text:
# Detect Gluon Polarisation at BNL-RHIC Through 𝐽/𝜓 Pair Production Process

## Abstract

Our recent study shows that the double spin asymmetry of $`J/\psi `$ pair production is measurable in polarised $`pp`$ collision at RHIC in near future. And hence it enables us to extract the polarised gluon distribution function $`\mathrm{\Delta }G(x)`$.

Intrigued by the measurement of the European Muon Collaboration in polarised-target experiment , an enormous amount of researches have been carried out on the nucleon spin structure. The unpolarised deep inelastic scattering (DIS) experiments indicate clearly that the gluons share a large portion of the parent proton’s momentum. However, what portion of proton spin is carried by gluons is still an open question. Although there are some efforts  to parameterise the polarised gluon distributions, it is still quite unclear which of these parameterisations represents the reality of nature correctly. To explore this issue, commonly believe that the study of processes other than DIS is necessary. It is now expected that the polarised proton-proton collisions at BNL relativistic heavy-ion collider(RHIC) will provide copious experimental data to unveil the polarised parton distributions.

Up to now, three main kinds of schemes in measuring the gluon polarisation are proposed, which are thought to be feasible at RHIC technically. Those are

* High-$`p_T`$ Prompt Photon Production
* Jet production
* Heavy Flavor Production

There are advantages and disadvantages in each of these scenarios. For detailed discussions on this, see recent review paper of Ref. .

Quarkonium production and decays have long been taken as an ideal means to investigate the nature of QCD and other phenomena. Due to the approximately non-relativistic nature, the description of heavy quark and antiquark system stands as one of the simplest applications of QCD. The very clean signals of quarkonium leptonic decays enable the experimental detection with a high precision, and therefore quarknoium plays a unique role in investigating other phenomena.

Nevertheless, theoretical description for quarkonium production is still premature, although the heavy quarkonium physics has been investigated for more than twenty years. In explaining the high-$`p_T`$ $`J/\psi `$ surplus production discovered by CDF group  at the Fermilab Tevatron, the color-octet scenario  was proposed based on a novel effective theory, the non-relativistic QCD(NRQCD) . Having achieved the first-step success in explaining the CDF data, however, color-octet mechanism also encounters difficulties in confronting with other phenomena . Due to a recent discovery , the extent of importance of color-octet contributions in Charmonium production remains to be unfixed.

During the past years, a series of efforts have been made on detecting polarised parton distributions through quarkonium production processes . Most of these investigations are not directly applicable to RHIC physics, and they are spoiled by the uncertainties aforementioned. In recently, it is found  that double heavy quarkonium production in polarised proton-proton collision provides an ideal means to detect the polarised gluon distributions at RHIC, and which may at least play a supplemental role to the presently proposed program in this end. In literatures , there were discussions of detecting the gluon polarisation by means of double $`J/\psi `$ production, but with main emphasis not on RHIC physics and without presenting the analytical expressions for the relative differential cross sections.

The double quarkonium production has several advantages in reducing the theoretical uncertainties mentioned above. (1) By considering double production, the relativistic corrections and color-octet uncertainties are suppressed, especially without or with a lower transverse momentum cut . (2) The total contribution from the higher excited states are also doubly suppressed. (3)The higher order QCD correction can be properly controlled by applying a suitable $`p_T`$ cut for the Charmonium system. (4) Since the prevailing partonic process is the gluon-gluon fusion into double quarkonium, it stands as a very sensitive method in measuring the gluon polarisation. In the RHIC energy region, and for $`pp`$ collision, the $`q\overline{q}`$ initiated process is negligible. Therefore, one can safely restrict oneself only to the gluon-gluon channel as shown in Figure 1.

When calculating the helicity-dependent matrix elements, one must project the initial gluons onto definite helicity states. This can be achieved by taking the ghost free expression for the gluon state with helicity $`\lambda =\pm `$ ,

$`ϵ_\mu (k_1,\lambda )ϵ_\nu ^{}(k_1,\lambda )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[g_{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{k_{1\mu }k_{2\nu }+k_{1\nu }k_{2\mu }}{k_1k_2}}`$ (1)
$`+`$ $`i\lambda ϵ_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }{\displaystyle \frac{k_{1\alpha }k_{2\beta }}{k_1k_2}}].`$ (2)
Conventionally, the measurable double spin asymmetry $`A`$, for $`J/\psi `$ pair production, is defined as

$`A`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma (p_+p_+J/\psi J/\psi )d\sigma (p_+p_{}J/\psi J/\psi )}{d\sigma (p_+p_+J/\psi J/\psi )+d\sigma (p_+p_{}J/\psi J/\psi )}}`$ (3)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Ed\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma /d^3p}{Ed\sigma /d^3p}},`$ (4)
where $`p_+`$ and $`p_{}`$ denote the helicity projection of the incident protons being positive and negative, respectively. In terms of the gluon densities and the partonic cross sections, this asymmetry reads

$$A=\frac{𝑑x_1𝑑x_2𝑑\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{\sigma }\mathrm{\Delta }G(x_1,Q^2)\mathrm{\Delta }G(x_2,Q^2)}{𝑑x_1𝑑x_2𝑑\widehat{\sigma }G(x_1,Q^2)G(x_2,Q^2)},$$
(5)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }G(x,Q^2)=G_+(x,Q^2)G_{}(x,Q^2)`$ and $`G(x,Q^2)=G_+(x,Q^2)+G_{}(x,Q^2)`$ are the polarised and unpolarised gluon distributions defined at the scale $`Q^2`$. The unpolarised (polarised) partonic cross section $`\widehat{\sigma }`$ ($`\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{\sigma }`$) is defined as

$$\widehat{\sigma }=\frac{1}{4}\underset{\lambda ,\lambda ^{}}{}\widehat{\sigma }(\lambda ,\lambda ^{}),\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{\sigma }=\frac{1}{4}\underset{\lambda ,\lambda ^{}}{}\lambda \lambda ^{}\widehat{\sigma }(\lambda ,\lambda ^{}).$$
(6)
The corresponding partonic differential cross sections can be found in  and  in analytical forms.

In doing numerical calculation, the scale $`Q^2`$ of the parton distribution function and the strong coupling constant is taken to be the transverse momentum of $`J/\psi `$ for the $`p_T`$ distributions. Whereas, in the calculation of the angular distribution of the spin asymmetries and the integrated cross sections, the scale is taken to be $`Q^2=m^2`$. The nonrelativistic relation $`m=2m_c`$, with $`m_c=1.5`$ GeV, is used and $`|R(0)|^2=0.8\mathrm{GeV}^3`$.

In Figure 2 the double spin asymmetry versus the transverse momentum of $`J/\psi `$ is presented for different set of Gehrmann and Stirling(GS) parameterisations . Figure 3 shows the angular distributions of the asymmetry in the parton center-of-mass frame. For consistency the MRST parameterisation  for unpolarised gluon distribution is used in drawing these figures. One can see that the asymmetries obtained by using GS parameterisations are quite different from each other.

The total cross sections with different parton parameterisations are summarised in table I. The discrepancies among these results are not very large as expected.

TABLE I. Total cross sections for $`J/\psi `$ pair production at RHIC with $`\sqrt{s}=500`$ GeV, evaluated with different parton distributions.

|  | $`\sigma _{\mu ^+\mu ^{}}^{tot}`$ | $`\sigma _{\mu ^+\mu ^{}}(|p_T|>1\text{GeV})`$ |
| --- | --- | --- |
| CTEQ5L | $`11.8\text{pb}`$ | $`7.3\text{pb}`$ |
| MRST  | $`6.5\text{pb}`$ | $`4.3\text{pb}`$ |
| GRV  | $`7.4\text{pb}`$ | $`4.7\text{pb}`$ |

Here, the notation $`\sigma _{\mu ^+\mu ^{}}`$ means that the branching ratio of $`B(\psi \mu ^+\mu ^{})=0.0588`$, as the practical measuring mode to reconstruct the charmonium state, is included. From the predicted cross sections, we see that with the integrated luminosity of $`800\mathrm{pb}^1`$ in the future run of RHIC, there will be thousands of $`J/\psi `$ pair events to be detected, which can certainly give us some information on the gluon polarisation within the hadron.

In summary, it is found that the $`J/\psi `$ pair production at RHIC may stand as an independent means of observing the gluon spin distributions within the hadron. The asymmetry, rather than cross sections, eliminates large amount of uncertainties which come from the non-perturbative hadronization. In the future run of RHIC, that is to say with colliding energy of 500 GeV and accumulated luminosity 800 $`\mathrm{pb}^1`$, thousands of $`J/\psi `$ pair events could be detected and the gluon polarisation could be measured. With the expected upgrade of RHIC in future, the concerned process would show up to be more important in chasing the goal of uncovering the nucleon spin structures.

The work of J.K. was supported in part by the Monbu-kagaku-sho Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research No.C-13640289. The work of C-F.Q. was supported by the Grant-in-Aid of JSPS committee.


format: text

text:
# The Direct Summand Conjecture in Dimension Three

## 1. Preliminaries

Throughout, $`R`$ will be a commutative integral domain with unity. Also, $`R`$ will be semi-local of mixed characteristic, that is, the Jacobson radical of $`R`$ will contain a prime integer p which is nonzero as an element of the ring. We further assume that each maximal ideal of $`R`$ has the same height. $`R^+`$ will denote the integral closure of $`R`$ in an algebraic closure of its quotient field. We will refer to $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_n`$ as a set of parameters in $`R`$ provided $`\mathrm{ht}(x_{j_1},\mathrm{}x_{j_k})R=k`$ for any $`k`$ distinct elements of the set. If $`R`$ is catenarian, this is the same as assuming that $`\mathrm{ht}(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)R=n`$ or that the set is part of a complete system of parameters. By $`H_1(x_1,x_2,x_3;R)`$, we mean the usual Koszul homology. In order to apply our main theorem, we need to recall a critical result from \[HH, p.61\].

###### Theorem 1.1.

If $`R`$ is an excellent biequidimensional semi-local ring, $`cR`$ and $`R_c`$ is Cohen–Macaulay, then $`c`$ has a power $`c^k`$ such that for every set of parameters $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_n`$, $`c^kH_i(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n;R)=0`$ for all $`i>0`$.

In particular, when $`R`$ is integrally closed of dimension three, we know that $`R_c`$ is Cohen-Macaulay for every non-unit $`c`$ and so every element of the maximal ideal has a power which kills all of the first Koszul homology modules.

Next we recall some definitions from \[H2\]. The last two were introduced in that article; the first has a longer history. Since we are only concerned with integral domains which do not contain the rational numbers, we may state the definitions more simply.

###### Definition.

If $`xR`$, then $`x`$ is in the plus closure of $`I`$ if $`xIR^+R`$. We write $`xI^+`$.

###### Definition.

If $`xR`$, then $`x`$ is in the full extended plus closure of $`I`$ if there exists $`c0R`$ such that for every positive integer $`n`$, $`c^{1/n}x(I,p^n)R^+`$. We write $`xI^{\mathrm{epf}}`$.

###### Definition.

If $`xR`$, then $`x`$ is in the full rank one closure of $`I`$ if for every rank one valuation on $`R^+`$, every positive integer $`n`$, and every $`\epsilon >0`$, there exists $`dR^+`$ with $`v(d)<\epsilon `$ such that $`dx(I,p^n)R^+`$. We write $`xI^{\mathrm{r1f}}`$.

In this article, we shall focus almost exclusively on the full extended plus closure. In fact, we could restrict our attention to a smaller closure which requires only that $`c^{1/n}xIR^+`$. However, this smaller closure is certain to be too small to serve as a tight closure analog in dimension four or larger. Unfortunately, in focusing on dimension three, this article will shed no light on whether or not the $`p^n`$ is sufficiently helpful. We should note the trivial relationship between the closures — $`I^+I^{\mathrm{epf}}I^{\mathrm{r1f}}`$.

Next we cite the critical result from \[H2, p.820\].

###### Theorem 1.2.

Let $`R`$ be a regular local ring with $`pJ(R)`$. If either full rank one closure or full extended plus closure has the colon-capturing property for finite extensions of regular local rings, then $`I^{\mathrm{epf}}=I^{\mathrm{r1f}}=I`$ for every ideal $`I`$ of $`R`$. In particular, $`I^+=I`$ for every ideal $`I`$ of $`R`$.

The statement in the earlier article did not mention the full extended plus closure in the hypothesis. However, it does not change the theorem since $`I^{\mathrm{epf}}I^{\mathrm{r1f}}`$ and it emphasizes how we shall use it here. There are two strengthenings of this result which we shall need and which are readily observable from reading the proof. The first is the very logical observation that in order to prove that ideals are closed in a particular regular local ring, we need only have the colon-capturing property for finite extensions of that ring. Hence the theorem may be restated for excellent rings of a fixed dimension. Moreover, the final statement still holds for all regular local rings of that dimension since if we were to have an ideal which was not plus-closed in a regular local ring, we would have such an ideal in its completion. The second observation, slightly more subtle, is that we only needed the colon-capturing property for systems of parameters which are powers of a single system of parameters. Rather than relying on this observation, we shall prove that, in the primary situation of interest here, this is the same as colon–capturing in general.

###### Lemma 1.3.

Suppose $`dimR=3`$ and $`y_1,y_2,y_3`$ is a system of parameters. Further suppose that for every system of parameters $`x_1,x_2,x_3`$, each $`y_i`$ kills $`H_1(x_1,x_2,x_3;R)`$. If for some $`\delta R^+`$, we have $`\delta \left((y_1,y_2):_Ry_3\right)(y_1,y_2)R^+`$, then $`\delta \left((x_1,x_2):_Rx_3\right)(x_1,x_2)R^+`$.

