `$m ($`M84`$ TeV) for $`n=2`$ and $`R0.19`$ nm ($`M7`$ TeV) for $`n=3`$ .

The other obvious place in astrophysics to look for these extra dimensions is cosmology  (see also ). In the present paper we go through the possible cosmological effects from the presence of large extra dimensions. We solve the Boltzmann equation for the production of KK modes, both during the radiation dominated epoch and during the reheating phase preceding it. We show that unless the maximum temperature reached during reheating is very low, the constraints from cosmology are much stronger than the supernova bounds.

## II Boltzmann equations

The fundamental equation governing the evolution of all species in the expanding universe is the Boltzmann equation , $`L[f]=C[f]`$, where $`L=f/tpHf/p`$ is the Liouville operator and $`C`$ is the collision operator describing all possible interactions. $`f`$ is the distribution function for the given particle species. In the present case, there are two terms contributing to the collision operator: production and decay. There are several possible production channels : gravi-Compton scattering, pair annihilation and bremsstrahlung. In a supernova, nucleon-nucleon bremsstrahlung is by far the dominant mechanism because of the very high nucleon density. However, this is not the case in the early universe, the reason being that the early universe is a high entropy environment ($`\eta =n_B/n_\gamma 10^{10}`$) . Therefore NN bremsstrahlung is suppressed by a large numerical factor $`n_N^2/n_\gamma ^2`$. The dominant processes are instead the pair annihilation reactions $`2\gamma KK,\nu \overline{\nu }KK,e^+e^{}KK`$ . The matrix element for each of these processes is given simply by $`|M|^2=A_is^2/4\overline{M}_P^2`$, where $`A_\nu =A_e=1`$ and $`A_\gamma =4`$ . $`\overline{M}_P=2.4\times 10^{18}`$ GeV is the reduced Planck mass.

In order for the standard cosmological equations to apply, it is a necessary condition that $`\rho _{KK}\rho _i`$, where $`i`$ denotes fields on the brane. This means that we can completely neglect inverse processes in our treatment. It also has the big advantage that we can neglect Pauli blocking and stimulated emission factors in the Boltzmann equation. In this case we can use the integrated Boltzmann equation which is much simpler than the full Boltzmann equation

$$\dot{n}_m=\underset{i=\nu ,e,\gamma }{}\sigma v_in_i^23Hn_m\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{decay},m},$$
(2)
where $`m`$ is the mass of the KK state. For the relatively low mass modes we look at, the decay lifetime is very long . Therefore decays can be completely neglected at early times and the production phase can be separated from the decay phase. The production equation is then given by

$$\dot{n}_m=3Hn_m+\frac{11m^5T}{128\pi ^3\overline{M}_P^2}K_1(m/T),$$
(3)
where $`K_1(x)`$ is a modified Bessel function of the second kind and we have assumed that $`m_e=0`$. This assumption has very little influence on the results.

### A Production during the radiation dominated epoch

The universe enters the radiation dominated epoch at some temperature $`T`$, which we shall refer to as the reheating temperature, $`T_{\mathrm{RH}}`$. Production of KK modes during this epoch was studied in detail by Hall and Smith , and in this section their results are rederived. The present day number density can be found be integrating the Boltzmann equation

$$n_0(m)\frac{19}{64\pi ^3}g_{,RH}^{1/2}T_0^3\frac{m}{\overline{M}_P}e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{decay},m}t_0}_{m/T_{RH}}^{\mathrm{}}q^3K_1(q)𝑑q.$$
(4)
This equation applies to the number density for one mode with mass $`m`$. However, if we are interested in the total present day contribution to the mass density from all modes, then we need to sum over all modes. This sum can be replaced by an integral over $`dm`$ because the mode density is very high . This integration yields the result

$`\rho _{0,\mathrm{thermal}}`$ $``$ $`1.9\times 10^{22}S_{n1}\mathrm{GeV}^4\left({\displaystyle \frac{T_{RH}}{M}}\right)^{n+2}`$ (6)
$`\times {\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}dzz^{n+1}e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{decay},m}t_0}{\displaystyle _z^{\mathrm{}}}dqq^3K_1(q),`$
where $`S_{n1}=2\pi ^{n/2}/\mathrm{\Gamma }(n/2)`$. In Fig. 1 we show the constraints on $`M`$ from demanding that $`\rho _0\rho _{\mathrm{crit}}`$, for the case of $`n=2`$. This result is identical to what was found in Ref. .

