text:
# Conformally flat metrics on 4-manifolds

## 1 Introduction

The goal of this note is to prove

###### Theorem 1.1.

Let $`M^4`$ be an closed connected smooth spin 4-manifold. Then there exists a closed orientable 4-manifold $`N`$ such that $`M\mathrm{\#}N`$ admits a conformally flat Riemannian metric.

Our motivation comes from the following beautiful theorem of C. Taubes :

###### Theorem 1.2.

Let $`M`$ be a smooth closed oriented 4-manifold. Then there exists a number $`k`$ so that the connected sum of $`M`$ with $`k`$ copies of $`\overline{^2}`$ admits a half-conformally flat structure.

Here $`\overline{^2}`$ is the complex-projective plane with the reversed orientation. Recall that a Riemannian metric $`g`$ on $`M`$ is anti self-dual (or half-conformally flat) if the self-dual part $`W_+`$ of the Weyl tensor vanishes. Vanishing of both self dual and anti self-dual parts of the Weyl tensor (i.e., vanishing of the entire Weyl tensor) is equivalent to local conformal flatness of the metric $`g`$.

Note that the assumption that $`M`$ is spin is equivalent to vanishing of all Stiefel-Whitney classes, which in turn is equivalent to triviality of the tangent bundle of $`M^{}=M\{p\}`$. According to the Hirsch-Smale theory (see for instance ), $`M^{}:=M\{p\}`$ is parallelizable iff $`M^{}`$ admits an immersion into $`^4`$. Thus, by taking $`M`$ to be simply-connected with nontrivial 2-nd Stiefel-Whitney class, one sees that $`M\mathrm{\#}N`$ does not admit a flat conformal structure for any $`N`$: otherwise the developing map would immerse $`M^{}`$ into $`^4`$. Therefore the vanishing condition is, to some extent, necessary. Note also that (unlike in Taubes’ theorem) one cannot expect $`N`$ to be simply-connected since the only closed conformally flat simply-connected Riemannian manifold is the sphere with the standard conformal structure.

Sonjong Hwang in his thesis , has proven a 3-dimensional version of Theorem 1.1; moreover, he proves that one can use a connected sum of Haken manifolds as the manifold $`N`$. Similar arguments can be used to prove an analogous theorem in the context of locally spherical CR structures on 3-manifolds.

The arguments in both 3-dimensional and 4-dimensional cases, in spirit (although, not in the technique), are parallel to Taubes’: one starts with a singular conformally-flat metric on $`M`$, where the singularity is localized in a ball $`BM`$. The singular metric is obtained by pull-back of the standard metric on the 4-sphere under a branched covering $`MS^4`$. Then, by attaching another manifold to $`M`$ along the singular locus (which accounts for taking the connected sum $`M\mathrm{\#}N`$), one “resolves the singularity” and constructs the desired flat conformal structure.

###### Conjecture 1.3.

Let $`M^n`$ be a closed connected smooth n-manifold, whose Stiefel-Whitney classes all vanish. Then there exists a smooth closed orientable n-manifold $`N`$ such that $`M\mathrm{\#}N`$ admits a conformally flat Riemannian metric.

It seems very likely that this conjecture can be proven by methods analogous to the ones used in the present paper. The main technical problem is that the reflection groups used in the present paper do not exists in the higher dimensions. However, it is plausible that one can use instead arithmetic groups containing large number of reflections, as it is done in  in a different context.

Acknowledgments. During the work on this paper the author was supported by the NSF grants DMS-99-71404 and DMS-02-03045.

## 2 Definitions and notation

We let $`\mathrm{Mob}(S^4)`$ denote the full group of Moebius transformations of $`S^4`$, i.e. the group generated by inversions in round spheres. Equivalently, $`\mathrm{Mob}(S^4)`$ is the restriction of the full group of isometries $`Isom(^5)`$ to the $`4`$-sphere $`S^4`$ which is the ideal boundary of $`^5`$. We will regard $`S^4`$ as 1-point compactification $`^4\{\mathrm{}\}`$ of then Euclidean 4-space.

###### Definition 2.1.

Let $`Q`$ be a unit cube in $`^4`$. We define the PL inversion $`J`$ in the boundary of $`Q`$ as follows. Let $`h:S^4S^4`$ be a PL homeomorphism which sends $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=Q`$ onto the round sphere $`S^3^4`$ and $`h(\mathrm{})=\mathrm{}`$. Let $`j:S^4S^4`$ be the ordinary inversion in $`S^3`$. Then $`J:=h^1jh`$.

###### Definition 2.2.

A Moebius or a flat conformal structure on a smooth $`4`$-manifold $`M`$ is an atlas $`\{(V_\alpha ,\phi _\alpha ),\alpha A\}`$ which consist of diffeomorphisms $`\phi _\alpha :V_\alpha U_\alpha S^4`$ so that the transition mappings $`\phi _\alpha \phi _\beta ^1`$ are restrictions of Moebius transformations.

Equivalently, one can describe Moebius structures on $`M`$ are conformal classes of conformally-Euclidean Riemannian metrics on $`M`$. Each conformal structure on $`M`$ gives rise to a local conformal diffeomorphism, called a developing map, $`d:\stackrel{~}{M}S^4`$, where $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ is the universal cover of $`M`$. If $`M`$ is connected, the mapping $`d`$ is equivariant with respect to a holonomy representation $`\rho :\pi _1(M)\mathrm{Mob}(S^4)`$, where $`\pi _1(M)`$ acts on $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ as the group of deck-transformations. Given a pair $`(d,\rho )`$, where $`\rho `$ is a representation of $`\pi _1(M)`$ into $`\mathrm{Mob}(S^4)`$ and $`d`$ is a $`\rho `$-equivariant local diffeomorphism from $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ to $`S^4`$, one constructs the corresponding Moebius structure on $`M`$ by taking a pull-back of the standard flat conformal structure on $`S^4`$ to $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ via $`d`$ and then projecting the structure to $`M`$.

Analogously, one defines a complex-projective structures on complex 3-manifold $`Z`$: it is a $`^3`$-valued holomorphic atlas on $`Z`$ so that the transition mappings belong to $`PGL(3,)`$.

The concept of Moebius structure generalizes naturally to the category of orbifolds:

A 4-dimensional Moebius orbifold $`O`$ is a pair $`(X,𝒜)`$, where $`X`$ is a Hausdorff topological space, the underlying space of the orbifold, $`𝒜`$ is a family of local parameterizations $`\psi _\alpha :U_\alpha U_\alpha /\mathrm{\Gamma }_\alpha =V_\alpha `$, where $`\{V_\alpha ,\alpha A\}`$ is an open covering of $`X`$, $`U_\alpha `$ are open subsets in $`S^4`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\alpha `$ are finite groups of Moebius automorphisms of $`U_\alpha `$ and the mappings $`\psi _\alpha `$ satisfy the usual compatibility conditions:

If $`V_\alpha V_\beta `$ is the inclusion map then we have a Moebius embedding $`U_\alpha U_\beta `$ which is equivariant with respect to a monomorphism $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }_\beta `$, so that the diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccc}U_\alpha & & U_\beta \\ & & \\ V_\alpha & & V_\beta \end{array}$$

is commutative. The groups $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\alpha `$ are the local fundamental groups of the orbifold $`O`$.

For a Moebius orbifold one defines a developing mapping $`d:\stackrel{~}{O}S^4`$ (which is a local homeomorphism from the universal cover $`\stackrel{~}{O}`$ of $`O`$) and, if $`O`$ is connected, a holonomy homeomorphism $`\rho :\pi _1(O)\mathrm{Mob}(S^4)`$, which satisfy the same equivariance condition as in the manifold case. Again, given a pair $`(d,\rho )`$, where $`d`$ is a $`\rho `$-equivariant homeomorphism, one defines the corresponding Moebius structure via pull-back.

###### Example 2.3.

Let $`G\mathrm{Mob}(S^4)`$ be a subgroup acting properly discontinuously on an open subset $`\mathrm{\Omega }S^4`$. Then quotient space $`\mathrm{\Omega }/G`$ has a natural Moebius orbifold structure. The local charts $`\varphi _\alpha `$ appear in this case as restrictions of the projection $`p:\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }/G`$ to open subsets with finite stabilizers.

In particular, suppose that $`G`$ is a finite subgroup of $`\mathrm{Mob}(S^4)`$ generated by reflections, the quotient $`Q:=\mathrm{\Omega }/G`$ can be identified with the intersection of a fundamental domain of $`G`$ with $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. The Moebius structures on 4-dimensional manifolds and orbifolds constructed in this paper definitely do not arise this way. A more interesting example is obtained by taking a manifold $`M`$ and a local homeomorphism $`h:MS^4`$, so that $`Qh(M)`$. Then we can pull-back the Moebius orbifold structure on $`Q`$ to an appropriate subset $`X`$ of $`M`$, to get a 4-dimensional Moebius orbifold. As another example of a pull-back construction, let $`O`$ be a Moebius orbifold and $`MO`$ be an orbifold cover such that $`M`$ is a manifold. Then one can pull-back the Moebius orbifold structure from $`O`$ to a usual Moebius structure on $`M`$.

## 3 Reflection groups in $`S^4`$ with prescribed combinatorics of the fundamental domains

Consider the standard cubulation $`𝒬`$ of $`^4`$ by the unit Euclidean cubes and let $`X`$ denote the 2-skeleton of this cubulation. Given a collection of round balls $`\{B_i,iI\}`$ in $`^4`$, with the nerve $`𝒩`$, we define the canonical simplicial mapping $`f:𝒩^4`$ by sending each vertex of $`𝒩`$ to the center of the corresponding ball and extending $`f`$ linearly to the simplices of $`𝒩`$. For a subcomplex $`K𝒬`$ define its barycentric subdivision $`\beta (K)`$ to be the following simplicial complex. Subdivide each edge of $`K`$ by its midpoint. Then inductively subdivide each $`k`$-cube $`Q`$ in $`K`$ by coning off the barycentric subdivision of $`Q`$ from the center of $`Q`$.

###### Proposition 3.1.

Suppose that $`KX`$ is a 2-dimensional compact subcomplex such that each vertex belongs to a 2-cell. Then there exists a collection of open round 4-balls $`B_i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},k`$, centered at the vertices of $`\beta (K)`$, so that:

(1) The Moebius inversions $`R_i`$ in the round spheres $`S_i=B_i`$ generate a discrete reflection group $`G\mathrm{Mob}(S^4)`$.

(2) The complement $`S^4_{i=1}^kB_i`$ is a fundamental domain $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ of $`G`$.

(3) The canonical mapping from the nerve of $`\{B_i,i=1,\mathrm{},k\}`$ to $`^4`$ is a simplicial isomorphism onto $`\beta (K)`$.

