text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The moduli space of complex structures on a compact Riemann surface of genus $`1`$ or $`2`$ can be identified with the deformation space of Riemannian metrics of constant curvature $`0`$(up to scale) or $`1`$ respectively, while the latter definition naturally gives rise to the Weil-Petersson metric.

Let $`M`$ be a compact, oriented, and spin manifold of dimension 7. Then $`M`$ admits a differential 3-form $`\varphi `$ of generic type called a *definite(positive)* 3-form(Section 2)\[Br\], and such $`\varphi `$ determines a unique Riemannian metric $`g_\varphi `$ and an orientation on $`M`$. $`\varphi `$ is called a *$`G_2`$ form* if $`d\varphi =0`$, $`d_\varphi \varphi =0`$, and the orientation determined by $`\varphi `$ agrees with the given orientation of $`M`$, where $`_\varphi `$ is the Hodge star operator with respect to $`g_\varphi `$. The stabilizer of a definite 3-form in the Euclidean space $`R^7`$ is isomorphic to compact simple Lie group $`G_2`$, and thus the existence of a $`G_2`$ form is equivalent to a torsion free $`G_2`$ structure on $`M`$. Throughout this paper, a $`G_2`$ structure would mean a torsion free $`G_2`$ structure and a $`G_2`$ manifold would mean a manifold with a $`G_2`$ structure. Note the holonomy of the underlying metric of a $`G_2`$ manifold is necessarily a subgroup of $`G_2`$.

It is known that the moduli space of $`G_2`$ structures, denoted by $`𝔐`$, is a smooth manifold of dimension $`b^3=`$ dim $`H^3(M,R)`$. When $`M`$ has full holonomy $`G_2`$, or equivalently $`b^1=`$ dim $`H^1(M,R)`$= 0, a connected component of $`𝔐`$ coincides with the (Ricci flat) Einstein deformation space of the underlying $`G_2`$ metric (the property for a Ricci flat metric to support a parallel spinor is preserved under Einstein deformation). In this perspective, one of the motivation for the present work is to examine the analogy or the difference between classical Teichmüller theory and the deformation of $`G_2`$ structures \[Tr\].

Another motivation comes from the question :  *Can one find the best $`G_2`$ form (structure) on a given $`G_2`$ manifold ?* A natural condition would be to require a $`G_2`$ form $`\varphi `$ to satisfy $`[_\varphi \varphi ]=p_1(M)`$, where $`p_1(M)H^4(M,R)`$ is (nonzero) Pontryagin class. Such $`\varphi `$ is best in the sense that it locally minimizes the $`L^2`$ norm of the curvature of the associated metric $`g_\varphi `$ among the set of $`G_2`$ forms with fixed volume $`Vol_\varphi (M)`$.

The main result of this paper is that any nonzero element $`\beta H^4(M,R)=H^3(M,R)^{}`$ composed with the cohomology map $`𝔐H^3(M,R)`$ is a Morse function on $`𝔐_1`$, where $`𝔐_1𝔐`$ is the moduli space of $`G_2`$ structures of volume 1. In particular, when $`b^1=0`$ and $`\beta =p_1(M)0`$, every critical point is a positive local minimum. As a corollary, $`p_1(M)0`$ implies each connected component of $`𝔐_1`$ is noncompact. We also prove Torelli theorem in case $`b^1=0`$ and $`b^3=2`$ : the cohomology map $`𝔐H^3(M,R)`$ is one to one on each connected component.

For further application of this result toward the question raised above, an analogue of Mumford compactness theorem for Riemann surfaces would play a role. Based on the geometry of the Torelli map(to be defined below) and the main results above, we formulate a conjecture on the compactness of the set of $`G_2`$ structures of volume 1 with uniformly bounded height with respect to $`p_1(M)`$. Specifically, let $`\{\varphi _n\}`$ be a sequence of $`G_2`$ forms of volume 1 in a connected component of the moduli space of $`G_2`$ forms on a compact manifold $`M`$ with $`b^1=0`$. Suppose $`\{p_1(M)([\varphi _n])\}`$ is bounded from above. Does there exists a subsequence $`\{\varphi _{n_k}\}`$, a sequence of diffeomorphisms $`f_k`$ isotopic to the identity, and a $`G_2`$ form $`\varphi `$ of volume 1 such that $`f_k^{}\varphi _{n_k}\varphi `$ in $`C^1`$ ? If this compactness theorem is true, a simple Morse theory argument then implies that each connected component $`𝔐`$ is contractible, and that a $`G_2`$ manifold $`M`$ supports a $`G_2`$ form $`\varphi `$ unique up to diffeomorphism such that $`[_\varphi \varphi ]=p_1(M)`$.

Torelli theorem for compact Riemann surfaces states that the period map of a Riemann surface determines its complex structure \[Gr\]. An essential characterization of the image of the period map, inversion problem, is also known \[AM\]. In the last section, we consider the Torelli map $`\pi :𝔐H^3(M,R)H^4(M,R)`$ defined by

$$\pi (\varphi )=(\pi ^3(\varphi ),\pi ^4(\varphi ))=([\varphi ],[_\varphi \varphi ])H^3(M,R)H^4(M,R)$$

where $`\varphi `$ is the equivalence class of $`G_2`$ forms represented by $`\varphi `$. It is proved that $`\pi `$ is a Lagrangian immersion, and that it is an isometric immersion(up to sign) along $`𝔐_1`$ when $`b^1=0`$, where $`H^3(M,R)H^4(M,R)`$ is equipped with the canonical symplectic form and the metric of signature ($`b^3,b^4`$). If the ratio of Jacobian of the projections $`\pi ^3`$ and $`\pi ^4`$ is constant along $`𝔐_1`$, each hypersurface $`\pi ^3(𝔐_1)H^3(M,R)`$ and $`\pi ^4(𝔐_1)H^4(M,R)`$ describes a hyperbolic affine sphere centered at the origin. This is also equivalent to the volume of the torus $`H^3(M,R)/H^3(M,Z)`$ being constant along $`𝔐_1`$ \[Hi\].

## 2 Moduli space of $`G_2`$ structures

Consider an exterior 3-form on $`R^7`$

$$\phi =(dx^{12}+dx^{34}+dx^{56})dx^7+dx^{135}dx^{146}dx^{362}dx^{524},$$
(1)
where $`x^i`$’s are coordinate functions and $`dx^{12}=dx^1dx^2`$, etc. The stabilizer of $`\phi `$ is a compact simple simply connected Lie group $`G_2GL(7,R)`$, and it also preserves the 7-form $`dx^{\mathrm{12..7}}`$ and a metric uniquely determined by

$$u,vdx^{\mathrm{12..7}}=\frac{1}{6}(u\mathrm{}\phi )(v\mathrm{}\phi )\phi $$
(2)
for $`u,vR^7`$ \[Br\]. The orbit of $`\phi `$ is one of the two open orbits in $`^3(R^7)^{}`$ under $`GL(7,R)`$ action.

Let $`M`$ be a compact oriented 7-manifold. Let $`PM^3T^{}M`$ be the open subset whose fiber at each point $`pM`$ consists of $`\varphi _p^3T_p^{}M`$ that can be identified with (1) under an oriented isomorphism between $`T_pM`$ and $`R^7`$. An element $`\varphi C^{\mathrm{}}(PM)`$ is called a *positive(definite)* 3-form. $`M`$ admits a positive 3-form if and only if it is spin, and a positive 3-form $`\varphi `$ in turn determines a metric $`g_\varphi `$ and a volume form $`\text{dvol}_\varphi `$ by (2) \[Br\]. We denote by $`_\varphi `$ the Hodge star operator on differential forms defined by $`g_\varphi `$. Since $`PM^3T^{}M`$ is an open subset, the tangent space $`T_\varphi C^{\mathrm{}}(PM)`$ can be identified with the space of differential 3-forms

$$T_\varphi C^{\mathrm{}}(PM)C^{\mathrm{}}(^3T^{}M)=\mathrm{\Omega }^3,$$

and $`C^{\mathrm{}}(PM)`$ becomes a Riemannian manifold with respect to the $`L^2`$ metric on $`\mathrm{\Omega }^3`$ determined by $`g_\varphi `$. Note the diffeomorphism group Diff$`(M)`$ acts on $`C^{\mathrm{}}(PM)`$ as a group of isometry.

