text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The idea of doubly special relativity, DSR (Amelino-Camelia, Benedetti and D’Andrea, 2002; Amelino-Camelia, 2001 and 2002; Bruno, Amelino-Camelia and Kowalski-Gilman, 2001), and its analysis in (Lukierski and Nowicki 2002) and other recent papers, have raised the question of how far is it possible to associate the usual phenomenological models of deformed relativistic kinematics (DRK, see for instance: Gonzalez-Mestres, 1997a to 1997e, 1998, 2000a to 2000c) to more conventional formulations preserving Lorentz symmetry in specific reference systems. Magueijo and Smolin, 2001 and 2002, and the present author (Gonzalez-Mestres, 2002) have recently further explored the use of new transformations to relate a DRK universe to a formally conventional, relativistic one. As already emphasized in II, the existence in each physical inertial frame of such transformations for single-particle states does not by itself imply that they have the same form in all physical inertial frames as it is often postulated. Thus, a vacuum rest frame may still exist and DRK is not, in general, physically equivalent to DSR. The laws of physics are not necessarily the same in all physical inertial systems. But the Magueijo-Smolin transformation provides in any case a very useful tool to manipulate equations and discuss concepts in a DRK scenario.

It must be emphasized that our definition of deformed relativistic kinematics is phenomenological. By DRK and DLS or DPS we mean any pattern which tends to special relativity in the small-momentum scale but slightly deviates from it at finite momentum. Usually, the deviation becomes more important as energy increases, but remains small above some critical energy scale. The main phenomenological interest of a close study of DLS and DRK is that it can lead to observable physical predictions at energies well below the critical scale.

As in (Gonzalez-Mestres, 2002), we assume in this paper that a reference dynamical system (the ”symmetric” system) exists with a standard Poincaré group. But the real physical reference system is a different one, where the energy and momentum conserved in the physical space-time do not correspond to those of the standard underlying Poincaré group. In the ”physical” reference system, energy and momentum conservation is preserved. Energy is additive, as well as momentum, for a system of several non-interacting bodies. We also assume the existence of a physical vacuum rest frame, where everything is formulated in spite of the formal underlying Lorentz invariance in another reference system. Following Poincaré (1895, 1901, 1905), we interpret special relativity as the impossibility to identify the vacuum rest frame (VRF) by available physical measurements. As stressed in II, the question of energy and momentum conservation in the ”symmetric” reference system (SRS) must be discussed keeping in mind that: a) the space-time is not the same as the ”physical” space-time and does not commute with it; b) since the ”physical” reference system (PRS) is the experimentally correct one (otherwise, everything would be simpler in the SRS), a fundamental instability must be at work in the SRS. This point will be discussed in a forthcoming paper.

The aim of this paper is to complete the discussion started in II about the $`U`$ operators introduced by Magueijo and Smolin and the potentialities of this technique applied to our phenomenological DRK approach, and to compare the present models with previously existing ones.

As in II, we assume that the transition between the ideal ”symmetric” reference system where Lorentz symmetry is preserved and the (experimentally natural) ”physical” one is driven by a singular non-unitary operator which, for a single-particle state, has the form:

$$U(p_0,p_i,T,T_0,a)$$
(1)
and transforms a physical state $`|\psi >(physical)`$ into an object in the SRS, $`|\psi >(symmetric)`$ :

$$|\psi >(symmetric)=U|\psi >(physical)$$
(2)
where $`p_0`$ is the energy, $`p_i`$ stands for momentum in the three space directions, $`T`$ is an intrinsic time scale associated to each particle, $`T_0`$ is a universal time scale, and $`a`$ is the fundamental length scale (e.g. the Planck length). The speed of light $`c`$ and the Planck constant are taken to be equal to 1 . We ignore the problems raised by singularities but, as shown in II, it is likely that in most cases an equivalent unitary operator $`U^{}`$ can be found. If a ”physical” vacuum rest frame (PVRF) exists, $`U`$ may also depend on a parameter related to a relative speed with respect to the equivalent SRS (the ”symmetric” vacuum rest frame, SVRF), in which case the laws of Physics would not be the same in all physical inertial frames. The properties of space-time dimensions are also a crucial question and will be discussed in detail in paper IV of this series .

Following II, we write for the energy-momentum quadrivector operator:

$$p_\alpha (symmetric)=Up_\alpha (physical)U^1$$
(3)
where ”physical” stands for the measured energy and momentum, and ”symmetric” for energy and momentum in the ideal symmetric frame (the SRS). The index $`\alpha =0,1,2,3`$ corresponds to energy and to the three momentum coordinates, with the metrics (+, -, -, -). In what follows, we refer to space indices as $`i`$ or $`j`$ = 1 , 2, 3 .

## 2 Deformations and new space-time dimensions

In the ”symmetric” reference system, we add, like in the Kaluza-Klein theory, an extra dimension described by the new momentum variable $`\sigma `$ and, to illustrate our basic idea, write the equation of motion for free particles:

$$p_0^2(symmetric)=p^2(symmetric)+\sigma ^2(symmetric)$$
(4)
where $`p^2=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{i=1}^3p_i^2`$ .

We then take $`U`$ to be:

$$U(p_0,p_i,\sigma ,T,T_0,a)=exp[ln(1bp^2\sigma ^1)D_{space2,\sigma }]$$
(5)
where $`b`$ is a constant and $`D_{space2,\sigma }=p^2/p^2+\sigma /\sigma `$ a modified dilatation generator for the space and $`\sigma `$ momentum dimensions. The symbol $`ln`$ stands for neperian logarithm. In the limit $`b0`$ , one has $`U1`$ . From (4) and (5), we get:

$$p_0(symmetric)=p_0(physical)$$
(6)
$$p^2(symmetric)=p^2(physical)[1bp^2(physical)\sigma ^1(physical)]$$
(7)
$$\sigma (symmetric)=\sigma (physical)bp^2$$
(8)
As in II, we take $`p_\alpha `$ for $`p_\alpha (physical)`$, $`\sigma `$ for $`\sigma (physical)`$, and use the hamiltonian equation in the symmetric reference system expressed, in the physical system, by the relation:

$$p_0^2=p^2(1bp^2\sigma ^1)+(\sigma bp^2)^2$$
(9)
If, in the symmetric system, we identify the constant value of $`\sigma `$ with the mass of the particle, we get in the physical system:

$$\sigma =\sigma _0+bp^2$$
(10)
where $`\sigma _0`$ = = $`T^1`$ $`m`$ , $`m`$ being the mass. When applied to (9), equation (10) gives:

$$p_0^2=p^2+\sigma _0^2bp^4(\sigma _0+bp^2)^1$$
(11)
where, taking $`b`$ to be very small, we get the main QDRK model considered in our previous papers. Our model generalizes the standard Kaluza-Klein theory to a situation with new interactions producing a DRK scenario in the physical world. Following the method proposed in II, the $`U`$ operator used can be made unitary. To do this, we write:

$$p^2/p^2=1/2p/p=1/2D_{space}$$
(12)
where $`D_{space}=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{i=1}^3p_i/p_i`$ . From (5) and (12) we get:

$$U^{}=exp[ln(1bp^2\sigma ^1)(D_{space2,\sigma }5/4)]$$
(13)
Our previous analysis of DRK (see papers I and II, and references therein) indicates that $`b`$ must not be a universal parameter but an operator depending on the properties of the object under consideration. For large bodies, we must have: $`bb_0\sigma _0^1`$ where $`b_0`$ is a universal constant proportional to $`T_0^2a^2`$ (see II).

