text:
# Biquotients with singly generated rational cohomology

## 1. Reduction to the case of a simple $`G`$

Throughout this section all cohomology have rational coefficients and all homotopy groups are tensored with $``$. Also for the purposes of the proof we will use the following equivalent but formally stronger definition of a biquotient, see \[Es\]:

Let $`H\stackrel{𝜌}{}G\times G`$ be a homomorphism and let $`\mathrm{\Delta }Z_G`$ be the diagonal embedding of the center of $`G`$ into $`G\times G`$. Let $`Z=\rho ^1(\mathrm{\Delta }Z_G)`$. It is clear that $`Z`$ lies in the kernel of the usually defined biquotient action of $`H`$ on $`G`$. Suppose the biquotient action of $`H/Z`$ on $`G`$ is free. Then the quotient space is a manifold diffeomorphic to $`(G/\rho (Z))//(H/Z)`$ which we will still denote by $`G//H`$.

In this section we will also not distinguish between a simple group and its various covers, using e.g. the same notation for $`SO(n)`$ and $`Spin(n)`$.

We first need to recall some well known facts about rational cohomology of Lie groups.

A Lie group of rank $`n`$ is rationally homotopy equivalent to a product of a finitely many odd dimensional spheres $`S_1^{2k_1+1}\times \mathrm{}\times S_n^{2k_n+1}`$ . The dimensions of the spheres corresponding to various simple groups are listed in Table 1.1

###### Proposition 1.2.

Suppose $`M=G//H`$ is a biquotient such that $`M`$ is simply connected and the cohomology algebra $`H^{}(M,)`$ is generated by one element. Then there exists a biquotient $`G^{}//H^{}`$ such that $`G^{}`$ is simple and $`M`$ is diffeomorphic to $`G^{}//H^{}`$.

###### Proof.

The key in the proof of Proposition 1.2 is the following elementary Lemma the proof of which is left to the reader.

###### Lemma 1.3.

Let $`G`$ be a compact Lie group acting differentiably on manifolds $`X`$ and $`Y`$. Suppose that the action of $`G`$ on $`X`$ is transitive and the diagonal action of $`G`$ on $`X\times Y`$ is free. Then for any $`xX`$ the action of isotropy group $`G_x`$ on $`Y`$ is free and the quotient spaces $`(X\times Y)/G`$ and $`Y/G_x`$ are canonically diffeomorphic. Moreover, if the action of $`G`$ on $`X\times Y`$ is a biquotient action then the action of $`G_x`$ on $`Y`$ is again a biquotient action.

First notice that by passing to a finite cover we can assume that both $`G`$ and $`H`$ are products of compact simple or abelian groups. Indeed, let $`\pi :G^{}G`$ be a finite cover of $`G`$ that splits as a product of simple or abelian groups $`G^{}=G_1\times \mathrm{}\times G_n`$. Let $`\widehat{H}=\pi ^1(H)`$. Then $`G^{}//\widehat{H}G//H`$ and since $`M`$ is simply connected, $`\widehat{H}`$ is connected. Let $`H^{}\widehat{H}`$ be a finite cover such that $`H^{}`$ splits as $`H^{}=H_1\times ..\times H_m`$. Then $`G^{}//H^{}G^{}//\widehat{H}G//H`$. From now on we can assume that $`G`$ and $`H`$ already have the product forms $`G=G_1\times \mathrm{}\times G_n,H=H_1\times ..\times H_m`$. Furthermore, since $`M`$ is simply connected, by Lemma 1.3 we can assume that $`G`$ has no abelian factors.

Next let us describe the rational homotopy type of $`M`$. We are given that $`H^{}(M,)`$ is generated by one element $`a`$, which easily implies that $`M`$ is formal. Indeed, the naturally defined map $`(H^{}(M,),0)(\mathrm{\Omega }^{}(M),d)`$ is clearly a DGA quasi-isomorphism. Thus $`M`$ is formal over $``$ and hence, by the field extension theorem \[FHT, page 156\], it is formal over $``$.

If $`\mathrm{deg}a`$ is odd, it is obvious that $`dimM=\mathrm{deg}a`$ and $`M`$ is rationally equivalent to $`S^{\mathrm{deg}a}`$. If $`\mathrm{deg}a=2k`$ is even, $`H^{}(M)=[a]/a^{m+1}`$ where $`m=dimM/\mathrm{deg}a`$. By formality, the minimal model of $`M`$ is then the same as the minimal model of $`([a]/a^{m+1},0)`$ and is equal to $`([x,y],d)`$ where $`\mathrm{deg}x=\mathrm{deg}a,\mathrm{deg}y=(m+1)\mathrm{deg}a1,dx=0,dy=x^{m+1}`$. In particular, $`M`$ has exactly two nontrivial rational homotopy groups $`\pi _{\mathrm{deg}a}(M)\pi _{\mathrm{deg}y}(M)`$. In either case $`M`$ has exactly one nontrivial odd homotopy group.

Let $`i=(i_1,\mathrm{},i_n):HG^2=G_1^2\times \mathrm{}G_n^2`$ be the fiber inclusion.

By looking at the long exact homotopy sequence of the fibration $`H\stackrel{𝑖}{}GM`$ we see that the induced map $`i_{}:\pi _{}(H)\pi _{}(G)`$ satisfies $`dim\mathrm{coker}(i_{})=1`$ and $`dim\mathrm{ker}(i_{})=1(=0)`$ if $`dimM`$ is even (odd). Since $`\mathrm{rank}(G)=dim\pi _{}(G)`$ and $`\mathrm{rank}(H)=dim\pi _{}(H)`$ this implies that $`\mathrm{rank}(G)=\mathrm{rank}(H)`$ if $`dimM`$ is even and $`\mathrm{rank}(G)=\mathrm{rank}(H)+1`$ if $`dimM`$ is odd.

By the above, all but one of the coordinate projections $`i_k:HG_k`$ are onto on $`\pi _{}`$.

###### Lemma 1.4.

Let $`f:HG`$ be a continuous map between compact connected Lie groups. Suppose the induced map $`f_{}:\pi _{}(H)\pi _{}(G)`$ is onto. Then $`f`$ is onto.

###### Proof.

We are going to show that the induced map $`f^{}:H^{}(G)H^{}(H)`$ is injective. First observe that since both $`H`$ and $`G`$ are rationally products of odd-dimensional spheres their cohomology algebras are free exterior algebras on a finite number of odd-dimensional generators. Thus for both $`H`$ and $`G`$ the vector spaces spanned by those generators (denoted by $`V_H`$ and $`V_G`$ respectively) can be naturally identified with quotients of $`H^{}`$ by decomposable elements $`H^+/(H^+H^+)`$. The assumptions of the Lemma imply that the induced map $`f^{}:H^+(G)/(H^+(G)H^+(G))H^+(H)/(H^+(H)H^+(H))`$ is injective. Since $`H^{}(H)\mathrm{\Lambda }V_H`$ this implies that the map $`f^{}:H^{}(G)H^{}(H)`$ is injective. In particular, the image of the fundamental cohomology class $`[G]`$ is nonzero and hence $`f`$ is onto. ∎

By Lemma 1.4 for all but one factor $`G_i`$ the action of $`H`$ on $`G_i`$ is transitive. Therefore by Lemma 1.3 we can reduce the number of simple factors of $`G`$ to one. This concludes the proof of Proposition 1.2.

## 2. Case of a simple $`G`$ and Proof of Theorem A

We are now ready to proceed with the proof of Theorem A in the Introduction. We can assume that $`H^{}(M)=[a]/a^{m+1}`$, and that $`M=G//H`$ with $`G`$ simple.

Let the embedding $`HG\times G`$ be given by $`(j^{},j^+)`$ where $`j^{}`$ and $`j^+`$ are two homomorphisms. If one of these is trivial, we are in the situation of a homogeneous space where we can use the classification in \[Be, p.195-196\] or \[On\] to obtain the first half of Table B.

We will now distinguish between the case $`dimM`$ odd and $`dimM`$ even and use results from the proof of Proposition 1.2 in each case, as well as the fact that for any simple Lie group $`\mathrm{rank}\pi _3=1`$.

If $`dimM`$ is odd and hence $`H^{}(M)=H^{}(S^{2n+1})`$, we have $`H^{}(G)H^{}(H\times S^{2n+1})`$ as rings and $`\mathrm{rank}G=\mathrm{rank}H+1`$. If $`dimM=3`$, $`H`$ must be trivial and hence $`G//H`$ is homogeneous. If $`dimM>3`$, then $`G`$ and $`H`$ are both simple, and hence $`j^{}`$ and $`j^+`$ are either homomorphisms with finite kernels, or trivial. Now one can easily produce a list of all simple pairs $`HG`$ such that $`H^{}(G)H^{}(H\times S^{2n+1})`$, using Table 1.1 and elementary representation theory. The result is summarized in Table 2.1. Notice that this happens to agree with the list of homogeneous spaces $`G/H`$ which are odd dimensional rational homology spheres (see \[Be, p.195-196\] and \[On\]), although this is not a priori clear.

In the first 5 cases, the embedding of $`H`$ in $`G`$ is unique up to conjugacy and hence these cases only give rise to homogeneous biquotients. In the remaining cases there exist at least two embeddings of $`H`$ and hence the possibility of a biquotient.