###### Definition 1

A positive differential 3-form $`\varphi `$ is a $`G_2`$ form if $`d\varphi =0`$ and $`d_\varphi \varphi =0`$. A compact oriented manifold $`M`$ is a $`G_2`$ manifold if it admits a $`G_2`$ form.

A $`G_2`$ metric $`g_\varphi `$ is necessarily Ricci-flat. The holonomy of the $`G_2`$ metric on a $`G_2`$ manifold is isomorphic to a subgroup of $`G_2`$, and it is full $`G_2`$ whenever the fundamental group $`\pi _1(M)`$ is finite, or equivalently the first de Rham cohomology $`H^1(M,R)=0`$.

We denote the space of $`G_2`$ forms by $`\widehat{𝔐}C^{\mathrm{}}(PM)`$. Let $`𝒟`$ Diff$`(M)`$ be the group of diffeomorphisms of $`M`$ isotopic to the identity.

###### Definition 2

Let $`M`$ be a $`G_2`$ manifold. The moduli space of $`G_2`$ structures (forms) is the quotient space $`𝔐=\widehat{𝔐}/𝒟`$.

Given a $`G_2`$ form $`\varphi `$, we denote its equivalence class by $`\varphi `$.

It is known that $`𝔐`$ is a smooth manifold of dimension $`b^3=`$ dim $`H^3(M,R)`$ \[Br\]\[Jo\]. From the remark above, there exists a unique Riemannian metric on $`𝔐`$ for which $`\widehat{𝔐}𝔐`$ is a Riemannian submersion. When $`b^1=`$ dim $`H^1(M,R)=0`$, a connected component of $`𝔐`$ coincides with the Einstein deformation space of the underlying $`G_2`$ metric, which has a real analytic structure \[Ko\].

From the definition of $`𝒟`$, the projection $`\pi ^3:𝔐H^3(M,R)`$ is well defined. The image of a class is denoted by $`\pi ^3(\varphi )=[\varphi ]`$ for simplicity.

*Remark*. Let $`f`$ be a diffeomorphism of $`M`$. Then

$$_{f^{}\varphi }f^{}\varphi =f^{}(_\varphi \varphi ),$$
(3)
and the cohomology map $`\pi ^4:𝔐H^4(M,R)`$ by $`\pi ^4(\varphi )=[_\varphi \varphi ]`$ is also well defined. In fact, we may take the dual definition of the moduli space of $`G_2`$ structures as the equivalence class of *definite* 4-forms $`\psi `$ that satisfies $`d\psi =0`$ and $`d_\psi \psi =0`$. (3) shows these two definitions ”commute” with the projection maps $`\pi ^3`$ and $`\pi ^4`$. Note however a definite 4-form does not determine an orientation.

Let $`\varphi \widehat{𝔐}`$. Then $`^{}T^{}M`$ admits a $`G_2`$ invariant decomposition

$`^2T^{}M`$ $`=_7^2_{14}^2`$
$`^3T^{}M`$ $`=_1^3_7^3_{27}^3`$
where, for instance,

$$_\varphi \varphi (_7^3_{27}^3)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}.$$

In particular, for any $`X\mathrm{\Omega }^3`$, there exists a unique quadratic form $`h_X`$ and a vector field $`v_X`$ such that

$$X=h_X\varphi +v_X\mathrm{}_\varphi \varphi $$

where $`h_X\varphi `$ means the action of $`h_X`$ as a derivation.

We denote $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k^p=C^{\mathrm{}}(_k^p)`$ and write $`X=X_1+X_7+X_{27}`$ for a given $`X\mathrm{\Omega }^3`$ for its irreducible components. Since Hodge Laplacian commutes with this decomposition, \[Ch\], let $`H_k^p`$ be the corresponding decomposition of the cohomology $`H^p(M,R)`$.

$`\mathrm{\Omega }^3T_\varphi C^{\mathrm{}}(PM)`$ admits a $`L^2`$ decomposition along $`\widehat{𝔐}`$ as follows \[Jo\].

$`T_\varphi \widehat{𝔐}`$ $`=\{X\mathrm{\Omega }^3|dX=0,d_\varphi ({\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}X_1+X_7X_{27})=0\}`$ (4)
$`V_\varphi `$ $`=\{d\mathrm{\Omega }_7^2\}`$
$`H_\varphi `$ $`=V_\varphi ^{}T_\varphi \widehat{𝔐}`$
$`=\{X\mathrm{\Omega }^3|dX=0,d_\varphi X=0\}`$
$`N_\varphi `$ $`=(T_\varphi \widehat{𝔐})^{}.`$
Here $`_\varphi (\frac{4}{3}X_1+X_7X_{27})`$ is the derivative of the map $`\varphi _\varphi \varphi `$. $`H_\varphi `$ and $`V_\varphi `$ represent the horizontal and vertical subspaces of $`T_\varphi \widehat{𝔐}`$ with respect to the submersion $`\widehat{𝔐}𝔐`$. The orthogonal projection map from $`T_\varphi C^{\mathrm{}}(PM)`$ to these subspaces will be denoted by $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\varphi ^V`$, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\varphi ^H`$, and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\varphi ^N`$ respectively.

## 3 Horizontal geodesics on $`\widehat{𝔐}𝔐`$

Let $`\{w^1,w^2,..w^7\}`$ be a local coframe on $`M`$, and

$$X=X_{ijk}w^iw^jw^kT_\varphi C^{\mathrm{}}(PM)\mathrm{\Omega }^3,$$

where $`X_{ijk}`$ is skew symmetric in all of its indices. Fix $`\varphi \widehat{𝔐}`$ so that $`w^i,w^j_{g_\varphi }=g_\varphi ^{ij}`$. The $`L^2`$ inner product on $`T_\varphi C^{\mathrm{}}(PM)`$ is defined by

$$X,Y_\varphi =\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}6}_MX_{ijk}Y_{i^{}j^{}k^{}}g_\varphi ^{ii^{}}g_\varphi ^{jj^{}}g_\varphi ^{kk^{}}dvol_{g_\varphi }.$$
(5)
Note $`\varphi ,\varphi _\varphi =7Vol_\varphi (M)`$.

Let $``$ be the Levi-Civita connection on $`C^{\mathrm{}}(PM)`$. Since tangent vectors on $`C^{\mathrm{}}(PM)`$ can be identified with $`\mathrm{\Omega }^3`$ valued functions,

$$_XY=X(Y)+D_XY$$
(6)
where $`X(Y)`$ is the directional derivative of $`Y`$ as an $`\mathrm{\Omega }^3`$ valued function, and $`D_XY`$ is the covariant derivative of $`Y`$ considered as a translation invariant vector field.

$`D_XY`$ can be computed by the following lemma \[Br\].

###### Lemma 1

Let $`Z=h_Z\varphi +v_Z\mathrm{}_\varphi \varphi \mathrm{\Omega }^3`$ and consider a curve $`\varphi _t=\varphi +tZ+O(t^2)\widehat{𝔐}`$. Then $`g_{\varphi _t}=g_\varphi +t\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}h_Z+O(t^2)`$.

