text:
# COHESION, CONDUCTANCE, AND CHARGING EFFECTS IN A METALLIC NANOCONTACT aafootnote aPublished in Quantum Physics at Mesoscopic Scale, D. C. Glattli, M. Sanquer and J. Tran Thanh Van eds. (EDP Sciences, Les Ulis, France, 2000), pp. 49-53.

## 1 Introduction

In a seminal experiment published in 1996, Rubio, Agraït, and Vieira $`^\mathrm{?}`$ measured simultaneously the electrical conductance and cohesive force of Au–Au contacts with diameters ranging from several Ångstroms to several nanometers. They observed oscillations in the cohesive force of order 1nN as the contact was pulled apart, which were synchronized with jumps of order $`G_0=2e^2/h`$ in the conductance $`G`$. Similar results were obtained independently by Stalder and Dürig.$`^\mathrm{?}`$ In a previous article,$`^\mathrm{?}`$ it was argued that the mesoscopic force oscillations, like the corresponding conductance steps, can be understood by considering the nanocontact as a waveguide for the conduction electrons (which are responsible for both conduction and cohesion in simple metals): each quantized mode transmitted through the contact contributes $`2e^2/h`$ to the conductance,$`^\mathrm{?}`$ and a force of order $`E_F/\lambda _F`$ to the cohesion,$`^\mathrm{?}`$ where $`\lambda _F`$ is the de Broglie wavelength at the Fermi energy $`E_F`$. Recent experiments $`^\mathrm{?}`$ suggest that mode quantization plays an important role in the cohesion of Na nanocontacts for $`G120G_0`$. In Ref. 3 and several subsequent works,$`^\mathrm{?}`$-$`^\mathrm{?}`$ an independent-electron model was used to describe the cohesion and conductance of metallic nanocontacts within the grand canonical ensemble. Recently, several attempts have been made to include the effects of electron-electron interactions in the extended Thomas-Fermi approximation $`^\mathrm{?}`$ and in the local density approximation; $`^\mathrm{?}`$ however, these calculations have utilized the canonical ensemble, which is not appropriate for an open mesoscopic system, such as a metallic nanocontact.

In this article, we show how to treat electron-electron interactions self-consistently in open mesoscopic systems via a generalization of the scattering-matrix approach of Ref. 3. In Sec. 2, we describe the scattering-matrix formalism for independent electrons, and show that the bare mesoscopic charge oscillations induced by the quantum confinement are small, of order $`e`$ in nanometer scale contacts. In Sec. 3, we derive the self-consistent Hartree approximation using the electronic scattering matrix, and obtain integral equations for the screened charge and grand canonical potential within linear response. The Hartree equations are solved for the case of a discrete-potential model, and it is shown that the Hartree correction to the cohesive force is small, justifying the use of the independent-electron model. $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$-$`^\mathrm{?}`$

## 2 Independent electron model of a metallic nanocontact

We first model the metallic nanocontact as a system of noninteracting electrons confined along the $`z`$-axis by a potential $`U_0(𝐱)`$ with a saddle-point at $`𝐱=0`$, and assume $`U_0`$ varies slowly, i.e., $`U_0/zE_F/\lambda _F`$ $`𝐱=(x,y,z)`$. Neglecting small terms of order $`U_0/z`$, the Schrödinger equation is separable into a series of one-dimensional scattering problems with effective potential barriers $`\epsilon _\nu (z)`$, the eigenvalues of the two-dimensional Schrödinger equation in planes of constant $`z`$. The scattering matrix is then diagonal, and for a system with inversion symmetry about $`z=0`$, it is found in an extended WKB approximation to be $`^\mathrm{?}`$

$$S_{\mu \nu }(E)=\delta _{\mu \nu }e^{i\mathrm{\Theta }_\nu (E)}\left(\begin{array}{cc}iR_\nu ^{1/2}(E)& T_\nu ^{1/2}(E)\\ T_\nu ^{1/2}(E)& iR_\nu ^{1/2}(E)\end{array}\right),$$
(1)
where

$$\mathrm{\Theta }_\nu (E)=(2m/\mathrm{}^2)^{1/2}_{\epsilon _\nu (z)<E}𝑑z[E\epsilon _\nu (z)]^{1/2}$$
(2)
is the scattering phase shift, and $`R_\nu (E)`$ and $`T_\nu (E)`$ are the reflection and transmission probabilities for mode $`\nu `$, which satisfy $`R_\nu (E)+T_\nu (E)=1`$. The transmission probability for mode $`\nu `$ may be expressed $`^\mathrm{?}`$ as $`T_\nu ^1(E)=1+𝒯_\nu (E)^1`$, where