A version of LDRK can also be obtained by writing instead of (5):

$$U(p_0,p_i,\sigma ,T,T_0,a)=exp[ln(1+b^Lp\sigma ^1)D_{space2,\sigma 2}]$$
(14)
where $`b^L`$ is a constant and $`D_{space2,\sigma 2}=p^2/p^2+\sigma ^2/\sigma ^2`$ another modified dilatation generator for the space and $`\sigma `$ momentum dimensions.. This leads to the equations:

$$p^2(symmetric)=p^2(physical)[1b^Lp(physical)\sigma ^1(physical)]$$
(15)
$$\sigma (symmetric)=\sigma _0=\sigma (physical)b^Lp(physical)$$
(16)
where, as before, $`\sigma _0`$ is a constant and, with the choice: $`\sigma _0`$ = $`T^1`$ = $`m`$ (mass of the particle), we get in terms of ”physical” variables:

$$p_0^2=p^2+m^2b^Lp^3(m+b^Lp)^1$$
(17)
$$\sigma =m+b^Lp$$
(18)
For large bodies, $`b^L`$ must be a universal constant proportional to $`T_0a^1`$ . The corresponding unitary operator is:

$$U^{}=exp[ln(1b^Lp\sigma ^1)(D_{space2,\sigma 2}1]$$
(19)
In equations (11) and (17), an important change occurs when $`p`$ becomes large enough so that $`bp^2`$ or $`b^Lp`$ is much larger than $`m`$. Then, both equations tend to a limit given by the equation $`E^2=m^2`$ . In the case of equation (11), the maximum of energy is attained in the region $`p^2mb^1`$ . If the particle under consideration is a proton, the maximum attainable energy can be at $`10^{28}eV`$ (the Planck energy) if $`b^110^{47}eV`$ , which means that $`p^4b^1m^3`$ at $`p3.10^{18}eV`$ . This is an acceptable value from a phenomenological point of view, but lower values of $`b`$ are also permitted (see I and references therein). QDRK is thus perfectly compatible with DSR. The same analysis for LDRK leads to $`(b^L)10^{19}`$ for a proton, and in this case to $`p^3(b^L)^1m^3`$ for $`p2.10^{15}eV`$ . This value seems too low for viable phenomenology, as its implications should already have been observed. Phenomenological problems of LDRK were discussed in I and in (Gonzalez-Mestres, 2000a).

## 3 A deformed parton picture

With the conventional version of DRK, the parton model does not hold at energies where the deformation term becomes larger than the mass term. If the mass can be considered as a rest energy shared by the partons, the deformation term cannot be dealt with in the same way if its coefficient is a constant depending on the nature of the particle and the partons obey the same kinematical laws as if they where free particles. A possible way out was suggested in II, assuming that the coefficient of the deformation term is related to a new momentum dimension. If, in (11), $`b`$ has the properties of an inverse momentum, $`b`$ = $`h`$ $`\eta ^1`$ , where $`h`$ is a dimensionless constant and $`\eta `$ the new momentum coordinate, we can assume $`\eta `$ to be shared among the partons. This makes the parton picture consistent. More precisely, we can write in the SRS :

$$p_0^2(symmetric)=p^2(symmetric)+\sigma ^2(symmetric)+\eta ^2(symmetric)$$
(20)
and, using the transformation:

$$U(p_0,p_i,\sigma ,T,T_0,a)=exp[ln(1b^\eta p^2\eta ^2)D_{space2,\eta 2}]$$
(21)
where $`b^\eta h`$ is a constant and, as before for $`\sigma `$ , $`D_{space2,\eta 2}=p^2/p^2+\eta ^2/\eta ^2`$ is a new modified dilatation generator for the space and $`\eta `$ momentum dimensions, get:

$$p_0(symmetric)=p_0(physical)$$
(22)
$$p^2(symmetric)=p^2(physical)[1b^\eta p^2(physical)\eta ^2(physical)]$$
(23)
$$\sigma (symmetric)=\sigma (physical)$$
(24)
$$\eta ^2(symmetric)=\eta ^2(physical))b^\eta p^2(physical)$$
(25)
and, in the PRS :

$$p_0^2=p^2b^\eta p^4\eta ^2+\sigma ^2+\eta ^2b^\eta p^2$$
(26)
and, taking in the SRS the squared mass of the particle to be given by the expression:

$$m^2=\sigma _0^2+\eta _0^2$$
(27)
where $`\sigma _0`$ and $`\eta _0`$ are the constant values of $`\sigma `$ and $`\eta `$ in the ”symmetric” system, we get in the PRS :

$$p_0^2=p^2b^\eta p^4(\eta _0^2+b^\eta p^2)^1+m^2$$
(28)
$$\eta ^2=\eta _0^2+b^\eta p^2$$
(29)
A consistent parton picture is then obtained if the partons share simultaneously all the components of the six-dimensional momentum: $`p_0`$ , $`p_i`$ , $`\sigma `$ and $`\eta `$ .

Taking $`\sigma _0`$ = 0 , $`m^2=\eta _0^2`$ and $`b^\eta (aT_0^1)^21`$ , we naturally get a consistent additive QDRK for large bodies, the deformation term being proportional to $`p^2(pm^1)^2`$ and $`pm^1`$ being a function of the velocity (see I , II and references therein). The same result is obtained if $`\sigma _0`$ is not zero but does not rise like the mass of the object under consideration or if $`\sigma _0\eta 0^1`$ tends to a universal value for large bodies.

If, instead, we take $`b^\eta \rho (a\eta _0)^2`$ , where $`\rho `$ is a universal constant, we get models of the kind:

$$p_0^2=p^2\rho a^2p^4(1+\rho a^2p^2)^1+m^2$$
(30)
where the coefficient of the deformation term is universal and the values of $`\sigma _0`$ and $`\eta _0`$ are restricted only by equation (27). Such models can be well suited in the elementary particle domain and $`\eta _0`$ can be very small (smaller than the photon mass), the mass of the elementary particle being basically given by $`\sigma _0`$ .

In a parton picture, the value of $`\eta _0`$ as a momentum integration constant in (28) is then to be multiplied by the fraction of momentum carried by the parton, but not in the expression $`b^\eta \rho (a\eta _0)^2`$ where $`\eta _0`$ plays the role of a dynamical constant having the same value for the ”elementary” particle (e.g. a nucleon) and for its constituents (e.g. quarks and gluons), leading to the equation:.

$$p_0^2=p^2\rho a^2F^2p^4(1+\rho a^2F^2p^2)^1+m^2$$
(31)
where $`F`$ stands for the fraction of the total momentum, and the composite object would obey a DRK with the same value of $`h`$ as the partons.

More generally, we can extend DRK to a larger family of models by writing for large bodies:

$$b^\eta (aT_0^1)^\lambda $$
(32)
and, for elementary particles:

$$b^\eta \rho a^\lambda T_0^{2\lambda }\eta _0^2$$
(33)
where the exponent $`\lambda `$ can be set independently of that of $`p`$ in the deformation term, $`\lambda `$ being a real number between 0 and 2 to be determined on phenomenological grounds. Although it may seem natural that $`\lambda `$ have the same value in (32) and (33), there is no compelling reason for this to be the case. We therefore can, even more generally, write:

$$b^\eta (aT_0^1)^{\lambda _1}$$
(34)
for large bodies and:

$$b^\eta a^{\lambda _2}T_0^{2\lambda _2}\eta _0^2$$
(35)
for elementary particles.

## 4 The Kirzhnits-Chechin model

At this stage, it seems necessary to remind and discuss in detail the Kirzhnits-Chechin model, as it was the first to consider a ”physical” reference system and a ”symmetric” one. Even if it turns out that the model cannot be used such as it was formulated, it turns out that our more recent proposals since 1997, combined with the Magueijo-Smolin transformation, allow for consistent generalizations of the model leading to viable phenomenology and to useful theoretical concepts.

