format: text

text:
# The Total Space-Time of a Point Charge and Its Consequences for Black Holes

## 1. INTRODUCTION

As is well known , the singularity structure of a casually incomplete, not necessarily maximal space-time $`S=(M,g)`$ is not uniquely specified by $`(M,g)`$ alone, but requires in addition that a boundary $`B`$ be attached thereto .111For simplicity, whenever an order of differentiability is required to completely specify a concept (e.g., manifold, extension, equivalent, etc), “analytic” is always to be understood. \[The resulting object, $`TSB`$, will be termed a ‘total’ space-time (TST).\] Since an incomplete space-time is compatible with a variety of boundaries (Geroch, 1968, p. 451) , it follows that $`S`$ by itself cannot represent a unique universe - instead, it corresponds to a family of universes, one for each of its topologically distinct boundaries.

Recognition of this fact immediately gives rise to the question: ”Which of the possible boundaries of $`S`$ should be attached to it?”. The answer depends on how much additional information is available; if nothing more is known than $`(M,g)`$ itself, then one is free to attach any of its mathematically admissible boundaries, the only remaining problem being the physical interpretation of the result. If, on the other hand, one also knows the universe $`U`$ from which $`S`$ was derived, or which the TST of $`S`$ is intended to represent, then there is no freedom whatever to choose $`B`$ \- the boundary is uniquely determined by $`U`$, just as are such things as the symmetries of $`S`$, whether $`S`$ is static, etc. In some cases this determination could be quite difficult, while in others it could be trivial. An example of the latter situation would be a $`U`$ consisting of a single point source, for then the boundary of the TST of $`S`$ is evidently a line through the location of the source.

Incidentally, note that since a TST is a space-time-with-boundary, the criteria for equivalence and extendibility of TST are necessarily different from those applicable to space-times. Specifically, equivalence of TSTs requires not only that their $`S`$ components be isometric 222As can be seen from p. 26 of this reference, equivalence also requires that the isometry be orientation- and time-orientation-preserving; hence any reference herein to an isometry will be understood to mean one having these properties., but also that their $`B`$ components be homeomorphic. Likewise, extendibility of a TST requires not only extendibility of its $`S`$ component, but also that its $`B`$ component be preserved - i.e., that the image of $`B`$ be homeomorphic to $`B`$ itself.

Admittedly, in most cases the only difference between the TSTs associated with different choices of a boundary for a given $`S`$ is the topology of the singularities, as is the case in the example in Hawking and Ellis . However, when $`S`$ is extendible, the choice of boundary to be attached to it may well affect the very existence of a singularity of the resulting TST. For example, consider the following two-dimensional, Riemannian case: $`(M,g)=(D_1,g_E)`$, where $`D_1`$ denotes the interior of the unit disk in $`R^2`$ (i.e., $`x^2+y^2<1`$), and $`g_E`$ denotes the Euclidean metric: $`dx^2+dy^2`$. If the boundary is taken to be $`S^1`$, then there is no singularity at the boundary and the space possesses an extension to all of $`R^2`$, namely $`(R^2,g_E)`$. On the other hand, if the boundary is taken to be a point (e.g., by identifying all the points of the circle $`x^2+y^2=1)`$, then there is a quasiregular singularity at the boundary and no extension is possible.

As is well known, the Reissner-Nordström space-time $`S_{RN}`$ is timelike incomplete , so that by the argument in the first paragraph it cannot represent a unique universe. Moreover, examination of Nordström’s derivation shows that it involves a tacit assumption which is invalid for $`q^2<m^2`$ and which attached a boundary to $`S_{RN}`$ that is incompatible with the point-charge universe from which $`S_{RN}`$ was derived. As a result, the RN TST does not represent a point charge for $`q^2<m^2`$, and a fortiori, neither does its black-hole-containing extension . When the space-time for a point charge is correctly derived and the appropriate boundary is attached, the resulting TST is inextendible and devoid of a black hole. Since this TST is necessarily the limit of the space-time of any spherically symmetric, nonrotating, charged star that is collapsing to a point, it follows that such collapse cannot produce a black hole.

Since there is no way of deriving the Graves-Brill (GB) space-time from the set of postulates characterizing a point charge, nor of producing it by gravitational collapse, it follows that it has neither a theoretical nor a physical justification for its existence. Thus it, and the black hole which it contains, are simply artifacts of a historical error. The same is true of the point-mass black hole , , since it is based on Hilbert’s space-time for a point mass, whose derivation (in 1917) involved the same erroneous assumption 333In the referenced paper, I asserted (§ 6) that since Schwarzschild’s and Hilbert’s space-times had different singularity structures, it followed that the two space-times were inequivalent (cf. Sachs and Wu , § 1.3). This is incorrect - as shown here, it is only their TSTs which are inequivalent. as was used by Nordström.

The purpose of this paper is to derive the correct TST for a point charge and to show how the above-mentioned consequences come about.

The plan of the paper is as follows: Section 2 is devoted to showing that Nordström’s  derivation made use of an unjustified assumption, which among other things resulted in the attachment of a boundary that is incompatible with the point-charge universe when $`q^2<m^2`$. Section 3 lists the historical postulates on which Reissner’s  and Nordström’s derivations were based. Section 4 contains a derivation of the point-charge space-time for $`q^2<m^2`$ which does not make use of Nordström’s assumption, and in the process proves that the assumption is invalid for the case in question. In addition, it also contains a proof that the historical postulates do not give rise to a unique space-time, but to a one-parameter family of inequivalent space-times, and thus that these postulates must be supplemented by one which determines the limiting value of a certain invariant as the point charge is approached. Section 5 discusses the physical significance of the supplemental hypothesis, and proposes a criterion for choosing among the infinitely many possible values of the invariant. In Section 6 the metric which results from this choice is obtained, and the associated TST is shown to be equivalent to that found by Pekeris . Section 7 deals with the phenomenon of a nonspinning, spherically symmetric, charged star undergoing gravitational collapse to a point. It is shown that such collapse can never produce a GB black hole. Section 8 shows that because of the infinite red shift at the horizon of the GB space-time, there are in principle no phenomena explainable by a GB black hole that would not be equally well explained by Pekeris’ TST, so that the former is unnecessary from a phenomenological standpoint (and considerably more complicated than Pekeris’ TST). Finally, the principal conclusions of the paper are summarized in Section 9, together with a brief discussion.

## 2. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

The first attempt to determine the space-time of a point charge was that of Reissner , However, his derivation was only valid for the case $`q^2>m^2`$, where $`m`$ denotes the particle’s field-producing mass (i.e., that which produces Kepler-like orbits far from the point charge) and $`q`$ denotes its charge (in relativistic esu) In addition, it contained an unknown constant \[$`h(0^+)`$ in Reissner’s notation\] whose value was tacitly assumed.

A year or so later, a derivation applicable to all values of $`q^2/m^2`$ was presented by Nordström . Taking the point charge to be at $`x=y=z=0`$, the starting point of his derivation was the static, spherically symmetric metric

(1)
$$g_{sss}(r|0)A(r)dt^2B(r)dr^2C(r)d\mathrm{\Omega }^2$$

where

(2)
$$r(x^2+y^2+z^2)^{1/2}$$

and

(3)
$$d\mathrm{\Omega }^2d\theta ^2+d\varphi ^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta $$

\[The $`r|0`$ in the argument of $`g_{sss}`$ signifies that in terms of $`r`$, the position of the point charge is described by $`r=0`$. A similar notation will be used for subsequent metrics.\]

Substituting equation (1) into the variational equivalent of the Einstein-Maxwell field equations gave Nordström three ordinary differential equations (ODE) for the three unknown coefficients. Instead of solving these (which is done here in Appendix A), Nordström argued that one could always introduce a new radial variable, $`r^{}`$ say, via

(4)
$$r^{}=[C(r)]^{1/2}$$

This transformation carries equation (1) into

(5)
$$g_{sss}^{}(r^{}|r_0^{})=A^{}(r^{})dt^2B^{}(r^{})dr^2r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2,$$

and, as follows directly from equation (4), assigns the value

(6)
$$r^{}=r_0^{}=[C(0+)]^{1/2}$$

to the location of the point charge. Setting $`C^{}=r^2`$ into the above-mentioned ODE, Nordström then solved for $`A^{}`$ and $`B^{}`$, obtaining expressions for these quantities which contained but one constant of integration, $`\alpha _N`$. This constant was readily shown to be equal to $`2m`$, giving the results

(7)
$$A^{}(r^{})=A_N(r^{})12m/r^{}+q^2/r^2$$

(8)
$$B^{}(r^{})=B_N(r^{})1/A_N(r^{})$$

However, the fact that $`C(r)`$ is unknown at the stage where $`r^{}`$ is introduced shows that the value of $`r_0^{}`$ cannot be determined from equation (4). Moreover, the fact that $`r=0`$ is the location of the point charge and thus a singularity of the field makes it impossible to appeal to ‘elementary flatness’ to conclude that $`C(0+)=0`$. Consequently, Nordström’s solution seemingly involves an unknown and unknowable constant, namely the $`r^{}`$ coordinate of the point charge. \[This would appear, for example, in the expression for the proper distance from the point charge to an event having $`r^{}=r_P^{}`$, namely

(9)
$$d(r_P^{})=_{r_0^{}}^{r_P^{}}[B^{}(r^{})]^{1/2}𝑑r^{}$$

or in that for the proper volume from the point charge to $`r_P^{}`$, etc.\] However Nordström tacitly assumed that444In , just under equation (5), he states, “..where $`e(r^{})`$ denotes the total charge in a sphere of radius $`r^{}`$.” And just above equation (19a), he states, “Because of the spherical symmetry we have, of course for the components of $`U`$ in the directions of the axes of coordinates in space    $`U_\tau =x_\tau c\alpha /(r_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{3})`$ $`\tau =1,2,3^{\prime \prime }`$    having previously defined $`U=c\alpha /(r^2)`$ in equation (19). \[Note: $`r`$ in Nordström’s paper has been changed to $`r^{}`$ here so as to conform to the notation adopted in the present paper.\] Neither of these statements makes sense unless $`r^{}`$ is regarded as $`(x^2+y^2+z^2)^{1/2}.`$ $`r^{}=(x^2+y^2+z^2)^{1/2}`$, which implies that the location $`(x=y=z=0)`$ of the point charge in terms of $`r^{}`$ is given by $`r^{}=0`$. But for $`q^2<m^2`$, $`B_N^{}`$ tends to $`\mathrm{}`$ as $`r^{}r_+^{}m+(m^2q^2)^{1/2}`$, so for this case Nordström’s metric is only defined for $`r^{}>r_+^{}`$. Moreover, this assumption also results in the attachment of a particular boundary to this space-time: a 2-sphere at $`r^{}=r_+^{}`$ in the sections $`t=`$ const.

Although Nordström only claimed that his space-time represented a point charge for $`q^2>m^2`$, this was lost sight of in the ensuing years, and $`S_{RN}`$ has come to be regarded as the space-time of a point charge for all values of $`q^2/m^2`$. Following historical usage, the metric obtained from equation (5) by setting $`A^{}=A_N,`$ $`B^{}=B_N`$, and assuming that $`r^{}=(x^2+y^2+z^2)^{1/2}`$ will henceforth be termed the Reissner-Nordström metric and will be denoted by $`g_{RN}(r^{}|0)`$:

(10)
$$g_{RN}(r^{}|0)=A_N(r^{})dt^2B_N(r^{})dr^2r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2$$

Subsequent derivations of the point-charge metric were carried out by Hönl and Papapetrou  and Pekeris . In both cases the authors applied the tecnique used by Schwarzschild  in his derivation of the point-mass metric, thereby avoiding Nordström’s error; but in each case ad hoc assumptions were used to evaluate one of the integration constants and thereby obtain a unique field.