$$\mathrm{ln}𝒯_\nu (E)=\{\begin{array}{cc}2(2m/\mathrm{}^2)^{1/2}_{\epsilon _\nu (z)>E}𝑑z[\epsilon _\nu (z)E]^{1/2},& E<\epsilon _\nu (0),\\ \text{ }& \\ 2(2m/\mathrm{}^2)^{1/2}_{\epsilon _\nu (z)>2\epsilon _\nu (0)E}𝑑z[\epsilon _\nu (z)+E2\epsilon _\nu (0)]^{1/2},& E>\epsilon _\nu (0).\end{array}$$
(3)
Given the scattering matrix (1)–(3), the electrical conductance of the nanocontact may be obtained from the Landauer formula,$`^\mathrm{?}`$ and all equilibrium thermodynamic properties of the system may be obtained from the density of states $`g(E)`$,

$$G=\frac{2e^2}{h}\underset{\nu }{}T_\nu (E_F),g(E)=\frac{1}{2\pi i}\text{Tr}\left\{S^{}\frac{S}{E}S\frac{S^{}}{E}\right\}=\frac{2}{\pi }\underset{\nu }{}\frac{\mathrm{\Theta }_\nu }{E}.$$
(4)
The grand canonical potential, which governs the energetics of the nanocontact is $`^\mathrm{?}`$

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=_0^{E_F}𝑑Eg(E)(EE_F)=\frac{8E_F}{3\lambda _F}\underset{\nu }{}_{\epsilon _\nu (z)<E_F}𝑑z\left(1\frac{\epsilon _\nu (z)}{E_F}\right)^{3/2}.$$
(5)
The total number of electrons in the nanocontact is

$$N_{}=_0^{E_F}𝑑Eg(E)=\frac{4}{\lambda _F}\underset{\nu }{}_{\epsilon _\nu (z)<E_F}𝑑z\left(1\frac{\epsilon _\nu (z)}{E_F}\right)^{1/2}.$$
(6)
Eqs. (4), (5), and (6) are given at zero temperature for simplicity. When the nanocontact is elongated, the contact area decreases, steepening the saddle in the confining potential, and hence increasing the mode energies $`\epsilon _\nu (z)`$. The cohesive force is given by $`F=\mathrm{\Omega }/L`$.

### 2.1 Hard-wall confinement

We now specialize to the case where electrons are confined within the nanocontact by impenetrable walls, with $`U_0=0`$ on the interior. In this case, the condition for the validity of Eqs. (5) and (6) is $`|dD(z)/dz|1`$, where $`D(z)`$ is the diameter of the contact.$`^\mathrm{?}`$ In order to separate the macroscopic contributions to $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`N_{}`$ from the quantum fluctuations, it is useful $`^\mathrm{?}`$ to express the sum over transverse modes $`\nu `$ in Eqs. (5) and (6) in terms of an integral over a local transverse density of states $`_\nu 𝑑z(\mathrm{})𝑑E𝑑zN_{}(E,z)/E(\mathrm{})`$. The total number of transverse modes $`N_{}(E,z)`$ with $`\epsilon _\nu (z)<E`$ may be determined with the aid of the Weyl expansion $`^\mathrm{?}`$

$$N_{}(E,z)=\frac{k_E^2𝒜(z)}{4\pi }\frac{k_E𝒜(z)}{4\pi }+\frac{1}{6}+\delta N_{}(E,z),$$
(7)
where $`𝒜(z)`$ and $`𝒜(z)`$ are the cross-sectional area, and circumference, respectively, of the contact as function of $`z`$, and $`\delta N_{}(E,z)`$ is a fluctuating correction determined by the spectrum of quantized transverse modes, whose average is zero. Using Eq. (7), Eqs. (5) and (6) may be rewritten as

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{E_F}=\frac{2k_F^3𝒱}{15\pi ^2}+\frac{k_F^2𝒮}{16\pi }\frac{2k_FL}{9\pi }+\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Omega }}{E_F},N_{}=\frac{k_F^3𝒱}{3\pi ^2}\frac{k_F^2𝒮}{8\pi }+\frac{k_FL}{3\pi }+\delta N_{},$$
(8)
where $`𝒱`$ is the volume of the nanocontact, $`𝒮`$ is its surface area, $`L`$ is its length, and $`\delta \mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`\delta N_{}`$ are oscillatory quantum corrections whose average is zero.

During elongation, it is assumed that the positive background charge density remains constant, i.e., that the system is incompressible.$`^\mathrm{?}`$ Hard-wall boundary conditions impose a node of the electron wavefunction at the boundary, and lead to a depletion of electrons within a distance of order $`\lambda _F`$ from the boundary \[second term on the right of Eq. (8)\]. To reconcile the constraint of incompressibility and the Dirichlet boundary conditions, we assume that the shape $`D(z)`$ of the nanocontact evolves during elongation in such a way that the macroscopic part $`\overline{N}_{}`$ of the electron number of the system \[first three terms on the right of Eq. (8)\] remains constant,$`^\mathrm{?}`$ and is neutralized by an equal and opposite positive background charge. The net charge imbalance on the nanocontact (neglecting screening) is thus $`\delta Q_0=e\delta N_{}`$, which we show to be small. Differentiating $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ with respect to $`L`$ with the constraint $`\overline{N}_{}=\text{const.}`$, and using Eq. (8), one finds