Proof: We begin by constructing the family of spheres $`S_i,i`$ centered at certain points of $`X`$. For each square $`Q`$ in $`X`$ we pick 9 points $`x_1,\mathrm{}.,x_9`$: $`x_5,\mathrm{},x_8`$ are the vertices of $`Q`$, $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_4`$ are midpoints of the edges of $`Q`$ and $`x_9`$ is the center of $`Q`$. We then take spheres $`S(x_i,r)`$ of radius $`r=\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}`$ centered at the points $`x_4,\mathrm{},x_9`$ and the spheres $`S(x_i,\rho )`$ of radius $`\rho =\frac{1}{\sqrt{12}}`$ centered at the points $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_4`$. See Figure 2. The reader will verify that:

1. The spheres $`S(x_i,r)`$ and $`S(x_j,r)`$ are disjoint provided that $`ij\{1,\mathrm{},4\}`$ and $`ij\{5,\mathrm{},8\}`$.

2. The spheres $`S(x_i,r)`$ and $`S(x_9,r)`$ intersect at the right angle, $`i=1,\mathrm{},4`$; the spheres $`S(x_i,r)`$ and $`S(x_9,r)`$ intersect at the (exterior) angle $`\frac{\pi }{3}`$, $`i=5,\mathrm{},8`$.

3. The spheres $`S(x_i,r)`$ and $`S(x_j,r)`$ intersect at the (exterior) angle $`\frac{\pi }{3}`$, provided that $`1i4`$, $`1j8`$ and $`j=5+i,6+i`$, and are disjoint otherwise.

Suppose now that $`Q^4`$ is a unit 4-cube, apply the above construction to each 2-face of $`Q^4`$. The reader will verify that the properties 1–3 of the spheres $`S_i`$, ensure that the covering $`\{B_i\}`$ of $`(Q^4)^{(2)}`$ has the nerve $`𝒩_{Q^4}`$ such that the canonical mapping $`𝒩_{Q^4}\beta ((Q^4)^{(2)})`$ is a simplicial isomorphism.

Now we are ready to construct the covering $`\{B_i:i=1,\mathrm{},k\}`$ of the 2-complex $`K`$. For each 2-face $`Q`$ of $`K`$ introduce the family of nine round spheres $`S_i`$ constructed above, consider the inversions $`R_i`$ is these spheres; the spheres $`S_i`$ bound balls $`\{B_i:i=1,\mathrm{},k\}`$. The fact that for each 4-cube $`Q^4`$ the mapping $`𝒩_{Q^4}\beta ((Q^4)^{(2)})`$ is a simplicial isomorphism, implies that the mapping from the nerve of the covering $`\{B_i:i=1,\mathrm{},k\}`$ to $`K`$ is a simplicial isomorphism as well. Thus the exterior angles of intersections between the spheres equal $`\frac{\pi }{2}`$ and $`\frac{\pi }{3}`$, thus we can apply Poincare’s fundamental polyhedron theorem  to ensure that the intersection of the complements to the balls $`B_i`$ is a fundamental domain for the Moebius group $`G`$ generated by the above reflections. ∎

###### Remark 3.2.

Instead of collections of round balls based on a cubulation of $`^4`$ one can use a periodic triangulation of $`^4`$, however in this case the construction of a collection of balls covering the 2-skeleton of a 4-simplex is slightly more complicated.

## 4 Proof of Theorem 1.1

Recall that vanishing of all Stiefel-Whitney classes of the manifold $`M`$ implies that the manifold $`M^{}=M\{p\}`$ is parallelizable; hence, by , there exists an immersion $`f:M^{}^4`$. Let $`B`$ denote a small open round ball centered at $`p`$ and let $`M^{\prime \prime }`$ denote the complement $`MB`$. We retain the notation $`f`$ for the restriction $`f|M^{\prime \prime }`$. We next convert to the piecewise-linear setting, since in dimension 4 the categories of PL and smooth structures are the same it does not limit our discussion: cubulate the manifold $`M`$ so that $`B`$ is a subcomplex of the cubulation and that the restriction of $`f`$ to each 4-cube $`Q^{}M^{\prime \prime }`$ is a diffeomorphism onto a cube in the standard (unit cube) cubulation of $`^4`$. Without loss of generality we may assume that the mapping $`f`$ preserves the orientation.

We now borrow the standard arguments from the proof of Alexander’s theorem which states that each closed $`n`$-dimensional PL manifold is a branched cover over the $`n`$-sphere, see e.g. . Extend the map $`f`$ to a map $`F`$ on the ball $`B`$ so that the restriction of $`F`$ to each 4-cube is a diffeomorphism onto a cube in the standard cubulation of $`^4`$. Now, for each cube $`Q^{}M`$ such that $`F|Q^{}`$ is orientation-reversing we replace $`F|Q^{}`$ with the composition $`JF|Q^{}`$, where $`J`$ is the PL inversion in the boundary of the unit cube $`F(Q^{})`$ (see Definition 2.1). The resulting mapping $`h:MS^4`$ has the property that it is a local PL homeomorphism away from a 2-dimensional subcomplex $`LB`$. (Note that $`L`$ has dimension 2 near every point: each vertex in $`L`$ belongs to a 2-cube.) Thus the mapping $`h`$ is a branched covering over $`S^4`$ with the singular locus $`L`$ contained in the ball $`B`$, the branch-locus of $`h`$ is the compact subcomplex $`K=h(L)^4`$. The branched covering $`h`$ has the property that for each point $`xK`$ there exists a neighborhood $`U(x)^4`$ such that $`h^1(U(x))`$ is a disjoint union of balls $`V(y),yh^1(x)B`$, (whose interiors contain $`y`$), so that for each $`yh^1(x)`$, the restriction $`h|V(y)`$ is a branched covering onto $`U(x)`$. Moreover, each branched covering $`h|V(y)`$ is obtained by coning off a branched covering from the 3-sphere $`V(y)`$ to the 3-sphere $`U(x)`$.

Let $`T`$ denote a regular neighborhood of $`K`$ in $`^4`$, so that $`U(x)T`$ for each $`xK`$. Next, subdivide the cubulation of $`^4`$ and scale the subdivision up to the standard unit cubulation, so that the discrete group $`G`$ and the collection of balls $`\{B_j,j=1,\mathrm{},k\}`$ associated with the subcomplex $`K`$ in section 3 have the properties:

1. $`T_{i=1}^kB_k`$.

2. Each ball $`B_j`$, $`j=1,\mathrm{},k`$, (centered at $`x_jK`$) is contained in the neighborhood $`U(x_j)`$.

We now use the branched covering $`h`$ to introduce a Moebius orbifold structure $`O`$ on the complement $`X_O`$ to an open tubular neighborhood $`𝒩^0(L)`$ of $`L`$ in $`M`$ as follows:

For each ball $`B_jU(x_j)`$ centered at $`x_jK`$ and for each $`y_jh^1(x_j)L`$, such that the restriction $`h|V(y_j)`$ is not a homeomorphism onto its image, we let $`\stackrel{~}{B}(y_j)`$ denote the inverse image $`h^1(B_j)V(y_j)`$. It follows that each $`\stackrel{~}{B}(y_j)`$ is a polyhedral 4-ball in $`M`$ and the union of these balls is a tubular neighborhood $`𝒩(L)`$ of $`L`$. The boundary of $`𝒩(L)`$ has a natural partition into subcomplexes: “vertices”, “edges”, “2-faces” and “3-faces”:

* The “vertices” are the points of triple intersections of the 3-spheres $`\stackrel{~}{B}(y_j)`$, $`\stackrel{~}{B}(y_i)`$, $`\stackrel{~}{B}(y_l)`$.
* The “2-faces” are the connected components of the double intersections of the 3-spheres $`\stackrel{~}{B}(y_j)`$, $`\stackrel{~}{B}(y_i)`$.
* The “3-faces” are the connected components of the complements

$$\stackrel{~}{B}(y_j)_{ij}\stackrel{~}{B}(y_i).$$

We declare each “3-face” a boundary reflector of the orbifold $`O`$. The dihedral angles between the balls $`B_j`$ define the dihedral angles between the boundary reflectors in $`O`$. Since the restriction $`h|ML`$ is a local homeomorphism, this construction defines a Moebius orbifold $`O`$. The mapping $`h|X_O`$ is the projection of the developing mapping $`\stackrel{~}{h}:\stackrel{~}{O}S^4`$ of this Moebius orbifold. Let $`O^{}`$ denote the orbifold with boundary $`BO`$; let $`Q`$ be the closed orbifold obtained by attaching 4-disk $`D^4`$ along the boundary sphere $`S^3=B`$.

We now convert back to the smooth category. It is clear from the construction that the orbifold $`O`$ is obtained by (smooth) gluing of the manifold with boundary $`MB`$ and the orbifold with boundary $`O^{}`$. Hence $`O`$ is diffeomorphic to the connected sum of the manifold $`M`$ with the orbifold $`Q`$. We also note that all local fundamental groups of $`O`$ embed naturally into $`\pi _1(O)`$.

It remains to construct a finite manifold covering $`\widehat{M}`$ over the orbifold $`O`$, so that $`MB`$ lifts homeomorphically to $`\widehat{M}`$; the construction is analogous to the one used by M. Davis in . The fundamental group $`\pi _1(O)`$ is the free product $`\pi _1(M)\pi _1(Q)`$. We have holonomy homomorphism

$$\varphi :\pi _1(O)G,$$

the subgroup $`\pi _1(M)`$ is contained in the kernel of this homomorphism; by construction, the kernel of $`\varphi `$ contains no elements of finite order. The Coxeter group $`G`$ is virtually torsion-free, let $`\theta :GA`$ be a homomorphism onto a finite group $`A`$, so that $`Ker(\theta )`$ is torsion-free and orientation-preserving. Then the kernel of the homomorphism $`\psi =\theta \varphi :\pi _1(O)A`$ is a torsion-free finite index subgroup of $`\pi _1(O)`$, which contains $`\pi _1(M)`$. Let $`\widehat{M}O`$ denote the finite orbifold cover corresponding to the subgroup $`Ker(\psi )`$. Then $`\widehat{M}`$ is a smooth oriented conformally flat manifold, the submanifold $`MB`$ lifts diffeomorphically into $`MB\widehat{M}`$. Thus the connected sum decomposition $`O=M\mathrm{\#}Q`$ also lifts to $`\widehat{M}`$, so that the latter manifold is diffeomorphic to the connected sum of $`M`$ and a 4-manifold $`N`$. ∎

We observe that the proof of Theorem 1.1 can be modified to prove the following:

###### Theorem 4.1.

Suppose that $`M`$ is a closed smooth 4-manifold with vanishing second Stiefel-Whitney class. Then there exists a closed smooth 4-manifold $`N`$ so that $`\widehat{M}=M\mathrm{\#}N`$ admits a conformally-Euclidean Riemannian metric.

