text:
# On the universal norm distribution

## 1. Introduction

Let $`r`$ be a positive integer, the *universal ordinary distribution* of rank $`1`$ and level $`r`$ is well known to be the free abelian group

$$U_r=\frac{[a]:a\frac{1}{r}/}{[a]_{pb=a}[b]:pr,a\frac{p}{r}/}.$$

With a natural $`G_r=\mathrm{Gal}((\mu _r)/)`$ action on $`U_r`$, $`U_r`$ becomes a $`G_r`$-module and plays a very important role in the study of cyclotomic fields, see for example Lang  or Washington  for more information. In particular, the sign cohomology of $`U_r`$ gives key information about the indices of cyclotomic units and Stickelberger ideals as illustrated by Sinnott’s original paper  and many following papers on this subject by different authors. The $`G_r`$-cohomology is found to be related to the cyclotomic Euler system, as shown by Anderson-Ouyang  about the Kolyvagin recursion in the universal ordinary distribution.

In the book , Rubin defined a generalization of the universal ordinary distribution, which he called the *universal Euler system*. It then was used to prove the Kolyvagin recursions satisfied by the Euler systems. However, there are other universal objects satisfying similar distribution relations. In the paper , we proposed a generalization of the universal ordinary distribution, for which we called the *universal norm distribution*. We used it successfully to study Sinnott’s index formula.

We further generalize the idea of the universal norm distribution in this paper, which treats the universal Euler systems as special cases. We study in detail the structure of the universal norm distribution in this paper. We also study in detail its group cohomology. In short, this paper generalizes the results of Ouyang  and the appendix of it by Anderson. The goal is to set up necessary tools to the study the universal Kolyvagin recursion for the universal norm distribution(thus includes the universal Euler system case), which is a question raised in Anderson-Ouyang  and will be answered in a subsequent paper . However, our study here is more than applications to the universal Kolyvagin recursion. The pure homological setup here should offer us more freedom to the study of other arithmetic aspects of the universal norm distribution. Certainly we expect more studies in this direction.

The structure of this paper is as follows. We first introduce the definition of the universal norm distribution $`𝒰_z`$ in § 2 and give some examples in § 3. Basic properties of $`𝒰_z`$ is studied in § 4. A general phenomenon of every universal norm distribution $`𝒰_z`$ is Anderson’s resolution $`_z`$ attached to it. We construct $`_z`$ in § 5 and prove it is indeed a resolution of $`𝒰_z`$ in Theorem 5.1, a generalization of the results by Anderson in the appendix of . Because of the existence of Anderson’s resolution $`_z`$, we can thus apply the double complex and spectral sequences method to study the group cohomology of the universal norm distribution $`𝒰_z`$. This is accomplished in § 7, in particular, in Theorem 7.5 and Theorem 7.8. For the universal ordinary distribution case, the two Theorems recover and generalize Theorem A in Ouyang .

The author got very first idea of this paper during his pleasant visit in IHES in Spring 2001. Part of the results here was reported in the number theory seminar in Penn State University in November 2001 and then in McMaster University in February 2002, and in the summer meeting of CMS at Laval University in June 2002. The author sincerely thanks the above organizations, Professors Robert Vaughn and Winnie Li at PSU, Professor Manfred Kolster at McMaster and Professors Kumar Murty and Paramath Sastry at Toronto for inviting me to give these talks. Last but not least, thanks always go to Professor Greg W. Anderson for his ideas and his influence.

## 2. Notations and Definitions

### 2.1. Basic Notations

Let $`X`$ be a totally ordered set. Denote by $`x`$, $`x_i`$ the elements in $`X`$.

Let $`Y`$ be the set of all squarefree formal products of $`xX`$, i.e., the element $`yY`$ has the form $`x_1\mathrm{}x_n\mathrm{}`$ for $`x_ix_jX`$. In particular, let $`\mathrm{𝟏}Y`$ denote the element of which no $`xX`$ appears in the formal product. One can identify $`Y`$ with the collection of all subsets of $`X`$, thus $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ is corresponding to the empty set. For every $`yY`$, the *degree* $`\mathrm{deg}y`$ of $`y`$ is define to be the number of elements $`xX`$ dividing $`y`$. Denote by $`y`$, $`y_i`$ the elements in $`Y`$. If without further statement, we’ll assume that $`y`$ is finite, i.e., $`\mathrm{deg}y<\mathrm{}`$. Denote by $`Y_{\text{fin}}`$ the set of all finite $`yY`$.

Let $`Z`$ be the set of all formal product of $`xX`$, i.e., the element $`zZ`$ has the form $`x_1^{i_1}\mathrm{}x_n^{i_n}\mathrm{}`$ with $`i_j_0`$. For every $`z=x_1^{i_1}\mathrm{}x_n^{i_n}\mathrm{}`$, define the *degree* of $`z`$ to be $`\mathrm{deg}z=_{j=1}^ni_j`$. Denote by $`z`$, $`z^{}`$, $`w`$ the elements in $`Z`$ and in particular by $`𝐳`$, $`𝐳^{}`$ the infinite elements(elements with infinite degree) in $`Z`$. The subset of all finite elements in $`Z`$ will be denoted by $`Z_{\text{fin}}`$.

Apparently we have $`XYZ`$. One can always keep in mind the example that $`X`$ is the set of prime numbers, $`Y_{\text{fin}}`$ is the set of all squarefree positive integers and $`Z_{\text{fin}}`$ is the set of positive integers. We can thus imitate all the terminologies from traditional sense, for example, prime factors, factors, the greatest common divisors and etc.

For every $`zZ`$ and $`xX`$, the *valuation* of $`z`$ at $`x`$ is the highest power of $`x`$ dividing $`z`$ and is denoted by $`v_x(z)`$. For every $`zZ`$, there exists a unique $`\overline{z}Y`$($`\overline{z}`$ could be infinite) such that if $`xz`$ then $`x\overline{z}`$. We call $`\overline{z}`$ the *support* of $`z`$. For every $`zZ`$, if a factor $`z^{}z`$ satisfies $`\mathrm{gcd}(z^{},z/z^{})=1`$, $`z^{}`$ is called a *stalk* of $`z`$ and is denoted by $`z^{}_sz`$. Note that the set of stalks of $`z`$ has a one-to-one correspondence with the set of factors(and also stalks) of $`\overline{z}`$. Fix $`z`$, for each $`y\overline{z}`$, let $`z(y)`$ be the stalk of $`z`$ whose support is $`y`$. In particular, $`z(x)`$ is just $`x^{v_x(z)}`$.

For each pair $`xX`$ and $`yY`$, we define the function $`\omega :X\times Y\{1,0,1\}`$ by

$$(x,y)\{\begin{array}{cc}(1)^{\mathrm{\#}\{x^{}:x^{}<x\}},\hfill & \text{if }xy;\hfill \\ 0,\hfill & \text{if }xy\text{.}\hfill \end{array}$$

Let $`G`$ be a profinite group. Let $`A`$ be a point set with discrete topology such that $`G`$ acts continuously. Suppose there is a surjection $`AZ_{\text{fin}}`$ which induces a bijection between the orbits of $`A`$ and elements $`zZ_{\text{fin}}`$. Let $`B_z`$ be the corresponding orbit of $`z`$. Let $`H_z`$ be the stabilizer of any $`bB_z`$. We assume $`\{H_z:zZ_{\text{fin}}\}`$ satisfies the following axioms:

* For every $`zZ_{\text{fin}}`$, the commutator $`[G,G]H_z`$;
* For every $`z^{}zZ_{\text{fin}}`$, $`H_zH_z^{}`$;
* For $`z`$ and $`z^{}`$ in $`Z_{\text{fin}}`$ and relatively prime, $`H_{zz^{}}=H_zH_z^{}`$ and $`G=H_zH_z^{}`$.

By the first axiom, then $`H_z`$ is a normal open subgroup of $`G`$ and the quotient group $`G_z=G/H_z`$ is finite abelian. By the second axiom, for every $`z^{}zZ_{\text{fin}}`$, $`G_z^{}`$ is a quotient group of $`G_z`$; by the last axiom, one see that for every $`z^{}_sz`$, the quotient map $`G_zG_z^{}`$ is canonically split as $`G_z=G_z^{}\times G_{z/z^{}}`$, we thus have the following canonical decomposition

$$G_z=\underset{xz}{}G_{z(x)}.$$

Let $`N_z`$ be the sum of all elements $`gG_z`$ in the group ring $`[G_z]`$. For $`z`$ finite and $`z^{}z`$, Let $`g_z^{}`$ denote the image of $`gG_z`$ in $`G_z^{}`$. Let $`N_z^{}^z`$ be the corresponding inflation map from $`[G_z^{}]`$ to $`[G_z]`$. For every infinite $`𝐳Z`$, let $`G_𝐳`$ be the inverse limit of $`G_z`$ over all finite $`z_s𝐳`$. Then $`G_𝐳`$ is actually the direct product of $`G_{𝐳(x)}`$ for every $`x𝐳`$.

Write $`B_z=\{[gz]:gG_z\}`$, then

$$A=\underset{zZ_{\text{fin}}}{}B_z=\{[gz]:gG_z,zZ_{\text{fin}}\},$$

and $`G_{x^n}`$ acts trivially in $`B_z`$ if $`xz`$. Thus $`A`$ and $`\{G_z:zZ_{\text{fin}}\}`$ are uniquely determined by each other. Let $`A_z=_{z^{}_sz,z^{}Z_{\text{fin}}}B_z^{}`$ for every $`zZ`$.

For each pair $`xX`$ and $`zZ`$, the Frobenius element $`\mathrm{Fr}_x`$ is a given element in $`G`$ whose restriction to $`G_{x^n}`$ is the identity for every $`n`$.

Let $`𝒪`$ be an integral domain and let $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ be its fractional field. Let $`𝒯`$ be a fixed $`𝒪`$-algebra which is torsion free and finitely generated as an $`𝒪`$-module. We suppose that $`𝒯`$ is a trivial $`G`$-module. For each $`xX`$, a polynomial

$$p(x;t)𝒯[t]$$

is chosen corresponding to $`x`$.

### 2.2. Definition of the universal norm distribution

Let $`𝒜`$ be the free $`𝒯`$-module generated by $`A`$, along with the $`G`$-action, $`𝒜`$ becomes a torsion free $`𝒯[G]`$-module. Let $`_z`$ be the $`𝒯[G]`$-submodule of $`A`$ generated by $`B_z`$ as $`𝒯`$-module for $`zZ_{\text{fin}}`$. Then $`_z`$ is nothing but a free rank $`1`$ $`𝒯[G_z]`$-module with generator $`[z]`$. Let $`𝒜_z`$ be the $`𝒯[G]`$-submodule generated by $`A_z`$ as $`𝒯`$-module for every $`zZ`$. Thus $`𝒜_z`$ has a natural $`𝒯[G_z^{}]`$-module structure for every $`z_sz^{}`$.

Let $`\lambda _{z(x)}`$ be the $`𝒯[G_z]`$-homomorphism of $`𝒜_z`$ given by

$$\lambda _{z(x)}:[z^{}]\{\begin{array}{cc}p(x;\mathrm{Fr}_x^1)[z^{}]N_{z(x)}[z(x)z^{}],\hfill & \text{if}xz^{},\hfill \\ 0,\hfill & \text{if}xz^{}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Let $`𝒟_z`$ be the submodule of $`𝒜_z`$ generated by the images of $`\lambda _{z(x)}(𝒜_{z/z(x)})`$ for all $`xz`$. Elements in $`𝒟_z`$ are called *distribution relations* in $`𝒜_z`$. The *universal norm distribution* $`𝒰_z`$ according to the above assumptions is defined to be the quotient $`𝒯[G_z]`$-module $`𝒜_z/𝒟_z`$, i.e., $`𝒜_z`$ modulo all distribution relations.

Note that for every $`zZ`$,

$$𝒜_z=\underset{\begin{array}{c}z^{}\text{finite}\\ z^{}_sz\end{array}}{}𝒜_z^{}.$$

For any $`z^{}_sz`$, the apparent inclusion of $`𝒜_z^{}`$ to $`𝒜_z`$ induces an injection map from $`𝒰_z^{}`$ to $`𝒰_z`$. In Proposition 4.2(2), we’ll see this injection actually is a splitting $`G_z`$-monomorphism.

## 3. Examples

We give a few examples about the universal norm distribution here.

### 3.1. The trivial case

The first case of the universal norm distribution is that $`p(x;t)=1`$ for every $`xX`$. In this case, one easily see that $`𝒰_z`$ is generated by the images of $`B_z`$. Actually, $`𝒰_z`$ is nothing but isomorphic to the $`𝒯`$-module $`_z=𝒯[G_z]`$ (see the remark after Proposition 4.2). We call this type of universal norm distribution the *trivial universal norm distribution*.

### 3.2. The universal ordinary distribution

Recall that an *ordinary distribution* of level $`r`$ for a positive integer $`r`$ is a function $`f`$ from $`\frac{1}{r}/`$ to an abelian group $`Ab`$ satisfying

$$f(pa)=\underset{i=0}{\overset{p}{}}f(a+\frac{i}{p}),\text{primes}pr.$$

In the category of ordinary distributions, there exists a universal object, i.e., an abelian group $`U_r`$ and a distribution relation $`u:\frac{1}{r}/U_r`$ such that for every $`f`$, there is a unique homomorphism $`f^u:U_rAb`$, such that $`f=f^uu`$. Usually one can write $`U_r`$ as

$$\frac{[a]:a\frac{1}{r}/}{[pa]_{i=0}^p[a+\frac{i}{p}]:pr}$$

and the map $`u`$ sends $`a`$ to $`[a]`$.

The universal ordinary distribution $`U_r`$ is actually a universal norm distribution according to our language. Let $`X`$ be the set of all prime numbers. Then $`Y_{\text{fin}}`$ is the set of all squarefree positive integers and $`Z_{\text{fin}}`$ is just the set of positive integers. Let $`G=G_{}`$. Let $`G_r=\mathrm{Gal}((\zeta _r)/)`$. The Frobenius element $`\mathrm{Fr}_p`$ is defined by the usual way. Let $`𝒪==𝒯`$ and thus $`\mathrm{\Phi }=`$. Let the polynomial $`p(p;t)=1t`$ for all $`pX`$. The corresponding universal norm distribution $`𝒰_r`$ is shown to be isomorphic to the universal ordinary distribution $`U_r`$(see Ouyang ) by sending $`[r]𝒰_r`$ to $`[\frac{1}{r}]U_r`$.

### 3.3. The universal ordinary predistribution

Keep $`X`$, $`Y`$, $`Z`$, $`G`$, $`𝒪`$ and $`𝒯`$ the same as in § 3.2. Now let $`p(p;t)=t`$ for $`p2`$ and let $`p(2;t)=t`$, we call the resulting universal norm distribution the *universal ordinary predistribution*.