$$F=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{L}|_{\overline{N}_{}}=\frac{\sigma _𝒱}{5}\frac{𝒮}{L}+\frac{2}{5}\mathrm{\Delta }F_{\mathrm{top}}+\delta F,$$
(9)
where $`\sigma _𝒱=E_Fk_F^2/16\pi `$ is the surface energy $`^\mathrm{?}`$ of a noninteracting electron gas at fixed $`𝒱`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }F_{\mathrm{top}}=4E_F/9\lambda _F`$ is the mean mesoscopic suppression $`^\mathrm{?}`$ of the cohesive force at fixed $`𝒱`$. The reduction of the surface energy by a factor of 5 has been discussed by Lang.$`^\mathrm{?}`$ Importantly, since the constraint $`\overline{N}_{}=\text{const.}`$ differs from the constraint $`𝒱=\text{const.}`$ only by terms of order $`(k_FD_{\mathrm{min}})^1`$, the mesoscopic fluctuations $`\delta F`$ and $`\delta N_{}`$ are quite insensitive to the choice of constraint.

Figure 1 shows the electrical conductance $`G`$ of a metallic nanocontact, calculated from Eqs. (3) and (4), and its cohesive force $`F`$, calculated from Eqs. (5) and (9). The conductance decreases in steps of $`2e^2/h`$ and $`4e^2/h`$ (depending on whether the transverse mode involved is singly or doubly degenerate) as the contact is elongated, and the force exhibits oscillations of amplitude $`E_F/\lambda _F`$, which are synchronized with the conductance steps. The overall magnitude of the force is reduced relative to that obtained in a previous calculation $`^\mathrm{?}`$ using a constraint of constant volume, but the force oscillations $`\delta F`$ are virtually identical to those obtained in Ref. 3. Noting that $`E_F/\lambda _F0.76\text{nN}`$ for Na, one finds that the force shown in Fig. 1(b) is also virtually identical to that calculated for a Na nanowire by Yannouleas et al.,$`^\mathrm{?}`$ suggesting that the more realistic jellium confinement potential they utilized does not significantly modify the cohesion.

The net charge $`\delta Q_0`$ on the nanowire (neglecting screening) is also shown in Fig. 1. Interestingly, we find that $`\delta Q_0/L_0e\delta F/E_F`$, where $`L_0`$ is the initial length of the (initially cylindrical) nanocontact. This result is consistent with the result of Kassubek et al.$`^\mathrm{?}`$ for an abrupt geometry, and will be discussed in more detail elsewhere. Here it suffices to note that since $`|\delta Q_0|e\overline{N}_{}`$, the electron-electron interactions in the nanowire may be treated using linear-response theory.

## 3 Interacting electron model

### 3.1 Self-consistent Hartree approximation

In an interacting model, the confinement potential of the nanocontact is determined self-consistently via the Coulomb interaction: $`U_0(𝐱)U(𝐱)=d^3yV(𝐱𝐲)\delta \rho (𝐲)`$ (Hartree approximation), where $`\delta \rho (𝐱)\rho _{}(𝐱)+\rho _+(𝐱)`$ is the net charge density, $`V(𝐱)`$ is the Coulomb interaction, and $`\rho _+(𝐱)`$ describes the fixed positive background. The grand canonical potential becomes

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{\Omega }_0[U(𝐱)]\frac{1}{2}d^3x\left[\rho _{}(𝐱)\rho _+(𝐱)\right]U(𝐱),$$
(10)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0[U(𝐱)]`$ is given by Eq. (5) with $`U_0(𝐱)`$ replaced by $`U(𝐱)`$. The second term in Eq. (10) corrects for the double counting of electron-electron interactions in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0[U(𝐱)]`$. The charge density of the conduction electrons is

$$\rho _{}(𝐱)=\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Omega }_0}{\delta U(𝐱)}=\frac{1}{2\pi i}_0^{E_F}𝑑E\text{Tr}\left\{S^{}\frac{\delta S}{\delta U(𝐱)}S\frac{\delta S^{}}{\delta U(𝐱)}\right\}.$$
(11)
### 3.2 Linear response

Motivated by the smallness of the bare charge fluctuations $`\delta Q_0=d^3x\delta \rho _0(𝐱)`$, we expand Eq. (11) to linear order in $`U(𝐱)`$, obtaining a self-consistent equation for the screened charge density

$$d^3yϵ(𝐱,𝐲)\delta \rho (𝐲)=\delta \rho _0(𝐱),ϵ(𝐱,𝐲)=\delta (𝐱𝐲)d^3z\frac{\delta \rho (𝐱)}{\delta U(𝐳)}|_{U=0}V(𝐳𝐲),$$
(12)
where $`ϵ(𝐱,𝐲)`$ is the nonlocal Hartree dielectric function and

$$\frac{\delta \rho (𝐱)}{\delta U(𝐲)}=\frac{1}{2\pi i}_0^{E_F}𝑑E\text{Tr}\left\{\frac{\delta S^{}}{\delta U(𝐲)}\frac{\delta S}{\delta U(𝐱)}+S^{}\frac{\delta ^2S}{\delta U(𝐲)\delta U(𝐱)}\text{H.c.}\right\}.$$
(13)
Expanding Eq. (10) in powers of $`U(𝐱)`$ and using Eq. (12), one finds

