text:
# Cup-length estimate for Lagrangian intersections

## §1 Introduction and main results

Let $`(M,\omega )`$ be a closed symplectic manifold, $`LM`$ be its closed Lagrangian submanifold. A Hamiltonian $`H:[0,1]\times M`$ is a $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ function. This function defines a $`t`$-dependent Hamiltonian vector field $`X_{H_t}`$ on $`M`$ by $`\omega (,X_{H_t})=dH_t`$. The time one map $`\phi =\phi ^1`$ of the flow generated by the Hamiltonian vector field $`X_{H_t}`$ is a symplectic automorphism of $`M`$. Arnold conjecture that, for some symplectic manifold $`(M,\omega )`$ and its Lagrangian submanifold $`L`$, the intersection $`L\phi (L)`$ contains at least as many points as a topology number of $`L`$. If $`L`$ transversely meet $`\phi (L)`$, then the topology number can be the $`\text{rank\hspace{0.33em}of }H^{}(L;𝔽)`$ for some ring or field $`𝔽`$. In general, this topology number can be the cup-length of $`L`$ which is defined by

$`\text{cl}(L,𝔽)=\mathrm{max}\{k+1|`$ $`\alpha _iH^{d_i}(L,𝔽),d_i1,i=1,\mathrm{},k`$
$`\text{such that}\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _k0\}.`$
In this paper, we fixed $`𝔽=_2`$ and denote the cup-length of $`L`$ by $`\text{cl}(L)`$.

It is well known that the above Arnold conjecture is not true in general. For example the “small Lagrangian torus” in a symplectic manifold can be push away by some Hamiltonian diffeomorphism. In this case the intersection $`L\phi (L)=\mathrm{}`$, but the topology number of $`L`$ is not zero. So we need further conditions to guarantee this version of the Arnold conjecture. The first condition was given by Floer in \[F1,F2\] (see also \[H\]). It was proved that if $`\pi _2(M,L)=0`$ or $`\omega (\pi _2(M,L))=0`$, then the Arnold conjecture on the Lagrangian intersection is true. Chekanov \[Ch1-Ch2\] found that there is some relation between the Hofer’s bi-invariant metric of the Hamiltonian diffeomorphim and this version of Arnold conjecture.

For a Hamiltonian $`H:[0,1]\times M`$, we can define a semi-norm of $`H`$ as

$$H=_0^1(\underset{x}{\mathrm{max}}H(t,x)\underset{x}{\mathrm{min}}H(t,x))𝑑t.$$

This semi-norm is weaker than $`C^0`$-norm of $`H`$ and plays an eminent role for Hofer’s bi-invariant metric on the group of compactly supported Hamiltonian diffeomorphism. The metric is defined by

$$d(\phi ,id_M)=inf\{H|\phi \text{is\hspace{0.17em} generated\hspace{0.17em} by }H\}.$$

We say that $`L`$ is a rational Lagrangian submanifold of $`M`$ if there is a number $`\sigma (L)>0`$ such that $`\omega (\pi _2(M,L))=\sigma (L)`$.

Chekanov in \[Ch1\] (see \[Ch2\] for a somewhat general statement) proved that if $`d(\phi ,id_M)<\sigma (L)`$, then $`\mathrm{}(L\phi (L))dimH^{}(L;_2)`$ provided $`L`$ is a rational Lagrangian submanifold of $`M`$ with the number $`\sigma (L)>0`$ defined as above and the intersection is transverse.

The main result of this paper is the following theorem.

###### Theorem

If $`LM`$ is a rational Lagrangian submanifold of $`M`$ with the number $`\sigma (L)`$ defined above and $`d(\phi ,id_M)<\sigma (L)`$, then there holds

$$\mathrm{}(L\phi (L))\text{cl}(L).$$

Acknowlegements Part of this work was completed when the author was visiting Max Planck Institute for Mathematical Science in Leipzig, Germany. The author would like to thank J. Jost, M. Schwarz, G. Wang, Jost Li and A. Vandenberg for their hospitality, many helps and helpful conversations.

