format: text

text:
# Theorem 1

Birationality of the tangent map for minimal rational curves

Jun-Muk Hwang 111Supported by the Korea Research Foundation Grant (KRF-2002-070-C00003). and Ngaiming Mok 222Supported by a CERG of the Research Grants Council of Hong Kong.

Dedicated to Professor Yum-Tong Siu on his sixtieth birthday

Abstract

For a uniruled projective manifold, we prove that a general rational curve of minimal degree through a general point is uniquely determined by its tangent vector. As applications, among other things we give a new proof, using no Lie theory, of our earlier result that a holomorphic map from a rational homogeneous space of Picard number 1 onto a projective manifold different from the projective space must be a biholomorphic map.

§1. Introduction

Let $`X`$ be an irreducible uniruled projective variety. Let $`\text{RatCurves}^n(X)`$ be the normalized space of rational curves on $`X`$ in the sense of \[Ko\]. For an irreducible component $`𝒦`$ of $`\text{RatCurves}^n(X)`$, let $`\rho :𝒰𝒦`$ and $`\mu :𝒰X`$ be the associated universal family morphisms. In other words, $`\rho `$ is a $`^1`$-bundle over $`𝒦`$ and for $`\alpha 𝒦`$, the corresponding rational curve in $`X`$ is $`\mu (\rho ^1(\alpha ))`$. An irreducible component $`𝒦`$ of $`\text{RatCurves}^n(X)`$ is a minimal component if $`\mu `$ is dominant and for a general point $`xX`$, $`\mu ^1(x)`$ is projective. Members of a minimal component are called minimal rational curves. For example, rational curves of minimal degree passing through a very general point of $`X`$ are minimal rational curves. Here, ‘very general’ means that the point is chosen outside a countable union of subvarieties of dimension strictly smaller than the dimension of $`X`$. Denote by $`T(X)`$ the projectivization of the tangent bundle of the smooth part of $`X`$. Given a minimal component $`𝒦`$, consider the rational map

$$\tau :𝒰T(X)$$

defined by

$$\tau (\alpha ):=T_x(C)$$

for $`\alpha 𝒰`$ such that $`x:=\mu (\alpha )`$ is a smooth point of $`X`$ and $`\rho (\alpha )`$ corresponds to a rational curve $`C`$ on $`X`$ smooth at $`x`$. Let $`𝒞T(X)`$ be the proper image of $`\tau `$. We call $`\tau `$ the tangent map of $`𝒦`$ and $`𝒞`$ the total variety of minimal rational tangents of $`𝒦`$.

When $`X`$ is smooth, it is well-known that the degree of a minimal rational curve with respect to the anti-canonical bundle is bounded by $`dim(X)+1`$ and the tangent map $`\tau :𝒰𝒞`$ is generically finite. We will prove the following.

###### Theorem 1

For any uniruled projective manifold $`X`$ and any minimal component $`𝒦`$, the tangent map $`\tau :𝒰𝒞`$ is birational.

In the process of proving Theorem 1, we will also prove

###### Theorem 2

Suppose a uniruled projective manifold has two distinct minimal components $`𝒦`$ and $`𝒦^{}`$. Then their total spaces of minimal rational tangents $`𝒞`$ and $`𝒞^{}`$ are distinct.

Theorem 1 and Theorem 2 imply that a general rational curve of minimal degree through a general point of $`X`$ is uniquely determined by its tangent vector. Theorem 1 is proved under some special assumptions on $`𝒦`$, which do not always hold, in \[KK\]. Their method is completely different from ours.

In addition to its intrinsic interest, Theorem 1 has several interesting consequences. For a point $`xX`$, the subvariety $`𝒞_x=𝒞T_x(X)`$ is called the variety of minimal rational tangents at $`x`$. It is known that $`\mu ^1(x)`$ is a (not necessarily irreducible) smooth projective variety for a general point $`x`$. Kebekus showed that for a general $`x`$, the restriction of the tangent map to the fiber at $`x`$, $`\tau _x:\mu ^1(x)𝒞_x`$ is a finite morphism (\[Ke, Theorem 3.4\]). Thus Theorem 1 has the following consequence.

###### Corollary 1

For any uniruled projective manifold and a minimal component, the normalization of the variety of minimal rational tangents at a general point is smooth.

This has an application to the rigidity of generically finite morphisms to Fano manifolds of Picard number 1. We say that $`𝒞_x`$ is non-linear, if one (hence all) of the components of $`𝒞_x`$ is not a linear sub-variety of $`T_x(X)`$. We will prove

###### Theorem 3

Let $`\chi :𝒳\mathrm{\Delta }:=\{t,|t|<1\}`$ be a regular family of Fano manifolds of Picard number 1 so that $`X_0=\chi ^1(0)`$ has a minimal component whose variety of minimal rational tangents at a general point is non-linear. For a given projective manifold $`X^{}`$, suppose there exists a surjective morphism $`f:𝒳^{}=X^{}\times \mathrm{\Delta }𝒳`$ respecting the projections to $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ so that $`f_t:X^{}X_t`$ is a generically finite morphism for each $`t\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Then there exists $`ϵ>0`$ and a holomorphic family of biholomorphic morphisms $`v_t:X_oX_t`$ for $`|t|<ϵ`$, satisfying $`v_0=\text{Id}`$ and $`f_t=v_tf_o`$.

One interesting consequence is the following.

###### Theorem 4

Let $`G/P`$ be a rational homogeneous space of Picard number 1. If $`f:G/PX`$ is a surjective morphism to a smooth projective variety $`X`$ of positive dimension, then either $`X^n,n=dim(G/P)`$, or $`f`$ is a biregular morphism.

This was originally proved in \[HM1\] by using quite a bit of Lie theory. The proof given here uses no Lie theory.

A natural question arising from Theorem 2 is to understand when a projective manifold $`X`$ admits a minimal component $`𝒦`$ whose variety of minimal rational tangents at a general point is non-linear. We expect the following.

###### Conjecture

For any Fano manifold of Picard number 1 excepting the projective space and for any minimal component, the variety of minimal rational tangents at a general point is non-linear if its dimension is positive. In particular, for a Fano manifold of Picard number 1 with index $`>2`$, any minimal component has non-linear varieties of minimal rational tangents at general points.

There are two ingredients of the proof of Theorem 1, the work of Cho-Miyaoka-Shepherd-Barron (\[CMS\]) and the theory of differential systems on the subvariety of the projectivized tangent bundle. Roughly speaking, \[CMS\] proves Theorem 1 in the special case when $`\tau :𝒰T(X)`$ is dominant and the theory of differential systems reduces the general case to this special case. The theory of differential systems we need will be explained in Section 2. Theorem 1 and Theorem 2 will be proved in Section 3. Theorem 3 and Threorem 4 will be proved in Section 4. We will work over the field of complex numbers.

§2. Differential systems on the subvariety of the projectivized tangent bundle

We need to study some natural distributions defined on a subvariety of the projectivized tangent bundle of a complex manifold. Since this theory does not seem to be well-known to algebraic geometers or complex analysts, we will give a full account in this section. In the standard literature, a distribution on a complex manifold means a subbundle of the tangent bundle. In this article, it will be used in a broader sense.

A distribution on an irreducible normal variety is a subbundle of the tangent bundle of a Zariski open subset of the smooth part of the normal variety. This Zariski open subset will be called the domain of definition of the distribution. The complement of the domain of definition is called the singular locus of the distribution. For simplicity, we will regard two distributions identical if they agree on the intersection of their domains of definition.

By taking local holomorphic sections, we can view a distribution $`𝒱`$ as a locally free sheaf on the domain of definition. The Lie bracket of local vector fields define a $``$-linear sheaf map $`[,]:𝒱\times 𝒱\mathrm{\Theta }`$ where $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ denotes the tangent sheaf of the domain of definition. The distribution defined by $`[𝒱,𝒱]+𝒱`$ is called the first derived system of $`𝒱`$ and is denoted by $`𝒱`$. The domain of definition of $`𝒱`$ may be different from that of $`𝒱`$. The Lie bracket defines a holomorphic vector bundle morphism $`^2𝒱\mathrm{\Theta }/𝒱`$ over the domain of definition. This section of $`Hom(^2𝒱,\mathrm{\Theta }/𝒱)`$ over the domain of definition will be called the Frobenius bracket tensor of $`𝒱`$. By abuse of notation, we will use the same notation $`[,]`$ for the Frobenius bracket tensor and the Lie bracket of vector fields. By the famous Frobenius theorem, if the Frobenius bracket tensor vanishes, or equivalently, if $`𝒱=𝒱`$, the distribution $`𝒱`$ is integrable and defines a foliation on its domain of definition. A leaf of an integrable distribution means a maximal submanifold in the domain of definition which is tangent to the given distribution. The Cauchy characteristic of $`𝒱`$ is the distribution $`Ch(𝒱)`$ which is defined at a general point $`x`$ by

$$Ch(𝒱)_x=\{v𝒱_x,[v,𝒱_x]=0\}.$$

The Cauchy characteristic of any distribution is integrable, as can be easily checked using the Jacobi identity.

Let $`\xi :YX`$ be a dominant morphism between two varieties. For a distribution $`𝒟`$ on $`X`$, $`d\xi ^{}𝒟`$ denotes the distribution on $`Y`$ defined by

$$(d\xi ^{}𝒟)_y=(d\xi _y)^1(𝒟_{\xi (y)})$$

at a general point $`yY`$ such that the differential $`d\xi _y:T_y(Y)T_{\xi (y)}(X)`$ is surjective and $`\xi (y)`$ lies in the domain of definition of $`𝒟`$. $`d\xi ^{}𝒟`$ will be called the pull-back of  $`𝒟`$ by $`\xi `$. Given a local section $`w`$ of $`𝒟`$ in a neighborhood of $`\xi (y)`$, we can find a local section $`d\xi ^{}w`$ of $`d\xi ^{}𝒟`$ in a neighborhood of $`y`$ so that $`w=d\xi _{}(d\xi ^{}w)`$. We will say that $`d\xi ^{}w`$ is a lift of $`w`$. Two different lifts of $`w`$ differ by a local vector field tangent to the fibers of $`\xi `$. The proof of the following lemma is elementary.