The three representations of $`Spin(7)`$ in $`Spin(8)`$, as well as the two representations of $`Spin(7)`$ in $`Spin(9)`$ intersect in $`G_2`$ and hence this case cannot give rise to a biquotient. The group $`SU(3)`$ has the index 1 subgroup $`SU(2)`$ and the index 2 subgroup $`SO(3)`$ which intersect in a circle and hence cannot give rise to a biquotient. The group $`Sp(2)`$ has the index one subgroup $`Sp(1)\times 1Sp(1)\times Sp(1)Sp(2)`$, the index 2 subgroup $`\mathrm{}Sp(1)Sp(1)\times Sp(1)Sp(2)`$, and the maximal index 28 subgroup $`Sp(1)Sp(2)`$. It is not hard to see that only the first two can be combined to give rise to a biquotient, the Gromoll Meyer sphere $`Sp(2)//Sp(1)`$. The exceptional group $`G_2`$ has 4 three dimensional subgroups described in the Introduction. The question which biquotients this gives rise to is more complicated. However, the general situation of $`\mathrm{rank}G=2`$ and $`\mathrm{rank}H=1`$ has been completely examined in \[Es, p.166-170\] where it was shown that it gives rise to only two biquotients. The first one is the Gromoll Meyer sphere and the second one is $`G_2//SU(2)`$, where one uses the index 3 and index 4 subgroups for $`j^{}`$ and $`j+`$.

If $`dimM`$ and hence $`\mathrm{deg}a`$ is even, we have $`\mathrm{rank}G=\mathrm{rank}H`$, and since $`G`$ is simple, it follows that $`H`$ is simple if $`\mathrm{deg}a>4`$, $`H`$ has two simple factors if $`\mathrm{deg}a=4`$, and $`H=H_1\times S^1`$ with $`H_1`$ simple if $`\mathrm{deg}a=2`$.

If $`G//H`$ is not homogeneous, the maximal torus in $`H`$ must give rise to a (two-sided) biquotient action of a torus on a simple Lie group $`G`$, whose dimension is equal to the rank of $`G`$. These were all classified in \[Es\]. Such biquotient tori actions are fairly rare, and in particular none exist for the exceptional Lie groups. Furthermore these tori are all such that there exists a codimension 1 torus which acts only on one side of $`G`$, say on the right, and the remaining circle either acts on the left or on both sides. Hence it follows that the image of the projection of $`H`$ onto the right side is a rank one group and the kernel a $`\mathrm{rank}H1`$ normal subgroup of $`H`$. Hence $`H=H_1\times H_2`$ with $`H_2`$ simple and $`H_1`$ is either $`S^1`$, $`SO(3)`$ or $`SU(2)`$. Hence $`G/H_2`$ must be a homogeneous space which is either an odd dimensional rational homology sphere or is rationally equivalent to $`M\times H_1`$. Since both $`G`$ and $`H_2`$ are simple it easily follows that $`G/H_2`$ must be a rational sphere. Now we use Table 2.1 and determine if a further rank 1 group $`H_1`$ can act freely on it. If $`G/H_2`$ is diffeomorphic to a sphere, the action of $`G`$ on this sphere is linear and hence $`H_1`$ can only be one of the Hopf actions which implies that the quotient is diffeomorphic to a projective space.

According to Table 2.1, the only remaining cases are $`G/H_2=SO(2n+1)/SO(2n1)`$ or $`SU(3)/SO(3),Sp(2)/Sp(1)_{10}`$ and $`G_2/SU(2)`$, where we have used the fact that $`Sp(2)/\mathrm{\Delta }Sp(1)=SO(5)/SO(3)`$. In each case we now have to determine if $`H_1`$ can act freely on it. But Eschenburg’s classification of maximal tori that act freely immediately implies that the only possibilities are the two entries $`\mathrm{}SO(2)\backslash SO(2n+1)/SO(2n1)`$ and $`\mathrm{}SU(2)\backslash SO(4n+1)/SO(4n1)`$ in Table B. Here $`\mathrm{}SO(2)`$ and $`\mathrm{}SU(2)`$ stand for ”Hopf actions” $`\mathrm{diag}(1,A,\mathrm{},A)`$ where $`A`$ lies either in $`SO(2)`$ or in $`SU(2)`$. This finishes the proof of Theorem A.

###### Remark.

In the homogeneous case, one not only has a diffeomorphism classification of the homogeneous spaces which are rational homology spheres, but in each case can also determine in how many ways the manifold can be written as a homogeneous space. In the case of biquotients, such a classification is possible if $`G`$ is simple, using \[Es, Table 101\]. Notice that in this Table, there are quite a few biquotients which are diffeomorphic to $`P^n`$ or $`P^n`$ without being homogeneous. If $`G`$ is not simple, there are many possibilities, and in fact we can increase the number of simple factors in $`G`$ arbitrarily by using the fact that $`G//H=\mathrm{\Delta }G\backslash G\times G/H`$ repeatedly.

## 3. Diffeomorphism classification

###### Theorem 3.1.

None of the spaces listed in Theorem A are mutually diffeomorphic except possibly the rational $`11`$-spheres $`G_2//SU(2)`$ and $`SO(7)/SO(5)`$ (which can also be written as $`G_2/SU(2)_1`$). These two spaces are PL-homeomorphic but may possibly differ by a connected sum with an exotic $`11`$-sphere.

###### Proof.

The homogeneous spaces can easily be differentiated from the rank one symmetric spaces and from each other by the torsion in their cohomology, see e.g. \[MZ\].

Here we will only need the integral cohomology groups of $`SO(2n+1)/SO(2n1)=T^1S^{2n}`$, which follows easily from the Gysin sequence of the bundle $`S^{2n1}T^1S^{2n}S^{2n}`$ :

$$H^{}(T^1S^{2n})=\{\begin{array}{cc}\text{ if }=0,4n1\hfill & \\ Z_2\text{ if }=2n\hfill & \\ 0\text{ otherwise}\hfill & \end{array}$$

Let us next consider the rational $`^{2n1}`$’s $`M=\mathrm{}SO(2)\backslash SO(2n+1)/SO(2n1)`$ and $`N=SO(2n+1/SO(2n1)\times SO(2),n>1`$.

Let us first compute the integral cohomology rings of $`M`$ and $`N`$. From the Gysin sequence of the bundle $`S^1T^1S^{2n}M`$ we compute

$$H^{}(M)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\text{ if }=2k,\text{ for }k=0,\mathrm{},2n1\hfill & \\ 0\text{ otherwise}\hfill & \end{array}$$

Moreover from the same sequence we see that the Euler class of this bundle $`a_MH^2(M)`$ is a generator of $`H^2(M)`$ and the following sequences are exact

$`0H^{2k2}(M)\stackrel{a_M}{}H^{2k}(M)0\text{ for }k=1,\mathrm{},n1,n+1,\mathrm{},2n1`$
$`0H^{2n2}(M)\stackrel{a_M}{}H^{2n}(M)Z_20`$
Hence the ring structure is determined by the fact that $`a_M^n`$ is twice a generator in $`H^{2n}(M)`$ and thus $`M`$ is not homotopy equivalent to $`P^{2n1}`$.

The same argument works for $`N`$ and thus $`M`$ and $`N`$ have isomorphic cohomology rings. To compare $`M`$ and $`N`$ to each other we will show that they have different rational Pontrjagin classes and thus are not homeomorphic.

Observe that both $`M`$ and $`N`$ are quotients of $`T^1(S^{2n})`$ by different free $`S^1`$ actions. Let us describe these actions explicitly. We will identify $`T^1(S^{2n})`$ with the set
$`\{(x,y)^{2n+1}\times ^{2n+1}||x|=|y|=1,x,y=0\}`$. By construction, the $`S^1`$ action producing $`M`$ is the diagonal action $`z(x,y)=(z(x),z(y))`$ for the embedding $`S^1SO(2n)SO(2n+1)`$ with the first embedding given by the Hopf action. Observe that this action leaves the product $`S^{2n}\times S^{2n}`$ invariant. It is easy to see that the normal bundle $`\nu `$ of $`T^1(S^{2n})`$ inside $`^{2n+1}\times ^{2n+1}`$ is trivial. Consider the natural orthonormal trivialization $`e:T^1(S^{2n})\times ^3\nu `$ given by $`e_1(x,y)=e((x,y),(1,0,0))=(x,0),e_2(x,y)=e((x,y),(0,1,0))=(0,y),e_3(x,y)=e((x,y),(0,0,1))=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(y,x)`$. It is easy to see that with respect to $`e`$ the action of $`S^1`$ on $`^3`$ is trivial and therefore $`\nu `$ descends to a trivial bundle over $`M`$.

Let $`p:T^1(S^{2n})M`$ be the canonical projection. Then $`TT^1(S^{2n})p^\mathrm{\#}(TM)T_F`$ where $`T_F`$ is the tangent bundle to the fiber. It is obvious that $`T_Fϵ^1`$ is a trivial bundle over $`T^1(S^{2n})`$ and therefore

$$TT^1(S^{2n})p^\mathrm{\#}(TM)ϵ^1$$

Next note that the action of $`S^1`$ on $`^{2n+1}\times ^{2n+1}`$ is equivalent to the sum of $`2n`$ copies of the standard representation and a $`2`$-dimensional trivial representation $`ϵ^2`$.

Combining the previous formulas we obtain the following identity

(3.2)
$$TMϵ^42n\gamma _Mϵ^2$$

where $`\gamma _M`$ is the rank-two bundle over $`M`$ associated to the principal $`S^1`$ bundle $`T^1(S^{2n})M`$ and the canonical $`S^1SO(2)`$ action on $`^2`$. By construction, $`e(\gamma _M)=a_M`$, the generator of $`H^2(M)`$.