###### Proposition 1

Let $`X,Y,Z\mathrm{\Omega }^3`$ be translation invariant vector fields on $`C^{\mathrm{}}(PM)`$. Then

$`2D_XY,Z_\varphi `$ $`=2h_XY+h_YX,Z_\varphi +2Y,h_ZX_\varphi `$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle _M}\text{tr}_{g_\varphi }(h_X)Y,Z_{g_\varphi }\text{dvol}_{g_\varphi }+{\displaystyle _M}\text{tr}_{g_\varphi }(h_Y)X,Z_{g_\varphi }\text{dvol}_{g_\varphi }`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle _M}\text{tr}_{g_\varphi }(h_Z)X,Y_{g_\varphi }\text{dvol}_{g_\varphi }.`$
*Proof.* Differentiate (5) and use the fact $`[X,Y]=[Y,Z]=[Z,X]=0`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Let $`\{\gamma _t\}𝔐`$ be a geodesic and $`\varphi _t\widehat{𝔐}`$ be one of its horizontal lifts, which is also a geodesic in $`\widehat{𝔐}`$. As a curve in $`C^{\mathrm{}}(PM)`$,

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_t^N(\varphi _t^{^{}})`$ $`=0`$ (7)
$`\mathrm{\Pi }_t^N(_{\varphi _t^{^{}}}\varphi _t^{^{}})`$ $`=_{\varphi _t^{^{}}}\varphi _t^{^{}},`$ (8)
where $`\mathrm{\Pi }_t^N=\mathrm{\Pi }_{\varphi _t}^N`$, and

$$_{\varphi _t^{^{}}}\varphi _t^{^{}}=\varphi _t^{^{\prime \prime }}+D_{\varphi _t^{^{}}}\varphi _t^{^{}}.$$
(9)
From (8),

$$\varphi _0^{^{\prime \prime }}=\mathrm{\Pi }_0^N(\varphi _0^{^{\prime \prime }})\mathrm{\Pi }_0^{V+H}(D_{\varphi _0^{^{}}}\varphi _0^{^{}}).$$
(10)
Differentiating (7),

$$\frac{d}{dt}\mathrm{\Pi }_t^N(\varphi _0^{^{}})|_{t=0}+\mathrm{\Pi }_0^N(\varphi _0^{^{\prime \prime }})=0,$$
(11)
and we obtain

$$\varphi _0^{^{\prime \prime }}=\frac{d}{dt}\mathrm{\Pi }_t^N(\varphi _0^{^{}})|_{t=0}\mathrm{\Pi }_0^{V+H}(D_{\varphi _0^{^{}}}\varphi _0^{^{}}).$$
(12)
We record the following for later application.

###### Lemma 2

Let $`\varphi _t\widehat{𝔐}`$ be a curve and put $`\psi _t=_{\varphi _t}\varphi _t`$. Let $`XV_{\varphi _0}H_{\varphi _0}`$. Then

$$_M\psi _0\frac{d}{dt}\mathrm{\Pi }_t^N(X)|_{t=0}=0,$$

where $`X`$ is considered as a translation invariant vector field along $`\varphi _t`$.

*Proof.* Since $`X`$ is closed, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_t^N(X)`$ is closed all $`t`$, and form the decomposition (4), $`\mathrm{\Pi }_t^N(X)`$ is in fact exact. $`\mathrm{}`$

## 4 Morse functions on $`𝔐_1`$

Let $`\widehat{𝔐}_1\widehat{𝔐}`$ be the set of $`G_2`$ forms of volume 1, and $`𝔐_1𝔐`$ its image under the projection $`\widehat{𝔐}𝔐`$. Then $`𝔐𝔐_1\times R^+`$, and $`𝔐_1`$ is an embedded hypersurface of $`𝔐`$. In this section, we show each nonzero element in $`H^4(M,R)`$ becomes a Morse function when composed with the cohomology map $`𝔐_1H^3(M,R)`$.

Let $`\varphi \widehat{𝔐}_1`$. Then the gradient of the volume function on $`\widehat{𝔐}`$ at $`\varphi `$ is $`\frac{1}{3}\varphi H_\varphi `$, (19). Let $`\nu _\varphi =\frac{1}{\sqrt{7}}\varphi H_\varphi `$ be the unit normal to $`\widehat{𝔐}_1\widehat{𝔐}`$. The second fundamental form of $`\widehat{𝔐}_1`$ is

$$\text{II}=\text{d}\nu ,\text{d}\varphi =\frac{1}{\sqrt{7}}\text{d}\varphi ,\text{d}\varphi ,$$

and $`\widehat{𝔐}_1\widehat{𝔐}`$ is a umbilic hypersurface. Note that d$`\varphi `$ in the expression above is not the exterior derivative, but it is a tautological 1-form that represents the infinitesimal displacement of $`\varphi `$ in $`\widehat{𝔐}_1`$.

We wish to introduce a class of functions on $`𝔐`$. Let $`\beta H^4(M,R)`$ be a nonzero class, and define

$$F^\beta (\varphi )=\beta ([\varphi ])$$
(13)
where $`\beta `$ is regarded as an element of $`H^3(M,R)^{}`$. Let $`F_1^\beta `$ denote its restriction to $`𝔐_1`$, and $`\text{Crit}(F_1^\beta )`$ its critical point set.

*Remark*. From the *Remark* below Definition 2, we may also define

$$G^\alpha (\varphi )=\alpha ([_\varphi \varphi ]),$$

for $`\alpha H^3(M,R)`$.

###### Proposition 2

$$\text{Crit}(F_1^\beta )=\{\varphi |\beta =c_\varphi ^\beta [_\varphi \varphi ]\}$$

for some constant $`c_\varphi ^\beta `$.

Note $`7c_\varphi ^\beta =F_1^\beta (\varphi )0`$.

*Proof.* From the description of the unit normal $`\nu `$ above, $`\varphi `$ is a critical point whenever $`\beta `$ annihilates $`H_7^3H_{27}^3`$. The proposition follows for $`H^3(M,R)^{}=H^4(M,R)`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Let $`\varphi _0\text{Crit}(F_1^\beta )`$ and put $`\psi _0=_{\varphi _0}\varphi _0`$. Then one finds

$`^2F_1^\beta |_{\varphi _0}`$ $`=^2F^\beta |_{\varphi _0}+{\displaystyle \frac{}{\nu }}F^\beta |_{\varphi _0}\text{II}_{\varphi _0}`$
$`=^2F^\beta |_{\varphi _0}c_{\varphi _0}^\beta \text{d}\varphi ,\text{d}\varphi _{\varphi _0}.`$ (14)
Now, let $`XH_{\varphi _0}`$ be a horizontal lift of a tangent vector $`xT_{\varphi _0}𝔐_1`$ and let $`\varphi _t\widehat{𝔐}`$ be a horizontal geodesic with $`\varphi _0^{^{}}=X`$. From (12) and Lemma 2,

$`^2F^\beta (x,x)`$ $`=c_{\varphi _0}^\beta {\displaystyle _M}\psi _0\varphi _0^{^{\prime \prime }}`$
$`=c_{\varphi _0}^\beta \varphi _0,D_XX_{\varphi _0},`$ (15)
for $`\varphi _0H_{\varphi _0}`$. Proposition 1 then gives,

$`\varphi _0,D_XX_{\varphi _0}`$ $`=2h_XX,\varphi _0_{\varphi _0}+X,X_{\varphi _0}`$ (16)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{7}{6}}X,X_{\varphi _0}\text{since}h_{\varphi _0}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}g_{\varphi _0}\text{and}X_1=0`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}X,X_{\varphi _0}2h_XX,\varphi _0_{\varphi _0}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}X,X_{\varphi _0}2X_{27},X_{27}_{\varphi _0}.`$
###### Theorem 1

Let $`F_1^\beta `$ be a function on $`𝔐_1`$ defined in (13) with $`\beta H^4(M,R)`$. Then at a critical point $`\varphi _0𝔐_1`$,

$$^2F_1^\beta |_{\varphi _0}(x,x)=c_{\varphi _0}^\beta (\frac{5}{6}X_7,X_7_{\varphi _0}\frac{7}{6}X_{27},X_{27}_{\varphi _0})$$

where $`XH_{\varphi _0}`$ is the horizontal lift of $`xT_{\varphi _0}𝔐_1`$, and $`\beta =c_{\varphi _0}^\beta [_{\varphi _0}\varphi _0]`$ with $`7c_{\varphi _0}^\beta =F_1^\beta (\varphi _0)`$. $`F_1^\beta `$ is a Morse function on $`𝔐_1`$ for any nonzero $`\beta H^4(M,R)`$.

Note that in case $`H^1(M,R)=0`$, every critical point is either a positive local minimum or a negative local maximum.

It is known that $`H_1^4`$ component of the Pontryagin class $`p_1(M)`$ is $`p_1(M)_1`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{56\pi ^2}R_{g_\varphi }^2[_\varphi \varphi ]`$ for any $`G_2`$ form $`\varphi 𝔐_1`$ , where $`R_{g_\varphi }^2`$ is the $`L^2`$ norm of the curvature tensor of the associated metric $`g_\varphi `$.

###### Corollary 1

Let $`M`$ be a compact $`G_2`$ manifold with $`p_1(M)0`$. Let $`𝔐_1`$ be the moduli space of $`G_2`$ structures of volume 1. Then each connected component of $`𝔐_1`$ is noncompact.