## §2 $`J`$-holomorphic curves with boundary conditions

Let $`L`$ be a closed embedded Lagrangian submanifold of a compact symplectic manifold $`(M,\omega )`$. $`H:[0,1]]\times M`$ is a smooth function, and $`\phi ^t`$ is the Hamiltonian flow generated by the Hamiltonian function $`H`$. Setting $`L_1=\phi ^1(L)`$, and considering the space

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_1(L)=\{\gamma C^{\mathrm{}}([0,1],M)|\gamma (0)L,\gamma (1)L_1\},$$

restricting to this space we define a $`1`$-form $`\alpha `$ by

$$\alpha (\gamma ),\xi =_0^1\omega (\dot{\gamma }(t),\xi (t))𝑑t.$$

This $`1`$-form is closed. Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1^0(L)`$ be the component of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1(L)`$ which contains the constant path. A primitive $`F`$ of $`\alpha |_{\mathrm{\Omega }_1^0(L)}`$ is a $`/\sigma `$-valued functional on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1^0(L)`$, the standard action functional of Floer’s theory. It is defined up to additive constants. For a compatible almost complex structure $`J`$, define a metric on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1(L)`$ as follows:

$$\xi _1,\xi _2=_0^1\omega (\xi _1(t),J\xi _2(t))𝑑t.$$

The gradient of $`F`$ with respect to this metric is given by

$$F(\gamma )(t)=J(\gamma (t))\dot{\gamma }(t).$$

For a pair $`(x^+,x^{})`$ of critical points of $`F`$ which correspondent to a pair of intersections of $`LL_1`$, we consider the following moduli space which is analogue to the connect orbit space of the negative gradient flow of a Morse functional defined on a finite dimensional space

$$(J,H,x^+,x^{})=\{u:\times [0,1]M|\begin{array}{cc}& _su+J_tu=0,u\text{is\hspace{0.17em}not\hspace{0.17em}constant},\hfill \\ & u(s,0)L,u(s,1)\phi ^1(L)\hfill \\ & \underset{s\pm \mathrm{}}{lim}u(s,t)=x^\pm L\phi ^1(L)\hfill \end{array}\}$$

If $`u(J,H,x^+,x^{})`$, we define a map $`\stackrel{~}{u}:\times [0,1]M`$ such that $`u(s,t)=\phi ^t(\stackrel{~}{u}(s,t))`$, then we get

$$_s\stackrel{~}{u}+\stackrel{~}{J}_t\left(_t\stackrel{~}{u}+X_{\stackrel{~}{H}}(\stackrel{~}{u}(s,t))\right)=0.$$
$`2.1`$
Here $`\stackrel{~}{J}_t=(d\phi ^t)^1Jd\phi ^t`$, $`\stackrel{~}{H}(t,x)=H(t,\phi ^t(x))`$ and $`X_{\stackrel{~}{H}}(x)=(d\phi ^t)^1X_H(\phi ^t(x))`$ by definition. If $`J`$ is compatible with the symplectic structure $`\omega `$, so is for the $`t`$-dependent almost complex structure $`\stackrel{~}{J}_t`$. $`\stackrel{~}{u}`$ satisfies the following conditions (2.2) and (2.3).

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}& \stackrel{~}{u}(s,0)L,s(\mathrm{},+\mathrm{})\hfill \\ & \stackrel{~}{u}(s,1)L,s(\mathrm{},+\mathrm{}).\hfill \end{array}$$
$`2.2`$
$$\underset{s\pm \mathrm{}}{lim}\stackrel{~}{u}(s,t)=x^\pm (t),$$
$`2.3`$
where $`x^\pm (t)=(\phi ^t)^1(x^\pm )`$ is a Hamiltonian flow line of the Hamiltonian function $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ and $`x^\pm (0)=x^\pm L\phi ^1(L)`$. Conversely, if $`\stackrel{~}{u}`$ is a solution of (2.1) satisfies (2.2) and (2.3), then $`u(s,t)=\phi ^t(\stackrel{~}{u}(s,t))`$ belongs to $`(J,H,x^+,x^{})`$. In fact, it is easy to see $`u`$ solves the equation