Therefore,

(3.3)
$$p_1(TM)=p_1(TMϵ^4)=p_1(2n\gamma _M)=2np_1(\gamma _M)=2ne(\gamma _M)^2=2na_M^2$$

Let us now compute the first Pontrjagin class of $`N`$. By definition, the $`S^1`$ action on $`T^1(S^{2n})`$ which produces $`N`$ is given by the following formula:

$$e^{it}(x,y)=(\mathrm{cos}tx+\mathrm{sin}ty,\mathrm{sin}tx+\mathrm{cos}ty)$$

In other words this is just the geodesic flow action for the round metric on $`S^{2n}`$.

As before we see that it is equivalent to the sum of $`2n+1`$ copies of the standard representation and therefore it descends to the bundle $`(2n+1)\gamma _N`$ over $`N`$.

On the other hand, by the same argument as before we see that

(3.4)
$$(2n+1)\gamma TN\overline{\nu }ϵ^1$$

where $`\overline{\nu }`$ is the $`S^1`$ quotient of the normal bundle $`\nu `$ to $`T^1(S^{2n})`$ inside $`^{2n+1}\times ^{2n+1}`$. Let us study $`\overline{\nu }`$ further. As was discussed earlier, $`\nu `$ is a trivial bundle. It is easy to see that with respect to the trivialization $`e=(e_1,e_2,e_3)`$ the action $`\rho `$ of $`S^1`$ on $`^3`$ corresponding to $`\nu `$ is given by the following matrix

(3.5)
$$e^{it}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{cos}^2t& \mathrm{sin}^2t& \sqrt{2}\mathrm{sin}t\mathrm{cos}t\\ \mathrm{sin}^2t& \mathrm{cos}^2t& \sqrt{2}\mathrm{sin}t\mathrm{cos}t\\ \sqrt{2}\mathrm{sin}t\mathrm{cos}t& \sqrt{2}\mathrm{sin}t\mathrm{cos}t& \mathrm{cos}^2t\mathrm{sin}^2t\end{array}\right)$$

From formula 3.5 we see that $`\rho `$ is equivalent to the sum of a rank-one trivial representation and a representation of weight $`2`$. Therefore $`\nu `$ descends to the bundle $`\eta ϵ^1`$ where $`\eta _N`$ is a rank-two bundle over $`N`$ with Euler class $`2a_N`$. We can now rewrite formula 3.4 as follows

(3.6)
$$(2n+1)\gamma TN\eta _Nϵ^2$$

Therefore $`(2n+1)a_N^2=(2n+1)p_1(\gamma _N)=p_1(TN)+p_1(\eta _N)=p_1(TN)+e(\eta _N)^2=p_1(TN)+4a_N^2`$ and hence

(3.7)
$$p_1(TN)=(2n3)a_N^2$$

Finally, observe that the groups $`H^4(M)/p_1(M)`$ and $`H^4(N)/p_1(N)`$ are cyclic. By comparing (3.3) and (3.7) we see that these groups have different orders and therefore $`M`$ and $`N`$ are not homeomorphic by topological invariance of rational Pontrjagin classes.

Next let us consider the rational $`^{2n1}`$ given by $`M=\mathrm{}SU(2)\backslash SO(4n+1)/SO(4n1)`$. A similar computation to the one in case of rational $`^n`$’s shows that it has the following cohomology

$$H^{}(M)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\text{ if }=4k,\text{ for }k=0,\mathrm{},2n1\hfill & \\ 0\text{ otherwise}\hfill & \end{array}$$

Also, as before, if $`a_MH^4(M)`$ is a generator of $`H^4(M)`$ then the following sequences are exact

$`0H^{4k4}(M)\stackrel{a_M}{}H^{2k}(M)0\text{ for }k=1,\mathrm{},n1,n+1,\mathrm{},2n1`$
$`0H^{4n4}(M)\stackrel{a_M}{}H^{4n}(M)Z_20`$
Therefore $`a_M^n`$ is twice a generator in $`H^{4n}(M)`$ and hence $`M`$ is not homotopy equivalent and hence not diffeomorphic to $`^{2n1}`$.

The biquotient $`Sp(2)//Sp(1)`$ is homeomorphic but not diffeomorphic to $`𝕊^7`$ according to \[GM\].

Let us finally discuss the rational $`11`$-sphere $`M^{11}=G_2//SU(2)`$. Recall that

$$H^{}(G_2)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\text{ if }=0,3,11,14\hfill & \\ Z_2\text{ if }=6,9\hfill & \\ 0\text{ otherwise}\hfill & \end{array}$$

Since the fiber in the fibration $`SU(2)G_2//SU(2)`$ is given by the composition of two maps $`(j^{},j^+):SU(2)G_2\times G_2`$ and $`\times :G_2\times G_2G_2`$, where $`\times (g_1,g_2)=g_1g_2^1`$, it induces the map $`j_{}^{}j_{}^+`$ in $`\pi _3`$. Since $`j^{}`$ is given by the index 3 subgroup and $`j^+`$ by the index 4 subgroup, it follows that the fiber inclusion $`SU(2)G_2`$ is an isomorphism on $`\pi _3`$. ¿From the long exact homotopy sequence of the fibration $`S^3=SU(2)G_2M`$ we conclude that $`M`$ is $`4`$-connected. Therefore the Euler class $`eH^4(M)`$ of this bundle is zero. From the Gysin sequence

$$H^1(M)\stackrel{e}{}H^5(M)H^5(G_2)$$

we see that $`H^5(M)=0`$. Similarly, from

$$H^2(M)\stackrel{e}{}H^6(M)H^6(G_2)H^3(M)$$

we see that $`H^6(M)H^6(G_2)_2`$. Thus

$$H^{}(M)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\text{ if }=0,11\hfill & \\ Z_2\text{ if }=6\hfill & \\ 0\text{ otherwise}\hfill & \end{array}$$

and by Poincare duality

(3.8)
$$H_{}(M)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\text{ if }=0,11\hfill & \\ Z_2\text{ if }=5\hfill & \\ 0\text{ otherwise}\hfill & \end{array}$$

We will say that two closed manifolds are almost diffeomorphic if they differ by a connected sum with a homotopy sphere.

###### Lemma 3.9.

Suppose $`X^{11}`$ is a simply-connected smooth manifold with homology given by (3.8). Then $`X`$ is almost diffeomorphic to $`T^1S^6`$.

###### Proof.

The almost diffeomorphism classification of $`k`$-connected $`2k+1`$ manifolds with $`k3,7`$ was carried out by Wall \[Wa\]. By assumptions, our manifold is as above with $`k=5`$.

According to Wall, the oriented almost diffeomorphism class of a $`4`$-connected $`11`$-manifold is completely determined by the following set of invariants:

1. $`G=H_5(X)`$;
2. A nonsingular bilinear form (called the linking form) $`b:G^{}\times G^{}G^{}`$where $`G^{}`$ is the torsion subgroup of $`G`$;
3. A quadratic form $`q:G^{}/2`$ associated with the bilinear form $`2b`$;
4. A homomorphism $`\alpha :G\pi _4(SO)`$.

In our case $`GG^{}_2`$. Since there exists only one non-degenerate bilinear form on $`_2`$, the form $`b`$ is uniquely determined.

By Bott periodicity, $`\pi _4(SO)=0`$, and thus $`\alpha =0`$. The only remaining Wall invariant which has to be determined is the quadratic form $`q`$. To compute it we need to recall its definition.

Look at the generator $`a`$ in $`H_5(X)=Z_2`$ given by a map $`a:S^5X`$. By Whitney’s theorem we can assume that $`a`$ is an embedding. The normal bundle to $`a`$ is trivial since $`\pi _4(SO(6))=0`$.

Choose a section $`a_1`$ of the normal bundle to $`a`$ such that the normal bundle to $`a_1`$ in the unit tangent bundle of $`a`$ is trivial. This is not automatic since $`\pi _4(SO(5))=Z_2`$ . The easiest way to achieve this is to take the obvious section corresponding to any trivialization of the normal bundle. Let $`a_2:S^5M`$ be the normal sphere in the unit tangent bundle. The orientation on $`a_2`$ is uniquely determined by the orientations on $`M`$ and $`a`$. More explicitly, we orient the normal $`D^6`$ to have intersection with $`a`$ equal to $`+1`$ and consider the induced orientation on the normal $`S^5=D^6`$. Let $`Y=X\backslash a(S^5)`$ and let $`y_1=[a_1],y_2=[a_2]`$ be the homology classes in $`X`$ given by $`\alpha _i`$. Then it can be shown that $`y_2`$ generates the kernel of the map $`H_5(Y)H_5(X)`$ which is infinite cyclic. It is clear that $`2y_1`$ lies in that kernel and therefore $`2y_1=\lambda y_2`$. It can be shown \[Wa\] that the quotient $`\lambda /2`$ is well-defined mod $`2`$ and we set $`q(a):\stackrel{\text{def}}{=}\lambda /2`$ mod $`2`$. It is obvious that $`\lambda `$ can not be even so $`q(a)`$ can only take values $`\pm 1/2`$ mod $`2`$.