Kirzhnits and Chechin suggested long ago (19971 and 19972) that the absence of Greisen-Zatsepin-Kuzmin (GZK) cutoff could be explained by models where special relativity was replaced by a new formulation based on the Finsler space, where the usual relation $`p_0^2=p^2+m^2`$ being replaced by:

$$f(p_\alpha )(p_0^2p^2)=m^2$$
(36)
where $`f(p_\alpha )`$ is a homogeneous positive function of the four momenta of zero degree. These authors used:

$$f(p_\alpha )=f(\xi )$$
(37)
where:

$$\xi =[p^2(p_0^2p^2)^1]$$
(38)
$`f(0)=1`$ and $`f`$ was supposed to tend to some constant $`f(\mathrm{})`$ in the range 0.01 - 0.1 as $`\xi \mathrm{}`$ . This amounts to a shift of the effective squared mass by a factor 10 to 100 above some critical value of $`\xi `$ . The dispersion relation for the photon was assumed to have no deformation, and $`f`$ was taken to be $`f(p_\alpha )=f(\mathrm{})`$ for this particle. For a massive particle, it is assumed that $`f`$ can be expanded as:

$$f(\xi )1\alpha \xi ^2+\mathrm{}$$
(39)
leading, to a first sight, to models close to QDRK. For the proton, the term $`\alpha \xi ^2`$ becomes $``$ 1 at $`E_p`$ $``$ $`10^{20}eV`$ if $`\alpha `$ $``$ $`10^{44}`$ .

Noticing that the four-momentum $`p_\alpha ^{}`$ defined as:

$$p_\alpha ^{}=[f(\xi )]^{1/2}p_\alpha $$
(40)
transforms like a four-vector under Lorentz transformations, Kirzhnits and Chechin considered central collisions of ultra-high energy protons with microwave background radiation photons. The thermal spectrum, usually described in the laboratory frame (supposed to be close to the rest frame suggested by the microwave background radiation spectrum) by the Planck distribution $`H=exp[E_\gamma (kT_B)^1]`$ where $`E_\gamma `$ is the photon energy, $`T_B`$ the microwave background radiation temperature and $`k`$ the Boltzmann constant, becomes in the rest frame of the incoming proton a modified distribution $`H_p`$ given by:

$$lnH_p=E_\gamma m[2E_pkT_B]^1[f(\xi _p)]^{1/2}$$
(41)
$`\xi _p`$ being the value of $`\xi `$ for the incoming proton in the laboratory frame and $`m`$ the proton mass. Because of the factor $`[f(\xi _p)]^{1/2}`$ , the photon energies are smaller than expected and pion photoproduction via the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ resonance is inhibited, as the resonance can no longer be formed. A similar argument can be formulated in the laboratory rest frame, noticing the shift by a factor 10 to 100 of the effective squared masses of pions and nucleons.

The Kirzhnits-Chechin (Kch) model can be incorporated into the operator formalism by writing:

$$2lnU(p_0,p_i,\sigma ,T,T_0,a)=lnf(\xi )D_{spacetime}$$
(42)
where $`D_{spacetime}`$ = $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\alpha p_\alpha /p_\alpha `$ and $`p_\alpha (symmetric)`$ is to be identified with $`p_\alpha ^{}`$ .The corresponding unitary operator is:

$$2lnU^{}(p_0,p_i,\sigma ,T,T_0,a)=lnf(\xi )(D_{spacetime}2)$$
(43)
and, for large bodies, it agrees with our proposal (see I and II) that the coefficient of the quadratic deformation be proportional to $`m^2`$ in order to guarantee the consistency of the kinematics. Like our models, the KCh model assumes the $`p_\alpha `$’s to be conserved and additive for free particles. But, contrary to our models, it leads to the same property for elementary particles. It was actually with this assumption that Kirzhnits and Chechin proposed their model to be a solution to the puzzle generated by the experimental absence of GZK cutoff. However, it seems to us that the KCh model so defined may suffer from some pathologies. Actually, these authors did not completely write down an explicit example of their model, so that its consistency has never been proven.

A typical formulation of the KCh model can be:

$$f(\xi )=(1+\alpha _1\xi ^2)(1+\alpha _2\xi ^2)^1$$
(44)
where $`\alpha _2`$ $``$ $`10^{44}`$ and $`\alpha _1`$ $``$ $`10^{45}`$ to $`10^{46}`$ , so that, as conjectured by Kirzhnits and Chechin, $`f(\mathrm{})`$ is in the range 0.01 - 0.1 . We then have:

$$(1+\alpha _1\xi ^2)(p_0^2p^2)=m^2(1+\alpha _2\xi ^2)$$
(45)
which leads to the equation:

$$[(p_0^2p^2)^2+\alpha _1p^4](p_0^2p^2)=m^2[(p_0^2p^2)^2+\alpha _2p^4]$$
(46)
and, with a trivial approximation, to:

$$[(p_0p)^2+\alpha _1p^2/4](p_0p)m^2(2p)^1[(p_0p)^2+\alpha _2p^2/4]$$
(47)
that can be solved by standard methods to obtain $`p_0`$ as a function of $`p`$ . Another way to handle the equation would be to write:

$$ϵ=2(p_0p)m^2p$$
(48)
$$[ϵ^2m^4+\alpha _1p^4]ϵϵ^2m^4+\alpha _2p^4$$
(49)
leading to :

$$\alpha _2(p/m)^4ϵ^2(ϵ1)(1ϵ\alpha _1\alpha _2^1)^1$$
(50)
and use this equation to illustrate with a few numerical values the instability of the ultra-high energy proton in the conditions of the KCh model. Taking $`\alpha _1\alpha _2^1`$ = 0.1 and comparing the values of $`p`$ for $`ϵ=2`$ and $`ϵ=2.5`$ , we readily get:

$$\alpha _2(p/m)^4(ϵ=1.43)1.02$$
(51)
$$\alpha _2(p/m)^4(ϵ=2)5$$
(52)
$$\alpha _2(p/m)^4(ϵ=2.5)12.5$$
(53)
$$\alpha _2(p/m)^4(ϵ=5)200$$
(54)
$$\alpha _2(p/m)^4(ϵ=8)2240$$
(55)
$$\alpha _2(p/m)^4(ϵ=9.5)15342.5$$
(56)
so that:

\- The ratio $`[\alpha _2(p/m)^4(ϵ=2)]^{1/4}[\alpha _2(p/m)^4(ϵ=1.43)]^{1/4}`$ = 1.488 differs only by $`6\%`$ from the ratio between the two values of $`ϵ`$, and the difference between two values of $`p_0p`$ will be of the same order. But the two momenta differ by $`50\%`$ . Absorbing a $`4.10^4eV`$ microwave background photon in the laboratory system will allow the $``$ 1.5 . $`10^{11}`$ $`m`$ proton to emit a $`0.5.10^{20}eV`$ photon.

\- Again, the ratio $`[\alpha _2(p/m)^4(ϵ=2.5)]^{1/4}[\alpha _2(p/m)^4(ϵ=2)]^{1/4}`$ = 1.2574 differs only by $`6\%`$ from the ratio between the two values of $`ϵ`$, and so will the two values of $`p_0p`$ . The two momenta differ by $`26\%`$ . Absorbing a $`8.10^4eV`$ microwave background photon in the laboratory system will be enough for the $``$ 1.9 . $`10^{11}`$ $`m`$ proton to emit a $`0.3.10^{20}eV`$ photon.

\- For $`ϵ`$ = 5 , we get $`[\alpha _2(p/m)^4(ϵ=5)]^{1/4}[\alpha _2(p/m)^4(ϵ=2)]^{1/4}`$ = 2.06 , so that the value of $`p_0p`$ will be 2.5 times higher for $`ϵ`$ = 5 , as compared to $`ϵ`$ = 2 , and a 3 . $`10^{11}`$ $`m`$ proton can spontaneoulsy emit a $`1.4.10^{20}eV`$ photon.