###### Proposition 3.1.

The universal ordinary predistribution is isomorphic to the integer ring of the cyclotomic number field $`(\mu _r)`$ for each $`r`$.

###### Proof.

Define $`𝐞_r:𝒜_r𝒪_{(\mu _r)}`$ by

$$[\sigma r^{}]\mathrm{exp}(\frac{2\pi i}{r^{}})^\sigma ,$$

then immediately one has

1. $`𝒟_r\mathrm{ker}𝐞_r`$,
2. $`e_r`$ is surjective.

By Proposition 4.1 which we’ll prove later, we know that $`𝒰_r`$ has $``$-rank $`\varphi (r)`$, the same as $`𝒪_{(\nu _r)}`$, thus $`𝐞_r`$ is an isomorphism. ∎

### 3.4. The universal Euler system

Let $`K`$ be a fixed number field. Let $`p`$ be a rational prime number. Let $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ be a finite extension of $`_p`$ and let $`𝒪`$ be the ring of integer of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. Let $`T`$ be a $`p`$-adic representation of $`G_K`$ with coefficients in $`𝒪`$. Assume that $`T`$ is unramified outside a finite set of primes of $`K`$.

Fix an ideal $`𝔑`$ of $`K`$ divisible by $`p`$ and by all primes where $`T`$ is ramified. Let $`X`$ be the set of all primes $`x`$ of $`K`$ which is prime to $`𝔑`$ and $`K(x)K(\mathrm{𝟏})`$, where $`K(x)`$ is the ray class field of $`K`$ modulo $`x`$. Then $`Y`$ and $`Z`$ are defined following $`X`$. For every $`y=x_1\mathrm{}x_nY`$, let $`K(y)`$ be the composite

$$K(y)=K(x_1)\mathrm{}K(x_n).$$

Fix a $`_p^d`$-extension $`K_{\mathrm{}}/K`$ which no finite prime splits completely. We write $`K_fFK_{\mathrm{}}`$ to indicate $`F/K`$ a finite subextension of $`K_{\mathrm{}}/K`$. For $`K_fFK_{\mathrm{}}`$, we let $`F(y)=FK(y)`$. Let $`G_y=\mathrm{Gal}(F(y)/F(\mathrm{𝟏}))\mathrm{Gal}(K(y)/K(\mathrm{𝟏}))`$. We see that for any $`y^{}y`$, $`G_y=G_y^{}\times G_{y/y^{}}`$. Let $`G=G_{K(\mathrm{𝟏})}`$.

Let $`\mathrm{Fr}_x`$ denote a Frobenius of $`x`$ in $`G_K`$, and let

$$p(x;t)=det(1\mathrm{Fr}_x^1t|T^{})𝒪[t].$$

Let $`𝒯=𝒪[\mathrm{Gal}(F(\mathrm{𝟏})/K)]`$. With the above $`X`$, $`Y`$, $`𝒪`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`p(x;t)`$, the corresponding universal norm distribution $`𝒰_y`$ (related to $`F`$) is called the *universal Euler system* of level $`(F,y)`$. This is the concept introduced by Rubin in his book Euler systems .

### 3.5. Function field case

Let $`K=F_q(T)`$ and $`A=F_q[T]`$. For any $`f(T)A`$, let $`K(f)=K(\lambda _f)`$ be the cyclotomic function field of $`K`$ related to $`f`$ where $`\lambda _f`$ is a division point of $`f`$ with respect to the Carlitz module. The Galois group $`G_f`$ of $`K(f)/K`$ is known to be isomorphic to $`(A/f)^\times `$. Thus we can identify every $`\sigma =\sigma _xG_f`$ for some(a unique) $`x(A/f)^\times `$. The *ordinary distribution of level $`f`$* on the function field $`K`$ is defined to be a map

$$\varphi :\frac{1}{f}A/AAb=\text{abelian group}$$

satisfying

$$\varphi (x)=\underset{py=x}{}\varphi (y),pf,x\frac{p}{f}A/A.$$

One can then talk about the *universal ordinary distribution* as the universal object to the category of ordinary distributions. As in the number theory counterpart, by abusing notation, we say the group

$$U_f=\frac{[a]:a\frac{1}{f}A/A}{[a]_{pb=a}[b]:pf,a\frac{p}{f}A/A}$$

the universal ordinary distribution. $`U_f`$ is naturally equipped with a $`G_f`$-action by sending $`\sigma _x[a]=[xa]`$. This distribution plays a similar role to the universal ordinary distribution in the study of cyclotomic function field. One can easily show that $`U_f`$ is a free abelian group of order $`|G_f|`$. We’ll see that it actually is also a special case of the universal norm distribution.

We work on more generality. Let $`K`$ be a fixed function field. Pick a place $`\mathrm{}`$ in $`K`$. Let $`A`$ be the integer ring corresponding to the place $`\mathrm{}`$. Choose a sign function $`\mathrm{sgn}`$ on $`K^{}`$. Let $`\varphi `$ be a sign-normalized Drinfeld module of rank $`1`$. The field $`H^+`$ is defined to be the extension of $`K`$ by adding all the coefficients of $`\varphi _a`$ for $`aA`$.

For any ideal $`I`$ of $`A`$, let $`K(I)`$ be the cyclotomic function field extension of $`K`$ related to $`I`$(and related to the sign-normalized Drinfeld module $`\varphi `$). Let now $`X`$ be the set of all prime ideals of $`A`$, then $`Z`$ can be considered as the set of all integral ideals of $`A`$. Let $`G_I`$ be the Galois group of $`K(I)/H^+`$. We know that $`G_I=(A/I)^\times `$ and thus $`G_I`$ satisfies the condition of the universal norm distribution. For any $`\mathrm{}X`$, we can define the Frobenius element $`\mathrm{Fr}_{\mathrm{}}`$ correspondingly. Let $`𝒪=𝒪_{H^+}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }=H^+`$. We can now define the universal norm distribution by choosing a set of polynomials $`\{p(\mathrm{},t)\}`$.

In particular, if let $`K=F_q(T)`$ and let $`A=F_q[T]`$. Let the sign normalized Drinfeld module be the usual Carlitz module. In this case $`H^+`$ is actually just $`K`$. let $`p(\mathrm{},t)=1t`$ for every $`\mathrm{}X`$. We can identify the corresponding universal norm distribution $`𝒰_f`$ related to $`fA`$ as the $`G_f`$-module

$$𝒰_f=\frac{[\sigma f^{}]:f^{}_sf,\sigma G_f^{}}{(1\mathrm{Fr}_p^1)[\sigma f^{}]N_{f(p)}[\sigma f(p)f^{}]:f(p)f^{}_sf,\sigma G_f^{}}.$$

Now we can define a homomorphism from $`𝒰_f`$ to $`U_f`$ by sending $`[f^{}][\frac{1}{f}]`$. This homomorphism is shown to be an isomorphism.

## 4. Basic properties of the universal norm distribution $`𝒰_Z`$

Recall by our definition, for every $`zZ`$, $`𝒜_z`$ is a free $`𝒯`$-module generated by the set

$$A_z=\underset{\begin{array}{c}z^{}\text{finite}\\ z^{}_sz\end{array}}{}B_z^{}=\underset{\begin{array}{c}z^{}\text{finite}\\ z^{}_sz\end{array}}{}\{[gz^{}]:gG_z^{}\}.$$

If let $`B_n`$ be the set of all elements

$$\{[gz]A:\text{the restriction }g_{z(x)}=1\text{ for exactly }n\text{ primes }xz^{}\}$$

Then $`A_z`$ is the disjoint union

$$A_z=\underset{n0}{}\underset{\begin{array}{c}z^{}\text{finite}\\ z^{}_sz\end{array}}{}\left(B_nB_z^{}\right).$$

We have the following key proposition:

###### Proposition 4.1.

The free $`𝒯`$-module $`𝒜_z`$, for every $`zZ`$, possesses a $`𝒯`$-basis

$$\{\lambda _{z^{\prime \prime }}[gz^{}]:z^{},z^{}z^{\prime \prime }_sz,z^{}z^{\prime \prime }Z_{\text{fin}},[gz^{}]B_0\}$$

where $`\lambda _{z^{\prime \prime }}`$ is defined to be the product of $`\lambda _{z(x)}`$ for all $`xz^{\prime \prime }`$.

###### Proof.

Suppose that $`[gz^{}]B_nA_z`$ for $`n1`$, then there exists a prime $`xz^{}`$ such that $`g_{z(x)}=1`$. One has

$$[gz^{}]=\underset{1g^{}G_{z(x)}}{}[gg^{}z^{}]\lambda _{z(x)}[gz^{}/z(x)]+p(x;\mathrm{Fr}_x^1)[gz^{}/z(x)].$$

Thus

$$B_n_𝒯𝒜_zB_{n1}_T𝒜_z+\underset{xz}{}\lambda _{z(x)}A_{z/z(x)}+\underset{xz}{}𝒜_{z/z(x)}$$

where $`B_n_𝒯`$ denotes the free $`𝒯`$-module generated by $`B_n`$. Thus by induction, the set given in the proposition generates $`𝒜_z`$. We just need to show the cardinality of this set agrees with the $`𝒯`$-rank of $`𝒜_z`$. For finite $`zZ`$, the $`𝒯`$-rank of $`𝒜_z`$ is

$$\underset{z^{}_sz}{}|G_z^{}|=\underset{xz}{}(|G_{z(x)}|+1).$$

On the other hand, the cardinality of the set in the proposition is

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \underset{z^{\prime \prime }_sz}{}\underset{z^{}_s\frac{z}{z^{\prime \prime }}}{}|B_0B_z^{}|=& \underset{z^{\prime \prime }_sz}{}\underset{z^{}_s\frac{z}{z^{\prime \prime }}}{}\underset{xz^{}}{}(|G_{z(x)}|1)\hfill \\ \hfill =& \underset{z^{\prime \prime }_sz}{}\underset{x\frac{z}{z^{\prime \prime }}}{}|G_{z(x)}|\hfill \\ \hfill =& \underset{xz}{}(|G_{z(x)}|+1).\hfill \end{array}$$

This proved the case when $`z`$ is finite. Taking the limit, then we have the proof for infinite $`zZ`$. ∎

###### Proposition 4.2.

(1). The module $`𝒰_z`$ is a free $`𝒯`$-module with basis $`B_0A_z`$.

(2). For every $`z^{}_sz`$, the natural injection of $`𝒰_z^{}`$ to $`𝒰_z`$ is a splitting $`G_z`$-monomorphism.

###### Proof.

Immediately from Proposition 4.1. ∎

###### Remark 4.3.

From the above Proposition 4.2(1), one see that $`𝒰_z`$ is free $`𝒯`$-module of rank $`|G_z|`$. In particular, in the trivial universal norm distribution case, one see that the image of $`B_z`$ in $`𝒰_z`$ actually is a basis of $`𝒰_z`$, thus $`𝒰_z`$ is isomorphic to $`𝒯[G_z]`$, which justifies the meaning of *trivial*.

###### Remark 4.4.

From the above Proposition 4.2(2), we’ll henceforth identify $`𝒰_z^{}`$ as a submodule of $`𝒰_z`$. In particular, for every $`zZ`$, we have

$$𝒰_z=\underset{\begin{array}{c}z^{}\text{finite}\\ z^{}_sz\end{array}}{}𝒰_z^{}.$$

This observation will be used to the study of the universal Kolyvagin recursion in Ouyang .

###### Proposition 4.5.

Let $`wz`$ be a pair of elements in $`Z`$. Then the corestriction homomorphism $`\mathrm{Cor}_{w,z}`$ from $`𝒜_w`$ to $`𝒜_z`$ by

$$[w^{}]N_w^{}^z^{}[z^{}](w^{}_sw,z^{}_sz,\overline{w}^{}=\overline{z}^{})$$

induces an embedding from $`𝒰_w`$ to $`𝒰_z`$. In particular, when $`w_sz`$, this embedding is the natural injection as given in Proposition 4.2.

###### Proof.

Write $`V_1`$(resp. $`W_1`$) the free $`𝒯`$-submodule of $`𝒜_w`$(resp. $`𝒜_z`$) generated by $`B_0A_w`$(resp. $`B_0A_z`$). Write $`V_2`$(resp. $`W_2`$) the free $`𝒯`$-submodule of $`𝒜_w`$(resp. $`𝒜_z`$) generated by other elements in the basis of $`𝒜_w`$(resp. $`𝒜_z`$) given by Proposition 4.1. Then it is easy to check that $`\mathrm{Cor}_{w,z}`$ maps $`V_i`$ to $`W_i`$ injectively. Hence it induces a well defined embedding from $`𝒰_w`$ to $`𝒰_z`$. ∎

## 5. Anderson’s resolution

### 5.1. Set up

Let $`zZ`$ be given. Let

$$_z=\underset{y\overline{z}}{}𝒜_{z/z(y)}[y]$$

where $`y`$ is finite and $`[y]`$ is a symbol depending only on $`y`$. If we write

$$[g^{}z^{}][y]=[g^{}z^{},y]$$

for elements in $`𝒜_{z/z(y)}[y]`$, then $`_z`$ is the free $`𝒯`$-module generated by the set

$$\{[a,y]:[a]A_{z/z(y)},y\overline{z}\}$$

We assign a grade in $`_z`$ by declaring

$$\mathrm{deg}[a,y]=\mathrm{deg}y.$$

For any $`gG_z`$ and $`[g^{}z^{}]A_{z/z(y)}`$, declare the $`G_z`$-action as

$$g[g^{}z^{},y]:=[g_z^{}g^{}z^{},y],$$

then $`_z`$ becomes a graded $`𝒯[G_z]`$-module. $`_z`$ is bounded above since all its non-negative components are $`0`$. Moreover, $`_z`$ is bounded if and only if $`z`$ is finite.

With abuse of notation, denote by $`\lambda _{z(x)}`$, $`\lambda _z^{}`$ the homomorphisms of $`_z`$ inheriting from the homomorphisms in $`𝒜_z`$ bearing the same names. Now let

$$d:_z_z,[a,y]\underset{xy}{}\omega (x,y)\lambda _{z(x)}[a,y/x]$$

where $`\omega `$ is as defined in § 2.1. Clearly $`d`$ commutes with $`G_z`$-actions. A straightforward calculation shows that $`d^2=0`$ and therefore $`d`$ is a differential of degree $`1`$. Define an $`𝒯[G_z]`$-homomorphism $`𝐮:_z𝒰_z`$ by

$$[a,y]\{\begin{array}{cc}[a],\hfill & \text{if}y=\mathrm{𝟏};\hfill \\ 0,\hfill & \text{if}y\mathrm{𝟏}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Regard $`_z`$ as a complex $`_z^{}`$ by the differential $`d`$, and regard $`𝒰_z`$ as a complex concentrated on $`0`$-component. Then one can easily check that $`𝐮`$ is a homomorphism of complexes. Because of the following Theorem, we call the complex $`(_z^{},d)`$ (or simply $`_z^{}`$) *Anderson’s resolution* of the universal norm system $`𝒰_z`$.