If we change the orientation of $`X`$ then, by construction, $`y_2`$ changes to $`y_2`$ and hence $`q`$ changes to $`q`$. Therefore, $`X`$ and $`X`$ ( which stands for the same manifold with opposite orientation) have different oriented almost diffeomorphism types and any other oriented manifold satisfying the assumptions of the Lemma (e.g. $`T^1S^6`$) is orientably almost diffeomorphic to either $`X`$ or $`X`$. ∎

###### Remark 3.10.

Observe that two $`11`$-manifolds satisfying Lemma 3.9 are almost diffeomorphic iff they are $`PL`$-equivalent. Indeed, a manifold $`X`$ satisfying Lemma 3.9 is homeomorphic to $`T^1S^6`$. In particular it admits a $`CW`$ decomposition $`e^0e^5e^6e^{11}`$. Look at the universal bundle $`PL/OB_OB_{PL}`$. We wish to classify different smooth structures inside a fixed $`PL`$ structure on $`X`$, i.e we have to classify the homotopy types of all possible lifts of the classifying map $`f:XB_{PL}`$. By the general obstruction theory, the obstruction $`o_i`$ to extend a homotopy between two lifts from the $`i1`$’th to the $`i`$’th skeleton of $`X`$ lives in $`H^i(X,\pi _i(O/PL))`$. Since $`O/PL`$ is $`6`$-connected we have $`o_i=0`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},6`$. The CW structure of $`X`$ then implies that $`o_i=0`$ for $`i=7,\mathrm{},10`$. Thus the only possible nontrivial obstruction is $`o_{11}`$ and the PL class of $`X`$ contains at most $`|H^{11}(X,\pi _{11}(O/PL))|=|\pi _{11}(O/PL)|=992`$ distinct diffeomorphism types. On the other hand, connected sums of $`X`$ with different homotopy spheres have different Eells-Kuiper invariants \[EK\] and thus are non-diffeomorphic. Since there are exactly $`|\pi _{11}(O/PL)|=992`$ homotopy $`11`$-spheres, the conclusion follows.

Thus the oriented diffeomorphism type of $`M`$ is determined by its oriented $`PL`$-homeomorphism type together with the Eells-Kuiper invariant of $`M`$ which at the moment we are unable to compute.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In the usual theory of relativity there is no evolution. Worldlines are fixed, everything is frozen once for all in a 4-dimensional “ block universe” $`V_4`$. This is in contradiction with our subjective experience of the passage of time. It is in contradiction with what we actually observe.

Therefore we always introduce into the theory of relativity more or less explicitly an extra postulate: that a 3-dimensional hypersurface of simultaneity moves in spacetime. We are talking about point particles, strings, etc.. Those objects exist in 3-dimensional space $`V_3`$. From the point of view of $`V_4`$ there are worldlines, worldsheets, etc.. Relativity does not contain point particles that evolve in $`V_4`$. Something is missing in the ordinary relativity. And yet, we all: (i) assume the validity of the theory of relativity, and (ii) talk about point particles which —when moving— describe worldlines in spacetime.

The above two positions are incompatible. In the following I am going to point out how we can have both, (i) and (ii), by suitably modifying the theory of relativity. The first modification is the well known Stueckelberg theory , based on the unconstrained, Lorentz invariant action. Such a theory has been considered by a number of authors  and it actually describes evolution of a point particle (“event”) in spacetime. The essence of the Stueckelberg theory is the introduction of a Lorentz invariant parameter $`\tau `$ along which evolution (“relativistic dynamics”) takes place. This is the true time, whilst $`X^0t`$ is just one of the spacetime coordinates, called “coordinate time”.

In search of a deeper understanding and description of geometry it has been found that Clifford algebra is such a tool. It describes a geometric structure which is much richer than the ordinary geometry of spacetime. Clifford space (shortly $`C`$-space) consists not only of points, but also of lines or 1-loops, 2-loops, etc.. The later geometric objects are associated with multivectors. Multivectors of different grades can be superposed into the geometric objects —the so called polyvectors which are generic Clifford numbers (called also Clifford aggregates). Following Pezzaglia we assume that physical quantities are polyvectors and that the true space in which physics stakes place is $`C`$-space .

We formulate the action in $`C`$-space, which is a straightforward although not trivial generalization of the minimal length (point particle) action in ordinary spacetime. Such constrained action contains as a particular case the well known unconstrained Stueckelberg action which encompasses an invariant evolution parameter. From the point of view of $`C`$-space, the above evolution parameter is given by 4-vector part of the polyvector describing position of the “particle”333From the point of view of spacetime, of course, this is not particle, but an aggregate of $`r`$-loops, that is a polydimensional extended object (see ). in $`C`$-space.

The theory of relativity is thus shifted from the ordinary spacetime into the $`C`$-space. Everything that we know about relativity is now true in $`C`$-space: the constrained minimal length action, invariance under rotations (Lorentz transformations) in $`C`$-space, “block universe”, etc.. But in spacetime, a subspace of $`C`$-space, particles (and also extended objects) are actually moving as suggested by the unconstrained Stueckelberg action—which is just a reduced $`C`$-space action.

## 2 Relativistic Point Particle and Evolution

We will now briefly review the Stueckelberg theory. Let us start from the following action:

$$I=\frac{1}{2}\text{d}\tau \left(\frac{\dot{x}^\mu \dot{x}_\mu }{\mathrm{\Lambda }}+\mathrm{\Lambda }\kappa ^2\right)$$
(1)
where $`\kappa `$ is a constant. Let us consider two distinct procedures:

a) In the standard procedure $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is taken as a Lagrange multiplier whose “equations of motion” give $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2=\dot{x}^\mu \dot{x}_\mu /\kappa ^2`$ which is equivalent to the constraint $`p^\mu p_\mu \kappa ^2=0`$, where $`p_\mu =L/\dot{x}^\mu =\dot{x}_\mu /\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the canonical momentum. The action (1) is then equivalent to the minimal length action $`I=m\text{d}\tau (\dot{x}^\mu \dot{x}_\mu )^{1/2}`$. Fixing $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in (1) means fixing a “gauge”, i.e., a choice of parametrization.

b) In the non standard procedure $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in (1) is taken to be a constant with a physical meaning. Here $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ has nothing to do with choice of parametrization. Then (1) is an unconstrained action and all $`x^\mu `$ are independent variables. They satisfy the following equations of motion: $`(\text{d}/\text{d}\tau )\dot{x}^\mu /\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ where all $`p_\mu =\dot{x}^\mu /\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are constants of motion, and so it is the square $`p_\mu p^\mu =M^2`$.

A particle’s trajectory is given by $`x^\mu (\tau )`$. Here $`x^0`$ is one of the coordinates, called coordinate time444 It is called “clock time” by Franck . , whilst $`\tau `$ is the evolution parameter or historical time. The variables $`x^i(\tau ),i=1,2,3`$ describe the usual spatial motion of the particle, $`\dot{x}^i(\tau )\text{d}x^i/\text{d}\tau `$ being the spatial velocity. The variable $`x^0(\tau )`$ describes the progression of particle’s coordinate $`x^0`$ with increasing evolution parameter $`\tau `$; $`\dot{x}^0(\tau )`$ is the speed of the coordinate time with respect to the evolution parameter $`\tau `$. The latter parameter we interpret as being related to the time perceived by consciousness when experiencing the passage of time. A given value of $`\tau `$ denotes “now”, whilst $`x^0(\tau )`$ (together with $`x^i(\tau )`$) denotes position in spacetime. The Stueckelberg theory as interpreted in  thus describes progression of “now”, the concept which is not present in the ordinary theory of relativity. This is even more transparent in the quantized theory.

From (1) it is straightforward to derive the Hamiltonian

$$H=p_\mu \dot{x}^\mu L=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{2}(p^\mu p_\mu \kappa ^2).$$
(2)
Since $`\kappa `$ is an arbitrary constant, it can be taken $`\kappa =0`$ (as it is in the usual formulation of the Stueckelberg theory).

In the quantized theory $`x^\mu ,p_\mu `$ become operators, satisfying $`[x^\mu ,p_\mu ]=i\delta _{}^{\mu }{}_{\nu }{}^{}`$ ($`\mathrm{}=c=1`$). In the representation in which $`x^\mu `$ are diagonal, momenta are $`p_\mu =i_\mu `$. A state can be represented by a wave function $`\psi (\tau ,x^\mu )`$ satisfying the Schrödinger equation $`i\psi /\tau =H\psi `$.

The wave function is normalized in spacetime according to $`\psi ^{}\psi \text{d}^4x=1`$. The latter relation holds at any value of $`\tau `$. Therefore the evolution operator $`U`$ which sends $`\psi (\tau )`$ into $`\psi (\tau ^{})=U\psi (\tau )`$ is unitary. In other words, because of the above normalization unitarity is satisfied even if wave functions are localized in the coordinate time $`x^0`$.

A generic wave function—a wave packet localized in spacetime—is a superposition of the wave functions with definite 4-momentum:

$$\psi (\tau ,x)=\text{d}^4pc(p)\mathrm{exp}\left[ip_\mu x^\mu i\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{2}(p^2\kappa ^2)\tau \right].$$
(3)
The function $`c(p)`$ determines the profile of the wave packet. Here both $`p_\mu `$ and its square $`p^\mu p_\mu =M^2`$ are indefinite.

In general, a state $`\psi (\tau ,x)`$ has indefinite mass; the wave packet is localized in spacetime. The region of localization depends on the evolution parameter $`\tau `$. The centre of the wave packet describes a classical world line (see figures in ).

It is now natural to interpret the wave function localized in spacetime as being related to our perception of “now” . When the wave packet evolves with $`\tau `$, its region of localization (center of the wave packet) moves in spacetime along a time-like direction. This is then a physical description of the “passage of time”.

At this point let me mention that the wave function for a localized point particle (“event”) in spacetime is just a first step. Instead of localized point particles we can consider localized extended objects (strings, membranes) in spacetime whose dynamics is given in terms of wave functionals satisfying the unconstrained Schrödinger functional equation .

An example is a string extended along a time-like direction. Such time-like strings, if charged, yield the correct electromagnetic interaction with the Coulomb law.555Charged point particles localized in spacetime (charged “events”) do not lead to the Coulomb law.