Analytic extensions of the RN space-time were subsequently obtained by Graves and Brill  for $`q^2<m^2`$ and by Carter  for $`q^2=m^2`$.

Finally, the point of view adopted here is the generally accepted one that charge of either sign increases the field-producing mass, and that charge without matter is impossible; the first of these implies that $`q^2m^2`$ , while the second reduces the latter to $`q^2<m^2`$. (This implies that point-charge space-times for which $`q^2m^2`$ are nonexistent, and thus so, too, is the Carter black hole.) This inequality is to be understood to hold in the following sections.

## 3. THE HISTORICAL POSTULATES

The postulates that until now have been regarded as characterizing the point-charge space-time $`S_{PC}(M_{PC},g_{PC})`$ may be gleaned from Reissner’s paper. In vernacular terms, they require that:

(i) $`M_{PC}`$ consist of $`R^4`$ less a line through the point charge ($`M_0`$).

That $`g_{PC}`$ be:

(ii) Of Lorentz signature.

(iii) Analytic.

(iv) Static.

(v) Spherically symmetric about the point charge.

(vi) A solution of the Einstein-Maxwell field equations.

(vii) Flat at spatial infinity (i.e., $`g_{ij}\eta _{ij}`$).

And that:

(viii) $`S_{PC}`$ be inextendible.

## 4. THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE HISTORICAL POSTULATES DETERMINE THE METRIC

Let $`K`$ denote $`R^4`$ considered as the analytic manifold arising from the single-chart atlas ($`R^4,Id`$), and ($`t,x,y,z`$) the natural coordinates (O’Neill, 1983, p. 1)  thereon. Without loss of generality we shall take the charge to be located at $`x=y=z=0`$. Let $`L`$ denote the line $`x=y=z=0`$, so that $`M_0=K\backslash L`$.

As is well known , a metric satisfying (ii)-(v) everywhere on $`M_0`$ can always be expressed in the form

$`g_{PC}(x,y,z|0,0,0)=A(r)dt^2F(r)(dx^2+dy^2+dz^2)`$
(11) $`G(r)(xdx+ydy+zdz)^2`$
where

(12)
$$r=(x^2+y^2+z^2)^{1/2}$$

and $`A`$, $`F`$, $`G`$ are analytic functions of $`r`$, satisfying

(13)
$$A,F,G>0$$

so as to ensure compliance with (ii).

Transforming to quasipolar coordinates related to $`x,y,z`$ in the customary way, we find that equation (11) becomes (with a slight abuse of notation)

(14)
$$g_{PC}(r|0)=A(r)dt^2B(r)dr^2C(r)d\mathrm{\Omega }^2$$

while condition (13) becomes

(15)
$$A,B,C>0$$

Substituting equation (14) into the Einstein-Maxwell equations, solving for $`A`$, $`B`$, and $`C`$, and imposing (vii) gives (see Appendix A)

(16) $`A(r)=12m/C^{1/2}+q^2/C`$
(17) $`B(r)=C_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}/(4AC)`$
where the prime denotes differentiation with respect to $`r`$. These expressions coincide with those found by Stavroulakis  for the exterior of a static, spherically symmetric charged body when the cosmological constant in his result is set to zero, and with $`q=0`$, to those obtained for the point mass in Oliver  (this paper was the first in which the point-mass field equations were integrated without eliminating one of the unknowns).

However, as shown in Appendix A, for a point charge, $`C`$ must also be an analytic function of $`r`$ such that

(18) $`C(r)>0`$ $`\mathrm{for}`$ $`r>0`$
(19) $`C^{}(r)>0`$ $`\mathrm{for}`$ $`r>0`$
(20) $`C/r^21`$ $`\mathrm{as}`$ $`r\mathrm{}`$
All that is necessary in order to comply with the remaining historical postulates is to impose whatever further conditions are required to ensure that $`A`$ is positive \[it is also necessary that $`B`$ be positive on $`M_0`$, but conditions (17)-(19) show that this is assured if $`A>0`$ for $`r>0`$\] and that (viii) is satisfied.

As to the first of these, Appendix B shows that $`A`$ will be positive iff

(21)
$$\sqrt{C}>r_+^{}m+(m^2q^2)^{1/2}$$

and since this must hold for all $`r>0`$, it follows that

(22)
$$b[C(0+)]^{1/2}r_+^{}>0$$

Since this condition is necessary to ensure the positivity of $`A`$, it follows that Nordström’s assumption, which requires that $`b=0`$, is invalid.

As to the second, the fact that the metric is analytic everywhere on $`M_0K\backslash L`$ shows that (viii) will be satisfied only if $`L`$ is singular. Now, Appendix C shows that the Kretschmann scalar $`f=R_{ijkm}R^{ijkm}`$ tends to infinity as $`C0`$ and is bounded otherwise. In view of equations (19) and (22), this means that there are no scalar curvature singularities on $`L`$. But as is well known, it is possible to have a singularity without any curvature-related scalar being unbounded \[a so-called quasiregular singularity (Ellis and Schmidt, 1977, p. 944) \]. To explore this possibility, let us first observe that the boundary $`r=0`$ must be a point in each spatial section, so as to comply with the fact that the associated TST is intended to represent a universe consisting of a single point source. Next, suppose that $`br_+^{}`$, and consider the geodesic circle $`\gamma :t=t_0,\theta =\pi /2,r=ϵ`$. Its proper circumference clearly tends to $`2\pi b>0`$ \[from equation (14)\] as $`ϵ0`$, while its proper radius is easily seen to tend to zero, so that the ratio of the former to the latter tends to $`\mathrm{}`$. This shows that $`r=0`$ is a singularity, since such behavior makes it impossible to map an infinitesimal neighborhood of $`r=0`$ into an interior portion of some larger space-time. (Note that the image of $`r=0`$ under any such map must be a point in each spatial section, since otherwise the boundary attached to $`M_0`$ would not be homeomorphic to its image in the map, as is required for extendibility of a TST.) Consequently, postulate (viii) is satisfied for any value of $`br_+^{}`$. \[Despite appearances, the foregoing argument is coordinate independent, since equation (14) is unique up to transformations of the form $`t=k\overline{t}+p`$, $`r=h(\overline{r})`$, and neither of these alters the proper radius or proper circumference of $`\gamma `$.\] It is the presence of this singularity which makes the TST inextendible.

Moreover, just as in the case of the point mass , so here, too, the value of $`C[P]`$ at any event $`P`$ is a scalar invariant of $`g_{PC}(r|0)`$, and thus the same is true of its limit $`(b^2`$) as $`P`$ approaches the point charge. Consequently, space-times whose metrics are of the form of $`S_{PC}`$ with distinct values of $`b`$ are inequivalent. Hence we conclude:

* The historical postulates do not lead to a unique space-time, but to a one-parameter family of inextendible, inequivalent space-times. In order to obtain a unique field, it is necessary to supplement those postulates by one which fixes the value of $`C(0+)`$.

## 5. THE SUPPLEMENTAL POSTULATE

We have seen in the previous section that in order to arrive at a unique field, it is necessary to supplement the historical postulates for the point charge by one which fixes the value of $`b=[C(0+)]^{1/2}`$. Now, as shown in Appendix D, the limiting acceleration of a neutral test particle approaching the point charge on a radial geodesic of equation (14), as measured by a sequence of fixed observers, is given by

(23)
$$a_0=\frac{|bmq^2|}{b^2\sqrt{b^22bm+q^2}}\frac{|bmq^2|}{b^2\sqrt{(bm)^2+q^2m^2}}$$

From this it is evident that fixing the limiting value of the locally measured acceleration of a radially approaching neutral test particle is equivalent to fixing $`b`$. For the same reason as stated in connection with the point mass , we shall take this limiting acceleration to be the same ($`\mathrm{}`$) as in the Newtonian case, thereby supplementing the historical postulates with the following:

(ix) The limiting value of the locally measured acceleration of a neutral test particle approaching the point charge on a radial geodesic is infinite.

## 6. THE RESULTING METRIC

Clearly, the only value of $`b`$ consistent with equation (22) which makes the RHS of equation (23) infinite is

(24)
$$b=r_+^{}=m+(m^2q^2)^{1/2}$$

The simplest $`C`$ satisfying the earlier requirements as well as equation (24) is given by

(25)
$$C_P(r+r_+^{})^2$$

which reduces equations (16) and (17) to respectively

(26) $`A_P(r)=12m/(r+r_+^{})+q^2/(r+r_+^{})^2`$
(27) $`B_P(r)=[A_P(r)]^1`$
It is readily verified via the transformation $`r+r_+^{}=[\overline{r}^3+(r_+^{})^3]^{1/3}`$ that the resulting space-time is isometric to that of Pekeris, and since the boundary atttached to the latter is likewise pointlike in any spatial section, the two TSTs are equivalent. Moreover, since Nordström’s and the just-derived version of Pekeris’ space-times are isometric via the transformation $`r^{}=r+r_+^{}`$, it follows that the actual location of the point charge in terms of $`r^{}`$ is given by $`r^{}=r_+^{}`$, so that the $`2`$-sphere boundary resulting from Nordström’s assumption coincides with the position of the point charge, which is clearly incompatible with the pointlike nature of the source.

## 7. GRAVITATIONAL COLLAPSE

Eiesland  showed that any spherically symmetric solution of the Einstein-Maxwell field equations is static. In particular, then, this last must be true of the ‘exterior’ metric of a charged, nonrotating, nonradiating spherically symmetric object (‘star’) undergoing gravitational collapse. Consequently, this metric must satisfy the same postulates as for the point charge, namely (viii) and (ix). As can be seen from Appendix A, satisfaction of postulates (ii)-(vii) when applied to a metric of the form of equation (14) entails that $`A`$ and $`B`$ be given by equations (16) and (17), respectively, and together with condition (15), that $`C`$ be a positive, analytic, strictly monotonic increasing function of $`r`$ over the $`r`$ range for which the exterior metric is valid - i.e., for $`r>r_b(t)`$, where $`r_b(t)`$ denotes the $`r`$ coordinate of the star’s boundary at time $`t`$.

Since the set of $`C`$’s which, together with equations (16) and(17), give rise to a metric satisfying (ii)-(vii) for $`r>r_b(t)`$ may obviously be larger than that satisfying (ii)-(ix) for $`r>0`$, it cannot be asserted that the exterior metric is the ‘same’ as that of the point charge (in the sense of having the same values of $`C`$ at the same proper distances from the center of symmetry). However, if the star is sufficiently massive as to collapse to a point, then as it does so, the difference between the actual exterior metric and the metric of the point charge must vanish as $`r0`$. Consequently, in that limit the exterior metric becomes that of the point charge. Since the point-charge space-time whose metric was obtained in the previous section has no event horizon, it follows that a GB black hole cannot be formed during the collapse of a charged star. Thus, the correction of Nordström’s error not only eliminates the point charge as a possible source of such black holes, but simultaneously deprives the latter of the only mechanism that has been proposed for their production.