Proof: The difference with Theorem 1.1 is that $`M`$ can be nonorientable. Let $`\stackrel{~}{M}M`$ be the orientable double cover with the deck-transformation group $`D/2`$. Then all Stiefel-Whitney classes of $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ are trivial. As before, let $`pM`$, $`\{p_1,p_2\}`$ be the preimage of $`\{p\}`$ in $`M`$. Consider a Euclidean reflection $`\tau `$ in $`^4`$ and an epimorphism $`\theta :D\tau `$. Then, arguing as in the proof of Phillips’ theorem , one gets a $`\theta `$-equivariant immersion $`\stackrel{~}{f}:\stackrel{~}{M}\{p_1,p_2\}^4`$. This yields a $`D`$-invariant flat conformal structure on $`\stackrel{~}{M}\{p_1,p_2\}`$ via pull-back of the flat conformal structure from $`^4`$. Let $`B_1B_2`$ be a $`D`$-invariant disjoint union of open balls around the points $`p_1,p_2`$. Then the rest of the proof of Theorem 1.1 goes through: replace the ball $`B_1`$ with a manifold with boundary $`N_1`$ so that the flat conformal structure on $`\stackrel{~}{M}(B_1B_2)`$ extends over $`N_1`$. Then glue a copy of $`N_1`$ along the boundary of $`B_2`$ in $`D`$-invariant fashion. Note that the quotient of the manifold $`P:=(\stackrel{~}{M}(B_1B_2))(N_1N_2)`$ by the group $`D`$ is diffeomorphic to a closed manifold $`M\mathrm{\#}N`$, where $`N`$ is obtained from $`N_1`$ by attaching the 4-ball along the boundary. Finally, project the $`D`$-invariant Moebius structure on $`P`$ to a Moebius structure on the manifold $`M\mathrm{\#}N`$. ∎

As a corollary of Theorem 1.1 we get:

###### Corollary 4.2.

Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be a finitely-presented group. Then there exists a 3-dimensional complex manifold $`Z`$ which admits a complex-projective structure, so that the fundamental group of $`Z`$ splits as $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$.

Proof: Our argument is similar to the one used to construct (via Taubes’ theorem) 3-dimensional complex manifolds with the prescribed finitely-presented fundamental group, see . We first construct a smooth closed oriented 4-dimensional spin manifold $`M`$ with the fundamental group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. This can be done for instance as follows. Let $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_n|R_1,\mathrm{},R_{\mathrm{}}`$ be a presentation of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Consider a 4-manifold $`X`$ which is the connected sum of $`n`$ copies of $`S^3\times S^1`$. This manifold is clearly spin. Pick a collection of disjoint embedded smooth loops $`\gamma _1,\mathrm{},\gamma _{\mathrm{}}`$ in $`X`$, which represent the conjugacy classes of the words $`R_1,\mathrm{},R_{\mathrm{}}`$ in the free group $`\pi _1(X)`$. Consider the pair $`(S^4,\gamma )`$, where $`\gamma `$ is an embedded smooth loop in $`S^4`$. For each $`i`$ pick a diffeomorphism $`f_i`$ between a tubular neighborhood $`T(\gamma )`$ of $`\gamma `$ in $`S^4`$ and a tubular neighborhood $`T(\gamma _i)`$ of $`\gamma _i`$ in $`X`$. We can choose $`f_i`$ so that it matches the spin structures of $`T(\gamma )`$ and $`T(\gamma _i)`$. Now, attach $`n`$ copies of $`S^4T(\gamma )`$ to $`X_iT(\gamma _i)`$ via the diffeomorphisms $`f_i`$. The result is a smooth spin 4-manifold $`M`$ with the fundamental group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

Next, by Theorem 1.1 there exists a smooth 4-manifold $`N`$ (with the fundamental group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$) such that $`\widehat{M}=M\mathrm{\#}N`$ admits a conformally-Euclidean Riemannian metric. Applying the twistor construction to the manifold $`\widehat{M}`$ we get a complex 3-manifold $`Z`$ which is an $`S^2`$-bundle over $`\widehat{M}`$ and the flat conformal structure on $`\widehat{M}`$ lifts to a complex-projective structure on $`Z`$, see for instance . Clearly, $`\pi _1(Z)\pi _1(\widehat{M})=\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$. ∎

Department of Mathematics, University of Utah,
Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0090,
kapovich$`\mathrm{@}`$math.utah.edu


format: text

text:
# Nonnegatively curved metrics on 𝑆²×ℝ²

## 1. Introduction

According to the Soul Theorem, any open manifold $`N^{n+k}`$ with nonnegative sectional curvature is diffeomorphic to the total space of the normal bundle of a compact totally geodesic submanifold $`M^nN^{n+k}`$ . Since this result, some progress has been made on the topological classification problem: for which vector bundles can the total space admit a complete metric of nonnegative sectional curvature? However, the metric classification problem has received little attention beyond the case $`n+k3`$, which was completely solved in . We believe that Perelman’s Theorem , which states that the metric projection $`\pi :NM`$ is a Riemannian submersion, opens the door for continued progress on the metric classification.

The simplest remaining case is $`n=k=2`$, which is most interesting when $`M=S^2`$. Every $`^2`$ bundle over $`S^2`$ admits nonnegative curvature, and the nontrivial bundles admit very large families of nonnegatively curved metrics; see \[9, Section 2\] and Section 4 of this paper. In contrast, nonnegatively curved metrics on the trivial bundle $`S^2\times ^2`$ are very rigid. Our main theorem is the following classification:

###### Theorem 1.1.

The space $`M^2\times ^2`$ with an arbitrary complete metric of nonnegative sectional curvature is isometric to a Riemannian quotient of the form $`((M^2,g_0)\times (^2,g_F)\times )/`$. Here $``$ acts diagonally on the product by the flow along Killing fields on $`(M^2,g_0)`$ and $`(^2,g_F)`$ and by translations on $``$.

Our theorem settles the first unknown case of the following open problem:

###### Question 1.2.

Classify the complete metrics with nonnegative sectional curvature on the trivial vector bundle $`S^n\times ^k`$.

Trivial vector bundles represent the simplest case in which one might hope to completely understand the geometry. One consequence of Perelman’s Theorem is that the boundary of a small metric tube about a soul is convex, and therefore inherits a metric of nonnegative curvature . Hence, an answer to question 1.2 would provide a classification of those nonnegatively curved metrics on $`S^n\times S^{k1}`$ which appear as the boundary of a metric tube about a soul of $`S^n\times ^k`$. We suggest that the following problem is interesting and more accessible than the full Hopf conjecture:

###### Conjecture 1.3 (Weak Hopf Conjecture).

There does not exist a metric of nonnegative curvature on $`S^n\times ^k`$ for which the boundary of a small metric tube about the soul has positive curvature in the induced metric.

In Section 4, we highlight a precise sense in which any nonnegatively curved metric on $`S^2\times ^2`$ is rigid at the soul, and we ask whether an analogous rigidity must hold for nonnegatively curved metrics on $`S^n\times ^k`$, which is perhaps the correct first step towards resolving the above question and conjecture.

## 2. One dimensional Riemannian Foliations

We begin the proof of Theorem 1.1 in this section with some initial lemmas. A Riemannian submersion with one-dimensional fibers is called homogeneous if the fibers are the integral curves of a Killing field on the total space. It was shown in  that when the total space has constant curvature, a Riemannian submersion with one-dimensional fibers must be either homogeneous or flat. We require the following similar fact, in which $`g_0`$ denotes an arbitrary metric on $`S^2`$:

###### Lemma 2.1.

A Riemannian submersion with one-dimensional fibers and total space $`(S^2,g_0)\times `$ (with the product metric) must be homogeneous.

###### Proof.

Let $`\pi :(S^2,g_0)\times M^2`$ be a Riemannian submersion. Let $`,𝒱`$ denote the horizontal and vertical spaces of $`\pi `$. For $`(p,t)S^2\times `$, let $`F_{(p,t)}=\pi ^1(\pi (p,t))`$ denote the $`\pi `$-fiber through $`(p,t)`$.

There exists a point $`PS^2`$ such that $`_{(P,0)}=T_{(P,0)}S^2T_{(P,0)}(S^2\times )`$. For if there were no such point, then $`p_{(p,0)}T_{(p,0)}S^2`$ would be a nowhere vanishing line field on $`S^2`$, which is not possible. Notice that $`𝒱_{(P,0)}=\text{span}\{\frac{}{r}\}`$, where $`\frac{}{r}`$ denotes the unit-length vector field tangent to the $``$ factor of $`S^2\times `$. For each geodesic $`\gamma (s)`$ though $`P`$ in $`(S^2,g_0)`$, the geodesic $`(\gamma (s),0)`$ in $`(S^2,g_0)\times `$ is horizontal.

Consider the vector field $`X`$ on $`S^2`$ defined so that $`𝒱_{(p,0)}=\text{span}\{\frac{}{r}+X(p)\}`$. At each point $`pS^2`$ where $`X(p)`$ is well-defined, it is tangent to the distance circle about $`P`$ because $`\text{dist}(P,p)=\text{dist}(F_{(P,0)},F_{(p,0)})`$. To establish that $`X`$ is everywhere well-defined, we must prove that $`𝒱_{(p,0)}`$ is never a subspace of $`T_{(p,0)}S^2`$. So let $`pS^2`$. Let $`\gamma (t)`$ be a parameterization of the fiber $`F_{(P,0)}`$ with $`\gamma (0)=(P,0)`$ and $`\gamma ^{}(0)=\frac{}{r}`$. This induces a parameterization, $`\beta (t)`$, of the fiber $`F_{(p,0)}`$ with $`\beta (0)=(p,0)`$. More precisely, let $`\beta (t)`$ be the endpoint of the lift to $`\gamma (t)`$ of a fixed minimal geodesic in $`M^2`$ from $`\pi ((P,0))`$ to $`\pi ((p,0))`$. If it were the case that $`\beta ^{}(0)𝒱_{(p,0)}T_{(p,0)}S^2`$, then since $`\beta ^{}(0)`$ would have to be tangent to the distance circle in $`S^2`$ about $`P`$, we would have $`\frac{\text{d}}{\text{dt}}|_{t=0}\text{dist}(\gamma (t),\beta (t))>0`$. This contradicts the fact that $`\text{dist}(\gamma (t),\beta (t))`$ is constant, by construction. Therefore, $`X`$ is a well-defined vector field.