###### Theorem 5.1.

The homomorphism $`𝐮`$ is a quasi-isomorphism, i.e., the complex $`(_z^{},d)`$ is acyclic for degree $`n0`$ and $`H^0(_z^{},d)𝒰_z`$ induced by $`𝐮`$.

###### Proof.

For any $`aB_0B_{z/z(y)}`$, consider the graded $`𝒯`$-submodule $`C_a^{}`$ of $`_z^{}`$ generated by

$$\{\lambda _w[a,y^{}],w_sz,\overline{w}y^{}y\}.$$

One can see that $`C_a^{}`$ is $`d`$-stable. Thus $`C_a^{}`$ is actually a subcomplex of $`_z^{}`$. By Proposition 4.1, $`_z^{}`$ is the direct sum of $`C_a^{}`$ for $`a`$ over $`B_0A_z`$. We hence only have to study the complex $`C_a^{}`$. Now the theorem follows from Lemma 5.2. ∎

### 5.2. The Koszul complex $`\stackrel{~}{C}_y^{}`$

Let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ be the polynomial ring

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=𝒯[Z]=\{t_zz:t_zT,zZ\}.$$

Let $`\stackrel{~}{C}_y^{}`$ be the Koszul complex of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ with the regular sequence $`x_1<\mathrm{}<x_m`$ where $`y=x_1\mathrm{}x_m`$. Thus $`\stackrel{~}{C}_y^{}`$ is the graded exterior algebra

$$\underset{y^{}y}{}\mathrm{\Lambda }e_y^{}$$

with

$$e_y^{}=e_{x_{i_1}}\mathrm{}e_{x_{i_k}},\text{and}\mathrm{deg}e_y^{}=\mathrm{deg}y^{}=k$$

where

$$y^{}=x_{i_1}\mathrm{}x_{i_k},x_{i_1}<\mathrm{}<x_{i_k}.$$

The corresponding differential is given by

$$de_x=x.$$

### 5.3. Truncated Koszul subcomplex $`C_y^{}`$

Let $`C_y^{}`$ be the graded $`𝒯`$-submodule of $`\stackrel{~}{C}_y^{}`$ generated by all elements of the form $`y^{\prime \prime }e_y^{}`$ for all $`y^{}y^{\prime \prime }y`$. This submodule is stable under the differential, thus is a subcomplex of $`\stackrel{~}{C}_y^{}`$. Moreover, it is a direct summand of $`\stackrel{~}{C}_y^{}`$. By the general theory of Koszul complex, $`C_y^{}`$ is acyclic in nonzero degree and $`H^0(C_y^{})`$ is a free $`𝒯`$-module generated by $`e_\mathrm{𝟏}`$.

###### Lemma 5.2.

For any $`aB_0B_{z/z(y)}`$, the complex $`C_a^{}`$ is isomorphic to $`C_y^{}`$. Thus $`C_a^{}`$ is acyclic in nonzero degree and $`H^0(C_a^{})`$ is a free $`𝒯`$-module generated by $`[a,1]`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`C_y^{}`$ act on $`C_a^{}`$ by

$$x[a,y^{}]=\lambda _{z(x)}[a,y^{}]$$

and

$$e_x[a,y^{}]=\{\begin{array}{cc}(1)^{|\{x^{}<x:x^{}y^{}\}|}[a,xy^{}]\hfill & \text{if}xy^{};\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{if}xw.\hfill \end{array}$$

By straightforward calculation

$$d(\xi \eta )=(d\xi )\eta +(1)^{\mathrm{deg}\xi }\xi (d\eta ),\xi C_y^{},\eta C_x^a.$$

Thus $`C_a^{}=C_y^{}[a,1]`$. ∎

### 5.4. Compatibility

From Proposition 4.5, the injective corestriction homomorphism $`\mathrm{Cor}_{w,z}`$ from $`𝒜_w`$ to $`𝒜_z`$ induces a corestriction homomorphism $`\mathrm{Cor}`$ from $`_w`$ to $`_z`$ by

$$[a,y]\mathrm{Cor}_{w/w(y),z/z(y)}[a,y].$$

A straightforward calculation shows that $`\mathrm{Cor}`$ is compatible with the differential $`d`$. Now if let $`\stackrel{~}{}_z`$ be the extended exact sequence of $`𝒰_z`$ to $`_z`$, i.e., $`\stackrel{~}{}_z`$ is the sequence

$$\mathrm{}_z^n\mathrm{}_z^0\stackrel{𝐮}{}𝒰_z0$$

then the corestriction map $`\mathrm{Cor}`$ is actually an injective chain homomorphism from $`\stackrel{~}{}_w`$ to $`\stackrel{~}{}_z`$ and is thus an embedding. When $`w_sz`$, this embedding $`\mathrm{Cor}`$ is again a natural injection.

### 5.5. Connecting map for different norm distributions

Now fix $`X`$ and $`𝒯`$, suppose that we have two sets of polynomials $`\{p_1(x;t)\}`$ and $`\{p_2(x;t)\}`$ in $`𝒪[t]`$, then we have two norm distributions $`𝒰_{1,z}`$ and $`𝒰_{2,z}`$, and two corresponding Anderson’s resolutions $`_{1,z}`$ and $`_{2,z}`$. Then there exists a connecting homomorphism

$$\varphi _{1,2}:_{1,z}_𝒪\mathrm{\Phi }_{2,z}_𝒪\mathrm{\Phi }$$

by

$$[z^{},y]\underset{w_sz^{}}{}(1)^{\mathrm{deg}\overline{w}}\underset{xw}{}\frac{p_2(x,\mathrm{Fr}_x^1)p_1(x,\mathrm{Fr}_x^1)}{|G_{z(x)}|}[z^{}/w,y].$$

By straightforward calculation, one can check that $`\varphi _{2,1}`$ is the inverse of $`\varphi _{1,2}`$, thus $`\varphi _{1,2}`$ is actually an isomorphism, which induces isomorphisms between $`𝒰_{1,z}_𝒪\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`𝒰_{2,z}_𝒪\mathrm{\Phi }`$. In particular, if we let $`p_1(x;t)1`$ for every $`xX`$, then $`𝒰_{1,z}_𝒪\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is nothing but the module $`𝒯[G_z]`$, thus we have

###### Proposition 5.3.

The $`𝒯_𝒪\mathrm{\Phi }[G_z]`$ module $`𝒰_z_𝒪\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is free of rank $`1`$ for every universal norm distribution.

### 5.6. Double complex structure of $`_z`$

Set a bidegree in $`_z`$ by

$$\mathrm{deg}^{(2)}[z^{},y]=(\mathrm{deg}\overline{z}^{},\mathrm{deg}\overline{z}^{}\mathrm{deg}y).$$

We set

$$\begin{array}{cc}& d_{1,x}[z^{},y]=\omega (x,y)N_{z(x)}[z^{}z(x),y/x],\hfill \\ & d_{2,x}[z^{},y]=\omega (x,y)p(x;\mathrm{Fr}_x)[z^{},y/x].\hfill \end{array}$$

and let

$$d_x=d_{1,x}+d_{2,x},d_1=\underset{x}{}d_{1,x},d_2=\underset{x}{}d_{2,x}.$$

###### Lemma 5.4.

(1). For any $`x,x^{}z`$, $`i=1,2`$,

$$d_{i,x}^2=d_{1,x}d_{2,x^{}}+d_{2,x^{}}d_{1,x}=0.$$

(2). $`d_1^2=d_2^2=d_1d_2+d_1d_2=0`$.

(3). $`d_{i,x}`$ is $`G_z`$-stable.

###### Proof.

Straightforward. ∎

From the above lemma, we see that $`_z`$ is equipped with a multiple complex structure. In particular, $`(_z^,;d_1,d_2)`$ is a double complex corresponding to the above bigrading. We’ll use this complex to study the group cohomology of $`𝒰_z`$ in § 7.

## 6. Preparation from homological algebra

### 6.1. Complex of type $`E`$

Let $`A`$ be a free $`𝒪`$-module of finite rank. Let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_A=\mathrm{\Lambda }_A(x_1,\mathrm{},x_t)`$ be the exterior algebra over $`A`$, with the differential $`d`$ given by $`d(x)=_im_ixx_i`$ where $`m_i𝒪`$. For each $`S\{1,\mathrm{},t\}`$, let $`m_S`$ be the greatest common divisor of $`m_i`$ for all $`iS`$. In particular, let $`m`$ be the greatest common divisor of $`m_i`$ for all $`1it`$.

Let $`S=\{i_1,\mathrm{},i_s\}`$ such that $`i_1\mathrm{}i_s`$. Let $`\{e_S=x_{i_1}\mathrm{}x_{i_s}\}`$ be the standard basis of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_A`$. By linear algebra, in the $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-vector space generated by $`\{x_1,\mathrm{},x_t\}`$, there exists another basis $`\{y_1,\mathrm{},y_t\}`$ such that $`y_1=\frac{1}{m}_im_ix_i`$ and the transformation matrix is inside $`SL(t,)`$, thus $`\{e_S^{}=y_{i_1}\mathrm{}y_{i_s}\}`$ is another basis for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_A`$. Hence one can easily show that $`H^{}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_A)`$ is a free graded $`A/mA`$-module generated by cocycles represented by $`e_S^{}`$ for all $`S`$ which contains $`1`$, thus is a free $`A/mA`$-module of rank $`2^{t1}`$, with the $`i`$-th component a free $`A/mA`$-module of rank $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{t1}{i1}\right)`$(or $`0`$ if $`i=0`$).

### 6.2. The tensor projective resolution $`P_z`$

This setup is from Ouyang . Fix an element $`zZ`$. Assuming that $`G_{z(x)}`$ is a cyclic group for every $`xz`$. Let $`\sigma _{z(x)}`$ be a generator of $`G_{z(x)}`$. It is well known that the sequence

$$\mathrm{}[G_{z(x)}]\stackrel{N_{z(x)}}{}[G_{z(x)}]\stackrel{1\sigma _{z(x)}}{}[G_{z(x)}]\stackrel{\mathit{ϵ}}{}0$$

is exact, where $`ϵ`$ is the augmentation map. Let $`P_{z(x)}`$ be the resulting resolution for the trivial $`[G_{z(x)}]`$-module $``$, we can thus write $`P_{z(x)}`$ as the graded module

$$\underset{n0}{}[G_{z(x)}][x^n]$$

with the symbol $`[x^n]`$ is of degree $`n`$ and the differential given by

$$_{z(x)}[x^n]=\{\begin{array}{cc}(1\sigma _{z(x)})[x^{n1}],\hfill & \text{if}n>0\text{odd};\hfill \\ N_{z(x)}[x^{n1}],\hfill & \text{if}n>0\text{even}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Now let $`P_z`$ as the tensor product of $`P_{z(x)}`$ over all $`xz`$. $`P_z`$ is the so called *tensor projective resolution* of the trivial $`[G_z]`$-module $``$ with respect to the cyclic decomposition

$$G_z=\underset{xz}{}G_{z(x)}=\underset{xz}{}\sigma _{z(x)}.$$

Let $`[w]`$ be an indeterminate for every $`wZ`$. Then the tensor resolution $`P_z`$ is the projective $`[G_z]`$-resolution of the trivial module $``$ by

$$P_{z,n}=\underset{\begin{array}{c}\overline{w}z\\ \mathrm{deg}w=n\end{array}}{}[G_z][w]$$

and the differential $`_z`$ is given by

$$_z[w]=\underset{xw}{}(1)^{_{x^{}<x}v_x^{}w}\alpha _{z(x)}[w/x]$$

where $`\alpha _{z(x)}`$ is equal to $`\sigma _{z(x)}1`$ if $`v_xw`$ odd and $`N_{z(x)}`$ if $`v_xw`$ even. For any $`z^{}_sz`$, one has a natural inclusion of $`P_z^{}`$ to $`P_z`$ by sending $`[w]`$ to $`[w]`$.

### 6.3. $`G_z`$-cohomology of trivial module $`A`$

Let $`A`$ be a free $`𝒪`$-module with trivial $`G_z`$-structure. To compute its $`G_z`$-cohomology, it suffices to compute the cohomology

$$I_{A,z}^{}=\mathrm{Hom}_{[G_z]}(P_z,A)=\underset{\begin{array}{c}w\text{finite}\\ \overline{w}z\end{array}}{}A[w]$$

with the differential

$$\delta _z[w]=\underset{xz}{}(1)^{_{x^{}<x}v_x^{}w}a_{z(x)}[wx]$$

where $`a_{z(x)}`$ is equal to $`0`$ if $`v_xw`$ even and to $`|G_{z(x)}|`$ if $`v_xw`$ odd. The inclusion of $`P_z^{}`$ to $`P_z`$ for $`z^{}_sz`$ thus induces a projection from $`I_{A,z}^{}`$ to $`I_{A,z^{}}^{}`$. One see that $`I_{A,z^{}}^{}`$ is a direct summand of $`I_{A,z}^{}`$.

For any finite $`w`$ with $`\overline{w}z`$, let

$$I_A^{}[w^2]=\underset{w^{}\overline{w}}{}A[w^2/w^{}],$$

then $`I_A^{}[w^2]`$ is a direct summand of $`I_{A,z}^{}`$ and

$$I_{A,z}^{}=\underset{\overline{w}\overline{z}}{}I_A^{}[w^2].$$

If $`w=1`$, the subcomplex $`I_A^{}[w^2]`$ is just a copy of $`A`$ with the differential $`0`$, thus the cohomology of it is $`A`$ too. If $`w1`$, the subcomplex $`I_A^{}[w^2]`$ is of type $`E`$. Let $`m_w`$ be the greatest common divisor of $`|G_{z(x)}|`$ for $`xw`$, then $`H^{}(I_A^{}[w^2])`$ is then a free graded $`A/m_wA`$-module of rank $`2^{\mathrm{deg}\overline{w}1}`$. One see the $`(2\mathrm{deg}w\mathrm{deg}\overline{w}+i)`$-th cohomology is just a free $`A/m_wA`$-module of rank $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\mathrm{deg}\overline{w}1}{i1}\right)`$ for $`1i\mathrm{deg}w`$ and $`0`$ otherwise.

Denote $`H^{}(I_A^{}[w^2])`$ by $`H_{A,w}`$. Then with the above analysis, one has

###### Proposition 6.1.

Fix a finite $`zZ`$ such that every $`G_{z(x)}`$ is cyclic for $`xz`$. For a free $`𝒪`$-module $`A`$ with trivial $`G_z`$-action, then we have

(1). For any $`z^{}_sz`$, the cohomology group $`H^{}(G_z^{},A)`$ is a direct summand of $`H^{}(G_z,A)`$.