$$_su+J_tu=0.$$
$`2.4`$
By definition of $`u`$, we have

$$u(s,0)=\stackrel{~}{u}(s,0)L,u(s,1)=\phi ^1(\stackrel{~}{u}(s,1))\phi ^1(L),$$
$`2.5`$
and

$$\underset{s\pm \mathrm{}}{lim}u(s,t)=\phi ^t(x^\pm (t))=x^\pm (0)L\phi ^1(L).$$
$`2.6`$
Thus we can consider the following moduli space

$$\stackrel{~}{}(J,H,x^+,x^{})=\left\{\stackrel{~}{u}\right|\begin{array}{cc}& _s\stackrel{~}{u}+\stackrel{~}{J}_t\left(_t\stackrel{~}{u}+X_{\stackrel{~}{H}}(\stackrel{~}{u}(s,t))\right)=0\hfill \\ & \stackrel{~}{u}(s,0)L,\stackrel{~}{u}(s,1)L\hfill \\ & \underset{s\pm \mathrm{}}{lim}\stackrel{~}{u}(s,t)=x^\pm (t)\text{is Hamiltonian flow line of}\stackrel{~}{H},\hfill \\ & x^\pm (0)=x^\pm L\phi ^1(L)\hfill \end{array}\}.$$

This moduli space $`\stackrel{~}{}(J,H,x^+,x^{})`$ is 1-1 corespondent with $`(J,H,x^+,x^{})`$.

We recall that the Hamiltonian flow line of the Hamiltonian function $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ with Lagrangian boundary condition is a solution of the following equation

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}& \dot{x}(t)=X_{\stackrel{~}{H}}(x(t))\hfill \\ & x(0)L,x(1)L.\hfill \end{array}$$
$`2.7`$
We can write $`x(t)=(\phi ^t)^1(x_0)`$, then $`x(0)=x_0L`$ and $`x(1)=(\phi ^1)^1(x_0)L`$, it implies $`x(0)=x_0L\phi ^1(L)`$. The space of the solutions of (2.7) is one to one correspondent with the set $`L\phi ^1(L)`$.

In order to find solutions of equation (2.7), we define the following spaces

$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}(L)=\{xC^{\mathrm{}}([0,1],M)|x(0)L,x(1)L\},`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_0(L)=\{x\mathrm{\Omega }(L)|[x]=0\pi _1(M,L)\},`$
and the universal cover space of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_0(L)`$

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_0(L)=\{u_x:DM|u_x|_{S^+}=x,u_x|_S^{}=\stackrel{~}{x}\},$$

where $`D`$ is the unit disc in $``$ with $`D=S^+S^{}`$, and $`S^+`$ (resp. $`S^{}`$) is the upper (resp. lower) half unit circle which is a part of $`D`$, the boundary of $`D`$. $`\stackrel{~}{x}:[0,1]L`$ is a path in $`L`$ which is isotopic to $`x`$ relative to the end points. On the space $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0(L)`$ we define a functional

$$𝒜_H(x,u_x)=_Du_x^{}\omega +_0^1\stackrel{~}{H}(t,x(t))𝑑t.$$

It is easy to see that

$$d𝒜_H(x)(\xi )=_0^1\omega (\dot{x}+X_{\stackrel{~}{H}}(x),\xi )$$

This means that $`d𝒜_H(x)=0`$ implies $`\dot{x}+X_{\stackrel{~}{H}}(x)=0`$.

The functional induces a functional $`\stackrel{~}{A}:\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_0(L)/\sigma `$ if $`L`$ is rational with $`\omega (\pi _2(M,L))=\sigma (L)`$ for some $`\sigma =\sigma (L)>0`$.