For $`pS^2`$, parameterize the fiber through $`(p,0)`$ as $`t(f_t(p),t)`$, were $`tf_t(p)`$ is a path in $`S^2`$ with $`f_0(p)=p`$. Notice that $`f_t:(S^2,g_0)(S^2,g_0)`$ is a smooth family of maps, $`f_0=\text{Id}`$, and $`\frac{\text{D}}{\text{dt}}|_{t=0}f_t(p)=X(p)`$.

There must be some point $`QS^2`$ ($`QP`$) where two geodesics through $`P`$ meet at an angle other than $`180^{}`$, so that $`𝒱_{(Q,0)}=\text{span}\{\frac{}{r}\}`$ as well. Further, we can assume that there is a unique such point. For, suppose that $`Q_1`$ and $`Q_2`$ were two such points. Then at any point $`yS^2`$ for which the three vectors in $`T_yS^2`$ tangent to the minimal paths to $`P,Q_1`$ and $`Q_2`$ span $`T_yS^2`$, we have that $`𝒱_{(y,0)}=\text{span}\{\frac{}{r}\}`$. But this property is true for all $`yS^2`$ outside of a set of measure zero, so $`𝒱_{(y,0)}=\text{span}\{\frac{}{r}\}`$ for all $`yS^2`$. Therefore, for any pair $`x,yS^2`$, $`\text{dist}(F_{(x,0)},F_{(y,0)})=\text{dist}(x,y)`$. This implies that for all $`t`$, $`\text{dist}(f_t(x),f_t(y))\text{dist}(x,y)`$. Since $`S^2`$ is compact, $`f_t`$ must be an isometry for each $`t`$. So, for any $`x,yS^2`$ and any $`t`$, the minimal path in $`(S^2,g_0)`$ from $`f_t(x)`$ to $`f_t(y)`$ realizes the distance between the fibers $`F_{(f_t(x),t)}=F_{(x,0)}`$ and $`F_{(f_t(y),t)}=F_{(y,0)}`$, and is therefore horizontal. This means that $`𝒱_{(y,t)}=\text{span}\{\frac{}{r}\}`$ for all $`yS^2`$ and all $`t`$, so the submersion is trivial.

So we can assume that there is a single point $`Q`$ such that all geodesics from $`P`$ meet at $`Q`$. By a standard variation argument, any two geodesics from $`P`$ to $`Q`$ share a common length. We argue next that $`f_{t_0}(P)=P`$ and $`f_{t_0}(Q)=Q`$ for all $`t_0`$. Since $`\text{dist}(P,Q)=\text{dist}(F_{(P,0)},F_{(Q,0)})`$, we know that $`\text{dist}(f_{t_0}(P),f_{t_0}(Q))\text{dist}(P,Q)`$. Assume that $`\text{dist}(P,f_{t_0}(P))\text{dist}(Q,f_{t_0}(Q))`$ (the other case is similar). The minimal path from $`f_{t_0}(P)`$ to $`P`$ followed by the minimal path from $`P`$ to $`f_{t_0}(Q)`$ has distance $`<\text{dist}(P,Q)`$ unless $`\text{dist}(f_{t_0}(P),P)=\text{dist}(f_{t_0}(Q),Q)`$ and $`\{P,f_{t_0}(Q),Q,f_{t_0}(P)\}`$ all lie on a single geodesic loop. In this case, $`\text{dist}(f_{t_0}(P),f_{t_0}(Q))=\text{dist}(P,Q)`$, and $`\frac{\text{D}}{\text{dt}}|_{t=t_0}f_t(P)`$ must be tangent to a distance circle about $`P`$; for otherwise we would have that $`\frac{\text{d}}{\text{dt}}|_{t=t_0}\text{dist}(f_t(P),f_{t_0}(Q))<0`$, and so $`\frac{\text{d}}{\text{dt}}|_{t=t_0}\text{dist}((f_t(P),t),(f_{t_0}(Q),t_0))<0`$, which would put the fibers $`F_{(P,0)}`$ and $`F_{(Q,0)}`$ too close together. So $`\frac{\text{D}}{\text{dt}}f_t(P)`$ is everywhere tangent to the distance circles about $`P`$, which implies that $`f_t(P)=P`$ (and similarly $`f_t(Q)=Q`$) for all $`t`$. In particular, this implies that each path $`f_t(p)`$ is contained in a single distance circle about $`P`$.

We prove next that $`X`$ is a Jacobi field along any geodesic $`\alpha (s)`$ in $`S^2`$ through $`P`$. Notice that $`X(\alpha (s))`$ is the variational vector field of the family $`(t,s)f_t(\alpha (s))`$, which we wish to show is a family of geodesics. For this, it will suffice to prove that $`\text{dist}(f_t(\alpha (s_1)),f_t(\alpha (s_2)))=\text{dist}(\alpha (s_1),\alpha (s_2))`$. But if this were not the case, then we would have:

$$\text{dist}((f_t(\alpha (s_1)),t),F_{(\alpha (s_2),0)})>\text{dist}(\alpha (s_1),\alpha (s_2))=\text{dist}(F_{(\alpha (s_1),0)},F_{(\alpha (s_2),0)}),$$

which would provide a contradiction. Therefore $`X`$ is a Jacobi field along any geodesic through $`P`$, which implies that $`X`$ is the exponential image of a rotational vector field on $`T_PS^2`$.

For fixed $`t`$, define the vector field $`X_t`$ on $`S^2`$ so that $`𝒱_{(p,t)}=\text{span}\{\frac{}{r}+X_t(p)\}`$. By the above arguments, each $`X_t`$ is the exponential image of a rotational vector field on $`T_PS^2`$ (also on $`T_QS^2`$); hence, each $`X_t`$ is a multiple of $`X=X_0`$. Let $`A`$ denote a single distance circle about $`P`$, and let $`C=\{(p,t)S^2\times pA\}=A\times `$. Notice that $`\pi |_C`$ is a Riemannian submersion from $`C`$ onto some circle in the base space $`M^2`$. Since $`C`$ is flat, the fibers of this submersion must be tangent to a Killing field on $`C`$; see  in which one dimensional Riemannian foliations of constant curvature spaces are classified. This proves that (1) $`X`$ has constant norm along $`C`$, and (2) $`X_t=X`$ for all $`t`$. Since $`X`$ has constant norm along each circle $`A`$, it is a Killing Field. This completes the proof. ∎

Theorem 1.1 concludes that $`M^2\times ^2`$ with an arbitrary metric of nonnegative curvature is isometric to a Riemannian quotient of the form $`((M^2,g_0)\times (^2,g_F)\times )/`$. So, the distance spheres about the soul must themselves be quotient metrics of the form $`((M^2,g_0)\times S^1(r)\times )/`$, where $`S^1(r)`$ denotes the circle with circumference $`2\pi r`$. In the remainder of this section, we do some calculations to see metrically what these distance spheres and their projections onto the soul look like. These calculations will be used in the proof of Theorem 1.1

More precisely, consider the following $``$ action on $`(M,g_0)\times S^1(r)\times `$:

$$(p,\theta ,t)\stackrel{s}{}(\rho _sp,\theta +s,t+s),$$

where $`\rho _s`$ denotes the flow along a Killing field $`X`$ on $`(M,g_0)`$ for time $`s`$. This gives the following diagram:

$$(M\times S^1,h)\stackrel{d}{}((M,g_0)\times S^1(r)\times )/\stackrel{\mathrm{\Pi }}{}((M,g_0)\times )/\stackrel{\delta }{}(M,g_\mathrm{\Sigma }).$$

Here the diffeomorphism $`d`$ is defined as $`[p,\theta ,t]\stackrel{d}{}(\rho _tp,\theta t)`$, and $`h`$ is defined as the metric on $`M\times S^1`$ which makes $`d`$ and isometry. The diffeomorphism $`\delta `$ is defined as $`[p,t]\stackrel{\delta }{}\rho _tp`$, and $`g_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is defined as the metric on $`M`$ which makes $`\delta `$ an isometry. Finally, $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ is defined as $`[p,\theta ,t]\stackrel{\mathrm{\Pi }}{}[p,t]`$, and is a Riemannian submersion.

The circle bundle map $`\varphi =\delta \mathrm{\Pi }d^1:(M\times S^1,h)(M,g_\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ is a Riemannian submersion which has the simple description $`(p,\theta )\stackrel{\varphi }{}p`$. We now study the metric properties of this circle bundle.

###### Claim 2.2.

$`\text{length}(\varphi ^1(p))=\frac{2\pi r}{\sqrt{1+r^2(1|X(p)|_{g_\mathrm{\Sigma }}^2)}}`$

###### proof of Claim 2.2.

By , the metric $`h`$ is obtained from the product metric $`h_0`$ on $`(M,g_0)\times S^1(r)`$ by rescaling along the Killing field $`X+\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}`$, where $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}`$ denotes the vector field tangent to $`S^1`$ corresponding to a rotation at one radian per unit speed. So $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}`$ can be decomposed into vectors parallel and perpendicular to this Killing field as follows:

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}=a(X+\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }})+(aX+(1a)\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}),$$

Where $`a`$ is chosen so that the two vectors, $`a(X+\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }})`$ and $`aX+(1a)\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}`$, are $`h_0`$-perpendicular, namely, $`a=\frac{r^2}{r^2+|X|_{g_0}^2}`$. Thus,

$`|\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}|_h^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{|aX+a\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}|_{h_0}^2}{1+|X+\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}|_{h_0}^2}}+|aX+(1a)\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}|_{h_0}^2`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{a^2|X|_{g_0}^2+(ar)^2}{1+|X|_{g_0}^2+r^2}}+a^2|X|_{g_0}^2+(1a)^2r^2`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{r^2+r^2|X|_{g_0}^2}{1+|X|_{g_0}^2+r^2}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{1+r^2(1|X|_{g_\mathrm{\Sigma }}^2)}}.`$
The fourth equality follows from the relationship $`|X|_{g_\mathrm{\Sigma }}^2=\frac{|X|_{g_0}^2}{1+|X|_{g_0}^2}`$, and the claim follows because $`\text{length}(\varphi ^1(p))=2\pi |\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}|_h`$. ∎

###### Claim 2.3.

The horizontal space of $`\varphi `$ is $`\text{span}\{Y,X+|X|_{g_\mathrm{\Sigma }}^2\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}\}`$, where $`Y`$ is a (local) vector field on $`M`$ orthogonal to $`X`$.