###### Proof.

In this proof we shall use Roman letters for elements of $`R`$ and Greek letters for elements in $`R^+`$. First we choose an element $`r`$ such that $`z_2=y_2+ry_1`$ is not contained in any height one prime ideal which contains $`x_1`$. Next choose elements $`r_1,r_2`$ such that $`z_3=y_3+r_1y_1+r_2y_2`$ is contained in no height two ideals which contain $`(x_1,x_2)R`$ or $`(x_1,z_2)R`$. So $`x_1,x_2,z_3`$ and $`x_1,z_2,z_3`$ are also systems of parameters as is $`y_1,z_2,z_3`$.

Suppose $`a_3\left((x_1,x_2):_Rx_3\right)`$. Then $`a_3\left((x_1,x_2):_Rz_3\right)`$ since $`z_3`$ kills colons and so we may write $`a_1x_1+a_2x_2+a_3z_3=0`$. As $`a_2\left((x_1,z_3):_Rx_2\right)\left((x_1,z_3):_Rz_2\right)`$, we may write $`b_1x_1+a_2z_2+b_3z_3=0`$. Again, as $`b_1\left((z_2,z_3):_Rx_1\right)\left((z_2,z_3):_Ry_1\right)`$, we may write $`b_1y_1+c_2z_2+c_3z_3=0`$. Since $`(y_1,z_2)R=(y_1,y_2)R`$, we have $`\delta c_3(y_1,z_2)R^+`$. Writing $`\delta c_3=\alpha y_1+\beta z_2`$, we have a relation $`(\delta b_1+\alpha z_3)y_1+(\delta c_2+\beta z_3)z_2=0`$ and since no height one prime ideal of $`R^+`$ contains $`y_1`$ and $`z_2`$, $`\delta b_1+\alpha z_3z_2R^+`$; hence $`\delta b_1(z_2,z_3)R^+`$. In an identical fashion, we see that $`\delta a_2(x_1,z_3)R^+`$ and finally that $`\delta a_3(x_1,x_2)R^+`$. ∎

###### Corollary 1.4.

Suppose $`dimR=3`$, and $`y_1,y_2,y_3`$ is a system of parameters. Further suppose that for any system of parameters $`x_1,x_2,x_3`$, each $`y_i`$ kills $`H_1(x_1,x_2,x_3;R)`$. If for some $`cR`$, we have $`c^{1/n}\left((y_1,y_2):_Ry_3\right)(y_1,y_2)R^+`$ for every $`n`$, then the full extended plus closure has the colon-capturing property for $`R`$.

###### Proof.

Clearly, even the potentially smaller plus closure captures colons of the form $`(0:x)`$ and $`(x_1:x_2)`$. The hard case is given by the lemma. ∎

Next we shall define a function $`\tau `$ on the positive integers which shall play a critical role in the proof of the main theorem. In light of (1.6), it seems likely that this function has been used previously; however we have not seen it. Strictly speaking, $`\tau `$ depends on the choice of prime integer $`p`$ and should truly be denoted $`\tau _p`$, but as the function will only be employed for $`p`$ the characteristic of the residue field, we shall omit the subscript.

###### Definition.

For a positive integer $`n`$, express $`n1`$ in base $`p`$ and let $`\overline{\tau }(n)`$ be the sum of the digits. We take $`\overline{\tau }(1)=0`$. Then define

$$\tau (n)=\frac{\overline{\tau }(n)}{p1}.$$

###### Note.

It is more natural to define $`\tau `$ without the shift — say define $`\sigma `$ by $`\sigma (n1)=\tau (n)`$ — and no doubt those who have encountered this function previously have seen it in this form. In fact, the statement of (1.6) is nicer using $`\sigma `$. However, the proof of the main theorem is simpler using $`\tau `$ and in fact the shifted function appears to better capture what is going on.

###### Lemma 1.5.

Suppose $`i,j`$ are positive integers and $`n=i+j`$. Let $`a_k\mathrm{}a_0`$ be the expression for $`i`$ in base $`p`$, i.e., $`i=a_0+a_1p+\mathrm{}+a_kp^k`$ with $`0a_j<p`$. Similarly, suppose $`j=b_k\mathrm{}b_0`$, $`n=c_k\mathrm{}c_0`$. Let $`d=\left|\{ja_j+b_j>c_j\}\right|`$. Then the highest power of $`p`$ which divides $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{i}\right)`$ is $`p^d`$.

###### Proof.

This is just a restatement of a lemma in \[H1, p.696\]. It is actually slightly stronger than the statement there but is in fact what is actually proved. ∎

###### Lemma 1.6.

Let $`0<j<i<p^L`$ be integers.

* The highest power of $`p`$ which divides $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i1}{j1}\right)`$ is $`\tau (j)+\tau (ij+1)\tau (i)`$.
* The highest power of $`p`$ which divides $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p^Lj}{ij}\right)`$ is also $`\tau (j)+\tau (ij+1)\tau (i)`$.
* The highest power of $`p`$ which divides $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p^L}{i}\right)`$ is $`L+\tau (i+1)\tau (i)\tau (2)`$.

###### Proof.

(a) To perform the addition $`(i1)+(ni)=n1`$ in base $`p`$, one can first add the corresponding digits, allowing digits as large as $`2p2`$. The sum of the digits of this “number” will clearly be $`\overline{\tau }(j)+\overline{\tau }(ij+1)`$. Next, starting from the right, for each digit which is at least $`p`$, we deduct $`p`$ and add one to the next digit. Each such carrying operation clearly reduces the sum of the digits by $`p1`$. Thus the highest power of $`p`$ which divides $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i1}{j1}\right)`$ times $`(p1)`$ is $`\overline{\tau }(j)+\overline{\tau }(ij+1)\overline{\tau }(i)`$. The result quickly follows.

(b) This will follow from (a) once we verify that the highest power of $`p`$ which divides $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p^Lj}{ij}\right)`$ is the same as the highest power of $`p`$ which divides $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i1}{j1}\right)`$. To see this, note that $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i1}{j1}\right)=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i1}{ij}\right)`$ and the two quantities are $`\frac{(p^Lj)\mathrm{}(p^L(i1))}{(ij)!}`$ and $`\frac{(i1)\mathrm{}j}{(ij)!}`$ respectively. Finally, whenever $`jki1`$, $`k<p^L`$, and a power of $`p`$ will divide $`p^Lk`$ if and only if it divides $`k`$. The result is now clear.

(c) We note that the highest power of p which divides $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p^L}{i}\right)`$ is the highest power of $`p`$ which divides $`\frac{p^L}{i}=\frac{p^L}{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i}{1}\right)}`$. The result now follows from part (a). ∎

We conclude this section with two lemmas that will be needed for the main proof.

###### Lemma 1.7.

Let $`K1`$ be an integer and let $`e=\frac{1}{p^{K+1}}`$. Then $`ei+K\tau (i)0`$ for every positive integer $`i`$.

###### Proof.

We induct on $`K`$. For $`K=1`$, $`e=1`$ and so we must show $`i1\tau (i)0`$ or equivalently $`\tau (i)i1`$. But $`\tau (i)`$ is simply the sum of the digits of $`i1`$ divided by a positive integer and so cannot possible exceed $`i1`$. Now we consider $`K>1`$ and assume the result holds for $`K1`$. Suppose there exists $`i`$ with $`ei+K\tau (i)<0`$. If $`p`$ does not divide $`i`$, then $`\tau (i+1)=\tau (i)+\frac{1}{p1}`$ while $`e(i+1)=ei+eei+\frac{1}{p}`$. It follows that $`e(i+1)+K\tau (i+1)<0`$. Similarly, if $`p`$ does not divide $`i+1`$, we see that $`i+2`$ provides a counterexample. Thus we may produce a counterexample to the lemma with $`p`$ dividing $`i`$. Writing $`i=pj`$ we have $`epj+K\tau (pj)<0`$. Since the base $`p`$ representation of $`pj1`$ is just the base $`p`$ representation of $`j1`$ with the final digit $`p1`$ added, we have $`\tau (pj)=\tau (j)+1`$. Thus we have $`\frac{p}{p^{K+1}}j+K1\tau (j)<0`$. However, this contradicts the $`K1`$ case of the lemma. ∎

###### Lemma 1.8.

Let $`R`$ be an integrally closed domain which satisfies our usual assumptions and suppose that there is an element $`\sigma R`$ such that $`\sigma ^{p1}=p`$. Let $`x,y,zR`$ where no height one prime ideal contains both $`p`$ and $`y`$. Suppose $`z=xw+yv`$ where $`w,v`$ are integral over $`R[p^1]`$ and $`w`$ satisfies the monic polynomial $`T^n+a_1T^{n1}+\mathrm{}+a_n`$. Further suppose $`a_ip^{K\tau (i)}R`$ for every $`i`$. If $`e=\frac{1}{p^{K+1}}`$, then $`p^ew`$ and $`p^ev`$ are integral over $`R`$.

###### Proof.

If necessary, we adjoin a $`(p^{K+1})`$st root of $`p`$ and denote it $`p^e`$. Then $`p^ew`$ satisfies the monic polynomial $`T^n+d_1T^{n1}+\mathrm{}+d_n`$ with $`d_i=p^{ei}a_i`$ for every $`i`$. Thus $`d_ip^{ei+K\tau (i)}R`$. By (1.7), $`d_iR`$ and so $`p^ew`$ is integral over $`R`$. Now this implies that $`p^ev`$ is integral over $`R[y^1]`$. By hypothesis, $`p^ev`$ is also integral over $`R[p^1]`$. Since $`R`$ is integrally closed and no height one prime ideal contains both $`p`$ and $`y`$, we see that $`p^ev`$ is integral over $`R`$. ∎

## 2. Main Results

In the succession of lemmas leading up to the main theorem, $`S`$ will denote an integral domain which contains the rational numbers. The results remain true and the proofs remain valid if $`S`$ contains $`_{(p)}`$, but in fact all applications of the lemmas will be to the ring $`S=R[p^1]`$.

Demonstrating colon-capturing in dimension three amounts to proving that certain elements are in the plus closure of a two-generated ideal. A key tool for doing this is the following lemma from \[H1, p.693\].

###### Lemma 2.1.

Suppose $`x,y,zS`$ with $`y0`$. Let

$$f(T)=\underset{i=0}{\overset{n}{}}a_iT^{ni}$$

be a monic polynomial over $`S`$ and suppose $`w`$ is an element in an extension domain of $`S`$ such that $`f(w)=0`$. For $`0in`$, set

$$b_i=(1)^i\underset{j=0}{\overset{i}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{nj}{ij}\right)a_jz^{ij}x^j$$

and let

$$g(T)=\underset{i=0}{\overset{n}{}}b_iT^{ni}.$$

Then $`g(zxw)=0`$. In particular, if each $`b_iy^iS`$, $`(zxw)/y`$ is integral over $`S`$.

In order to prove the main theorem, we have to get from our starting point, an equation $`p^Nz=cx+dy`$ in $`R`$, to an equation $`\rho z=\gamma x+\delta y`$ where $`\gamma ,\delta `$ are integral over $`R`$ and $`\rho `$ is an $`m`$th root of $`p`$ for some large $`m`$. Equivalently, we need to write $`z=p^Ncx+p^Ndy`$ as $`\rho ^1\gamma x+\rho ^1\delta y`$. The element $`\rho ^1\gamma `$ will be the $`w`$ of (2.1) and $`w`$ will be defined indirectly, by constructing $`f(T)`$ and letting $`w`$ be a root of $`f(T)`$. According to the basic plan (which will have to be modified somewhat), the polynomial $`f(T)`$, with coefficients in $`R[p^1]`$, will be constructed via a recursive procedure, which successively defines $`a_1,a_2,\mathrm{},a_n`$. By choosing $`a_1`$ such that $`b_1yR[p^1]`$, $`a_2`$ such that $`b_2y^2R[p^1]`$, etc., we will force $`\rho ^1\delta `$ to be integral over $`R[p^1]`$.

If we omit the condition that $`\rho w`$ be integral over $`R`$, constructing $`f(T)`$ is easy. In fact $`(Tp^Nc)^n`$ works for any choice of $`n`$. The next lemma is critical for choosing a better $`f(T)`$. It asserts that there is no subtle way that the recursion can fail. No matter how we select an initial sequence of $`a_i`$’s (subject of course to the conditions on the $`b_i`$’s), we can always finish it if we omit the condition that $`\rho w`$ be integral over $`R`$.

###### Lemma 2.2.

Suppose $`z=ax+by`$ with $`a,b,x,yS`$ and let $`n`$ be a positive integer. Further suppose $`a_0=1,a_1,\mathrm{},a_{k1}S`$ have been chosen with $`kn`$ so that

$$\underset{j=0}{\overset{i}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{nj}{ij}\right)a_jz^{ij}x^jy^iS\text{for}i=1,\mathrm{},k1.$$

Then we may find $`a_kS`$ such that

$$\underset{j=0}{\overset{k}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{nj}{kj}\right)a_jz^{kj}x^jy^kS.$$

.