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{\Omega }_0[0]+\frac{1}{2}d^3xd^3y\delta \rho _0(𝐱)\stackrel{~}{V}(𝐱,𝐲)\delta \rho _0(𝐲)+𝒪(\delta \rho _0^3),$$
(14)
where the screened interaction is given by $`\stackrel{~}{V}(𝐱,𝐲)=d^3zV(𝐱𝐳)ϵ^1(𝐳,𝐲)`$ and the inverse dielectric function $`ϵ^1`$ satisfies $`d^3zϵ^1(𝐱,𝐳)ϵ(𝐳,𝐲)=d^3zϵ(𝐱,𝐳)ϵ^1(𝐳,𝐲)=\delta (𝐱𝐲)`$. Eq. (14) is a familiar result of linear-response theory; the new element here is that the dielectric function is calculated from the scattering matrix \[Eqs. (12) and (13)\] and is nonlocal due to quantum confinement.

### 3.3 Constant interaction model

A simple case for which Eqs. (12) and (14) can be solved easily is the so-called constant interaction model, $`V(𝐱,𝐲)=C^1`$ if $`𝐱,𝐲𝒱`$ and 0 otherwise. $`C`$ plays the role of the capacitance of the nanocontact to its environment, and Eqs. (12) and (14) become:

$$\delta Q=\frac{\delta Q_0}{1+e^2g(E_F)/C},\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{\Omega }_0[0]+\frac{1}{2}\frac{\delta Q_0^2}{C+e^2g(E_F)}+𝒪(\delta Q_0^3).$$
(15)
The result (15) confirms a previous conjecture $`^\mathrm{?}`$ based on simple physical arguments. An upper bound on the magnitude of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }_H=\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }_0[0]`$ is obtained by setting $`C=0`$, which enforces global charge neutrality. The Hartree correction to the cohesive force $`\mathrm{\Delta }F_H=\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }_H/L`$ is plotted in Fig. 1 for $`C=0`$. $`\mathrm{\Delta }F_H`$ is over an order of magnitude smaller than $`\delta F`$, and gives an indiscernible correction to the total force, suggesting that the independent electron model of metallic nanocohesion $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$-$`^\mathrm{?}`$ is well justified.

## Acknowledgments

This work was supported in part by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft through grant SFB 276 and by Swiss National Foundation Grant No. 4036-044033.

## References


format: text

text:
# Global Structure of the Colliding Bubble Braneworld Universe1footnote 11footnote 1 To appear in the Proceedings of JENAM 2002, Workshop on Extra Dimensions and Varying Fundamental Constants.E-mail: J.J.Blanco-Pillado@damtp.cam.ac.uk, M.A.Bucher@damtp.cam.ac.uk

## I Introduction

The Randall-Sundrum model rs  demonstrates how a braneworld cosmology with an “infinite” extra dimension may be achieved in such a way that at large distances gravity behaves as ordinary (3+1) dimensional gravity gt  and in the late time limit the ordinary FRW cosmology is recovered langloisa . This is achieved by postulating a bulk with the geometry of $`AdS^5`$ into which our brane is embedded. This scenario, however, is incomplete because of the usual Randall-Sundrum coordinates are bounded in the past by a Cauchy horizon. Some more complete story establishing well-defined initial conditions on this horizon is required.

Unlike de Sitter space, anti de Sitter space lacks the “no hair” property. Perturbations in AdS forever retain their initial amplitude. Therefore some sort of a beginning that resolves the bulk horizon and smoothness problems trodden  is required to provide a complete story.

The colliding bubble braneworld universe bucher , in which a (3+1)-brane surrounded by $`AdS^5`$ arises from the collisions of two bubbles filled with $`AdS^5`$ nucleating in $`dS^5`$, or $`M^5`$, offers one such possible beginning.

In this contribution we discuss some issues relating to the global structure of the spacetime in the colliding bubble braneworld universe. It has been pointed out that an isolated bubble filled with anti de Sitter space is likely to generate a spacelike singularity in its interior due to an instability that occurs during the collapse phase. We show how a collision may partially avert the formation of such a singularity. The collisions of bubbles arising from quantum tunnelling were considered by Hawking, Moss, and Stewart hawkingb  and later in the thin-wall approximation with gravity taken into account by Wu wu . Some of the issues considered in this paper (e.g., Cauchy horizons, the consequence of a small perturbation on the global structure) parallel those arising in the determination of the global structure of a Reissner-Nordstrom black hole produced from a realistic collapse, as discussed for example in Poisson and Israel poisson .

## II Interior Stability of AdS Bubbles

In Coleman and de Luccia and later in Abbott and Coleman ac , it was pointed out that the interior of a bubble filled with AdS is likely to be unstable toward the formation of a spacelike singularity. Unlike most instabilities, which result from small perturbations from a symmetric solution that progressively grow and eventually blow up, in this case the singularity arises rather from the absence, or the smallness, of perturbations from the symmetric model solution.