###### proof of Claim 2.3.

It is easy to see that $`Y`$ is $`h`$-orthogonal to $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}`$, and hence orthogonal to the fibers. A second vector orthogonal to $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}`$ will have the form $`X+c\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}`$, and we show next that $`c=|X|_{g_\mathrm{\Sigma }}^2`$ is the correct choice for $`c`$. To see this, it is necessary to decompose both $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}`$ and $`X+c\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}`$ into components parallel and perpendicular to the Killing field $`X+\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}`$:

$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}`$ $`=`$ $`[a(X+\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }})]+[aX+(1a)\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}]`$
$`(X+c\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }})`$ $`=`$ $`[b(X+\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }})]+[(1b)X+(cb)\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}]`$
As in the proof of the previous lemma, $`a=\frac{r^2}{r^2+|X|_{g_0}^2}`$. Similarly, solving for $`b`$ so that the two vectors $`b(X+\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }})`$ and $`(1b)X+(cb)\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}`$ are $`h_0`$-perpendicular gives $`b=\frac{|X|_{g_0}^2+cr^2}{|X|_{g_0}^2+r^2}`$.

This allows us to compute:

$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }},X+c\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}_h`$
$`=`$ $`[a(X+\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }})]+[aX+(1a)\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}],[b(X+\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }})]+[(1b)X+(cb)\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}]_h`$
$`=`$ $`[a(X+\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }})],[b(X+\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }})]_h+[aX+(1a)\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}],[(1b)X+(cb)\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}]_{h_0}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ab(|X|_{g_0}^2+r^2)}{1+|X|_{g_0}^2+r^2}}a(1b)|X|_{g_0}^2+(cb)(1a)r^2=0`$
Solving for $`c`$ and simplifying gives:

$$c=\frac{|X|_{g_0}^2}{|X|_{g_0}^2+1}=|X|_{g_\mathrm{\Sigma }}^2.$$

Notice in particular that $`c`$ does not depend on $`r`$. ∎

## 3. Proof of Main Theorem

###### proof of Theorem 1.1.

Let $`E`$ denote $`M^2\times ^2`$ together with some metric of nonnegative sectional curvature. Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }E`$ denote a soul of $`E`$, and let $`\pi :E\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ denote the metric projection.

If $`M^2`$ is a torus, then the soul is flat, so the $`A`$-tensor of $`\pi `$ vanishes, which implies that the metric is locally (and hence also globally) a Riemannian product \[10, Theorem 1.3\]. On the other hand, the theorem when $`M^2`$ is the $`2`$-sphere implies the theorem when $`M^2`$ is $`^2`$. We can therefore assume that $`M^2`$ is the $`2`$-sphere, so $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=(S^2,g_\mathrm{\Sigma })`$, where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ denotes the metric on the soul.

If the normal bundle of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ in $`E`$ is flat, then $`E`$ is a Riemannian product, so we can assume that it is not flat. In this case, the holonomy group is transitive and the normal exponential map is a diffeomorphism.

Let $`S`$ denote the boundary of a ball of some radius about $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ in $`E`$. The intrinsic metric, $`h`$, on $`S`$ is smooth and has nonnegative curvature by the Gauss equation. The universal cover $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ of $`S`$ is diffeomorphic to $`S^2\times `$. By the splitting theorem, $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ with its pull-back metric is isometric to the Riemannian product $`(S^2,g_0)\times `$ for some metric $`g_0`$ of nonnegative curvature on $`S^2`$. So we have:

$$(S^2,g_0)\times \stackrel{f}{}(S^2\times S^1,h)\stackrel{\pi }{}(S^2,g_\mathrm{\Sigma }).$$

Lemma 2.1 applied to the composition $`\pi f`$ implies that there is a Killing field $`X`$ on $`(S^2,g_0)`$, and that $`(S^2,g_\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ is just the Riemannian quotient $`((S^2,g_0)\times )/`$. The $``$ action on $`(S^2,g_0)\times `$ can be described as

$$(p,t)\stackrel{s}{}(\rho _sp,t+as),$$

where $`\rho _s`$ denotes the flow for time $`s`$ along $`X`$, and $`a>0`$ is some constant.

On the other hand, $`f`$ is a covering map, so there is an isometric $``$-action on $`(S^2,g_0)\times `$ so that $`(S^2\times S^1,h)=((S^2,g_0)\times )/`$. The $``$ action comes from some imbedding $``$, and we can assume without loss of generality that it is the natural embedding, so for $`n`$,

$$(p,t)\stackrel{n}{}(\rho _np,t+an).$$

A diffeomorphism $`d:(S^2\times )/S^2\times S^1`$ is defined as follows:

$$[p,t]\stackrel{d}{}(\rho _{t/a}p,[t/a]).$$

Here $`[t/a]S^1=/`$. It is straightforward to show that $`d`$ is well-defined, injective and surjective, and that $`d^1(p,[t])=[\rho _tp,at]`$. We can consider $`h`$ to be the metric on $`S^2\times S^1`$ which makes $`d:((S^2,g_0)\times )/(S^2\times S^1,h)`$ an isometry. Additionally, the diffeomorphism $`\delta :(S^2\times )/S^2`$ defined so that $`[p,t]\stackrel{\delta }{}\rho _{t/a}p`$ provides an isometry $`\delta :((S^2,g_0)\times )/)(S^2,g_\mathrm{\Sigma })`$. The story so far is summarized by the following diagram:

$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}& & (S^2,g_0)\times & & & & \\ & & j& & & & & & \\ (S^2\times S^1,h)& \stackrel{d}{}& ((S^2,g_0)\times )/& \stackrel{\mathrm{\Pi }}{}& ((S^2,g_0)\times )/& \stackrel{\delta }{}& (S^2,g_\mathrm{\Sigma })\end{array}$$

Notice that the circle bundle map $`\varphi =\delta \mathrm{\Pi }d^1:(S^2\times S^1,h)(S^2,g_\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ has the simple description $`\varphi ((p,[t]))=p`$. Next we study the metric properties of this circle bundle.

###### Claim 3.1.

$`\text{length}(\varphi ^1(p))=(\frac{1}{a^2}\frac{1}{a^4}|X|_{g_\mathrm{\Sigma }}^2)^{1/2}`$.

###### proof of Claim3.1.

Notice that the fiber is parameterized as $`\gamma (t)=(p,[t])`$, $`t[0,1]`$. One $`(dj)`$-lift of $`\gamma `$ to $`(S^2,g_0)\times `$ looks like $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }(t)=(\rho _tp,at)`$, so $`|\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^{}(t)|=\sqrt{a^2+|X(p)|_{g_0}^2}`$. But the metric $`g_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ on $`S^2`$ is obtained from the metric $`g_0`$ by rescalling along the Killing field $`X`$. More precisely, $`|X(p)|_{g_\mathrm{\Sigma }}^2=\frac{a^2|X(p)|_{g_0}^2}{a^2+|X(p)|_{g_0}^2}`$. This substitution proves the claim. ∎

###### Claim 3.2.

The horizontal space of $`\varphi `$ is:

$$=\text{span}\{Y,X+\frac{2\pi }{a^2}|X|_{g_\mathrm{\Sigma }}^2\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}\},$$

where $`Y`$ is a (local) vector field on $`S^2`$ perpendicular to $`X`$, and $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}`$ is the vector field on $`S^1`$ corresponding to rotation at 1 radian per unit time.

###### proof of claim 3.2.

Consider the curve $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }(t)=(\rho _tp,at)`$ on $`(S^2,g_0)\times `$ as in the previous claim. $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^{}(0)=X+a\frac{}{r}`$, where $`\frac{}{r}`$ denotes the unit-length vector field tangent to the second factor of $`(S^2,g_0)\times `$. So $`(\stackrel{~}{\gamma }^{}(0))^{}=\text{span}\{Y,aX+|X|_{g_0}^2\frac{}{r}\}`$. For the first vector, $`Y`$, it’s clear that $`(dj)_{}(Y)=Y`$. For the second vector, consider the path $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }(t)=(\rho _{at}p,|X|_{g_0}^2t)`$, which is defined so that $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }^{}(0)=aX+|X|_{g_0}^2\frac{}{r}`$. Let $`\alpha =dj\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$ be the projection of this curve. But

$$\alpha (t)=(\rho _\sigma p,(t/a)[|X|_{g_0}^2]),\text{ where }\sigma =(t/a)(|X|_{g_0}^2+a^2)$$

so $`\alpha ^{}(0)=\frac{|X|_{g_0}^2+a^2}{a}X+2\pi \frac{|X|_{g_0}^2}{a}\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}`$, which is parallel to $`X+2\pi (\frac{|X|_{g_0}^2}{a^2+|X|_{g_0}^2})\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}`$. Re-writing this vector in terms of $`g_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ completes the claim. ∎

Notice that the metric $`h`$ on $`S^2\times S^1`$ is completely determined by the data $`\{g_\mathrm{\Sigma },X,a\}`$. More precisely, $`h`$ is determined by requiring that the projection $`\varphi :(S^2\times S^1,h)(S^2,g_\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ onto the first factor is a Riemannian submersion with horizontal space as in Claim 3.2 and vertical space $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}`$ uniformly rescaled so that the fiber lengths are as in Claim 3.1.

By Claims 2.2, 2.3, 3.1, and 3.2, this metric $`h`$ on $`S^2\times S^1`$ can be re-described as a Riemannian quotient of the form $`((S^2,g_1)\times S^1(r)\times )/`$, where $``$ acts on $`(S^2,g_1)`$ by flow along a Killing vector field $`\widehat{X}`$ and on $`S^1(r)`$ by rotation. For this quotient metric, $`=\text{span}\{Y,\widehat{X}+|\widehat{X}|_{g_\mathrm{\Sigma }}^2\widehat{\mathrm{\Theta }}\}`$ and $`\text{fiberlength}=(\frac{1+r^2}{4\pi ^2r^2}\frac{|\widehat{X}|_{g_\mathrm{\Sigma }}^2}{4\pi ^2})^{1/2}`$, so it agrees with the metric $`h`$ if we choose $`\widehat{X}=\frac{2\pi }{a^2}X`$, and choose $`r`$ such that $`\frac{1}{a^2}=\frac{1+r^2}{4\pi ^2r^2}`$.

So each distance sphere $`S`$ in $`E`$ about $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ can be described as a Riemannian quotient of the form $`((S^2,g_1)\times S^1(r)\times )/`$. Further, two distance spheres (at different distances from $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$) in $`E`$, when re-described as submersion metrics, have the same soul metric $`g_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and also the same horizontal spaces (because the distribution determined by a connection is scale invariant). This implies that there is a single metric $`g_1`$ and a single Killing field $`\widehat{X}`$ on $`(S^2,g_1)`$ such that all distance spheres can be described as $`((S^2,g_1)\times S^1(r)\times )/`$ for varying $`r`$. It follows that the whole manifold $`E`$ can be described as $`((S^2,g_1)\times (^2,g_F)\times )/`$, where $`g_F`$ is a rotationally-symmetric metric whose distance spheres have lengths prescribed by the above requirements. ∎

## 4. Rigidity at the soul

In this section we exhibit a sense in which any complete metric of nonnegative curvature on $`S^2\times ^2`$ is rigid at its soul.