###### Proof.

First we will show that we can reduce to the case $`z=ax`$. As the lemma can be applied repeatedly if true, it is equivalent to the assertion that we may finish the polynomial $`f(T)=_{i=0}^{k1}a_iT^{ni}`$ to obtain a polynomial $`f(T)=_{i=0}^na_iT^{ni}`$ such that for every root $`w`$ of $`f(T)`$, $`(zxw)/y`$ is integral over $`S`$. Since $`z=ax+by`$, this is the same as $`(ax+byxw)/y`$ being integral over $`S`$ and of course this is that same as $`(aw)x/y`$ being integral over $`S`$. Thus we can make the reduction. Now, returning to the original statement of the conclusion of the lemma, we need only be able to find $`a_k`$ such that

$$\underset{j=0}{\overset{k}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{nj}{kj}\right)a_ja^{kj}x^ky^kS$$

or equivalently such that

$$\underset{j=0}{\overset{k}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{nj}{kj}\right)a_ja^{kj}(y^k:_Sx^k).$$

This is trivial since $`a_k`$ occurs on the left hand side with unit coefficient. ∎

We are now ready to prove a special case of the main result. The proof of this proposition illustrates several of the ideas which form the basis of the later result.

###### Theorem 2.3.

Let $`p,x,y`$ be parameters in $`R`$, an integrally closed domain which satisfies our usual assumptions. Assume there is an element $`\sigma R`$ with $`\sigma ^{p1}=p`$ and that $`p^N,x,y`$ kill $`H_1(p^m,x^m,y^m;R)`$ for every positive integer $`m`$. Further assume that $`H_1(p^N,x,y;R)`$ is cyclic, generated by $`(z,a,b)`$. Then for any rational $`e>0`$, there is a module-finite extension $`A`$ of $`R`$ with $`p^ez(x,y)A`$. Thus $`z(x,y)R^{\mathrm{epf}}`$.

###### Proof.

It suffices to prove the result with $`e=\frac{1}{p^{K+1}}`$ for arbitrary $`K`$. We set $`L=K+N`$. We shall construct a polynomial $`f(T)=T^{p^L}+a_1T^{p^L1}+\mathrm{}+a_{p^L}`$ with coefficients in $`R[p^1]`$ such that if $`w`$ is any root of $`f(T)`$, $`v=(zxw)/y`$ is also integral over $`R[p^1]`$. If we can accomplish this with each $`a_jp^{K\tau (j)}R`$, then by (1.8), the conclusion holds with $`A=R[p^e,p^ew,p^ev]`$. Thus the entire proof rests upon our ability to satisfactorily choose the $`a_j`$’s.

We shall eventually choose elements $`a_i^{},a_i^{\prime \prime }p^{K\tau (i)}R`$ for every integer $`i`$, $`1ip^L`$. We shall define $`a_0=1`$ and $`a_i=a_i^{}+y^ia_i^{\prime \prime }`$ for every $`i1`$. Then, by (2.1), $`v=(zxw)/y`$ is integral over $`R[p^1]`$ provided $`_{j=0}^i\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p^Lj}{ij}\right)a_jz^{ij}x^jy^iR[p^1]`$ for each $`ip^L`$. We shall refer to this inclusion for a specific $`i`$ as the $`i`$th condition. The elements will be chosen to satisfy the conditions by a recursive procedure beginning with $`i=1`$. At each step, we choose $`a_i^{}p^{K\tau (i)}R`$ and $`a_{i1}^{\prime \prime }p^{K\tau (i1)}R`$ such that the $`i`$th condition is satisfied. The $`i=1`$ step is irregular as there is no $`a_0^{\prime \prime }`$. Finally, the superfluous $`a_{p^L}^{\prime \prime }`$ equals zero.

Since $`p^Nz+ax+by=0`$, $`p^{N+K}z+p^KaxyR[p^1]`$. Hence, letting $`a_1^{}=p^Kap^KR=p^{K\tau (1)}R`$, we have $`p^Lz+a_1^{}xyR[p^1]`$ and the first condition is satisfied regardless of the choice of $`a_1^{\prime \prime }`$. In fact, it is important to note that the choice of $`a_i^{\prime \prime }`$ never affects the $`i`$th condition. For the recursive step, we assume that we have chosen each $`a_k`$ properly for $`k<i1`$ as well as $`a_{i1}^{}`$ so that the first $`i1`$ conditions are satisfied. For notational simplicity, it is convenient to assume $`a_{i1}=a_{i1}^{}`$. As we know that $`_{j=0}^k\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p^Lj}{kj}\right)a_jz^{kj}x^jy^kR[p^1]`$ for each $`k<i`$, (2.2) yields

$$\underset{j=0}{\overset{i1}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p^Lj}{kj}\right)a_jz^{kj}x^j(x^i,y^i)R[p^1].$$

Now let $`z_i=p^{K+\tau (i)\tau (2)}_{j=0}^{i1}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p^Lj}{ij}\right)a_jz^{ij}x^j`$. We claim $`z_iR`$. To prove the claim, it suffices to prove it one term at a time and so we need only show $`p^{K+\tau (i)\tau (2)}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p^Lj}{ij}\right)a_jR`$ for each $`j<i`$. Using (1.6) and the fact that $`a_jp^{K\tau (j)}R`$, we see that this is equivalent to

$$\left(K+\tau (i)\tau (2)\right)+\left(\tau (j)+\tau (ij+1)\tau (i)\right)+\left(K\tau (j)\right)0$$

when $`j>0`$. But this is clear since the left hand side is just $`\tau (ij+1)\tau (2)`$. For $`j=0`$, we need

$$\left(K+\tau (i)\tau (2)\right)+\left(L+\tau (i+1)\tau (i)\tau (2)\right)0.$$

Since $`LK+1`$, it suffices to show that $`1+\tau (i+1)2\tau (2)`$ and this too is clear. So the claim is verified.

As $`z_i(x^i,y^i)R[p^1]R`$, it follows that $`z_i\left((x^i,y^i):_Rp^m\right)`$ for some $`m`$. Since $`x,y,p^N`$ kill $`H_1(p^m,x^m,y^m;R)`$ for every positive integer $`m`$, $`z_i(x^i,y^i)R+(xy)^{i1}\left((x,y):_Rp^N\right)`$. Then, by the cyclicity assumption, $`z_i(x^i,y^i,(xy)^{i1}z)R`$. Write $`z_i=c_{i1}x^i+c_{i2}y^i+c_{i3}(xy)^{i1}z`$. Since $`_{j=0}^{i1}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p^Lj}{ij}\right)a_jz^{ij}x^j=p^{K\tau (i)+\tau (2)}z_i`$, the choices

$$a_{i1}^{\prime \prime }=\frac{p^{K\tau (i)+\tau (2)}c_{i3}}{p^L(i1)}\text{ and }a_i^{}=p^{K\tau (i)+\tau (2)}c_{i1}$$

satisfy the $`i`$th condition. Obviously, $`a_i^{}p^{K\tau (i)}R`$. Finally, to see that $`a_{i1}^{\prime \prime }p^{K\tau (i1)}R`$, we note that the highest power of $`p`$ which divides $`p^L(i1)`$ is the highest power dividing $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i1}{1}\right)`$, namely $`p^{\tau (i1)+\tau (2)\tau (i)}`$. Thus it suffices to show that $`\left(K\tau (i)+\tau (2)\right)\left(\tau (i1)+\tau (2)\tau (i)\right)K\tau (i1)`$. This is an equality and the recursion step is complete, finishing the proof. ∎

The cyclicity assumption only came into play at one point — to give us $`z_i(x^i,y^i,(xy)^{i1}z)R`$. The key to dropping that assumption is to develop a way of using earlier $`z_i`$’s to help with later ones. We need to be able to say that for sufficiently large $`n`$ and $`i>n`$, $`z_i(x^i,y^i,(xy)^{i1}z_1,(xy)^{i2}z_2,\mathrm{},(xy)^{in}z_n)R`$. This will be shown presently; however a number of complications lay ahead. Instead of choosing each $`a_i`$ in a two step procedure with an initial choice and then a single adjustment to help at the $`(i+1)`$st step, we must allow for multiple adjustments — adjustments that don’t obviously preserve previously satisfied conditions. It is also not clear at the start of the process what the correct degree of the polynomial should be and so we must be able to adjust this as we go along.

###### Lemma 2.4.

Let $`p,x,y`$ be parameters in $`R`$, an integrally closed domain which satisfies our usual assumptions. Assume that $`x,y`$ kill $`H_1(p^m,x^m,y^m;R)`$ for every positive integer $`m`$. Further assume that $`z_i\left((x^i,y^i):_Rp^N\right)`$ for every positive integer $`i`$. Then there exists a positive integer $`n`$ such that for all $`i>n`$, $`z_i(x^i,y^i,(xy)^{i1}z_1,(xy)^{i2}z_2,\mathrm{},(xy)^{in}z_n)R`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`M_i=((x^i,y^i):p^N)`$. Since $`(x,y)((x^i,y^i):p^N)(x^i,y^i)R`$ and $`R`$ is integrally closed, it follows that $`((x^i,y^i):p^N)(x^i,y^{i1})R(x^{i1},y^i)R=(x^i,y^i,x^{i1}y^{i1})R`$. So $`M_i=x^iR+y^iR+(xy)^{i1}M_1`$. Also let $`Q_i=(x^i,y^i,(xy)^{i1}z_1,(xy)^{i2}z_2,\mathrm{},z_i)R`$. Clearly $`Q_iM_i`$ and, noting $`xyM_{i1}M_i`$, $`xyQ_{i1}Q_i`$, multiplication by $`xy`$ induces the commutative diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccc}Q_i& & M_i\\ & & & & \\ Q_{i1}& & M_{i1}\end{array}.$$

Next Let $`\overline{M}_i`$ and $`\overline{Q}_i`$ be the respective quotients modulo $`(x^i,y^i)R`$. Then our previous diagram induces

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\overline{Q}_i& & \overline{M}_i\\ & & & & \\ \overline{Q}_{i1}& & \overline{M}_{i1}\end{array}.$$

But the map on the right is an isomorphism and so $`\overline{Q}_1\overline{Q}_2\mathrm{}\overline{Q}_i`$ may be viewed as an ascending chain of submodules of the same noetherian module. Thus for some $`n`$, $`\overline{Q}_{i1}\overline{Q}_i`$ is surjective for all $`i>n`$ and the result follows. ∎

Before going on to the main theorem, we need several technical lemmas and the ideas behind them. First we remark that the easiest proof of (2.1) is a simple application of Taylor’s Theorem. In fact, $`b_i`$ is just $`\frac{(1)^ix^i}{(ni)!}f^{(ni)}\left(\frac{z}{x}\right)`$ where $`n`$ is the degree of $`f(T)`$. As $`S`$ contains the rationals, the condition $`b_iy^iS`$ is equivalent to $`x^if^{(ni)}\left(\frac{z}{x}\right)y^iS`$. Interestingly, for fixed $`i`$, the latter condition is stable under taking antiderivatives. To see this, note that if $`\stackrel{~}{f}(T)`$ is an antiderivative of $`f(T)`$, then the degree of $`\stackrel{~}{f}(T)`$ is $`n+1`$ and $`x^i\stackrel{~}{f}^{(n+1i)}\left(\frac{z}{x}\right)=x^if^{(ni)}\left(\frac{z}{x}\right)`$. Likewise, the condition is stable under taking derivatives provided $`i<n`$.

In the proof of the main theorem, we will have occasion to exploit both these observations, the first to increase the degree of the polynomial without destroying the previous steps and the second to “improve” previously chosen coefficients. The next two technical lemmas are just combinatorial translations of the two stability conditions, stated in a manner so that they can be most easily applied here. Lemma 2.5 relates to the antiderivative while the $`M=L`$ case of (2.6) relates to the derivative. The full statement of (2.6) is a combination.

###### Lemma 2.5.

Suppose $`M>L`$ are positive integers and $`x,y,z,a_1,\mathrm{},a_k`$ are elements of $`S`$ such that $`_{j=0}^i\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p^Lj}{ij}\right)a_jz^{ij}x^jy^iS`$ for all $`ik`$ where $`k`$ is an integer less than $`p^L`$. If $`\stackrel{~}{a}_j=\left(_{m=0}^{j1}\frac{p^Mm}{p^Lm}\right)a_j`$ for each $`j>0`$, then $`\stackrel{~}{a}_j=p^{ML}q_ja_j`$ where $`q_j`$ is a unit in $`_{(p)}`$ and $`_{j=0}^i\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p^Mj}{ij}\right)\stackrel{~}{a}_jz^{ij}x^j=p^{ML}q_i_{j=0}^i\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p^Lj}{ij}\right)a_jz^{ij}x^jy^iR`$ for all $`ik`$.

###### Proof.

If $`0m<p^L`$, the highest power of $`p`$ that divides $`p^Lm`$ is the highest power of $`p`$ that divides $`m`$ and the same is true for $`p^Mm`$ and so $`\frac{p^Mm}{p^Lm}`$ is a unit in $`_{(p)}`$. For $`m=0`$, the quotient is of course $`p^{ML}`$. This gives the first half of the conclusion. Next note that

$$\frac{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p^Mj}{ij}\right)}{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p^Lj}{ij}\right)}=\frac{(p^Mj)\mathrm{}(p^Mi+1)}{(p^Lj)\mathrm{}(p^Li+1)}.$$

Hence

$$\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p^Mj}{ij}\right)\stackrel{~}{a}_j=\left(\underset{m=0}{\overset{i1}{}}\frac{p^Mm}{p^Lm}\right)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p^Lj}{ij}\right)a_j.$$

The second half follows immediately. ∎

###### Lemma 2.6.

Let $`d,i,M,L`$ be integers with $`LM`$ and $`0<d<ip^L`$. Suppose $`x,y,z,a_0,a_1,\mathrm{},a_{i1}`$ are elements of $`S`$ such that

$$\underset{m=0}{\overset{h}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p^Lm}{hm}\right)a_mz^{hm}x^my^hS$$

for all integers $`h<i`$. Let $`\stackrel{~}{a}_j=0`$ for $`j<d`$ and

$$\stackrel{~}{a}_j=\frac{y^d\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p^Lj+d}{ij}\right)a_{jd}}{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p^Mj}{ij}\right)}$$

for $`dji1`$. Then

$$\underset{j=0}{\overset{k}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p^Mj}{kj}\right)\stackrel{~}{a}_jz^{kj}x^jy^kS$$

for all $`k<i`$.