\- For $`ϵ`$ = 8 , we get $`[\alpha _2(p/m)^4(ϵ=8)]^{1/4}[\alpha _2(p/m)^4(ϵ=2)]^{1/4}`$ = 4.6 , so that the value of $`p_0p`$ will be 1.74 times higher for $`ϵ`$ = 8 , as compared to $`ϵ`$ = 2 , and a 7 . $`10^{11}`$ $`m`$ proton can spontaneoulsy emit a $`5.5.10^{20}eV`$ photon.

\- For $`ϵ`$ = 9.5 , we get $`[\alpha _2(p/m)^4(ϵ=8)]^{1/4}[\alpha _2(p/m)^4(ϵ=2)]^{1/4}`$ = 7.44 , so that the value of $`p_0p`$ will be 1.28 times higher for $`ϵ`$ = 9.5 , as compared to $`ϵ`$ = 2 , and a 8.9 . $`10^{11}`$ $`m`$ proton can spontaneoulsy emit a $`7.4.10^{20}eV`$ photon.

In all these cases, pion emission, instead of photon emission, is also possible and, not only the GZK cutoff is at work, but the ultra-high energy proton becomes unstable and decays to a lower energy proton. The situation would be even worse taking $`\alpha _1\alpha _2^1`$ = 0.01 . We therefore conclude that such a model would be of no practical use in the UHECR region. Thus, the question is how general are these diseases of the KCh model. To answer this question, we notice that:

$$ϵ=[f(\xi )]^{1/2}$$
(57)
so that $`p_1^{}`$ $`<`$ $`p_2^{}`$ for $`p_1`$ $`>`$ $`p_2`$ if $`ϵ(p_1)[ϵ(p_2)]^1`$ $`>`$ $`p_1p_2^1`$ . If such a situation occurs, it means that in the region under consideration there are at least two possible values of $`p`$ for a given value of $`p^{}`$, and that the highest value of $`p`$ corresponds to an unstable state in the ”physical” reference system. To avoid such an instability, we must require that:

$$dln[f(\xi )]/dlnp>2$$
(58)
so that $`[f(\xi )]^{1/2}`$ cannot grow faster than $`p`$. However, if this is the case, the factor $`E_p[f(\xi p)]^{1/2}`$ in (59) has a lower bound and the GZK mechanism cannot be inhibited at ultra-high energies. A similar criticism can be opposed to the phenomenological analysis presented by Chechin and Vavilov, 1999 , which directly uses asymptotic values for the $`f`$ function considered. From the form of the condition (59), it follows that the problem raised is quite general and independent of the asymptotic value of $`f`$ at large $`\xi `$ .

However, the models suggested in II and in the present paper can be regarded as generalizations of the KCh model in the sense that, with the Magueijo-Smolin transformation, modified dilatation operators can be introduced multiplied by functions of variables which are scalars with respect to these dilatations. Thus, the Finsler space idea is generalized to a much larger family of models and spaces, including situations where a preferred inertial frame exists.

## 5 The Sato-Tati model

In 1971, Sato et Tati (1972) proposed, as a solution to the UHECR puzzle, the existence of a preferred reference frame and the impossibility for hadronic matter to exist above a value of the Lorentz factor $`10^{11}`$ with respect to this frame. This model involves a very strong dynamical assumption on the production of hadronic matter at ultra-high energy that is not present in our models. Rather than with the structure of space-time, this model seems to be concern with the dynamical properties of vacuum in our Universe and of hadronic matter. Even with a privileged vacuum rest frame, the Sato-Tati model (ST) can perfectly well incorporate exact relativistic kinematics and have only a sharp dynamical threshold for the inhibition of hadronic particle production.

Sato and Tati assume that there is a maximum allowed value of $`E/m`$ , $`\gamma _{max}`$ , for hadronic matter and that, even if the cutoff is not sharp and may have a long tail, it is enough to sharply reduce the production probability of hadrons above $`\gamma _{max}`$ . However, it is not obvious why $`2.10^{19}eV`$ pion production would be suppressed when a $`E10^{20}eV`$ proton hits microwave background radiation, but the production of $`310^{20}eV`$ protons would not be inhibited in acceleration processes or decays of ultra-heavy particles.

Furthermore, the suppression itself is unclear, as $`E10^{20}eV`$ would in any case be an acceptable energy for a $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ resonance. The $`m^2(2p)^1`$ mass term for a $`E10^{20}eV`$ proton is $``$ 8.8 times larger than its equivalent for a $`2.10^{19}eV`$ pion and $``$ 4.4 times larger if the pion energy is $`10^{19}eV`$ ($`m^2(2p)^1`$ $``$ $`10^3eV`$). And, even if the emission of a neutral pion is forbidden by the $`\gamma _{max}`$ cutoff, this has no reason to be the case for its two-photon decay product. In most scenarios, it seems possible to preserve the GZK cutoff if the Sato-Tati cutoff on hadronic matter does not affect $`10^{19}eV`$ pions or photons.

However, the question of whether hadronic matter can exist above some critical value of $`E/m`$ in the vacuum rest frame is a fundamental one. Some aspects of this problem will be discussed in a forthcoming paper.

## 6 Conclusion and comments

The method presented here can be made quite general by introducing new space-time dimensions as well as a large family of generalized dilatation operators, and using in particular, in the $`U`$ operators, expressions which are scalars with respect to these generalized dilatations. If necessary, a vacuum rest frame can also be introduced together with a set of $`U`$ operators depending explicitly on the speed of the particle with respect to this frame.

With this technique, QDRK and LDRK models can be produced, Dirac equations can be deformed in a similar way and calculations are rather easy. The new approach provides a quite large extension of the previous KCh model based on Finsler algebras and, although the original ansatz by Kirzhnits and Chechin does not seem to work, the kind of generalization proposed here and in II allows to include in the pattern the DRK models we developed since 1997 and which seem well-suited for phenomenology.

Thus, the Magueijo-Smolin technique turns out to be extremely useful to discuss patterns of Lorentz symmetry violation. Properties of space-time are also a crucial item, and a complete study is in progress in view of phenomenological applications.

References

Amelino-Camelia, G., 2001, Phys.Lett. B510, 255.
Amelino-Camelia, G., 2002, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D11, 35.
Amelino-Camelia, G., Benedetti, D. and D’Andrea, F., 2002, paper hep-th/0201045.
Bruno, R., Amelino-Camelia, G. and Kowalski-Gilman, J., 2001, Phys. Lett. B522, 133.
Chechin, V.A. and Vavilov, Yu.N.,1999, Proceedings of the ICRC 1999 Conference, paper HE.2.3.07, in http://krusty.physics.utah.edu/$``$icrc1999 .
Gonzalez-Mestres, L., 1997a, paper nucl-th/9708028.
Gonzalez-Mestres, L., 1997b, Proc. of the International Conference on Relativistic Physics and some of its Applications, Athens June 1997, paper physics/9709006.
Gonzalez-Mestres, L., 1997c, paper physics/9704017.
Gonzalez-Mestres, L., 1997d, Proc. 25th ICRC, Vol. 6, p. 113, physics/9705031.
Gonzalez-Mestres, L., 1997e, paper physics 9706032.
Gonzalez-Mestres, L., 1998, Proc. COSMO 97, Ambleside September 1997, World Scient., p. 568, paper physics/9712056.
Gonzalez-Mestres, L., 2000a, paper physics/003080 , referred to as I.
Gonzalez-Mestres, L., 2000b, paper astro-ph/0011181, Proceedings of the International Symposium on High Energy Gamma-Ray Astronomy, Heidelberg, Germany, June 26-30, 2000.
Gonzalez-Mestres, L., 2000c, paper astro-ph/0011182, same Proceedings.
Gonzalez-Mestres, L., 2002, paper hep-th/0208064, referred to as II.
Kirzhnits, D.A. and Chechin, V.A., 1971, ZhETF Pis. Red. 4, 261.
Kirzhnits, D.A. and Chechin, V.A., 1972, Yad. Fiz. 15, 1051.
Lukierski, J. and Nowicki, A., 2002, paper hep-th/0203065 , and references therein.
Magueijo, J. and Smolin, L., 2001, paper hep-th/0112090.
Magueijo, J. and Smolin, L., 2002, paper gr-qc/0207085.
Poincaré, H., 1895, ”A propos de la théorie de M. Larmor”, L’Eclairage électrique, Vol. 5, 5.
Poincaré, H., 1901, ”Electricité et Optique: La lumière et les théories électriques”, Ed. Gauthier-Villars, Paris.
Poincaré, H., 1905, ”Sur la dynamique de l’électron”, C. Rend. Acad. Sci. Vol. 140, p. 1504.
Sato, H. and Tati, T. , 1972, Progr. Theor. Phys. 47, 1788.