Another example is a 4-dimensional membrane $`𝒱_4`$ in an $`N`$-dimensional embedding space. According the “brane world” scenario such a membrane $`𝒱_4`$ could be our world666In  it was shown that self-intersections of $`𝒱_4`$ (or the intersections of $`𝒱_4`$ with other branes) give rise to localized matter on $`𝒱_4`$.. Quantum mechanically motion of $`𝒱_4`$ is described by a wave functional which can be sharply localized within a certain 4-region $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ on $`𝒱_4`$. Such region could correspond to “here” and “now”. With the passage of $`\tau `$ the wave functional evolves so that the region of sharp localization $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ changes and so also “here” and “now” change. In short, I assume the interpretation that such localized wave functional provides a physical description of our perception of “here” and “now”. Much more on this topics is to be found in a recent book  and in .

## 3 Geometric Calculus Based on Clifford Algebra

I am going to provide a brief, simplified, introduction into the calculus with vectors and their generalizations.777A more elaborate discussion is in . Geometrically, a vector is an oriented line element. Mathematically, it can be elegantly described as a Clifford number .

How to multiply vectors? There are two possibilities:

1. The inner product

$$ab=ba$$
(4)
of vectors $`a`$ and $`b`$. The quantity $`ab`$ is a scalar.

2. The outer product

$$ab=ba$$
(5)
which is an oriented element of a plane.

The products 1 and 2 can be considered as the symmetric and the anti symmetric parts of the Clifford product, called also geometric product

$$ab=ab+ab$$
(6)
where

$$ab\frac{1}{2}(ab+ba),ab\frac{1}{2}(abba).$$
(7)
This suggests a generalization to trivectors, quadrivectors, etc.. It is convenient to introduce the name $`r`$-vector and call $`r`$ its degree: $`A_r=a_1a_2\mathrm{}a_r`$. Another name for a generic $`r`$-vector is multivector. The highest possible multivector in $`V_n`$ is $`n`$-vector, since $`(n+1)`$-vector is identically zero.

Let $`e_1,e_2,\mathrm{},e_n`$ be linearly independent vectors, and $`\alpha ,\alpha ^i,\alpha ^{i_1i_2},\mathrm{}`$ scalar coefficients. A generic Clifford number can then be written as

$$A=\alpha +\alpha ^\mu e_\mu +\frac{1}{2!}\alpha ^{\mu _1\mu _2}e_{\mu _1}e_{\mu _2}+\mathrm{}\frac{1}{n!}\alpha ^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _n}e_{\mu _1}\mathrm{}e_{\mu _n}.$$
(8)
Since it is a superposition of multivectors of all possible grades it will be called polyvector.888 Following a suggestion by Pezzaglia  I call a generic Clifford number polyvector and reserve the name multivector for an $`r`$-vector, since the latter name is already widely used for the corresponding object in the calculus of differential forms. Another name, also often used in the literature, is Clifford aggregate. These mathematical objects have far reaching geometrical and physical implications that will be discussed and explored to some extent in the rest of the paper.

In general $`e_\mu `$ in eq.(8) are arbitrary so that their inner products form the metric tensor of arbitrary signature. In particular $`e_\mu `$ can be four linearly independent vectors $`e_\mu =\gamma _\mu ,\mu =0,1,2,3`$, satisfying $`\gamma _\mu \gamma _\nu =\eta _{\mu \nu }`$, generating the Clifford algebra of spacetime, called the Dirac algebra. By using the relations $`\gamma _{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }=\gamma _5ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }`$ and $`\gamma _{\mu \nu \rho }=\gamma _{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }\gamma ^\sigma `$, where $`\gamma _{\mu \nu \mathrm{}}\gamma _\mu \gamma _\nu \mathrm{}`$ we can rewrite $`A`$ as a superposition of a scalar, vector, bivector, pseudovector and pseudoscalar:

$$A=S+V^\mu \gamma _\mu +T^{\mu \nu }\gamma _{\mu \nu }+C^\mu \gamma _5\gamma _\mu +P\gamma _5$$
(9)
where $`S\alpha ,V^\mu \alpha ^\mu ,T^{\mu \nu }(1/2)\alpha ^{\mu \nu },C_\sigma (1/3!)\alpha ^{\mu \nu \rho }ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }`$ and $`P(1/4!)\alpha ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }`$.

Relativity of signature. In eq.(9) we assumed the Minkowski signature of the metric tensor. We are now going to find out that within Clifford algebra the signature is a matter of which amongst the available Clifford numbers we choose as the basis vectors (i.e., as the generators of Clifford algebra).

Let us assume that the basis vectors $`e_\mu ,\mu =0,1,2,3`$, satisfy

$$e_\mu e_\nu \frac{1}{2}(e_\mu e_\nu +e_\nu e_\mu )=\delta _{\mu \nu }$$
(10)
where $`\delta _{\mu \nu }`$ is the Euclidean metric.

Let us consider the set of four Clifford numbers $`(e_0,e_ie_0)`$, $`i=1,2,3`$ and denote them as

$$e_0\gamma _0,e_ie_0\gamma _i.$$
(11)
The Clifford numbers $`\gamma _\mu `$, $`\mu =0,1,2,3`$ satisfy

$$\gamma _\mu \gamma _\nu =\frac{1}{2}\text{ }(\gamma _\mu \gamma _\nu +\gamma _\nu \gamma _\mu )=\eta _{\mu \nu }$$
(12)
where $`\eta _{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{diag}(1,1,1,1)`$ is the Minkowski tensor. We see that the $`\gamma _\mu `$ behave as basis vectors in a 4-dimensional space $`V_{1,3}`$ with signature $`(+)`$. We can form a Clifford aggregate $`\alpha =\alpha ^\mu \gamma _\mu `$ which has the properties of a vector in $`V_{1,3}`$. From the point of view of the space $`V_4`$ the same object $`\alpha `$ is a linear combination of a vector and bivector: $`\alpha =\alpha ^0e_0+\alpha ^ie_ie_0`$.

We may use $`\gamma _\mu `$ as generators of the Clifford algebra $`𝒞_{1,3}`$ defined over the pseudo-Euclidean space $`V_{1,3}`$. The basis elements of $`𝒞_{1,3}`$ are $`\gamma _J=`$ $`(1,\gamma _\mu ,\gamma _{\mu \nu },\gamma _{\mu \nu \alpha },\gamma _{\mu \nu \alpha \beta })`$, with $`\mu <\nu <\alpha <\beta `$. A generic Clifford aggregate in $`𝒞_{1,3}`$ is given by

$$B=b^J\gamma _J=b+b^\mu \gamma _\mu +b^{\mu \nu }\gamma _\mu \gamma _\nu +b^{\mu \nu \alpha }\gamma _\mu \gamma \nu \gamma _\alpha +b^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }\gamma _\mu \gamma _\nu \gamma _\alpha \gamma _\beta .$$
(13)
With suitable choice of the coefficients $`b^J=(b,b^\mu ,b^{\mu \nu },b^{\mu \nu \alpha },b^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta })`$ we have that $`B`$ of eq.(13) is equal to $`A`$ of eq.(8). Thus the same number $`A`$ can be described either within $`𝒞_4`$ or within $`𝒞_{1,3}`$. The expansions (13) and (8) exhaust all possible numbers of the Clifford algebras $`𝒞_{1,3}`$ and $`𝒞_4`$. The algebra $`𝒞_{1,3}`$ is isomorphic to the algebra $`𝒞_4`$ and actually they are just two different representations of the same set of Clifford numbers (called also polyvectors or Clifford aggregates).

## 4 Extending Relativity from Spacetime to $`C`$-space

So far it has been assumed that the arena in which physics takes place is spacetime. The nice properties of Clifford algebra suggest to extend the arena to a larger manifold, called Clifford space or $`C`$-space, whose points are described by coordinate polyvectors

$$X=\frac{1}{r!}\underset{r=0}{\overset{n}{}}X^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _r}\gamma _{\mu _1}\mathrm{}\gamma _{\mu _r}X^AE_A.$$
(14)
Here $`X^A`$ are coordinates, and $`E_A=(\underset{¯}{1},\gamma _\mu ,\gamma _\mu \gamma _\nu ,\mathrm{})`$ basis vectors of $`C`$-space.

Points $`X`$ of $`C`$-space embrace, from the spacetime perspective, not only the usual points, but also 1-loops, 2-loops, etc.. Thus $`C`$-space is a polydimensional continuum  in which the extended object of different dimensionalities coexist on the same footing, and can be transformed into each other by polydimensional rotations which are a generalization of Lorentz transformations999Here I am considering flat $`C`$-space. Curved $`C`$-space is considered in , ..

The line element in $`C`$-space is given by the scalar product of an infinitesimal polyvector $`\text{d}X=\text{d}X^AE_A`$ and its reverse $`\text{d}X^{}`$:

$$|\text{d}X|^2\text{d}X^{}\text{d}X=\text{d}X^A\text{d}X^BG_{AB}=\text{d}X^A\text{d}X_A$$
(15)
where $`G_{AB}=E_A^{}E_B`$ is the metric of $`C`$-space. The scalar product of two polyvectors $`A`$ and $`B`$ is defined as the scalar part of the Clifford product $`AB`$, i.e., $`AB=AB_0`$. The symbol $`A^{}`$ denotes the reverse of $`A`$, that is the polyvector in which the order of all products of vectors in a decomposition of a polyvector $`A`$ is reverse (e.g., $`(\gamma _1\gamma ^2\gamma ^3)^{}=\gamma _1\gamma ^2\gamma ^3`$).