###### Proof.

For every $`k<i`$, we have

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \underset{j=0}{\overset{k}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p^Mj}{kj}\right)\stackrel{~}{a}_jz^{kj}x^j& =\underset{j=d}{\overset{k}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p^Mj}{kj}\right)y^da_{jd}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p^Lj+d}{ij}\right)z^{kj}x^j/\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p^Mj}{ij}\right)\hfill \\ & =y^d\underset{m=0}{\overset{kd}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p^Mmd}{kmd}\right)a_m\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p^Lm}{imd}\right)z^{kdm}x^{m+d}/\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p^Mmd}{imd}\right).\hfill \end{array}$$

Next we compute

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \frac{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p^Mmd}{kmd}\right)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p^Lm}{imd}\right)}{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p^Mmd}{imd}\right)}& =\frac{(p^Mmd)!(p^Lm)!(imd)!(p^Mi)!}{(kmd)!(p^Mk)!(imd)!(p^Li+d)!(p^Mmd)!}\hfill \\ & =\frac{(p^Lm)!(p^Mi)!}{(kmd)!(p^Mk)!(p^Li+d)!}\hfill \\ & =\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p^Lm}{kdm}\right)q\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`q`$ is a rational number independent of $`m`$. Thus

$$\underset{j=0}{\overset{k}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p^Mj}{kj}\right)\stackrel{~}{a}_jz^{kj}x^j=y^dx^dq\underset{m=0}{\overset{kd}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p^Lm}{kdm}\right)a_mz^{kdm}x^m.$$

Since the final sum is in $`y^{kd}S`$ by hypothesis, the first sum is in $`y^kS`$ as desired. ∎

We are at last ready to prove the main result.

###### Theorem 2.7.

Let $`p,x,y`$ be parameters in $`R`$, an integrally closed domain which satisfies our usual assumptions. Assume there is an element $`\sigma R`$ with $`\sigma ^{p1}=p`$ and that $`p^N,x,y`$ kill $`H_1(p^m,x^m,y^m;R)`$ for every positive integer $`m`$. Suppose $`p^Nz(x,y)R`$. Then for any rational $`e>0`$, there is a module-finite extension $`S`$ of $`R`$ with $`p^ez(x,y)S`$. Thus $`z(x,y)R^{\mathrm{epf}}`$.

###### Proof.

The basic structure of the proof echoes that of (2.3). We prove the result with $`e=\frac{1}{p^{K+1}}`$ for arbitrary $`K`$ by constructing a polynomial $`f(T)=T^{p^L}+a_1T^{p^L1}+\mathrm{}+a_{p^L}`$ with coefficients in $`R[p^1]`$ such that if $`w`$ is any root of $`f(T)`$, $`v=(zxw)/y`$ is also integral over $`R[p^1]`$. If we can accomplish this with each $`a_jp^{K\tau (j)}R`$, then by (1.8), the conclusion holds with $`S=R[p^e,p^ew,p^ev]`$. Thus the entire proof rests on our ability to satisfactorily choose the $`a_i`$’s. However, unlike the (2.3) proof, $`L`$ is not determined at the start; it will also be chosen in the recursive procedure.

We now describe the recursion. For each integer $`i`$, $`1ip^L`$, we shall choose a positive integer $`L_iL_{i1}`$ and elements $`a_{1i},\mathrm{},a_{ii}`$ such that (1) $`a_{ji}p^{K\tau (j)}R`$ for every $`j`$ and (2), with $`a_{0i}=1`$, the condition

$$\underset{j=0}{\overset{k}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p^{L_i}j}{kj}\right)a_{ji}z^{kj}x^jy^kR[p^1]$$

will be satisfied for each $`ki`$. The procedure ends when $`i=p^{L_i}`$ (something we still must demonstrate happens), at which time we get the desired polynomial $`f(T)`$ with $`L=L_i`$ and $`a_j=a_{ji}`$ for every $`j`$. We also let $`z_1=z`$ and for $`i>1`$, we let

$$z_i=p^{E_i}\underset{j=0}{\overset{i1}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p^{L_{i1}}j}{ij}\right)a_{j,i1}z^{ij}x^j$$

where $`E_i=K\tau (i)+\tau (2)`$. We shall also show that (3) $`z_i\left((x^i,y^i):_Rp^N\right)`$.

For the initial step $`(i=1)`$, we let $`D_1`$ be the smallest integer such that $`p^{D_1}z(x,y)R`$. Then we may find $`aR`$ such that $`p^{D_1}z+axyR`$. Choose $`L_1=K+D_1`$ and $`a_{11}=p^Ka`$ and we see that the first condition is satisfied with $`a_{11}p^KR=p^{K\tau (1)}R`$. By hypothesis, $`z_1\left((x,y):_Rp^N\right)`$.

For $`i>1`$, we first demonstrate (3). This is identical to the situation in (2.3). As we know that

$$\underset{j=0}{\overset{k}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p^{L_{i1}}j}{kj}\right)a_{j,i1}z^{kj}x^jy^kR[p^1]$$

for each $`k<i`$, (2.2) yields

$$\underset{j=0}{\overset{i1}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p^{L_{i1}}j}{kj}\right)a_{j,i1}z^{kj}x^j(x^i,y^i)R[p^1]$$

and so $`z_i(x^i,y^i)R[p^1]`$. To see that $`z_iR`$, it suffices to prove it one term at at time and so we need only show $`p^{K+\tau (i)\tau (2)}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p^{L_{i1}}j}{ij}\right)a_{j,i1}R`$ for each $`j<i`$. Using (1.6) and the fact that $`a_{j,i1}p^{K\tau (j)}R`$, we see that this is equivalent to

$$\left(K+\tau (i)\tau (2)\right)+\left(\tau (j)+\tau (ij+1)\tau (i)\right)+\left(K\tau (j)\right)0$$

when $`j>0`$. But this is clear since the left hand side is just $`\tau (ij+1)\tau (2)`$. For $`j=0`$, we need $`\left(K+\tau (i)\tau (2)\right)+\left(L+\tau (i+1)\tau (i)\tau (2)\right)0`$. Since $`L_{i1}K+1`$, it suffices to show that $`1+\tau (i+1)2\tau (2)`$ and this too is clear. So $`z_iR`$ and as $`z_i(x^i,y^i)R[p^1]R`$, it follows that $`z_i\left((x^i,y^i):_Rp^m\right)`$ for some $`m`$. Of course, $`N=m`$ suffices by hypothesis and so (3) holds as desired.

Now let $`Q_i^{}=(x^i,y^i,(xy)^{i1}z_1,(xy)^{i2}z_2,\mathrm{},xyz_{i1})R`$. Let $`D_i`$ be the least nonnegative integer such that $`p^{D_i}z_iQ_i^{}`$ (certainly $`D_iN`$). Next let $`L_i=L_{i1}+D_i`$ and let $`a_{ji0}=\left(_{m=0}^{j1}\frac{p^{L_i}m}{p^{L_{i1}}m}\right)a_{j,i1}`$. By (2.5), we have

$$\underset{j=0}{\overset{k}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p^{L_i}j}{kj}\right)a_{ji0}z^{kj}x^jy^kR[p^1]$$

for $`k<i`$. We also see that

$$\underset{j=0}{\overset{i1}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p^{L_i}j}{ij}\right)a_{ji0}z^{ij}x^j=\left(p^{D_i}u\right)\left(p^{E_i}z_i\right)$$

where $`u`$ is the unit $`\left(_{m=1}^{i1}\frac{p^{L_i}m}{p^{L_{i1}}m}\right)`$. Since $`p^{D_i}z_iQ_i^{}`$, we have a relation

$$p^{D_i}z_i+cx^i+\underset{n=1}{\overset{i1}{}}c_n(xy)^{in}z_n=by^i$$

and so

$$p^{E_i}u\left(p^{D_i}z_i+cx^i+\underset{n=1}{\overset{i1}{}}c_n(xy)^{in}z_n\right)y^iR[p^1].$$

Letting $`a_{ii0}=p^{E_i}uc`$, we have

$$\underset{j=0}{\overset{i}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p^{L_i}j}{ij}\right)a_{ji0}z^{ij}x^j=p^{E_i}u\left(p^{D_i}z_i+cx^i\right).$$

For each $`n=1,\mathrm{},i1`$, we intend to find $`a_{1in},\mathrm{},a_{i1,in}`$ such that

$$\underset{j=1}{\overset{i1}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p^{L_i}j}{ij}\right)a_{jin}z^{ij}x^j=p^{E_i}uc_n(xy)^{in}z_n.$$

Then we set $`a_{ji}=_{n=0}^{i1}a_{jin}`$ for $`0<j<i`$ and $`a_{ii}=a_{ii0}`$. Clearly (1) will be proved if we show ($`1^{}`$) $`a_{jin}`$ is in $`p^{K\tau (j)}R`$ for every $`j`$, $`n`$. To prove (2), we note that the $`i`$th condition follows from the definition:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \underset{j=0}{\overset{i}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p^{L_i}j}{ij}\right)a_{ji}z^{ij}x^j& =\underset{j=0}{\overset{i}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p^{L_i}j}{ij}\right)a_{ji0}z^{ij}x^j+\underset{n=1}{\overset{i1}{}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{i1}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p^{L_i}j}{ij}\right)a_{jin}z^{ij}x^j\hfill \\ & =p^{E_i}u(p^{D_i}z_i+cx^i)+\underset{n=1}{\overset{i1}{}}p^{E_i}uc_n(xy)^{in}z_ny^iR[p^1].\hfill \end{array}$$

Thus (2) will follow if we show ($`2^{}`$) $`_{j=0}^k\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p^{L_i}j}{kj}\right)a_{jin}z^{kj}x^jy^kR[p^1]`$ for $`0n<i`$, $`0<k<i`$.

We shall define the set $`\{a_{jin}\}`$ and prove ($`1^{}`$) and ($`2^{}`$) using three cases: $`n=0`$, $`n=1`$, $`n>1`$. For $`n=0`$, $`\{a_{jin}\}`$ is already defined and ($`2^{}`$) was observed above. For $`j<i`$, $`a_{ji0}a_{j,i1}Rp^{K\tau (j)}R`$ as desired and finally $`a_{ii0}=p^{E_i}ucp^{K\tau (i)+\tau (2)}Rp^{K\tau (i)}R`$, giving ($`1^{}`$). For $`n=1`$, we get

$$\underset{j=1}{\overset{i1}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p^{L_i}j}{ij}\right)a_{jin}z^{ij}x^j=p^{E_i}uc_n(xy)^{i1}z$$

by choosing

$$a_{jin}=\frac{p^{E_i}uc_ny^{i1}}{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p^{L_i}j}{ij}\right)}$$

when $`j=i1`$ and $`a_{jin}=0`$ otherwise. That

$$\underset{j=1}{\overset{k}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p^{L_i}j}{kj}\right)a_{jin}z^{kj}x^jy^kR[p^1]$$

for every $`k<i`$ is trivial since each $`a_{jin}y^{i1}R[p^1]`$. To see that $`a_{jin}p^{K\tau (j)}R`$, we note that $`a_{jin}=0`$ unless $`j=i1`$. In the latter case, we need only show

$$\frac{p^{E_i}}{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p^{L_i}(i1)}{1}\right)}p^{K\tau (i1)}R.$$

This requires only $`\left(K\tau (i)+\tau (2)\right)\left(\tau (i1)+\tau (2)\tau (i)\right)K\tau (i1)`$ and in fact equality is clear.

Now we fix $`n>1`$. To get

$$\underset{j=1}{\overset{i1}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p^{L_i}j}{ij}\right)a_{jin}z^{ij}x^j=p^{E_i}uc_n(xy)^{in}z_n,$$

we recall that

$$z_n=p^{E_n}\underset{j=0}{\overset{n1}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p^{L_{n1}}j}{nj}\right)a_{j,n1}z^{nj}x^j.$$

We can obtain the desired inequality provided

$$\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p^{L_i}j}{ij}\right)a_{jin}=p^{E_i}uc_ny^{in}p^{E_n}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p^{L_{n1}}jn+i}{ij}\right)a_{j+ni,n1}$$

for $`j=in,\mathrm{},i1`$ and $`a_{jin}=0`$ otherwise. So for $`j=in,\mathrm{},i1`$,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill a_{jin}& =\frac{p^{E_i}uc_ny^{in}p^{E_n}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p^{L_{n1}}jn+i}{ij}\right)a_{j+ni,n1}}{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p^{L_i}j}{ij}\right)}\hfill \\ & =(p^{E_iE_n}uc_n)\frac{y^{in}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p^{L_{n1}}j+(in)}{ij}\right)a_{j(in),n1}}{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p^{L_i}j}{ij}\right)}\hfill \end{array}$$

Applying (2.6), we see that ($`2^{}`$) holds (use $`in`$ for $`d`$, $`L_i`$ for $`M`$, $`L_{n1}`$ for $`L`$, and $`a_{j,n1}`$ for $`a_j`$).