The origin of the instability is as follows. For tunnelling described by a scalar field order parameter, the Euclidean instanton never takes one all the way to the true minimum, but rather at best very close but slightly displaced from there. Said another way, even very thin-wall bubbles always have some tail of their wall that extends into the forward lightcone of the bubble nucleation center. The evolution of the field in the lightcone interior is governed by the equation $`\ddot{\varphi }+4(\dot{a}/a)\dot{\varphi }=V_{,\varphi },`$ where the derivatives are with respect to the proper time $`\tau `$ from the nucleation center. While the bubble interior is expanding, $`(\dot{a}/a)`$ is positive, and this term dampens any oscillations about the true minimum. For a Minkowski or de Sitter interior, $`(\dot{a}/a)`$ is always positive. However, when the bubble interior has the geometry of anti de Sitter space, $`a(\tau )=\mathrm{}\mathrm{sin}[\tau /\mathrm{}]`$ where $`\mathrm{}`$ is the AdS curvature length, and for $`\tau (\pi \mathrm{}/2)`$ the aforementioned dampening turns into anti-dampening during this collapse phase, causing the oscillations to blow up near $`\tau \pi \mathrm{}`$ (except for the implausible case where the phase of the oscillations in finely tuned with infinite precision by proper choice of the potential). So far we have ignored gravitation backreaction, but the gravity of the scalar field only hastens the formation of a singularity, turning what would simply be a divergence in the energy density into a spacetime singularity, of the same sort as the initial singularity of a hyperbolic FRW universe with the arrow of time reversed.

The spacetime singularity results because the Euclidean instanton has finely-tuned the wave front of the bubble wall tail, aiming it exactly toward the antipodal point of the nucleation center $`N.`$ There is nothing mysterious about this singularity. The AdS space inside the bubble simply acts as a sort of perfect lens, with absolutely no aberration and of infinite size so that diffraction does not cut off the energy density at the focus. In the language of geometric optics, the ‘rays’ of the scalar field, which here are the timelike geodesics emanating from the nucleation center $`N,`$ are re-focused at the conjugate point $`N^{}.`$ A scalar field in flat space with similarly perfectly focused initial conditions, as contrived as they may be, would behave exactly the same.

Having explained the nature of the singularity in the symmetric solution, we now consider how it might be avoided. The obvious way is to spoil the perfect focusing. As Abbott and Coleman pointed out, in this instance the Hawking singularity theorems do not pose an obstacle to avoiding the singularity altogether, because the relevant singularity theorem demonstrates that a singularity must arise if the spacetime is globally hyperbolic. However, a thin-wall solution of a bubble nucleating from Minkowski or $`dS`$ space and tunnelling to $`AdS`$, whose spacetime conformal diagram is shown in Fig. 1, is not globally hyperbolic. Consequently, the singularity theorems cannot be applied. The discussion above assumed the lowest order of the $`\mathrm{}0`$ semi-classical limit. What happens at finite $`\mathrm{}`$ remains an open question.

Of primordial importance for the colliding bubble model is understanding the consequences of the perturbation presented by the collisions of two AdS bubbles. In the idealized case, as considered in refs. bucher ; capo ; gtb , upon colliding, the bubbles deposit all their excess energy (beyond that required to form in its unexcited state the intermediate brane on which we live) on the brane in the form of radiation-matter. This idealization of no energy escaping into the bulk is a caricature, just as that of an infinitely thin bubble wall with no tail. There will always be some, if not a lot of leakage from the collision into the bulk, which spoils the perfect focusing symmetry in the causal future of the collision surface. It is highly plausible that the perturbation from this wave into the bulk disrupts the formation of the singularity.

The previous analysis tacitly presupposes that a bubble wall, to the extent that it is not perfectly thin-wall, can be represented as a kink in a scalar order-parameter field. It is not entirely evident that the “tail” of a “brane” bubble wall would behave in the same way. However, we expect that branes, even if they are “fundamental,” are dressed with some sort of tail similar to that of a scalar field kink because of couplings to other fields and radiative corrections.

To determine the global structure of the spacetime resulting from a realistic collision requires numerical simulations, which are currently in progress capob . It is nevertheless interesting to speculate on the possible outcome. In Fig. 2 we indicate a possible conformal diagram. Each point in this diagram represents a hyperboloid with the geometry of $`H^3.`$ The shock wave of debris emanating from the collision disrupts the singularity. Our local brane reaches the conformal infinity of AdS before the Cauchy horizon. It remains to be seen whether this picture will be confirmed numerically.