format: text

text:
# Acylindrical accessibility for groups acting on ℝ-trees

## 1. Introduction

An isometric action of a group $`G`$ on an $``$-tree $`X`$ is said to be *$`D`$-acylindrical* (where $`D0`$) if for any $`gG,g1`$ we have $`diam\mathrm{Fix}(g)D`$, that is any segment fixed point-wise by $`g`$ has length at most $`D`$. For example the action of an amalgamated free product $`G=A_CB`$ on the corresponding Bass-Serre tree is $`2`$-acylindrical if $`C`$ is malnormal in $`A`$ and $`1`$-acylindrical if $`C`$ is malnormal in both $`A`$ and $`B`$. In fact the notion of acylindricity seems to have first appeared in this context in the work of Karras and Solitar , who termed it *being $`r`$-malnormal*.

Sela  proved an important acylindrical accessibility result for finitely generated groups which, when applied to one-ended groups, can be restated as follows: for any one-ended finitely generated group $`G`$ and any $`D0`$ there is a constant $`c(G,D)>0`$ such that for any minimal $`D`$-acylindrical action of $`G`$ on a simplicial tree $`X`$ the quotient graph $`X/G`$ has at most $`c(G,D)`$ edges. This fact plays an important role in Sela’s theory of JSJ-decompositions for word-hyperbolic groups  and thus in his solution of the isomorphism problem for torsion-free hyperbolic groups . Moreover, acylindrical splittings feature prominently in relation to the Combination Theorem of Bestvina-Feighn  and its various applications and generalizations . Unlike other kinds of accessibility results, such as Dunwoody accessibility , Bestvina-Feighn generalized accessibility  and strong accessibility (introduced by Bowditch  and proved by Delzant and Potyagailo ), acylindrical accessibility holds for finitely generated and not just finitely presented groups.

Delzant  obtained a relative version of Sela’s theorem for finitely presented groups with respect to a family of subgroups. In particular, he showed that the constant $`c(G,D)`$ above can be chosen to be $`12DT`$, where $`T`$ is the number of relations in any finite presentation of $`G`$ where all relators have length three. Weidmann  used the theory of Nielsen methods for groups acting on simplicial trees to show that for any $`k`$-generated one-ended group one can choose $`c(G,D)=2D(k1)`$. In the present paper we obtain an analogue of this last result for groups acting on $``$-trees.

Before formulating our main result let us recall the notion of Nielsen equivalence:

###### Definition 1.1 (Nielsen equivalence).

Let $`G`$ be a group and let $`M=(g_1,\mathrm{},g_n)G^n`$ be an $`n`$-tuple of elements of $`G`$. The following moves are called *elementary Nielsen moves* on $`M`$:

1. For some $`i,1in`$ replace $`g_i`$ by $`g_i^1`$ in $`M`$.
2. For some $`ij`$, $`1i,jn`$ replace $`g_i`$ by $`g_ig_j`$ in $`M`$.
3. For some $`ij`$, $`1i,jn`$ interchange $`g_i`$ and $`g_j`$ in $`M`$.

We say that $`M=(g_1,\mathrm{},g_n)G^n`$ and $`M^{}=(f_1,\mathrm{},f_n)G^n`$ are *Nielsen-equivalent*, denoted $`M_NM^{}`$, if there is a chain of elementary Nielsen moves which transforms $`M`$ to $`M^{}`$.

It is easy to see that if $`M_NM^{}`$ then $`M`$ and $`M^{}`$ generate the same subgroup of $`G`$. For this reason Nielsen equivalence is a very useful tool for studying the subgroup structure of various groups.

We prove the following statement which can be regarded as an “acylindrical accessibility” result for finitely generated groups acting on real trees. Indeed, our theorem says that there is a bound on the size of a “fundamental domain” for a minimal $`D`$-acylindrical isometric action of a $`k`$-generated group on an $``$-tree:

###### Theorem 1.2.

Let $`G`$ be a freely indecomposable finitely generated group acting by isometries on an $``$-tree $`X`$. Let $`D0`$. Suppose that $`G1`$ is not infinite cyclic, that the action of $`G`$ is $`D`$-acylindrical, nontrivial (does not have a fixed point) and minimal (that is $`X`$ has no proper $`G`$-invariant subtrees).

Let $`\epsilon >0`$ be an arbitrary real number. Then any finite generating $`k`$-tuple $`Y`$ of $`G`$ is Nielsen-equivalent to a $`k`$-tuple $`S`$ such that:

1. There is a finite subtree $`T_\epsilon X`$ of measure at most $`2D(k1)+\epsilon `$ such that $`GT_\epsilon =X`$;
2. for some $`xT_\epsilon `$ we have

$$\mathrm{max}\{d(x,sx)|sS\}2D(k1)+\epsilon .$$

By the *measure of $`T_\epsilon `$* we mean the sum of the lengths of intervals in any subdivision of $`T_\epsilon `$ as a disjoint union of finitely many intervals. This is equal to the 1-dimensional Hausdorff measure of $`Y`$. If $`X`$ is a simplicial tree and $`T_\epsilon `$ is a simplicial subtree, then the measure of $`T_\epsilon `$ is the number of edges in $`T_\epsilon `$.

Theorem 1.2 immediately implies the following since actions with trivial arc stabilizers are $`0`$-acylindrical:

###### Corollary 1.3.

Let $`G`$ be a finitely generated freely indecomposable non-cyclic group which acts by isometries on an $``$-tree $`X`$ with trivial arc stabilizers. Then for any $`\epsilon >0`$ and any finite generating tuple $`Y`$ of $`G`$ there is a tuple $`S`$ Nielsen-equivalent to $`Y`$ and a point $`xX`$ such that $`d(x,sx)\epsilon `$ for all $`sS`$.

Thus if the action of $`G`$ is $`0`$-acylindrical, that is arc stabilizers are trivial, then a finite generating set of $`G`$ can be made by Nielsen transformations to have arbitrarily small translation length. Not surprisingly our methods let us recover the same bound $`c(G,D)=2D(k1)`$ on the complexity of acylindrical accessibility splittings as the one given in . The main ingredient is a theory of Nielsen methods for groups acting on hyperbolic spaces that we systematically developed in . This theory is analogous to Weidmann’s treatment of actions on simplicial trees , but the case of arbitrary hyperbolic spaces is technically much more complicated. Note that the proof of Theorem 1.2 completely avoids the Rips machinery for groups acting on $``$-trees  and Theorem 1.2 makes no traditional stability assumptions about the action. Rather, we use the fact that an $``$-tree is $`\delta `$-hyperbolic for any $`\delta >0`$, which allows us to make a limiting argument for $`\delta `$ tending to zero.

We thank the referee whose detailed and insightful comments have helped to greatly improve this paper.