Finally, to prove that $`a_{jin}p^{K\tau (j)}R`$, it suffices to show that

$$\frac{p^{E_iE_n}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p^{L_{n1}}jn+i}{ij}\right)a_{j+ni,n1}}{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p^{L_i}j}{ij}\right)}p^{K\tau (j)}R.$$

For $`j+ni>0`$, we apply (1.6) to see that this is equivalent to

$$\begin{array}{c}\left(K\tau (i)+\tau (2)\right)\left(K\tau (n)+\tau (2)\right)+\tau (j+ni)+\tau (ij+1)\tau (n)\hfill \\ \hfill +\left(K\tau (j+ni)\right)\left(\tau (j)+\tau (ij+1)\tau (i)\right)K\tau (j).\end{array}$$

However, the two sides of this expression are clearly equal. For $`j+ni=0`$, we must show

$$\frac{p^{E_iE_n}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p^{L_{n1}}}{ij}\right)}{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p^{L_i}j}{ij}\right)}p^{K\tau (j)}R.$$

Using (1.6), it suffices to show

$$\begin{array}{c}\left(K\tau (i)+\tau (2)\right)\left(K\tau (n)+\tau (2)\right)+\left(L_{n1}\tau (ij)+\tau (ij+1)\tau (2)\right)\hfill \\ \hfill \left(\tau (j)+\tau (ij+1)\tau (i)\right)K\tau (j).\end{array}$$

This is equivalent to $`\tau (n)+L_{n1}\tau (2)\tau (ij)K`$. Since $`ij=n`$, this is equivalent to $`L_{n1}K+\tau (2)`$. Since $`\tau (2)1`$, and $`L_{n1}K+1`$, this is clear. Thus ($`1^{}`$) holds and we may satisfactorily perform the inductive step.

Finally, by (2.4) we see that for $`i0`$, $`D_i=0`$ and so $`L_i`$ is eventually constant. Thus we eventually reach the $`i=p^{L_i}`$ step and the proof is complete. ∎

###### Remark 2.8.

If $`N=1`$ and $`H_1(p,x,y;R)`$ is cyclic, we may draw the stronger conclusion that $`z`$ is in the plus closure of $`(x,y)R`$. The proof is a much simplified version of (2.3). We let $`K=0`$, $`L=1`$, and dispense with the $`\tau `$ function entirely. Everything works with far fewer steps. We do not know whether the plus closure captures the colon in the three dimensional case in general.

Now we state our corollaries.

###### Corollary 2.9.

For the class of equidimensional three-dimensional excellent semilocal domains of mixed characteristic, the full extended plus closure has the colon-capturing property.

###### Proof.

Let $`R`$ be any equidimensional three-dimensional excellent semilocal domain of mixed characteristic. We may adjoin a $`(p1)^{\text{st}}`$ root of $`p`$ to $`R`$ if $`R`$ does not already contain one. We also take the integral closure. Our hypotheses are preserved and it suffices to demonstrate colon–capturing for the new domain. Choose $`x,y`$ such that $`p,x,y`$ is a complete system of parameters. By (1.1), replacing $`x,y`$ by powers if necessary, we may assume that $`p^N,x,y`$ kill all first Koszul homology modules. Then we can apply (2.7) to see that $`\left((x,y):_Rp^N\right)(x,y)^{\mathrm{epf}}`$. The result now follows from (1.4). ∎

###### Corollary 2.10.

Let $`R`$ be a three-dimensional regular local ring of mixed characteristic and let $`I`$ be an ideal of $`R`$. Then $`I=I^+=I^{\mathrm{epf}}=I^{\mathrm{r1f}}`$.

###### Proof.

It suffices to show $`I=I^{\mathrm{r1f}}`$ since the other two closures are trapped in between. If an element is in the full rank one closure of $`I`$, this remains true after completing and so it suffices to prove the corollary for complete rings. Now we combine (1.2) and (2.9). ∎

On behalf of the reader, I’d like to extend thanks to Craig Huneke, Paul Roberts, and the referee for various comments which led to a clearer presentation. In particular, it was Paul Roberts \[R2\] who brought to my attention why (2.5) and (2.6) work, the connection with derivatives and integrals.

Department of Mathematics, University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX 78712

E-mail: heitmann@math.utexas.edu


text:
# 0 INTRODUCTION

## 0 INTRODUCTION

Symmetry and symmetry-breaking are two key ingredients in modern high energy physics. While symmetry brings with it unity and simplicity, one often also needs to break it by some mechanism to account for the observations in our universe; the Standard Model being a notable example. Till now various such mechanisms are known: Higgs mechanism  or spontaneous symmetry breaking which was very successfully applied to the Standard Model, dynamic symmetry breaking via vacuum condensation , etc. The earliest idea of using geometry of extra dimensions to break gauge symmetry can be found in the context of “dimensional reduction by isometries” , which is however fundamentally different from the Kaluza-Klein scenario. In this paper, I propose a new geometric mechanism for breaking gauge symmetry in the context of Kaluza-Klein reduction schemes.

Higher dimensional, i.e. greater than 4, (super) gravitational theories are beautiful in that they combine (four-dimensional) gravity with gauge interactions through Kaluza-Klein reduction schemes (see for example  for details) in a very geometric way. One considers the vacuum to be a product of a four-dimensional vacuum manifold (Minkowski, deSitter or anti deSitter), and an (usually compact) internal manifold with matching scalar curvature constants. Four-dimensional physics then arises as fluctuations around this vacuum. For example, if one looks at the massless modes, which are important for describing low energy physics of the higher dimensional metric, then one finds a graviton (in the four-dimensional sector of the metric) and gauge bosons (appearing in the off-diagonal part of the metric) associated with the Killing vectors of the “frozen” internal manifold. After the Kaluza-Klein reduction of the higher dimensional gravitational action, one obtains a covariant and gauge invariant action of gravity coupled with gauge bosons among other things. However, as I mentioned earlier, we also need a mechanism to break the gauge symmetry (at least partially) to make it compatible with the experimental observations, and what can be better if we also find a geometric origin behind this symmetry breaking!

Such a geometric mechanism emerges naturally when one realises that the internal manifold is dynamic in nature, more prominently at earlier times. It is possible then that the internal manifold started out as say, a maximally symmetric metric space but made a transition to a less symmetric metric space. Such a vacuum to vacuum (asymptotically) transition can for example, occur along a classical path (if such a path is available), or through quantum tunneling etc. At any case after the transition, some of the original Killing symmetries will no longer remain Killing vectors. Let us name the initial and final isometry group of the internal manifold as $`G`$ and $`H`$ respectively ($`HG`$). The gauge bosons originally associated with the broken Killing symmetries will now pick up a mass term in the action thereby breaking the gauge symmetry group from $`G`$ to $`H`$.

One can indeed calculate the masses of the broken gauge bosons, and the various mass ratios would be a precise prediction coming out of these models. Further given a $`HG`$, it is not always possible to find an Einstein metric on the given internal manifold with Killing symmetry group $`H`$. Thus this model also narrows down the list of subgroups that a gauge group can be broken down to. In this paper, I concentrate on the simple case when the internal manifold is a Lie group ($`L`$) itself, and the maximally isometric group $`L_{left}L_{right}`$ is broken down to $`M_{left}L_{right}`$, $`ML`$ and in particular work out the details when $`L=SU(3)`$, which is really the simplest example where such a geometric transition is possible. Further, in this paper I only concern myself with pure gravity. Since the analysis relies completely on “geo-metric” ideas, it should be straight-forward to embed it in larger frameworks of unified theories of gravity like the String and supergravity (SUGRA) theories. It should also be possible to generalise the internal manifold to coset spaces; and in principle to nonhomogeneous spaces which may be more relevant to the String/SUGRA compactifications. A crucial consideration when dealing with these different vacua of the internal manifold is the issue of stability . It will be specially interesting to find cases where the $`M_{left}L_{right}`$-invariant metric is stable but the $`L_{left}L_{right}`$-invariant one is not, making the geometric transition a very viable prospect.

A natural question that arises in such a scenario is what happened to the counting of states. With each broken Killing symmetry, the number of physical states increases by one because the vector becomes massive from massless. The compensation occurs in a manner very similar to that of the Higgs’ mechanism. The “freed” gauge parameters kill some of the scalars (in the adjoint representation of the original gauge group) that appear as fluctuations in the metric of the internal manifold (see section 4 for details).

I first review some facts about Lie group geometry (see for example ) in section 1, and in particular talk about metrics in $`SU(2)`$ and $`SU(3)`$. In section 2, I provide a qualitative understanding of the dynamics of the transition and obtain the “mass matrix” for the broken gauge bosons when the internal manifold is a Lie group. As an illustration, I also compute explicitly the mass matrix when the gauge group is broken from $`SU(3)_{left}SU(3)_{right}`$ to $`SO(3)_{left}SU(3)_{right}`$, the internal manifold being $`SU(3)`$. In section 3, I elucidate on the Higgs-like mechanism that helps preserve the number of physical states before and after the geometric transition. I conclude by summarizing and making some remarks about possible future research.

## 1 LIE GROUPS AS INTERNAL MANIFOLD

Geometry of Lie groups: A Lie group element $`g`$ can be parametrized as

$$g=exp(\stackrel{˘}{\lambda }^{\stackrel{˘}{a}}(y^{\stackrel{˘}{m}})T_{\stackrel{˘}{a}})ϵG$$
(1)
where $`T_{\stackrel{˘}{a}}ϵ𝒢`$, the Lie algebra corresponding to the Lie group $`G`$ and $`\stackrel{˘}{\lambda }^{\stackrel{˘}{a}}(y^{\stackrel{˘}{m}})`$ are some given functions of the coordinates $`y^{\stackrel{˘}{m}}`$ charting the Lie group manifold. The Lie group generators $`T_{\stackrel{˘}{a}}`$ satisfy the usual commutation relations:

$$[T_{\stackrel{˘}{a}},T_{\stackrel{˘}{b}}]=C_{\stackrel{˘}{a}\stackrel{˘}{b}}{}_{}{}^{\stackrel{˘}{c}}T_{\stackrel{˘}{c}}^{}$$
(2)
where $`C_{\stackrel{˘}{a}\stackrel{˘}{b}}^{\stackrel{˘}{c}}`$ are the structure constants of the Lie group. With each of the generators $`T_{\stackrel{˘}{a}}`$, one can associate a left and a right invariant vector field $`e_{\stackrel{˘}{a}}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{e}_{\stackrel{˘}{a}}`$ respectively. Both sets $`\{e_{\stackrel{˘}{a}}\}`$ and $`\{\stackrel{~}{e}_{\stackrel{˘}{a}}\}`$ can serve as vielbeins or local basis vector fields for the tangent space of the Lie group. They are defined via the following relations

$$e_{\stackrel{˘}{a}}e_{\stackrel{˘}{a}}{}_{}{}^{\stackrel{˘}{m}}_{\stackrel{˘}{m}}^{};\stackrel{~}{e}_{\stackrel{˘}{a}}\stackrel{~}{e}_{\stackrel{˘}{a}}{}_{}{}^{\stackrel{˘}{m}}_{\stackrel{˘}{m}}^{}$$
(3)
$$e_{\stackrel{˘}{a}}{}_{}{}^{\stackrel{˘}{m}}(e_{\stackrel{˘}{m}}{}_{}{}^{\stackrel{˘}{a}})^1;\stackrel{~}{e}_{\stackrel{˘}{a}}{}_{}{}^{\stackrel{˘}{m}}(\stackrel{~}{e}_{\stackrel{˘}{m}}{}_{}{}^{\stackrel{˘}{a}})^1$$
(4)
and

$$g^1_{\stackrel{˘}{m}}g=e_{\stackrel{˘}{m}}{}_{}{}^{\stackrel{˘}{a}}T_{\stackrel{˘}{a}}^{};(_{\stackrel{˘}{m}}g)g^1=\stackrel{~}{e}_{\stackrel{˘}{m}}{}_{}{}^{\stackrel{˘}{a}}T_{\stackrel{˘}{a}}^{}$$
(5)
These two reference frames are related by a local Lorentz transformation

$$\stackrel{~}{e}_{\stackrel{˘}{a}}=D_{\stackrel{˘}{a}}{}_{}{}^{\stackrel{˘}{b}}(g)e_{\stackrel{˘}{b}}$$
(6)
where $`D_{\stackrel{˘}{a}}{}_{}{}^{\stackrel{˘}{b}}(g)`$ is the adjoint representation of $`G`$. In the subsequent discussion we will choose $`\{e_{\stackrel{˘}{a}}\}`$ as the local frame of reference. In this frame, a general metric on $`G`$ looks like

$$g_{\stackrel{˘}{a}\stackrel{˘}{b}}=g_{\stackrel{˘}{a}\stackrel{˘}{b}}(y^{\stackrel{˘}{m}})$$