Acknowledgements: We thank C. Carvalho, D. Coule, J. Garriga, S. Ghassemi, G. Gibbons, F. Glanois, C. Gordon, F. Quevedo, N. Turok, and T. Wiseman for useful discussions. JJBP acknowledges support from the DAMTP Relativity Group’s PPARC Rolling Grant. MB thanks Mr Dennis Avery for supporting this work.


text:
# A note on octic hypersurfaces with many nodes

## Introduction

Given a nodal octic $`S`$ in $`^3`$, one can construct a Calabi-Yau-threefold, which is a desingularization of a double cover of $`^3`$ ramified over $`S`$ (cf. \[Cl83\]). So the usual way is first to prove existence of octics with a certain number of nodes and then to construct from this Calabi-Yau-threefolds with certain Euler numbers. This can also be done for octic arrangements with isolated singularities (cf. \[Cy99, CS99\]).

It has been proved, that for every given number not larger than $`108`$ there are octic hypersurfaces with this number of nodes (\[We87, Bo90\]). Furthermore there are examples for many numbers between 108 and 168. For the probably most complete list of constructed numbers we refer to \[La\]. In the references the interested reader may find the most important sources for constructions of octics with many nodes. The author likes to thank Oliver Labs for pointing out several references. Miyaoka proved in \[Mi84\] an upper bound of $`174`$ possible nodes.

In this note the way is reversed: Calabi-Yau-threefolds, which are desingularizations of double covers of $`^3`$ are constructed, what gives rise to octics with a certain number of nodes. To construct the Calabi-Yau-threefolds we look at hypersurfaces of projectivized rank-2-bundles over $`^3`$. For this class it turns out that, indeed, the octics can only have nodes as singularities. Finally, we construct an example with $`128`$ nodes as our maximal case up to now.

## 1 Construction of the octic hypersurface

Let $`\stackrel{p}{}𝐏^3`$ be a rank-2-bundle and $`sH^0(K_{()})`$ a section such that $`X=\{s=0\}`$ is smooth. We denote $`\gamma ():=\mathrm{deg}(c_1^2()4c_2()).`$ This is invariant under tensorizing $``$ with line bundles, and moreover

$$c_3(X)=8\gamma 168,$$

what can be computed by standard methods. Hence $`\gamma `$ is a topological invariant of $`X`$.

The restriction to $`X`$ of the projection $`p`$ we call $`\pi :X^3`$. The map $`\pi `$ is a generic double cover. If we take the Stein factorization

$$X\stackrel{c}{}X^{}\stackrel{\varphi }{}^3,\pi =\varphi c,$$

the map $`\varphi `$ is a double cover, whose ramification locus we denote by $`B^3`$. We call $`B`$ also the ramification divisor of $`\pi `$ and denote $`\stackrel{~}{B}:=\pi ^1(B)`$. Another description of $`B`$ is obtained by looking at the discriminant map.

###### Construction 1.1

Let $`X=\{s=0\}`$, with $`sH^0(K_{𝐏()})`$ and

$$B:=\{p𝐏^3|\pi \text{ is locally in }p\text{ not an étale covering}\}.$$

We define the discriminant

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{}:S^2(det())^2$$

by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{}(\underset{1i<j2}{}c_{ij}s_is_jf):=(c_{12}^24c_{11}c_{22})(s_1s_2f)^2,$$

where $`s_1,s_2`$ is a $`𝒪(U)`$-basis of $`(U)`$, $`𝐏^3`$ a line bundle and $`f(U)`$ a generator of $`(U)`$ for a small open set $`U𝐏^3`$.

It is an easy computation that this definition is independent of the chosen bases.

Now we specify

$$=det^{}𝒪(4).$$

Then the discriminant is a map

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{}:p_{}(K_{𝐏()})𝒪(8),$$

with

$$\{\mathrm{\Delta }_{}(p_{}s)=0\}=B$$

set theoretically: in local coordinates

$$s=s_{ij}x_ix_j,$$

where $`[x_0:x_1]`$ denotes the coordinates of the fibre, $`B`$ is the locus, where the zeroes of

$`{\displaystyle s_{ij}(z)x_ix_j}=0`$
are not two distinct points. By definition this is the discriminant locus of the qudratic equation in $`x_0,x_1`$, given by

$$s_{01}^24s_{00}s_{11}=0.$$

This coincides with the discriminant locus of $`p_{}s`$.

Since on a trivializing neighbourhood $`U^3`$ the map is given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{}(t)|U=t_{12}^24t_{11}t_{22},$$

if $`tH^0(p_{}(K_{()}))`$ and $`t|U=(t_{11},t_{12},t_{22})`$, we see, that, in particular, $`H^0(\mathrm{\Delta }_{})`$ is a holomorphic map.