###### Lemma 1

For any dominant morphism $`\xi :YX`$ and a distribution $`𝒟`$ on $`X`$,

$`d\xi ^{}(𝒟)`$ $`=(d\xi ^{}𝒟)`$
$`d\xi ^{}Ch(𝒟)`$ $`=Ch(d\xi ^{}𝒟).`$
In particular, tangent vectors to the fibers of $`\xi `$ are contained in $`Ch(d\xi ^{}𝒟).`$

For the rest of this section, let us fix a complex manifold $`X`$ and a subvariety $`𝒞T(X)`$ which is dominant over $`X`$. There are two naturally defined distributions $`𝒥`$ and $`𝒫`$ on $`𝒞`$. At a general point $`\alpha 𝒞`$, they are defined by

$`𝒥_\alpha `$ $`:=(d\pi )^1(\alpha )`$
$`𝒫_\alpha `$ $`:=(d\pi )^1(\widehat{T}_\alpha (𝒞_x))`$
where $`d\pi :T_\alpha (𝒞)T_x(X)`$ is the differential of the natural projection $`\pi :𝒞X`$ at $`\alpha 𝒞,x=\pi (\alpha )`$, and $`\widehat{T}_\alpha (𝒞_x)T_x(X)`$ is the linear tangent space of $`𝒞_x:=\pi ^1(x)T_x(X)`$ at $`\alpha `$. Both $`𝒥`$ and $`𝒫`$ are canonically determined by $`𝒞`$. $`𝒥`$ has rank $`p+1`$ and $`𝒫`$ has rank $`2p+1`$, where $`p`$ is the fiber dimension of $`\pi :𝒞X`$. Also we have the trivial vertical distribution $`𝒱`$ of rank $`p`$ on $`𝒞`$ defining the fibers of $`\pi `$. Clearly, $`𝒱𝒥𝒫`$.

###### Proposition 1

In a neighborhood of a general point of $`𝒞`$, choose a line subbundle $``$ of $`𝒥`$ such that $`𝒱+=𝒥`$. Then a local section of $`𝒫`$ is of the form $`[v,f]+u+f^{}`$ where $`u,v`$ are local sections of $`𝒱`$ and $`f,f^{}`$ are local sections of $``$. In other words, $`𝒫=𝒥`$.

Proof. For notational simplicity, we will work over $`\mathrm{\Xi }:=T(X)(`$0-section$`)`$. Let $`\xi :\mathrm{\Xi }T(X)`$ be the natural $`^{}`$-bundle. Let $`\widehat{𝒞}:=\xi ^1(𝒞)`$. We will denote the restriction of $`\xi `$ to $`\widehat{𝒞}`$ by the same letter $`\xi `$. Let $`\widehat{𝒥}:=d\xi ^{}𝒥,\widehat{𝒫}:=d\xi ^{}𝒫,\widehat{𝒱}:=d\xi ^{}𝒱`$, and $`\widehat{}:=d\xi ^{}`$ be the distributions pulled-back to $`\widehat{𝒞}`$. By Lemma 1, it suffices to check that $`\widehat{𝒫}=\widehat{𝒥}`$.

We start with $`\widehat{𝒥}\widehat{𝒫}`$. It suffices to show $`[\widehat{𝒱},\widehat{}]\widehat{𝒫}`$. Let $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_n`$ be a local coordinate system on $`X`$. Let $`\lambda _1=dx_1,\mathrm{},\lambda _n=dx_n`$ be linear coordinates in the vertical direction of $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$. Let $`\widehat{v}=_iv_i\frac{}{\lambda _i}`$ be a lift of a local section of $`𝒱`$ and $`\widehat{f}=_if_i\frac{}{\lambda _i}+\zeta _j\lambda _j\frac{}{x_j}`$ be a lift of a local section of $``$ over a small open set in $`\widehat{𝒞}`$. Here $`v_i,f_i,\zeta `$ are suitable local holomorphic functions. Dividing by $`\zeta `$ and looking at generic points outside the zero set of $`\zeta `$, we may assume that $`\zeta 1`$. Then $`[\widehat{v},\widehat{f}]=_iv_i\frac{}{x_i}`$ modulo $`\widehat{𝒱}`$. But this is precisely the vectors $`\widehat{v}`$ viewed as the tangent vectors to $`X`$. Hence $`[\widehat{v},\widehat{f}]\widehat{𝒫}`$.

From the above expression of $`[\widehat{v},\widehat{f}]`$ modulo $`\widehat{𝒱}`$, we see that the rank of $`\widehat{𝒥}`$ is higher than the rank of $`\widehat{𝒥}`$ by at least $`p`$, which shows $`\widehat{𝒥}=\widehat{𝒫}`$. ∎

We will describe the Frobenius bracket tensor of the distribution $`𝒫`$ in terms of the projective geometry of $`𝒞_x`$. For this, we recall the definitions of the second fundamental form of a subvariety in the projective space.

Let $`V`$ be a complex vector space and $`ZV`$ be a subvariety of the projective space. For a smooth point $`xZ`$, we are going to define a symmetric bilinear form $`II_{x,Z}:T_x(Z)T_x(Z)N_x(Z;V)`$, called the second fundamental form of $`Z`$ at $`x`$ as follows. Let $`\xi :V0V`$ be the natural $`^{}`$-bundle. We denote $`\xi ^1(x)`$ by $`\widehat{x}`$ and $`\xi ^1(Z)`$ by $`\widehat{Z}`$. Let $`\widehat{T}_x(Z)V`$ be the affine tangent space of $`Z`$ at $`x`$ which can be naturally identified with the tangent space $`T_{\overline{x}}(\widehat{Z})`$ of $`\widehat{Z}`$ at any point $`\overline{x}`$ of $`\widehat{x}`$. We have natural identifications

$`T_x(Z)`$ $`=Hom(\widehat{x},\widehat{T}_x(Z)/\widehat{x})`$
$`N_x(Z;V)`$ $`=Hom(\widehat{x},V/\widehat{T}_x(Z)).`$
Given two elements $`u_o`$ and $`v_o`$ of $`T_x(Z)`$, choose local vector fields $`u`$ and $`v`$ on $`Z`$ with $`u_x=u_o`$ and $`v_o=v`$. Let $`\widehat{u}`$ and $`\widehat{v}`$ be their lifts in an open subset of $`\widehat{Z}`$. We extend them to local vector fields in an open subset of $`V0`$ and denote these extended vector fields by the same symbols. In terms of a linear coordinate system $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_n`$ on $`V`$, we can write

$`\widehat{u}`$ $`=u_1{\displaystyle \frac{}{x_1}}+\mathrm{}+u_n{\displaystyle \frac{}{x_n}}`$
$`\widehat{v}`$ $`=v_1{\displaystyle \frac{}{x_1}}+\mathrm{}+v_n{\displaystyle \frac{}{x_n}}.`$
We define

$`\widehat{v}(\widehat{u})`$ $`:={\displaystyle \underset{i,j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}v_i{\displaystyle \frac{u_j}{x_i}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{x_j}}`$
$`\widehat{u}(\widehat{v})`$ $`:={\displaystyle \underset{i,j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}u_i{\displaystyle \frac{v_j}{x_i}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{x_j}}.`$
These are local vector fields on $`V0`$. They are not necessarily tangent to $`\widehat{Z}`$, but

$$\widehat{v}(\widehat{u})\widehat{u}(\widehat{v})=[\widehat{v},\widehat{u}]$$

is a lift of the local vector field $`[v,u]`$ on $`Z`$. We denote the value of $`\widehat{v}(\widehat{u})`$ at a point $`\overline{x}\widehat{x}`$ modulo $`\widehat{T}_x(Z)=T_{\overline{x}}(\widehat{Z})`$ by $`\widehat{II}_{\overline{z}}(u_o,v_o)`$. It is easy to see that this vector in $`V/\widehat{T}_x(Z)`$ is independent of the choices of $`u,v,\widehat{u},`$ or $`\widehat{v}`$ and it depends linearly on the choice of $`\overline{x}\widehat{x}`$. In other words, $`\overline{x}\widehat{II}_{\overline{x}}(u_o,v_o)`$ defines an element of $`Hom(\widehat{x},V/\widehat{T}_x(Z))=N_x(Z;V)`$. This element of $`N_x(Z;V)`$ is defined to be $`II_{x,Z}(u_o,v_o)`$. From the fact that $`[\widehat{u},\widehat{v}]`$ is tangent to $`\widehat{Z}`$, we can see the symmetry $`II_{x,Z}(u_o,v_o)=II_{x,Z}(v_o,u_o)`$.

Another equivalent definition of the second fundamental form is via the Gauss map. The Gauss map $`\gamma :ZGr(dimZ+1;V)`$ is a rational map assigning the tangent spaces to $`Z`$ at smooth points of $`Z`$. In other words, it is defined by $`\gamma (x)=[\widehat{T}_x(Z)]`$ at a smooth point $`xZ`$.

The derivative of the Gauss map

$$d\gamma _x:T_x(Z)T_{[\widehat{T}_x(Z)]}(Gr(dimZ+1;V))=Hom(\widehat{T}_x(Z),V/\widehat{T}_x(Z))$$

induces an element of $`T_x(Z)T_x(Z)N_x(Z;V)`$ and one can check that our definition of $`II_{x,Z}`$ is just an explicit coordinate description of this element. The following result is classical:

###### Lemma 2 (\[GH, 2.10\])

The closures of the fibers of the Gauss map are linear subspaces in $`V`$.

Now we are ready to describe the Frobenius bracket of $`𝒫`$:

###### Proposition 2

Let $`\alpha 𝒞`$. Choose a local complement $``$ as in Proposition 1 and a section $`f`$ of $``$ near $`\alpha `$. Given two vectors $`u_o`$ and $`v_o`$ in $`T_\alpha (𝒞_x)`$ with $`x=\pi (\alpha )`$, let $`u`$ (resp. $`v`$) be a local vector field on a neighborhood of $`\alpha `$ in $`𝒞`$ tangent to fibers of $`\pi `$ such that $`u_\alpha =u_o`$ (resp. $`v_\alpha =v_o`$). Let $`[v,f]_\alpha `$ be the value of the local vector fields $`[v,f]`$ on $`𝒞`$ at the point $`\alpha `$. Then the Frobenius bracket tensor for the distribution $`𝒫`$ at $`\alpha `$

$`[,]:{\displaystyle \stackrel{2}{}}𝒫_\alpha `$ $`T_\alpha (𝒞)/𝒫_\alpha `$
$`=T_x(X)/\widehat{T}_\alpha (𝒞_x)`$
$`=\widehat{x}N_\alpha (𝒞_x;T_x(X))`$
satisfies

$$[u,[v,f]_\alpha ]=\pi _{}f_\alpha II_{\alpha ,𝒞_x}(u,v)\widehat{x}N_\alpha (𝒞_x;T_x(X))$$

where $`f_\alpha _\alpha `$ denotes the value of $`f`$ at $`\alpha `$, which is contained in $`𝒥_\alpha `$ so that $`\pi _{}f_\alpha \widehat{x}`$.