## 8. THE GB BLACK HOLE IS UNNECESSARY

Just as in the case for the point mass, so here, too, there is an infinite red shift in the GB space-time as $`r^{}r_+^{}`$. Because of this, all that an outside observer can ever know of phenomena involving the GB black hole must arise from information originating outside the hole - i.e., from the RN space-time. But the latter is diffeomorphic to that of Pekeris - that is to say, everything that takes place outside the hole would occur in the identical fashion if the GB space-time were replaced by Pekeris’; it is impossible to determine which space-time is “really” present without going to the boundary. Thus, any observations that could be explained by postulating the presence of a GB black hole would be equally explained by postulating the existence of a Pekeris ‘point’ charge at the boundary of the black hole. Consequently, there is no need to invoke a GB black hole to explain any set of observations. Pekeris’ black ‘point’ will do an equally effective job, and its topology is far simpler.

## 9. CONCLUSIONS

1. Nordström’s assumptions that the radial coordinate in his metric is related to $`x`$, $`y`$, $`z`$ via $`r^{}=(x^2+y^2+z^2)^{1/2}`$ is not only invalid, but also leads to the attachment of a boundary to his space-time that is incompatible with the pointlike nature of the source.

2. The historical postulates restrict the manifestly static and spherically symmetric form of the point-charge metric to equation (14) cum equations (16)-(20), where (with $`b[C(0+)]^{1/2}`$)

$$br_+^{}=m+(m^2q^2)^{1/2}$$

Thus, those postulates give rise to a one-parameter family of inequivalent space-times; to obtain a unique field, they must be supplemented by one which fixes the value of $`b`$. Since the minimum value of $`b`$ is necessarily $`r_+^{}>0`$ in order to ensure the Lorentz signature of the metric, it follows that however this supplemental postulate is chosen, Nordström’s assumption, which requires that $`b=0`$, is invalid.

3. The limiting value $`a_0`$ of the locally measured acceleration of a neutral test particle approaching the point charge on a radial geodesic fixes $`b`$. The supplemental postulate therefore requires a choice of $`a_0`$, which on the basis of the Newtonian analogy is here taken to be infinite.

4. The point-charge metric resulting from this choice is

$`g_P`$ $`=[12m/(r+r_+^{})+q^2/(r+r_+^{})^2]dt^2`$
$`[12m/(r+r_+^{})+q^2/(r+r_+^{})^2]^1dr^2`$
$`(r+r_+^{})^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2`$ $`\mathrm{for}r>0`$
whose associated TST is equivalent to Pekeris’.

5. The ‘exterior’ metric for a charged, spherically symmetric star undergoing gravitational collapse is of the same form as that for a point charge, and as the collapse proceeds must approach $`g_P`$. Thus no black hole can be formed by such collapse.

6. Any observations that would be consistent with the existence of a GB black hole would be equally consistent with a Pekeris black ‘point’ and thus GB black holes are unnecessary to explain any phenomena.

7. Possessing neither a theoretical justification (i.e., a mathematical chain from a set of postulates characterizing a particular universe to the GB black hole) nor a mechanism for its production, the GB black hole is nothing more than an artifact of a historical error.

8. Conclusion 7 applies equally well to the Kruskal-Fronsdal black hole, since by setting $`q=0`$ in Nordström’s TST reduces it to that erroneously derived by Hilbert for the point mass  and reduces the GB space-time to that obtained by Kruskal  and Fronsdal . It also applies  to the black hole found by Lake and Roeder  for the point mass when $`\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$.

It should be noted that what has been termed Pekeris’ black ‘point’ does not have all the properties of a point in Euclidean 3-space \- in particular, although the proper radius and proper volume of a sphere about $`r=0`$ passing through $`r=ϵ`$ go to zero as $`ϵ0`$, the proper circumference and proper area of the sphere approach nonzero values. Were it to have all the properties of an ordinary point, of course, it would not be a singularity of the TST, as is required of a point source.

For $`q=0,`$ the TST obtained here was also found by Janis et al.  on the basis of entirely different considerations.

## Appendix A THE MOST GENERAL SOLUTION SATISFYING THE HISTORICAL POSTULATES

Making the obvious modifications in the equations \[Tolman, (1934) p. 259, equation (102.6)\]  satisfied by the electromagnetic field tensor $`F_{ij}`$ in empty space, necessitated by the use of $`C`$ rather than $`r^2`$ in equation (1), we find as usual that all $`F^{ij}`$ vanish except for $`F^{41}=F^{14}`$, and that the former satisfies (a prime denotes differentiation with respect to $`r`$)

(A.1)
$$(\mathrm{ln}F^{41})^{}+[\mathrm{ln}(C\sqrt{AB})]^{}=0$$

whence

(A.2)
$$\varphi ^{}=ABF^{41}=K\sqrt{AB}/C$$

where $`\varphi `$ denotes the ‘time’ component of the generalized potential and $`K`$ is an integration constant. Substituting these results into the expression \[Tolman, p. 261, equation (104.1)\]  for Maxwell’s energy-momentum tensor, we obtain

(A.3)
$$T_1^1=T_2^2=T_3^3=T_4^4=K^2/(2C^2)$$

whence the nonvanishing and independent field equations read (cf. )

(A.4)
$$8\pi T_1^1=1/C+C^{}_{}{}^{}2/(4BC^2)+A^{}C^{}/(2ABC)=f_E$$

$`8\pi T_2^2=`$ $`C^{\prime \prime }/(2BC)+A^{\prime \prime }/(2AB)C_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}/(4BC^2)`$
$`B^{}C^{}/(4B^2C)A^{}_{}{}^{}2/(4A^2B)A^{}B^{}/(4AB^2)`$
$`+A^{}C^{}/(4ABC)=f_E`$
$`8\pi T_4^4`$ $`=C^{\prime \prime }/(BC)1/CB^{}C^{}/(2B^2C)C_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}/(4BC^2)`$
$`=f_E`$
where

(A.7)
$$f_E4\pi K^2/C^2$$

Subtracting equation (A) from equation (A.4) leads, as in the uncharged case, to

(A.8)
$$C^{}_{}{}^{}2=JABC$$

where $`J`$ is an integration constant. Substituting this into equation (A.4) gives

(A.9)
$$A^{}+\frac{C^{}}{2C}A=\left(\frac{1}{C}\frac{4\pi K^2}{C^2}\right)\frac{2C^{}}{J}$$

which integrates at once to

(A.10)
$$A=4/J\alpha /\sqrt{C}+16\pi K^2/(JC)$$

with $`\alpha `$ being the constant of integration. Finally, using equation (A.8) to eliminate $`B`$ from equation (A) and eliminating $`A`$ from the result via equation (A.10) shows, after some algebra, that equation (A.4) is satisfied identically. Thus, equations (A.8) and (A.10) constitute the general solution of equations (A.4)-(A.7).

Now, application of postulate (vii) to equation (A.1) shows that $`C`$ must behave like $`r^2`$ as $`r\mathrm{}`$. Hence, from equation (A.10), $`A4/J`$ as $`r\mathrm{}`$ and thus, by (vii) again, $`J=4`$. Moreover, substituting equation (A.8) into the RHS of equation (A.2) and letting $`r\mathrm{}`$ gives

(A.11) $`\varphi ^{}K/r^2`$ $`\mathrm{as}`$ $`r\mathrm{}`$
whence

(A.12)
$$K=q/(4\pi )^{1/2}$$

where $`q`$ denotes the charge on the particle in relativistic esu ($`c=G=1`$).

Collecting these results, we have

(A.13)
$$A=12m/\sqrt{C}+q^2/C$$

(A.14)
$$B=C_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}/(4AC)$$

where $`\alpha `$ has been identified with twice the charge’s field-producing mass by comparison with the Newtonian potential for large $`r`$. From equations (A.14) and (A.4) we see that $`C^{}`$ cannot be zero for $`r>0`$, so that it must always be positive or always be negative. Of these two possibilities the latter is ruled out by the requirement that $`Cr^2`$ for large $`r`$. Consequently we conclude:

* $`C`$ is any positive, analytic, strictly monotonic increasing function of $`r`$ that behaves like $`r^2`$ as $`r\mathrm{}`$.

The only other constraints on $`C`$ that are a consequence of the historical postulates are those induced by the necessity of satisfying equation (15) and (viii). These matters are dealt with in Appendix B.

## Appendix B ADDITIONAL CONSTRAINTS ON C DUE TO THE HISTORICAL POSTULATES

As shown in Appendix A, $`C`$ must be positive and strictly monotonic-increasing. Hence by equation (A.14), $`B`$ will be positive iff $`A`$ is. Thus the satisfaction of condition (15) requires only that $`C`$ be chosen so as to make $`A>0`$. Rewriting equation (A.13) in the form

(B.1)
$$A=\frac{(\sqrt{C}m)^2+q^2m^2}{C}$$

we see that in order to make the numerator of equation (B.1) positive and thus comply with condition (15), it is necessary that either

(B.2)
$$\sqrt{C}>m+(m^2q^2)^{1/2}r_+^{}$$

or

(B.3)
$$\sqrt{C}<m(m^2q^2)^{1/2}r_{}^{}$$

But, since it was shown in Appendix A that $`C`$ must behave like $`r^2`$ as $`r\mathrm{}`$, it follows that $`C`$ cannot satisfy equation (B.3) for all $`r>0`$. Consequently, the satisfaction of (15) imposes the additional requirement of inequality (B.2) on $`C`$. Finally, inspection of equation (B.1) shows that for $`C`$ constrained by inequality (B.2), the Kretschmann scalar $`f=R_{ijkm}R^{ijkm}`$ is well behaved as $`r0`$, and thus (since the spherical symmetry ensures that all other scalars are necessarily functions of $`f`$) there is no curvature-related singularity there.

## Appendix C EVALUATION OF $`f`$

The nonvanishing components of $`R_{ijkm}`$ for equations (1)-(3) are readily found to be

(C.1) $`R_{1212}=(2BCC^{\prime \prime }B^{}CC^{}BC_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})/(4BC)`$
(C.2) $`R_{1313}=R_{1212}sin^2\theta `$
(C.3) $`R_{1414}=(BA_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+AA^{}B^{}2ABA^{\prime \prime })/(4AB)`$
(C.4) $`R_{2323}=(C_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}4BC)sin^2\theta /(4B)`$
(C.5) $`R_{2424}=A^{}C^{}/(4B)`$
(C.6) $`R_{3434}=R_{2424}sin^2\theta `$
together with their counterparts obtained by interchange of the indices in the first pair or the second pair.

The corresponding values of $`R^{ijkm}`$ are

(C.7) $`R^{1212}=R_{1212}/(B^2C^2)`$
(C.8) $`R^{1313}=R_{1313}/(B^2C^2sin^4\theta )`$
(C.9) $`R^{1414}=R_{1414}/(A^2B^2)`$
(C.10) $`R^{2323}=R_{2323}/(C^4sin^4\theta )`$
(C.11) $`R^{2424}=R_{2424}/(A^2C^2)`$
(C.12) $`R^{3434}=R_{3434}/(A^2C^2sin^4\theta )`$
and their associated counterparts.