(2). The cohomology group $`H^{}(G_z,A)`$ is the direct sum of $`H_{A,w}`$ for every $`\overline{w}\overline{z}`$ where: (a). For $`w=1`$, $`H_{A,w}=A`$ is with grade $`0`$; (b). For $`w1`$, $`H_{A,w}`$ is a free graded $`A/m_wA`$-module with the $`(2\mathrm{deg}w\mathrm{deg}\overline{w}+i)`$-th component of rank $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\mathrm{deg}\overline{w}1}{i1}\right)`$ for $`1i\mathrm{deg}\overline{w}`$ and $`0`$ for otherwise.

###### Remark 6.2.

Now for a finite fixed $`zZ`$, suppose $`M𝒪`$ a common divisor of $`|G_{z(x)}|`$ for every $`xz`$. Then the case for $`G_z`$-cohomology of $`A/MA`$ is much simpler. In this case,

$$H^{}(G_z,A/MA)=H^{}(I_{A,z}^{}/MI_{A,z}^{}),$$

and the differential in $`I_{A,z}^{}/MI_{A,z}^{}`$ is nothing but $`0`$, thus $`H^{}(G_z,A/MA)`$ as a graded module is isomorphic to $`I_{A,z}^{}/MI_{A,z}^{}`$. One has

###### Proposition 6.3.

There exists a family

$$\{[w]H^{}(G_z,A/MA):w\text{finite},\overline{w}z\}$$

with the following properties:

(1). For any $`z^{}_sz`$, the restriction of the family

$$\{[w]:\overline{w}\overline{z}^{},\mathrm{deg}w=n\}$$

to $`H^n(G_z^{},A/MA)`$ is an $`A/MA`$-basis of the latter one.

(2). The restriction of $`[w]`$ for $`\overline{w}\overline{z}^{}`$ to $`H^{}(G_z^{},A/MA)`$ is $`0`$.

## 7. $`G_z`$-cohomology of the universal norm distribution $`𝒰_z`$

In this section, we use tools developed in the previous sections to study the $`G_z`$-cohomology of the universal norm distribution $`𝒰_z`$ and of $`𝒰_z/M𝒰_z`$. We assume that $`G_{z(x)}`$ cyclic for every $`zZ`$ and $`M`$ a common divisor of $`|G_{z(x)}|`$ for every $`xz`$.

### 7.1. Setup of double complex $`𝐊_z^,`$

With preparations from the above two sections, we let

$$𝐊_z^,=\mathrm{Hom}_{G_z}(P_z,_z^{})$$

If we write $`[a,y,w]=([w][a,y])`$, then $`𝐊_z^,`$ is the free graded $`𝒯`$-module with basis

$$\{[a,y,w]:y\overline{z},aA_{z/z(y)},\overline{w}\overline{z}\}$$

and with the double grading given by

$$\mathrm{deg}[a,y,w]=(\mathrm{deg}y,\mathrm{deg}w).$$

The induced $`𝒯[G_z]`$-module structure is given by

$$g[a,y,w]=[gx,y,w]$$

for any $`gG_z`$. Use the same notations for the operators in $`𝐊_z^,`$ induced from $`_z^{}`$, i.e., $`\lambda _{z(x)}`$, $`\lambda _z`$ and so on. Now the two differentials of $`K_z^{,bullet}`$ are given by

$$d[a,y,w]=\underset{xy}{}\omega (x,y)\left(p(x;\mathrm{Fr}_x^1)[a,y/x,w]N_{z(x)}[z(x)a,y/x,w]\right),$$

$$\delta [a,y,w]=(1)^{\mathrm{deg}y}\underset{xz}{}(1)^{_{x^{}<x}v_x^{}(w)}a_{z(x)}[a,y,wx]$$

where $`a_{z(x)}`$ is equal to $`1\sigma _{z(x)}`$ if $`v_x(w)`$ even and $`N_{z(x)}`$ if $`v_x(w)`$ odd. Let $`𝐊_z^{}`$ be the single total complex of $`𝐊_z^,`$. and let $`𝐊_z`$ be the underlying module.

Let $`\overline{𝐊}_z^{}=\mathrm{Hom}_{G_z}(P_z,𝒰_z)`$. Then it is the quotient of free $`𝒯`$-module generated by

$$\{[a,w],aA_z,\overline{w}\overline{z}\}$$

modulo relations generated by

$$\lambda _{z(x)}[a,w],aA_{z/z(x)},\overline{w}\overline{z},xz,$$

with the differential $`\delta `$ given by

$$\delta [a,w]=\underset{xz}{}(1)^{_{x^{}<x}v_x^{}w}a_{z(x)}[wx].$$

We have the induced map

$$𝐮:𝐊_z^{}\overline{𝐊}_z^{},[a,y,w]\{\begin{array}{cc}[a,w],\hfill & \text{if}y=\mathrm{𝟏};\hfill \\ 0,\hfill & \text{if}y\mathrm{𝟏}.\hfill \end{array}$$

###### Proposition 7.1.

The homomorphism $`𝐮`$ is a quasi-isomorphism. Thus

(1). $`H^{}(𝐊_z^{},d+\delta )H^{}(G_z,𝒰_z)`$.

(2). $`H^{}(𝐊_z^{}/M𝐊_z^{},d+\delta )H^{}(G_z,𝒰_z/M𝒰_z)`$.

###### Proof.

By Theorem 5.1, $`\mathrm{ker}𝐮`$ is $`d`$-acyclic, by spectral sequence argument, it is hence $`(d+\delta )`$-acyclic. Thus $`𝐮`$ is a quasi-isomorphism. (1) follows immediately from the quasi-isomorphism. Since both $`𝐊_z^{}`$ and $`𝒰_z`$ are free $`𝒯`$-modules, the induced homomorphism $`\overline{𝐮}`$ from $`𝐊_z^{}/M𝐊_z^{}`$ to $`\overline{𝐊}_z^{}/M\overline{𝐊}_z^{}`$ is also a quasi-isomorphism and (2) follows immediately. ∎

### 7.2. Another double complex structure of $`𝐊_z`$

Keep $`𝐊_z`$ as the same bigraded module as in the previous section. Let’s equip it with different differentials $`(\stackrel{~}{d},\stackrel{~}{\delta })`$ as the following:

$$\stackrel{~}{d}[a,y,w]=\underset{xy}{}\omega (x,y)(1)^{_{x^{}<x}v_x^{}(w)}\left(p(x;\mathrm{Fr}_x^{})[a,y/x,w]N_{z(x)}[az(x),y/x,w]\right),$$

$$\stackrel{~}{\delta }[a,y,w]=\underset{xz}{}(1)^{_{x^{}x}v_x^{}(y)}(1)^{_{x^{}<x}v_x^{}(w)}a_{z(x)}[a,y,wx].$$

One can easily check that

$$\stackrel{~}{d}^2=\stackrel{~}{\delta }^2=\stackrel{~}{d}\stackrel{~}{\delta }+\stackrel{~}{\delta }\stackrel{~}{d}=0.$$

We define an involutive $`G_z`$-equivariant bigraded automorphism $`ϵ`$ of $`𝐊_z`$ by the rule

$$ϵ[a,y,w]=(1)^{_{x,x^{}:x^{}<x}v_x(y)v_x^{}}(w).$$

by a straightforward calculation, one finds that

$$ϵ\stackrel{~}{d}ϵ=d,ϵ\stackrel{~}{\delta }ϵ=\delta .$$

Thus $`ϵ`$ induces an isomorphism between the cohomology of $`(𝐊;\stackrel{~}{d},\stackrel{~}{\delta })`$ and the cohomology of $`(𝐊;d,\delta )`$, which is then isomorphic to the $`G_z`$-cohomology of $`𝒰_z`$.

In the sequel, we’ll use the double complex $`(𝐊;d,\delta )`$ to study the cohomology of $`𝒰_z`$. However, the results obtained here is easy to adapt to the double complex $`(𝐊;\stackrel{~}{d},\stackrel{~}{\delta })`$. The double complex $`(𝐊;\stackrel{~}{d},\stackrel{~}{\delta })`$ will be used to the study of the universal Kolyvagin recursion in Ouyang .

### 7.3. Multiple complex structure of $`𝐊_z`$

The underlying module $`𝐊_z`$ has abundant complex structures. For $`xz`$, set

$$\mathrm{deg}_{1,x}([z^{},y,w]):=v_x(z^{}),$$

$$\mathrm{deg}_{2,x}([z^{},y,w]):=v_x(yz^{}),$$

$$\mathrm{deg}_{3,x}([z^{},y,w]):=v_x(w).$$

We call $`\mathrm{deg}_{i,x}([z^{},y,w])`$ for $`i=1,2,3`$ the $`(i,x)`$-degree of $`[z^{},y,w]`$. Make the degrees invariable with $`G_z`$ action, then $`𝐊_z`$ is equipped with a multi-graded module structure. Let

$$d_{1,x}[a,y,w]:=\omega (x,y)N_{z(x)}[az(x),y/x,w]$$

$$d_{2,x}[a,y,w]:=\omega (x,y)p(x;\mathrm{Fr}_x^1)[a,y/x,w]$$

$$d_{3,x}[a,y,w]:=(1)^{\mathrm{deg}y}(1)^{_{x^{}<x}v_x^{}w}a_{z(x)}[a,y,wx].$$

The map $`d_{i,x}`$ is of $`(i,x)`$-degree $`+1`$. It is easy to check that for every $`i`$, $`j=1,2,3`$ and $`(i,x)(j,x^{})`$, one has

$$d^2i,x=d_{i,x}d_{j,x^{}}+d_{j,x^{}}d_{i,x}=0.$$

Thus $`d_{i,x}`$ are differentials of $`𝐊_z`$ observing the above multi-grading structure. One see that $`d`$ is the sum of all $`d_{i,x}`$ for $`i=1,2`$ and $`xz`$ and $`\delta `$ is the sum of $`d_{3,x}`$. The total degree of $`𝐊_z`$ is just the sum of all $`(i,x)`$-degrees. Thus we can use this multi-complex structure to study the total cohomology of $`𝐊_z`$ and hence the $`G_z`$-cohomology of $`𝒰_z`$.

Furthermore, note that any combination of $`d_{i,x}`$ is still a differential in $`𝐊_z`$. In particular, $`d_i=_{xz}d_{i,x}`$ for $`i=1,2`$ is the differential induced by the differential $`d_i`$ in $`_z`$ when viewing $`_z`$ as a double complex. We have $`d=d_1+d_2`$ and $`\delta =_{xz}d_{3,x}`$. Correspondingly, we can make $`𝐊_z`$ as a triple complex $`𝐊_z^{,,}`$ with differentials $`d_1`$, $`d_2`$ and $`\delta `$. As a convention, we use $`m,n,p=m+n`$ and $`q`$ to denote the corresponding degrees for the differentials $`d_1,d_2,d`$ and $`\delta `$. We shall use this triple complex structure of $`𝐊_z`$ to study the total cohomology of $`𝐊_z^{}`$.

### 7.4. Compatibility

For every $`z^{}_sz`$, let $`𝐊_z^{}`$ be the submodule of $`𝐊_z`$ generated by

$$\{[a,y,w]:yz^{},aB_{z^{}/z(y)},\overline{w}z^{}\}$$

and let $`𝐊_z(z^{})`$ be the submodule generated by

$$\{[a,y,w]:yz^{},aB_{z^{}/z(y)},\overline{w}z\}$$

One can check that $`𝐊_z^{}`$ and $`𝐊_z(z^{})`$ are compatible with differentials. The $`(d+\delta )`$-cohomology of $`𝐊_z^{}`$ is just $`H^{}(G_z^{},𝒰_z^{})`$ and the $`(d+\delta )`$-cohomology of $`𝐊_z(z^{})`$ is $`H^{}(G_z,𝒰_z^{})`$. Moreover, if using the embedding $`\mathrm{Cor}`$ defined in § 5.4 for Anderson’s resolution, then for every $`wz`$, one has a well defined embedding from $`𝐊_w`$ to $`𝐊_z`$.

### 7.5. The study of spectral sequences

We now discuss the $`G_z`$-cohomology of $`𝒰_z`$ and $`𝒰_z/M𝒰_z`$. We study the triple complex $`(𝐊_z^{,,};d_1,d_2,\delta )`$, or rather, fix $`n`$, we study the double complex $`(𝐊_z^{,n,};d_1,\delta )`$. Consider the spectral sequence

$$E_2^{m,q}(𝐊_z^{,n,})=H_{d_1}^mH_\delta ^q(𝐊_z^{,n,}).$$

Since $`H_\delta ^q(𝐊_z^{,n,})`$ is just $`H^q(G_z,_z^{,n})`$, which is the direct sum of subcomplexes of the following form for all $`y\overline{z}`$, $`\mathrm{deg}y=n`$:

(1)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 0H^q(G_z,& [_\mathrm{𝟏},y])\stackrel{d_1^1}{}\mathrm{}\stackrel{d_1^1}{}\hfill \\ & \underset{\begin{array}{c}y^{}y\\ \mathrm{deg}y^{}=p\end{array}}{}H^q(G_z,[_{z(y^{})},y/y^{}])\mathrm{}\stackrel{d_1^1}{}H^q(G_z,[_{z(y)},\mathrm{𝟏}])0\hfill \end{array}$$

where

$$[_z^{},y^{}]:=[a,y^{}]:aB_z^{}_𝒯_z^{}.$$

Note that for any $`y^{}y\overline{z}`$,

$$_{z(y)}=_{z(y^{})}_𝒯𝒯[G_{z(y/y^{})}].$$

One has a commutative diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccc}H^q(G_z,[_{z(y^{})},y])& \stackrel{\omega (x,y)d_{1,x}^1}{}& H^q(G_z,[_{z(y^{}/x)},y/x])\\ \theta & & \theta & & \\ H^q(G_{z/z(y^{})},[_\mathrm{𝟏},y])& \stackrel{res}{}& H^q(G_{z/z(y^{}x)},[_\mathrm{𝟏},y/x])\end{array}$$

where $`\theta `$ is the isomorphism induced by Shapiro’s Lemma. Note that $`[_\mathrm{𝟏},y]`$ is just one copy of $`𝒯`$ indexed by $`y`$, we write it as $`𝒯[y]`$. Through $`\theta `$, the complex (1) is then quasi-isomorphic to

(2)
$$0H^q(G_z,𝒯[y])\mathrm{}\underset{\begin{array}{c}y^{}y\\ \mathrm{deg}y^{}=p\end{array}}{}H^q(G_{z/z(y^{})},𝒯[y/y^{}])\mathrm{}H^q(G_{z/z(y)},𝒯[\mathrm{𝟏}])0$$

with the differential

$$\stackrel{~}{d}(c)=\underset{xy/y^{}}{}\omega (x,y/y^{})res_xc$$

for

$$cH^q(G_{z/z(y^{})},𝒯[y/y^{}]),res_x\text{is the restriction of }c\text{ in}H^q(G_{z/z(xy^{})},𝒯[y/y^{}x]).$$

If replace $`q`$ in the complex (2) above by $``$, then we have a complex

(3)
$$0H^{}(G_z,𝒯[y])\mathrm{}\underset{\begin{array}{c}y^{}y\\ \mathrm{deg}y^{}=p\end{array}}{}H^{}(G_{z/z(y^{})},𝒯[y/y^{}])\mathrm{}H^{}(G_{z/z(y)},𝒯[\mathrm{𝟏}])0$$

###### Lemma 7.2.

The complex (3) is acyclic except at the first cohomology while the first cohomology is the direct sum of free graded $`𝒯/m_w𝒯`$-modules $`H_{𝒯,w}`$ for $`ywz`$, where $`m_w=\mathrm{gcd}\{|G_{z(x)}|:xw\}`$ and the grading of $`H_{T,w}`$ is as stated in Proposition 6.1.