Proof. We will work on $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ as in the proof of Proposition 1. Choose local coordinate systems $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_n`$ of $`X`$ and vertical coordinates $`\lambda _1=dx_1,\mathrm{},\lambda _n=dx_n`$ of $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$. We choose lifts $`\widehat{v}=_iv_i\frac{}{\lambda _i}`$ and $`\widehat{u}=_iu_i\frac{}{\lambda _i}`$. As in the proof of Proposition 1, we may choose $`\widehat{f}=_if_i\frac{}{\lambda _i}+_j\lambda _j\frac{}{x_j}`$. Then

$`[\widehat{v},\widehat{f}]`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}v_i{\displaystyle \frac{}{x_i}}+{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}(\widehat{v}(f_i)\widehat{f}(v_i)){\displaystyle \frac{}{\lambda _i}}`$
$`[\widehat{u},[\widehat{v},\widehat{f}]]`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\widehat{u}(v_i){\displaystyle \frac{}{x_i}}mod\widehat{𝒱}.`$
Restricting $`\widehat{u}`$ and $`\widehat{v}`$ to $`\widehat{𝒞}_x`$, we wee that $`[u,[v,f]]=\widehat{II}_{\alpha ,𝒞_x}(u,v)`$. ∎

Using Lemma 2, we can define a sub-distribution $`𝒢`$ of $`𝒱`$ which consists of tangent vectors to fibers of the Gauss map for $`𝒞_x`$ as $`x`$ varies. This distribution is integrable. An immediate consequence of Proposition 2 is

###### Proposition 3

In the notation above, $`𝒢=Ch(𝒫)𝒱`$.

This enables us to describe $`Ch(𝒫)`$ in terms of the Gauss map for $`𝒞_x`$ as follows.

###### Proposition 4

If there exists a complement $``$ to $`𝒱`$ in $`𝒥`$ in an open subset of $`𝒞`$ so that $`Ch(𝒫)`$, then $`Ch(𝒫)=+𝒢+[,𝒢]`$ on that open subset. In this case, if the rank of $`𝒢`$ is $`k1`$ for some $`k>0`$, then the rank of $`Ch(𝒫)`$ is $`2k1`$.

Proof. From Proposition 3 and the fact that $`Ch(𝒫)`$ is closed under Lie bracket, the inclusion $`+𝒢+[,𝒢]Ch(𝒫)`$ is immediate. We know that any local section of $`Ch(𝒫)`$ can be written as $`f_1+v_1+[f_2,v_2]`$ for some local sections $`f_1,f_2`$ of $``$ and $`v_1,v_2`$ of $`𝒱`$ from Proposition 1. We want to show that this local section is in $`+𝒢+[,𝒢]`$. It suffices to show that $`v_2`$ is a section of $`Ch(𝒫)`$. In fact, if $`v_2`$ is a section of $`Ch(𝒫)`$, it is a section of $`𝒢`$ from Proposition 3 and so $`[f_2,v_2][,𝒢]`$. As a consequence, we have $`v_1Ch(𝒫)𝒱=𝒢`$, which proves Proposition 4. To show that $`v_2`$ is a section of $`Ch(𝒫)`$, we need to check that $`[v_2,h]`$ is a section of $`𝒫`$ for any local section $`h`$ of $`𝒫`$. From Proposition 1, we can set $`h=f_3+v_3+[f_4,v_4]`$. Then

$`[v_2,h]`$ $`=[v_2,f_3+v_3+[f_3,v_4]`$
$`=[v_2,f_3]+[v_2,v_3]+[v_2,[f_3,v_4]]`$
$`=[v_2,f_3]+[v_2,v_3]+[v_4,[f_3,v_2]]+[f_3,[v_2,v_4]].`$
So it suffices to show that $`[v_4,[f_3,v_2]]`$ is a section of $`𝒫`$. Since $`f_1+v_1+[f_2,v_2]`$ is a section of $`Ch(𝒫)`$, we see that $`[v_4,f_1+v_1+[f_2,v_2]]`$ is a section of $`𝒫`$. Thus $`[v_4,[f_2,v_2]]`$ is a section of $`𝒫`$. This implies that $`[v_4,[f_3,v_2]]`$ is a section of $`𝒫`$ because $`f_3=\zeta f_2`$ for some local holomorphic function $`\zeta `$.

Finally, the statement about the ranks follows from the local coordinate expression of $`[,𝒢]`$ as in the proof of Proposition 1. ∎

###### Proposition 5

Suppose there exists a local complement $``$ to $`𝒱`$ in $`𝒥`$ as in Proposition 4. Let $`S`$ be a local leaf of $`Ch(𝒫)`$ in an open neighborhood of the domain of definition of $`Ch(𝒫)`$ where $``$ is a well-defined foliation. Then $`S`$ is an open subset in $`T(\pi (S))`$.

Proof. Since the leaves of $``$ in $`S`$ are sent to holomorphic curves in $`\pi (S)`$, we see that $`ST(\pi (S))`$. Let $`k1`$ be the rank of $`𝒢`$ so that $`dimS=2k1`$. Note that the intersection of $`S`$ with a fiber $`\pi ^1(x)`$ is an open subset of the projective space in $`𝒞_x`$ which is a fiber of the Gauss map of $`𝒞_x`$. Thus we get $`dim(\pi (S))=k`$, which implies that $`dim(S)=dimT(\pi (S))`$. ∎

§3. Birationality of the tangent map

Let $`X`$ be a uniruled projective manifold and $`𝒦`$ be a minimal component. Let $`\rho :𝒰𝒦`$ and $`\mu :𝒰X`$ be the associated universal family morphisms. Since $`\tau :𝒰𝒞`$ is generically finite, there exists a Zariski open subset $`𝒰^o`$ such that $`\tau |_{𝒰^o}`$ is an etale morphism. The fibers of $`\rho :𝒰𝒦`$ can be regarded as a foliation by curves on an etale cover of an open subset of $`𝒞`$. This will be called the tautological foliation on $`𝒞`$ and denoted by $``$. This is a multi-valued foliation on $`𝒞`$.

###### Proposition 6

The tautological foliation $``$ is a univalent foliation on $`𝒞`$ if and only if the tangent map $`\tau :𝒰𝒞`$ is birational.

Proof. The univalence of $``$ when $`\tau `$ is birational is obvious. If $``$ is univalent, its leaves are curves on $`𝒞`$ whose images in $`X`$ under the projection $`\pi :𝒞X`$ are just members of $`𝒦`$. Thus $`\tau `$ must be birational from the generic injectivity of the natural map $`𝒦\text{Chow}(X)`$. ∎

Now let us apply Section 2 to the subvariety $`𝒞`$ of $`T(X)`$. We have natural foliations $`𝒱`$, $`𝒯`$ and $`𝒫`$ on $`𝒞`$ which are completely determined by the inclusion $`𝒞T(X)`$.

###### Proposition 7

In a neighborhood of a general point of $`𝒞`$, choose a complex-analytic open subset of $`𝒞`$ so that a univalent choice of the values of the tautological foliation $``$ can be made on that open subset. Denote this univalent foliation by the same symbol $``$. Then $`𝒱+=𝒯`$ in that open subset.

Proof. By the definition of $`𝒯`$, $`𝒯_\alpha =(d\pi )^1(\alpha )`$ at $`\alpha 𝒞`$, it is obvious that $`𝒯`$. Thus $`𝒱+=𝒯`$ follows from $`𝒱`$ and $`rank(𝒱)+rank()=rank(𝒯).`$

On $`𝒦`$, we have a natural distribution $``$ defined as follows. At a general point $`[h]`$ of $`𝒦`$ corresponding to a rational curve $`h:^1X`$, the bundle $`h^{}T(X)`$ on $`^1`$ splits as $`𝒪(2)𝒪(1)^p𝒪^{n1p}`$ for some non-negative integer $`p`$. Members of $`𝒦`$ having such splitting type of $`T(X)`$ are called standard rational curves. By elementary deformation theory, $`p`$ is the fiber dimension of $`\mu :𝒰X`$ and the tangent space to $`𝒦`$ is

$$T_{[h]}(𝒦)=H^0(^1,h^{}T(X))/H^0(^1,T(^1))H^0(^1,𝒪(1)^p𝒪^{n1p}).$$

The subspace of $`T_{[h]}(𝒦)`$ corresponding to the subspace $`H^0(^1,𝒪(1)^p)`$ is determined independent of the choice of the isomorphism $`h^{}T(X)𝒪(2)𝒪(1)^p𝒪^{n1p}`$. This subspace will be defined to be $`_{[h]}`$. Thus $``$ is a distribution of rank $`2p`$ on $`𝒦`$ whose domain of definition includes the open subset consisting of standard rational curves belonging to $`𝒦`$.

###### Proposition 8

The pull-back of $``$ by $`\rho `$ agrees with the pull-back of $`𝒫`$ by $`\tau `$: $`d\tau ^{}𝒫=d\rho ^{}.`$ In particular, $`Ch(𝒫)`$.