## 2. The main technical tool

Our main tool is a technical result (see Theorem 2.4 below) obtained by Kapovich and Weidmann in . It is motivated by the Kurosh subgroup theorem (see ) for free products, which states that a subgroup of a free product $`_{iI}A_i`$ is itself a free product of a free group and subgroups that are conjugate to subgroups of the factors $`A_i`$.

###### Definition 2.1.

Suppose that $`(X,d)`$ is an $``$-tree and that $`U`$ is a finitely generated group that acts on $`X`$ by isometries. Put $`E(U):=\{xX|ux=x\text{ for some }uU1\}`$. If $`U`$ does not fix a point of $`X`$, let $`X_U`$ be the minimal $`U`$-invariant subtree of $`X`$. If $`U`$ fixes a point of $`X`$, let $`X_U`$ denote the set of all points of $`X`$ fixed by $`U`$.

Finally, put $`X(U)`$ to be the smallest $`U`$-invariant subtree containing $`X_UE(U)`$. Thus $`X(U)`$ is a nonempty $`U`$-invariant subtree of $`X`$.

We generalize the notion of Nielsen equivalence as follows. The objects which correspond to the tuples of elements of $`G`$ are the $`G`$-tuples:

###### Definition 2.2 ($`G`$-tuple).

Let $`G`$ be a group.

Let $`n0`$, $`m0`$ be integers such that $`m+n>0`$. We will say that a tuple $`M=(U_1,\mathrm{},U_n;H)`$ is a $`G`$-tuple if $`U_i`$ is a non-trivial subgroup of $`G`$ for $`i\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ and $`H=(h_1,\mathrm{},h_m)G^m`$ is an $`m`$-tuple of elements of $`G`$. We will denote $`\overline{M}=U_1\mathrm{}U_n\{h_1,\mathrm{},h_m\}`$ and call $`\overline{M}`$ the *underlying set* of $`M`$. Note that $`\overline{M}`$ is nonempty since $`m+n>0`$.

By analogy with the Kurosh subgroup theorem we will sometimes refer to the subgroups $`U_i`$ as elliptic components of $`M`$. This is justified since in most applications of our methods, in particular the proof of Theorem 1.2, the subgroups $`U_i`$ are generated by sets of elements with short translation length. We should stress, however, that $`U_i`$ need not be fixing a point of a tree on which $`G`$ acts. We will also refer to $`H`$ as the hyperbolic component of $`M`$. We have the following notion of equivalence for $`G`$-tuples which generalizes the classical Nielsen equivalence.

###### Definition 2.3 (Equivalence of $`G`$-tuples).

We will say that two $`G`$-tuples $`M=(U_1,\mathrm{},U_n;H)`$ and $`M^{}=(U_1^{},\mathrm{},U_n^{};H^{})`$ are *equivalent* if $`H=(h_1,\mathrm{},h_m)`$ and $`H^{}=(h_1^{},\mathrm{},h_m^{})`$ and $`M^{}`$ can be obtained from $`M`$ by a chain of moves of the following type:

1. For some $`1jn`$ replace $`U_j`$ by $`gU_jg^1`$ where

$$g\{h_1,\mathrm{},h_m\}U_1\mathrm{}U_{j1}U_{j+1}\mathrm{}U_n.$$
2. For some $`1in`$ replace $`h_i`$ by $`h_i^{}=g_1h_ig_2`$ where

$$g_1,g_2\{h_1,\mathrm{},h_{i1},h_{i+1},\mathrm{},h_m\}U_1\mathrm{}U_n.$$

Our main technical tool is Theorem 2.4 stated below. It is a corollary of Theorem 2.4 in  that deals with arbitrary group actions on $`\delta `$-hyperbolic geodesic metric spaces.

###### Theorem 2.4 (Kapovich-Weidmann).

 Let $`G`$ be a group acting on an $``$-tree $`(X,d)`$ by isometries.

Let $`M=(U_1,\mathrm{},U_n;H)`$ be a $`G`$-tuple where $`H=(h_1,\mathrm{},h_m)`$ and let

$$U=\overline{M}=\{h_1,\mathrm{},h_m\}\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}U_iG.$$

Let $`\epsilon >0`$ be an arbitrary positive number.

Then either $`U=U_1\mathrm{}U_nF(H)`$ or there exists a $`G`$-tuple $`M^{}=(U_1^{},\mathrm{},U_n^{};H^{})`$ with $`H^{}=(h_1^{},\mathrm{},h_m^{})`$ such that $`M^{}`$ is equivalent to $`M`$ and at least one of the following holds:

1. $`d(X(U_i^{}),X(U_j^{}))<\epsilon `$ for some $`1i<jn`$.
2. $`d(X(U_i^{}),h_j^{}X(U_i^{}))<\epsilon `$ for some $`i\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ and $`j\{1,\mathrm{},m\}`$.
3. There exists a point $`xX`$ such that $`d(x,h_jx)<\epsilon `$ for some $`j\{1,\mathrm{},m\}`$.

###### Remark 2.5.

The statement of Theorem 2.4 in  does not use the tree $`X(U)`$ defined above but, rather, the tree $`X_\delta (U)`$ (where $`\delta 0`$) defined as follows.

Let

$$E_\delta (U):=\{xX:d(ux,u)100\delta \text{ for some }uU,u1.\}$$

Then the tree $`X_\delta (U)`$ is defined as $`E_\delta (U)`$ if $`U`$ fixes a point and as the smallest $`U`$-invariant subtree of $`X`$ containing $`X_U`$ and $`E_\delta (U)`$ otherwise.

Note that $`X(U)X_\delta (U)`$ by construction. Let $`xE_\delta (U)`$ and let $`yX(U)`$ be such that $`d(x,y)=d(x,X(U))`$. Let $`uU,u1`$ be such that $`d(x,ux)100\delta `$. Note that the choice of $`y`$ guarantees that there exists no $`z[x,y]`$ with $`yz`$ and $`uz=z`$ as otherwise $`zX(U)`$ and $`d(x,z)<d(x,y)`$. It follows that $`d(x,ux)=2d(x,y)+d(y,uy)`$ and hence $`d(x,y)50\delta `$. Thus we have shown that $`E_\delta (U)`$ is contained in the $`50\delta `$-neighborhood of $`X(U)`$. This implies that, whether or not $`U`$ fixes a point, for any $`\delta 0`$ the trees $`X(U)`$ and $`X_\delta (U)`$ are $`50\delta `$-Hausdorff close.

Since an $``$-tree is $`\delta `$-hyperbolic for any $`\delta >0`$, Theorem 2.4 of  now directly implies Theorem 2.4 above by taking the limit $`\delta 0`$.

We deploy Theorem 2.4 in the proof of Theorem 1.2 for a ”generator transfer” process to analyze a freely indecomposable subgroup generated by a finite set $`Y=\{y_1,\mathrm{},y_k\}`$ with $`k`$ elements. First we start with a $`G`$-tuple $`M_1=(;H_Y)`$ where $`H_Y=(y_1,\mathrm{},y_k)`$. We then construct a sequence of $`G`$-tuples $`M_1,M_2,\mathrm{}`$ by repeatedly applying Theorem 2.4 in order to either ”drag” elements of the ”hyperbolic” components of $`G`$-tuples into their ”elliptic” components or to join two elliptic components to form one new elliptic component. A simple observation shows that the length of the sequence $`M_1,M_2,\mathrm{}`$ is bounded by $`2k1`$. The desired result is then obtained by analyzing the terminal member of this sequence.

## 3. Groups acting on real trees

We define ”generating trees” exactly as in .

###### Definition 3.1 (Generating tree).

Let $`U=S`$ be a group acting by isometries on an $``$-tree $`X`$. We say that a tree $`T_UX`$ is an $`S`$-generating tree of $`U`$ if $`YsY\mathrm{}`$ for all $`sS`$. We further say that $`T_U`$ is a *generating tree of $`U`$* if $`T_U`$ is an $`S`$-generating tree for $`U`$ for some generating set $`S`$ of $`U`$.