###### Proof.

Since $`𝒯`$ is a trivial $`G_z`$-module, we can apply the results of Proposition 6.1 here. The first cohomology is just

$$\underset{xy}{}\mathrm{ker}(H^{}(G_z,𝒯)H^{}(G_{z/z(x)},𝒯)),$$

which is nothing but the direct sum of $`H_{𝒯,w}`$ for $`ywz`$ by Proposition 6.1. Apply Proposition 6.1 again, we see the complex (3) satisfies the conditions of Lemma 5.2 of Ouyang , Page 16. Following that lemma, we know other cohomology groups vanish for the complex (3). ∎

Write $`H_{𝒯,w}^q`$ the $`q`$-th component of $`H_{𝒯,w}`$, we thus have

###### Proposition 7.3.

For any fixed $`n`$, the $`E_2^{m,q}`$ term $`H_{d_1}^mH_\delta ^q(𝐊_z^{,n,})`$ of the double complex $`(𝐊_z^{,n,};d_1,\delta )`$, is then the direct sum of free $`𝒯/m_w𝒯`$-modules $`H_{𝒯,w}^q[y]`$ where

$$\mathrm{deg}y=n,y\overline{w}z$$

and the $`𝒯/m_w𝒯`$-rank of $`H_{𝒯,w}^q[y]`$ is $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\mathrm{deg}\overline{w}1}{i1}\right)`$ if $`q=2\mathrm{deg}w\mathrm{deg}\overline{w}+i`$.

### 7.6. The case $`p(x;1)=0`$ for every $`xz`$

In this subsection, we suppose that $`p(x;1)=0`$ for every $`xz`$. In this case, we can give a complete description of the $`G_z`$-cohomology of $`𝒰_z`$. Consider the $`𝒯`$-submodule $`𝐒`$ of $`𝐊_z`$ generated by

$$\{[a,y,w]:aB_{z/z(y)},yz,\overline{w}z,aB_\mathrm{𝟏}\text{if}yw\}.$$

Under the assumption $`p(x;1)=0`$, one easily sees that $`d_1𝐒,d_2𝐒,\delta 𝐒𝐒`$, thus $`𝐒`$ is really a subcomplex of $`𝐊_z`$ with related double and triple complex structures. We let $`𝐐_z=𝐊_z/𝐒`$, thus $`𝐐_z`$ is a free $`𝒯`$-module generated by

$$\{[\mathrm{𝟏},y,w]:y\overline{w}z\}.$$

Note that the induced differential $`d_1=0`$ in $`𝐐_z`$. We write the quotient map as $`\rho `$.

###### Proposition 7.4.

The quotient map $`\rho `$ is a quasi-isomorphism.

###### Proof.

Consider the triple complex $`(𝐊_z^{,,};d_1,d_2,\delta )`$ and the related triple complex $`(𝐐_z^{,,};d_1,d_2,\delta )`$. Fix $`d_2`$-degree $`n`$, we consider the double complex $`(𝐊_z^{,n,};d_1,\delta )`$ and its quotient by $`\rho `$. Then $`\rho `$ induces a map

$$\rho _2:H_{d_1}^m(H_\delta ^q(𝐊_z^{,n,}))H_{d_1}^m(H_\delta ^q(𝐐_z^{,n,})).$$

We claim that $`\rho _2`$ is an isomorphism.

Assuming the claim, then $`H_{total}^{m+q}(𝐊_z^{,n,},d_1+\delta )`$ is isomorphic to $`H_{total}^{m+q}(𝐐_z^{,n,},d_1+\delta )`$. Thus for the double complex $`(𝐊_z^,;d_2,d_1+\delta )`$ and its quotient $`(𝐐_z^,;d_2,d_1+\delta )`$, the $`E_2^{n,m+q}`$-term $`H_{d_2}^{m+q}(H_{d_1+\delta }^n(𝐊_z^,))`$ is isomorphic to $`H_{d_2}^{m+q}(H_{d_1+\delta }^n(𝐐_z^,))`$. $`\rho `$ hence is a quasi-isomorphism. Noe that here we use the following fact about spectral sequences: a complex homomorphism is a quasi-isomorphism if in the corresponding weakly convergent spectral sequences, the $`E_r`$-terms are isomorphic for some positive integer $`r`$.

Now we show the isomorphism of $`\rho _2`$. Consider the complex $`(L_y^{},\delta )`$ generated by $`\{[\mathrm{𝟏},y,w]:\overline{w}z\}`$. This complex is exactly $`\mathrm{Hom}(P_z,[_\mathrm{𝟏},y])`$. Let $`L_y^{}`$ and $`L_y^{\prime \prime }`$ be the subcomplexes generated by $`\{[\mathrm{𝟏},y,w]:yw\}`$ and by $`\{[\mathrm{𝟏},y,w]:yw\}`$ respectively. Thus $`L_y^{}`$ is the direct sum of $`L_y^{}`$ and $`L_y^{\prime \prime }`$. Correspondingly, $`H^{}(G_z,[\mathrm{𝟏},y])`$ is the direct sum of $`H^{}(L_y^{},\delta )`$ and $`H^{}(L_y^{\prime \prime },\delta )`$. Now the kernel of $`d_1^1`$ at $`H^q(G_z,[\mathrm{𝟏},y])`$ in the complex (1), or equivalently, in the complex (2), is just $`H^q(L_y^{},\delta )`$. We see that $`𝐐_z^{,n,}`$ is actually the direct sum of $`L_y^{}`$(Note that $`d_1=0`$ in $`𝐐_z`$). This proves the isomorphism of $`\rho _2`$. ∎

###### Theorem 7.5.

If for every $`xz`$, $`p(x;1)=0`$. Then $`H^{}(G_z,𝒰_z)`$, the $`G_z`$-cohomology of the universal norm distribution $`𝒰_z`$ is the direct sum of $`H_{𝒯,w}[y]`$ where $`H_{𝒯,w}`$ is as stated in Proposition 6.1 and

$$y\overline{w}z.$$

Any element $`c[y]H^{}(G_z,𝒰_z)`$ for $`cH_{𝒯,w}^q`$ is of degree $`q\mathrm{deg}y`$.

###### Remark 7.6.

Let $`𝒰_z`$=$`U_r`$, the universal ordinary distribution of level $`r`$, if $`r`$ is odd, then $`G_{p^i}`$ is cyclic for every $`p^ir`$. We also see that $`p(x;1)=11=0`$, hence the above theorem gives a complete description of $`H^{}(G_r,U_r)`$ and generalizes Theorem A in Ouyang , where we need the condition $`r`$ is squarefree.

### 7.7. The $`G_z`$-cohomology of $`𝒰_z/M𝒰_z`$

We suppose now that $`M`$ is a common divisor of $`|G_{z(x)}|`$ and $`p(x;1)`$ for every $`xz`$. Let $`𝐒_z`$ be the same as in § 7.6. Then $`𝐒_z/M𝐒_z`$ is a submodule of $`𝐊_z/M𝐊_z`$ generated by

$$\{[a,y,w]:aB_{z/z(y)},yz,\overline{w}z,aB_\mathrm{𝟏}\text{if}yw\}.$$

One easily sees that $`𝐒_z/M𝐒_z`$ is a subcomplex of $`𝐊_z/M𝐊_z`$ with respect to the multi-complex structure of $`𝐊_z/M𝐊_z`$. We let $`𝐐_z/M𝐐_z`$ be the quotient of $`𝐊_z/M𝐊_z`$ to $`𝐒_z/M𝐒_z`$, thus $`𝐐_z/M𝐐_z`$ is a free $`𝒯/M𝒯`$-module generated by

$$\{[\mathrm{𝟏},y,w]:y\overline{w}z\}.$$

Note that the induced differentials $`d_1=d_2=d=\delta =0`$ in $`𝐐_z/M𝐐_z`$. Write the quotient map from $`𝐊_z/M𝐊_z`$ to $`𝐐_z/M𝐐_z`$ as $`\rho _M`$.

###### Proposition 7.7.

The homomorphism $`\rho _M`$ is a quasi-isomorphism.

###### Proof.

Similar to the proof of Proposition 7.4

###### Theorem 7.8.

Let $`M𝒪`$ be a common divisor of $`|G_{z(x)}|`$ and $`p(x;1)`$ for all $`xz`$. Then the cohomology group $`H^{}(G_z,𝒰_z/M𝒰_z)`$ is a direct sum of rank one graded $`𝒯/M𝒯`$-modules $`c(y,w)`$ where

$$y\overline{w}z,\mathrm{deg}c(y,w)=\mathrm{deg}w\mathrm{deg}y.$$

###### Proof.

By the quasi-isomorphism of $`\rho _M`$ in Proposition 7.7, the cohomology group $`H^{}(G_z,𝒰_z/M𝒰_z)`$ is then just the total cohomology group of the complex $`𝐐_z/M𝐐_z`$. However, all induced differentials in $`𝐐_z/M𝐐_z`$ are $`0`$, thus its cohomology is itself. Let $`c(y,w)`$ be the element in $`H^{}(G_z,𝒰_z/M𝒰_z)`$ represented by the cocycle $`[\mathrm{𝟏},y,w]`$ in $`𝐐_z/M𝐐_z`$, we hence get the proof of the above theorem. ∎

###### Remark 7.9.

With the automorphism $`ϵ`$ in § 7.2, we easily see that

$$\rho _M:(𝐊_z^,/M𝐊_z^,;\stackrel{~}{d},\stackrel{~}{\delta })(𝐐_z^,/M𝐐_z^,;0,0)$$

is a quasi-isomorphism, thus Theorem 7.8 can be stated in the form of the double complex $`(𝐊_z^,;\stackrel{~}{d},\stackrel{~}{\delta })`$.

We call the basis $`\{c(y,w):y\overline{w}z\}`$ given in Theorem 7.8, the canonical basis for $`H^{}(G_z,𝒰_z/M𝒰_z)`$. In particular, we write $`c(y,y)`$ as $`c_y`$. By the above theorem, we see that for every $`zZ`$,

$$H^0(G_z,𝒰_z/M𝒰_z)=c_y:yz_{𝒯/M𝒯}$$

is the union of all $`H^0(G_z^{},𝒰_z^{}/M𝒰_z^{})`$ with $`z^{}_sz`$ and $`z^{}`$ finite. We’ll use this fact in Ouyang  for the double complex $`(𝐊_z^,;\stackrel{~}{d},\stackrel{~}{\delta })`$.

###### Remark 7.10.

One can expect parallel result to Theorem B in Ouyang  holds here too. The answer is yes. However, we feel more appropriate to state it in Ouyang , as a natural consequence of the universal Kolyvagin recursion, just like the proof of the above Theorem B in Anderson and Ouyang .


format: text

text:
# 𝐽/𝜓 dissociation by pions in QCD

## Abstract

We compute the $`J/\psi \pi \text{charmed mesons}`$ cross section using QCD sum rules. This cross section is important to distinguish the suppression in the production of $`J/\psi `$ through the dissociation by comoving pions and through the formation of quark-gluon plasma. Our sum rules for the $`J/\psi \pi \overline{D}D^{}`$, $`D\overline{D}^{}`$, $`\overline{D}^{}D^{}`$ and $`\overline{D}D`$ hadronic matrix elements are constructed by using vacuum-pion correlation functions, and we work up to twist-4. After doing a thermal average we get $`\sigma ^{\pi J/\psi }v0.20.4`$ mb at $`T=150\text{MeV}`$.

In relativistic heavy ion collisions $`J/\psi `$ suppression has been recognized as an important tool to identify the possible phase transition to quark-gluon plasma (QGP). Matsui and Satz ma86  predicted that in presence of quark-gluon plasma, binding of a $`c\overline{c}`$ pair into a $`J/\psi `$ meson will be hindered, leading to the so called $`J/\psi `$ suppression in heavy ion collisions. Over the years several experiments measured the $`J/\psi `$ yield in heavy ion collisions (for a review of data and interpretations see Ref.vo99 ; ge99 ). In brief, experimental data do show suppression NA50 . However, this could be attributed to more conventional $`J/\psi `$ absorption by comovers, not present in pA collisions kha ; wong ; cap . In order to confirm that the suppression of $`J/\psi `$ comes from the presence of the QGP, it is necessary to understand better the $`J/\psi `$ dissociation mechanism by collision with comoving hadrons.

Since there is no empirical information on $`J/\psi `$ absorption cross sections by hadrons, theoretical models are needed to estimate their values. In general, different models apply to different energy regimes and one of the first estimates of the charmonium-hadron cross section uses short distance QCD bhp ; kha2 ; agga . However, the method is inapplicable at low energies, which is the regime of greatest interest for $`J/\psi `$ collision with comoving hadrons. Besides, even in the high energy regime, nonperturbative effects may be important dnn  and can increase significantly the value of the cross section. At the low energy regime one can use quark-interchange models qmodel  or meson exchange models mmodel ; nnr . The results of the calculations for the charmonium-pion cross section based on these two approaches can differ by two orders of magnitude in the relevant energy range. Moreover, the rapid increase of the cross section near the threshold, obtained with these two models, is probably overestimated since these models do not respect chiral symmetry, as showed in nnr . There is also a calculation of the $`J/\psi \pi `$ cross section nnmk  based on the QCD sum rules (QCDSR) technique svz ; rry , which is also valid at the low energy regime. The result for the cross section in ref. nnmk  is in between the results in the quark-interchange models and meson exchange models.

In this work we improve the calculation done in ref. nnmk  by considering sum rules based on a three-point function with a pion. We work up to twist-4, which allows us to study the convergence of the OPE expansion. Since the method of the QCDSR uses QCD explicitly, we believe that our work will improve the understanding of this important topic.

In the QCDSR approach, the short range perturbative QCD is extended by an OPE expansion of the correlator, giving a series in inverse powers of the squared momentum with Wilson coefficients. The convergence at low momentum is improved by using a Borel transform. The coefficients involve universal quark and gluon condensates. The quark-based calculation of a given correlator is equated to the same correlator, calculated using hadronic degrees of freedom via a dispersion relation, giving sum rules from which a hadronic quantity can be estimated.