Proof. At a general point $`\alpha 𝒞`$ corresponding to the tangent direction to a general standard minimal rational curve $`h:^1X`$ with $`h(o)=x`$, we have the natural identifications

$$T_\alpha (𝒞)=H^0(^1,h^{}T(X))/H^0(^1,T(^1)𝕞_o)$$

$$T_x(X)=H^0(^1,h^{}T(X))/H^0(^1,h^{}T(X)𝕞_o).$$

Under these identifications, the projection $`d\pi :T_\alpha T_x(X)`$ corresponds to taking the value of a section in $`H^0(^1,h^{}T(X))`$ at the point $`x`$. By definition, $`𝒫_\alpha =(d\pi )^1(\widehat{T}_\alpha (𝒞_x))`$ at a generic point $`\alpha 𝒞`$. By elementary deformation theory, $`\widehat{T}_\alpha (𝒞_x)`$ is naturally isomorphic to $`(𝒪(2)𝒪(1)^p)`$-part of the splitting $`h^{}T(X)𝒪(2)𝒪(1)^p𝒪^{n1p}`$. Thus $`𝒫_\alpha `$ corresponds to the sections in $`H^0(^1,h^{}T(X))`$ whose values at $`x`$ lie in the $`𝒪(2)𝒪(1)^p`$-part of the splitting. Thus it is exactly the lift of $`_{[h]}`$ by $`\rho `$. ∎

###### Proposition 9

Let $`S`$ be a general leaf of $`Ch(𝒫)`$. Then $`\pi (S)`$ is a quasi-projective variety and contains a smooth Zariski open subset $`𝒱\pi (S)`$ such that $`T(𝒱)`$ is a Zariski dense open subset of $`S`$. Let $`𝒦^S`$ be the subvariety of $`𝒦`$ consisting of members of $`𝒦`$ lying on the closure $`\overline{S}`$ of $`\pi (S)`$. Then $`𝒦^S`$ is a minimal component of the irreducible projective variety $`\overline{S}`$. Moreover, the corresponding total space of minimal rational tangents $`𝒞^S`$ agrees with $`T(\overline{S})`$.

Proof. By Proposition 7 and Proposition 8, we can apply Proposition 5 here. The result follows from the fact that the leaves of $``$ correspond to minimal rational curves. ∎

Now we recall the following result of Cho-Miyaoka-Shepherd-Barron. Note that minimal components and their total spaces of minimal rational tangents are defined for any irreducible projective variety $`X`$ in Section 1.

###### Proposition 10 (\[CMS\])

Let $`X`$ be an irreducible normal projective variety of dimension $`n`$. Suppose there exists a minimal component $`𝒦`$ on $`X`$ such that the total space of minimal rational tangents agrees with $`T(X)`$. Then there exists a finite morphism $`^nX`$ which is etale over $`XSing(X)`$ such that the members of $`𝒦`$ are just the images of lines in $`^n`$. In particular, $`X^n`$ if $`X`$ is smooth.

A simple consequence is the following special case of Theorem 1.

###### Proposition 11

Let $`X`$ be an irreducible normal projective variety which has a minimal component $`𝒦`$ such that the total space of minimal rational tangents $`𝒞`$ agrees with $`T(X)`$. Then

(i) the tangent map $`\tau :𝒰𝒞`$ is birational and

(ii) $`𝒦`$ is the only minimal component of $`X`$.

We are ready to prove Theorem 1 and 2.

Proof of Theorem 1 and Theorem 2. Let us start with Theorem 1. By Proposition 6, it suffices to show that the tautological foliation $``$ is univalent. By Proposition 8, $``$ is contained in $`Ch(𝒫)`$ and it suffices to show that it is univalent on a general leaf $`S`$ of $`Ch(𝒫)`$. But by Proposition 9, $``$ restricted to $`S`$ is the tautological foliation for the minimal component $`𝒦^S`$ of $`\overline{S}`$ with the total space of minimal rational tangents $`𝒞^S`$ equal to $`T(\overline{S})`$. Thus $``$ is univalent on $`S`$ by Theorem Proposition 10 (i). Theorem 2 follows from the fact that $`𝒦^S`$ is the only minimal component of $`\overline{S}`$, by Proposition 10 (ii). ∎

We will finish this section with a few results about $`\pi (S)`$ in the notation of Proposition 9. A subvariety $`Y`$ in $`X`$ is called a Cauchy subvariety of the minimal component $`𝒦`$ if it is the closure of $`\pi (S)`$ for a general leaf $`S`$ of $`Ch(𝒫)`$ in the notation of Proposition 9. The following is an immediate consequence of Proposition 10.

###### Proposition 12

Let $`X`$ be a uniruled projective manifold and $`YX`$ be a Cauchy subvariety with respect to a choice of a minimal component $`𝒦`$. Let $`\stackrel{~}{Y}`$ be the normalization of a Cauchy subvariety $`Y`$. Then there exists a finite morphism $`^d\stackrel{~}{Y}`$ which is etale over $`\stackrel{~}{Y}Sing(\stackrel{~}{Y})`$ such that the members of $`𝒦`$ lying on $`Y`$ are just the images of lines in $`^d`$.

Corollary 1 has the following consequence.

###### Proposition 13

Let $`X`$ be a uniruled projective manifold and $`𝒦`$ be a minimal component. Suppose the variety of minimal rational tangents $`𝒞_x`$ is non-linear. Then for each component $`𝒞_x^1`$ of $`𝒞_x`$, the intersection of the closures of the fibers of the Gauss map for $`𝒞_x^1`$ is empty.

Proof. Suppose there exists a point $`\alpha 𝒞_x^1`$ which is the intersection of the closures of the fibers of the Gauss map. The normalization $`𝒦_x^1`$ of $`𝒞_x^1`$ is smooth by Corollary 1. The fibers of Gauss map give subvarieties of the smooth projective variety $`K_x^1`$ passing through a point $`\widehat{\alpha }𝒦_x^1`$ over $`\alpha `$. The pull-back of $`𝒪(1)`$ bundle on $`T_x(X)`$ to $`𝒦_x^1`$ gives an ample line bundle $`L`$ with respect to which the fibers of the Gauss map are linear subspaces. It follows that there exists a family of rational curves through $`\widehat{\alpha }`$ covering the whole smooth variety $`𝒦_x^1`$ such that each members have degree 1 with respect to the ample line bundle $`L`$. By Proposition 10, $`𝒦_x^1`$ must be a projective space and then $`𝒞_x^1`$ must be linear. ∎

It is well-known that a positive-dimensional family of minimal rational curves passing through a general point $`xX`$ do not have a common intersection other than $`x`$ (‘bend-and-break’). A weaker form of this fact can be generalized to Cauchy subvarieties as follows.

###### Proposition 14

Let $`X`$ be a uniruled projective manifold and $`𝒦`$ be a minimal component. Assume that $`𝒞_x`$ is non-linear for a general point $`xX`$. Let $`𝒞_x^1`$ be a component of $`𝒞_x`$. Then the irreducible family of the Cauchy subvarieties passing through $`x`$ whose tangent spaces lie in $`𝒞_x^1`$ do not have a common intersection point other than $`x`$.

Proof. Note that the non-linearity of $`𝒞_x`$ implies, by Lemma 2, that there are a positive-dimensional family $`\{Y_s\}`$, where $`s`$ is a parameter, of Cauchy subvarieties passing through $`x`$ whose tangent spaces lie in $`𝒞_x^1`$. Suppose there exists a common intersection point $`y`$ different from $`x`$. By Proposition 12, for each $`s`$, there exists a member $`C_s`$ of $`𝒦`$ passing through $`x`$ and $`y`$ lying on the Cauchy subvariety $`Y_s`$. Since there cannot exist a positive-dimensional family of minimal rational curves passing through $`x`$ and $`y`$, $`C_s`$ cannot be a family of distinct members of $`𝒦`$. It follows that a single member $`C=C_s`$ belongs to each $`Y_s`$ and $`\alpha :=T_x(C_s)`$ is in the intersection of the fibers of the Gauss map of $`𝒞_x^1`$, a contradiction to Proposition 13. ∎

§4. Rigidity of generically finite morphisms to Fano manifolds with non-linear varieties of minimal rational tangents

A weaker form of Theorem 3 was already proved in \[HM2\] where the stronger assumption that $`𝒞_x`$ has generically finite Gauss map was needed. The proof of Theorem 2 is a generalization of the argument in \[HM2\] using the result of Section 3. We start with recalling two results from \[HM2\].

###### Lemma 3 (\[HM2, Lemma 4.2\])

Let $`\pi :YX`$ be a generically finite morphism from a normal variety $`Y`$ onto a Fano manifold $`X`$ with Picard number 1. Suppose for a general member $`CX`$ belonging to a chosen minimal component $`𝒦`$, each component of the inverse image $`\pi ^1(C)`$ is birational to $`C`$ by $`\pi `$. Then $`\pi :YX`$ itself is birational.

###### Proposition 15 (\[HM2, Proof of Theorem 1.4\])

Let $`\{X_t,t\mathrm{\Delta }\}`$ be a regular family of uniruled projective manifolds. Given a minimal component $`𝒦_0`$ of $`X_0`$ with the total space of variety of minimal rational tangents $`𝒞_0T(X_0)`$, there exists $`ϵ>0`$ and a family of minimal components $`𝒦_t`$ of $`X_t,0<|t|<ϵ`$, with the total space of minimal rational tangents $`𝒞_tT(X_t)`$ having the following property: given a family of generically finite morphisms $`f_t:X^{}X_t`$ from a fixed projective manifold $`X^{}`$ and a general point $`xX^{}`$, the family of subvarieties $`(df_t)_x^1(𝒞_{t,f_t(x)})`$ in $`T_x(X^{})`$ is a constant family, i.e.

$$(df_t)^1(𝒞_{t,f_t(x)})=(df_0)^1(𝒞_{0,f_0(x)})$$

for all $`|t|<ϵ`$.

The condition of the non-linearity of the variety of minimal rational tangents is used in the following manner.

###### Proposition 16

Let $`X`$ be a Fano manifold of Picard number 1. Suppose there exists a minimal component $`𝒦`$ such that the variety of minimal rational tangents $`𝒞_x`$ at a general point $`xX`$ is non-linear of dimension $`p>0`$. Let $`X^{}`$ be another Fano manifold of Picard number 1 with a minimal dominating component $`𝒦^{}`$. Assume that the variety of minimal rational tangents $`𝒞_x^{}^{}T_x^{}(X^{})`$ at a general point $`x^{}`$ has dimension $`p`$. If there exists a quasi-projective variety $`U`$ and etale morphisms $`e:UX`$ and $`\phi :UX^{}`$ preserving varieties of minimal rational tangents in the sense that $`\phi _{}e^{}(𝒞_{e(y)})𝒞_{\phi (y)}^{}`$ for all $`yU`$, then there exists a birational map $`\mathrm{\Phi }:XX^{}`$ such that $`\phi =\mathrm{\Phi }e`$.