The reparametrization invariant action for a point particle in $`C`$-space is

$$I[X^A]=\kappa \text{d}\tau (\dot{X}^A\dot{X}_A)^{1/2}$$
(16)
where $`\kappa `$ is a constant. Here $`\dot{X}^A\text{d}X^A/\text{d}\tau `$, where $`\tau `$ is an arbitrary parameter. The canonical momenta are $`p_A=\kappa \dot{x}_A/(\dot{x}^B\dot{x}_B)^{1/2}`$ and they satisfy the constraint $`p^Ap_A=\kappa ^2`$.

Let us assume that spacetime dimension is $`n=4`$. Then the velocity polyvector is

$$\dot{X}\dot{X}^AE_A=\dot{\sigma }\underset{¯}{1}+\dot{x}^\mu \gamma _\mu +\frac{1}{2}\dot{x}^{\mu \nu }\gamma _\mu \gamma _\nu +\dot{\xi }^\mu \gamma _5\gamma _\mu +\dot{s}\gamma _5.$$
(17)
From the action (16) it follows that $`\dot{X}`$ is constant when $`C`$-space is flat.

In particular, when the initial conditions happen to be such that $`\dot{\sigma }=0,\dot{x}^{\mu \nu }=0,\dot{\xi }^\mu =0`$, we have $`\dot{X}=\dot{x}^\mu \dot{s}\gamma _5`$, $`|\dot{X}|^2\dot{X}^A\dot{X}_A=\dot{x}^\mu \dot{x}_\mu \dot{s}^2`$, and the action takes the form

$$I[x^\mu ,s]=\kappa \text{d}\tau (\dot{x}^\mu \dot{x}_\mu \dot{s})^{1/2}.$$
(18)
Not all the variables $`X^A(\tau )`$ in (16) are independent dynamical degrees of freedom. Here $`x^\mu (\tau ),s(\tau )`$ in (18) also are not all independent. But we can fix a gauge (choose a parametrization) and thus reduce the set of variables to the physical, independent, dynamical variables. A natural choice of gauge in (18) is $`s=\tau `$. The reduced action is then

$$I[x^\mu ]=\kappa \text{d}s(\dot{x}^\mu \dot{x}_\mu 1)^{1/2}.$$
(19)
The equations of motion derived from (19) are

$$\frac{\text{d}p_\mu }{\text{d}s}=0,p_\mu =\frac{\kappa \dot{x}_\mu }{(\dot{x}^\nu \dot{x}_\nu 1)^{1/2}}=constant.$$
(20)
The square $`p^\mu p_\mu =M^2=\kappa ^2\dot{x}^\mu \dot{x}_\mu /(\dot{x}^\nu \dot{x}_\nu 1)^{1/2}`$ is also a constant of motion. Inserting the latter relation between $`M`$ and $`\kappa `$ into the expression (20) we obtain

$$p_\mu =\frac{M\dot{x}_\mu }{(\dot{x}^\nu \dot{x}_\nu )^{1/2}},M=\kappa \frac{(\dot{x}^\mu \dot{x}_\mu )^{1/2}}{(\dot{x}^\nu \dot{x}_\nu 1)^{1/2}}.$$
(21)
The latter expression for 4-momentum has formally the same form as the momentum of the usual 4-dimensional relativity. The difference is in that $`M`$ is not a fixed constant entering the action, but a constant of motion. But the latter property is just typical for the Stueckelberg unconstrained theory described by the action (1).

We shall now directly demonstrate that the constrained action (18) is equivalent to the Stueckelberg action (1). First we observe that instead of (18) we can use the Howe-Tucker type action in which there occurs a Lagrange multiplier $`\lambda `$:

$$I[x^\mu ,s,\lambda ]=\frac{\kappa }{2}\text{d}\tau \left(\frac{\dot{x}^\mu \dot{x}_\mu \dot{s}^2}{\lambda }+\lambda \right)$$
(22)
which is classically equivalent to (18). Variation of (22) with respect to $`x^\mu ,s,\lambda `$ gives

$$\frac{\text{d}}{\text{d}\tau }\left(\frac{\kappa \dot{x}^\mu }{\lambda }\right)=0,\frac{\text{d}}{\text{d}\tau }\left(\frac{\kappa \dot{s}}{\lambda }\right)=0,\lambda =(\dot{x}^\mu \dot{x}_\mu \dot{s}^2)^{1/2}.$$
(23)
The second equation in (23) gives $`(\text{d}/\text{d}\tau )(\kappa \dot{s}s/\lambda )=\kappa \dot{s}^2/\lambda `$. Using the latter equation we can rewrite eq.(22) in the form

$$I[x^\mu ,s,\lambda ]=\frac{\kappa }{2}\text{d}\tau \left[\frac{\dot{x}^\mu \dot{x}_\mu }{\lambda }+\lambda \frac{\text{d}}{\text{d}\tau }\left(\frac{\kappa \dot{s}s}{\lambda }\right)\right].$$
(24)
The Lagrange multiplier $`\lambda `$ can be chosen arbitrarily: this determines a choice of parametrization. Let us choose $`\lambda =\mathrm{\Lambda }\kappa `$, i.e., $`(\dot{x}^\mu \dot{x}_\mu \dot{s}^2)^{1/2}=\mathrm{\Lambda }\kappa `$, where $`\lambda `$ is a fixed constant. Omitting the total derivative, eq.(24) becomes just the Stueckelberg action (1)! The equations of motion derived from the unconstrained action (1) are the same as the $`x^\mu `$ equations (23) derived from the constrained action (22).

## 5 Conclusion

The formulation of relativity in $`C`$-space leads to the point particle with an extra variable $`s`$ along which the evolution in spacetime takes place. The extra variable $`s`$ does not come from an extra dimension of spacetime $`V_4`$, but from the Clifford algebra of $`V_4`$. In $`C`$-space we have “block universe”, no evolution, everything frozen. But in Minkowski space $`V_4`$ we have evolution. All the elegance of the theory of relativity is preserved, not in $`V_4`$, but in $`C`$-space. All the nice features of the Stueckelberg unconstrained theory are also present, not in $`C`$-space, but in its subspace $`V_4`$.

It is often claimed that the passage of time is just an illusion of the observer. Well, but good physics has always been capable of explaining certain illusions. Physics did not raise hands at why we see a “lake” in a desert, a colored arc in the rainy and sunny sky, or why far away objects appear smaller than the nearby ones. Now it is time to explain why we experience the passage of time. In the present paper I have presented a theoretical framework in which such a problem could be tackled.


text:
# The C-metric black hole near the IR-brane in the "AdS"₄ space

## I Introduction

The production of black holes in the higher dimensions in the heavy ions collisions physics has received much attention recentlyGiddings2 ; Dimopolous1 . It might be the end of short-range physics. In the Randall-Sundrum scenarioRandall1 ; Randall2 , the 4-dimensional world is a brane embedded in a higher dimensional space. The black hole can be produced in the brane and the bulk as well. However, the black hole solution for a matter trapped in the 3-brane embedded in AdS5 is very important to shed some information about the black hole production in the QCDPolchinski1 . It has been argued the supergravity solution with warped metric that approximately AdS in large region corresponds to the high energy scattering in a large-N $`𝒩`$ supersymmetric gauge theory with broken conformal symmetry and partial broken supersymmetryMaldacena1 .

Unfortunately, the nonlinear gravitational solution of the black hole in $`\text{AdS}_5`$ is not available. GiddingsGiddings1  has studied a linearized solution of the black hole near the IR-brane, where the brane is the end of space. He found the black hole shape saturates the Froissart bound cross section. When the energy increases, the black hole summit reaches smaller values of $`z`$ further toward the AdS boundary. They will, however, be completely smeared out over the compact manifold $`X`$. At this energy, the approximation of these black holes in a background flat space breaks down. Therefore, the nonlinear solution becomes essential to describe the shape of such black hole. The analysis of a lower dimensional world might give some hints what could be happened in the higher dimensional world. Emparan, Horowitz and Myers Emparan1  used the C-metric solution of two accelerated black holes to analyze the exact solution of black hole near the 2-brane embedded in $`\text{AdS}_4`$ in the Randall-Sundrum scenarioRandall1 ; Randall2 . In their treatment, they produced the 2-brane by removing the space between the brane and the $`\text{AdS}_4`$ boundary. The full space is completed by gluing the space between the 2-brane and the $`\text{AdS}_4`$ horizon in both sides of the 2-brane.

To study the black hole shape near the IR-brane, unlike to Ref.Emparan1 , the infrared 2-brane is embedded by removing the space between the brane and $`\text{AdS}_4`$ horizon and then gluing the space from the IR-brane to the $`\text{AdS}_4`$ boundary in both sides of the 2-brane to complete the space. The 2-brane and $`\text{AdS}_4`$ boundary become the IR-brane and UV-brane, respectively, in the dual AdS/CFT. Although, the present problem has been mentioned shortly in Ref.Emparan1 , we revisit it more thoroughly in the present work to study the stability of such configuration.

The outline is that. In sect. II, we present the analysis of the black hole solution near the IR-brane. At first, we present the orbifold constraints. Then we show that the produced thermal gas has a negative thermal energy that diverges at $`\mu _{\text{max}}`$. Finally, we calculate the asymptotic black hole ADM mass at the boundary. The conclusion is presented in sect. III.