Let us start with the vacuum-pion correlation function for the process $`J/\psi \pi \overline{D}D`$:

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^4xd^4ye^{ip_2.y}e^{ip_3.x}}`$ (1)
$`\times `$ $`0|T\{j_D(x)j_{\overline{D}}(0)j_\mu ^\psi (y)\}|\pi (p_1),`$
with the currents given by $`j_\mu ^\psi =\overline{c}\gamma _\mu c`$, $`j_D=\overline{u}i\gamma _5c`$ and $`j_{\overline{D}}=\overline{c}i\gamma _5d`$. $`p_1`$, $`p_2`$, $`p_3`$ and $`p_4`$ are the four-momenta of the mesons $`\pi `$, $`J/\psi `$, $`D`$ and $`\overline{D}`$ respectively. The advantage of this approach as compared with the 4-point calculation in ref. nnmk , is that we can consider more terms in the OPE expansion of the correlation function in Eq. (1) and, therefore, we get a much richer sum rule.

Following ref. kl , we can rewrite Eq. (1) as:

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}}Tr[S(p_3k)\gamma _\mu `$ (2)
$`\times `$ $`S(p_3p_2k)\gamma _5D_{aa}(k,p_1)\gamma _5],`$
where $`S(p)`$ is the free $`c`$-quark propagator, and $`D_{ab}(k,p)`$ denotes the quark-antiquark component with a pion, which can be separated into three pieces depending on the Dirac matrices involved kl :

$$D_{ab}(k,p)=\delta _{ab}\left[i\gamma _5A+\gamma _\alpha \gamma _5B^\alpha +\gamma _5\sigma _{\alpha \beta }C^{\alpha \beta }\right].$$
(3)
The three invariant functions of $`(k,p)`$: $`A,B^\alpha `$ and $`C^{\alpha \beta }`$, are defined by the Fourier transform of the vacuum-pion matrix elements: $`0|\overline{d}(x)i\gamma _5u(0)|\pi (p_1)`$, $`0|\overline{d}(x)\gamma ^\alpha \gamma _5u(0)|\pi (p_1)`$ and $`0|\overline{d}(x)\sigma ^{\alpha \beta }\gamma _5u(0)|\pi (p_1)`$ respectively.

Using PCAC and working at the order $`𝒪(p_\mu p_\nu )`$ we get up to twist-4 kl ; bbk :

$`A(k,p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(2\pi )^4}{12}}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{q}q}{f_\pi }}[2+ip_{\alpha _1}{\displaystyle \frac{}{ik_{\alpha _1}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}({\displaystyle \frac{m_0^2}{4}}`$
$`\times `$ $`g_{\alpha _1\alpha _2}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}p_{\alpha _1}p_{\alpha _2}){\displaystyle \frac{}{ik_{\alpha _1}}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{ik_{\alpha _2}}}]\delta ^{(4)}(k),`$
$`B_\alpha (k,p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(2\pi )^4}{12}}f_\pi [ip_\alpha +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}p_\alpha p_{\alpha _1}{\displaystyle \frac{}{ik_{\alpha _1}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{i\delta ^2}{36}}\times `$
$`(5p_\alpha g_{\alpha _1\alpha _2}`$ $``$ $`2p_{\alpha _2}g_{\alpha \alpha _1}){\displaystyle \frac{}{ik_{\alpha _1}}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{ik_{\alpha _2}}}]\delta ^{(4)}(k),`$
$`C_{\alpha \beta }(k,p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(2\pi )^4}{24}}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{q}q}{3f_\pi }}(p_\alpha g_{\beta \alpha _1}p_\beta g_{\alpha \alpha _1})`$ (4)
$`\times `$ $`\left[i{\displaystyle \frac{}{ik_{\alpha _1}}}{\displaystyle \frac{p_{\alpha _2}}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{ik_{\alpha _1}}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{ik_{\alpha _2}}}\right]\delta ^{(4)}(k),`$
where $`m_0^2`$ and $`\delta ^2`$ are defined by $`\overline{q}D^2q=m_0^2\overline{q}q/2`$, $`0|\overline{d}g_s\stackrel{~}{𝒢}^{\alpha \beta }\gamma _\beta u|\pi (p)=i\delta ^2f_\pi p^\alpha `$ , with $`\stackrel{~}{𝒢}_{\alpha \beta }=ϵ_{\alpha \beta \sigma \tau }𝒢^{\sigma \tau }/2`$ and $`𝒢_{\alpha \beta }=t^AG_{\alpha \beta }`$.

The additional contributions to the OPE comes from the diagrams where one gluon, emitted from the $`c`$-quark propagator, is combined with the quark-antiquark component. Taking the gluon stress tensor into the quark-antiquark component, one can write down the correlation function into the form

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_\mu =4{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}}Tr[(S_{\alpha \beta }(p_3k)\gamma _\mu S(p_3p_2k)`$
$`+S(p_3k)\gamma _\mu S_{\alpha \beta }(p_3p_2k))\gamma _5D^{\alpha \beta }(k,p_1)\gamma _5],`$ (5)
where we have defined

$$S_{\alpha \beta }(k)=\frac{\left[k_\alpha \gamma _\beta k_\beta \gamma _\alpha +(\begin{array}{c}\text{/}\\ k\hfill \end{array}+m_c)i\sigma _{\alpha \beta }\right]}{2(k^2m_c^2)^2}.$$
(6)
The $`c`$-quark propagator with one gluon attached is given by rry  $`g_s𝒢_{\alpha \beta }S^{\alpha \beta }(k)`$, and

$$D^{\alpha \beta }(k,p)=\gamma _5\sigma _{\rho \lambda }E^{\rho \lambda \alpha \beta }(k,p)+\gamma ^\tau ϵ^{\alpha \beta \theta \delta }F_{\tau \theta \delta }(k,p).$$

Up to twist-4 and at order $`𝒪(p_\mu p_\nu )`$, the two functions appearing above are given by kl ; bbk

$`E^{\rho \lambda \alpha \beta }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{32}}[{\displaystyle \frac{m_0^2\overline{q}q}{6f_\pi }}(g^{\rho \alpha }g^{\lambda \beta }g^{\rho \beta }g^{\lambda \alpha })+f_{3\pi }[p^\alpha p^\rho g^{\lambda \beta }`$
$``$ $`p^\beta p^\rho g^{\lambda \alpha }p^\alpha p^\lambda g^{\rho \beta }+p^\beta p^\lambda g^{\rho \alpha }]](2\pi )^4\delta ^{(4)}(k)`$
$`F_{\tau \theta \delta }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i\delta ^2f_\pi }{3\times 32}}(p_\theta g_{\tau \delta }p_\delta g_{\tau \theta })(2\pi )^4\delta ^{(4)}(k),`$ (7)
where $`f_{3\pi }`$ is defined by the vacuum-pion matrix element $`0|\overline{d}g_s\sigma _{\alpha \beta }\gamma _5\stackrel{~}{𝒢}^{\alpha \beta }u|\pi (p)`$ bbk .

The phenomenological side of the correlation function, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\mu `$, is obtained by the consideration of $`J/\psi `$, $`\pi `$, $`D`$ and $`\overline{D}`$ states contribution to the matrix element in Eq. (1). The hadronic amplitude is defined by the matrix element:

$`i`$ $`=`$ $`\psi (p_2,\mu )|D(p_3)\overline{D}(p_4)\pi (p_1)`$ (8)
$`=`$ $`i_\mu (p_1,p_2,p_3,p_4)ϵ_2^\mu .`$
The phenomenological side of the sum rule can be written as (for the part of the hadronic amplitude that will contribute to the cross section) nnmk :

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_\mu ^{phen}=\frac{m_\psi f_\psi (m_D^2f_D/m_c)^2_\mu }{(p_2^2m_\psi ^2)(p_3^2m_D^2)(p_4^2m_D^2)}+\text{h. r.},$$
(9)
where h. r. means higher resonances. The hadronic amplitude can be parametrized as:

$$_\mu =\mathrm{\Lambda }ϵ_{\mu \alpha \beta \sigma }p_1^\alpha p_3^\beta p_4^\sigma ,$$
(10)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the parameter that we will evaluate from the sum rules.

Inserting the results in Eqs. (4) and (7) into Eqs. (2) and (5) we can write a sum rule for the invariant structure appearing in Eq. (10). To improve the matching between the phenomenological and theoretical sides we follow the usual procedure and make a single Borel transformation to all the external momenta taken to be equal: $`p_2^2=p_3^2=p_4^2=P^2M^2`$. We get, in the approximation $`p_1<<p_2,p_3,p_4`$:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }+AM^2+BM^4}{m_\psi ^2m_D^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{e^{m_D^2/M^2}}{M^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{m_D^2/M^2}e^{m_\psi ^2/M^2}}{m_\psi ^2m_D^2}}\right]`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{m_c^2}{m_D^4m_\psi f_D^2f_\psi }}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{m_c^2/M^2}}{M^2}}[f_\pi {\displaystyle \frac{2m_c\overline{q}q}{3f_\pi M^2}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{f_\pi \delta ^2}{18M^2}}(17+{\displaystyle \frac{5m_c^2}{M^2}})],`$ (11)
where we have transferred to the theoretical side the couplings of the currents with the mesons. The problem of doing a single Borel transformation is the fact that terms associated with the pole-continuum transitions are not suppressed io2 . In the present case we have two kinds of these transitions: double pole-continuum and single pole-continuum. In the limit of similar meson masses it is easy to show that the Borel behavior of the three-pole, double pole-continuum and single pole-continuum contributions are $`e^{m_M^2/M^2}/M^4,e^{m_M^2/M^2}/M^2`$ and $`e^{m_M^2/M^2}`$ respectively. Therefore, we can single out the three-pole contribution from the others by introducing two parameters, $`A`$ and $`B`$, in the phenomenological side of the sum rule, which will account for the double pole-continuum and single pole-continuum contributions respectively kl ; bnn ; nos .

The parameter values used in all calculations are $`m_c=1.37\text{GeV}`$, $`m_\pi =140\text{MeV}`$, $`m_D=1.87\text{GeV}`$, $`m_D^{}=2.01\text{GeV}`$, $`m_\psi =3.097\text{GeV}`$, $`f_\pi =131.5\text{MeV}`$, $`f_\psi =270\text{MeV}`$, $`f_D=170\text{MeV}`$, $`f_D^{}=240\text{MeV}`$, $`\overline{q}q=(0.23)^3\text{GeV}^3`$, $`m_0^2=0.8\text{GeV}^2`$, $`\delta ^2=0.2\text{GeV}^2`$, $`f_{3\pi }=0.0035\text{GeV}^2`$ bbk .

In Fig. 1 we show the QCD sum rule results for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }+AM^2+BM^4`$ as a function of $`M^2`$. The circles, squares and diamonds give the twist-2, 3 and 4 contributions respectively. The triangles give the final QCDSR results. We see that the twist-3 and 4 contributions are small as compared with the twist-2 contribution showing a “convergence” of the OPE expansion. The triangles follow almost a straight line in the Borel region $`6M^216\text{GeV}^2`$, indicating that the single pole-continuum transitions contribution is small. The value of the amplitude $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is obtained by the extrapolation of the fit to $`M^2=0`$ io2 ; bnn ; nos . Fitting the QCD sum rule results to a quadratic form we get $`\mathrm{\Lambda }11.4\text{GeV}^3`$. As expected, in our approach $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is just a number and all dependence of $`_\mu `$ on particle momenta is contained in the Dirac structure. This is a consequence of our low energy approximation.

Instead of using the experimental values for the meson decay constants, it is also possible to use the respective sum rules, as done in nnmk . The behavior of the results does not change significantly, leading only to a change in the value of the amplitude. Using the respective sum rules for the meson decay constants we get $`\mathrm{\Lambda }14.9\text{GeV}^3`$. We will use these two procedures to estimate the errors in our calculation. Our results agrees completely with the value obtained in nnmk .

The calculation of the sum rules for the processes $`J/\psi \pi \overline{D}D^{}`$ and $`J/\psi \pi \overline{D}^{}D^{}`$ can be done in a similar way. One has only to change the currents in Eq. (1) by the appropriate ones. The hadronic amplitudes for these two processes can be written in terms of many different structures. In terms of the structures that will contribute to the cross section we can write

* for the process $`J/\psi \pi \overline{D}D^{}`$:

$`_{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{\Lambda }_1^{DD^{}}p_{1\mu }p_{1\nu }+\mathrm{\Lambda }_2^{DD^{}}p_{1\mu }p_{2\nu }`$
$`+\mathrm{\Lambda }_3^{DD^{}}p_{1\nu }p_{3\mu }+\mathrm{\Lambda }_4^{DD^{}}g_{\mu \nu }+\mathrm{\Lambda }_5^{DD^{}}p_{2\nu }p_{3\mu },`$ (12)
* for the process $`J/\psi \pi \overline{D}^{}D^{}`$:

$`_{\mu \nu \rho }=\mathrm{\Lambda }_1^{D^{}D^{}}H_{\mu \nu \rho }+\mathrm{\Lambda }_2^{D^{}D^{}}J_{\mu \nu \rho }`$ (13)
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_3^{D^{}D^{}}g_{\nu \rho }ϵ_{\mu \alpha \beta \gamma }p_1^\alpha p_2^\beta p_3^\gamma +\mathrm{\Lambda }_4^{D^{}D^{}}ϵ_{\nu \rho \alpha \beta }p_{3\mu }p_1^\alpha p_3^\beta `$
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_5^{D^{}D^{}}ϵ_{\nu \rho \alpha \beta }p_{3\mu }p_1^\alpha p_2^\beta +\mathrm{\Lambda }_6^{D^{}D^{}}ϵ_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }p_{3\rho }p_1^\alpha p_2^\beta `$
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_7^{D^{}D^{}}ϵ_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }p_{1\rho }p_1^\alpha p_2^\beta +\mathrm{\Lambda }_8^{D^{}D^{}}ϵ_{\nu \rho \alpha \beta }p_{1\mu }p_1^\alpha p_4^\beta `$
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_9^{D^{}D^{}}ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \alpha }p_1^\alpha +\mathrm{\Lambda }_{10}^{D^{}D^{}}ϵ_{\nu \rho \alpha \beta }p_{1\mu }p_1^\alpha p_3^\beta `$
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{11}^{D^{}D^{}}ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \alpha }p_2^\alpha +\mathrm{\Lambda }_{12}^{D^{}D^{}}ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \alpha }p_3^\alpha `$
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{13}^{D^{}D^{}}ϵ_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }p_{1\rho }p_1^\alpha p_3^\beta +\mathrm{\Lambda }_{14}^{D^{}D^{}}ϵ_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }p_{3\rho }p_1^\alpha p_3^\beta ,`$

with $`H_{\mu \nu \rho }=(ϵ_{\nu \alpha \beta \gamma }g_{\mu \rho }ϵ_{\rho \alpha \beta \gamma }g_{\mu \nu })p_1^\alpha p_2^\beta p_3^\gamma +ϵ_{\mu \rho \alpha \beta }p_{2\nu }p_1^\alpha p_2^\beta `$ and $`J_{\mu \nu \rho }=(ϵ_{\nu \rho \alpha \beta }p_{1\mu }+ϵ_{\mu \rho \alpha \beta }p_{1\nu }+ϵ_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }p_{1\rho })p_2^\alpha p_3^\beta +ϵ_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }p_{2\rho }p_1^\alpha p_3^\beta `$. In principle all the independent structures appearing in $`H_{\mu \nu \rho }`$ and $`J_{\mu \nu \rho }`$ would have independent parameters $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i`$. However, since in our approach we get exactly the same sum rules for all of them, we decided to group them with the same parameters.