However, we are interested in metrics with special symmetry properties. It can be shown that in general the isometry group of a metric will be $`H_LK_R`$, where $`H,KG`$. In particular

$$K=Gg_{\stackrel{˘}{a}\stackrel{˘}{b}}=\text{constants}$$
(7)
We will be principally concerned with such right invariant metrics. These metrics are invariant under the right invariant vector fields $`\{\stackrel{~}{e}_{\stackrel{˘}{a}}\}`$, but not in general under the left invariant vector fields. This follows readily from the commutation relations between them:

$$[e_{\stackrel{˘}{a}},e_{\stackrel{˘}{b}}]=C_{\stackrel{˘}{a}\stackrel{˘}{b}}{}_{}{}^{\stackrel{˘}{c}}e_{\stackrel{˘}{c}}^{};[\stackrel{~}{e}_{\stackrel{˘}{a}},\stackrel{~}{e}_{\stackrel{˘}{b}}]=C_{\stackrel{˘}{a}\stackrel{˘}{b}}{}_{}{}^{\stackrel{˘}{c}}\stackrel{~}{e}_{\stackrel{˘}{c}}^{};[\stackrel{~}{e}_{\stackrel{˘}{a}},e_{\stackrel{˘}{b}}]=0$$
(8)
If we want the metric to be further invariant under say $`H_L`$, then it has to satisfy

$$g_{\stackrel{˘}{a}\stackrel{˘}{b}}=D_{\stackrel{˘}{a}}{}_{}{}^{\stackrel{˘}{c}}(h)D_{\stackrel{˘}{b}}{}_{}{}^{\stackrel{˘}{d}}(h)g_{\stackrel{˘}{c}\stackrel{˘}{d}}hϵH$$
(9)
If we suitably choose our generators $`\{T_{\stackrel{˘}{a}}\}=\{T_{\stackrel{`}{a}},T_{\dot{a}}\}`$ such that $`\{T_{\dot{a}}\}`$ span $``$, then the Killing vectors of this $`H_LG_R`$ (right) invariant metric will be the $`\{\stackrel{~}{e}_{\stackrel{˘}{a}}\}`$’s and the $`\{e_{\dot{a}}\}`$’s. I am using the symbols $`\stackrel{˘}{},\dot{}`$, and $`\stackrel{`}{}`$ to indicate quantities associated with $`G`$, $`H`$ and the coset space $`G/H`$ respectively. A special case of the right invariant metric is the bivariant metric when $`H=G`$, i.e. it has the maximal isometry, and is invariant under both $`\{\stackrel{~}{e}_{\stackrel{˘}{a}}\}`$ and $`\{e_{\stackrel{˘}{a}}\}`$’s. The Killing metric given by

$$g_{\stackrel{˘}{a}\stackrel{˘}{b}}=C_{\stackrel{˘}{a}\stackrel{˘}{c}}{}_{}{}^{\stackrel{˘}{d}}C_{\stackrel{˘}{b}\stackrel{˘}{d}}^{}^{\stackrel{˘}{c}}$$
(10)
is an example of such a metric. Further, the Killing metric satisfies Einstein’s field equations, and hence is consistent with its usual identification as Kaluza-Klein vacuum. However, the Killing metric is not the only right invariant metric which is Einstein, for some specific $`H_L`$’s and specific parameter values we can hope to find other right invariant Einstein metrics, and hence a Kaluza-Klein vacuum.
SU(2) and SU(3): For the 3-dimensional Lie group manifold $`SU(2)`$, the most general (modulo local Lorentz transformations) right invariant metric that one can write down looks like

$$g_{\stackrel{˘}{a}\stackrel{˘}{b}}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}g_{11}& 0& 0\\ 0& g_{22}& 0\\ 0& 0& g_{33}\end{array}\right)$$
(11)
One can now try to solve Einstein’s vacuum field equations:

$$R_{\stackrel{˘}{a}\stackrel{˘}{b}}=\stackrel{˘}{\lambda }g_{\stackrel{˘}{a}\stackrel{˘}{b}}$$
(12)
where $`\stackrel{˘}{\lambda }`$ is related to the cosmological constant. It turns out that the only solution corresponds to

$$g_{11}=g_{22}=g_{33}$$
(13)
which is proportional to the bivariant Killing metric. Thus there is no Einstein $`H_LSU(2)_R`$ metric, and consequently we cannot break the gauge group $`SU(2)_LSU(2)_R`$ to $`H_LSU(2)_R`$ with $`HSU(2)`$.

For $`SU(3)`$ however, we do have more than one right invariant Einstein metric. A convenient and simple way to find such metrics is to start with the Killing metric and then scale the metric sector corresponding to the subgroup $`H`$ that we want to preserve by a parameter which I will refer to as $`T^2`$:

$$g_{\stackrel{˘}{a}\stackrel{˘}{b}}^S=\left(\begin{array}{cc}g_{\stackrel{`}{a}\stackrel{`}{b}}^K& 0\\ 0& T^2g_{\dot{a}\dot{b}}^K\end{array}\right)$$
(14)
Here $`g^K`$ and $`g^S`$ are the Killing and scaled metric respectively. Now for specific values of this parameter one may find Einstein metrics. Applying the ansatz (2.14) to (2.12) for $`SU(3)`$ one can find a vacuum metric which is invariant under $`SO(3)_LSU(3)_R`$, but none which is invariant under $`(U(1)U(1))_LSU(3)_R`$ or $`(SU(2)U(1))_LSU(3)_R`$.

To see this in more detail let us first label the generators.

$$T_{10}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right);T_{20}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right)$$

$$T_{1A}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 1& 0\\ 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right);T_{2A}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\\ 0& 1& 0\end{array}\right);T_{3A}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 1\\ 0& 0& 0\\ 1& 0& 0\end{array}\right)$$

$$T_{1R}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& i& 0\\ i& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right);T_{2R}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& i\\ 0& i& 0\end{array}\right);T_{3R}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& i\\ 0& 0& 0\\ i& 0& 0\end{array}\right)$$
(15)
Plugging the structure constants corresponding to the generators (2.15) in (2.10) one computes the Killing metric:

$$g_{\stackrel{˘}{a}\stackrel{˘}{b}}^K=12\left(\begin{array}{cccccccc}1& \frac{1}{2}& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ \frac{1}{2}& 1& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right)$$
(16)
Here the ordering of the rows and columns is the same as the order in which the generators are written above. The ansatz for a $`SO(3)_L`$ (generated by the $`T_R`$’s) invariant metric then looks like

$$g_{\stackrel{˘}{a}\stackrel{˘}{b}}^{SO(3)}=12\left(\begin{array}{cccccccc}1& \frac{1}{2}& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ \frac{1}{2}& 1& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& T^2& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& T^2& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& T^2\end{array}\right)$$
(17)
and plugging (2.17) in (2.12), one finds (2.17) is Einstein for

$$T^2=1,\stackrel{˘}{\lambda }=\frac{1}{4};\text{ and }T^2=\frac{1}{11},\stackrel{˘}{\lambda }=\frac{21}{44}$$
(18)
While the former corresponds to the Killing metric, the latter is a $`SO(3)_LSU(3)_R`$ invariant metric.

In a similar manner, if one wants to obtain an $`(U(1)U(1))_L`$ (generated by the $`T_0`$’s) invariant metric, the ansatz then looks like

$$g_{\stackrel{˘}{a}\stackrel{˘}{b}}^{U(1)U(1)}=12\left(\begin{array}{cccccccc}T^2& \frac{1}{2}T^2& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ \frac{1}{2}T^2& T^2& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right)$$
(19)
which satisfies Einstein’s field equations for

$$T^2=1,\stackrel{˘}{\lambda }=\frac{1}{4};\text{ and }T^2=\frac{5}{3},\stackrel{˘}{\lambda }=\frac{5}{12}$$
(20)
The latter corresponds to an $`(U(1)U(1))_LSU(3)_R`$ invariant metric, but it has a different signature and hence is not a “proper” vacuum metric on $`SU(3)`$.

The same thing happens when we try to obtain an $`U(1)_LSU(3)_R`$ invariant Einstein metric. Using a similar ansatz one finds that there are no nonsingular Einstein $`(SU(2)U(1))_LSU(3)_R`$ invariant metric. In fact, the only choices for a $`H_LG_R`$ invariant vacuum metric are $`H=SO(3)`$ or $`SU(3)`$.

## 2 SYMMETRY BREAKING AND MASS MATRIX

Kaluza-Klein Vacua: We consider a $`D`$ dimensional space-time manifold with 4 ordinary (large) space-time dimensions, labeled by $`x^m`$ and $`D4`$ extra compact dimensions forming the “internal manifold” charted by $`y^{\stackrel{˘}{m}}`$. $`\{x^{\widehat{m}}\}=\{x^m,y^{\stackrel{˘}{m}}\}`$. The vielbein and its inverse, corresponding to the Kaluza-Klein vacuum is then given by

$$\widehat{e}_{\widehat{m}}{}_{}{}^{\widehat{a}}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}e_m^a& 0\\ 0& \stackrel{˘}{e}_{\stackrel{˘}{m}}^{\stackrel{˘}{a}}\end{array}\right);\widehat{e}_{\widehat{a}}{}_{}{}^{\widehat{m}}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}e_a^m& 0\\ 0& \stackrel{˘}{e}_{\stackrel{˘}{a}}^{\stackrel{˘}{m}}\end{array}\right)$$
(21)
with the Einstein metric

$$\widehat{g}_{\widehat{a}\widehat{b}}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}g_{ab}& 0\\ 0& g_{\stackrel{˘}{a}\stackrel{˘}{b}}\end{array}\right)$$
(22)
Here the four-dimensional part of the vielbein corresponds to either the Minkowski, or the deSitter spaces according to the sign of the scalar curvature constant of the internal manifold. For (3.1-3.2) to be a vacuum, $`\{\stackrel{˘}{e}_{\stackrel{˘}{a}}{}_{}{}^{\stackrel{˘}{m}},g_{\stackrel{˘}{a}\stackrel{˘}{b}}\}`$ also need to satisfy the $`D4`$ dimensional Einstein’s field equations for the internal manifold.

Historically, although seeds of nonabelian generalization of Kaluza-Klein reduction scheme can be seen in as early as Klein’s and Pauli’s works (see  for details), it was Kerner  who first performed a complete nonabelian analysis by considering Lie groups as internal manifolds. We will also specialize to the case when the internal manifold is a (semisimple) Lie group $`G`$. We already know that there exists one Einstein vacuum in the form of the Killing metric ($`g_{\stackrel{˘}{a}\stackrel{˘}{b}}^K`$) which is invariant under $`G_LG_R`$, and we will also assume that there is another Einstein metric $`g_{\stackrel{˘}{a}\stackrel{˘}{b}}^S`$ which is invariant under $`H_LG_R`$. We can choose the Lie group generators $`\{T_{\stackrel{˘}{a}}\}=\{T_{\stackrel{`}{a}},T_{\dot{a}}\}`$ (as discussed in the previous section) so that $`\{T_{\dot{a}}\}`$ generates $``$. We can then parameterise the group element as

$$g=exp(\stackrel{`}{\lambda }^{\stackrel{`}{a}}(y^{\stackrel{`}{m}})T_{\stackrel{`}{a}})exp(\dot{\lambda }^{\dot{a}}(y^{\dot{m}})T_{\dot{a}})$$

Let us now consider the situation when the internal manifold makes a transition from $`g_{\stackrel{˘}{a}\stackrel{˘}{b}}^K`$ to $`g_{\stackrel{˘}{a}\stackrel{˘}{b}}^S`$. Now, all the left and the right invariant vector fields are Killing vectors for the Killing metric, but the Killing vectors of the scaled metric are given by the right invariant vector fields

$$\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{˘}{e}}_{\stackrel{˘}{a}}=\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{˘}{e}}_{\stackrel{˘}{a}}{}_{}{}^{\stackrel{˘}{m}}_{\stackrel{˘}{m}}^{}$$

and the left invariant vector fields

$$\stackrel{˘}{e}_{\dot{a}}=\stackrel{˘}{e}_{\dot{a}}{}_{}{}^{\dot{m}}_{\dot{m}}^{}$$
(23)
Thus the $`\stackrel{˘}{e}_{\stackrel{`}{a}}`$’s constitute the broken Killing symmetry generators.
Transition and Reduction: We are now ready to investigate the fluctuations around the Kaluza Klein vacuum. We will be principally interested in the massless modes as they are the most important ones in the low energy description of physics. Further, although these ideas should be applied ultimately to supergravity (SUGRA) theories (see the subsection “Dynamical Considerations and Supergravity” for detail), for simplicity we will only concern ourselves with the massless modes coming from the $`D`$ dimensional metric here. It is well known what these massless modes are: It consists of the spin 2 graviton (fluctuations around the four-dimensional sector of the vacuum vielbein), and spin 1 gauge bosons associated with the Killing vectors of the internal manifold (occurring as fluctuations around the off diagonal part of the vielbein)222Although the dilaton is supposed to become massive in the full quantum theory, it does play an important role in the low energy physics. However, since presently we are only interested in the fluctuations corresponding to the broken symmetries we can ignore it in our analysis.. Now consider what happens to these modes if the internal manifold itself makes a transition from a maximally isometric space ($`G_LG_R`$ invariant metric) to a less symmetric space ($`H_LG_R`$ invariant, $`HG`$). Such a geometric transition can take place at an earlier cosmic time when the energy scales involved suggest a truely dynamic internal manifold. Of course, such a vacuum to vacuum geometric transition cannot be understood perturbatively, and to analyse it comprehensively is indeed a difficult task. In this paper, I will only give a brief outline of what such a program will entail (see “Dynamical Considerations and Supergravity”) and leave the details for further research. We now focus on the consequences of such a transition, in particular on the massless modes.