From this it is evident that for $`T_{RH}3`$ MeV the bound is tighter than what is found from SN1987A. However, it was shown in Refs.  that $`T_{RH}=0.7`$ MeV can still be compatible with BBN, so if $`T_{RH}`$ is sufficiently low the overproduction of KK states can be avoided.

### B Production during reheating

In the above treatment it was assumed that the universe enters the radiation dominated epoch instantaneously at the reheating temperature. However, this is not the case for any physically acceptable scenario. Plausibly, the universe enters the radiation epoch after some reheating by the decay of a massive scalar field (or by some other means of entropy production). The only reasonable alternative is that the radiation dominated epoch extended to much higher temperatures (of the order $`M`$). Here, we look at the “standard” case where reheating occurs from the decay of the inflaton field (for further discussion of inflation in scenarios with large extra dimensions, see for instance Ref.  and references therein).

What happens is that the universe starts reheating when the inflaton enters the oscillating regime. The important parameters are the density, $`\rho _{\varphi ,i}`$, of the inflaton when reheating begins and the decay rate of the inflaton, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi `$. The Boltzmann equations for this system have been solved numerous times (see e.g. Refs. ). The result is that the temperature of the produced radiation immediately increases to a maximum value which depends on $`\rho _{\varphi ,i}`$. After this, there is a period of continual entropy production during which the universe is matter dominated by the $`\varphi `$ field and $`Tt^{1/4}`$ (as opposed to the case where no entropy is produced, $`Tt^{1/2}`$). At the time $`t\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi ^1`$ the inflaton decays rapidly and the universe becomes radiation dominated. Using this, it is easy to calculate the number of KK modes produced during the reheating phase. $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi `$ is directly related to $`T_{RH}`$ by $`T_{RH}0.5\sqrt{\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi \overline{M}_P}`$ , but the additional parameter $`\rho _{\varphi ,i}`$ is introduced in the analysis. However, instead of this we use the parameter $`\alpha T_{MAX}/T_{RH}`$, where $`T_{MAX}`$ is the maximum temperature reached during reheating (the relation between $`\rho _{\varphi ,i}`$ and $`T_{MAX}`$ is given in Ref. ). From this, one gets an expression completely equivalent to Eq. (6). During reheating entropy is produced continuously. The entropy density is given by $`s=g_{}T^3`$ at all times, where $`g_{}`$ is the number of relativistic degrees of freedom contributing to the entropy . We assume that $`g_{}10.75`$ at all times. Although this is not the case at very high temperatures, the assumption introduces only a modest error. Since $`Tt^{1/4}`$ and $`at^{2/3}`$ (because the universe is matter dominated), the number density of a KK-mode (if one ignores production) is $`n_mT^8`$. This yields $`n_m/sT^5`$ during reheating. In order to solve the Boltzmann equation during reheating we introduce the variable $`X_mn_ms^1(T/T_{RH})^5`$ which is constant during reheating if there is no production. Then the Boltzmann equation can be simply written as

$$\dot{X}_m=\frac{1}{s(T/T_{RH})^5}\frac{m^5T}{128\pi ^3\overline{M}_P^2}K_1(m/T).$$
(7)
By integration this gives

$$X_{m,RH}=\frac{4}{128\pi ^3\overline{M}_P^2}\frac{t_{RH}T_{RH}^{13}}{m^6s_{RH}}_{m/T_{MAX}}^{m/T_{RH}}𝑑qq^{10}K_1(q),$$
(8)
where we can approximate $`t_{RH}`$ by $`t_{RH}1.5g_{}^{1/2}\overline{M}_PT_{RH}^2`$ . The present day number density is then given by $`n_{m,0}=X_{m,RH}s_0`$. The total density of all KK-modes can be found be integrating over $`dm`$ , and gives

$`\rho _{0,RH}`$ $``$ $`1.9\times 10^{22}S_{n1}\mathrm{GeV}^4\left({\displaystyle \frac{T_{RH}}{M}}\right)^{n+2}`$ (10)
$`\times {\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}2dzz^{n6}e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{decay},m}t_0}{\displaystyle _{z/\alpha }^z}dqq^{10}K_1(q).`$
The factor $`e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{decay},m}t_0}`$ comes from the fact that some of the produced KK-modes decay before the present. This is one of the main new result of the present paper. Notice that Eq. (10) is very similar to Eq. (6), except for the fact that $`z^{n+1}q^3`$ is changed to $`z^{n6}q^{10}`$. This can be understood quite simply. Modes produced during reheating are diluted by entropy production relative to modes produced during the thermal epoch by the factor $`(T/T_{RH})^5`$. Furthermore, the time-interval for production during reheating is different from what it is during the thermal epoch. During reheating $`dt/dTT^5`$, whereas during the thermal epoch $`dt/dTT^3`$. Altogether this gives a factor $`(T/T_{RH})^7=z^7q^7`$ difference, which is what is found.