## §3 Morse homology and its cup product

We first recall the Morse homology theory briefly (see \[MS2\] for details), Let $`(f,g)`$ be a Morse-Smale pair on $`L`$, that is, let $`f`$ be a fixed Morse function and $`g`$ be a generic Riemannian metric on $`L`$ such that the stable and unstable manifolds $`W^s(y)`$, $`W^u(x)`$ for critical points $`x,y\text{Crit}f`$ for the negative gradient flow of $`(f,g)`$ intersect transversely. We define the connect orbit space of $`x,y\text{Crit}f`$ by

$$M_{x,y}(f,g)=\{\gamma C^{\mathrm{}}(,L)|\dot{\gamma }+_gf(\gamma )=0,\gamma (\mathrm{})=x,\gamma (+\mathrm{})=y\}.$$

We have $`dimM_{x,y}(f,g)=\mu (x)\mu (y)`$, $`\mu (x)`$ is the Morse index of $`x\text{Crit}f`$, and $`M_{x,y}(f,g)`$ admits a free $``$-action by translation: $`s\gamma ()=\gamma (s+)`$. We denote the quotient space by

$$\widehat{M}_{x,y}(f,g)=M_{x,y}(f,g)/.$$

Let $`C^k(f)`$ denote the $`_2`$-free Abelian group generated by $`\text{Crit}_kf=\mu ^1(k)`$, and define the boundary operator as

$$\delta :C^k(f)C^{k+1}(f),\delta x=\underset{\mu (y)=\mu (x)+1}{}n(y,x)y$$

where $`n(x,y)`$ is defined by

$$n(x,y)=\mathrm{}__2\widehat{M}_{x,y}(f,g)$$

the modulo 2 number of $`\widehat{M}_{x,y}(f,g)`$, it is well defined when $`\mu (x)\mu (y)=1`$. It is well known that $`\delta ^2=0`$, and

$$H^{}(C^{}(f),\delta )H^{}(L;_2).$$
$`3.1`$
Let $`(f,g_i),i=1,2,3`$ be three generic Morse-Smale pairs on $`L`$ such that the following moduli spaces are $`\mu (z)\mu (x)\mu (y)`$ dimensional space for $`x,y,z\text{C}ritf`$

$`_{z,x,y}(f,g_1,g_2,g_3)=\{(\gamma _1,\gamma _2,\gamma _3)`$ $`W^u(z)\times W^s(x)\times W^s(y)|`$
$`\gamma _1(0)=\gamma _2(0)=\gamma _3(0)\}`$
and the spaces $`_{z,x,y}(f,g_1,g_2,g_3)`$ are compact in dimension $`0`$.

Analogously to $`\delta `$ we define the following operation on $`C^{}(f,_2)`$. Given $`x,y,z\text{C}ritf`$, we set

$$n(z;x,y)=\mathrm{}_{z,x,y}(f,g_1,g_2,g_3)(\text{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2})\text{for}\mu (z)=\mu (x)+\mu (y)$$

and

$$m_2:C^k(f,_2)C^l(f,_2)C^{k+l}(f,_2)$$

$$m_2(xy)=\underset{z\text{C}rit_{k+l}f}{}n(z;x,y)z.$$
$`3.2`$
$`m_2`$ is a chain operator and it induced a cup product of the cohomologies $`H^{}(L;_2)`$. These result are standard now (see for example: \[MS1\] section 3 for $`A=0`$ thus $`u`$ must be a constant map, or \[Fu1\] for $`f_1=f_2=f_3`$ with different metrics satisfying the transversal conditions). Analogously we can define the moduli spaces for $`x_0,x_1,\mathrm{},x_k\text{C}ritf`$