Nothing happens to gravity, but clearly the gauge bosons associated with the broken Killing vectors will now no longer be massless. The initial $`G_LG_R`$ nonabelian gauge theory, consisting of $`\stackrel{~}{A}_m^{\stackrel{˘}{a}}`$ and $`A_m^{\stackrel{˘}{a}}`$, associated with $`\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{˘}{e}}_{\stackrel{˘}{a}}`$’s and $`\stackrel{˘}{e}_{\stackrel{˘}{a}}`$’s respectively, is now partially broken to a $`H_LG_R`$ gauge theory, comprising of the gauge fields $`\stackrel{~}{A}_m^{\stackrel{˘}{a}}`$ and $`A_m^{\dot{a}}`$, while $`A_m^{\stackrel{`}{a}}`$’s pick up mass terms. Our aim now is to compute the “mass-matrix” for these broken gauge fields.

Since we agree that the graviton $`g_{mn}`$, and the gauge bosons $`\stackrel{~}{A}_m^{\stackrel{˘}{a}}`$ associated with the right invariant vectors remain massless after the transition, we can focus only on the fluctuations of the vielbein due to the left invariant vector fields.

$$\widehat{e}_{\widehat{m}}{}_{}{}^{\widehat{a}}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}e_m{}_{}{}^{a}(x)& A_m^{\stackrel{˘}{a}}(x)\\ 0& \stackrel{˘}{e}_{\stackrel{˘}{m}}{}_{}{}^{\stackrel{˘}{a}}(y)\end{array}\right);\widehat{e}_{\widehat{a}}{}_{}{}^{\widehat{m}}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}e_a{}_{}{}^{m}(x)& e_a{}_{}{}^{n}(x)A_n^{\stackrel{˘}{b}}(x)\stackrel{˘}{e}_{\stackrel{˘}{b}}{}_{}{}^{\stackrel{˘}{m}}(y)\\ 0& \stackrel{˘}{e}_{\stackrel{˘}{a}}{}_{}{}^{\stackrel{˘}{m}}(y)\end{array}\right)$$
(24)
The form of the vielbein is not to be treated as an ansatz, which has to then satisfy several consistency conditions333For example it was shown in  that in an ansatz for the vielbein of the form (3.4), we cannot have gauge fields associated with both the left and the right invariant vector fields in the off-diagonal sector. However, undoubtedly they both correspond to massless modes suggesting a $`G_LG_R`$ gauge symmetry in the low energy effective theory (once all the modes necessary for a consistent truncation are taken into account) which is broken, after the transition to $`H_LG_R`$. If one is still worried about the consistency requirements, this scheme can be thought of as breaking a $`G_L`$ gauge theory to $`H_L`$., but rather as containing the relevant fluctuations to describe the low energy fluctuations. For example, this will enable us to compute the gauge boson mass generated through this transition.

It is a straight-forward exercise to compute $`\sqrt{\widehat{g}}\widehat{R}`$. One obtains

$$\widehat{R}=R+\stackrel{˘}{R}\frac{1}{4}(F_{ab}^{\stackrel{˘}{c}}F_{\stackrel{˘}{c}}^{ab}+A^{a\stackrel{˘}{b}}A_a^{\stackrel{˘}{c}}M_{\stackrel{˘}{b}\stackrel{˘}{c}})$$
(25)
where

$$F_{ab}^{\stackrel{˘}{c}}=e_a{}_{}{}^{m}e_{b}^{}{}_{}{}^{n}[_{[m}A_{n]}^{\stackrel{˘}{c}}+C_{\stackrel{˘}{a}\stackrel{˘}{b}}{}_{}{}^{\stackrel{˘}{c}}A_{m}^{\stackrel{˘}{a}}A_n^{\stackrel{˘}{b}}]$$
(26)
and

$$M_{\stackrel{˘}{a}\stackrel{˘}{b}}=2[C_{\stackrel{˘}{a}\stackrel{˘}{c}}{}_{}{}^{\stackrel{˘}{d}}C_{\stackrel{˘}{b}\stackrel{˘}{d}}^{}{}_{}{}^{\stackrel{˘}{c}}+C_{\stackrel{˘}{a}\stackrel{˘}{c}}{}_{}{}^{\stackrel{˘}{d}}C_{\stackrel{˘}{b}}^{}{}_{}{}^{\stackrel{˘}{c}}{}_{\stackrel{˘}{d}}{}^{}]$$
(27)
while

$$\sqrt{\widehat{g}}=\widehat{e}=e.\stackrel{˘}{e}$$
(28)
Thus we have

$$\sqrt{\widehat{g}}R=e.\stackrel{˘}{e}[R+\stackrel{˘}{R}\frac{1}{4}(F_{ab}^{\stackrel{˘}{c}}F_{\stackrel{˘}{c}}^{ab}+A^{a\stackrel{˘}{b}}A_a^{\stackrel{˘}{c}}M_{\stackrel{˘}{b}\stackrel{˘}{c}})]$$
(29)
We note that both $`R`$ and $`\stackrel{˘}{R}`$ are constants; since both the four-dimensional and the internal manifold are Einstein and hence have constant scalar curvatures. Thus after integrating out the extra compact dimensions, we have the effective action for the gauge fields:

$$S_{gauge,eff}=\frac{1}{4}\text{Vol}_G𝑑xe(F_{ab}^{\stackrel{˘}{c}}F_{\stackrel{˘}{c}}^{ab}+A^{a\stackrel{˘}{b}}A_a^{\stackrel{˘}{c}}M_{\stackrel{˘}{b}\stackrel{˘}{c}})$$
(30)
Actually, as is clear from the action, $`M_{\stackrel{˘}{a}\stackrel{˘}{b}}`$ really represents the mass square. For the maximally symmetric internal manifold it vanishes, whereas the broken sector is non-vanishing for the scaled metric.
The example of SU(3): We had previously seen that the only Einstein right invariant metric on $`SU(2)`$ is also invariant under $`SU(2)_L`$. Hence a geometric symmetry breaking to $`U(1)_L`$ cannot occur. $`SU(3)`$ is the “simplest” group manifold which can exibit a geometric transition. In section 2, we obtained some right invariant metrics on $`SU(3)`$ which were Einstein, out of which only the Killing metric and the $`SO(3)_L`$ invariant metric can become consistent Kaluza-Klein vacua. Thus the “geometric transition” mechanism predicts that if we want to break the gauge group $`SU(3)_LSU(3)_R`$ to $`H_LSU(3)_R`$, $`HSU(3)`$, then $`H`$ has to be $`SO(3)`$.

As expected the mass matrix for the Killing metric vanishes, but for the $`SO(3)`$-scaled metric it looks like

$$M_{\stackrel{˘}{a}\stackrel{˘}{b}}=\frac{1200}{11}\left(\begin{array}{cccccccc}1& \frac{1}{2}& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ \frac{1}{2}& 1& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right)$$
(31)
One immediately observes that all the broken gauge bosons are now massive, while the unbroken gauge masses vanish, again as expected. Next, let us choose a basis where the mass matrix is diagonal:

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}A_{10}^{}\\ A_{20}^{}\end{array}\right)\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 1\\ 1& 1\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}A_{10}\\ A_{20}\end{array}\right)$$
(32)
The matrix now reads

$$M_{\stackrel{˘}{a}\stackrel{˘}{b}}^{}=\frac{1200}{11}\left(\begin{array}{cccccccc}\frac{1}{2}& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& \frac{1}{2}& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right)$$
(33)
As is usual in Kaluza-Klein theories, the masses depend inversely on the “radius” $`r`$ (hidden in 3.13) of the compact internal manifold which can be seen as follows:

$$y^{\stackrel{˘}{m}}ry^{\stackrel{˘}{m}}T_{\stackrel{˘}{a}}\frac{T_{\stackrel{˘}{a}}}{r}C_{\stackrel{˘}{a}\stackrel{˘}{b}}{}_{}{}^{\stackrel{˘}{c}}\frac{C_{\stackrel{˘}{a}\stackrel{˘}{b}}^{\stackrel{˘}{c}}}{r}M_{\stackrel{˘}{a}\stackrel{˘}{b}}\frac{M_{\stackrel{˘}{a}\stackrel{˘}{b}}}{r^2}$$

Thus it is only the mass ratios of the gauge bosons that come out as a precise prediction of this model. In this case the mass squares of $`A_0`$’s are half as those of $`A_A`$’s and the typical mass of the broken gauge bosons are given by

$$M\frac{10}{r}$$

Dynamical Considerations and Supergravity: We have seen how in general geometric transition of the internal manifold can explain symmetry breaking of gauge theories. It is imperative then that we try to understand how or when such a transition can occur. If a classical path connects the two vacua, initial fluctuations and instabilities can then trigger a “classical transition”. Alternatively, this could be brought about by quantum tunneling effects. Although it might seem hopelessly difficult to analyse this “infinite-mode” coupled system, the ansatz for $`g^S`$ (2.14) gives us important clues as to what may be going on. The parameter $`T^2`$ which determines the “shape” of the manifold changes as it makes a transition. To maintain $`\stackrel{˘}{\lambda }_{init}=\stackrel{˘}{\lambda }_{final}`$, it is clear that the “size” of the internal manifold must also change. We also know how the external manifold (the four dimensional world) behaves asymptotically. For example, if we restrict ourselves to the case when $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>0`$, then we expect an asymptotically deSitter vacuum whose metric in a special coordinate system can be written as

$$ds^2=dt^2+e^{\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }t}{D}}dx^2$$

Thus it is natural to consider the full ansatz for the metric as

$$\widehat{g}_{\widehat{a}\widehat{b}}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}W^2(t)& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& A^2(t)\delta _{ab}& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& S^2(t)g_{\stackrel{`}{a}\stackrel{`}{b}}^K& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& S^2(t)T^2(t)g_{\dot{a}\dot{b}}^K\end{array}\right)$$
(34)
$`S(t)`$ and $`T(t)`$ are to be treated as time dependent collective coordinates characterizing the size and the shape of the manifold respectively, $`A(t)`$ is the usual cosmological radius of our universe while $`W(t)`$ corresponds to a gauge freedom (which may be useful for later computational purposes). Asymptotically we expect $`A(t)e^{\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }t}{D}}`$ (in the $`W(t)=1`$ gauge) before and after the transition, while $`\{S(t),T(t)\}`$ should extrapolate between the two vacuum values.

Classically, we now have to solve Einstein’s equations (2.12). From the symmetry of (3.14) we expect to obtain four equations coming from the $`\{tt,ab,\stackrel{`}{a}\stackrel{`}{b},\dot{a}\dot{b}\}`$ component of (2.12), out of which one can be thought of as a gauge fixing condition. It should be pointed out that one may need to include matter/radiation contributions in Einstein’s equations in a more realistic cosmoslogical setting and/or to incorporate SUGRA effects. At any case, in the end we will have four ordinary differential equations in four variables. However, such nonlinear differential equations coming from general relativity are usually notoriously difficult to solve and perhaps one has to employ both analytic and numerical techniques to analyse it in detail.

Alternatively, one can substitute the ansatz (3.14) in Einstein’s action

$$S_D=d^Dx\sqrt{\widehat{g}}\widehat{R}$$
(35)
and obtain an effective quantum mechanical action for $`A(t),S(t)`$ and $`T(t)`$444 Ideally one should check the consistency of the effective action with Einstein’s equations.. It should then be possible to understand both qualitatively and quantitatively some of the quantum aspects of the problem. One can try to compute the quantum tunneling amplitude from the effective potential and also gain insight into a related and very crucial issue, that of stabilities of the vacua.

Stability of Kaluza-Klein vacuum has previously been studied , specifically in the context of SUGRA theories. For example, it is well known that vacua’s which preserve some supersymmetry are stable , and thus it is important that we analyse the supersymmetric properties of the maximally symmetric and scaled metrics which are involved in the geometric transition555Although, in this paper I have focussed on pure gravity, it should only be seen as a toy model to be ultimately embedded in a more unified (and presumably supersymmetric) theory of gravity like String and Supergravity theories.. It should be mentioned that previously such “less symmetric” vacuum metrics on some coset spaces and their supersymmetric properties have been studied in the context of supergravity compactifications and they go by the name of “squashed spaces” . Indeed some of these squashed spaces were found to admit Killing spinors, i.e. preserve some supersymmetry and hence are stable, making a geometric transition to these less symmetric spaces viable. Stable but non-supersymmetric vacuum solutions also exist and their stability can be analysed by looking at the eigenvalues of the Lichnerowicz operator acting on some tensor fields on the internal manifold (please see  for some recent work). Similar methods can be adopted to study the vacuum solutions that I considered in this paper.

In passing from pure gravity to supergravity we not only introduce fermions (and supersymmetry) but also usually some scalars and gauge forms. The presence of the gauge forms will enable us to consider not only the purely geometric vacua that we have been considering, but also the Freund-Rubin type vacua  with non-zero gauge form flux, and transitions between them. This is specially useful for SUGRA’s with no cosmological constants to begin with (like the 11 dimensional SUGRA), because the stress-tensor of the gauge forms behave as an effective cosmological constant (except that it differs in sign for the external and the internal manifold) and thereby let us consider non-Ricci flat internal manifolds. In Freund-Rubin type mechanisms the massless vectors recieve contributions (say $`B_m^{\stackrel{˘}{a}}`$) from the gauge forms and our analysis has to be suitably modified to incorporate this effect. However, presumably the geometric transition will preserve the masslessness of the same vector combinations (i.e. $`A_m^{\dot{a}}+B_m^{\dot{a}}`$) as in the pure gravity case, leaving the other combinations ($`A_m^{\stackrel{`}{a}}+B_m^{\stackrel{`}{a}}`$) broken. The fact that the gauge transformations (which follows from the general coordinate transformations in the extra dimensions, see the following section)of the $`A_m^{\stackrel{˘}{a}}`$’s both before and after the transition remains unaltered even within the framework of SUGRA, corroborates the above arguement. The $`B_m^{\stackrel{˘}{a}}`$’s have to essentially transform the same way as the $`A_m^{\stackrel{˘}{a}}`$’s under the gauge symmetry $`G`$ and should also break the same way as the $`A_m^{\stackrel{˘}{a}}`$’s under $`H`$, which suggests that the mass matrix should remain intact, barring an overall factor.