*Proof.*$`p_1(M)0`$ implies $`F_1^{p_1(M)}<0`$ on $`𝔐_1`$. The corollary follows from maximum principle. $`\mathrm{}`$.

###### Corollary 2

Let $`M`$ be a compact $`G_2`$ manifold with $`b^1=0`$ and $`b^3=2`$. Suppose $`\varphi _1`$ and $`\varphi _2`$ are isotopic $`G_2`$ forms, i.e., they can be connected through $`G_2`$ forms, and that $`[\varphi _2]=\lambda [\varphi _1]`$ or $`[_{\varphi _2}\varphi _2]=\lambda ^{\frac{4}{3}}[_{\varphi _1}\varphi _1]`$ for some constant $`\lambda >0`$. Then there exits a diffeomorphism $`f`$ of $`M`$ isotopic to the identity such that $`\varphi _2=\lambda f^{}(\varphi _1)`$. In particular, each $`\pi ^3:𝔐H^3(M,R)`$ and $`\pi ^4:𝔐H^4(M,R)`$ is one to one on every connected components of $`𝔐`$.

*Proof.* Assume $`\varphi _1,\varphi _2𝔐_1`$. Take $`\beta =[_{\varphi _1}\varphi _1]`$. Since $`b^1=0`$ and $`b^3=2`$, $`F_1^\beta `$ is a positive function on the connected component of $`𝔐_1`$ containing $`\varphi _1`$ with a unique critical point $`\varphi _1`$.

If $`[_{\varphi _2}\varphi _2]=\lambda ^{\frac{4}{3}}[_{\varphi _1}\varphi _1]`$, it follows from considering $`G_1^\alpha `$ with $`\alpha =[\varphi _1]`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

In case $`b^1=0`$, the image $`[𝔐_1]H^3(M,R)`$ displays the following geometric properties.

1. $`[𝔐_1]H^3(M,R)`$ is an immersed orientable locally convex hypersurface that is transversal to the radial direction.

2. Restriction to $`[𝔐_1]`$ of every linear(height) function in $`H^4(M,R)`$ is a Morse function with only positive local minima or negative local maxima.

3. Take $`\beta =p_1(M)0`$, the first Pontryagin class. Then $`F_1^\beta (F^\beta )`$ is negative on $`𝔐_1(𝔐)`$ \[Br\].

4. Similarly, take $`\beta =\sigma ^2`$ for any nonzero $`\sigma H^2(M,R)`$. Then $`F_1^\beta (F^\beta )`$ is negative on $`𝔐_1(𝔐)`$ \[Br\].

In view of Theorem 1 and the properties listed above, we propose the following conjecture on the compactness of $`G_2`$ structures of volume 1 with bounded $`L^2`$ norm of curvature.

*Conjecture.* Let $`\{\varphi _n\}`$ be a sequence of $`G_2`$ forms of volume 1 in a connected component of the moduli space $`𝔐_1`$ of $`G_2`$ forms on a compact manifold $`M`$ with $`b^1=0`$. Suppose $`\{p_1(M)([\varphi _n)])\}=\{\frac{1}{56\pi ^2}R_{g_{\varphi _n}}^2\}`$ is bounded from above. Then there exists a subsequence $`\{\varphi _{n_k}\}`$, a sequence of diffeomorphisms $`f_k`$ isotopic to the identity, and a $`G_2`$ form $`\varphi `$ of volume 1 such that $`f_k^{}\varphi _{n_k}\varphi `$ in $`C^1`$.

Suppose this conjecture is true, and consider the function $`F_1^\beta `$ with $`\beta =p_1(M)`$. From the $`C^1`$ convergence,

$`[f_k^{}\varphi _{n_k}]`$ $`[\varphi ]`$
$`[f_k^{}_{\varphi _{n_k}}\varphi _{n_k}]`$ $`[_\varphi \varphi ],`$
and the conjecture implies the set

$$(F_1^\beta )^c=\{\varphi 𝔐_1|F_1^\beta (\varphi )c\}$$

is compact for any constant $`c`$. Since every critical points of $`F_1^\beta `$ is a positive local minimum, a result form Morse theory shows that there exists a unique critical point $`\varphi `$ in each connected component of $`𝔐_1`$, and that every connected component of $`𝔐_1`$ is contractible. By Theorem 1, $`[_\varphi \varphi ]`$ must be a constant multiple of $`p_1(M)`$. Since $`𝔐𝔐_1\times R^+`$, this implies every connected component of $`𝔐`$ is contractible and contains a unique element $`\varphi `$ such that $`[_\varphi \varphi ]=p_1(M)`$. Such $`\varphi `$ is in fact unique up to diffeomorphism, for Pontryagin class is a diffeomorphism invariant.

## 5 Torelli map

###### Definition 3

Let $`M`$ be a $`G_2`$ manifold, and let $`𝔐`$ be the moduli space of $`G_2`$ structures on $`M`$. Torelli map $`\pi :𝔐H^3(M,R)H^4(M,R)`$ is defined by

$$\pi (\varphi )=(\pi ^3(\varphi ),\pi ^4(\varphi ))=([\varphi ],[_\varphi \varphi ]).$$

For the period map of Riemann surfaces of fixed genus, the image is known to be an open set of an irreducible analytic subset \[Gr\]. An essential characterization of the image of the period map, inversion problem, is also known via automorphic forms \[AM\]. The purpose of this section is to describe the image of the Torelli map $`\pi (𝔐)`$, or the projections $`\pi ^3(𝔐_1)`$ and $`\pi ^4(𝔐_1)`$ in more detail. A general idea is that any invariant of $`\pi (𝔐)`$ as a Lagrangian submanifold, or the invariants of $`\pi ^3(𝔐_1)`$ as an affine hypersurface, is an invariant of $`𝔐`$ or $`𝔐_1`$.

Set $`l=b^3`$, and let $`\{\alpha _1,\alpha _2,..\alpha _l\}`$ be a basis of $`H^3(M,R)`$ and $`\{\beta ^1,\beta ^2,..\beta ^l\}`$ be the dual basis of $`H^4(M,R)`$ so that $`\beta ^A(\alpha _B)=\delta _B^A`$. Let $`x^t=(x^1,x^2,..x^l)`$ and $`y^t=(y_1,y_2,..y_l)`$ be the coordinate functions on $`H^3(M,R)`$ and $`H^4(M,R)`$ with respect to these basis. Then $`_Adx^Ady_A`$ is the canonical symplectic form, and $`G_0=_Adx^Ady_A`$ is the canonical metric of signature $`(l,l)`$ on $`H^3(M,R)H^4(M,R)`$.

From the definition,

$`\pi ^3(\varphi )`$ $`=_Ax^A(\varphi )\alpha _A`$ (17)
$`\pi ^4(\varphi )`$ $`=_Ay_A(\varphi )\beta ^A,`$
where

$`x^A(\varphi )`$ $`=\beta ^A([\varphi ])`$ (18)
$`y_A(\varphi )`$ $`=\alpha _A([_\varphi \varphi ]).`$
Each $`x`$ and $`y`$ is then a local diffeomorphism from $`𝔐`$ to $`R^l`$ \[Jo\].

Define a function $`U:𝔐R`$ by

$$U(\varphi )=_Ax^Ay_A=7Vol_\varphi (M)=_M\varphi _\varphi \varphi .$$

Then,

$`dU`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{A}{}}x^Ady_A+y_Adx^A`$ (19)
$`={\displaystyle _M}\varphi d\pi ^4+d\pi ^3_\varphi \varphi .`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{7}{3}}{\displaystyle _M}d\pi ^3_\varphi \varphi .`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{7}{3}}{\displaystyle \underset{A}{}}y_Adx^A,`$
where the third equality follows from (4). Hence

$$3\underset{A}{}x^Ady_A=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}\underset{A}{}y_Adx^A,$$
(20)
and the Torelli map $`\pi `$ is a Lagrangian immersion \[Jo\].

Let $`p=(p_{AB})=(p_{BA})`$ be the unique $`Gl(l,R)`$ valued function on $`𝔐`$ such that

$$dy_A=_Bp_{AB}dx^B.$$

From (20), we have

$$4y=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}px.$$
(21)
Thus the invertible symmetric matrix function $`p`$ transforms one period function to the other.