The following lemma is an immediate consequence of the definitions; it also justifies the term “generating tree”.

###### Lemma 3.2.

Let $`X`$ be an $``$-tree and let $`U=S`$ be a group acting on $`X`$ by isometries. Let $`T_UX`$ be an $`S`$-generating tree of $`U`$. Then the following hold:

1. The set $`UT_U`$ is connected and $`U`$-invariant, and hence is a subtree of $`X`$.
2. If $`U`$ does not fix a point of $`X`$, then $`UT_U`$ contains the minimal $`U`$-invariant subtree $`X_U`$ of $`X`$.

We can now observe that for acylindrical actions the fix point set $`E(U)`$ cannot be too far from the minimal $`U`$-invariant tree $`X_U`$, i.e. that $`X(U)`$ and $`X_U`$ are close. The following is a simple exercise.

###### Lemma 3.3.

Let $`U`$ be a group acting by isometries on an $``$-tree $`X`$ and suppose this action is $`D`$-acylindrical for some $`D0`$. Then the following hold:.

1. Let $`yX`$ be such that $`d(y,X_U)=R`$. Then for any $`uU,u1`$ we have $`d(y,uy)2R2D`$.
2. The set $`E(U)`$ is contained in the $`D`$-neighborhood of $`X_U`$. Moreover, $`X(U)`$ and $`X_U`$ are $`D`$-Hausdorff close.
3. If $`U`$ fixes a point $`xX`$ then for any $`yX(U)`$ we have $`d(x,y)D`$.

Before we proceed with the proof of Theorem 1.2 let us recall some more notions from .

###### Definition 3.4 (Partitioned tuple).

Let $`G`$ be a group. If $`Y`$ is an $`n`$-tuple of elements of $`G`$ we will say that $`n`$ is *the length of* $`Y`$ which we denote by $`L(Y)`$. We will say that $`M=(Y_1,\mathrm{},Y_p;H)`$ is a *partitioned tuple* in $`G`$ if $`p0`$ and $`Y_1,\mathrm{},Y_p,H`$ are finite tuples of elements of $`G`$ such that at least one of these tuples has positive length and such that for any $`i1`$ the tuple $`Y_i`$ has positive length.

We will call the sum of the lengths of $`L(Y_1)+\mathrm{}+L(Y_p)+L(H)`$ *the length of* $`M`$ and denote it by $`L(M)`$. We further call the $`L(M)`$-tuple, obtained by concatenating the tuples $`Y_1,\mathrm{},Y_p,H`$, *the tuple underlying $`M`$*.

###### Definition 3.5 (Complexity).

Let $`M=(Y_1,\mathrm{},Y_n;H)`$ be a partitioned tuple. As in , we define the *complexity* of $`M`$ to be the pair $`(L(H),n)`$. Thus the complexity is an element of $`^2`$ where $`=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$. We order $`^2`$ by setting $`(m,n)(m^{},n^{})`$ if $`m<m`$ or if $`m=m^{}`$ and $`nn^{}`$. This gives a well-ordering on $`^2`$ and allows us to compare complexities.

###### Remark 3.6.

To any partitioned tuple $`M=(Y_1,\mathrm{},Y_p;H)`$ we associate the $`G`$-tuple $`\tau =(U_1,\mathrm{},U_p;H)`$, where $`U_i=Y_i`$. Suppose now that $`\tau `$ is equivalent to a $`G`$-tuple $`\tau ^{}=(U_1^{},\mathrm{},U_p^{},H^{})`$. The definition of equivalence of $`G`$-tuples implies that there is a partitioned tuple $`M^{}=(Y_1^{},\mathrm{},Y_p^{};H^{})`$ with associated $`G`$-tuple $`\tau ^{}`$ such that the tuples underlying $`M`$ and $`M^{}`$ are Nielsen-equivalent. Moreover, we can choose $`Y_i^{}`$ to be conjugate to $`Y_i`$ for each $`1ip`$.

Proof of Theorem 1.2.

Recall that in Theorem 1.2 $`Y`$ is a given $`k`$-tuple generating $`G`$. Clearly, it is enough to prove the statement of Theorem 1.2 under the assumption that $`Y`$ is not Nielsen-equivalent to a tuple containing $`1G`$. Thus we will assume that every $`k`$-tuple Nielsen-equivalent to $`Y`$ consists of nontrivial elements.

Now in order to prove Theorem 1.2 it suffices to establish:

Claim. There exist a $`k`$-tuple $`S`$ Nielsen-equivalent to $`Y`$ and an $`S`$-generating tree $`T_\epsilon `$ of measure at most $`2D(k1)+\epsilon `$.

Let $`N=(S_1,\mathrm{}S_n;H)`$ be a partitioned tuple of elements of $`G`$. Let $`k_i=L(S_i)`$ for $`1in`$. We say that $`N`$ is good if $`U_i=S_i1`$ for all $`i1`$ and if for each $`U_i,i1`$ there exists an $`S_i`$-generating tree $`T_i`$ of measure at most $`2D(k_i1)+\frac{2k_i1}{2k}\epsilon `$.

We define $`N_1`$ to be the partitioned tuple $`N_1=(;Y)`$. Clearly $`N_1`$ is good.

Choice of $`M`$. Let $`M=(S_1,\mathrm{}S_n;H)`$ with $`H=(h_1,\mathrm{},h_m)`$ be a partitioned tuple of minimal complexity among all partitioned good tuples with the underlying tuple being Nielsen equivalent to $`Y`$. The partitioned tuple $`N_1`$ satisfies the above qualifying constraints and hence such an $`M`$ exists.

We will show that $`M=(S_1;)`$. This would immediately imply the Claim.

Suppose that $`M`$ is not of this type. Recall that $`G`$ is freely indecomposable and not infinite cyclic. It follows from Theorem 2.4 and Remark 3.6 that there exists a good partitioned tuple $`M^{}=(S_1^{},\mathrm{}S_n^{},H^{})`$ of the same complexity as $`M`$ with $`H^{}=(h_1^{},\mathrm{},h_m^{})`$ such that the underlying tuple of $`M^{}`$ is Nielsen equivalent to $`Y`$ and such that the following holds. If we denote $`U_i^{}=S_i^{}`$ for $`1in`$ then at least one of the following occurs:

1. $`d(X(U_1^{}),X(U_2^{}))\frac{\epsilon }{2k}`$;
2. $`d(X(U_1^{}),h_m^{}X(U_1^{}))\frac{\epsilon }{2k}`$;
3. $`d(y,h_m^{}y)\frac{\epsilon }{2k}`$ for some $`yX`$.

Recall that $`k_i=L(S_i)=L(S_i^{})`$ for $`1in`$.

Case 1. Suppose that $`d(X(U_1^{}),X(U_2^{}))\frac{\epsilon }{2k}`$. Choose $`x_1X(U_1^{})`$ and $`x_2X(U_2^{})`$ such that $`d(x_1,x_2)\frac{\epsilon }{2k}`$. By part (2) of Lemma 3.3 there is $`y_iX_{U_i^{}}`$ such that $`d(y_i,x_i)D`$ for $`i=1,2`$. It follows that $`d(y_1,y_2)2D+\frac{\epsilon }{2k}`$. Since by assumption $`M^{}`$ is good, we can choose an $`S_i^{}`$-generating tree $`T_{U_i^{}}`$ for $`U_i^{}`$ of measure at most $`2D(k_i1)+\frac{2k_i1}{2k}\epsilon `$.