$`_{x_0;x_1,\mathrm{},x_k}=\{(\gamma _0,\gamma _1,\mathrm{},\gamma _k)`$ $`W^u(x_0)\times W^s(x_1)\times \mathrm{}\times W^s(x_k)|`$
$`\gamma _0(0)=\gamma _1(0)=\mathrm{}=\gamma _k(0)\}`$
and

$$m_k:C^{l_1}(f,_2)\mathrm{}C^{l_k}(f,_2)C^{l_1+\mathrm{}+l_k}(f,_2)$$

$$m_k(x_1,\mathrm{},x_k)=\underset{x_0}{}n_k(x_0;x_1,\mathrm{},x_k)x_0,where$$

$$\mu (x_0)=\mu (x_1)+\mathrm{}+\mu (x_k)\text{and}n_k(x_0;x_1,\mathrm{},x_k)=\mathrm{}__2_{x_0;x_1,\mathrm{},x_k}.$$

$`m_k`$ induced $`k`$-fold cup-product of the cohomologies $`H^{}(L;_2)`$.

In this section we always assume that $`(M,\omega )`$ is a closed symplectic manifold. $`LM`$ is a closed rational Lagrangian submanifold with the constant $`\sigma (L)>0`$ defined as in section 2. i.e., we have $`\omega (\pi _2(M,L))=\sigma (L)`$ for some $`\sigma (L)>0.`$ Denote by $`(M)`$ the set of all Hamiltonian function $`H:[0,1]\times M`$ . Any $`H(M)`$ defines a time-dependent Hamiltonian flow $`\phi ^t:MM`$. Time one maps of such flows form a group $`𝒮(M,\omega )`$ called the group of Hamiltonian symplectomorphisms of $`M`$. On the space $`(M)`$, we have a semi-normal defined by

$$H=_0^1(\underset{x}{\mathrm{max}}H(t,x)\underset{x}{\mathrm{min}}H(t,x))𝑑t.$$

For $`\phi 𝒮(M,\omega )`$, the energy of $`\phi `$ is defined by

$$E(\phi )=inf\{H|\phi \text{ is a time one flow generated by }H(M)\}$$

We assume that $`E(\phi )<\sigma (L)`$, this condition is essential for the compactness of the moduli spaces because under this condition no bubbling-off ($`J`$-holomorphic sphere and disc) occurs. So we can naturally define the deformation cup product of the cohomology groups. Under the above conditions, we have the moduli space

$$^0(J,H)=\{\stackrel{~}{u}C^{\mathrm{}}(D,M)|_s\stackrel{~}{u}+\stackrel{~}{J}_t\left(_t\stackrel{~}{u}+X_{\stackrel{~}{H}}(\stackrel{~}{u}(s,t))\right)=0,[\stackrel{~}{u}]=0\pi _2(M,L)\}.$$

Given $`x_0,x_1,\mathrm{},x_k\text{C}ritf`$ we define

$`_{x_0;x_1,\mathrm{},x_k}^0=\{`$ $`(\stackrel{~}{u},\gamma _0,\gamma _1,\mathrm{},\gamma _k)^0(J,H)\times W^u(x_0)\times W^s(x_1)\times \mathrm{}\times W^s(x_k)|`$
$`\stackrel{~}{u}(z_i)=\gamma _i(0),z_iD,i=0,1,\mathrm{},k\}`$
###### Theorem 3.1

Given a Hamiltonian function $`H`$ with $`H<\sigma (L)`$, and generic pairs $`(f,g_i),i=0,1,\mathrm{},k`$, the following operator $`m^0(H)`$ is well defined,

$$m_k^0(H):C^{l_1}(f)\mathrm{}C^{l_k}(f)C^{l_1+\mathrm{}+l_k}(f),$$

$$m_k^0(H)(x_1\mathrm{}x_k)=\underset{x_0}{}(\mathrm{}_{x_0;x_1,\mathrm{},x_k}^0\text{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2})x_0$$

Moreover, $`m^0(H)`$ is a co-chain map with respect to the boundary operator $`\delta `$, and the induced operation of the cohomology group is just the $`k`$-fold cup product in the sense of (3.1).