Upon a change of basis $`x^{}=A^1x`$, $`y^{}=A^ty`$ for $`AGl(l,R)`$, $`p`$ becomes $`p^{}=A^tpA`$, and $`dx^tpdx=dx^tdy`$ is a well defined quadratic form on $`𝔐`$, which is the metric induced from $`G_0`$ via Torelli map $`\pi `$.

###### Proposition 3

The signature of $`\pi ^{}G_0`$ is $`(1+b^1,b_{27}^3=b^3b^11)`$. If $`b^1=0`$, $`\pi ^{}G_0`$ is the negative of the $`L^2`$ metric when restricted to $`𝔐_1𝔐`$.

*Proof.* Let $`XT_\varphi \widehat{𝔐}`$. Then, with an abuse of notation,

$`\pi ^{}G_0(X,X)`$ $`=dx^t(X)dy(X)`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}X_1,X_1_\varphi +X_7,X_7_\varphi X_{27},X_{27}_\varphi `$
by (4). $`\mathrm{}`$

Let $`\{\xi _A(\varphi )\}_1^l`$ be a basis of $`H^3(M,R)`$ where $`[\xi _A(\varphi )]=\alpha _A`$ and $`\xi _A(\varphi )`$ is harmonic with respect to $`g_\varphi `$. Define $`m_{AB}(\varphi )`$ by

$$[_\varphi \xi _A(\varphi )]=\underset{B}{}m_{AB}\beta ^B,$$

or equivalently

$$m_{AB}(\varphi )=_M_\varphi \xi _A(\varphi )\xi _B(\varphi ),$$
(22)
and

$$m_{AB}dx^Adx^B$$

is the $`L^2`$ metric on $`𝔐`$. Suppose $`b^1=0`$. From Proposition 3, we get

$`p_{AB}`$ $`=m_{AB}+{\displaystyle \frac{7}{3U}}y_Ay_B`$ (23)
$`p^{AB}`$ $`=m^{AB}+{\displaystyle \frac{7}{4U}}x^Ax^B,`$
where $`(p^{AB})`$ and $`(m^{AB})`$ are the inverse matrices of $`(p_{AB})`$ and $`(m_{AB})`$ respectively.

We now turn our attention to the hypersurface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=[𝔐_V]H^3(M,R)`$, where $`𝔐_V𝔐`$ is the set of $`G_2`$ structures of volume $`V`$. For definiteness, let us assume $`\{\alpha _1,\alpha _2,..\alpha _l\}`$ is a basis of $`H^3(M,Z)`$ modulo torsion, choose an orientation for $`H^3(M,R)`$, and consider the properties of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ that are invariant under the linear change of basis by $`Sl(l,R)`$ \[Ch2\]\[NS\]. We agree on the index range $`1i,jl1`$ and $`1A,Bl`$.

Let

$`\stackrel{}{x}`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{A}{}}x^A\alpha _A`$ (24)
$`\stackrel{}{y}`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{A}{}}y_A\beta ^A`$
be the immersions defined by (17), (18). Then since $`𝔐_V`$ is defined by the equation $`U=7V`$,

$$\underset{A}{}y_Adx^A=\underset{A}{}x^Ady_A=0$$
(25)
on $`𝔐_V`$, and we may write

$`d\stackrel{}{x}`$ $`=_idx^i\alpha _i+dx^l\alpha _l`$ (26)
$`=_idx^i(\alpha _i{\displaystyle \frac{y_i}{y_l}}\alpha _l)+(dx^l+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{y_l}}_iy_idx^i)\alpha _l`$
$`=_i\omega ^ie_i+\omega ^le_l`$
where

$`e_i`$ $`=\alpha _i{\displaystyle \frac{y_i}{y_l}}\alpha _l`$ (27)
$`e_l`$ $`=\alpha _l`$
and

$`\omega ^i`$ $`=dx^i`$ (28)
$`\omega ^l`$ $`=dx^l+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{y_l}}_iy_idx^i=0.`$
Following the general theory of moving frames, put

$$de_A=_B\omega _A^Be_B.$$

Differentiating (27), we get

$`de_i`$ $`\omega _i^le_lmode_1,e_2,..e_{l1}`$ (29)
$`d({\displaystyle \frac{y_i}{y_l}})e_l,`$
and

$`\omega _i^l`$ $`=d({\displaystyle \frac{y_i}{y_l}})`$ (30)
$`=_jh_{ij}\omega ^j`$
where

$`h_{ij}`$ $`=h_{ji}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{p_{ij}}{y_l}}{\displaystyle \frac{p_{ll}}{y_l^3}}y_iy_j+{\displaystyle \frac{y_{li}y_j+y_{lj}y_i}{y_l^2}}.`$
By (28), the second fundamental form $`II`$ of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$

$`II`$ $`=_{ij}h_{ij}\omega ^i\omega ^j`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{y_l}}_{AB}p_{AB}dx^Adx^B,`$ (31)
and it is definite whenever $`b^1=0`$ by Proposition 3.

Set $`H=`$ det$`(h_{ij})0`$. Then the normalized second fundamental form

$$\widehat{II}=|H|^{\frac{1}{l+1}}II$$
(32)
is an affine invariant called *Blaschke metric*.

*Remark*. If $`b^1=0`$, one may assume $`H>0`$ on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$.

Since

$$\omega _1^l\omega _2^l..\omega _{l1}^l=H\omega ^1\omega ^2..\omega ^{l1},$$

a computation using (30) gives,

$`\omega _1^l\omega _2^l..\omega _{l1}^l`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{y_l^l}}({\displaystyle \underset{A}{}}y_A{\displaystyle \frac{}{y_A}}\mathrm{}dy_1dy_2..dy_l)`$ (33)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{y_l^l}}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}\text{det}(p)({\displaystyle \underset{A}{}}x^A{\displaystyle \frac{}{x^A}}\mathrm{}dx^1dx^2..dx^l)`$ (34)
for $`_Ay_A\frac{}{y_A}=\frac{3}{4}_Ax^A\frac{}{x^A}`$ by (21). By expanding (34) and using $`U=7V`$,

$$H=\frac{21}{4}V\text{det}(p)(1)^{l1}y_l^{(l+1)},$$
(35)
and

$$\widehat{II}=(\frac{21}{4}V)^{\frac{1}{l+1}}|\text{det}(p)|^{\frac{1}{l+1}}_{AB}p_{AB}dx^Adx^B.$$
(36)
Here we assume $`\{\alpha _1,\alpha _2,..\alpha _l\}`$ is the right orientation for $`H^3(M,R)`$.

Another affine invariant called *affine normal* $`\xi ^x`$ is defined by

$$\xi ^x=|H|^{\frac{1}{l+1}}(e_l+_it^ie_i),$$
(37)
where $`t^i`$’s are uniquely determined by the equation

$$\frac{1}{l+1}dlog|H|+_it^i\omega _i^l=0=\lambda _Ax^Ady_A,$$
(38)
for some nonzero $`\lambda `$.

Set

$$q^A=\frac{1}{(l+1)\text{det}(p)}\frac{\text{det}(p)}{y_A}.$$

Then from (35) and (30), $`\lambda =\frac{1}{7V}(1+_Ay_Aq^A)`$, and we get

$$t^i=y_l(q^ix^i\lambda ).$$
(39)
The affine normal $`\xi ^x`$ is now determined to be

$`\xi ^x`$ $`=|H|^{\frac{1}{l+1}}(e_l+_it^ie_i),`$ (40)
$`=|H|^{\frac{1}{l+1}}{\displaystyle \frac{y_l}{7V}}\left((_Ax^A\alpha _A)+(7Vq^Ax^A(_By_Bq^B))\alpha _A\right)`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{7V}}({\displaystyle \frac{21}{4}}V)^{\frac{1}{l+1}}|\text{det}(p)|^{\frac{1}{l+1}}\left((_Ax^A\alpha _A)+(7Vq^Ax^A(_By_Bq^B))\alpha _A\right).`$
A hypersurface in an affine space is an *affine sphere* if all the normal lines pass through a fixed point(finite or infinite) called the center. In case it is locally convex, it is called elliptic or hyperbolic depending on whether the center is on the convex or concave side.