Fig. 2 shows the lower bound on $`M`$ for $`n=2`$ and 3, as a function of $`T_{RH}`$ and $`\alpha `$. It is evident from the figures that the contours quickly become vertical for increasing $`\alpha `$. This happens because the KK modes produced at early times during reheating have been diluted away by entropy production so that they do not contribute significantly at late times. Even so, accounting for the modes produced during reheating does strengthen the bound on $`M`$. For the case of $`n=2`$ the bound is 6.8 TeV if only the thermal production is included, whereas it is 9.7 TeV if reheating is also accounted for (assuming $`T_{MAX}T_{RH}`$). For $`n=3`$ these figures are 0.44 TeV and 0.66 TeV respectively.

Notice that this result is different from the result found by Giudice et al. , that the final abundance depends only on $`T_{RH}`$, and not on $`T_{MAX}`$. The reason is that there is a dense spectrum of modes with different masses. The abundance of each mode obeys the relations found in Ref. , i.e. that the final abundance for any mode with $`m\mathrm{few}\times T_{MAX}`$ is independent of $`T_{MAX}`$. However, for higher $`T_{MAX}`$, many more modes are excited, and the end result is that the total production of KK modes increases with increasing $`T_{MAX}`$.

Nevertheless, if we only consider the bound on $`M`$ from the demanding that $`\rho _0<\rho _{\mathrm{crit}}`$, it is significantly weaker than the bound from SN1987a. In the next section we consider the much stronger bound from the diffuse gamma background.

## III Constraints from the diffuse gamma background

Apart from the production mechanisms there is also the possibility that the massive KK states decay into particles on the brane. The decay rate for different branches has been calculated by Han, Lykken and Zhang . The decay rate into particles on the brane is of the order $`\mathrm{\Gamma }m^3/M_P^2`$ for any kinematically allowed final state. With the temperatures discussed here, the decay lifetime is on most cases of the same order of magnitude as the Hubble time. This means that there will be visible effects, especially from the decay contribution to the diffuse gamma background. It was shown by Hall and Smith  (see also Ref. ) that this leads to a very stringent constraint on $`M`$, even with $`T_{RH}=1`$ MeV. The modes produced during reheating have higher mass and therefore much higher decay rates. This means that even tighter constraints can be put on $`M`$ if reheating is included.

For $`n=2`$, the contribution to the diffuse gamma background from KK decays is given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dn}{dE}}`$ $``$ $`345M_{\mathrm{TeV}}^4T_{\mathrm{RH},\mathrm{MeV}}^5\left({\displaystyle \frac{t_0}{10^{10}y}}\right)\mathrm{MeV}^1\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{ster}^1`$ (13)
$`\times \beta ^{1/2}[{\displaystyle _{2\beta }^{z_{\mathrm{max}}}}dzz^{7/2}E(z){\displaystyle _z^{\mathrm{}}}q^3K_1(q)dq+`$
$`{\displaystyle _{2\beta }^{z_{\mathrm{max}}}}2dzz^{7/2}E(z){\displaystyle _{z/\alpha }^z}q^{10}K_1(q)dq],`$
where $`\beta =E/T_{RH}`$ and $`E(z)=\mathrm{exp}(3.3\times 10^7z^{3/2}T_{RH,MeV}^3t_0(10^{10}y)\beta ^{3/2})`$. As the upper limit for the mass integral, $`z_{\mathrm{max}}`$, we take $`z_{\mathrm{max}}=2.7\times 10^3T_{RH,MeV}`$, because KK modes above this mass decay before CMBR formation, and therefore do not contribute to the present diffuse flux. Note that for $`\alpha =1`$ this equation is equivalent to what is found in Ref. . Also note that there is the same factor $`q^7z^7`$ difference between the thermal (the first part in the bracket) and the reheating (the second part) contributions as was found between Eqs. (6) and (10). For higher $`n`$ one obtains expressions very similar to Eq. (13). Observationally, the diffuse gamma background in the MeV range has been measured by the EGRET  ($`3010^4`$ MeV) and COMPTEL  (0.8 - 30 MeV) experiments. The flux measured by EGRET is approximately $`\frac{dn}{dE}=2.3\times 10^3(E/\mathrm{MeV})^{2.07}\mathrm{MeV}^1\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{ster}^1`$, and the flux measured by COMPTEL is $`\frac{dn}{dE}=6.4\times 10^3(E/\mathrm{MeV})^{2.3}\mathrm{MeV}^1\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{ster}^1`$. Demanding that $`\frac{dn}{dE}_{KK}\frac{dn}{dE}_{\mathrm{obs}}`$ translates into the lower bound on $`M`$ shown in Fig. 3 as a function of $`T_{RH}`$ and $`\alpha `$. Note that for the relatively low masses we study here, constraints from light nuclei abundances  are not very important.