###### Demonstration Proof

The essential ingredient of the proof is to prove the fact of no bubbling-off. This can be done by looking at the energy of the element $`\stackrel{~}{u}^0(J,H)`$

$`E(\stackrel{~}{u})=`$ $`{\displaystyle _D}|_s\stackrel{~}{u}|_{\stackrel{~}{J}}^2𝑑s𝑑t={\displaystyle _D}\omega (_s\stackrel{~}{u},\stackrel{~}{J}_t_s\stackrel{~}{u})`$ $`3.3`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _D}\omega (\stackrel{~}{J}_t(_t\stackrel{~}{u}+X_{\stackrel{~}{H}}(\stackrel{~}{u}(s,t)),\stackrel{~}{J}_t_s\stackrel{~}{u}))𝑑s𝑑t`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _D}\omega (X_{\stackrel{~}{H}}(\stackrel{~}{u}(s,t),_s\stackrel{~}{u})dsdt`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _D}𝑑\stackrel{~}{H_t}(\stackrel{~}{u}(s,t))(_s\stackrel{~}{u})𝑑s𝑑tH.`$
Here we have use the condition $`[\stackrel{~}{u}]=0\pi _2(M,L)`$. Since $`H<\sigma (L)`$, notice that we can take $`\pi _2(M)`$ as a sub-group of $`\pi _2(M,L)`$, any bubbling-off must have energy at least $`\sigma (L)`$, so no bubbling-off occurs. If $`H0`$, then we have $`m^0(0)=m_k`$ as defined in (3.2) which induced the $`k`$-fold cup product. Taking a suitable homotopy $`H0`$ such that the induced maps in $`H^{}(L;_2)`$ satisfying $`m_k^0(H)^{}=m_k^0(0)^{}=m_k^{}`$ (see \[MS1\], Theorem 3.8 for similar arguments. Here we only consider $`A=0`$). $`\mathrm{}`$

## §4 The proof of the main result

We follow the ideas of \[MS1\] to prove the main result of this paper. Firstly, we modify the pair $`(J,H)`$ and define the “adapted solution spaces”. Given the Hamiltonian $`HC^{\mathrm{}}([0,1]\times M,)`$ and an $`\omega `$-compatible almost structure $`J`$, we get a corresponding pair $`(\stackrel{~}{J},\stackrel{~}{H})`$ as in section 2. Here $`\stackrel{~}{J}`$ is explicitly dependent of $`t[0,1]`$. Pick an $`t`$-independent almost complex structure $`J_0`$ on $`TMM`$, we extend $`\stackrel{~}{J}`$ and $`J_0`$ to a smooth $`1`$-parameter family $`\overline{J}=\overline{J}(s)`$, $`s(\mathrm{},+\mathrm{})`$ as

$$\overline{J}(s)=\{\begin{array}{cc}J_0,\hfill & s0,\hfill \\ \stackrel{~}{J},\hfill & s1.\hfill \end{array}$$
$`4.1`$
Let $`\beta C^{\mathrm{}}(,[0,1])`$ be a monotone cut-off function such that

$$\beta (s)=\{\begin{array}{cc}0,\hfill & s0,\hfill \\ 1,\hfill & s1,\hfill \end{array}\text{and}\beta ^{}(s)0.$$

For $`R[1,\mathrm{})`$, we defined $`1`$-parameter pairs $`(\stackrel{~}{J}_R,\stackrel{~}{H}_R)`$ on $`\times [0,1]\times M`$ as follows,

$$(\stackrel{~}{J}_R,\stackrel{~}{H}_R)(s,t,p)=\{\begin{array}{cc}(J_0(p),0),\hfill & s0,\hfill \\ (\overline{J}(s,t,p),\beta (s)\stackrel{~}{H}(t,p)),\hfill & 0<sR,\hfill \\ (\overline{J}(R+1s,t,p),\beta (R+1s)\stackrel{~}{H}(t,p)),\hfill & R<sR+1,\hfill \\ (J_0(p),0),\hfill & s>R+1.\hfill \end{array}$$