###### Theorem 2

The locus of projection $`\pi ^3(𝔐_1)H^3(M,R)`$ is an affine sphere centered at the origin if det$`(p)`$ is constant along $`𝔐_1`$. In case $`b^1=0`$, this is equivalent to $`det(m)`$ being constant on $`𝔐_1`$, and $`\pi ^3(𝔐_1)`$ is a (locally convex) hyperbolic affine sphere.

*Remark*. $`det(m)`$ is constant on $`𝔐_1`$ if and only if the volume of the torus $`H^3(M,R)/H^3(M,Z)`$ is constant on $`𝔐_1`$.

*Proof.*$`\xi ^x`$ is proportional to $`\stackrel{}{x}`$ if $`q^A=\mu x^A`$ for all $`A`$ for some function $`\mu `$ on $`𝔐_1`$. By (40) and (25), this implies $`d`$ det$`(p)=0`$ along $`𝔐_1`$.

In case $`b^1=0`$,

$$\underset{AB}{}p^{AB}dp_{AB}\underset{AB}{}m^{AB}dm_{AB}moddU$$

from (23). $`\pi ^3(𝔐_1)`$ is locally convex by Proposition 3 and hyperbolic by Theorem 1. $`\mathrm{}`$

Similar computation for the conormal hypersurface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{^{}}=\pi ^4(𝔐_1)H^4(M,R)`$ defined by $`\stackrel{}{y}`$ in (24) gives the affine normal

$$\xi _y=\frac{1}{7V}(\frac{3}{28V})^{\frac{1}{l+1}}|\text{det}(p^1)|^{\frac{1}{l+1}}\left((_Ay_A\beta ^A)+(7Vq_A+y_A(_Bx^Bq_B))\beta ^A\right),$$
(41)
with

$`q_A`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(l+1)\text{det}(p)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\text{det}(p)}{x^A}}`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{B}{}}p_{AB}q^B.`$
Note the functions

$`\xi _y(\stackrel{}{x})`$ $`=({\displaystyle \frac{3}{28V}})^{\frac{1}{l+1}}|\text{det}(p^1)|^{\frac{1}{l+1}}`$
$`\xi ^x(\stackrel{}{y})`$ $`=({\displaystyle \frac{21V}{4}})^{\frac{1}{l+1}}|\text{det}(p)|^{\frac{1}{l+1}}`$
$`\xi _y(\xi ^x)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{7V}}({\displaystyle \frac{9}{16}})^{\frac{1}{l+1}}\left(1+(_Ax^Aq_A)(_By_Bq^B)7V_Aq^Aq_A\right).`$
are independent of the choice of the orientation for $`H^3(M,R)`$. From (19),

$`{\displaystyle \underset{A}{}}x^A{\displaystyle \frac{\text{det}(p)}{x^A}}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{l}{3}}\text{det}(p)`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{A}{}}y_A{\displaystyle \frac{\text{det}(p)}{y_A}}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{l}{4}}\text{det}(p).`$
Hence

$$\xi _y(\xi ^x)=\frac{1}{7V}(\frac{9}{16})^{\frac{1}{l+1}}\left(1+\frac{l^2}{12(l+1)^2}7V_Aq^Aq_A\right).$$

References

\[AM\] A. Andreotti, A. Mayer, On period relations on abelian integral for algebraic curves, Ann. Scuola Norm. Sup. Pisa CI. Sci. 21 (1967), 189 - 238

\[Be\] A. Besse, *Einstein manifolds*, Springer-Verlag (1987)

\[Br\] R. Bryant, $`G_2`$ manifolds, seminar lectures, Duke University (1999)

\[Ch1\] S. S. Chern, On a Generalization of Kähler Geometry, S. S. Chern Selected Papers I, 227 - 245

\[Ch2\] S. S. Chern, Affine minimal hypersurfaces, S. S. Chern Selected Papers III, 425 - 438

\[Gr\] P. Giffiths, Deformations of complex structure, Proc. Sym. Pure Math. 15, 251 - 274 (1970)

\[Hi\] N. Hitchin, The moduli space of special Lagrangian submanifolds, Ann. Scuola Norm. Sup. Pisa CI. Sci. (4), 25(3-4) (1997), 503 - 515

\[Jo\] D. Joyce, *Compact manifolds with special holonomy*, Oxford University Press (2000)

\[Ko\] N. Koiso, Einstein metrics and complex structures, Invent. Math. 73 (1983), 71 - 106

\[NS\] K. Nomizu, T. Sasaki, *Affine differential geometry*, Cambridge University Press (1994)

\[Tr\] A. Tromba, *Teichmüller theory in Riemannian geometry*, Lecture Notes in Math. ETH, (1992)

Sung Ho Wang
Department of Mathematics
Postech
Pohang, Korea 790-784
*email*: wang@postech.ac.kr


format: text

text:
# Limits on the detectability of cosmic topology in hyperbolic universes

## 1 Introduction

Within the framework of standard cosmology, the universe seems to be well described by a locally homogeneous and isotropic Robertson-Walker (RW) metric

$$ds^2=c^2dt^2+R^2(t)\{d\chi ^2+f^2(\chi )[d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2]\},$$
(1)
where $`t`$ is a cosmic time, $`f(\chi )=\chi ,`$ $`\mathrm{sin}\chi ,`$ or $`\mathrm{sinh}\chi ,`$ depending on the sign of the constant spatial curvature ($`k=0,\pm 1`$), and $`R(t)`$ is the scale factor. However, a RW metric does not uniquely specify the underlying RW spacetime manifold $`_4`$, which can be decomposed into $`_4=\times M`$. In traditional treatments of cosmology, the 3-space $`M`$ is usually taken to be one of the following simply-connected spaces: Euclidean $`E^3`$, spherical $`S^3`$, or hyperbolic space $`H^3`$. However, given that the simply-connectedness of our space $`M`$ has not been established by cosmological observations, our 3-space may equally well be any one of the possible quotient (multiply connected) manifolds $`M=\stackrel{~}{M}/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a discrete group of isometries of the covering space $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ acting freely on $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$. The action of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ tessellates the covering space $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ into identical cells or domains which are copies of what is known as fundamental polyhedron. An immediate observational consequence of a nontrivial topology (multiple-connectedness) of the 3-space $`M`$ is that the sky may show patterns repetition, i.e. multiple images of either cosmic objects or spots on the cosmic microwave background radiation, such as circles in the sky.

Questions of topological nature, such as whether we live in a finite or an infinite universe and what its shape may be are among the fundamental open questions that modern cosmology needs to resolve. These questions go beyond the scope of general relativity (GR), since as a (local) metrical theory GR leaves the global topology of spacetime undetermined.

Given the wealth of increasingly accurate cosmological observations, specially the recent observations of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR , these questions have become particularly topical (see, for example,  – ). It is therefore usually assumed that despite our present-day inability to *predict* the topology of the universe, it will become detectable as our observations become more accurate.

An important outcome of the recent observations has been to suggest that the universe is almost flat (see, e.g.,  and  – ). This has motivated the recent study of the question of detectability of the cosmic topology in such nearly-flat FLRW universes  – . Here we update and extend our works  by employing recent observational constraints on the cosmological density parameters as well as the recent mathematical results concerning small hyperbolic $`3`$-manifolds. In addition, we also find a concrete example of sensitive dependence of the detectable set of topologies on the observational bounds on the density parameters.

## 2 Undetectability Indicators

Regardless of our present-day inability to predict the topology of the universe, its detection and determination is ultimately expected to be an observational problem. Recent studies have however shown that the near-flatness of the universe, deduced from the recent analysis of observations data, may make the task of the detection of a possible nontrivial topology of the universe rather difficult  – . More precisely, it has been shown that if one uses patterns repetition, increasing number of nearly flat spherical and hyperbolic possible topologies for the universe become undetectable as $`\mathrm{\Omega }_01`$ .