Taking account of the multiplicity of terms obtainable by interchanging indices, it readily follows that

$`f=4(R_{1212}R^{1212}+R_{1313}R^{1313}+R_{1414}R^{1414}`$
(C.13) $`+R_{2323}R^{2323}+R_{2424}R^{2424}+R_{3434}R^{3434}`$
(C.14) $`=f_1+f_2+f_3+f_4`$
where

(C.15) $`f_12[C^{\prime \prime }B^{}C^{}/(2B)C_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}/(2C)]^2/(B^2C^2)`$
(C.16) $`f_2[A_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}/(2A)+(A^{}B^{})/2BA^{\prime \prime }]^2/(A^2B^2)`$
(C.17) $`f_34[C_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}/(4B)C]^2/C^4`$
(C.18) $`f_4A_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}C_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}/(2A^2B^2C^2)`$
Elimination of $`B`$ via equation (A.14) reduces these to

(C.19) $`f_1=8A_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}/C_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$
(C.20) $`f_2=16A_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}C^2[A^{\prime \prime }/A^{}C^{\prime \prime }/C^{}+C^{}/(2C)]^2/C_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}`$
(C.21) $`f_3=4(A1)^2/C^2`$
(C.22) $`f_4=f_1`$
Finally, elimination of $`A`$ via equation (A.13) gives

(C.23) $`f_1=f_4=8(m/C^{3/2}q^2/C^2)^2`$
(C.24) $`f_2=4(3q^2/C^22m/C^{3/2})^2`$
(C.25) $`f_3=4(q^2/C2m/\sqrt{C})^2/C^2`$
which upon substitution into equation (C.14) give

(C.26)
$$f=8[6(m\sqrt{C}q^2)^2+q^4]/C^4$$

## Appendix D EVALUATION OF $`a_0`$

As shown in Doughty (1981) , the acceleration of a neutral test particle relative to a fixed observer in a universe whose metric can be written in the form of equation (14) is given by

(D.1)
$$a=\frac{\sqrt{g_{rr}}(g^{rr})|g_{tt,r}|}{2g_{tt}}\frac{|A^{}|}{2A\sqrt{B}}$$

Using equation (A.13) to obtain $`A^{}`$ and equation (A.14) to eliminate $`B`$, this gives

(D.2)
$$a=\frac{|m\sqrt{C}q^2|}{C\sqrt{AC}}$$

As $`r0`$, this approaches

(D.3)
$$a_0=\frac{|bmq^2|}{b^2\sqrt{b^22bm+q^2}}$$

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

It is a pleasure to acknowledge several exchanges of correspondence with G.F.R. Ellis and R. Geroch, as well as numerous conversations with B. O’Neill and R. Greene. Such errors as remain are, of course, mine alone.


text:
# 1 Deformations of compatible 𝑠𝑙₂-representations

## 1 Deformations of compatible $`sl_2`$-representations

Let $`A=_{n=0}^{2N}A^n`$ be a finite dimensional graded $``$-algebra. We assume that $`A`$ is $`/2`$-commutative with respect to the induced $`/2`$-grading $`A=A^{even}A^{odd}`$. A representation $`\rho :sl_2()\mathrm{End}_{}(A)`$ is given by the action of the three generators

$$L=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right),\mathrm{\Lambda }=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right),\mathrm{and}B=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right).$$

###### Definition 1.1

— We say that $`\rho `$ is compatible with the grading if $`L`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are homogenous of degree 2 and -2, resp., and $`B_{|A^n}=(Nn)\mathrm{id}`$. The representation $`\rho `$ is compatible with the algebra structure of $`A`$ if $`L(\alpha \beta )=L(\alpha )\beta `$ for all $`\alpha ,\beta A`$. The representation $`\rho `$ is called compatible if it is compatible with the grading and the algebra structure.

Any representation $`\rho `$ induces a primitive decomposition of $`A`$. If $`\rho `$ is compatible with the grading this decomposition respects the grading, i.e. $`A^n=_{j0}L^jP^{n2j}`$, where $`P^m:=\mathrm{ker}(\mathrm{\Lambda }:A^mA^{m2})`$ is the space of primitive elements. Hence, $`A=_{n=0}^{2N}_{j0}L^jP^{n2j}`$. Recall that $`L^j:A^nA^{n+2j}`$ is injective for $`jNn`$ and that $`P^n=0`$ for $`n>N`$. Also, $`\alpha A^n`$ for $`nN`$ is primitive if and only if $`L^{Nn+1}(\alpha )=0`$.

###### Example 1.2

— Let $`V`$ be a vector space of dimension $`2N`$ with a complex structure $`I`$ which respects a scalar product $`,`$ on $`V`$. The exterior algebra $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}V^{}=_{n=0}^{2N}\mathrm{\Lambda }^nV^{}`$ admits a natural $`sl_2`$-representation for which $`L`$ is given by multiplication with the Kähler form $`\omega :=I(),\mathrm{\Lambda }^2V^{}`$. This is the natural $`sl_2`$-representation on hermitian exterior algebras.

Let us consider an infinitesimal deformation $`\rho _\epsilon `$ of $`\rho `$ given by an infinitesimial deformation of the identity $`\mathrm{id}\mathrm{End}_{}(A)`$, i.e. $`\mathrm{id}+\epsilon \phi :A[\epsilon ]A[\epsilon ]`$, where $`\phi \mathrm{End}_{}(A)`$. More precisely, $`\rho _\epsilon (X)=(\mathrm{id}+\epsilon \phi )^1\rho (X)(\mathrm{id}+\epsilon \phi )=\rho (X)+\epsilon [\rho (X),\phi ]`$ for any $`Xsl_2`$. Then the deformation of the generators of $`sl_2`$ are of the form $`L_\epsilon :=L+\epsilon [L,\phi ]`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\epsilon =\mathrm{\Lambda }+\epsilon [\mathrm{\Lambda },\phi ]`$, and $`B_\epsilon =B+\epsilon [B,\phi ]`$. Of course, as $`sl_2`$-representations are rigid, the deformation $`\rho _\epsilon `$ as abstract $`sl_2`$-representation is isomorphic to the trivial deformation of $`\rho `$, but the action on the fixed vector space $`A`$ in general changes.

If $`\rho `$ is compatible with the grading, then $`\rho _\epsilon `$ is compatible with the grading if and only if $`\phi `$ is homogenous of degree $`0`$. Then, $`B_\epsilon =B`$ and $`[L,\phi ]`$, respectively $`[\mathrm{\Lambda },\phi ]`$ are of degree $`2`$ and $`2`$, respectively. Deforming $`\rho `$ this way induces a variation of the decomposition $`A=_{n=0}^{2N}_{j0}L^jP^{n2j}`$. We are interested in two aspects of this.

i) The variation of $`L^jP^{n2j}`$ as a subspace of $`A^n`$ is determined by the natural linear map induced by $`\phi `$:

$$\stackrel{~}{\phi }:L^jP^{n2j}_{ij}L^iP^{n2i}.$$

ii) Any element $`L^j(\alpha )L^jP^{n2j}`$ admits a primitive decomposition with respect to $`\rho _\epsilon `$.

In general, as $`\phi `$ could be any homomorphism of degree $`0`$, nothing can be said about i) and ii). But as soon as the algebra structure of $`A`$ is taken into account the situation becomes more interesting.

Let us assume that $`\rho `$ is a compatible representation on $`A`$ and that the deformation $`\rho _\epsilon =\rho +\epsilon [\rho ,\phi ]`$ has the property that the operator $`[L,\phi ]`$ of degree two is given by multiplication with a vector $`vA^2`$, i.e. $`L_\epsilon =L+\epsilon v`$. It is easy to see that such a deformation $`\rho _\epsilon `$, where $`\phi `$ is homogenous of degree $`0`$, is also compatible. In order to describe the primitive decomposition of $`A`$ with respect to $`\rho _\epsilon `$ one has in principle to express $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\epsilon `$ in terms of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`v`$. As there is no easy way to write this down, we are going to compute the primitive decomposition directly in terms of $`L`$ and $`v`$.

In order to formulate the results we need the following notation.

###### Definition 1.3

— For $`vA^2`$ and a given representation $`\rho `$ one defines the linear maps ($`i0`$):

$$Q_v^i:P^mP^{m2i+2}$$

by the primitive decomposition of the product $`v\alpha =_{i0}L^iQ_v^i(\alpha )`$.

In fact, for compatible representations most of these maps are trivial:

###### Lemma 1.4

— Let $`\alpha P^m`$ and let $`\alpha v=_{i0}L^i(\beta _i)`$ be the primitive decomposition of $`\alpha v`$, i.e. $`\beta _iP^{m2i+2}`$. Then $`\beta _i=0`$ for $`i3`$. Equivalently, $`Q_v^i=0`$ for $`i3`$.

Proof. If $`\alpha P^m`$, then $`L^{Nm+1}(\alpha )=0`$. Hence, $`L^{Nm+1}(\alpha v)=L^{Nm+1}(\alpha )v=0`$ and, therefore, $`L^{Nm+1+i}(\beta _i)=0`$. Since $`L^j`$ is injective on $`P^{m2i+2}`$ for $`jNm+2i2`$, one obtains $`\beta _i=0`$ for $`i3`$.$`\mathrm{}`$

The next two propositions show that infinitesimal deformations of compatible representations of the above form, i.e. $`L_\epsilon =L+\epsilon v`$ for some $`vA^2`$, are rather special with regard to i) and ii).

###### Proposition 1.5

— Let $`\rho `$ be a compatible $`sl_2`$-representation and let $`\rho _\epsilon `$ be a compatible infinitesimal deformation of $`\rho `$, such that $`L_\epsilon =L+\epsilon v`$, where $`vA^2`$ acts by multiplication. The variation of the subspace $`L^jP^{n2j}A^n`$ is measured by the natural map

$$\stackrel{~}{\phi }:L^jP^{n2j}_{ij}L^iP^{n2i}$$

which is given by $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }(L^j(\alpha ))=(Nn+j+1)L^{j+1}Q_v^2(\alpha )jL^{j1}Q_v^0(\alpha )`$.

The description of $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }`$ is an immediate consequence of the following

###### Proposition 1.6

— Under the assumption of the previous proposition the primitive decomposition of $`L^j(\alpha )`$ for $`\alpha P^{n2j}`$ with respect to $`\rho _\epsilon `$ takes the form

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill L^j(\alpha )=& L_\epsilon ^{j+1}(\epsilon (Nn+j+1)Q_v^2(\alpha ))\hfill \\ & +L_\epsilon ^j(\alpha \epsilon ((Nn+2j+1)LQ_v^2(\alpha )+jQ_v^1(\alpha )))\hfill \\ & L_\epsilon ^{j1}(\epsilon jQ_v^0(\alpha )).\hfill \end{array}$$

Proof. Using $`L_\epsilon ^k=L^k+k\epsilon vL^{k1}`$ one has for any $`\gamma A`$ the following equality

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill L^j(\alpha )=& L_\epsilon ^{j+1}(\epsilon \gamma )+L_\epsilon ^j(\alpha \epsilon L(\gamma ))\hfill \\ & j\epsilon (L_\epsilon ^{j1}Q_v^0(\alpha )+L_\epsilon ^jQ_v^1(\alpha )+L_\epsilon ^{j+1}Q_v^2(\alpha )).\hfill \end{array}$$

Since $`P^m=0`$ for $`m>N`$, we can assume that $`n2jN`$. Furthermore, $`L^{Nn+2j+2}:A^{n2j2}A^{2Nn+2j+2}`$ is bijective. Hence, there is a uniquely defined $`\gamma A^{n2j2}`$ such that $`L^{Nn+2j+2}(\gamma )=(Nn+2j+1)L^{Nn+2j}(\alpha v)`$. Since $`\alpha P^{n2j}`$, one has

$$L^{Nn+2j+3}(\gamma )=(Nn+2j+1)L^{Nn+2j+1}(\alpha v)=0.$$

Thus, $`\gamma `$ is primitive with respect to $`\rho `$ and, therefore, $`\epsilon \gamma `$ is primitive with respect to $`\rho _\epsilon `$. Analogously, since the $`Q_v^i(\alpha )`$ are primitive with respect to $`\rho `$, the $`\epsilon Q_v^i(\alpha )`$ are $`\rho _\epsilon `$-primitive. Moreover, $`(\alpha \epsilon L(\gamma ))`$ is seen to be $`\rho _\epsilon `$-primitive by the following argument:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill L_\epsilon ^{Nn+2j+1}(\alpha \epsilon L(\gamma ))& =& L^{Nn+2j+1}(\alpha )\epsilon L^{Nn+2j+2}(\gamma )\hfill \\ & & +(Nn+2j+1)\epsilon L^{Nn+2j}(\alpha v)\hfill \\ & =& 0.\hfill \end{array}$$