Proof. We define an equivalence relation on $`U`$ by $`y_1y_2`$ if $`e(y_1)=e(y_2)`$ and $`\phi (y_1)=\phi (y_2)`$. In the quotient space $`U/`$, we can find a Zariski-open subset $`\stackrel{~}{U}`$ so that the induced morphisms $`\stackrel{~}{e}:\stackrel{~}{U}X`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }:\stackrel{~}{U}X^{}`$ are étale, preserving varieties of minimal rational tangents in the above sense. For a general Cauchy subvariety $`Y`$ of $`𝒦`$, any component $`Y_1`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{e}^1(Y)`$ is sent to a Cauchy subvariety of $`𝒦^{}`$ because Cauchy subvarieties are completely determined by the geometry of the total space of minimal rational tangents in $`T(X)`$ and $`T(X^{})`$.

We claim that $`\stackrel{~}{e}`$ is injective. Suppose not. Then by Lemma 3, for a general member $`C`$ of $`𝒦`$, there exists a component $`\widehat{C}`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{e}^1(C)`$ so that $`\stackrel{~}{e}|_{\widehat{C}}:\widehat{C}C`$ is not birational. Choose a general point $`xC`$ and let $`y_1y_2`$ be points of $`\widehat{C}`$ over $`x`$. By the construction of $`\widehat{U}`$ we can assume that $`\widehat{\phi }(y_1)\widehat{\phi }(y_2)`$. Since $`C`$ is general, we can assume that for $`p`$-dimensional deformations $`C_t`$ of $`C`$ fixing $`x`$, the collection of some components $`\widehat{C}_t`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{e}^1(C_t)`$ gives a $`p`$-dimensional deformations of $`\widehat{C}`$ fixing $`y_1`$ and $`y_2`$. For the Cauchy subvariety $`S_t`$ containing $`C_t`$, $`\stackrel{~}{e}^1(S_t)`$ contains an irreducible component $`Z_t`$ containing both $`y_1`$ and $`y_2`$. Thus we have a component $`𝒞^1`$ of the variety of minimal rational tangents $`𝒞_{\widehat{\phi }(y_1)}^{}`$ and a component $`𝒞^2`$ of the variety of minimal rational tangents $`𝒞_{\widehat{\phi }(y_2)}^{}`$ such that the Cauchy subvarieties corresponding to $`𝒞^1`$ and the Cauchy subvarieties corresponding to $`𝒞^2`$ are equal. This is a contradiction to Proposition 14. ∎

Proof of Theorem 3. Suppose that $`f`$ is birational. Then $`f`$ is biholomorphic over $`𝒳𝒵`$ where $`𝒵`$ is a subvariety of codimension $`2`$. On $`𝒳^{}`$ we have the vector field $`𝒱`$ lifting $`\frac{d}{dt}`$ on $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Its push-forward $`f_{}𝒱`$ is a vector field on $`𝒳𝒵`$. By Hartogs, we can extend it to a vector field on $`𝒳`$ which generates the required family of biholomorphic morphisms.

Suppose that $`f_t`$ is not birational, but generically $`d`$-to-1. We will construct a new projective manifold $`\widehat{X}`$, a generically finite dominant rational map $`\nu :X^{}\widehat{X}`$ of degree $`d`$ and a holomorphic family of birational morphisms $`g_t:\widehat{X}X_t`$ for small $`t`$, so that $`f_t=g_t\nu `$ over general points of $`X^{}`$. Then the proof is reduced to the birational case, which is already settled above.

Let $`𝒦^0`$ be the minimal component on $`X_0`$ with the total space of minimal rational tangents $`𝒞^0T(X_0)`$ whose fiber over a general point of $`X_0`$ consists of non-linear subvarietes. Applying Proposition 15, there exists some $`ϵ>0`$ and a minimal component $`𝒦_t`$ of $`X_t`$ for $`0<|t|<ϵ`$ such that the total space of minimal rational tangents $`𝒞^t`$ satisfies

$$(df_t)_y^1(𝒞_{f_t(y)}^t)=(df_0)_y^1(𝒞_{f_0(y)}^0).$$

Fix such a small $`t=s`$. There exists an open subset $`UX^{}`$ which is etale over $`X_0`$ and $`X_s`$ by $`f_0`$ and $`f_s`$. The above equality of the inverse image of the varieties of minimal rational tangents at $`f_s(y)`$ and $`f_0(y)`$ implies that the hypothesis of Proposition 16 is satisfied for the etale morphisms $`f_s|_U`$ and $`f_0|_U`$. Thus there exists a birational map $`\mathrm{\Phi }:X_0X_s`$ such that $`f_s|_U=\mathrm{\Phi }f_0|U`$.

We say that a reduced 0-cycle $`y_1+\mathrm{}+y_d`$ of length $`d`$ on $`X^{}`$ is a special cycle if $`f_0(y_1)=\mathrm{}=f_0(y_d)`$ and $`f_s(y_1)=\mathrm{}=f_s(y_d)`$. From the existence of the birational map $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, general fibers of $`f_0`$ and $`f_s`$ are special cycles. The set of all special cycles on $`X^{}`$ gives a constructible subset of the Hilbert scheme of 0-dimensional subschemes of $`X^{}`$. We can find an irreducible component of this set so that the corresponding cycles cover an open set of $`X^{}`$. Let $`B`$ be the closure of that component and let $`\sigma :AB`$ and $`\lambda :AX^{}`$ be the universal family morphisms so that $`\sigma `$ is flat and of degree $`d`$. We claim that $`\lambda `$ is birational. Otherwise we have two distinct special cycles of degree $`d`$ containing a given general point $`y`$ of $`X^{}`$, which is absurd because $`f_0`$ and $`f_s`$ are of degree $`d`$.

Let $`\widehat{X}`$ be a desingularization of $`S`$ and $`\widehat{\sigma }:\widehat{A}\widehat{X},\widehat{\lambda }:\widehat{A}X^{}`$ be the induced morphisms. Define the rational map $`\nu :X^{}\widehat{X}`$ as $`\nu :=\widehat{\sigma }\widehat{\lambda }^1`$. Then $`\nu `$ is a generically finite dominant rational map of degree $`d`$. Consider the morphism $`\widehat{f}_s=f_s\widehat{\lambda }`$ from $`\widehat{A}`$ to $`X_s`$. From the definition of special cycles, a general fiber of $`\widehat{\sigma }`$ is contained in a fiber of $`\widehat{f}_s`$. Thus each fiber of $`\widehat{\sigma }`$ is contained in a fiber of $`\widehat{f}_s`$ by the flatness of $`\widehat{\sigma }`$. It follows that we get a birational morphism $`g_s:\widehat{X}X_s`$ satisfying $`f_s=g_s\nu `$. Since $`X^{},X_s`$ are all projective, it is easy to see that $`\{g_s\}`$ is a holomorphic family. ∎

Let $`X`$ be a Fano manifold of Picard number 1. Suppose $`X^{}`$ is a projective manifold with non-zero holomorphic vector fields. Given a generically finite morphism $`f:X^{}X`$, we get a deformation $`f_t:X^{}X`$ of $`f`$ obtained by composing it with the 1-parameter subgroup of automorphisms of $`X^{}`$ generated by the holomorphic vector fields. In this situation, Theorem 3, with $`𝒳=X\times \mathrm{\Delta }`$, implies the following.

###### Corollary 2

Let $`X`$ be a Fano manifold of Picard number 1 which has a minimal component with non-linear variety of minimal rational tangents. Then for any projective variety $`X^{}`$ and a surjective generically finite morphism $`f:X^{}X`$, any holomorphic vector field on $`X^{}`$ descends to a holomorphic vector field on $`X`$ such that $`f`$ is equivariant with respect to the 1-parameter groups of automorphisms of $`X^{}`$ and $`X`$ generated by the holomorphic vector fields.

Proof of Theorem 4. Since the Picard number of $`G/P`$ is 1, $`f`$ is finite and $`X`$ is a Fano manifold of Picard number 1. Assume that $`X\cong ̸_n`$ and pick a minimal component $`𝒦`$ on $`X`$ with $`𝒞T(X)`$ by Proposition 10.

First assume that $`𝒞_x`$ is non-linear at general $`xX`$. By Corollary 2, vector fields on $`G/P`$ descend to vector fields on $`X`$ by $`f`$. If $`RG/P`$ is a non-empty ramification divisor of $`f`$ and $`B=f(R)`$, then the image of any tangent vector of $`G/P`$ at a point $`x`$ on $`R`$ is tangent to $`B`$ whenever $`f(x)`$ is a smooth point of $`B`$. Thus all vector fields of $`G/P`$ are sent to vector fields on $`X`$ tangent to $`B`$ at smooth points of $`B`$. This implies that integral curves of any vector field of $`G/P`$ through a point of $`R`$ are sent to curves in $`B`$. In other words, the integral curves through a point of $`R`$ remain in $`R`$, a contradiction to the homogeneity of $`G/P`$.

Now we may assume that $`𝒞_x`$ is linear. Then a component of $`(df)^1(𝒞_{f(s)})T_s(S)`$ at a general point $`sS`$ is a linear space invariant under the isotropy group $`P`$ by \[HM1, Section 1\], defining a $`G`$-invariant distribution on $`G/P`$. By translating an irreducible component of the inverse image of a Cauchy subvariety, we get a proper $`G`$-invariant foliation on $`G/P`$ with compact leaves, a contradiction to the assumption that $`G/P`$ has Picard number 1. ∎

References

\[CMS\] Cho, K., Miyaoka, Y. and Shepherd-Barron, N. I.: Characterization of projective space and applications to complex symplectic manifolds. in Higher dimensional birational geometry (Kyoto, 1997), Adv. Stud. Pure Math. 35 (2002) 1-88

\[GH\] Griffiths, P. and Harris, J.: Algebraic geometry and local differential geometry. Ann. scient. Éc. Norm. Sup. 12 (1979) 355-432

\[HM1\] Hwang, J.-M. and Mok, N.: Holomorphic maps from rational homogeneous spaces of Picard number 1 onto projective manifolds. Invent. math. 136 (1999) 209-231

\[HM2\] Hwang, J.-M. and Mok, N.: Cartan-Fubini type extension of holomorphic maps for Fano manifolds of Picard number 1. Journal Math. Pures Appl. 80 (2001) 563-575

\[Ke\] Kebekus, S.: Families of singular rational curves. J. Algebraic Geom. 11 (2002) 245–256

\[KK\] Kebekus, S. and Kovacs, S.:Are minimal degree rational curves determined by their tangent vectors? preprint alg-geom/0206193

\[Ko\] Kollár, J.: Rational curves on algebraic varieties. Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete, 3 Folge, Band 32, Springer Verlag, 1996

Jun-Muk Hwang (jmhwangns.kias.re.kr)

Korea Institute for Advanced Study, 207-43 Cheongryangri-dong

Seoul 130-722, Korea

Ngaiming Mok (nmokhkucc.hku.hk)

Department of Mathematics, The University of Hong Kong

Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong


text:
# On low energy quantum gravity induced effects on the propagation of light.