The study of the possible non-trivial topology of the spatial sections $`M`$ requires topological indicators which could be put into correspondence with observations. An intuitive starting point is the comparison between the horizon radius and suitable characteristic sizes of the manifold $`M`$. A suitable characteristic size of $`M`$, which we shall use in this paper, is the so-called injectivity radius $`r_{inj}`$ (radius of the smallest sphere ‘inscribable’ in $`M`$), which is defined in terms of the length of the smallest closed geodesics $`\mathrm{}_M`$ by

$$r_{inj}=\frac{\mathrm{}_M}{2}.$$
(2)
Using $`r_{inj}`$ we can define the indicator

$$T_{inj}=\frac{r_{inj}}{\chi _{obs}}.$$
(3)
Now, in any universe for which $`T_{inj}>1`$, every source in the survey lies inside a fundamental polyhedron of $`M`$, no matter what the location of the observer is within the manifold. As a result there would be no repeated patterns in that survey and every method of the search for cosmic topology based on their existence will fail — the topology of the universe is undetectable with this specific survey. Now in practice, different surveys may be (and are often) employed. There are three main surveys that can be used in the search for repeated patterns in the universe: namely, clusters of galaxies, containing clusters with redshifts of up to $`z_{cluster}0.3`$; active galactic nuclei (mainly QSO’s and quasars), with a redshift cut-off of $`z_{quasar}6`$; and maps of the CMBR with a redshift of $`z_{cmb}1100`$. The crucial point is that the undetectability, based on the employment of the above indicator (3), will be survey dependent. The latter survey, with $`z_{cmb}1100`$ corresponding to the redshift of the surface of last scattering, however, has a unique place in practice, as it is in effect a limiting survey with the deepest depth. Thus the quotient (3) computed with $`z_{cmb}`$ gives the lowest observational bound in practice for the indicator $`T_{inj}`$. At a theoretical level, on the other hand, an absolute lower bound is given by the indicator defined in terms of the horizon radius,

$$T_{inj}^{hor}=\frac{r_{inj}}{\chi _{hor}}.$$
(4)
The undetectability which arises from the condition $`T_{inj}^{hor}1`$ is obviously survey independent, and when this inequality holds no multiple images (or patterns repetition) will arise from any survey, including, of course, CMBR. Thus, any method for the search of cosmic topology based on the existence of repeated patterns will fail — the topology of the universe is definitely undetectable in such cases.

It is worth emphasizing that the indicator $`T_{inj}`$ is useful for the identification of cosmological models whose topology is undetectable through methods based on the presumed existence of multiple images, for when $`T_{inj}1`$, the whole region covered by a specific survey lies inside a fundamental polyhedron of $`M`$. However, without further considerations, nothing can be said about the detectability when $`T_{inj}<1`$. In fact, in this case, even if the radius of the depth of a given survey is larger than $`r_{inj}`$, it may be that, due to the location of the observer, the whole region covered by the specific survey would still be inside a fundamental polyhedron of $`M`$, making the topology undetectable. This is the case when the smallest closed geodesic that passes through the observer is larger than $`2\chi _{obs}`$.

In section 4 we shall use $`T_{inj}^{hor}`$ and the indicator $`T_{inj}`$ to examine the detectability of set of small hyperbolic universes in the light of the most recent observations.

## 3 Hyperbolic 3-manifolds

In this section we shall briefly recall some relevant facts about hyperbolic $`3`$-manifolds which will be usefull in the following section. We note in passing that in line with the usual mathematical practice in investigations of hyperbolic manifolds, we shall use the curvature radius as the unit of length.

Despite the enormous advances made in the last few decades, there is at present no complete classification of hyperbolic $`3`$-manifolds. However, a number of important results have been obtained. Here we shall briefly recall a number of results concerning closed orientable hyperbolic $`3`$-manifolds which will be useful for our purposes in this work:

1. Mostow’s rigidity theorem , which ensures a rigid connection between geometrical quantities and topological features in hyperbolic $`3`$-manifolds. Thus once the topology is specified, all metrical quantities, such as the volume and the lengths of their closed geodesics are topological invariants for a given $`3`$-manifold. We note, however, that the volume alone does not uniquely specify the $`3`$-manifold, and consequently there are topologically distinct hyperbolic $`3`$-manifolds with the same volume.
2. Compact orientable hyperbolic $`3`$-manifolds constitute a countable infinity of countably infinite number of sequences, ordered according to their volumes. Moreover, a fixed sequence has an accumulation of compact manifolds near a limiting volume set by a cusped manifold, which has finite volume, is non-compact, and has infinitely long cusped corners .
3. According to a result of Thurston , there exists a hyperbolic 3-manifold with a minimum volume. This has very recently been shown by Agol  to be greater than $`0.32095`$, improving an earlier bound ($`0.2815`$1) by Przeworski ;
4. Closed orientable hyperbolic $`3`$-manifolds can be constructed and studied with the publicly available software package SnapPea  (see also ). The compact manifolds are constructed through a so-called Dehn surgery which is a formal procedure identified by two coprime integers, i.e. winding numbers $`(n_1,n_2)`$. SnapPea names manifolds according to the seed cusped manifold and the winding numbers. So, for example, the smallest hyperbolic manifolds is named as $`m003(3,1)`$, where $`m003`$ corresponds to a seed cusped manifold, and $`(3,1)`$ is a pair of winding numbers.
5. There is a census by Hodgson and Weeks  containing $`11031`$ orientable closed hyperbolic 3-manifolds ordered by increasing volumes. Besides the volumes, it also provides other information, such as the solution type, the length of shortest closed geodesic and the first fundamental group. The smallest (volume) manifold in this census (Weeks’ manifold) has volume $`\text{Vol}(M)=0.94271`$, and is conjectured to be the hyperbolic 3-manifold with minimum volume. But, as was mentioned above, the best current estimate for the volume $`V`$ of the smallest closed hyperbolic orientable $`3`$-manifold is that in lies in the range $`0.32095<V0.94271`$.
6. Clearly, there is a lower bound on the lengths of geodesics in any finite set of small volume closed orientable hyperbolic $`3`$-manifolds. More importantly, according to a very recent theorem of Hodgson and Kerckhoff  the shortest geodesic in closed orientable hyperbolic 3-manifolds with volume less than 1.7011 must have length greater than $`0.162`$, corresponding to a lower bound on $`r_{inj}`$ of $`0.081`$. We recall that there are 19 manifolds in Hodgson and Weeks census with volume smaller than $`1.7011`$. We also note that the closed census intentionally excludes all manifolds containing geodesics of length less than $`0.300`$, which means that the lower bound of $`0.081`$ may in fact correspond to a larger set of manifolds. It is worth noting that this is an important improvement on the lower bound of $`0.09`$ due to Przeworski  which we used in our previous work . That bound was established for a set of manifolds with volumes less than 0.94274, which only contained one known manifold, namely the Weeks’ manifold.

## 4 Detectability and observations

A combination of recent independent astrophysical and cosmological observations seems to indicate that we live in an accelerating FLRW universe with nearly flat spatial sections (with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_01`$), which contains about $`30\%`$ dark matter, close to $`70\%`$ dark energy together with a small amount of baryonic matter of the order of few percent (see, for example, references  and  – ).

In the light of these observations, we assume that the universe can be locally described by a FLRW metric (1), and that the matter content of the universe is well approximated by dust of density $`\rho _m`$ plus a cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. The Friedmann equation is then given by

$$H^2=\frac{8\pi G\rho _m}{3}\frac{kc^2}{R^2}+\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }c^2}{3},$$
(5)
where $`H=\dot{R}/R`$ is the Hubble parameter and $`G`$ is Newton’s constant. Introducing $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=\frac{8\pi G\rho _m}{3H^2}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{8\pi G\rho _\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3H^2}=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }c^2}{3H^2}`$, and letting $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{\Omega }_m+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, equation (5) gives

$$H^2R^2(\mathrm{\Omega }1)=kc^2.$$
(6)
From Eq. (6), for hyperbolic models ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_0<1`$), the redshift-distance relation in units of the curvature radius, $`R_0`$, reduces to

$$\chi (z)=\sqrt{|1\mathrm{\Omega }_0|}_0^z\left[(1+x)^3\mathrm{\Omega }_{m0}+\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }0}(1+x)^2(\mathrm{\Omega }_01)\right]^{1/2}𝑑x,$$
(7)
where the subscript $`0`$ denotes evaluation at present time. The horizon radius $`\chi _{hor}`$ is defined by (7) for $`z=\mathrm{}`$. Written in this form the redshift-distance relation is very convenient for the study of hyperbolic universes, since the curvature radius is used as the unit of length.