Let $`M^4`$ be an open manifold of nonnegative curvature with soul $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^2`$. Let $`k:\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ denote the sectional curvature function of the soul. The curvature $`R^{}`$ of the connection $``$ in normal bundle $`\nu (\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is determined by a function $`f:\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ (so that for oriented orthonormal bases $`\{X,Y\}`$ of $`T_p\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`\{W,V\}`$ of $`\nu _p(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$, we have $`f(p)=R^{}(X,Y)W,V`$). The curvature of 2-planes normal to the soul are determined by a function $`g:\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ (so that $`g(p)=R(W,V)V,W`$). Notice that $`_{S^2}f\text{dvol}=0`$ because the bundle is trivial. It follows from Theorem A of  that the following inequality is satisfied for all $`p\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and all unit-length vectors $`XT_p\mathrm{\Sigma }`$:

(4.1)
$$(Xf)^2(f^2+\frac{2}{3}\text{hess}_g(X,X))k.$$

This inequality comes from the fact that any mixed 2-plane $`\sigma `$ at the soul is flat, so the hessian of the sectional curvature function on the Grassmanian of all 2-planes of $`M`$ must be nonnegative definite at $`\sigma `$.

For the natural metric of nonnegative curvature on a nontrivial $`^2`$ bundle over $`S^2`$, inequality 4.1 is strict. The strictness of the inequality means two things. First, the metric is non-rigid. For example, the metric on the soul and the connection in the normal bundle of the soul can both be arbitrarily perturbed without losing nonnegative curvature; see \[8, Theorem B\] or \[7, Proposition 3.3\]. Second, the boundary of a small distance sphere about the soul (which is diffeomorphic to a lens space) has strictly positive curvature in the induced metric \[8, Theorem C\].

If, on the other hand, $`M^4=S^2\times ^2`$, then the metric is much more rigid. Inequality 4.1 could not possibly be strict for all $`X`$ because the sphere bundle $`S^2\times S^1`$ does not admit positive curvature. In fact, it is not strict for any $`X`$:

###### Proposition 4.1.

Any metric of nonnegative curvature on $`S^2\times ^2`$ is rigid in the sense that $`(Xf)^2=(f^2+\frac{2}{3}\text{hess}_g(X,X))k`$ for any unit-vector $`X`$ tangent to any point $`p`$ of the soul.

###### Idea of proof.

By Theorem 1.1, an arbitrary metric $`h`$ of nonnegative curvature on $`S^2\times ^2`$ can be written as

$$(S^2\times ^2,h)=((S^2,g_0)\times (^2,g_F)\times )/.$$

The metric $`g_0`$ is rotationally-symmetric, so it can be described as a surface of revolution in $`^3`$ parameterized as $`(s,t)(f(t)\mathrm{cos}(s),f(t)\mathrm{sin}(s),\varphi (t))`$, where $`\varphi ^{}(t)^2+f^{}(t)^2=1`$. The $``$-action on $`(S^2,g_0)`$ is determined by some multiple, $`C_1`$, of the Killing field which rotates at 1 radian per unit time. Similarly, the $``$-action on $`(^2,g_F)`$ is determined by some multiple, $`C_2`$, of the Killing field which rotates at 1 radian per unit time. Let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ denote the sectional curvature of $`(,g_F)`$ at the vertex.

It is then straightforward to compute each term of inequality 4.1 in terms only of $`\{f,\mathrm{\Lambda },C_1,C_2\}`$. The proposition then follows by direct calculation. ∎

It is somewhat unsatisfying that we used Theorem 1.1 to prove Proposition 4.1, for this approach leaves unaddressed the question of whether inequality 4.1 alone is restrictive enough to force rigidity. When the soul is round, we show that rigidity follows from the inequality alone:

###### Proposition 4.2.

Let $`f,g:(S^2,\text{round})`$. Assume that $`f=0`$. If for all unit tangent vectors $`X`$, $`(Xf)^2(f^2+\frac{2}{3}\text{hess}_g(X,X))`$, then (1) equality holds, (2) $`f`$ is the restriction of a linear function on $`^3`$, and (3) $`g`$ is uniquely determined (up to an additive constant) by $`f`$.

###### Proof.

Taking the trace of the inequality gives:

$$|f|^22f^2+\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{\Delta }g.$$

Integrating yields the following:

$$\frac{|f|^2}{f^2}2.$$

The left side of this last inequality is a Rayleigh quotient. Since the lowest non-zero eigenvalue of $`(S^2,\text{round})`$ is $`2`$, and since $`f`$ is $`L^2`$-orthogonal to the constant functions, equality must hold, and $`f`$ must be an eigenfunction of the laplacian. That is, $`f`$ is the restriction to $`S^2^3`$ of a linear function, so we can write $`f(p)=p,Z`$ for some vector $`Z^3`$. Notice that $`Xf=X,Z`$. If $`Z=0`$, it is easy to see that $`g`$ must be constant, so assume $`Z0`$.

Let $`\gamma :[0,2\pi ]S^2`$ be a geodesic with $`\gamma (0)=\gamma (2\pi )=Z/|Z|`$. Let $`g(t)=g(\gamma (t))`$ and $`f(t)=f(\gamma (t))`$. Inequality 4.1 along $`\gamma `$ becomes:

$$g^{\prime \prime }(t)f^{}(t)^2f(t)^2.$$

which can be re-written as

$$g^{\prime \prime }(t)|Z|(\mathrm{sin}^2(t)\mathrm{cos}^2(t))=|Z|\mathrm{cos}(2t).$$

Since both the left and the right sides of this last inequality integrate to zero, equality must hold. So,

$$g(t)=\frac{|Z|^2}{4}\mathrm{cos}(2t)+C_1t+C_2.$$

Since $`g`$ is periodic, $`C_1=0`$. Finally, it is straightforward to see that $`C_2`$ remains constant as $`\gamma `$ varies over all geodesics through $`Z/|Z|`$. ∎

Inequality 4.1 is actually a special case of an inequality which holds in any dimensions \[8, Theorem A\]. So it makes sense to ask for metrics of nonnegative curvature on $`S^n\times ^k`$ whether this inequality forces rigidity of the metric at the soul. The case $`n=2,k=3`$ is of particular importance, since it would provide insight into the classification of nonnegatively curved metrics on $`S^2\times S^2`$.


text:
# A conditional quantum phase gate between two 3-state atoms

## Abstract

We propose a scheme for conditional quantum logic between two 3-state atoms that share a quantum data-bus such as a single mode optical field in cavity QED systems, or a collective vibrational state of trapped ions. Making use of quantum interference, our scheme achieves successful conditional phase evolution without any real transitions of atomic internal states or populating the quantum data-bus. In addition, it only requires common addressing of the two atoms by external laser fields.

03.67.Lx, 32.80.Wr, 42.50.-p

Following the recent discovery of powerful applications for quantum computing algorithms , quantum information science  has witnessed significant progress and development on the experimental side. Among the variety of physical systems being explored for hardware implementations for quantum logic, atomic ion-traps and cavity QED systems are favored because of their demonstrated advantage when subjected to coherent manipulations.

Much experimental progress has been made with trapped ions, ranging from the deterministic creation of 4-ion internal state entanglement ; the generation of arbitrary superposition states of the quantized ion motion ; to the high fidelity quantum gate operations between two qubits . While a high Q optical cavity with atomic qubits inside is an early candidate for quantum computation , it has been challenging to experimentally realize its full promise. In a recent paper , we delineated some of the technical difficulties and proposed an easier theoretical protocol for conditional phase dynamics between two 4-state atoms . Let us recount the current difficulties with cavity QED base systems; 1) precisely localizing each atomic motional wave packet (to ensure the difficult Lamb-Dicke limit); 2) obtaining a double $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-type, 6-state, level diagram for each atom as required in the protocol of Ref. ; and 3) individually addressing each atom during the gate operation when both atoms are inside the cavity.

Recent developments in the synthesis of ion trap and cavity QED systems have allowed attainment of the Lamb-Dicke limit . Such a composite system suggests possibilities for quantum communication of information stored in material atoms through cavity photons, in addition to processing quantum gates between several nearby atomic qubits.

In this paper, we present a new theoretical scheme for a quantum phase gate between two 3-state atoms. By making use of two-atom quantum interferences, our new protocol significantly reduces the effect of cavity decay and the atomic spontaneous emission during the gate operation. Furthermore, the external control of the system is made easier as the successful implementation of the phase gate involves no real atomic transitions or the presence of a cavity photon.

Our system consists of two 3-state atoms as in Ref. , each with two stable ground states ($`|0`$ and $`|1`$) for storage of one qubit of quantum information, and an excited state ($`|e`$) used for virtual transitions. In an experimental implementation, the $`M_F=0`$ clock transition states of alkali metal atoms are ideally candidates for the ground states because of their insensitivity to residual magnetic fields. Both atoms are assumed to couple (off-resonantly) to an external laser field and the same single photon mode of the cavity as illustrated in Fig. 1 below. The conditional phase ($`\varphi `$) gate then is simply given by the following unitary evolution

$`|0_A|0_B`$ $``$ $`|0_A|0_B`$ (1)
$`|0_A|1_B`$ $``$ $`|0_A|1_B`$ (2)
$`|1_A|0_B`$ $``$ $`|1_A|0_B`$ (3)
$`|1_A|1_B`$ $``$ $`e^{i\varphi }|1_A|1_B,`$ (4)
between the two atoms A and B.

The effective model Hamiltonian of our system, including atomic spontaneous emission and cavity decays, is identical to that considered in Ref.  for a dynamical Stark phase gate between two trapped ions in a optical cavity.

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`H_A+H_B+H_C,`$ (5)
$`H_{\mu =A/B}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}(\omega _ei{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{2}})|e_\mu e|+\mathrm{}\omega _1|1_\mu 1|`$ (6)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[\mathrm{\Omega }_\mu |e_\mu 1|e^{i\omega _Lt}+g_\mu |e_\mu 1|c+h.c.],`$ (7)
$`H_C`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}(\omega _Ci\kappa )c^{}c,`$ (8)
where $`H_{A/B}`$ is the Hamiltonian for atom (A/B) interacting with the cavity mode and the external laser fields. $`\mathrm{\Omega }_L`$ is the Rabi frequency of the external laser field ($`|e|1`$) at frequency $`\omega _L`$ and $`g_\mu `$ is the single photon coherent coupling rate ($`|e|1`$) of the cavity field. $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ denotes the atomic spontaneous emission rate and $`\kappa `$ stands for the (one-side) cavity decay rate. We will not consider the position dependance of the cavity-atom coupling $`g_\mu (\stackrel{}{r}_\mu )`$, a good approximation in the Lamb-Dicke limit.