The expressions for all 20 sum rules will be given elsewhere pre . At this point it is important to stress that the sum rule for the process $`J/\psi \pi \overline{D}D`$ is not particular, in general all the other sum rules are similar and contain twist-2, twist-3 and twist-4 contributions corresponding to the first, second, and third terms inside the brackets in the right hand side of Eq. (11). Only the sum rules for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{10}^{D^{}D^{}}`$ up to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{14}^{D^{}D^{}}`$ get only twist-4 contributions, and give results compatible with zero. It is also interesting to notice that if we consider only the twist-2 contributions we recover the sum rules obtained in ref. nnmk .

The results for all other sum rules show a similar behavior and the amplitude can be extracted by the extrapolation of the fit to $`M^2=0`$. The values for all the parameters are given in pre . In Eq. (12) the structures multiplying $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_4`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_5`$ break chiral symmetry nnr  and, therefore, will be neglected.

Having the QCD sum rule results for the amplitude of the three processes $`J/\psi \pi \overline{D}D^{},\overline{D}D,\overline{D}^{}D^{}`$, we can evaluate the cross section. In Fig. 2 we show the cross section for the $`J/\psi \pi `$ dissociation. The shaded area give an evaluation of the uncertainties in our calculation obtained with the two procedures described above. It is important to keep in mind that, since our sum rule was derived in the limit $`p_1<<p_2,p_3,p_4`$, we can not extend our results to large values of $`\sqrt{s}`$.

In a hadron gas, pions collide with the $`J/\psi `$ at different energies. The momentum distribution of thermal pions in a hadron gas depends on the effective temperature $`T`$ with an approximate Bose-Einstein distribution. Therefore, the relevant quantity is not the value of the cross section at a given energy, but $`\sigma ^{\pi J/\psi }v`$ which is the product of the dissociation cross section and the relative velocity averaged over the energies of the pions.

As shown in Fig. 3, $`\sigma ^{\pi J/\psi }v`$ increases with the temperature. Since the $`J/\psi `$ dissociation by a pion requires energetic pions to overcome the energy threshold, it has a small thermal average at low temperatures. The shaded area in Fig. 3 give an evaluation of the uncertainties in our calculation due to the two procedures used to extract the hadronic amplitudes.

In conclusion, we have studied the $`J/\psi `$ dissociation cross section by pions using the QCDSR technique, based on a three-point function using vacuum-pion correlation functions. We have estimated the hadronic amplitudes by working up to twist-4 in the limit $`p_1<<p_2,p_3,p_4`$. Our results are in agreement with the former QCDSR calculation, done with a four-point function at the pion pole nnmk . Our results for the cross section as a function of $`\sqrt{s}`$ are smaller than the results using meson-exchange models (without form factors), but larger than the calculation based on quark-exchange models.

The dominant contribution to the hadronic amplitudes comes from the twist-2 operator, or equivalently, from the quark condensate. As we know that the quark condensate is stronger in the vacuum and weaker in the interior of hadrons, we can conclude that the charmonium “sees” and interacts with the surface of the pions, where there is a “halo” of condensates. This is way the cross section can be larger than the geometric value. In our approach the continuous growth of the cross section comes from the growth of the phase space, as in the effective Lagrangian calculations. In the short distance QCD calculation kha2 ; agga  the cross section also grows with $`\sqrt{s}`$, but the growth there is considerably smaller because the rise in the gluon density cannot completely compensate the fall of the partonic cross section agga .

The thermal average of the $`J/\psi \pi `$ dissociation cross section increases with the temperature and at $`T=150\text{MeV}`$ we get $`\sigma ^{\pi J/\psi }v0.20.4`$ mb which is smaller than the values used in phenomenological studies of $`J/\psi `$ absorption by comoving hadrons in relativistic heavy ion collisions.

The same approach used here could be applied to calculate the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\pi `$ cross section. In a recent work agga  the $`\sigma _{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\pi }`$ was computed using short distance QCD. Since we expect the non-perturbative corrections to be less important for heavier systems, the differences between short distance QCD and QCD sum rules should be smaller for the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\pi `$ system, and a systematic comparison between the two approaches becomes possible. We will address this point in the future.

Another possible extension of this work is the calculation of the $`\chi _c\pi `$ and $`\eta _c\pi `$ cross sections. This can be done by replacing the $`j_\mu ^\psi `$ current in Eq. (1) by the corresponding $`\chi _c`$ and $`\eta _c`$ currents. Unfortunately since $`\psi ^{}`$ and $`J/\psi `$ have the same quantum numbers and are, therefore, described by the same current, it is not possible, in this approach, to estimate the $`\psi ^{}\pi `$ cross section. The $`\psi ^{}`$ contribution to the present sum rule calculation is inside the parameters $`A`$ and $`B`$, in Eq. (11) and cannot be separated from the other higher mass states contributions.

We are grateful to J. Hüfner and H. Kim for fruitful discussions. M.N. would like to thank the hospitality and financial support from the Yonsei University during her stay in Korea. This work was supported by CNPq and FAPESP-Brazil.


text:
# Isotopic Dependence of the Casimir Force

## Abstract

We calculate the dependence of the Casimir force on the isotopic composition of the interacting objects. This dependence arises from the subtle influence of the nuclear masses on the electronic properties of the bodies. We discuss the relevance of these results to current experiments utilizing the iso-electronic effect to search at very short separations for new weak forces suggested by various unification theories.

The Casimir effect  has been the subject of intense study recently, both experimentally and theoretically . Not only is it of interest in its own right, as a novel and fundamental quantum effect, but the increasing precision of experimental tests of the Casimir effect has led to its use in searching for new macroscopic forces acting over sub-millimeter scales . This follows from the fact that the Casimir force becomes the dominant background to any new macroscopic force over short distance scales after electrostatic and magnetic effects have been eliminated. If we consider, for example, the Casimir force per unit area $`P_C(d)`$ between two perfectly conducting parallel plates at temperature $`T=0`$ separated by a distance $`d`$, then

$$P_C(d)=\frac{\pi ^2\mathrm{}c}{240}\frac{1}{d^4}=\frac{0.013}{(d/\mu \text{m})^2}\text{dyn/cm}\text{2}.$$
(1)
It is instructive to compare $`P_C(d)`$ to the gravitational force: For two Cu plates having dimensions 1 cm$`{}_{}{}^{2}\times 1`$ mm a distance $`d`$ apart, the Casimir force exceeds the Newtonian gravitational force when $`d14`$ $`\mu `$m. (This distance becomes slightly larger at room temperature .) However, this is the very distance scale over which recent extra-dimensional theories suggest the possibility of new short-range gravitational forces . If follows that detecting such forces requires understanding the (presumably larger) Casimir background.

For Casimir experiments using real (rather than idealized) conductors, the effects of finite conductivity, finite temperature, and surface roughness become important, and considerable progress has been made in recent years in dealing with these effects . Still, the inherent difficulty in calculating the Casimir force for real materials to high precision limits the use of Casimir force experiments to constrain new forces. The object of the present paper is to implement a recent proposal  which aims to sidestep these problems when searching for new very short-ranged macroscopic forces. The approach relies on the fact that the Casimir force depends primarily on the electronic properties of the interacting bodies, while the proposed new forces, including those arising from new spatial dimensions, depend on the test bodies’ nuclear, as well as on their electronic, properties. One should therefore be able to set limits on new forces at sub-micron separations by measuring the differences in forces between test bodies composed of different isotopes of the same element (the iso-electronic effect), since the Casimir force should be independent of isotope to a good approximation. Any observed differences between the test bodies could then be attributed to new physics after other effects (differences in sample preparation, etc.) have been accounted for. Furthermore, this method does not require a detailed calculation of the Casimir force, if this force is known to be the same for the isotopes being compared. However, before one can extract reliable limits on new forces from an experiment based on the iso-electronic effect, one must be confident that any small isotopic dependence of the Casimir force will produce a force difference that is less than the force resolution of the experiment. In what follows we present the first calculation of the isotopic dependence of the Casimir force. This calculation is of interest for two reasons: First, it is directly relevant to an experiment currently underway  to search for new short-range forces by comparing the Casimir forces for two isotopes of the same element. Secondly, our results reveal new characteristics of the Casimir force, the dependence on lattice spacing and nuclear masses, which may be utilized in future applications.

To understand how the isotopic dependence of the Casimir force comes about we note that for two infinitely thick parallel plates composed of real dielectrics at $`T0`$, the expression for the Casimir force $`F_C(d,T)`$ is more complicated than Eq. (1), and is given by the Lifshitz formula :

$`F_C(d,T)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{k_BTA}{\pi c^3}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{}_{}{}^{}\xi _{l}^{3}{\displaystyle _1^{\mathrm{}}}p^2𝑑p`$ (5)
$`\times \{[\left({\displaystyle \frac{K(i\xi _l,T)+\epsilon (i\xi _l,T)p}{K(i\xi _l,T)\epsilon (i\xi _l,T)p}}\right)^2e^{2d(\xi _l/c)p}1]^1`$
$`+[\left({\displaystyle \frac{K(i\xi _l,T)+p}{K(i\xi _l,T)p}}\right)^2e^{2d(\xi _l/c)p}1]^1\}.`$
Here $`A`$ is the area of the plates, $`k_B`$ is Boltzmann’s constant, $`\omega =i\xi _l`$, $`\xi _l=2\pi k_BTl/\mathrm{}`$, and

$$K(i\xi _l,T)=\left[p^21+\epsilon (i\xi _l,T)\right]^{1/2},$$
(6)
where $`\epsilon (\omega ,T)`$ is the frequency and temperature dependent dielectric constant. The prime on the summation sign indicates that the $`l=0`$ term should be multiplied by 1/2. The dielectric properties of the interacting media determine the Casimir force acting between real metallic plates. In practice, one obtains $`\epsilon (\omega ,T)`$ from a Drude or plasma model for low frequencies and from tables of optical data for higher frequencies.

We note from Eq. (5) that the Casimir force depends on the temperature $`T`$, as well as on $`d`$, and that this $`T`$-dependence between real metals enters in two different ways . First, the quantum electromagnetic field is at temperature $`T`$ and this contributes a thermal pressure from real photons on the plates which becomes significant for larger plate separations. When $`d\mathrm{}c/2k_BT`$, the energy spacing between the field modes decreases allowing thermal energy to more easily excite higher modes. \[Note that for a room temperature experiment ($`T=300`$ K), $`\mathrm{}c/2k_BT=3.8\mu \text{m}`$, while for an experiment operating at liquid helium temperatures ($`T=4`$ K), $`\mathrm{}c/2k_BT=0.29`$ mm.\] If $`d\mathrm{}c/2k_BT`$, there is a sufficiently large gap between the ground state and first excited states to prevent significant thermal excitation of higher modes in which case $`F(d,T)`$ reduces to

$`F_T(d)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}A}{2\pi ^2c^3}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\xi \xi ^3{\displaystyle _1^{\mathrm{}}}p^2𝑑p`$ (10)
$`\times \{[\left({\displaystyle \frac{K(i\xi ,T)+\epsilon (i\xi ,T)p}{K(i\xi ,T)\epsilon (i\xi ,T)p}}\right)^2e^{2d(\xi /c)p}1]^1`$
$`+[\left({\displaystyle \frac{K(i\xi ,T)+p}{K(i\xi ,T)p}}\right)^2e^{2d(\xi /c)p}1]^1\}.`$
As was observed recently , we can see from Eq. (10), that there remains another temperature dependence to the Casimir force. The dielectric constant $`\epsilon (\omega ,T)`$ is also temperature dependent as discussed below, even when one can neglect the temperature fluctuations of the field. Therefore, following Ref. , we define $`F(d,T=0)F_T(d)`$, were the subscript denotes this implicit $`T`$-dependence. Thus, it is important to check that the tabulated data for the dielectric constant are appropriate for the temperature at which the experiment is conducted. This has not been a problem in previous experiments since they have all been conducted at room temperature at which most of the tabulated optical data are obtained. However, these data may be inappropriate for experiments conducted at low temperatures.

For the case of two infinite plates, we see that the isotopic dependence of the Casimir force must enter through $`\epsilon (i\xi ,T)`$, which depends mainly upon the electronic properties of the material. Optical data for the isotopes of interest, at temperatures relevant for an experiment, are difficult to find in the literature. Furthermore, experience from room temperature Casimir force experiments indicates that, ideally, one should obtain optical data directly from the actual samples used, since there is sufficient variation from sample to sample.

In the absence of relevant experimental data, we can estimate the isotopic dependence of the Casimir force from theoretical considerations. As we have discussed, the Casimir force is determined through the Lifshitz formula by the dielectric constant $`\epsilon (\omega ,T)`$. For metals which can be described by the plasma model, $`\epsilon (\omega ,T)`$ is characterized by a single parameter, the plasma frequency $`\omega _p`$ which depends, in turn, on the lattice constant $`a`$. In the presence of an anharmonic potential, the lattice spacing $`a`$ will be different for two isotopes of the same element, since the zero point motion of the isotopes at $`T=0`$ depends on the respective isotopic masses. Thus, the isotopic dependence of the Casimir force arises from the dependence of the lattice constant on mass, and this dependence affects the dielectric constant, and eventually the Casimir force, through the Lifshitz formula.

To quantify the preceding discussion, we consider a Casimir force experiment utilizing conductors which can be described by the plasma model. Although this is a simple model of metals, it is sufficiently reliable for our present purposes. In the plasma model the dielectric constant $`\epsilon (\omega =i\xi )`$ is given by

$$\epsilon (i\xi )=1+\frac{\omega _p^2}{\xi ^2},$$
(11)
where the plasma frequency $`\omega _p`$ is

$$\omega _p^2=\frac{4\pi Ne^2}{m_{\mathrm{eff}}V}.$$
(12)
Here $`N/V`$ is the number of conduction electrons/volume and $`m_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is the effective electron mass. If Eq. (11) is substituted into Eq. (10), one finds in the limits $`d2\pi c/\omega _p`$ and $`T\mathrm{}c/2k_Bd`$ ,

$$F(d)\frac{\pi ^2}{240}\frac{\mathrm{}cA}{d^4}\left(1\frac{16}{3}\frac{c}{\omega _pd}\right).$$
(13)
In the simplest case, let $`N_{\mathrm{val}}/V`$ be the number of valence electrons/volume and let $`m_{\mathrm{eff}}=m_e`$, the free electron mass, in which case, Eq. (12) reduces to

$$\omega _p^2=\frac{4\pi N_{\mathrm{val}}e^2}{m_eV}.$$
(14)
From Eq. (14), we see that in this case, all of the isotopic dependence must arise from $`V`$, the volume per atom, which is proportional to $`a^3`$.