## II The C-metric Black hole near $`\text{AdS}_4`$ IR-brane

The $`\text{AdS}_{n+1}`$ metric in a large region reads

$`ds^2{\displaystyle \frac{l^2}{z^2}}\left[dz^2+\eta _{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu \right]+l^2ds_X^2,`$ (1)
where $`l`$ is the $`\text{AdS}_{n+1}`$ radius and $`X`$ is some appropriate compact manifold. At long distance, the smooth geometry given above is truncated in the infrared and an infrared ($`n`$-1)-brane is embedded at this end of space at $`z=l`$. The UV-limit of the geometry is the $`\text{AdS}_{n+1}`$ boundary at $`z=0`$. The action in the ($`n`$+1)-dimensional gravity reads

$`I=M_P^{n1}{\displaystyle d^nx𝑑z\sqrt{\widehat{g}}\left(R\mathrm{\Lambda }/M_P^{n1}\right)}{\displaystyle d^nx\sqrt{g_{\text{brane}}}T_{n1}}+{\displaystyle d^nx𝑑z_{\text{matter}}},`$ (2)
where $`M_P^{n1}=\frac{1}{16\pi G_{n+1}}`$. The variation of this action gives Einstein’s equations,

$`\sqrt{\widehat{g}}(R_{MN}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\widehat{g}_{MN}R)=`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2M_P^{n1}}}[\sqrt{\widehat{g}}\widehat{g}_{MN}\mathrm{\Lambda }\sqrt{g_{\text{brane}}}\widehat{g}_{\mu \nu }\delta _M^\mu \delta _N^\nu \delta (zl)T_{n1}`$ (3)
$``$ $`\sqrt{\widehat{g}}T_{MN}^{\text{matter}}\delta ^{n1}(x)\delta (zl)],`$
where $`T_{MN}^{\text{matter}}`$ the momentum energy tensor for the source of matter trapped at the ($`n`$-1)-brane. The Einstein’s equations have a delta function $`\delta ^{n1}(x)\delta (zl)`$ because of the source of matter localized on the brane and another delta function $`\delta (zl)`$ because of the IR-brane. To deal with these two delta functions, the exact solution needs a very sophisticated Green function tools. Nonetheless, it is thought that the problem can be simplified drastically by finding a solution for the black hole in the $`\text{AdS}_{n+1}`$ with a source of matter localized at $`\delta ^{(n1)}(x)\delta (zl)`$ and then embedding the ($`n1`$)-brane by somehow. Unfortunately, even in this simplified version without any IR-brane, it is hard to find a stationary solution in the Poincare coordinates.

There is a solution called the AdS C-metric solutionPlebanski1 , which satisfies the Einstein’s equation with a negative cosmological constant in 3+1 space. The C-metric solution reads,

$`ds^2={\displaystyle \frac{l^2}{(yx)^2}}\left[U(y)dt^2+{\displaystyle \frac{dy^2}{U(y)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{dx^2}{G(x)}}+G(x)d\varphi ^2\right],`$ (4)
where

$`U(y)=y^2(12\mu y),`$ (5)
and

$`G(x)=1x^2(12\mu x).`$ (6)
It is invariant under translations of $`t`$ and $`\varphi `$. The metric solution is written in the unusual coordinates system $`x`$ and $`y`$ and satisfies the Einstein’s equation with a negative cosmological constant $`R_{AB}=(3/l^2)g_{AB}`$.

However, to understand this solution, we have to analyze the orbifold constraints of these coordinates. It is seemed that $`y`$ acts as a radial variable, while $`x`$ is analogous to a polar coordinate. The range limits for the unusual variables $`x`$ and $`y`$ are crucial to characterize the shape of black hole. The factor $`(yx)^2`$ in front of the metric implies that $`y=x`$ is infinitely far away from points with $`yx`$ and corresponds to the UV-limit in the dual AdS/CFT. Furthermore, there is another horizon at $`y=0`$ which is degenerate and has a zero Hawking temperature. This adds an additional constraint given by $`0y\mathrm{}`$. The black hole horizon is found at $`y_{\text{BH}}=\frac{1}{2\mu }`$. The range, $`y_{\text{BH}}y\mathrm{}`$, is the domain of the gravitational collapse. Hence, the allowed interval outside the black hole horizon is given by $`0yy_{\text{BH}}`$.

The function $`G(x)`$ plays an important rule to determine the interval for the $`x`$-polar orbifold and the periodicity for the $`\varphi `$-azimuthal angle. It should be a positive definite in order the metric has a Lorentz signature. For $`\mu =0`$ case, there is only two roots $`x_0=1`$ and $`x_1=1`$. The interval for $`x`$-polar orbifold is defined by $`x_0<x<x_1`$. When the 2-brane is embedded at $`x=0`$, it acts as the IR-boundary limit of the geometry. Hence the space will be defined only for $`x0`$. Since the space for $`x0`$ will be discarded, we shall focus the discussion for the positive root $`x_1`$. However, to avoid the canonical singularity at $`x=x_1`$, the metric can be written as

$`ds^2=\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{G(x)}}dx^2+G(x)d\varphi ^2\right]_{x=x_1}d\lambda ^2+\lambda ^2d\left({\displaystyle \frac{\varphi ^2}{a_\mu ^2}}\right),`$ (7)
where

$`a_\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{2}{|G^{}(x_1)|}}.`$ (8)
Hence periodicity for $`\varphi `$-azimuthal angle becomes

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi =2\pi a_\mu .`$ (9)
This periodicity is $`2\pi `$ for $`\mu =0`$. When $`\mu `$ becomes finite but small the function $`G(x)`$ has three roots $`x_0`$, $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$. To keep the Lorentz identity signature, the orbifold interval for the $`x`$-polar is determined by the roots $`x_0`$ and $`x_1`$. The root $`x_2`$ is discarded from the discussion since it is not needed any more. As far $`\mu `$ increases, the root $`x_1`$ increases as $`1x_1\sqrt{3}`$ for $`\mu \mu _{\text{max}}`$ where $`\mu _{\text{max}}=\frac{1}{3\sqrt{3}}`$. However, when $`\mu `$ exceeds $`\mu _{\text{max}}`$, the root $`x_1`$ disappears and the function $`G(x)`$ becomes a positive definite for all positive $`x`$-orbifold $`x0`$. The periodicity $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi `$ increases and exceeds $`2\pi `$ as $`\mu `$ increases and finally diverges at $`\mu _{\text{max}}`$. This means that $`\mu _{\text{max}}`$ is the upper limit for the parameter $`\mu `$. Furthermore, the point $`x=y`$ is always located outside the black hole horizon for $`\mu \mu _{\text{max}}`$ because of $`y_{\text{BH}}>x_1`$.

To embed the infrared 2-brane at $`x=0`$, we follow the procedure given in RefEmparan1  but instead we cut off the space between IR-boundary and the $`\text{AdS}_4`$ horizon and then complete the space by gluing onto the surface at $`x=0`$ a mirror copy of the space extended from the IR-boundary to the $`\text{AdS}_4`$ boundary. The procedure is illustrated by pseudo-Penrose diagram displayed in Fig.1. To be more precise, we take a time-like three-surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ whose extrinsic curvature is proportional to its intrinsic metric to be the surface at $`x=0`$ (or $`z=l`$) and the resulting space-time will be free of conical singularities for the region $`x0`$. Then we take two copies of this side of the space-time and glue them together along $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. The C-metric becomes continuous but not differentiable around $`x`$. The extrinsic curvature at $`x=0`$ is given byEmparan1 ,

$`K_{\mu \nu }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}n^\sigma _\sigma \widehat{g}_{\mu \nu }|_{x=0}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(yx)\sqrt{G(x)}}{2l}}{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{g}_{\mu \nu }}{x}}|_{x=0}`$ (10)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{l}}\widehat{g}_{\mu \nu }|_{x=0}.`$
The discontinuous in the extrinsic curvature is interpreted as a delta-function $`\delta (x)`$ (or $`\delta (zl)`$) source of stress-energy. The Poincare coordinate $`z`$ will be given below. It is interpreted as a thin relativistic $`(n1)`$brane embedded at $`x=0`$ with negative tension $`T_{n1}=\frac{n1}{4\pi G_{n+1}l}`$ where $`G_{n+1}`$ is the Newton’s constant in $`n+1`$ dimensions. This means the brane is expanding out and this is opposed to the physical case where the brane is supposed to has a positive tension. The orbifold constraints for the unusual coordinates $`x`$, $`y`$ and $`\varphi `$ read

$`0`$ $`x`$ $`x_1,`$
$`0`$ $`y`$ $`y_{\text{BH}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\mu }},`$
$`0`$ $`\varphi `$ $`2\pi a_\mu .`$ (11)
Note that constraint $`x0`$ appears because of the 2-brane is embedded at $`x=0`$. There is an additional constraint for a finite matter trapped near the infrared 2-brane

$`\mu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{3\sqrt{3}}}.`$ (12)
The black hole horizon never reaches the boundary $`y=x`$ since $`x_1xy_{\text{BH}}`$ is forbidden by the orbifold cone constraint. The black hole horizon saturates at least $`(y_{\text{BH}}x_1)`$ away from the $`\text{AdS}_4`$ boundary in the C-metric coordinates.