From this figure it is evident that increasing $`\alpha `$ leads to significantly stronger bounds on $`M`$. If $`T_{RH}=0.7`$ MeV, then for $`n=2`$ the bound goes from $`M>73`$ TeV at $`\alpha =1`$ to $`M>167`$ TeV at $`\alpha =1400`$ ($`T_{MAX}=1`$ GeV). For $`n=3`$ the corresponding numbers are $`M>3.9`$ TeV at $`\alpha =1`$ to $`M>21.7`$ TeV at $`\alpha =1400`$, a factor of 5.6 increase. In most reasonable models it is difficult to obtain values of $`T_{MAX}`$ which are smaller than 1 GeV, rather $`T_{MAX}`$ will usually be much higher than 1 GeV.

Finally, it should be noted that as $`n`$ is increased, the difference between including reheating and only treating thermally produced modes increases. In Table I the lower bound on $`M`$ is shown for different values of $`n`$ and $`T_{MAX}`$ to illustrate this.

For masses which are low enough that the KK modes have not decayed away before the present, the lower bound on $`M`$ as a function of $`T_{RH}`$ and $`T_{MAX}`$ exhibits a quite simple behaviour. For $`\alpha =1`$, $`M_{\mathrm{min}}T_{RH}^{(n+5)/(n+2)}`$, whereas for constant $`T_{RH}`$ and large $`\alpha `$, $`M_{\mathrm{min}}T_{MAX}^{(n2)/(n+2)}`$. This means that for $`n3`$ the contribution from modes produced during reheating keeps increasing with increasing $`T_{MAX}`$. However, for very high masses the modes have decayed away early on so that $`M_{\mathrm{min}}`$ reaches a limiting value for high $`T_{MAX}`$.

## IV Discussion

We have discussed in detail how KK modes are produced in the early universe. First, production during the radiation dominated epoch was discussed, and the results found in Ref.  were rederived.

It was then shown that if reheating before the thermal epoch is taken into account, the bound on the fundamental Planck scale, $`M`$, is strengthened significantly and becomes stronger than the supernova bound, albeit the theoretical uncertainty is larger. This is the main result of the present paper.

We showed that if $`T_{MAX}`$ during reheating is 1 GeV, then the bound on $`M`$ is $`M>167`$ TeV for $`n=2`$ and $`M>21.7`$ TeV for $`n=3`$. These bound can be translated into upper bounds on the radii of the extra dimensions using the relation

$$R_{mm}=2\times 10^{31/n16}\left(\frac{1\mathrm{T}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}}{M}\right)^{1+2/n}.$$
(14)
From this, we get $`R<2.2\times 10^5`$ mm for $`n=2`$ and $`R<2.5\times 10^8`$ mm for $`n=3`$.

Note that in the present treatment we have assumed that the inflaton only decays to matter on the brane. If gravitons are also produced at reheating, the bounds are tightened.

We finish by discussing briefly the few possibilities for avoiding the very stringent bound obtained above. In our analysis we assumed a toroidal geometry for the extra dimensions. However, other choices of geometry lead to different spectra of KK modes. As shown in Ref. , compact hyperbolic manifolds can lead to spectra with a lightest mode with $`m10`$ GeV and large energy spacing. In this case the cosmological bounds disappear completely (as does all other astrophysical bounds). The second possibility is that there are more branes embedded in the bulk. In that case, it is possible that the KK modes have fast decay channels to light particles on other branes. This would mean that the KK modes could have decayed into radiation before the present .

###### Acknowledgements.

I wish to thank Sacha Davidson for pointing out a serious error in the original version of the manuscript.