Moreover,

$$H^0(\mathrm{\Delta }_{})(rt)=r^2H^0(\mathrm{\Delta }_{})(t)$$

for $`r𝐂,tH^0(K_{𝐏()})`$. Hence we can projectivize, not exclude, however, that $`H^0(\mathrm{\Delta }_{})(s^{})=0`$ for some $`s^{}0`$. Therefore we get a rational map

$$\delta _{}:𝐏(H^0(K_{𝐏()}))\mathrm{}𝐏(H^0(𝒪(8)))𝐏^{164}.$$

Let for the moment $`B^{}:=\{z𝐏^3|H^0(\mathrm{\Delta }_{})(s)(z)=0\}`$ in the sense of ideals. If we denote

$$P:=\{z𝐏^3|dim\pi ^1(z)=1\},$$

then we see, that

$$P=\{z𝐏^3|s_{ij}x_ix_j=0\text{ für alle}[x_o:x_1]\}$$

and hence

$$P=\{z𝐏^3|s_{00}(z)=s_{01}(z)=s_{11}(z)=0\}Sing(B^{}).$$

Moreover, this shows

$$P=\{z𝐏^3|\pi ^1(z)𝐏^1\}.$$

Now let $`zSing(B^{})`$. If $`s_{00}(z)=s_{01}(z)=s_{11}(z)=0`$, then $`zP`$. So let us assume $`s_{00}(z)0`$ or $`s_{01}(z)0`$. Let us define

$$x:=[s_{01}(z):2s_{00}(z)]p^1(z).$$

Since $`zB`$, we get that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}(s)(z)=s_{01}(z)^24s_{00}(z)s_{11}(z)=0.`$ Therefore

$$s(x)=s_{00}(z)s_{01}(z)^22s_{00}(z)s_{01}(z)^2+4s_{11}(z)s_{00}(z)^2=s_{00}(z)\mathrm{\Delta }_{}(s)(z)=0,$$

hence $`xX`$.

We want to show that $`xX`$ is singular. For this we have to compute in the point $`x`$

$`{\displaystyle \frac{s}{x_0}}=`$ $`2s_{00}x_0+s_{01}x_1`$ $`=0`$ (1)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{s}{x_1}}=`$ $`s_{01}x_0+2s_{11}x_1`$ $`=0`$ (2)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{s}{z_i}}=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{s_{00}}{z_i}}x_0^2+{\displaystyle \frac{s_{01}}{z_i}}x_0x_1+{\displaystyle \frac{s_{11}}{z_i}}x_1^2`$ $`=0`$ (3)
and we know moreover, since $`zSing(B^{})`$, that in the point $`z`$ holds

$`s_{01}^24s_{00}s_{11}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (4)
$`2s_{01}{\displaystyle \frac{s_{01}}{z_i}}4s_{11}{\displaystyle \frac{s_{00}}{z_i}}4s_{00}{\displaystyle \frac{s_{11}}{z_i}}`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (5)
Using the expression for $`x`$ in (1), (2) and (3) we compute

$`{\displaystyle \frac{s}{x_0}}=`$ $`2s_{00}s_{01}2s_{00}s_{01}`$ $`=0`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{s}{x_1}}=`$ $`s_{01}^24s_{00}s_{11}`$ $`=0`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{s}{z_i}}=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{s_{00}}{z_i}}s_{01}^22{\displaystyle \frac{s_{01}}{z_i}}s_{00}s_{01}+4{\displaystyle \frac{s_{11}}{z_i}}s_{00}^2`$ $`=`$
$`=`$ $`4{\displaystyle \frac{s_{00}}{z_i}}s_{00}s_{11}2{\displaystyle \frac{s_{01}}{z_i}}s_{00}s_{01}+4{\displaystyle \frac{s_{11}}{z_i}}s_{00}^2`$ $`=`$
$`=`$ $`s_{00}(2s_{01}{\displaystyle \frac{s_{01}}{z_i}}4s_{11}{\displaystyle \frac{s_{00}}{z_i}}4s_{00}{\displaystyle \frac{s_{11}}{z_i}})`$ $`=0,`$
with the last equation using (4) as well as (5).

Thus we have proved that $`xX`$ is singular. But we assumed $`X`$ to be smooth. Hence it is proven that $`P=Sing(B^{}).`$ In particular, $`B^{}`$ is reduced and therefore $`B^{}=B`$ in the sense of ideals. $``$

Now we know, if $`X=\{s=0\}`$ for some $`sH^0(K_{𝐏()})`$ then

###### Lemma 1.2

$`B=\delta _{}(X)|𝒪(8)|`$ and $`P=\{p_{}s=0\}=Sing(B).`$

Note that $`p_{}s`$ gives the three local equations of $`P`$. For example, if $``$ splits, then we can conclude that $`P`$ is the complete intersection of three hypersurfaces of degrees $`4\sqrt{\gamma },4`$ and $`4+\sqrt{\gamma }`$. (Indeed, if $``$ splits, then $`\gamma `$ is a square.)

Let us now specify the type of the singularities.

###### Lemma 1.3

$`B`$ has only double points of type $`A_1`$ as singularities.