To conclude it suffices to show that $`\gamma =(Nn+2j+1)Q_v^2(\alpha )`$. This follows from

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill L^{Nn+2j+2}(\gamma )& =& (Nn+2j+1)L^{Nn+2j}(\alpha v)\hfill \\ & =& (Nn+2j+1)L^{Nn+2j}(Q_v^0(\alpha )+LQ_v^1(\alpha )+L^2Q_v^2(\alpha ))\hfill \\ & =& (Nn+2j+1)L^{Nn+2j+2}Q_v^2(\alpha ),\hfill \end{array}$$

due to $`Q_v^i(\alpha )P^{n2j2i+2}`$, and the injectivity of $`L^{Nn+2j+2}`$ on $`A^{n2j2}`$.$`\mathrm{}`$

###### Examples 1.7

— The two most interesting special cases of the last proposition are $`j=0`$ and $`n2j=0`$. Let $`\rho `$ and $`\rho _\epsilon `$ be as before.

i) If $`\alpha P^n`$, then the primitive decomposition of $`\alpha `$ with respect $`\rho _\epsilon `$ has the form

$$\alpha =L_\epsilon ((Nn+1)\epsilon Q_v^2(\alpha ))+(\alpha \epsilon (Nn+1)LQ_v^2(\alpha )).$$

ii) If $`\alpha =1A^0`$ and $`vP^2`$, then the primitive decomposition of $`L^j(\alpha )`$ with respect to $`\rho _\epsilon `$ has the form

$$L^j(1)=L^j(\alpha )=L_\epsilon ^j(\alpha )+L_\epsilon ^{j1}(j\epsilon v).$$

###### Corollary 1.8

— A primitive vector $`\alpha P^n`$ stays primitive with respect to $`L_\epsilon `$ if and only if $`L^{Nn}(\alpha v)=0`$.

Proof. The vector $`\alpha P^n`$ is $`L_\epsilon `$-primitive if and only if $`Q_v^2(\alpha )=0`$ due to the above example. Since $`L^{Nn}(\alpha v)=L^{Nn+2}Q_v^2(\alpha )+L^{Nn+1}Q_v^1(\alpha )+L^{Nn}Q_v^0(\alpha )=L^{Nn+2}Q_v^2(\alpha )`$ and $`Q_v^2(\alpha )=0`$ if and only if $`L^{Nn+2}Q_v^2(\alpha )=0`$, the results follows from this.$`\mathrm{}`$

## 2 Variation of the Lefschetz decomposition

Everything in the last section immediately applies to the Lefschetz decomposition of the cohomology of a Kähler manifold. Let $`X`$ be a compact Kähler manifold and let $`[\omega ]𝒦_XH^{1,1}(X,)`$ be a Kähler class. The Lefschetz operator $`L(\alpha ):=[\omega ]\alpha `$ is part of an $`sl_2`$-representation on $`H^{}(X)`$. The Lefschetz decomposition is the primitive decomposition induced by this representation $`H^{}(X)=_{j0}L^jH^{n2j}(X)_{prim}`$.

The reason for the existence of an $`sl_2`$-representation on the cohomology of a Kähler manifold are the Kähler identities. The natural $`sl_2`$-representations on the hermitian exterior algebras $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}T_x^{}`$ for all $`xX`$ (cf. Example 1.2) are compatible with passing to cohomology, as the Laplacian commutes with $`L`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Although, two $`sl_2`$-representations on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}T_x^{}`$ associated to two Kähler structures commute, this does not hold in general on the level of cohomology, since the two Laplacian are different and $`L`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ for one Kähler structure do not necessarily commute with the Laplacian of the other. However, the argument immediately shows that all $`sl_2`$-representations on the cohomology of a torus do commute, as the cohomology is isomorphic to the exterior algebra of the tangent space at some point.

Changing the Kähler class $`[\omega ]𝒦_X`$ changes this decomposition. Since an infinitesimal variation of $`[\omega ]𝒦_X`$ is of the form $`[\omega ]+\epsilon v`$ for some $`vH^{1,1}(X,)_{prim}`$, we can apply Prop. 1.6. In particular, we have

###### Corollary 2.1

— Let $`\alpha H^{n2j}(X)_{prim}`$. Then the Lefschetz decomposition of $`L^j(\alpha )`$ with respect to $`[\omega ]+\epsilon v`$ involves only $`L_\epsilon ^{j+1}`$, $`L_\epsilon ^j`$, and $`L_\epsilon ^{j1}`$.$`\mathrm{}`$

Let us next come to the infinitesimal Jordan-Lefschetz property. In  Looijenga and Lunts introduced the Kähler Lie algebra $`𝔤`$ of a compact Kähler manifold $`X`$ as the Lie subalgebra of $`𝔤l(H^{}(X))`$ generated by $`L_\omega `$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\omega `$ for all Kähler classes $`\omega `$. By \[5, Prop. 1.6\] the Kähler Lie algebra $`𝔤`$ is semi-simple. By Prop. 2.1 of the same paper the operators $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\omega `$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\omega ^{}`$ commute for all different $`\omega `$, $`\omega ^{}`$ if and only if $`𝔤`$ has degree $`2`$, $`0`$, and $`2`$ only. In this case $`(𝔤,[\mathrm{\Lambda },L])`$ is called a Jordan-Lefschetz pair. Due to \[5, Cor. 2.6\] Jordan-Lefschetz pairs can be classified. Complex tori and compact hyperkähler manifolds satisfy the Jordan-Lefschetz property, but no other series of higher dimensional compact Kähler manifolds seems to be known. Surprisingly, the infinitesimal Jordan-Lefschetz property always holds true. This is the content of the next theorem.

###### Theorem 2.2

— Let $`X`$ be a compact Kähler manifold and let $`\omega H^{1,1}(X,)`$ be a Kähler class. For any $`vH^{1,1}(X,)`$ the operators $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\omega `$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\omega +\epsilon v}`$ associated to $`\omega `$ resp. its infinitesimal deformation $`\omega +\epsilon v`$ commute, i.e. $`[\mathrm{\Lambda }_\omega ,\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\omega +\epsilon v}]=0`$.

Proof. The assertion is a consequence of Prop. 1.6. The calculation is straightforward, but lengthy. We only indicate the main steps.

Let us introduce the notation $`\mathrm{\Lambda }:=\mathrm{\Lambda }_\omega `$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\epsilon :=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\omega +\epsilon v}`$. In order to prove $`[\mathrm{\Lambda }_\epsilon ,\mathrm{\Lambda }]=0`$ it suffices to show that for any primitive class $`\alpha H^{n2j}`$ with $`L^j\alpha 0`$ one has $`[\mathrm{\Lambda }_\epsilon ,\mathrm{\Lambda }](L^j\alpha )=0`$.

A simple calculation proves $`\mathrm{\Lambda }L^k\beta =k(Nmk+1)L^{k1}\beta `$ for any primitive form $`\beta `$ of degree $`m`$. Thus $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\epsilon \mathrm{\Lambda }L^j\alpha =j(Nn+j+1)\mathrm{\Lambda }_\epsilon L^{j1}\alpha `$. Then, the $`(\omega +\epsilon v)`$-primitive decomposition of $`L^{j1}\alpha `$ is given by Prop. 1.6 and the resulting expressions $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\epsilon L_\epsilon ^k`$ with $`k=j,j1,j2`$ can be computed as before. Thus, eventually $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\epsilon \mathrm{\Lambda }L^j\alpha `$ can be expressed as a linear combination of $`\epsilon L^{j1}Q_v^2(\alpha )`$, $`\epsilon L^{j2}Q_v^1(\alpha )`$, $`\epsilon L^{j3}Q_v^0(\alpha )`$, and $`L^{j2}\alpha `$. Analogously, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }_\epsilon L^j\alpha `$ can be computed by inserting the formula for the primitive decomposition of $`L^j\alpha `$ with respect to $`\omega +\epsilon v`$ given by Prop. 1.6. The resulting formula is again a linear combination of the same terms as before and, as it turns out, the linear combination is in both cases the same. This proves $`[\mathrm{\Lambda }_\epsilon ,\mathrm{\Lambda }]=0`$.$`\mathrm{}`$

## 3 Infinitesimal change of harmonic forms

In this section we apply the results of Sect. 1 to $`sl_2`$-representations on the space of forms. Although the vector space is no longer finite dimensional the results are still valid, as the representations are induced by the standard $`sl_2`$-representation on hermitian exterior algebras. The Lefschetz decomposition discussed in the last section only reflects this on the level of cohomology. The new ingredient on the level of linear algebra in this context is the Hodge $``$-operator.

Let $`X`$ be a compact Kähler manifold of dimension $`N`$. For any Kähler form $`\omega `$ we denote by $`_\omega `$ the space of all forms that are harmonic with respect to $`\omega `$. Thus, $`_\omega =_\omega ^n=_\omega ^{p,q}`$. Considered as a subspace of the space $`𝒜(X)_{cl}`$ of all closed forms the space $`_\omega `$ depends on $`\omega `$. We shall compute the first order term of this dependence. A first order deformation of the Kähler form $`\omega `$ is of the form $`\omega _\epsilon =\omega +\epsilon v`$, where $`v`$ is a closed real $`(1,1)`$-form.

In order to study the variation of $`_\omega `$ we have to understand the deformation of the Laplacian $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ which involves the Hodge operator $``$ associated with $`\omega `$. Let us write the Hodge operator $`_\epsilon `$ associated to $`\omega _\epsilon =\omega +\epsilon v`$ in the form $`_\epsilon =+\epsilon T_v`$, where $`T_v`$ is a certain linear operator. We shall first describe the deformation of $`_\omega `$ to $`_{\omega _\epsilon }`$ in terms of $`T_v`$. Later we will use the results about the deformation of $`sl_2`$-representations to express this purely in terms of $`v`$.

Recall that the Hodge decomposition of a form $`\alpha 𝒜(X)`$ has the form $`\alpha =_\omega (\alpha )dGd^{}\alpha d^{}Gd\alpha `$, where $`_\omega (\alpha )`$ denotes the $`\omega `$-harmonic part of $`\alpha `$ and $`G`$ is the Green operator with respect to $`\omega `$, which commutes with $`d`$ and $`d^{}`$. Analogously, one has $`\alpha =_{\omega _\epsilon }(\alpha )dG_\epsilon d^_\epsilon \alpha d^_\epsilon G_\epsilon d\alpha `$. The infinitesimal variation of $`_\omega 𝒜(X)_{cl}`$ induced by $`\omega _\epsilon =\omega +\epsilon v`$ is determined by the canonical homomorphism

$$\stackrel{~}{h}(v,_{}):_\omega 𝒜(X)_{cl}/_\omega =\mathrm{Im}(d).$$

The space of harmonic forms $`_\omega `$ does not change when passing from $`\omega `$ to $`\omega _\epsilon `$ if and only if this map is trivial. More specifically, one has

An $`\omega `$-harmonic form $`\alpha _\omega `$ is harmonic with respect to $`\omega _\epsilon `$, i.e. $`\alpha _{\omega _\epsilon }`$, if and only if $`\stackrel{~}{h}(v,\alpha )=0`$.