## 1 Introduction

Present models describing the interaction of quantum Maxwell and gravitational fields predict a breakdown of Lorentz invariance. In the semiclassical approximation, the common feature in these models is a non standard dispersion relation which shows that the spacetime behaves as a media with a frequency dependent index of refraction . Another consequence is the selection of a preferred reference frame, namely, the one at rest with respect to the media. In geometrical terms this can be realized by the introduction of a preferred timelike vector field $`t^a`$ that serves as a universal time.

It is instructive to analyze in pure phenomenologial terms the effect of a semiclassical gravity state on the propagation of electromagnetic radiation. The effective interaction is realized by adding to the standard Maxwell equations extra terms with minimal coupling between the Maxwell field and the above mentioned timelike vector field. Although the interaction contains parity breaking and parity preserving terms, it is perhaps surprising that the only possible mesurable effect arising from our approach comes from the parity breaking interaction and it is this effect, precisely, what is predicted by the leading models on the canonical approach. The main prediction of these models is a dispersion relation that depends on the helicity and the energy of the radiation field. Our analysis also seems to rule out wave propagation that is parity invariant, and in particular recent results by John Ellis, et. al .

Note that if the dispersion relation depends on the helicity then a linearly polarized wave packet with a continuum spectra will rotate its polarization direction as it travels through space. Since the rotation depends on the energy, the wave will become totally depolarized after traveling a suitable optical path. For light coming from a cosmological source, the observation of linear polarization can be used to set a severe bound on the phenomenological coupling constant of the Gambini-Pullin model  and, as we will show in this work, essentially rule out the Sahlmann-Thiemann construction.

At this point one is tempted to ask whether or not Lorentz invariance is necessarily broken by quantum gravity. Since observational evidence seems to support Lorentz invariance, we reexamine the canonical models looking for assumptions introduced in their construction that, although natural at first sight, might not be true in the final theory. Our hope is that by suitably changing them we may preserve Lorentz invariance.

In particular, in what follows we replace their ab-initio assumption of the electric field and potential being conjugate variables by a different anzatz, namely, that the quantum Maxwell field is the curvature of the Maxwell connection. This natural assumption has the expected consequence that the resulting field equations are Lorentz invariant. Although the calculation is done at a linear level, it is very easy to extend the results to any order in the perturbation parameter. We thus conjecture that Lorentz invariance will still hold in the quantum interaction between gravitons and photons.

The work is organized as follows. In Section 2 we present a phenomenological approach to the propagation equations showing that if Lorentz invariance is broken, at most there will be a gravity induced rotation of the polarization vector. We also show that the available observational data essentialy rules out the Sahlmann-Thiemann model.

In Section 3 we assume that the Maxwell field is the curvature of a connection, namely, $`F=dA`$. Since this statement is independent of the existence of a quantum gravitational field we conjecture that it is valid for the full theory. Using the energy density of the electromagnetic field and this new assumption, we obtain different conjugate variables and thus different field equations for the Maxwell field from those obtained in previous canonical models.

Finally, in the conclusions we summarize the main results obtained in this work. Is Lorentz invariance broken when light propagates on a quantum space-time? We address this question an add our own bias on the subject.

## 2  Phenomenological equations for the propagation of light

The construction of equations for the propagation of light under the influence of effects arising from the quantum nature of gravity requires explicit assumptions about the form that we expect the low energy regime of these effects will take. In the particular case of cosmological applications, we would expect that the quantum expectation values should be in consonance with the properties of the classical metric $`g_{ab}`$, defining the classical geometry. For the standard models, this is characterized by a timelike vector field $`t^a`$, whose integral lines are the world lines of comoving observers with 4-velocity $`u^a`$. We take this as implying that the expectation values defining the (local) low energy limit should be tensor functions only of $`u^a`$, $`g_{ab}`$ and a scalar function of $`t`$, where $`t`$ is an affine parameter (“time”) for the integral lines of $`t^a`$.

In view of some recent theoretical results  we take the Maxwell tensor $`F_{ab}`$ as the fundamental physical quantity describing the electromagnetic field. Its components in a local Lorentz frame are $`F_{0i}=E_i`$ and $`F_{ij}=ϵ_{ijk}B_k`$, where $`E_i`$ and $`B_k`$ are, respectively, the components of the electric and magnetic field vectors, and where $`ϵ_{ijk}`$ is the Levi-Civita symbol. We, therefore, do not assume the existence of a vector potential $`A_a`$. In the absence of quantum gravity effects, the propagation of light is governed by the equations for the electromagnetic field $`F_{ab}`$, which may be written as

$`^aF_{}^{}{}_{ab}{}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (1)
$`^aF_{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi J_b,`$ (2)
where $`F_{}^{}{}_{ab}{}^{}`$ is the dual of $`F_{ab}`$, $`J_a`$ is the electric current, and we recall that the vanishing of the right hand side of (1) corresponds to the absence of magnetic type currents and monopoles.

The modification of these equations that we envision is the addition of terms on the right hand sides of (1) and (2), corresponding to the presence of different “effective currents” possibly resulting from quantum gravity effects and to which the electromagnetic field gets coupled. We shall restrict to terms that are linear in the electromagnetic field, assuming that non linear effects are of higher order and may be neglected in this approximation. Our phenomenological equations take the form,

$`^aF_{}^{}{}_{ab}{}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\psi _1t^aF_{ab}+\psi _2t^aF_{}^{}{}_{ab}{}^{}`$ (3)
$`+\psi _3t^at^c_cF_{ab}+\psi _4t^at^c_cF_{}^{}{}_{ab}{}^{}`$
$`+\psi _5t^at^ct^d_c[_dF_{ab}]+\psi _6t^at^ct^d_c[_dF_{}^{}{}_{ab}{}^{}]`$
$`+\psi _7t^ag^{cd}_c[_dF_{ab}]+\psi _8t^ag^{cd}_c[_dF_{}^{}{}_{ab}{}^{}],`$
$`^aF_{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi J_b+\chi _1t^aF_{ab}+\chi _2t^aF_{}^{}{}_{ab}{}^{}`$ (4)
$`+\chi _3t^at^c_cF_{ab}+\chi _4t^at^c_cF_{}^{}{}_{ab}{}^{}`$
$`+\chi _5t^at^ct^d_c[_dF_{ab}]+\chi _6t^at^ct^d_c[_dF_{}^{}{}_{ab}{}^{}]`$
$`+\chi _7t^ag^{cd}_c[_dF_{ab}]+\chi _8t^ag^{cd}_c[_dF_{}^{}{}_{ab}{}^{}].`$
In these equations we are assuming local couplings that lead to expressions in $`F_{ab}`$ and its derivatives, and we have included only terms up to second derivatives. Notice that, from our assumption of a cosmological metric we have,

$`t^a_at^b`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`^at^b^bt^a`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (5)
Similarly, from simple physical arguments, we expect the coefficients $`\chi _i`$ and $`\psi _i`$ to depend only on the scale parameter (“radius of the Universe”) of the metric, in such a way that they vanish when the Planck length $`\mathrm{}_P`$ is taken equal to zero. Note that even if some or all of the coefficients $`\chi _i`$ and $`\psi _i`$ are non zero, on observational grounds they must be small. Thus, we may consider the effect of each term separately, as any cross effects would be of higher order. This analysis is carried out in the next subsection.

### 2.1 Local Lorentz frame analysis

The equations are more easily analyzed in a local Lorentz frame, adapted to the symmetry of the metric. Namely, if the local coordinates are $`(x,y,z,t)`$, we have $`t^a=(0,0,0,1)`$. As a first approximation we also neglect curvature effects, and equate covariant to ordinary partial derivatives. Moreover, we assume $`J^a=0`$, corresponding to “vacuum” propagation, and take all $`\psi _i`$, and $`\chi _i`$ as constants.

Using the standard forms for $`F_{ab}`$ and $`F_{}^{}{}_{ab}{}^{}`$, we immediately find

$`\stackrel{}{E}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (6)
$`\stackrel{}{B}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (7)
and

$`\times \stackrel{}{E}+_t\stackrel{}{B}`$ $`=`$ $`\chi _1\stackrel{}{E}+\psi _1\stackrel{}{B}+\chi _2_t\stackrel{}{E}+\psi _2_t\stackrel{}{B}`$ (8)
$`+\chi _3_t^2\stackrel{}{E}+\psi _3_t^2\stackrel{}{B}+\chi _4^2\stackrel{}{E}+\psi _4^2\stackrel{}{B},`$
$`\times \stackrel{}{B}_t\stackrel{}{E}`$ $`=`$ $`\chi _5\stackrel{}{B}+\psi _5\stackrel{}{E}+\chi _6_t\stackrel{}{B}+\psi _6_t\stackrel{}{E}`$ (9)
$`+\chi _7_t^2\stackrel{}{B}+\psi _7_t^2\stackrel{}{E}+\chi _8^2\stackrel{}{B}+\psi _8^2\stackrel{}{E}.`$
We remark that in (8) and (9) we have regrouped some terms from (3) and (4), and renamed some constants. Notice that the factors of $`\chi _i`$ violate parity conservation. It can also be seen from (8) that the constants $`\psi _1,\mathrm{},\psi _4`$, and $`\chi _1,\mathrm{},\chi _4`$ should vanish if one assumes absence of magnetic currents. In this latter case $`F_{ab}`$ admits a vector potential $`A_a`$. This situation will be analyzed in the next Section.