Proof: First, singularities of $`\stackrel{~}{B}`$ can only occur over singularities of $`B`$, hence by Lemma 1.2

$$s_{00}(z)=s_{01}(z)=s_{11}(z)=0,$$

if $`y\stackrel{~}{B}`$ is singular and $`z=\pi (y)`$. From this we conclude again by the local descriptions that $`y`$ is singular in $`X`$. Hence $`\stackrel{~}{B}`$ is non-singular. In particular, $`B`$ has only isolated singularities. Now we look at the rational curves $`F=F_p:=\pi ^1(p)`$ for $`pP`$. The adjunction formula yields

$$𝒪(2)=K_F=K_{\stackrel{~}{B}}|FN_{F|\stackrel{~}{B}}.$$

Since again by adjunction formula $`\mathrm{deg}K_{\stackrel{~}{B}}|F=\stackrel{~}{B}.F=p^1(B).F=0`$ we conclude

$$N_{F|\stackrel{~}{B}}=𝒪(2)$$

and hence $`p`$ is a double point of type $`A_1`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Lemma 1.4

$`|P|=644\gamma `$.

Proof: Since by Lemma 1.2 and Lemma 1.3 we know that $`dimP0`$ and $`PU=\{z^3|s_{00}(z)=s_{01}(z)=s_{11}(z)=0\}`$ in a trivializing neighbourhood $`U`$, we conclude

$$[P]=c_3(p_{}(K_{()})).$$

Again by standard methods (cf. \[Ha, p. 423\]) we compute $`c_3(p_{}(K_{()}))=644\gamma .`$ $`\mathrm{}`$

This method has only limitated applications, since by Lemma 1.4 we see, that the number of nodes must be divisible by $`4`$. But there is an additional restriction:

###### Lemma 1.5

$`\gamma ()mod8\{0,1,4\}`$.

Proof: By definition $`\gamma ()mod4`$ is a square. The case $`\gamma ()mod8=5`$ can be excluded by the Schwarzenberger condition $`c_1().c_2()0(2)`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Since Miyaoka proved an upper bound of $`174`$ nodes, by Lemma 1.5 the theoretical maximum of our method lies at $`\gamma =24`$, i.e. at most $`160`$ nodes. Furthermore, Lemma 1.5 implies that the only new constructed numbers of nodes can be $`124`$ and $`156`$.

## 2 Construction of some bundles

By looking at the splitting bundles allowing for smooth $`X`$ we obtain immediately examples of octics with $`28,48,60`$ and $`64`$ nodes. Moreover, it is not hard to see the existence of elliptic curves in $`𝐏^3`$ of degrees $`d7`$ which are cut out by quartics (cf. \[Bot95, Hu\]). The Serre construction, more detailed explained below, then yields examples of octics with $`80,96`$ and $`112`$ nodes. It is a little bit more work to see the existence of elliptic curves of degree $`8`$ cut out by quartics.

We use the Serre construction of rank-2-bundles to get the desired example (cf. \[OSS\]). Let $`Y^3`$ be an elliptic curve of degree $`8`$. Then there is a rank-2-bundle with an exact sequence

$$0𝒪_Y(4)0,$$

since by adjunction formula $`detN_{Y|^3}=𝒪(4)|Y`$. If we choose concretely $`Y`$ as the image of $`C:=\{y^2zx^3+xz^2=0\}^2`$ via

$`i:^2`$ $`\mathrm{}`$ $`^3`$
$`\left[x:y:z\right]`$ $``$ $`\left[x^2y+xyz+z^3:xy^2+yz^2+zx^2:x^2y+xyz+xz^2:xy^2+y^2z+z^3\right],`$
we can compute with MACAULAY, that

$$I_Y:=\underset{n}{}H^0(_Y(n))$$

is generated by three quartics $`q_1,q_2,q_3`$ and four quintics. But also with MACAULAY we can verify that the projective schemes $`Y`$ and $`\{z^3|q_1(z)=q_2(z)=q_3(z)=0\}`$ are identical. Hence $`_Y(4)`$ is generated by global sections and we conclude that $``$ is generated by global sections. Therefore $`K_{()}=𝒪_{()}(2)`$ is globally generated and we can choose $`sH^0(K_{()})`$ such that $`X`$ is smooth.

By construction $`c_1()=4h`$ and $`c_2()=8h^2`$, hence $`\gamma ()=16`$ and $`|P|=128`$.

###### Remark 2.1

1. Note that this case is extremal in some sense: Any elliptic curve in $`𝐏^3`$ of degree $`d9`$ cannot be cut out by quartics. This can be seen like follows: If the contrary would be the case, the Serre construction would yield a globally generated vector bundle $``$ and a sequence

$$0𝒪_Y(4)0.$$

Since $`K_{()}=𝒪_{()}(2)`$ would then be globally generated as well, we conclude $`(K_{()})^40`$. On the other hand, $`\gamma ()=164d20`$ and hence $`(K_{()})^4=32\gamma +512128`$.
2. This example is extremal also in some other sense: A general member of $`|K_{()}|`$ is an elliptic fibre space over a quadric, which is the restriction of an elliptic fibre space $`𝐏()𝐏^3`$ (see \[Kü01\]).

The cases where $`\gamma `$ is odd are more complicated to deal with. In these cases we cannot use elliptic curves. Instead of genus $`1`$ we have to choose negative genera, hence $`Y`$ is not irreducible and the extendability condition of the normal bundle is harder to check. So the Serre construction does not appear to be useful.