The map $`\stackrel{~}{h}(v,_{})`$ can explicitely be described in terms of $`T_v`$ due to the following

###### Lemma 3.1

— Let $`\alpha _\omega `$. Then the $`\omega _\epsilon `$-harmonic part of $`\alpha `$ is given by $`_{\omega _\epsilon }(\alpha )=\alpha +\epsilon dGdT_v(\alpha )`$.

Proof. Since $`\epsilon dGdT_v(\alpha )`$ is exact, it suffices to show that $`\beta :=\alpha +\epsilon dGdT_v(\alpha )`$ is harmonic with respect to $`\omega _\epsilon `$. Obviously, $`\beta `$ ist $`d`$-closed. In order to show that $`d^_\epsilon \beta =0`$, one first notes that $`\epsilon G=\epsilon G_\epsilon `$. Also recall that $`\mathrm{\Delta }G=G\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{id}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\epsilon G_\epsilon =G_\epsilon \mathrm{\Delta }_\epsilon =\mathrm{id}`$ on $`d`$-exact forms and that $`d^{}=d`$.
Therefore,

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Delta }_\epsilon (\alpha +\epsilon dGdT_v(\alpha ))=\mathrm{\Delta }_\epsilon (\alpha )+\epsilon \mathrm{\Delta }_\epsilon G_\epsilon ddT_v\alpha \hfill \\ =dd^_\epsilon \alpha +\epsilon ddT_v(\alpha )\hfill \\ =d(+\epsilon T_v)d(+\epsilon T_v)(\alpha )+\epsilon ddT_v(\alpha )=0.\hfill \end{array}$$

i $`\mathrm{}`$

Thus, the Hodge decomposition of $`\alpha `$ with respect to $`\omega _\epsilon `$ takes the form $`\alpha =(\alpha +\epsilon dGdT_v(\alpha ))(\epsilon dGdT_v(\alpha ))`$.

###### Corollary 3.2

— The map $`\stackrel{~}{h}(v,_{}):_\omega \mathrm{Im}(d)`$ maps $`\alpha `$ to $`dGdT_v(\alpha )`$ $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 3.3

— The Green operator commutes with $`d`$ and defines an automorphism of $`\mathrm{Im}(d)`$. Moreover, $`d:\mathrm{Im}(d^{})\mathrm{Im}(d)`$ is bijective. So, without loosing any information we may replace $`\stackrel{~}{h}(v,_{})`$ by the map $`h(v,_{}):_\omega \mathrm{Im}(d^{})`$ that maps $`\alpha `$ to $`dT_v(\alpha )`$. Note that $`h(v,_{})`$ is a map of degree $`(1)`$. In fact, we could also consider $`dT_v(\alpha )`$ without loosing information, but the degree of this map depends on $`\alpha `$ and on $`N`$.

Next we shall compute $`T_v(\alpha )`$ in terms of the product $`\alpha v`$. Throughout, we will make use of the following formula due to A. Weil (cf. ):
Let $`\alpha `$ be a form of type $`(p,q)`$. Assume that $`\alpha `$ is $`\omega `$-primitive and that $`(p+q)+rN`$. Then

$$(\omega ^r\alpha )=(1)^{\frac{(p+q)(p+q+1)}{2}}\frac{r!i^{pq}}{(N(p+q)r)!}\omega ^{N(p+q)r}\alpha .$$
$`(1)`$
In fact, if both sides are correctly interpreted the formula also holds for $`(p+q)+r>N`$. Namely, $`\omega ^r\alpha =0`$, since $`\alpha `$ is primitive and $`r>N(p+q)`$, and $`\omega ^{N(p+q)r}\alpha =0`$, as the exponent is negative.

The idea to compute $`T_v(\alpha )`$ is the following. Using Prop. 1.6 we can compute the primitive decomposition of any $`\alpha _\omega `$ with respect to $`\omega _\epsilon `$. Formula (1) allows one to compute $`_\epsilon `$ by applying it to each of the summands in the $`\omega _\epsilon `$-primitive decomposition of $`\alpha `$. On the other hand, $`_\epsilon (\alpha )=(\alpha )+\epsilon T_v(\alpha )`$ can also be computed by applying (1) to $``$. This gives a formula for $`T_v(\alpha )`$.

###### Example 3.4

— Let $`\alpha `$ be an $`\omega `$-primitive form of type $`(1,1)`$. By 1.7 the $`\omega _\epsilon `$-primitive decomposition of $`\alpha `$ is given by $`\alpha =\omega _\epsilon ((N1)\epsilon Q_v^2(\alpha ))+(\alpha \epsilon (N1)\omega Q_v^2(\alpha ))`$. The function $`f=Q_v^2(\alpha )`$ is determined by $`Q_v^2(\alpha )\omega ^N=\alpha v\omega ^{N2}`$. Thus, $`f=(\alpha v\omega ^{N2})/\omega ^N`$. Hence, the $`\omega _\epsilon `$-primitive decomposition of $`\alpha `$ is

$$\alpha =\omega _\epsilon ((N1)\epsilon \left(\frac{\alpha v\omega ^{N2}}{\omega ^N}\right))+(\alpha \epsilon (N1)\omega \left(\frac{\alpha v\omega ^{N2}}{\omega ^N}\right)).$$

By (1):

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill _\epsilon \alpha & =& _\epsilon (\omega _\epsilon ((N1)\epsilon \left(\frac{\alpha v\omega ^{N2}}{\omega ^N}\right)))+_\epsilon (\alpha \epsilon (N1)\omega \left(\frac{\alpha v\omega ^{N2}}{\omega ^N}\right))\hfill \\ & =& \frac{N1}{(N1)!}\epsilon \omega _\epsilon ^{N1}\left(\frac{\alpha v\omega ^{N2}}{\omega ^N}\right)\frac{1}{(N2)!}\omega _\epsilon ^{N2}(\alpha \epsilon (N1)\omega \left(\frac{\alpha v\omega ^{N2}}{\omega ^N}\right)).\hfill \end{array}$$

On the other hand, $`_\epsilon \alpha =\alpha +\epsilon T_v(\alpha )=\frac{1}{(N2)!}\omega ^{N2}\alpha +\epsilon T_v(\alpha )`$. Hence,

$$T_v(\alpha )=\frac{1}{(N3)!}\omega ^{N3}\alpha v+\frac{N}{(N2)!}\left(\frac{\alpha v\omega ^{N2}}{\omega ^N}\right)\omega ^{N1}.$$

\- For the second example let us assume that $`v`$ is primitive. Then for the $`(1,1)`$-form $`\alpha =\omega `$ the primitive decomposition with respect to $`\omega _\epsilon =\omega +\epsilon v`$ takes the form $`\omega =(\omega +\epsilon v)\epsilon v`$. Indeed, $`\epsilon v`$ is $`\omega _\epsilon `$-primitive, for $`\epsilon v(\omega +\epsilon v)^{N1}=\epsilon v\omega ^{N1}=0`$.
Thus,

$$_\epsilon \omega =_\epsilon \omega _\epsilon \epsilon _\epsilon v=\frac{1}{(N1)!}\omega _{\epsilon }^{}{}_{}{}^{N1}+\frac{\epsilon }{(N2)!}\omega _{\epsilon }^{}{}_{}{}^{N2}v.$$

Using, $`_\epsilon =+\epsilon T_v`$ this yields

$$T_v(\omega )=\frac{(N1)}{(N1)!}\omega ^{N2}v+\frac{1}{(N2)!}\omega ^{N2}v=\frac{2}{(N2)!}\omega ^{N2}v.$$

The general formula is provided by the following

###### Proposition 3.5

— Let $`\alpha `$ be $`\omega `$-primitive of type $`(pj,qj)`$ and let $`\alpha v=\beta _0+\omega \beta _1+\omega ^2\beta _2`$ be the $`\omega `$-primitive decomposition of $`\alpha v`$. Then

$$T_v(\alpha \omega ^j)=c_0^{}\beta _0\omega ^{Nn+j1}+c_1\beta _1\omega ^{Nn+j}+c_2\beta _2\omega ^{Nn+j+1}+c_0\alpha v\omega ^{Nn+j1},$$

where $`c_0=\eta (Nn+j)`$, $`c_1=\eta j`$, $`c_2=\eta (Nn+3j+2)`$, $`\eta :=(1)^{\frac{(n2j2)(n2j1)}{2}}\frac{j!i^{pq}}{(Nn+j)!}`$, $`n=p+q`$, and $`c_0^{}=c_0`$ for $`j>0`$ and $`c_0^{}=0`$ for $`j=0`$.

Proof. Using $`(+\epsilon T_v)(\alpha \omega ^j)=_\epsilon (\alpha \omega ^j)`$ and the primitive decomposition of $`\alpha \omega ^j`$ with respect to $`\omega _\epsilon `$ given by Prop. 1.6, the claim is proven by applying (1). By Prop. 1.6 we have the $`\omega _\epsilon `$-primitive decomposition

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \omega ^j\alpha =& (Nn+j+1)\omega _\epsilon ^{j+1}(\epsilon \beta _2)\hfill \\ & +\omega _\epsilon ^j(\alpha \epsilon ((Nn+2j+1)\omega \beta _2+j\beta _1))\hfill \\ & j\omega _\epsilon ^{j1}(\epsilon \beta _0).\hfill \end{array}$$

Applying $`_\epsilon `$ to these three terms gives:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill _\epsilon \omega _{\epsilon }^{}{}_{}{}^{j1}(\epsilon (j\beta _0))& =& c_0\epsilon \beta _0\omega _{\epsilon }^{}{}_{}{}^{Nn+j1}\text{ for }j>0,\hfill \\ \hfill _\epsilon \omega _{\epsilon }^{}{}_{}{}^{j}(\alpha \epsilon ((Nn+2j+1)\beta _2\omega +j\beta _1))& =& \eta \omega _{\epsilon }^{}{}_{}{}^{Nn+j}(\alpha \epsilon ((Nn+2j+1)\beta _2\omega +j\beta _1))\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{and}_\epsilon \omega _{\epsilon }^{}{}_{}{}^{j+1}(\epsilon (Nn+j+1)\beta _2)& =& \eta (j+1)\omega _{\epsilon }^{}{}_{}{}^{Nn+j+1}(\epsilon \beta _2).\hfill \end{array}$$

The scalars $`c_1,c_2`$ can be easily computed from this. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 3.6

— Note that if $`Nn+j<0`$, then $`\alpha \omega ^j=0`$. In this case the right hand side is also interpreted as zero. For $`Nn+j=0`$ the right hand side reduces to $`c_1\beta _1`$.

\- For $`j=0`$ the formula yields

$$T_v(\alpha )=(1)^{\frac{n(n+1)}{2}}\frac{i^{pq}}{(Nn)!}\left((Nn)\alpha v\omega ^{Nn1}(Nn+2)\beta _2\omega ^{Nn+1}\right).$$

\- For $`p=q=1`$ we get back the formula in the example, since $`\beta _2=(\alpha v\omega ^{N2})/\omega ^N`$.

\- For $`\alpha =1`$ and $`v`$ primitive we find $`T_v(\omega ^j)=\frac{2j!}{(Nj1)!}v\omega ^{Nj1}`$.