## 3  HIGG’S LIKE MECHANISM

A natural question to ask at this point would be, what happens to the number of physical degrees of freedom! Clearly, for each broken generator, the gauge boson becomes massive from massless, thereby increasing the number of physical states by one. However, we will see that like in Higg’s mechanism, here also the “freed gauge parameter” corresponding to the broken gauge bosons can be used to eliminate some of the scalars that are present in the full theory. To make this explicit let us identify, and include these scalars in the vielbein:

$$\widehat{e}_{\widehat{a}}{}_{}{}^{\widehat{m}}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}e_a{}_{}{}^{m}(x)& e_a{}_{}{}^{n}(x)A_n^{\stackrel{˘}{b}}(x)\stackrel{˘}{e}_{\stackrel{˘}{b}}{}_{}{}^{\stackrel{˘}{m}}(y)\\ 0& \mathrm{\Phi }_{\stackrel{˘}{a}}{}_{}{}^{\stackrel{˘}{b}}(x)\stackrel{˘}{e}_{\stackrel{˘}{b}}{}_{}{}^{\stackrel{˘}{m}}(y)\end{array}\right)$$
(36)
with

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{\stackrel{˘}{a}}{}_{}{}^{\stackrel{˘}{b}}(x)D_{\stackrel{˘}{a}}{}_{}{}^{\stackrel{˘}{b}}(\varphi ^{\stackrel{˘}{c}}(x))=[exp(\varphi ^{\stackrel{˘}{c}}(x)D_{\stackrel{˘}{c}})]_{\stackrel{˘}{a}}^{\stackrel{˘}{b}}$$
(37)
where $`D_{\stackrel{˘}{c}}`$ are the generators of $`G`$ in the adjoint representation. In other words, the scalars $`\varphi ^{\stackrel{˘}{c}}(x^m)`$ are in the adjoint representation of the group $`G`$.

Now let us look at the gauge transformations, which are essentially the translations along the Killing vectors of the internal manifold:

$$x^{}_{}{}^{}m=x^m;x^{{}_{}{}^{}\stackrel{˘}{m}}=x^{\stackrel{˘}{m}}+\zeta ^{\stackrel{˘}{a}}(x)\stackrel{˘}{e}_{\stackrel{˘}{a}}{}_{}{}^{\stackrel{˘}{m}}(y)$$
(38)
Under this coordinate transformation, the gauge fields and the scalars transform as666for infinitesimal $`\zeta `$

$$\delta A_m^{\stackrel{˘}{c}}=_m\zeta ^{\stackrel{˘}{c}}(x)+C_{\stackrel{˘}{a}\stackrel{˘}{b}}{}_{}{}^{\stackrel{˘}{c}}A_{m}^{\stackrel{˘}{b}}\zeta ^{\stackrel{˘}{a}}$$
(39)
and

$$\delta \varphi ^{\stackrel{˘}{a}}=\zeta ^{\stackrel{˘}{a}}$$
(40)
While (4.4) is the familiar nonabelian gauge transformation, using (4.5) we can eliminate the scalars that we introduced. We are now ready to count the number of states before and after the transition. The best way to do it is to look at the physical degrees of freedom associated with $`\widehat{g}_{\stackrel{˘}{m}\stackrel{˘}{n}}`$ and $`A_m^{\stackrel{˘}{a}}`$. Now

$$\widehat{g}_{\stackrel{˘}{m}\stackrel{˘}{n}}=\widehat{e}_{\stackrel{˘}{m}}{}_{}{}^{\widehat{a}}\widehat{e}_{\stackrel{˘}{n}}^{}{}_{}{}^{\widehat{b}}\widehat{g}_{\widehat{a}\widehat{b}}^{}=\widehat{e}_{\stackrel{˘}{m}}{}_{}{}^{\stackrel{˘}{a}}\widehat{e}_{\stackrel{˘}{n}}^{}{}_{}{}^{\stackrel{˘}{b}}\widehat{g}_{}^{\stackrel{˘}{a}\stackrel{˘}{b}}=D_{\stackrel{˘}{c}}{}_{}{}^{\stackrel{˘}{a}}D_{\stackrel{˘}{d}}^{}{}_{}{}^{\stackrel{˘}{b}}\stackrel{˘}{e}_{\stackrel{˘}{m}}^{}{}_{}{}^{\stackrel{˘}{c}}\stackrel{˘}{e}_{\stackrel{˘}{n}}^{}{}_{}{}^{\stackrel{˘}{d}}\stackrel{˘}{g}_{\stackrel{˘}{a}\stackrel{˘}{b}}^{}$$

For the Killing metric we know from (9) $`D_{\stackrel{˘}{c}}{}_{}{}^{\stackrel{˘}{a}}D_{\stackrel{˘}{d}}^{}{}_{}{}^{\stackrel{˘}{b}}\stackrel{˘}{g}_{\stackrel{˘}{a}\stackrel{˘}{b}}^{K}=\stackrel{˘}{g}_{\stackrel{˘}{d}\stackrel{˘}{c}}^K`$ and thus

$$\widehat{g}_{\stackrel{˘}{m}\stackrel{˘}{n}}=\stackrel{˘}{e}_{\stackrel{˘}{m}}{}_{}{}^{\stackrel{˘}{a}}\stackrel{˘}{e}_{\stackrel{˘}{n}}^{}{}_{}{}^{\stackrel{˘}{b}}\stackrel{˘}{g}_{\stackrel{˘}{a}\stackrel{˘}{b}}^{K}$$
(41)
i.e. there are no degrees of freedom associated with $`\varphi `$’s to begin with777Note in general $`\widehat{g}_{\stackrel{˘}{m}\stackrel{˘}{n}}(x,y)`$ can be expanded as a sum of harmonic functions/modes on the internal manifold. The coefficients are four-dimensional fields and constitutes the degrees of freedom associated with $`\widehat{g}_{\stackrel{˘}{m}\stackrel{˘}{n}}(x,y)`$. (4.6) tells us that $`\varphi `$’s are not associated with any such mode and hence do not constitute any degree of freedom in the theory.. Like wise, the gauge parameters $`\zeta ^{\stackrel{˘}{a}}`$’s are used as gauge parameters for the massless $`A^{\stackrel{˘}{a}}`$ gauge fields. We thus have $`2\stackrel{˘}{D}`$ physical states coming from the gauge bosons, where $`\stackrel{˘}{D}`$ is the number of internal dimensions.

For the scaled metric however, things are different. (2.9) tells us that

$$D_{\stackrel{˘}{c}}{}_{}{}^{\stackrel{˘}{a}}(h)D_{\stackrel{˘}{d}}{}_{}{}^{\stackrel{˘}{b}}(h)\stackrel{˘}{g}_{\stackrel{˘}{a}\stackrel{˘}{b}}^S=\stackrel{˘}{g}_{\stackrel{˘}{d}\stackrel{˘}{c}}^S\text{ only when }hϵH$$

Thus we have

$$\widehat{g}_{\stackrel{˘}{m}\stackrel{˘}{n}}=(D_{\stackrel{˘}{c}}{}_{}{}^{\stackrel{˘}{a}}(\varphi ^{\stackrel{`}{a}})D_{\stackrel{˘}{d}}{}_{}{}^{\stackrel{˘}{b}}(\varphi ^{\stackrel{`}{a}}))(x)(\stackrel{˘}{g}_{\stackrel{˘}{a}\stackrel{˘}{b}}^S\stackrel{˘}{e}_{\stackrel{˘}{m}}{}_{}{}^{\stackrel{˘}{c}}\stackrel{˘}{e}_{\stackrel{˘}{n}}^{}{}_{}{}^{\stackrel{˘}{d}})(y)$$
(42)
and we see that although the $`\varphi ^{\dot{a}}`$’s are spurious (as in the maximal case), the $`\varphi ^{\stackrel{`}{a}}`$’s are associated with the mode functions $`(\stackrel{˘}{g}_{\stackrel{˘}{a}\stackrel{˘}{b}}^S\stackrel{˘}{e}_{\stackrel{˘}{m}}{}_{}{}^{\stackrel{˘}{c}}\stackrel{˘}{e}_{\stackrel{˘}{n}}^{}{}_{}{}^{\stackrel{˘}{d}})(y)`$, and hence are apriori present as genuine degrees of freedom in the theory for both the maximal and the non-maximal case. If we include these scalars, the total number of physical states in the maximal case goes up to

$$\text{physical states}_{maximal}=2\stackrel{˘}{D}+\stackrel{`}{D}$$
(43)
In the non-maximal case, we only need the $`\zeta ^{\dot{a}}`$’s to preserve gauge symmetry, and the total number of physical states coming from the vectors are:

$$2\dot{D}+3\stackrel{`}{D}=2\stackrel{˘}{D}+\stackrel{`}{D}$$

The $`\zeta ^{\stackrel{`}{a}}`$’s which are still left now can be utilized to eliminate the $`\varphi ^{\stackrel{`}{a}}`$’s via (4.5). Thus the total number of physical states is again given by

$$\text{physical states}_{nonmaximal}=2\stackrel{˘}{D}+\stackrel{`}{D}$$
(44)
Quite simply, what is going on is that the number of degrees of freedom in the metric and the gauge parameter is the same for both the maximal and the non-maximal case. In the maximal case all the gauge parameters $`\zeta ^{\stackrel{˘}{a}}`$’s are utilized to eliminate degrees of freedom from the gauge fields, while in the non-maximal case the $`\zeta ^{\dot{a}}`$’s do just that, but the $`\zeta ^{\stackrel{`}{a}}`$’s eliminate some of the scalars. This is exactly analogous to what happens in Higg’s mechanism.

## 4 SUMMARY AND FUTURE RESEARCH

In this paper I have tried to explain how the dynamics of the internal manifold can break the gauge symmetry partially. As an illustrative example I considered the manifold $`SU(3)`$ which admits both a $`SU(3)_LSU(3)_R`$ and a $`SO(3)_LSU(3)_R`$ invariant vacuum. If and when the metric makes a vacuum to vacuum transition from the maximal to the non-maximally symmetric space, the gauge fields corresponding to the broken Killing symmetries will pick up a mass, thereby breaking the gauge invariance from $`SU(3)_LSU(3)_R`$ to $`SO(3)_LSU(3)_R`$. This geometric symmetry breaking mechanism has two definite predictions. First is a restriction of the subgroups into which the original gauge group can be broken, and this comes about because we cannot always find vacuum metrics invariant under a specific subgroup. Secondly, this model makes a precise prediction about the various mass ratios of the broken gauge bosons. The counting of physical states also works out fine when one properly takes into account some of the scalar degrees of freedom that are present in the full theory. The “freed” gauge parameter can eliminate these scalars in the non-maximal case, and thus the situation is exactly analogous to the Higg’s mechanism where the gauge bosons become massive, “eating away” some of the scalars.

Though this geometric transition mechanism seems consistent, to make it more convincing one should study the transition itself. For example, why and how can such a transition occur? As a first test, we should look for classical solutions connecting the two vacua (possibly asymptotically). If such a solution does not exist, quantum tunneling can still bring about such a transition. The stability of the scaled metric is of course crucial to gauruntee that the internal manifold remains there and hence has to be carefully analysed. Assuming that a geometric transition of the internal manifold is possible, our next task will be to understand its implications. I have already explained how this process will partially break gauge symmetry and thus one can apply this procedure to break electro-weak symmetry or grand unified theories (GUTs). The nice thing about this model is that it corroborates our general idea that the early universe was in a more symmetric phase, and then (through this geometric transition) came to exist in a less symmetric phase. To understand this theory in more detail, one will need to look at the truncation procedure carefully. Dynamical considerations suggest that some scalar fields (of comparable mass as the broken gauge bosons) play an important role in the effective theory, and their potential may be crucial in further understanding, like in the Higg’s mechanism. Also, I performed the analysis only with pure Einstein-Hilbert action, and ignoring the dilaton, other gauge fields and the fermions. In a SUGRA theory, one obviously has to incorporate these fields and I have only hinted at what extensions/modifications that may be needed in our model. One should also investigate whether such a geometric transition has any cosmological consequences.

Finally, it should be possible to generalise the internal manifolds and metrics that I considered in this paper. I analysed only the very simple case when the internal manifold is a Lie group, and when the vacuum metrics are all right invariant. One can try to look at other less symmetric metrics which are neither left nor right invariant. It should also not be too difficult to generalise this mechanism to more realistic internal manifolds like the coset spaces (and in particular those which can give Standard Model like gauge groups), and at least in principle to some of the more interesting nonhomogenous spaces.
Acknowledgements: I would like to thank Prof. Martin Rocek and Prof. Warren Siegel for some useful suggestions and discussions.