To begin with, we recall that the chances of detecting the topology of a nearly flat compact universe from cosmological observations become smaller as $`\chi _{hor}0`$ ($`\chi _{hor}R_0`$). Thus as a first step in studying the constraints on detectability we consider the horizon radius function $`\chi _{hor}(\mathrm{\Omega }_{m0},\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }0})`$ given by (7) with $`z=\mathrm{}`$, for a typical fixed value $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{m0}=0.37`$, which is the middle value of the bounds on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{m0}`$, obtained recently  by combining measurement of the CMBR anisotropy (BOOMERANG-98, MAXIMA-1 and COBE DMR) together with supernovae Ia (SNIa) and large scale structure (LSS) observations. Figure 1 shows the behaviour of $`\chi _{hor}`$ as a function of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }0}`$ for this fixed value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{m0}`$. Clearly, the limiting case of flat universes ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=1`$) corresponds to the point at which the curves touch the horizontal axis. This figure clearly demonstrates the rapid way $`\chi _{hor}`$ drops to zero in a narrow neighbourhood of the $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=1`$. From the observational point of view, this shows that the detection of the topology of the nearly flat hyperbolic universes becomes more and more difficult as $`\mathrm{\Omega }_01`$, a limiting value favoured by recent observations.

To obtain more quantitative information, we employ the indicator $`T_{inj}`$ to examine the detectability of cosmic topology of hyperbolic universes with nontrivial topologies. Given the existence of more recent estimates of the cosmological density parameters, we shall update and extend our previous results by considering, in addition to the hyperbolic sub-interval given by Bond et al. :

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_0[0.99,1)\text{and}\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }0}[0.63,0.73]$$
(8)
the hyperbolic sub-interval consistent with a more recently bound on the density parameters given by Jaffe et al.

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_0[0.98,1)\text{and}\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }0}[0.62,0.79].$$
(9)
To make a comparative study, we consider each set of these bounds in turn. Using the hyperbolic sub-interval (8), one can calculate from (7) the largest values of $`\chi _{obs}`$ in this interval. For $`z_{max}=6`$ one finds $`\chi _{obs}^{max}=0.20125`$, while for $`z_{max}=1100`$ (CMBR) one finds $`\chi _{obs}^{max}=0.33745`$. Thus, using quasars up to $`z_{max}=6`$, FLRW hyperbolic universes with the density parameters in (8) have undetectable topologies if their corresponding injectivity radii are such that $`r_{inj}0.20125`$. Similarly, for the same hyperbolic sub-interval, using CMBR, the topology of hyperbolic universes with $`r_{inj}0.33745`$ is undetectable. Further, for $`z_{max}=\mathrm{},`$ the largest value of $`\chi _{obs}`$ in the sub-interval (8) is $`\chi _{hor}=0.349247`$, so the topology of hyperbolic universes with $`r_{inj}0.34924`$ is definitely undetectable regardless of depth of the survey. In Table 1 we have summarized the restrictions on detectability imposed by the hyperbolic sub-interval (8) on the first seven manifolds of Hodgson-Weeks census, where $`U`$ denotes that the topology is undetectable by any survey of depth up to the redshifts $`z_{max}=6`$ (quasars) or $`z_{max}=1100`$ (CMBR) respectively. Thus using quasars, the topology of the five known smallest hyperbolic manifolds, as well as m009(4,1), are undetectable within the hyperbolic region of the parameter space given by (8), while only topologies m007(3,1) and m009(4,1) remain undetectable even if CMBR observations are used. This shows clearly how detectability depends concretely on the survey used.

Considering now the second hyperbolic sub-interval (9), one can again calculate from (7) the largest values of $`\chi _{obs}`$ in this interval: for $`z_{max}=6`$ one has $`\chi _{obs}^{max}=0.313394`$, while for $`z_{max}=1100`$ (CMBR) one finds $`\chi _{obs}^{max}=0.538276`$. Thus, using quasars up to $`z_{max}=6`$, FLRW hyperbolic universes with the density parameters in (9) have undetectable topologies if $`r_{inj}0.313394`$. Similarly, for the same hyperbolic sub-interval, using CMBR, the topology of hyperbolic universes with $`r_{inj}0.538276`$ is undetectable. Further, for $`z_{max}=\mathrm{},`$ the largest value of $`\chi _{obs}`$ in the sub-interval (8) is $`\chi _{hor}=0.557832`$, so the topology of hyperbolic universes with $`r_{inj}`$ greater than this value is definitely undetectable regardless of the depth of the survey. The restrictions on detectability imposed by the hyperbolic sub-interval (9) on the first seven manifolds of Hodgson-Weeks census can again be reexamined. Using this sub-interval we find a very different picture from that summarized in Table 1, namely that in this case, using quasars, only two topologies \[$`m007(3,1)`$ and $`m009(4,1)`$\] would be undetectable whereas using CMBR none of topologies of these seven manifolds (universes) would be undetectable. Table 2 summarizes the restrictions on detectability imposed by the hyperbolic sub-interval (9) on the first seven manifolds of Hodgson-Weeks census.

The results in Table 2 together with those in Table 1 make transparent that a variation of $`1\%`$ in the total density parameters $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ ($`0.990.98`$), for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }0}[0.62,0.79]`$, which would have no significant consequences in the geometrical (dynamical) features of the universes, would crucially change the detectability of cosmic topology.

One can also reexamine, in the light of the new bounds (9), what is the region of the parameter space for which a given set of topologies are undetectable. To this end we note that for a given topology (fixed $`r_{inj}`$) and for a given survey up to $`z_{max}`$, one can solve the equation

$$\chi _{obs}(\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda })=r_{inj},$$
(10)
which amounts to finding pairs ($`\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$) in the density parameter plane for which Eq. (10) holds.

Consider now the set of the 19 smallest manifolds of the Hodgson-Weeks census in conjuction with the hyperbolic region (9) and the eqs. (7) and (10). The manifold in this set with the lowest $`r_{inj}(=0.152)`$ is $`m003(5,4)`$.

Figure 2 gives the solution curve of equation (10) in the $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$$`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }0}`$ plane for $`r_{inj}=0.152`$ and $`r_{inj}=0.081`$, where a survey of depth $`z_{max}=\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}100}`$ (CMBR) was used.111 This figure updates Figure 1 of in  two regards: first it employs a more recent hyperbolic sub-interval of the cosmological density parameters ; second it uses the most recent lower bound on the length of shortest closed geodesic in closed orientable hyperbolic 3-manifolds . Note that as opposed to the manifolds considered in  which could contain only Weeks’ manifold, now there are at least 19 manifolds. This figure also contains a dashed rectangular box, representing the relevant part (for our purposes here) of the recent hyperbolic region (9). For each value of $`r_{inj}`$ undetectability is ensured for the values of cosmological parameters (region in the $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$$`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{\Lambda }0}`$ plane) which lie above the corresponding solution curve of (10). Thus considering the solution curve of (10) for $`r_{inj}=0.081`$, one finds that all closed orientable hyperbolic manifolds (universes) with volumes less than $`1.0711`$, for example, would have undetectable topology, if the total density $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ turned out to be higher than $`0.9994`$. Similarly, considering the solution curve of (10) for $`r_{inj}=0.152`$, for example, one finds that the topology of none of the 19 smallest manifolds of the census would be detectable, if $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ turned out to be higher than $`0.9974`$.

## 5 Conclusions

Motivated by the recent observational results indicating that the universe is nearly flat, we have employed the recent analyses of the observational constraints on the cosmological density parameters, together with recent mathematical results concerning small hyperbolic $`3`$-manifolds, to examine the possibility of detecting the topology of nearly flat hyperbolic universes by using patterns repetition. In this way we have updated and extended our recent results, which has resulted in new bounds on detectable topologies.

In addition we have also found that small changes in the cosmological density parameters of the order a few percent are sufficient to radically effect the detectability of the topology of small hyperbolic universes. This result, which is essentially the consequence of the rapid way the horizon radius $`\chi _{hor}`$ falls off to zero for nearly flat hyperbolic universes, is of great potential importance, as it demonstrates concretely how small changes in the observational bounds on the cosmological density parameters could have important consequences for the question of detectability of the cosmic topology.

## Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Ian Agol and Andrew Przeworski for very helpful correspondence concerning their work, and for drawing our attention to the . We also thank CNPq, MCT/CBPF and CLAF for the grants under which this work was carried out.