Passing from $`T_v(\alpha \omega ^j)`$ to $`h(v,\alpha \omega ^j)=dT_v(\alpha \omega ^j)`$ actually simplifies the formula due to the following

###### Lemma 3.7

— Let $`\alpha `$ be a closed primitive form and $`\alpha v=\beta _0+\beta _1\omega +\beta _2\omega ^2`$ be the primitive decomposition of the product $`\alpha v`$, where $`v`$ is a closed form of degree two. Then the primitive decomposition of $`d\beta _0`$, $`d\beta _1`$, and $`d\beta _2`$ are of the form: $`d\beta _1=\delta _0+\delta _1\omega `$, $`d\beta _0=\delta _0\omega `$, and $`d\beta _2=\delta _1`$. In particular, $`d\beta _1=0`$ if and only if $`d\beta _0=d\beta _2=0`$.

Proof. Let $`d\beta _0=\delta _k^0\omega ^k`$, $`d\beta _1=\delta _k\omega ^k`$, and $`d\beta _2=\delta _k^2\omega ^k`$ be the primitive decomposition of $`d\beta _0`$, $`d\beta _1`$, and $`d\beta _2`$, respectively. We use the following three equations to deduce the result: i) $`d(\alpha v)=0`$, ii) $`(d\beta _1+d\beta _2\omega )\omega ^{N\mathrm{deg}(\alpha )}=0`$, and iii) $`d\beta _2\omega ^{N\mathrm{deg}(\alpha )+2}=0`$.

Since $`\alpha `$ and $`v`$ are closed one has i), which yields

$$\delta _k^0\omega ^k+\delta _k\omega ^{k+1}+\delta _k^2\omega ^{k+2}=0.$$

Hence, $`\delta _0^0=0`$, $`\delta _1^0=\delta _0`$, and $`\delta _{k+2}^0+\delta _{k+1}+\delta _k^2=0`$ for all $`k0`$. If $`\mathrm{deg}(\alpha )N1`$ then $`\beta _0=0`$. If $`\mathrm{deg}(\alpha )N1`$, we use that $`\beta _0`$ is of degree $`\mathrm{deg}(\alpha )+2`$ to conclude that $`\beta _0\omega ^{N\mathrm{deg}(\alpha )1}=0`$. This yields ii) and therefore

$$\delta _k\omega ^{N\mathrm{deg}(\alpha )+k}+\delta _k^2\omega ^{N\mathrm{deg}(\alpha )+k+1}=0.$$

Since $`\delta _{k+1}+\delta _k^2`$ is primitive of degree $`\mathrm{deg}(\alpha )12k`$ we obtain $`\delta _{k+1}+\delta _k^2=0`$ for all $`k0`$. This already proves $`d\beta _0=\delta _1^0\omega =\delta _0\omega `$.

Using that $`\beta _1`$ is primitive of degree $`\mathrm{deg}(\alpha )`$ equation ii) gives iii), i.e. $`\delta _k^2\omega ^{N\mathrm{deg}(\alpha )+2+k}=0`$. Since $`\delta _k^2`$ is primitive of degree $`\mathrm{deg}(\alpha )12k`$, one obtains $`\delta _k^2=0`$ for $`k>0`$.$`\mathrm{}`$

###### Lemma 3.8

— Let $`\alpha `$ be a closed primitive form of pure type and let $`v`$ be closed of type (1,1). Then $`\alpha v`$ is harmonic if and only if $`\beta _1`$ is closed. As before, $`\beta _1`$ is the primitive form defined by the primitive decomposition $`\alpha v=\beta _0+\beta _1\omega +\beta _2\omega ^2`$.

Proof. Since $`X`$ is Kähler, $`\alpha v`$ is harmonic if and only if $`\beta _0`$, $`\beta _1`$, and $`\beta _2`$ are harmonic. On the other hand, if $`d\beta _1=0`$, then also $`d\beta _0=d\beta _2=0`$. Since the forms $`\beta _i`$ are primitive of pure type, this implies $`d\beta _i=0`$, i.e. they are harmonic. (In general, a closed primitive form of pure type is harmonic. In particular, $`\alpha `$ is harmonic from the very beginning.)$`\mathrm{}`$

This leads to the final formula.

###### Theorem 3.9

— Let $`\alpha `$ be $`\omega `$-primitive and $`\omega `$-harmonic of type $`(pj,qj)`$ with $`\alpha \omega ^j0`$. If $`\alpha v=\beta _0+\beta _1\omega +\beta _2\omega ^2`$ is the primitive decomposition of $`\alpha v`$ and $`d\beta _1=\delta _0+\delta _1\omega `$ is the primitive decomposition of $`d\beta _1`$, then

$$h(v,\alpha \omega ^j)=\lambda _1(\delta _0\omega ^{Nn+j})+\lambda _2(\delta _1\omega ^{Nn+j+1}),$$

where $`\lambda _1=\eta (Nn+2j)`$ for $`j>0`$ and $`\lambda _1=0`$ for $`j=0`$, $`\lambda _2=\eta (Nn+2j+2)`$, $`\eta `$ as before, and $`n=p+q`$.

Proof. By definition $`h(v,\alpha \omega ^j)=dT_v(\alpha \omega ^j)`$ and by Prop. 3.5

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill dT_v(\alpha \omega ^j)& =& (c_0^{}d\beta _0\omega ^{Nn+j1}+c_1d\beta _1\omega ^{Nn+j}+c_2d\beta _2\omega ^{Nn+j+1})\hfill \\ & =& (c_1c_0^{})(\delta _0\omega ^{Nn+j})+(c_1c_2)(\delta _1\omega ^{Nn+j+1}).\hfill \end{array}$$

The calculation of $`\lambda _1:=c_1c_0^{}`$ and $`\lambda _2:=c_1c_2`$ is straightforward. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Corollary 3.10

— If $`j=0`$ the form $`\alpha `$ is harmonic with respect to $`\omega _\epsilon =\omega +\epsilon v`$ if and only if $`\alpha v\omega ^{Nn}`$ is $`\omega `$-harmonic. If $`j>0`$ the form $`\alpha \omega ^j`$ is harmonic with respect to $`\omega _\epsilon =\omega +\epsilon v`$ if and only $`\alpha v`$ is $`\omega `$-harmonic.

Proof. Let first $`j=0`$. Since $`\lambda _1=0`$ for $`j=0`$ one has $`h(v,\alpha )=0`$ if and only if $`\delta _1\omega ^{Nn+1}=0`$. Since $`\delta _1`$ is of degree $`n1`$ the latter is equivalent to the vanishing of $`d\beta _2`$. Now, $`\beta _2`$ is closed if and only if $`\beta _2`$ is harmonic if and only if $`\beta _2\omega ^{Nn+2}`$ is harmonic, but the latter is just $`\alpha v\omega ^{Nn}`$.

In general, if $`\alpha v`$ is harmonic, then $`\delta _0=\delta _1=0`$ by lemma 3.8 and hence $`h(v,\alpha \omega ^j)=0`$. Conversely, if $`h(v,\alpha \omega ^j)=0`$, then $`\delta _1=0`$, because $`\delta _1`$ is primitive of degree $`n2j1`$. For $`j>0`$ the same argument shows $`\delta _0=0`$.$`\mathrm{}`$

## 4 Non-linear Kähler cones

Let $`X`$ be a compact Kähler manifold of dimension $`N`$ with a fixed Kähler form $`\omega _0`$. By $`𝒦_XH^{1,1}(X,)`$ we denote the Kähler cone, i.e. the set of all Kähler classes. Then $`[\omega _0]𝒦_X`$. Clearly, $`𝒦_X`$ is an open convex cone. By definition, every class in $`𝒦_X`$ can be represented by a Kähler form, but a priori there is no canonical choice.

###### Definition 4.1

— For $`i=0,\mathrm{},N1`$ we denote by $`𝒦^i=𝒦_{(X,\omega _0)}^i`$ the connected component containing $`\omega _0`$ of the set of all Kähler forms $`\omega `$, such that $`\omega ^{Ni}\omega _0^i=c\omega _0^N`$ for some scalar constant $`c`$.

###### Remark 4.2

— The set $`𝒦^0=𝒦_{(X,\omega _0)}^0`$ only depends on the volume form $`\omega _0^N`$ and not on $`\omega _0`$ itself. In  this set was denoted by $`\stackrel{~}{𝒦}_X`$. Due to results of Calabi and Yau the natural projection $`𝒦^0𝒦_X`$, $`\omega [\omega ]`$ is bijective. If $`\omega _0`$ is Ricci-flat, then $`𝒦^0`$ is the set of all Ricci-flat Kähler forms.

\- In general, the canonical projection $`𝒦^i𝒦_X`$ is injective. This is proved using the original argument of Calabi : If $`\omega ,\omega ^{}𝒦^i`$ with $`[\omega ]=[\omega ^{}]`$, then $`\omega \omega ^{}=dd^c\phi `$ and $`dd^c\phi (\omega ^{Ni1}+\omega ^{Ni2}\omega ^{}+\mathrm{}+\omega _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{Ni1})\omega _0^i=0`$. The positivity of $`\omega `$, $`\omega ^{}`$, and $`\omega _0`$ yields $`\phi =0`$.

\- In general, the projection $`𝒦^i𝒦_X`$ need not be surjective for $`i>0`$ (see the example below). Presumably, taking the connected component in the definition of $`𝒦^i`$ is superflous. It certainly is for $`i=0`$ and $`i=N1`$.

\- The only ‘linear’ cone is $`𝒦^{N1}`$. Indeed, $`𝒦^{N1}`$ consists of all Kähler forms $`\omega `$ such that $`\omega \omega _0^{N1}=c\omega _0^N`$. Thus, $`\omega c\omega _0`$ is closed and $`\omega _0`$-primitive, hence $`\omega _0`$-harmonic. Therefore, $`𝒦^{N1}`$ is an open subset of $`(_{\omega _0}^{1,1})_{}`$. In some imprecise sense the sequence $`𝒦^0,𝒦^1,\mathrm{},𝒦^{N1}`$ is a stepwise linearization of the Calabi-Yau cone $`𝒦^0`$.

###### Example 4.3

— Often, for a class $`[\alpha ]𝒦_X`$ there exists a curve $`CX`$ such that $`_C\alpha =0`$. Assume that $`𝒦^{N1}𝒦_X`$ is surjective and let $`\alpha 𝒦^{N1}_{\omega _0}^{1,1}`$ be representing $`[\alpha ]`$. Since $`\alpha `$ is in the boundary of $`𝒦^{N1}`$ it is semi-positive definite. On the other hand, $`_C\alpha =0`$. Therefore, $`\alpha _{|_C}=0`$. Conversely, if we want to find examples for which $`𝒦^{N1}𝒦^0`$ is not surjective, then we have to look for $`[\alpha ]`$ such that $`\alpha _{|_C}0`$.

Let $`C`$ be a curve of genus two and $`\phi _1,\phi _2H^{1,0}(C)`$ be an orthogonal base, i.e. $`\phi _1\overline{\phi }_2=0`$. Consider the form $`\alpha =\phi _1\times \overline{\phi }_2+\overline{\phi }_1\times \phi _2`$ on $`X:=C\times C`$, which is harmonic with respect to $`\omega \times \omega `$ for any Kähler form $`\omega `$ on $`C`$. Then $`\alpha `$ is trivial on the fibres of the two projections and $`_\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha =0`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }C\times C`$ is the diagonal. On the other hand, we may assume that $`\alpha _{|_\mathrm{\Delta }}=\phi _1\overline{\phi }_2+\overline{\phi }_1\phi _2`$ is not trivial. Indeed, we may change $`\phi _1`$ by a complex scalar $`\lambda `$ and if for all $`\lambda `$ one has $`0=\lambda \phi _1\overline{\phi }_2+\overline{\lambda }\overline{\phi }_1\phi _2`$ then $`\phi _1\overline{\phi }_2=0`$, but $`\phi _1`$ and $`\phi _2`$ vanish at different points. Therefore, $`\alpha `$ is not semi-positive definite. Since obviously $`[\alpha ]𝒦_X`$, the form $`\alpha `$ itself cannot be in $`𝒦^{N1}`$. Hence, $`𝒦^{N1}𝒦_X`$ is not surjective.