Our scheme works in the following limits: 1) both the external laser and the cavity field are strongly detuned, i.e., $`|\mathrm{\Delta }=\omega _C(\omega _e\omega _1)|\mathrm{\Gamma },\kappa ,|\mathrm{\Omega }_\mu |,|g_\mu |`$, and $`|\delta |0`$; and 2) $`|g_\mu |>|\mathrm{\Omega }_\mu |`$ and $`|g_\mu |^2\mathrm{\Gamma }\kappa `$ as required for the strong coupling. The dynamic Stark gate of Ref.  works when the classical field is resonant with the unperturbed atomic transition $`|e|1`$, i.e. $`\omega _L(\omega _e\omega _1)`$, or $`\delta =\omega _L\omega _C=\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Therefore, it is more sensitive to the atomic decay $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Our protocol, to be discussed below, works when both fields are strongly detuned and are resonant with each other, i.e. $`\delta 0`$. It seems to work with reasonable losses due to both $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`\kappa `$.

In the following, we analyze in detail the two quantum interference transitions of the combined atom + cavity system that lead to the required conditional phase dynamics Eq. (4). We assume that the atom-laser and atom-cavity coupling strengths are adjustable so that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_A=\mathrm{\Omega }_B=\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`g_\mu =g`$. The latter condition can be easily established if we have the control over atomic positions inside the cavity, e.g. a linear atomic array intersecting the cavity at a right angle allows the placement of the two respective atoms in radially symmetric points of the (cylindrically symmetric) cavity. The former condition can be met when the plane wave laser field intersects from the side of the cavity such that the wave front delay between the two atoms (a distance $`\stackrel{}{d}`$ apart) corresponds to an odd number of $`\pi `$, i.e. $`e^{i\stackrel{}{k}_L\stackrel{}{d}}=1`$.

Within the above specific regime of parameters, the state $`|0_A|0_B`$ experiences no dynamics because the hyperfine splitting $`\omega _{10}`$ is much larger than $`|\mathrm{\Delta }|`$ in all practical implementations. The state $`|1_A|1_B`$, on the other hand, accumulates a phase shift that increases linearly with time. As illustrated in Fig. 2, it couples first to the anti-symmetric one atom excited state $`|𝒜=(|e_A|1_B|1_A|e_B)/\sqrt{2}`$ because the choice of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mu `$. The state $`|𝒜`$, however, CANNOT couple to the one cavity photon state $`|1_A|1_B|1_C`$ because of the choice $`g_\mu =g`$. In fact, state $`|1_A|1_B|1_C`$ is only coupled to the symmetric state $`|𝒮=(|e_A|1_B+|1_A|e_B)/\sqrt{2}`$. Further coupling to the two-atom excited state from $`|𝒜`$ is weakened because of the twice as large detuning. Thus the only dynamics for state $`|1_A|1_B`$ is a constant rate of its phase due to the AC Stark shift induced by the classical field $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, which we find to be $`\varphi (t)=\frac{|\mathrm{\Omega }|^2}{2(\mathrm{\Delta }+\delta )}t`$ when both decay rates are ignored.

Now let’s look at states $`|0_A|1_B`$ and $`|1_A|0_B`$. It turns out that they accumulate no phase shifts at all as long as $`\delta 0`$, again due to an interesting quantum interference. In this case the dominant transition paths are the single photon resonances between the classical and cavity fields as illustrated in Fig. 3. In the limit of $`|g||\mathrm{\Omega }|`$, these resonant transitions become essentially summed by adopting the dressed state basis as in the standard Jaynes-Cummings model. All excited states then assume a doublet manifold given by

$`|+,n`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}\theta |1|n+1+\mathrm{cos}\theta |e|n,`$ (9)
$`|,n`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}\theta |1|n+1\mathrm{sin}\theta |e|n,`$ (10)
with the corresponding eigenvalues

$`E_\pm (n)={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{2}}\pm \sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{4}}+|g|^2(n+1)}.`$ (11)
The mixing angle $`\theta `$ is determined from $`\mathrm{tan}(2\theta )=2g\sqrt{n+1}/\mathrm{\Delta }`$. For the first excited state ($`n=0`$), the above eigven-values also represent the detunings of states $`|\pm ,0`$ from the external laser field at $`\omega _L=\omega _C`$.

The weak classical field $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ then simply drives the atom from the ground state $`|1_\mu |0_C`$ to the first excited state doublet as in Fig. 4. Higher excited doublets are ignored again because of the large detuning. The AC Stark shift of the ground state $`|1_A|0_C`$ then simply results from the summation of the respective shifts of the doublet $`|\pm ,0`$. It is an easy exercise to show that the shift from the upper state $`|+,0`$ (negatively detuned) exactly cancels that from the lower state $`|,0`$ (positively detuned), i.e.

$`\delta _{10}={\displaystyle \frac{|\mathrm{\Omega }|^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta }{4E_+(0)}}{\displaystyle \frac{|\mathrm{\Omega }|^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }{4E_{}(0)}}=0.`$ (12)
We have performed extensive numerical simulations with the full Hamiltonian Eq. (8). When both decays are ignored by taking $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\kappa =0`$, we find the above analytical insights to be completely accurate, i.e. we indeed execute the conditional phase gate Eq. (4). In fact, we find that the gate works with almost perfect ($`>99\%`$ fidelity) even beyond the limit our interference based analysis implies, except that states $`|1_A|0_B`$ and $`|0_A|1_B`$ now also accumulate phases $`\varphi _A(t)`$ and $`\varphi _B(t)`$ respectively. The conditional phase then becomes $`\varphi (t)\varphi _A(t)\varphi _B(t)`$. The phase gate of Ref.  involves a Rabi oscillation between state $`|1_A|1_B`$ and $`|𝒜`$. Thus it is less tolerant to residual phase shifts for states $`|1_A|0_B`$ or $`|0_A|1_B`$.

Figure 5 shows selected results for the dependence of the phase gate success rate on system parameters for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=0.08|g|`$ and $`\kappa =0.05|g|`$ ($`|g|^2=250\mathrm{\Gamma }\kappa `$). Quite promising results are obtained over a broad range of system parameters. The correspondingly fidelities are always approaching being perfect ($`99.9\%`$).

In Fig. 6, we display the dependence of the optimal success rate on the relative phase $`\eta `$ between $`\mathrm{\Omega }_A=e^{i\eta }\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_B=\mathrm{\Omega }`$. We see that the dependence is essentially flat. For $`\eta 0`$, transitions from state $`|1_A|1_B`$ in Fig. 2 become modified in similar ways to those in Fig. 3 except the excited state is now a linear combination of $`|𝒜`$ and $`|𝒮`$. A similar reduction to doublet structures as in Fig. 4 occurs since $`|g||\mathrm{\Omega }_\mu |`$. Thus the complete diagram is still essentially closed; now, however, the phase accumulation rate becomes smaller due to the cancellation of AC Stark shifts from the first excited doublet.

Although the limit of $`|g|^2\mathrm{\Gamma }\kappa `$ is a challenging pursuit , it can nevertheless be expected to be reachable with optical cavity QED based systems soon . On the other hand, for the state of art ion traps, $`\kappa `$ can be made exceedingly small and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ can be lowered using Raman transitions . We now show that our model maps perfectly to an ion trap setup . For the same type 3-state atoms as illustrated in Fig. 1, the sideband of their collective vibrational mode is shared by the two atomic ions. We will use two external classical fields; one running wave drives the single atomic ion (off-resonantly) at the carrier frequency $`|1_\mu |n_C|e_\mu |n`$ (insensitive to the motion); and the other drives the red motional sideband as illustrated in Fig. 7. The equivalent cavity coupling $`g_\mu `$ then becomes in this case $`R_\mu `$, the Rabi frequency for the second laser (much stronger than the first one at the carrier frequency) times its respective Lamb-Dicke parameters of the harmonic vibration for each of the atoms $`\eta _\mu `$ . The Hamiltonian of the system is then again described by Eq. (8), except now the index ‘C’ refers to the collective vibrational state and $`c^{}`$ ($`c`$) denotes the creation (annihilation) of a vibration quanta. We will require $`|\mathrm{\Delta }|\omega _C`$ to prevent any internal excited state with a non-zero vibrational quanta from participating the gate dynamics.

If the collective center of mass vibrational mode is used, then $`\eta _\mu =\eta `$, the same as in the cavity QED model. We could also use the two ion breathing mode, then $`\eta _A=\eta _B`$, which leads to $`g_A=g_B=g`$. If we then take $`\mathrm{\Omega }_A=\mathrm{\Omega }_B=\mathrm{\Omega }`$ instead, the same theory as developed above applies.

In Fig. 8, we show selected results of the success rate for $`\kappa =0`$, a situation close to an ion trap implementation.

In conclusion, we have discovered a new protocol for performing a quantum phase gate between two atomic qubits. We have explained its operating mechanism in terms of quantum interference effects. In addition, our protocol can also be explained in terms of a quantum Zeno subspace  or an environment induced decoherence free space as in other cavity QED based theories . We believe this new protocol is more advantageous when compared to other known cavity QED protocols. It requires only common addressing of the two atoms during the gate operation; it uses 3 internal states for each atomic qubit, and applies to both cavity QED and trapped ion systems; Furthermore, its successful implementation involves no real transitions of atomic states or populating the cavity or the collective motional state quantum data-bus. In the ideal operation limit, this protocol thus becomes reasonably insensitive to motional dephasing or heating because the Stark phase due to an external plane wave laser is position independent.

We thank Dr. M. Plenio for helpful communications. This work is supported by a grant from NSA, ARDA, and DARPA under ARO Contract No. DAAD19-01-1-0667, and by a grant from the NSF PHY-0113831.


text:
# The technique of inverse Mellin transform for processes occurring in a background magnetic field

## 1 INTRODUCTION

The analytic properties of scattering amplitudes in quantum field theories are well known. They are described by the so called cutting rules. With the cutting rules, the absorptive part of a scattering amplitude can be calculated, while the dispersive part of the amplitude is obtained from the former by the Kramers-Kronig relation. The above procedures can be easily implemented for any quantum field theory with a trivial vacuum. For such a vacuum, the energy-momentum relation of an asymptotic state is simply $`E^2=𝐩^2+m^2`$ with $`m`$ the mass of the asymptotic state. On the other hand, for processes occurring in a background magnetic field, the energy-momentum relations of asymptotic states receive corrections from the magnetic-field effects. For instance, the energy-momentum relation of an electron (positron) in the background magnetic field is given by

$$E_{n,s_z}^2=m_e^2+p_z^2+eB\left(2n+1+2s_z\right),$$
(1)
where the background magnetic field is taken to be along the $`+z`$ direction, $`s_z`$ is the electron spin projection, and $`n`$ labels the Landau levels. Due to the above energy quantization caused by a background magnetic field, one expects the absorptive part of a physical amplitude contains an infinite number of contributions distinguished by their corresponding Landau levels. Hence the calculation of the absorptive part is becoming rather involved, and certainly the calculation of the dispersive part is even more intricate.