The Poincare transformation is essential to understand the black hole solution in the $`\text{AdS}_4`$. If there is no matter trapped on the IR-brane ($`\mu =0`$), the function $`G(x)`$ has only two roots $`x_0=1`$ and $`x_1=1`$. Since the region for $`x0`$ is removed from the space, the allowed interval for the polar coordinate becomes $`0x1`$. The azimuthal periodicity at $`x_1`$ is $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi =2\pi `$. In this case, the solution in the Poincare coordinates reduces to the $`\text{AdS}_4`$ metric

$`ds^2={\displaystyle \frac{l^2}{z^2}}\left[d\widehat{t}^2+dr^2+r^2d\widehat{\varphi }^2+dz^2\right],`$ (13)
by using the transformation

$`z`$ $`=`$ $`l{\displaystyle \frac{(yx)}{y}},`$
$`r`$ $`=`$ $`l{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{1x^2}}{y}},`$
$`\widehat{\varphi }`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi ,`$
$`\widehat{t}`$ $`=`$ $`lt.`$ (14)
The condition $`x=y`$ corresponds to the $`\text{AdS}_4`$ boundary at $`z=0`$. However, The condition $`y=0^+`$ with $`1x<0`$ corresponds to the usual $`\text{AdS}_4`$ horizon at $`z=\mathrm{}`$. Indeed, we have only the space bounded between the IR-brane at $`z=l`$ and the UV-brane at $`z=0`$ since the space between the IR-brane and the $`\text{AdS}_4`$ horizon is removed. The curvature singularity at $`y=\mathrm{}`$ is located at the 2-brane $`z=l`$ and $`r=0`$ in the Poincare coordinates. When a finite amount of matter trapped near the IR-brane (i.e.: $`\mu 0`$), the solution in the Poincare coordinates becomes

$`ds^2={\displaystyle \frac{l^2}{z^2}}\left[(1h_{00})d\widehat{t}^2+ds_{rr}^2+ds_{\widehat{\varphi }\widehat{\varphi }}^2+ds_{zz}^2\right],`$ (15)
where $`h_{00}=2\mu y(z,r)`$. The coordinates transformation are modified as

$`z`$ $`=`$ $`l{\displaystyle \frac{(yx)}{y}},`$
$`r`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{lf(x,y)}{y}}+2\mu l,`$
$`\widehat{\varphi }`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi ,`$
$`\widehat{t}`$ $`=`$ $`lt.`$ (16)
The black hole solution with the C-metric coordinate set transformed to the Poincare coordinates set is illustrated in Fig.2. Note that the azimuthal angle $`\varphi `$ in the C-metric coordinate set is the same for that $`\widehat{\varphi }`$ in the Poincare coordinate set and their periodicity increase and diverges at $`\mu _{\text{max}}`$. Furthermore the black hole horizon looks like a black cigar solution where its summit is located at $`z=l(12\mu x_1)`$ and reaches it maximum value $`z_{max}=l/3`$ when $`\mu `$ reaches its critical value. Furthermore, the solution doesn’t approach the asymptotic AdS space at the boundary. This means that the deformation of the space because of the negative energy source persists to exist even at the boundary.

The black hole thermodynamics is important to shed some information about the center of mass energy. The temperature is calculated as

$`T={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi \mu l}}.`$ (17)
Furthermore, the entropy reads,

$`S={\displaystyle \frac{𝒜}{4G_4}},`$ (18)
where the area is calculated by

$`𝒜`$ $`=`$ $`2l^2\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi {\displaystyle _0^{x_1}}𝑑x{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(y_{\text{BH}}x)^2}}.`$ (19)
The center of mass energy is calculated from the first law of black hole thermodynamics

$`d=TdS.`$ (20)
It is evaluated as

$`_{\text{c.m.}}=G_4M_4={\displaystyle \frac{l}{2}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{12\mu x_1}}{13\mu x_1}}\right).`$ (21)
The thermal energy is found negative. It diverges at $`\mu =\mu _{\text{max}}`$ where $`3\mu x_1=1`$. Moreover, we have $`\sqrt{12\mu x_1}>1`$ for $`\mu \mu _{\text{max}}`$. The resultant thermodynamical quantities are corresponding to negative energy particles. However, these results are already found in Ref.Emparan1  and are expected because of the negative IR-brane tension.

When a finite but small amount of matter is trapped near the IR-boundary the solution in the Poincare coordinate is perturbed as follows

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{l^2}{z^2}}\left[d\widehat{t}^2+dr^2+a_\mu ^2r^2d\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^2+dz^2\right],`$ (22)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{l^2}{z^2}}\left[h_{ab}dx^adx^b+dz^2\right]=\gamma _{ab}dx^adx^b+{\displaystyle \frac{l^2}{z^2}}dz^2,`$
where $`\widehat{\varphi }=a_\mu \stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{\varphi }=2\pi `$. The stress energy tensor is defined byMyers2 ; Balasubramanian1

$`\tau ^{ab}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi G_n}}\left(\mathrm{\Theta }^{ab}\gamma ^{ab}\mathrm{\Theta }_c^c\right),`$ (23)
where $`a,b,c`$ denotes directions parallel to the boundary. The extrinsic curvature reads

$`\mathrm{\Theta }_{ab}=\gamma _\mu ^\rho D_\rho n_\mu .`$ (24)
Denote the space time metric as $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`n^\mu `$ is the outward pointing normal to the boundary normalized with $`n^\mu n_\mu =1`$, the induced metric on the boundary $`\gamma _{\mu \nu }=g_{\mu \nu }n_\mu n_\nu `$ acts a projection tensor onto the boundary. The background subtraction procedure yield a finite surface stress tensorMyers2 ; Balasubramanian1

$`\widehat{\tau }^{ab}=\tau ^{ab}(\tau ^0)^{ab}.`$ (25)
The conformal transformation can be accounted for by writing the stress tensor expectation values in the field theory as follows

$`\sqrt{h}h^{ab}<\widehat{T}_{bc}>=\underset{z0}{lim}\sqrt{\gamma }\gamma ^{ab}\widehat{\tau }_{bc},`$ (26)
where $`h_{ab}`$ is the background metric of the field theory. The background metric for the field theory is defined by stripping off the divergent conformal factor from the boundary

$`h_{ab}=\underset{z0}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{z^2}{l^2}}\gamma _{ab}.`$ (27)
The total energy in the field theory becomes

$`E_{\text{ADM}}={\displaystyle d^{n2}x\sqrt{h}<T_{tt}>}{\displaystyle d^{n2}x\sqrt{h}<T_{tt}^0>}.`$ (28)
When a small amount of matter is introduced, the metric is slightly perturbed by modifying the periodicity of the azimuthal angle. The ADM mass at UV-brane becomes

$`E_{\text{ADM}}=\underset{z0}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{l}}{\displaystyle \frac{l^3}{z^3}}(a_\mu 1){\displaystyle r𝑑r𝑑\stackrel{~}{\varphi }},`$ (29)
and

$`E_{\text{ADM}}/\text{Area}=\underset{z0}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{l}}{\displaystyle \frac{l^3}{z^3}}(a_\mu 1).`$ (30)
The surface energy density diverges even for a very small perturbation of matter. This means that present solution is unstable and the space should collapse with any fluctuation. In C-metric solution, the ADM mass at the boundary $`y=x`$ is calculated as follows

$`E_{\text{ADM}}=\underset{\zeta 0}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{l}}{\displaystyle \frac{l^3}{(\sqrt{2}\zeta )^3}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\stackrel{~}{\varphi }𝑑\xi \sqrt{\frac{2U_0(y)G_0(x)}{U_0(y)+G_0(x)}}\left[a_\mu U(y)/U_0(y)1\right]},`$ (31)
where

$`y={\displaystyle \frac{\xi +\zeta }{\sqrt{2}}},`$
$`x={\displaystyle \frac{\xi \zeta }{\sqrt{2}}}.`$ (32)
If we assume $`U(y)/U_0(y)=1`$ and $`x_1=1`$ at the boundary, then the energy becomes

$`E_{\text{ADM}}=\underset{\zeta 0}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{l}}{\displaystyle \frac{l^3}{(\sqrt{2}\zeta )^3}}(2/3)2\pi (a_\mu 1).`$ (33)
This quantity diverges at $`\zeta =0`$. In the real case, we have $`x_11`$. Therefore, the ADM mass has an imaginary part

$`\text{Mass}(ϵ+i\mathrm{\Gamma }_ϵ)/\zeta ^3.`$ (34)
The decay rate factor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_ϵ`$ increases as $`\mu `$ increases. Nonetheless, the decay rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\frac{1}{\zeta ^3}\mathrm{\Gamma }_ϵ`$ diverges at the boundary $`z=0`$.

## III Conclusion

We have revisited the C-metric solution for a matter trapped near the IR-brane in the $`\text{AdS}_4`$ space bounded by the IR-brane and UV-brane in the AdS/CFT duality. As noted in RefEmparan1 , the C-metric solution generates a negative 2-brane tension and a negative thermal energy gas. It is claimed that this negative energy gas corresponds to the anti-gravity scenario due to the negative IR-brane tension. We have demonstrated that the black hole summit never reaches the $`\text{AdS}_4`$ boundary even if its thermal energy diverges at $`\mu _{\text{max}}`$. The black hole height tends to saturate at $`z_{\text{max}}=l/3`$.

We have calculated the asymptotic ADM mass at $`\text{AdS}_4`$ boundary. We have shown that the C-metric solution implies to entirely unstable configuration in the Poincare coordinates even for a small perturbation. The ADM mass diverges at the boundary for the C-metric solution. Furthermore, the C-metric solution in the unusual coordinates space produces a decay rate factor because of the imaginary part in the ADM mass. This imaginary part appears because of the orbifold constraints. This decay rate diverges at the $`\text{AdS}_4`$ boundary. This means that either the black hole is unstable and evaporates instantaneously or the space configuration is unstable and subsequently the $`\text{AdS}_4`$ boundary collapses.

###### Acknowledgements.

I am grateful to S. Giddings, S. Shenker and L. Susskind for helpful and stimulating discussions. I also thanks D. Bak, K. Dasgupta, C. Herdeiro, S. Hirano, B. Kol, M. Sheikh-Jabbari and V. Hubeny for valuable conversations. This work is supported by Fulbright FY2002 grant.