Let $`i\{1,2\}`$. If $`U_i^{}`$ does not fix a point then $`X_{U_i^{}}U_i^{}T_{U_i^{}}`$ and there exists a $`u_iU_i^{}`$ such that $`y_iu_iT_{U_i^{}}`$. If $`U_i^{}`$ fixes a point, then $`X_{U_i^{}}`$ is the fixed set of $`U_i^{}`$ and hence $`y_iX_{U_i^{}}`$ is fixed by $`U_i^{}`$. In this case we can assume that in $`M^{}`$ we have $`T_{U_i^{}}=\{y_i\}`$. This is clearly an $`S_i^{}`$-generating tree for $`U_i^{}`$ of measure zero. With $`u_i=1`$ we also still have $`y_iu_iT_{U_i^{}}`$.

Denote $`S_i^{\prime \prime }:=u_iS_i^{}u_i^1`$ for $`i=1,2`$. Then $`S_i^{\prime \prime }=S_i^{}=U_i^{}`$ and $`u_iT_{U_i^{}}`$ is the $`S_i^{\prime \prime }`$-generating tree for $`U_i^{}`$.

Moreover $`S_i^{\prime \prime }`$ is Nielsen-equivalent to $`S_i^{}`$ since $`u_iU_i^{}`$ for $`i=1,2`$. Put $`V:=U_1^{},U_2^{}`$. Then $`T_V=u_1T_{U_1^{}}[y_1,y_2]u_2T_{U_2^{}}`$ is a generating tree for $`V`$ with respect to $`S_1^{\prime \prime }S_2^{\prime \prime }`$. The measure of $`T_V`$ is at most

$$2D(k_11)+\frac{2k_11}{2k}\epsilon +2D(k_21)+\frac{2k_21}{2k}\epsilon +2D+\frac{\epsilon }{2k}=$$

$$2D(k_1+k_21)+\frac{2(k_1+k_2)1}{2k}\epsilon .$$

Hence the partitioned tuple $`M^{\prime \prime }:=(S_1^{\prime \prime }S_2^{\prime \prime },S_3^{},\mathrm{},S_n^{};H^{})`$ is good. Since the underlying tuple of $`M^{\prime \prime }`$ is Nielsen equivalent to $`Y`$ and since $`M^{\prime \prime }`$ has smaller complexity than $`M^{}`$ and $`M`$, we obtain a contradiction to the choice of $`M`$.

Case 2. Suppose that $`d(X(U_1^{}),h_m^{}X(U_1^{}))\frac{\epsilon }{2k}`$. As in (1) we see that there exist $`y_1X_{U_1^{}}`$ and $`y_2h_m^{}X_{U_1^{}}`$ such that $`d(y_1,y_2)2D+\frac{\epsilon }{2k}`$.

Subcase 2A. Suppose first that $`U_1^{}`$ does not fix a point. Again, since $`M^{}`$ is good, after replacing $`S_1^{}`$ by a conjugate (in $`U_1^{}`$) tuple we can assume that there exists an $`S_1^{}`$-generating tree $`T_{U_1^{}}`$ for $`U_1^{}`$ of measure at most $`2D(k_11)+\frac{2k_11}{2k}\epsilon `$ such that $`y_1T_{U_1^{}}`$. Clearly $`(h_m^{})^1y_2`$ lies in $`X_{U_1^{}}`$. Since $`X_{U_1^{}}U_1^{}T_{U_1^{}}`$ it follows that $`u_2^{}(h_m^{})^1y_2T_{U_1^{}}`$ for some $`u_2^{}U_1^{}`$.

Hence $`T_V=T_{U_1^{}}[y_1,y_2]`$ is a generating tree for the subgroup $`V=S_1^{},u_2^{}(h_m^{})^1=S_1^{},h_m^{}`$ with respect to the generating set $`S_1^{\prime \prime }=S_1^{}\{u_2^{}(h_m^{})^1\}`$.

Moreover, the measure of $`T_V`$ is at most

$`2D(k_11)+{\displaystyle \frac{2k_11}{2k}}\epsilon +2D+{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon }{2k}}2D((k_1+1)1)+{\displaystyle \frac{2(k_1+1)1}{2k}}\epsilon .`$
This implies that the tuple $`M^{\prime \prime }=(S_1^{\prime \prime },S_2^{},\mathrm{},S_n^{};H^{\prime \prime })`$ is good, where $`H^{\prime \prime }=(h_1^{},\mathrm{},h_{m1}^{})`$. Since $`M^{\prime \prime }`$ has smaller complexity than does $`M`$, this contradicts the choice of $`M`$.

Subcase 2B. Suppose now that $`U_1^{}`$ fixes a point. Then the assumption $`d(X(U_1^{}),h_m^{}X(U_1^{}))\frac{\epsilon }{2k}`$ implies that there exist $`y_1X(U_1^{})`$ and $`y_2h_m^{}X(U_1^{})`$ such that $`d(y_1,y_2)\frac{\epsilon }{2k}`$. Note that since $`U_1^{}`$ fixes a point, $`X_{U_1^{}}`$ is the fixed set of $`U_1^{}`$. Denote $`y_2^{}=(h_m^{})^1y_2X(U_1^{})`$. Let $`x`$ be a point fixed by $`U_1^{}`$. By Lemma 3.3 we have $`d(y_1,x)D`$ and $`d(y_2^{},x)D`$. Put

$$K=[y_2^{},x][x,y_1][y_1,y_2]$$

Then $`x`$ is fixed by $`U_1^{}`$ and hence by $`S_1^{}`$, while $`h_m^{}y_2^{}=y_2`$. Thus $`K`$ is an $`S_1^{\prime \prime }`$-generating tree for the subgroup $`V=S_1^{},h_m^{}`$ where $`S_1^{\prime \prime }=(S_1^{},h_m^{})`$. Note that $`L(S_1^{\prime \prime })=L(S_i^{})+12`$ by construction. The tree $`K`$ has measure at most

$$2D+\frac{\epsilon }{2k}2D(21)+\frac{221}{2k}\epsilon $$

Again put $`H^{\prime \prime }=(h_1^{},\mathrm{},h_{m1}^{})`$ and $`M^{\prime \prime }=(S_1^{\prime \prime },S_2^{},\mathrm{},S_n^{};H^{\prime \prime })`$. Then $`M^{\prime \prime }`$ is good and has smaller complexity than $`M`$. This contradicts the choice of $`M`$.

Case 3. Suppose that $`d(y,h_m^{}y)\frac{\epsilon }{2k}`$ for some $`yX`$. In this case we replace $`M^{}`$ by

$$M^{\prime \prime }=(S_1^{},\mathrm{},S_n^{},S_{n+1}^{};H^{\prime \prime })$$

where $`S_{n+1}^{}=(h_m^{})`$ and $`H^{\prime \prime }=(h_1^{},\mathrm{},h_{m1}^{})`$.

By assumption on $`Y`$ we have $`h_m^{}1`$. Hence $`M^{\prime \prime }`$ is good and of smaller complexity than $`M`$, which again yields a contradiction. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 3.7.

Essentially the same argument as in the proof of Theorem 1.2 implies a relative version of our main result. If $`U_1,\mathrm{},U_n`$ are subgroups of a group $`G`$, we will say that $`G`$ is *freely indecomposable relative to $`U_1,\mathrm{},U_n`$* if there does not exist an action of $`G`$ on a simplicial tree $`X`$ with trivial edge stabilizers and without inversions such that each $`U_i`$ fixes a vertex. Essentially the same argument as in the proof of Theorem 1.2 implies the following relative version of our main result.

Suppose $`G`$ is freely indecomposable relative to $`U_1,..,U_n`$ and that $`G`$ is generated by $`U_1\mathrm{}U_n\{s_1,\mathrm{},s_k\}`$. Suppose $`G`$ acts $`D`$-acylindrically on an $``$-tree in such a way that each $`U_i`$ fixes a point. Then for any $`ϵ>0`$ there exists a $`G`$-generating tree of measure at most $`2D(n+k1)+ϵ`$.