In this talk, we present a new approach for computing the absorptive part of a physical amplitude in the background magnetic field. The idea is based upon the analyticity. For illustration, we take the one-loop photon polarization function as an example, with a background magnetic field along the $`+z`$ direction. Since the energy of the internal electron in the photon polarization function is given by Eq. (1), the value of the photon longitudinal momentum $`q_{}^2q_0^2q_z^2`$ determines the threshold for the absorptive part. Therefore the photon polarization function is an analytic function of the photon longitudinal momentum $`q_{}^2`$ except on the positive real axis. To obtain the photon polarization function for an arbitrary $`q_{}^2`$, it suffices to know the function’s power-series expansion in $`q_{}^2`$ at $`q_{}^2=0`$, because the analytic continuation can map the function from the neighborhood of $`q_{}^2=0`$ to any value of $`q_{}^2`$. A powerful way to perform this analytic continuation is through the inverse Mellin transform. With the inverse Mellin transform, one calculates the absorptive part of the photon polarization function with the knowledge of the above-mentioned power-series expansion. We note that it is straightforward to obtain such a power series because the neighborhood of $`q_{}^2=0`$ is free of resonant singularities caused by the creation of electron-positron pairs. Knowing the absorptive part, the dispersive part of the photon polarization at any $`q_{}^2`$ is calculable by the Kramers-Kronig relation.

We organize this presentation as follows: In Section 2, we illustrate the technique of inverse Mellin transform using the vacuum QED as an example. In Section 3, we apply this technique to the photon polarization function in a background magnetic field. A short conclusion is given in Section 4.

## 2 VACUUM QED

The vacuum polarization tensor in QED is written as

$$i\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mu \nu }(q)=(q^2g^{\mu \nu }q^\mu q^\nu )i\mathrm{\Pi }(q^2).$$
(2)
We are interested in calculating the one-loop finite part $`\overline{\mathrm{\Pi }}(q^2)=\mathrm{\Pi }(q^2)\mathrm{\Pi }(0)`$. We observe that $`\overline{\mathrm{\Pi }}(q^2)`$ satisfies the sum rule :

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n!}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{d^n}{d(q^2)^n}}\overline{\mathrm{\Pi }}(q^2)\right)_{q^2=0}`$ (3)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _{M^2}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑q^2\mathrm{Im}\overline{\mathrm{\Pi }}(q^2)(q^2)^{(n+1)},`$
where $`M^2`$ is the threshold energy for the absorptive part $`\mathrm{Im}\overline{\mathrm{\Pi }}(q^2)`$. Although the value for $`M^2`$ is not specified at this moment, the procedure of analytic continuation will automatically generate it. Let us rewrite the sum rule in dimensionless variables:

$$\frac{1}{n!}\left(\frac{d^n}{dt^n}\overline{\mathrm{\Pi }}(t)\right)_{t=0}=\frac{1}{\pi }_0^1𝑑u\mathrm{Im}\overline{\mathrm{\Pi }}(u)u^{n1},$$
(4)
where $`t=q^2/M^2`$ and $`u=1/t`$. It is easily seen that the derivatives of $`\overline{\mathrm{\Pi }}`$ at $`t=0`$ is proportional to the Mellin transform of $`\mathrm{Im}\overline{\mathrm{\Pi }}`$. Hence $`\mathrm{Im}\overline{\mathrm{\Pi }}`$ at any value of $`t`$ is obtainable by the inverse Mellin transform:

$$\mathrm{Im}\overline{\mathrm{\Pi }}(u)=\frac{1}{2i}_C𝑑sa(s)u^s,$$
(5)
where $`a(s)`$ is the analytic continuation of $`a(n)`$ which appears in the power series expansion

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Pi }}(t)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a(n)t^n.$$
(6)
For the current case, $`a(n)`$ is given by

$$a(n)=\frac{2\alpha }{\pi }\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2(n+2)}{n\mathrm{\Gamma }(2n+4)}\left(\frac{M^2}{m_e^2}\right)^n.$$
(7)
Applying Eq. (5), we obtain

$`\mathrm{Im}\overline{\mathrm{\Pi }}(u)=`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{3}}\sqrt{1{\displaystyle \frac{4m_e^2}{M^2}}u}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{2m_e^2}{M^2}}u\right)`$ (8)
$`\times `$ $`\mathrm{\Theta }\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{4m_e^2}{M^2}}u\right).`$
We like to remark that, with $`u=1/t=M^2/q^2`$, $`\mathrm{Im}\overline{\mathrm{\Pi }}(u)`$ is independent of the undetermined threshold scale $`M^2`$, and it agrees with the known result obtained by applying the cutting rules. Having obtained $`\mathrm{Im}\overline{\mathrm{\Pi }}(u)`$, one can calculate $`\mathrm{Re}\overline{\mathrm{\Pi }}(u)`$ by the Kramers-Kronig relation.

## 3 QED IN A BACKGROUND MAGNETIC FIELD

The photon polarization function in a background magnetic field is given by the following proper time representation:

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }(q)={\displaystyle \frac{e^3B}{(4\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}ds{\displaystyle _1^{+1}}dv\times `$
$`\{e^{is\varphi _0}[T_{\mu \nu }N_0T_{,\mu \nu }N_{}+T_{,\mu \nu }N_{}]`$
$`e^{ism_e^2}(1v^2)T_{\mu \nu }\},`$ (9)
where the photon momentum has been decomposed into $`q_{}^\mu =(\omega ,0,0,q_z)`$ and $`q_{}^\mu =(0,q_x,q_y,0)`$; while $`T_{\mu \nu }=(q^2g_{\mu \nu }q_\mu q_\nu )`$, $`T_{,\mu \nu }=(q_{}^2g_{\mu \nu }q_\mu q_\nu )`$, and $`T_{,\mu \nu }=(q_{}^2g_{\mu \nu }q_\mu q_\nu )`$. The phase $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ and the functions $`N_0`$, $`N_{}`$ and $`N_{}`$ are given by

$$\varphi _0=m_e^2\frac{1v^2}{4}q_{}^2\frac{\mathrm{cos}(zv)\mathrm{cos}(z)}{2z\mathrm{sin}(z)}q_{}^2$$
(10)
with $`z=eBs`$, and

$`N_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}(zv)v\mathrm{cot}(z)\mathrm{sin}(zv)}{\mathrm{sin}(z)}},`$
$`N_{}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cot}(z)\left(1v^2+{\displaystyle \frac{v\mathrm{sin}(zv)}{\mathrm{sin}(z)}}\right)+`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}(zv)}{\mathrm{sin}(z)}},`$
$`N_{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}(zv)}{\mathrm{sin}(z)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{v\mathrm{cot}(z)\mathrm{sin}(zv)}{\mathrm{sin}(z)}}+`$ (11)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2\left(\mathrm{cos}(zv)\mathrm{cos}(z)\right)}{\mathrm{sin}^3(z)}}.`$
The two independent eigenmodes of the above polarization tensor are $`ϵ_{}^\mu `$ and $`ϵ_{}^\mu `$ which are respectively parallel and perpendicular to the plane spanned by the photon momentum $`𝐪`$ and the magnetic field $`𝐁`$. They obey the dispersion equations $`q^2+\mathrm{\Pi }_{}=0`$ and $`q^2+\mathrm{\Pi }_{}=0`$ respectively with $`\mathrm{\Pi }_,=ϵ_,^\mu \mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }ϵ_,^\nu `$. It turns out that $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{}`$ are proportional to $`N_{}`$ and $`N_{}`$ respectively. We shall not discuss the contribution by $`N_0`$ since it does not correspond to an independent eigenmode.

For simplicity, we shall only focus on the calculation of $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{}`$. In particular, we only illustrate the procedure of calculating the partial contribution $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{}^A`$ given by

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{}^A=`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha \omega ^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }{4\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑z{\displaystyle _1^{+1}}𝑑v`$ (12)
$`\times `$ $`\mathrm{exp}(is\varphi _0){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}(zv)}{\mathrm{sin}(z)}},`$
where the integrand $`\mathrm{cos}(zv)/\mathrm{sin}(z)`$ is taken from the second term of $`N_{}`$, and $`\theta `$ is the angle between $`𝐪`$ and $`𝐁`$.

The scalar function $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{}^A`$ is easy to calculate only for $`q_{}^2<4m_e^2`$, since, in this momentum region, the contour rotation $`sis`$ is allowed. The oscillating trigonometric functions are then rotated into hyperbolic functions. Similar to the previous section, one writes $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{}^A`$ as a power series in $`q_{}^2`$:

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{}^A=\frac{\alpha \omega ^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }{4\pi }\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a(n,q_{}^2)\left(\frac{q_{}^2}{4m_e^2}\right)^n.$$
(13)
Following Eq. (5), we calculate $`\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }_{}^A`$ by

$$\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }_{}^A(v)=\frac{i\alpha \omega ^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }{8\pi }_C𝑑sa(s,q_{}^2)v^s,$$
(14)
with $`a(s,q_{}^2)`$ the analytic continuation of $`a(n,q_{}^2)`$, and $`v=4m_e^2/q_{}^2`$. We arrive at

$`\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }_{}^A`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\alpha eB\omega ^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }{q_{}^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{l_1=1,l_2=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}T_{l_1,l_2}(q_{}^2)`$ (15)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Theta }(1\frac{4\lambda eB}{q_{}^2}+\frac{4\rho ^2e^2B^2}{q_{}^4})}{\sqrt{1\frac{4\lambda eB}{q_{}^2}+\frac{4\rho ^2e^2B^2}{q_{}^4}}}},`$
where $`\lambda =l_1+l_2+m_e^2/eB`$, $`\rho =l_1l_2`$, and the step function indicates the threshold for creating an electron-positron pair occupying the $`l_1`$-th and $`l_2`$-th Landau levels. The detailed form of $`T_{l_1,l_2}(q_{}^2)`$ is given in Ref. . With $`\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }_{}^A`$ determined, $`\mathrm{Re}\mathrm{\Pi }_{}^A`$ can once more be calculated by the Kramers-Kronig relation.

## 4 CONCLUSION

In this talk, we have demonstrated the usefulness of analyticity for computing field theory amplitudes. We observed that a field theory amplitude in the neighborhood of zero energy (momentum) determines the amplitude at the arbitrary energy (momentum). The latter can be calculated from the former by the inverse Mellin transform and the Kramers-Kronig relation. We also showed that such an approach is very appropriate for a process occurring in a background magnetic field, where an infinite number of thresholds occur in the amplitude of the process.