The isotopic dependence of the lattice spacing has been a topic of interest for some time . It is well-known that the temperature dependence of $`a`$, which leads to thermal expansion of solids, arises from anharmonic terms in the interatomic potential . For example, in a one-dimensional lattice with a typical interatomic distance given by $`x`$, let an atom’s potential energy be approximated by $`V(u)(1/2)ku^2(1/6)bu^3`$, where $`u=xx_0`$, $`x_0`$ is the equilibrium separation, $`k`$ is the effective spring constant, and $`b`$ characterizes the anharmonic contribution. At temperature $`T`$, the thermal average displacement depends on the anharmonic term so that the lattice constant in this model becomes temperature dependent and proportional to $`b`$ :

$$a(T)=x_0+ux_0+\frac{b}{2k^2}k_BT,$$
(15)
where $`k_B`$ is Boltzmann’s constant. This temperature dependence of the lattice spacing affects the plasma frequency, which leads to a temperature-dependent dielectric constant $`\epsilon (\omega ,T)`$ as mentioned earlier. If one replaces thermal vibrations, which allow atoms to sense the anharmoniticity of the potential, with quantum zero-point motion ($`kT\mathrm{}\omega /2`$), one finds that the lattice spacing in this model becomes dependent on the atomic mass $`M`$, since the vibrational frequency $`\omega `$ is proportional to $`1/\sqrt{M}`$ :

$$a(T=0)x_0+\frac{b}{4k^2}\mathrm{}\omega .$$
(16)
It follows that the temperature and isotopic dependence of $`\epsilon (\omega ,T)`$ are linked through the anharmonic term of the interatomic potential. At finite temperatures, both thermal and zero-point motions contribute, although the former dominate at higher temperatures. Hence the isotopic dependence of $`a`$ is most significant at temperatures much less than the Debye temperature. For a current review of theoretical estimates and experimental results for the isotopic dependence of the lattice constant, see Plekhanov . With the exception of nickel, which is one of the metals being considered for an experiment utilizing the iso-electronic effect , most of this effort has focused on materials which would not be appropriate for Casimir force experiments. Nonetheless, one finds (Table I) that $`\mathrm{\Delta }a/a10^4`$ for those elements that have been studied, and this agrees with theoretical estimates.

If we assume that the entire isotopic dependence of the Casimir force is dominated by the isotopic dependence of the lattice constant through Eq. (14), and that the Casimir force is given by Eq. (13), then we find that a variation of the lattice constant $`\mathrm{\Delta }a`$ leads to a relative difference in the Casimir force for two different isotopes,

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }F_{21}}{F}\left(\frac{16}{3}\frac{c}{\omega _pd}\right)\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\omega _p}{\omega _p}=\left(\frac{8c}{\omega _pd}\right)\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }a_{21}}{a},$$
(17)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }F_{21}=F_2F_1`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }a_{21}=a_2a_1`$, and we have used $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega _p/\omega _p=(1/2)\mathrm{\Delta }V/V=(3/2)\mathrm{\Delta }a/a`$. Since Eq. (13) is valid when $`2\pi c/\omega _pd1`$, and experimentally one finds (e.g., for nickel) $`\mathrm{\Delta }a/a10^4`$, one expects

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }F_{21}}{F}10^4,$$
(18)
under these conditions. This is several orders of magnitude below the current resolution of Casimir force experiments ($`\mathrm{\Delta }F/F10^2`$). However, since this problem remains unexplored experimentally, it may be possible to find situations in which the isotopic $`\mathrm{\Delta }F/F`$ is large enough to be observed.

To summarize, we have shown that for metals which can be described by the plasma model, the relative difference in the Casimir force between plates composed of different isotopes separated by $`d2\pi c/\omega _p`$ is negligible in any current experiment  utilizing force differences to extract limits on new forces. For metals which are not well described by the plasma model, and for experiments with shorter separations, further analysis will be needed to ascertain how well our conclusions hold, particularly when more realistic models of the dielectric constants are used for the actual experimental samples. Additionally, other effects of an isotopic mass difference should be explored. These include the isotopic dependence of $`m_{\mathrm{eff}}`$, and the possibility that the dielectric constant can depend on isotopic mass in other ways besides the lattice constant. However, these effects are not likely to alter the principal conclusion of our analysis, that current searches for new short-range forces using the iso-electronic effect  can ignore the isotopic dependence of the Casimir force.

###### Acknowledgements.

The authors thank G. Carugno, R. Decca, A. Lambrecht, D. López, V. M. Mostepanenko, A. W. Overhauser, A. K. Ramdas, S. Reynaud, G. Ruoso, and S. Rodriguez for helpful discussions. This work was supported in part by the U. S. Department of Energy under contract No. DE-AC02-76ER071428.


text:
# On the Study of the Substructure of N-body Systems

## 1 Introduction

The study of hierarchical distribution of galaxies is one important issues of observational cosmology since the properties of substructure of galaxy clusters have to carry information on the mechanisms of their formation and evolution.

Various methods are developed for the study of the substructures in galaxy clusters, e.g. two and higher-point correlation functions, Li statistics, topological measures, wavelets, etc which are using various descriptors and assumptions . $`S`$-tree method  is using both the positional and kinematical information about the system in self-consistent way, by means of the consideration of the geometrical properties of the phase space of $`N`$-body system and the definition of the criterion of boundness between particles. That method enabled to reveal the substructures in various galaxy clusters, i.e. Perseus, Virgo, Coma, Abell ENACS clusters, etc . The existing versions of the $`S`$-tree  are dealing with the substructures at the fixed time.

In this paper we will study the behavior of substructure within certain time interval i.e. to try to trace the future and past evolution of the subsystems within that interval.

The approach is based on the generalized $`S`$-scheme, and therefore, first, we will briefly review the main steps of the approach.

## 2 N-body bounded systems: $`S`$-diagram method

The key idea of the method, as already mentioned above, is the introduction of the concept of the degree of boundness $`\rho `$.

Consider a set of $`N`$ points

$$X=\{x_1,\mathrm{},x_N\},$$

the function $`P`$

$$P:X\times XR_+\mathrm{and}\rho \mathrm{R}_+.$$

The basic definitions are as follows.

Definition 1

We say that $`xX`$ and $`yX`$ are $`\rho `$-bounded, if $`P(x,y)\rho `$.

Definition 2

We say that $`UX(U\mathrm{})`$ is a $`\rho `$-bounded subgroup, if:

1. $`xU`$ and $`y\overline{U}P(x,y)<\rho `$;
2. $`xU`$ and $`yUx=x_{i_1},x_{i_2},\mathrm{},x_{i_k}=y`$, that $`P(x_{i_l},x_{i_{l+1}})\rho ;l=1,\mathrm{},k1`$.

Definition 3

We say that $`U_1,\mathrm{},U_d`$ is the distribution of the set $`X`$ via $`\rho `$-bounded groups, if:

1. $`_{i=1}^dU_i=X;`$
2. $`ij(i,j=1,\mathrm{},d)U_iU_j=\mathrm{};`$
3. $`U_i(i=1,\mathrm{},d)`$ is a $`\rho `$-bounded group.

The function $`P`$ Different physical quantities can be assigned to the function $`P`$ as listed in , such as the distances, the energy, the force, the perturbations of potential, momentum, and so on. For example, the choice of the mutual distance of the particles in order to define the subgrouping is equivalent to the corresponding correlation functions (spatial or angular, related with each other via the Limber equation), which is, obviously, a rather incomplete characteristic for that aim. It can be shown that, at least for astrophysical problems, among the most informative ones is the Riemannian curvature of the configuration space , which determines the behavior of close geodesics, as known from basic courses on classical mechanics .

So, by this, S-tree algorithm we obtain the substructure of the N-body system, i.e. the degree of boundness of each subgroup of particles, for any given function $`P`$ and $`\rho `$. This found distribution will satisfy Definitions 1, 2 and 3. The final result can be represented either through tables or by tree-diagrams, graphs (S-tree).

The next important aspect is that the method allows to use simultaneously various boundness criteria between the particles of the system for fixed moment of time .

Consider the $`N`$-body system: $`X=\{x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_N\}`$ and $`P_1,\mathrm{},P_H`$ functions. Consider also $`D_1,\mathrm{},D_H`$ matrices, where $`D_\alpha =(d_{ij}^\alpha ),\alpha =1,\mathrm{},H`$;
$`i,j=1,\mathrm{},N;d_{ii}^\alpha =0`$. If $`ijd_{ij}^\alpha =P_\alpha (x_i,x_j)`$. Constructing matrix $`D`$ in the following way:

$$D=(\overline{d}_{ij}),i,j=1,\mathrm{},N,$$

where

$$\overline{d}_{ij}=(d_{ij}^1,d_{ij}^2,\mathrm{},d_{ij}^H),i,j=1,\mathrm{},N.$$

$`D`$ matrix contains the whole information about matrices $`D_1,\mathrm{},D_H`$. For any function $`P_\alpha (\alpha =1,\mathrm{},H)`$ exists its own boundness vector
$`\rho _\alpha =(\rho _1^\alpha ,\mathrm{},\rho _{Q_\alpha }^\alpha ).`$ We construct for the $`D`$ matrix a vector of boundness

$$\overline{\rho }_D=(\overline{\rho }_1^D,\mathrm{},\overline{\rho }_{Q_D}^D)$$

and for $`k=1,\mathrm{},Q_D;\overline{\rho }_k^D=(\rho _{k_1}^1,\mathrm{},\rho _{k_H}^H)`$, where $`k_\alpha =1,\mathrm{},Q_\alpha `$ and $`\alpha =1,\mathrm{},H`$. Vector $`\overline{\rho }_D`$ is constructed by all possible combinations of components of $`\overline{\rho }_k^D`$ vector. For any function $`P_\alpha ,(\alpha =1,\mathrm{},H)`$ we introduce ”the degree of influence” $`W_\alpha R_+`$. The next steps are realized for fixed value of $`\overline{\rho }_k^D`$. We transit from the matrix $`D`$ to the matrix $`D_u`$ in a following way

$$D_u=(\overline{u}_{ij});i,j=1,\mathrm{},N,$$

where $`\overline{u}_{ij}=(u_{ij}^1,\mathrm{},u_{ij}^H)`$ and $`u_{ij}^\alpha ,\alpha =1,\mathrm{},H`$ is defined as

$$u_{ij}^\alpha =\{\begin{array}{c}W_\alpha ,ifd_{ij}^\alpha \rho _{k_\alpha }^\alpha \\ 0,ifd_{ij}^\alpha <\rho _{k_\alpha }^\alpha \end{array}$$

The following $`D_v`$ matrix we construct as

$$D_v=(v_{ij}),i,j=1,\mathrm{},N,v_{ij}=\underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{H}{}}u_{ij}^\alpha .$$

Defining $`\overline{\mu }=(\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _S)`$, the vector of boundness for the $`D_v`$ matrix and, using the $`S`$-method for $`D_v`$ and for any given component of $`\overline{\mu }`$ vector, we obtain the distribution of the initial system on the bounded subgroups. Note finally, that according to the $`S`$-generalized scheme with fixed values of $`\overline{\rho }_k^D`$ and $`\mu _l`$, we obtain the distribution of system on $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }`$-bounded subgroups, where $`l=1,\mathrm{},S;\stackrel{~}{\rho }=(\overline{\rho }_k^D;\mu _l)`$.

Consider a dynamical time interval or including $`z`$ dynamical interval $`[t_a,t_b]`$ of an initial system . Divide this interval on $`H1`$ equal parts. For any $`t_\alpha ;\alpha =1,\mathrm{},H`$ it is possible to find all sets of $`(L_i(t_\alpha ),V_i(t_\alpha ))`$, and where $`i=1,\mathrm{},N;L_i,V_i`$ \- coordinates and velocities of $`i`$–th particle. Consider the $`P`$ function at different moments of time. Represent the function $`P_1,\mathrm{},P_H`$ as $`P_1=P(t_1)=P(t_\alpha ),P_2=P(t_2),\mathrm{},P_H=P(t_H)=P(t_b).`$

As in the previous section, we will obtain $`D`$ and $`D_u`$ matrices.

For $`W_\alpha =1,\alpha =1,\mathrm{}H,W_\alpha =1`$. For the matrix $`D_v`$ and $`\mu R_+`$ using the $`S`$-tree method we obtain the splitting of the system into on $`\mu `$-bounded subgroups within the about time interval $`[t_a,t_b]`$.

As a prefered floor of distribution $`\mu _{}`$ we chose the larger components of the vector $`\overline{\mu }`$, because $`\overline{\mu }`$-connection is a quantitative estimation of the sequence of numbers, where

$$u_{ij}^\alpha =1,i,j=1,\mathrm{},N,\alpha =1,\mathrm{},H$$

After splitting the system into bounded groups by the suggested model, $`\mathrm{\Phi }/N`$ value may present a define physical interest, where $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ – is numebr of those particles, which are not single in their groups .

Consider two different systems $`X_1,X_2`$ with $`N_1`$ and $`N_2`$ particles. For both systems a distribution is analyzed, $`[t_a^1,t_b^1]`$ and $`[t_a^2,t_b^2]`$ intervals have to be considered in a self- consistent way. The difference of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1/N_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2/N_2`$ can be considered as a criterion of relative instability of these systems. Note, that the presented approach allows to link directly the substructure properties and the relative instability of the N-body systems.

In order to apply this scheme for physical systems the correspondence between the chosen time intervals $`[t_a^1,t_b^1]`$ and $`[t_a^2,t_b^2]`$ have to be defined taking into account the formulation of the criterion of relative instability for systems $`X_1`$ and $`X_2`$.

## 3 Conclusion

The study of the substructure of nonlinear N-body systems is an interesting theoretical problem, as well has a direct link with the astrophysical systems. Particularly, the S-tree approach had proved its practical efficiency in the study of the substructure of clusters of galaxies. Particularly, the subgroups of the Coma cluster detected by S-tree  have been later studied observationally and certain predicted trends in the properties of galaxies of one of subgroups (subgroup 2) have found their apparent confirmation . The further development of the method therefore, seems of particular interest.

Here we proposed a generalization of the approach enabling the investigation of evolution of the substructuring properties of a nonlinear system within a defined time interval. Application of this scheme to the clusters of galaxies can lead to a valuable insight on the evolution and maybe on the origin of the substructures.

We are grateful to Prof.V.G.Gurzadyan for discussions and advice.