Here is another geometric relevant example which shows that the existence of certain subvarities of the (deformed) manifold influences the size of the set of all $`\omega _0`$-harmonic Kähler forms.

###### Proposition 4.4

— Let $`\omega _I`$ be a Ricci-flat Kähler form on a K3 surface $`(X,I)`$, where $`I`$ is a fixed complex structure on $`X`$, and let $`:=\{aI+bJ+cK|a^2+b^2+c^2=1\}`$ be the induced twistor family of complex structures. Let $`\alpha 𝒦_X`$ be a Kähler class on $`(X,I)`$ and $`\omega _I+\alpha ^{}`$ be its primitive decomposition with respect to $`\omega _I`$. If for some complex structure $`\lambda `$ there exists a smooth rational curve $`C`$ in $`(X,\lambda )`$ such that $`C.(\omega _\lambda +\alpha ^{})<0`$, then $`\alpha `$ cannot be represented by an $`\omega _I`$-harmonic Kähler form.

Proof. We denote by $`\alpha `$ and $`\alpha ^{}`$ also the harmonic representatives of $`\alpha `$ and $`\alpha ^{}`$, respectively. Then $`\alpha ^{}`$ is of pure type $`(1,1)`$ for any complex structure of the form $`\lambda =aI+bJ+cK`$. Let us first show that $`(\omega _\lambda +\alpha ^{})^2`$ is independent of $`\lambda `$ at any point of $`X`$. Indeed, $`(\omega _\lambda +\alpha ^{})^2=\omega _\lambda ^2+\alpha _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=\omega _I^2+\alpha _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=\alpha ^2`$, as $`\alpha ^{}`$ is $`\omega _\lambda `$-primitive for any $`\lambda `$. Therefore, if the harmonic representative of $`\alpha `$ is in fact positive definite, then $`\omega _\lambda +\alpha ^{}`$ is a positive definite form on $`(X,\lambda )`$ for all $`\lambda `$, as otherwise the square would have to vanish for some triple $`\lambda `$ at at least one point of $`X`$. But then a rational curve as above cannot exist. Thus, $`\alpha `$ cannot be represented by an $`\omega _I`$-harmonic Kähler form. $`\mathrm{}`$

In other words, the part of the Kähler cone $`𝒦_X`$ of the K3 surface $`(X,I)`$ that can be represented by harmonic Kähler forms stays constant in the twistor family. In particular, this excludes the existence of a series of smooth rational curves $`C_i`$ on twistor fibres $`(X,\lambda _i)`$ with $`_{C_i}\omega _{\lambda _i}0`$. It is an open and interesting question whether any Kähler class that stays Kähler in the twistor family can actually be represented by an harmonic Kähler form.

Let us come back to the general situation. The description of the tangent space of $`𝒦^0=\stackrel{~}{𝒦}_X`$ in  can easily be adapted to describe the tangent space of $`𝒦^i`$ at the point $`\omega _0𝒦^i`$.

###### Lemma 4.5

— At the point $`\omega _0𝒦^i`$ the tangent space is $`T_{\omega _0}𝒦^i=(_{\omega _0}^{1,1})_{}`$, i.e. any first order deformation of $`\omega _0`$ within $`𝒦^i`$ is given as $`\omega _0+\epsilon v`$ with $`v(_{\omega _0}^{1,1})_{}`$.

Proof. Indeed, $`(\omega _0+\epsilon v)^{Ni}\omega _0^i=\omega _0^N+(Ni)\epsilon \omega _0^{N1}v`$. Hence, for some scalar $`\lambda `$ the form $`v\lambda \omega _0`$ is $`\omega _0`$-primitive and closed. Thus, $`v`$ is $`\omega _0`$-harmonic,$`\mathrm{}`$

Thus, the sets $`𝒦^i`$ have contact at $`\omega _0`$ of order two. The tangent space of $`𝒦^0`$ can be described at every point $`\omega 𝒦^0`$ as the space of all real $`\omega `$-harmonic $`(1,1)`$-forms. The description of $`T_\omega 𝒦^i`$ for $`0<i<N1`$ and $`\omega \omega _0`$ is less clear, it mixes $`\omega `$-harmonicity and $`\omega _0`$-harmonicity.

We next want to know under what circumstances the ‘non-linear’ cone $`𝒦^i`$ is linear, i.e. when it is contained in its tangent space $`T_{\omega _0}𝒦^i=(_{\omega _0}^{1,1})_{}`$. The following proposition generalizes \[2, Prop. 2.3\]

###### Proposition 4.6

— The cone $`𝒦^i`$ is linear if and only if $`\alpha ^{Ni}\omega _0^i`$ is $`\omega _0`$-harmonic for all $`\alpha _{\omega _0}^{1,1}`$.

Proof. If $`𝒦^i`$ is linear, then for all $`\alpha `$ in the open set $`𝒦^i(_{\omega _0}^{1,1})_{}`$ the form $`\alpha ^{Ni}\omega _0^i`$ is $`\omega _0`$-harmonic. But then this holds for all $`\alpha _{\omega _0}^{1,1}`$. Conversely, if $`\alpha ^{Ni}\omega _0^i`$ is $`\omega _0`$-harmonic for all $`\alpha _{\omega _0}^{1,1}`$, then $`𝒦^i`$ intersects $`(_{\omega _0}^{1,1})_{}`$ in an open subset. Hence, $`𝒦^i(_{\omega _0}^{1,1})_{}`$.$`\mathrm{}`$

###### Corollary 4.7

— If $`𝒦^i`$ is linear, then $`𝒦^{i+1}`$ is linear.

Proof. If $`𝒦^i`$ is linear then $`\alpha ^{Ni}\omega _0^i`$ is $`\omega _0`$-harmonic for all $`\alpha _{\omega _0}^{1,1}`$. Hence, $`(\alpha +t\omega _0)^{Ni}\omega _0^i`$ is $`\omega _0`$-harmonic for all $`t`$. Then, also the linear coefficient of this polynomial in $`t`$, which is $`\alpha ^{Ni1}\omega _0^{i+1}`$, is $`\omega _0`$-harmonic for all $`\alpha _{\omega _0}^{1,1}`$. Thus, $`𝒦^{i+1}`$ is linear.$`\mathrm{}`$

In particular, the linearity of $`𝒦^0`$ implies the linearity of all the other sets $`𝒦^i`$. In this case, $`𝒦^0=𝒦^1=\mathrm{}=𝒦^{N1}`$. In this sense, the sequence $`𝒦^0`$, $`𝒦^1`$, …, $`𝒦^{N1}`$ goes from the most curved set $`𝒦^0`$ to the linear set $`𝒦^{N1}`$.

The following result is another criterion for the linearity of $`𝒦^0`$.

###### Proposition 4.8

— The set $`𝒦^0`$ is linear, i.e. $`𝒦^0=𝒦^1=\mathrm{}=𝒦^{N1}`$, if and only if $`_\omega ^{1,1}=_{\omega _0}^{1,1}`$ for all $`\omega `$ in a neighbourhood of $`\omega _0`$ in $`𝒦^{N1}(_{\omega _0}^{1,1})_{}`$.

Proof. If $`𝒦^0`$ is linear, then $`_\omega ^{1,1}=_{\omega _0}^{1,1}`$ for all $`\omega 𝒦^0=𝒦^{N1}`$. Conversely, if $`_\omega ^{1,1}=_{\omega _0}^{1,1}`$ for all $`\omega (_{\omega _0}^{1,1})_{}`$ close to $`\omega _0`$, then $`_{\omega +\epsilon v}^{N,N}=_\omega ^{N,N}`$ for all $`vT_\omega 𝒦^{N1}=(_\omega ^{1,1})_{}`$. Indeed, $`_{\omega _+\epsilon v}^{N,N}=(\omega +\epsilon v)^N=(\omega ^N+(N1)\epsilon \omega ^{N1}v)`$ and $`\omega ^{N1}v`$ is $`\omega `$-harmonic. Thus, the map $`𝒦^{N1}(𝒜^{N,N}(X))`$, $`\omega _\omega ^{N,N}`$ has vanishing differential at every point in an open neighbourhood of $`\omega _0`$ and is, therefore, constant. In particular, for an open subset of $`(_{\omega _0}^{1,1})_{}`$ the top exterior power $`\alpha ^N`$ is $`\omega _0`$-harmonic. Therefore, the intersection of $`𝒦^0`$ and $`(_{\omega _0}^{1,1})_{}`$ contains an open subset. This implies $`𝒦^0(_{\omega _0}^{1,1})_{}`$, i.e. $`𝒦^0`$ is linear.$`\mathrm{}`$

The results of Sect. 3 yield

###### Proposition 4.9

— The following conditions are equivalent.

i) The set $`𝒦^0`$ is linear.

ii) For all $`\alpha _{\omega _0}^{1,1}`$ the form $`\alpha ^N`$ is $`\omega _0`$-harmonic.

iii) For all $`\omega 𝒦^0`$ and all $`\alpha _\omega ^{1,1}`$ the form $`\alpha ^N`$ is $`\omega `$-harmonic.

iv) For all $`\omega 𝒦^0`$ and all $`\alpha _\omega ^{1,1}`$ the form $`\alpha ^2\omega ^{N2}`$ is $`\omega `$-harmonic.

Proof. The equivalence of i) and ii) was shown in . Clearly, iii) implies ii). On the other hand, if $`𝒦^0`$ is linear, then $`_\omega ^{1,1}=_{\omega _0}^{1,1}`$ and $`_\omega ^{N,N}=_{\omega _0}^{N,N}`$ for all $`\omega 𝒦^0`$. Hence, i) implies iii). By Corollary 3.10 the form $`\alpha ^2\omega ^{N2}`$ is $`\omega `$-harmonic for all $`\alpha _\omega ^{1,1}`$ if and only if $`_\omega ^{1,1}=_{\omega +\epsilon v}^{1,1}`$ for all $`v(_\omega ^{1,1})_{}`$. Hence, iv) holds if and only if the Gauss map of the embedding $`𝒦^0𝒜^{1,1}(X)_{cl}`$ has everywhere vanishing differential, i.e. $`T_\omega 𝒦^0`$ is constant.$`\mathrm{}`$

Note that condition iv) for $`\omega =\omega _0`$ is equivalent to $`𝒦^{N2}`$ being linear (Prop. 4.6). Thus, $`𝒦^0`$ is linear if and only if $`𝒦_{(X,\omega )}^{N2}`$ is linear for any $`\omega 𝒦^0`$. For Calabi-Yau manifolds this reads as follows:

###### Corollary 4.10

— Let $`X`$ be a Calabi-Yau manifold. The set $`𝒦^0`$ of Ricci-flat Kähler forms is linear if and only if for any Ricci-flat Kähler form $`\omega `$ and any $`\omega `$-harmonic $`(1,1)`$-form $`\alpha `$ the product $`\alpha ^2\omega ^{N2}`$ is $`\omega `$-harmonic. In this case, any class $`\alpha `$ in the positive cone $`𝒞_XH^{1,1}(X,)`$ (cf. ) is a Kähler class.$`\mathrm{}`$

Acknowledgement. I wish to thank M. Lehn for a useful discussion related to Sect. 1. The hospitality of the IHES, where the final version of this article was prepared, is gratefully acknowledged.

huybrech@mi.uni-koeln.de