### 2.2 Plane waves

We look now for plane wave solutions traveling along the z-axis. In this case, on account of (6), we should have,

$`\stackrel{}{E}`$ $`=`$ $`\text{Re}\left\{(E_x\widehat{e}_x+E_y\widehat{e}_y)\mathrm{exp}(i(\omega tkz))\right\},`$
$`\stackrel{}{B}`$ $`=`$ $`\text{Re}\left\{(B_x\widehat{e}_x+B_y\widehat{e}_y)\mathrm{exp}(i(\omega tkz))\right\}.`$ (10)
Replacing (2.2) in (8) and (9) we find the general form for the dispersion relation $`k=k(\omega ,\chi _i,\psi _i)`$. In view of the smallness of $`\chi _i`$ and $`\psi _i`$, this may be expanded up to linear order in this coefficients, but it will be convenient to keep higher order terms. If we consider separately terms by their order of derivatives, and their parity conserving or violating character we find, in the parity conserving cases:

$`k`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{\omega ^2+2i\omega (\psi _1+\psi _5)4\psi _1\psi _5}`$ (11)
$``$ $`\omega +i(\psi _1+\psi _5),`$
$`k`$ $`=`$ $`\omega \sqrt{(12(\psi _2+\psi _6)+4\psi _2\psi _6)}`$ (12)
$``$ $`\omega [1(\psi _2+\psi _6)],`$
$`k`$ $`=`$ $`\omega \sqrt{\left[12i\omega (\psi _3+\psi _7)4\omega ^2\psi _3\psi _7\right]}`$ (13)
$``$ $`\omega [1i\omega (\psi _3+\psi _7)],`$
$`k`$ $`=`$ $`\omega \left[\sqrt{1k^2(\psi _4\psi _8)^2}+ik(\psi _4+\psi _8)\right]^1`$ (14)
$``$ $`\omega [1i\omega (\psi _4+\psi _8)],`$
and for the parity violating cases:

$`k`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{\omega ^2\pm 2k(\chi _1\chi _5)+4\chi _1\chi _5)}`$ (15)
$``$ $`\omega \pm (\chi _1\chi _5),`$
$`k`$ $`=`$ $`\omega \left[\sqrt{1(\chi _2+\chi _6)^2}\pm i(\chi _2\chi _6)\right]`$ (16)
$``$ $`\omega [1\pm i(\chi _2\chi _6)],`$
$`k`$ $`=`$ $`\omega \left[\sqrt{1+\omega ^2(\chi _3+\chi _7)^2}\pm \omega (\chi _3\chi _7)\right]`$ (17)
$``$ $`\omega [1\pm \omega (\chi _3\chi _7)],`$
$`k`$ $`=`$ $`\omega \left[1\pm 2k(\chi _4\chi _8)4k^2\chi _4\chi _8\right]^{1/2}`$ (18)
$``$ $`\omega [1\pm \omega (\chi _4\chi _8)].`$
If we use these results to obtain the corresponding amplitudes, we find that in the parity conserving cases there is a single mode of propagation, and the polarization of a plane polarized wave is preserved in time, while in the parity violating cases there are two modes, one corresponding to right, and the other the left circular polarization. Possible observational effects for these cases have been discussed in .

Considering now particular cases, we see that (11) corresponds to a frequency independent amplification or attenuation (depending on the sign of $`\psi _1+\psi _5`$) of the wave amplitude with time, with no effects on the polarization. The effect would be absent for $`\psi _1=\psi _5`$, but this would still leave a term quadratic in $`\psi _1`$, that would behave as a tachyonic mass added to the photon. The important question here is the order of magnitude of these couplings. In the absence of a theory we may only conjecture that we would expect these to be of the order of the corresponding dimensional quantities that characterize the model. In our case these are the Planck length $`\mathrm{}_P`$, and time $`t_P`$ and possibly, for instance, the radius (or scale) $`a(T)`$, and age $`T`$ (or the Hubble constant $`H=\dot{a}/a`$) of the Universe. Then, since $`\psi _1`$ and $`\psi _5`$ should have dimension \[length\]<sup>-1</sup>, one would expect these quantities to be of the order of $`t_PH^2`$, which, after multiplication by the time to travel through cosmological distances, is too small to have any phenomenological relevance.

In the case (12) we have a frequency independent change in the velocity of the waves, which would be larger or smaller than that of light, depending on the sign of $`\psi _2+\psi _6`$. Since $`\psi _2`$ and $`\psi _6`$ are dimensionless, an estimate for them could be $`t_PH`$, which is again too small for observable consequences.

The case (14) is conceptually similar to (11), leading again to amplification or attenuation of the waves. However, in this case $`\psi _4`$ and $`\psi _8`$ have dimension of $`[length]`$. Then, if we take them to be of the order of $`\mathrm{}_P`$, the relevant quantity would be of order $`\mathrm{}_PL/\lambda ^2`$, where $`\lambda `$ is wavelength of the wave and $`L`$ of the order of the distance to cosmological sources. Perhaps surprisingly, if we assume $`\lambda =10^5cm`$, (for visible light), and $`L=10^9ly`$, we find already $`\mathrm{}_PL/\lambda ^210^3`$. This would imply that visible light would not reach us but, in fact, not only visible light but also $`\gamma `$-rays are observed from cosmological sources. This implies that either $`\psi _4`$ and $`\psi _8`$ are much smaller than this scale or $`\psi _4\psi _8`$. If we take $`\psi _4=\psi _8`$, we find $`k\omega 2\psi _8^2\omega ^3`$. This implies a group velocity $`v_g=16\psi _8^2\omega ^2`$ which, even for high energy $`\gamma `$-rays and cosmological times, gives an effect that is too small for observable consequences.

The case (13) is similar to (14), but here we might question if it is acceptable to have second order time derivatives on the right hand side of the equation, or we should disregard this possibility.

Similar considerations regarding orders of magnitude and observability hold for the parity violating cases (15), (16), (17), and (18). The last case, with $`\chi _4=\chi _8`$, was obtained in . We notice however that the available observational data indicates that $`\chi _410^4`$, much smaller than the expected value of order one.

It is worth mentioning that the same observational data can be used to test the validity of a recent result that also predicts a rotation of the polarization vector . Denoting by $`D`$ the cosmological distance to the source of the incoming radiation, by $`\theta _{GP}=\chi \mathrm{}_Pk^2D`$ and $`\theta _{ST}=\mathrm{}_P^{2\alpha }L^{12\alpha }k^2D`$ the rotation angle of the polarization direction obtained by Gambini-Pullin and Sahlmann-Thiemann respectively, and comparing the uncertainty of these angles with the observational data, one obtains the following restriction for the constants $`\alpha `$ and $`L`$,

$$\left(\frac{\mathrm{}_P}{L}\right)^{2\alpha 1}\chi 10^4.$$

However, these constants must satisfy the following inequalities $`0<\alpha <\frac{1}{2}`$ and $`L>>\mathrm{}_P`$, which clearly violate the above equation. This would suggest that the kinematical states used by the authors to derive their equations cannot be considered as semiclassical states.

## 3 The interaction between the gravitational and electromagnetic fields

In this section we first review the standard classical Lagrangian and Hamiltonian formulation of coupled Maxwell and gravitational fields. This review is then used to argue that, even when we promote the fields to quantum operators, there will always be relations that remain valid for the quantum theory.

The maxwell field on a curved spacetime is given by an exact 2-form

$$F=dA,$$

with $`A`$ the Maxwell connection 1-form. Given a local coordinate system with timelike and spacelike coordinate vectors $`e_o^a`$ and $`e_i^a`$ respectively, we define the electric and magnetic fields as $`E_i=F_{io}`$ and $`B_i=ϵ_{ijk}F_{jk}`$, where $`ϵ_{ijk}`$ is the Levi-Civita symbol. With these definitions (and assuming that $`A_o=0`$ since we are only concerned with propagating waves) the relations between the fields and the potential can be written as

$$E_i=_tA_i,$$
(19)
and

$$B_i=ϵ_{ijk}_jA_k.$$
(20)
Note that these relations do not depend on any metric and are just the coordinate components of the above equation.

Assume now that we give any Lagrangian density $`=(F,g)`$ describing the coupling between the Maxwell and gravitational field. By definition, the Maxwell field will satisfy

$$dF=0,$$

since it is not part of the Euler-Lagrange equations of motion. The coupling between the metric and electromagnetic fields will of course depend on the detailed form of the Lagrangian density. In particular, for

$$_{}=\frac{1}{2}F{}_{}{}^{}F$$
(21)
we obtain the standard field equations

$$d^{}F=0,$$

but we will allow for more general types of couplings that might arise from the semiclassical aproximation when we promote the classical fields to quantum operators. To construct a Hamiltonian formulation we first define the canonical momentum conjugated to $`A_i`$

$$\pi ^i=\frac{}{(_tA_i)}$$

and then invert this relation to obtain

$$_tA_i=G_i(\pi ^j,A_k).$$
(22)
The Legendre transformation $`=\pi ^iG_i`$ then gives the desired Hamiltonian density. Note that, by construction, the hamilton equation of motion for $`A_i`$ will be (22). Note also that, regardless of the form of $`G_i`$, $`E_i`$ must satisfy equation (19). Thus, we expect that for a non-standard interaction Hamiltonian, $`E_i`$ will not be the conjugate momentum to $`A_i`$.

If we now promote the classical fields to quantum operators $`(\widehat{A},\widehat{F},\widehat{g})`$ we might expect several changes in the quantum hamiltonian but the basic definitions should remain valid. For example,

$$\widehat{F}=d\widehat{A},$$

says that $`\widehat{F}`$ is still the curvature of $`\widehat{A}`$. Thus, the equation

$$d\widehat{F}=0,$$

should hold as an identity for $`\widehat{A}`$. Moreover, the above relation does not depend on $`\widehat{g}`$, therefore even if we must regularize the metric operator it should remain unchanged. Even if we take expectation values of this relation and assume the state is a direct product of a coherent state for the Maxwell field and a “semiclassical state” for the gravitational field one should reobtain

$$F_{class}=dA_{class},dF_{class}=0,$$

at least at a semiclassical approximation. Thus, the plan is as follows:

1. We start by impossing $`\widehat{F}=d\widehat{A}`$.
2. We then take the regularized energy density of the electromagnetic field written in terms of $`E_i`$ and $`B_i`$ and write a modified relation between $`E_i`$ and $`\pi ^i`$ so that, via the hamilton equations, the relation

$$E_i=_tA_i$$

holds order by order in a perturbation expansion.
3. With the desired relation $`E_i=G_i`$ we obtain the second equation of motion for $`\pi ^i`$ and then rewrite the final result as a modified set of equations for the Maxwell fields.

### 3.1 The phenomenological Hamiltonian and Lagrangian densities

Following the Gambini-Pullin approach, the phenomenological interaction Hamiltonian density (obtained by taking expectation values of the regularized quantum hamiltonian with coherent states for the Maxwell field and “weave states” for the gravitational field) is given by,

$$_{}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\stackrel{}{E}^2+\stackrel{}{B}^2\right)+\chi l_p\left(\stackrel{}{E}\stackrel{}{}\times \stackrel{}{E}+\stackrel{}{B}\stackrel{}{}\times \stackrel{}{B}\right).$$
(23)
where $`\chi `$ is a phenomenological coupling constant that destroys parity invariance.

The relationship between the fields and the conjugate variables $`(\stackrel{}{A},\stackrel{}{\pi })`$ is, by assumption, given by

$`\stackrel{}{B}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{}{}\times \stackrel{}{A}`$ (24)
$`\stackrel{}{E}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{}{\pi }+\chi l_p\stackrel{}{F}[\stackrel{}{\pi }],`$ (25)
where we have adopted the vectorial notation for ease of writing and where $`\stackrel{}{F}[\stackrel{}{\pi }]`$ is a function of $`\stackrel{}{\pi }`$ and its derivatives. If we now insert these relations in the above Hamiltonian and impose that $`\stackrel{}{E}=_t\stackrel{}{A}`$ (which must be true by definition), the functional $`\stackrel{}{F}`$ is determined in a unique way via the Hamilton equation for $`\stackrel{}{A}`$, leading to

$$\stackrel{}{E}=\stackrel{}{\pi }+2\chi l_p\stackrel{}{}\times \stackrel{}{\pi }.$$
(26)
This allows us to obtain the second equation of motion for $`\stackrel{}{\pi }`$. Hamilton equations for the conjugate variables then read

$`_t\stackrel{}{A}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{}{\pi }2\chi l_p\stackrel{}{}\times \stackrel{}{\pi },`$ (27)
$`_t\stackrel{}{\pi }`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{}{}\times \stackrel{}{}\times (\stackrel{}{A}+2\chi l_p\stackrel{}{}\times \stackrel{}{A}).`$ (28)
Combining these equations and assuming the Coulomb gauge we obtain

$$(_t^2^2)\stackrel{}{A}=𝒪\left((\chi l_p)^2\right).$$
(29)
Alternatively, we can derive Maxwell’s equations for the electric and magnetic fields yielding

$`\times \stackrel{}{B}_t\stackrel{}{E}`$ $`=`$ $`𝒪\left((\chi l_p)^2\right),`$ (30)
$`\times \stackrel{}{E}+_t\stackrel{}{B}`$ $`=`$ $`𝒪\left((\chi l_p)^2\right),`$ (31)
$`\stackrel{}{E}`$ $`=`$ $`𝒪\left((\chi l_p)^2\right),`$ (32)
$`\stackrel{}{B}`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (33)
Remarks:

* Note that our field equations are Lorentz invariant and have a standard dispersion relation.
* Starting from the same eq. (23), Gambini and Pullin assumed a different relation between the electric field and the momentum, namely $`\stackrel{}{E}=\stackrel{}{\pi }`$. This assumption leads to the following equations of motion for the conjugate pair,

$`_t\stackrel{}{A}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\stackrel{}{E}+2\chi l_p\times \stackrel{}{E}\right),`$ (34)
$`_t\stackrel{}{E}`$ $`=`$ $`\times \left(\stackrel{}{B}+2\chi l_p\times \stackrel{}{B}\right).`$ (35)
In terms of the fields, the equations can be rewritten as

$`\times \stackrel{}{B}_t\stackrel{}{E}`$ $`=`$ $`2\chi l_p^2\stackrel{}{B},`$ (36)
$`\times \stackrel{}{E}+_t\stackrel{}{B}`$ $`=`$ $`2\chi l_p^2\stackrel{}{E},`$ (37)
which, unlike the ones we obtained, are not Lorentz invariant. It is important to notice that this breakdown of invariance follows from the assumption that $`\stackrel{}{E}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{A}`$ are canonical variables. Although this is the case for the classical theory, it might not remain valid when we promote the fields to quantum operators. On the other hand, the quantum version of $`\stackrel{}{E}=_t\stackrel{}{A}`$ should remain valid since this is just a consequence of $`F=dA`$. We therefore conjecture that the homogeneous Maxwell equations, contained in $`F=dA`$, should remain unchanged for the full theory.
* It is worth mentioning that using a completely different quantization procedure Ellis et. al. obtain a generalized set of Maxwell equations that keep the homogeneous part unchanged.

It is also possible to derive, up to linear order in $`\chi `$, the Lagrangian density associated to the Hamiltonian (23), via the Legendre transformation $`=\pi ^i_tA_i`$. If we invert (26) we get

$$\stackrel{}{\pi }=\stackrel{}{E}2\chi l_p\stackrel{}{}\times \stackrel{}{E},$$
(38)
which leads to the following Lagrangian density

$$_{}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\stackrel{}{E}^2\stackrel{}{B}^2\right)+\chi l_p\left(\stackrel{}{E}\stackrel{}{}\times \stackrel{}{E}\stackrel{}{B}\stackrel{}{}\times \stackrel{}{B}\right).$$
(39)
The Euler-Lagrange equation of motion for the potential can be written in terms of the fields as:

$$\times \stackrel{}{B}_t\stackrel{}{E}=2\chi l_p\times \left(\times \stackrel{}{B}_t\stackrel{}{E}\right)+𝒪\left((\chi l_p)^2\right),$$
(40)
Note also that in principle the above equations could give more solutions than plane waves since they are second order PDE’s. Thus, there seems to be more solutions to the above equations than Hamilton s equations (30), since the ones obtained directly from the Hamiltonian do not contain terms linear in $`\chi `$. The extra terms appearing in (40) arise when we invert the relation between $`\stackrel{}{E}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{\pi }`$. We can see that both equations contain the same solutions, in the linear approximation, by the following consideration. Let $`\stackrel{}{C}=\stackrel{}{}\times \stackrel{}{B}_t\stackrel{}{E}`$. The solution to Hamilton equations correspond to $`\stackrel{}{C}=0`$. We now search for non trivial solutions to

$$2\chi l_p\stackrel{}{}\times \stackrel{}{C}+\stackrel{}{C}=0,$$
(41)
Note that if $`\stackrel{}{C}`$ satisfies (41), then it is also a solution of

$$\stackrel{}{C}+(2\chi l_p)^2^2\stackrel{}{C}=0,$$
(42)
and this implies that solutions of (41) have a “monochromatic” (spatial) Fourier spectrum with $`k=(2\chi l_p)^1`$. Such contributions with wavelength of the order of the Planck length must be absent if the low energy approximation (characteristic lengths much larger than $`l_p`$ ) is to be consistent.

Assuming this cut off is implemented, the only solution consistent with our approximation is $`\stackrel{}{}\times \stackrel{}{B}_t\stackrel{}{E}=0`$.

Using a somewhat different approach, L. Urrutia developed a Lagrangian formulation that leads to equations (36, 37). Starting from (21) and defining $`\stackrel{}{E}`$ by Eq. (34) and $`\stackrel{}{B}`$ as the curl of $`\stackrel{}{A}`$, Urrutia obtains a Lagrangian density for $`\stackrel{}{A}`$ such that the corresponding Euler-Lagrange equations yield (36, 37). This Lagrangian, however, is a non-local functional of $`\stackrel{}{A}`$. The fact that a Lorentz violating dispersion relation $`\omega _\pm =\sqrt{k^24\chi l_pk^3}|k|(12\chi l_p|k|)`$ is found for the set of equations (36, 37) is consistent with a recent result advocating that non-local Lagrangians can generate non-Lorentz-invariant dispersion laws. The non-local Lagrangian arose, however, from an assumed non-local relation between $`\stackrel{}{E}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{A}`$ which will not be true if one follows our assumption.

Unlike the approach of Urrutia the Lagrangian density that yields eqs.(30,31) is a local functional of the potential. This result is in agreement with recent work of J. Bros and H. Epstein  which states that microcausality and energy positivity in all frames imply Lorentz invariance of dispersion laws. (Within the domain of our assumption the energy spectrum will be positive definite since the Hamiltonian can be written as $`_{}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\stackrel{}{E}+\chi l_p\stackrel{}{}\times \stackrel{}{E}\right)^2+\frac{1}{2}\left(\stackrel{}{B}+\chi l_p\stackrel{}{}\times \stackrel{}{B}\right)^2`$ plus terms of order $`\chi ^2`$).

It would appear that the issue of whether or not Lorentz invariance is broken depends on the specific relation between the fields and the potential. The local Lagrangian constructed from the potential and its derivatives yields Lorentz invariant dispersion laws, whereas the non-local Lagrangian breaks the invariance. Following our assumption that $`\widehat{F}=d\widehat{A}`$ we conjecture that the quantum fields will be local functionals of $`\widehat{A}`$.

In principle, if the Hamiltonian were given as a perturbation expansion in $`\chi `$, it would be possible to introduce higher order corrections to the relationship between the electric field and conjugate momentum, eq. (26), so that Faraday’s law is preserved at each order in that expansion.

## 4 Final comments and conclusions

We first summarize the main results of this work. In Section 2 we concentrate on the phenomenological field equations for Maxwell fields that could arise from the interaction with the gravitational field in the semiclassical approximation. We show that, up to linear order, there is just one acceptable way to obtain a non-standard dispersion relation, namely, field equations with parity violating coupling constants.

Is the universe living in a state of definite parity? Voting for the affirmative, the cosmological nature and detailed temporal structure of gamma ray bursts could serve as a tool to observe the predicted deviations from the standard dispersion relations. As was shown on a previous work the phenomenological constant is rather small and future observations could be useful to decide if indeed it is non-vanishing. However, using the available data we can essentially rule out the Sahlmann-Thiemann construction.

In view of the present observational data for cosmological sources and the ambiguities of the available models for the interaction of Maxwell fields with a semiclassical space-time it is fair to ask ourselves whether or not we should still have faith in Lorentz invariance. In Section 3 we show that a very natural assumption leads to Lorentz invariant field equations. Our conclusion is that we have no reason to believe that a quantum theory of gravity would change the invariance and thus conjecture that Lorentz invariance will still hold in the quantum interaction between gravitons and photons.

This work was supported in part by grants of the National University of Córdoba and Agencia Córdoba Ciencias. (Argentina). R.J.G. and C.N.K. are members of CONICET. F.P. is supported by SECYT - UNC.

## References