Associated to $`(\stackrel{~}{J}_R,\stackrel{~}{H}_R)`$ we have the Cauchy-Riemann type operator $`\overline{}_R`$ for $`u:\times [0,1]M`$ satisfying the boundary conditions $`u(,0)L`$ and $`u(,1)L`$, and consider the following equation,

$$\overline{}_Ru(s,t):=_su+\stackrel{~}{J}_R(s,t,u)(_tu+X_{\stackrel{~}{H}_R}(s,t,u))=0.$$
$`4.2`$
We note that for $`1sR`$, (4.2) describes the “ negative gradient flow” for the action functional $`𝒜_H`$, i.e., it satisfies

$$\overline{}_{J,H}u(s,t):=_su+\stackrel{~}{J}_t\left(_tu+X_{\stackrel{~}{H}}(u(s,t))\right)=0.$$
$`4.3`$
The energy of $`u:\times [0,1]M`$ associated to $`\stackrel{~}{J}_R`$ is defined by

$$E_R(u)=_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}_0^1|_su|_{\stackrel{~}{J}_R}^2𝑑s𝑑t.$$

Since a solution $`u`$ of (4.2) restrict to $`(\mathrm{},0)\times [0,1]`$ or $`(R+1,+\mathrm{})\times [0,1]`$ is $`J_0`$-holomorphic, finite energy $`E_R(u)<\mathrm{}`$ implies by the boundary removal of singularities (see \[Oh1\]) that $`u`$ can be extended over the disc carrying the conformal structure from $`\times [0,1]`$,

$$\stackrel{~}{D}=\{\mathrm{}\}(\mathrm{},+\mathrm{})\times [0,1]\{+\mathrm{}\}.$$

Thus we can identify $`\stackrel{~}{D}`$ with the standard disc $`(D,i)`$, and for every finite energy solution $`u`$ of (4.2), the homotopy class $`[u]\pi (M,L)`$ is well defined. We define the adapted solution spaces associated with $`R`$ by

$$^0(R)=\{uC^{\mathrm{}}(\times [0,1]M)|\overline{}_R(u)=0,E_R(u)<\mathrm{},[u]=0\pi _2(M,L)\}.$$

For an adapted solution $`u`$, the following result give an estimate of the energy of $`u`$.

###### Corollary 4.1

Every solution $`u^0(R)`$ satisfies the energy estimate

$$0E_R(u)H,R1.$$
$`4.4`$
Moreover, there exists an $`l`$ such that

$$𝒜_H(u(\varrho ,))[l,l+H],\varrho [1,R].$$
$`4.5`$
###### Demonstration Proof

These results are taken from \[MS1\] (Corollary 4.2) for the case of fixed points of Hamiltonian diffeomorphism. The proof is the same. We give the proof here for the readers’ convenience. For $`u^0(R)`$ and $`1\sigma \sigma ^{}R`$, there holds

$$0E(u_\sigma ^{})𝒜_H(u(\sigma ,),[u_\sigma ^{}])_0^1\underset{pM}{inf}H(t,p)dt,$$
$`4.6`$
$$0E(u_\sigma ^+)𝒜_H(u(\sigma ,),[u_\sigma ^{}])+_0^1\underset{pM}{sup}H(t,p)dt,$$
$`4.7`$
$$0E(u_\sigma ^{}^{})E(u_\sigma ^{})=𝒜_H(u(\sigma ^{},),[u_\sigma ^{}^{}])𝒜_H(u(\sigma ,),[u_\sigma ^{}]).$$
$`4.8`$
Here $`u_\sigma ^{}`$ is the restriction of $`u`$ to $`D_\sigma ^{}:=\{\mathrm{}\}(\mathrm{},\sigma )\times [0,1]`$ and $`u_\sigma ^+`$ is the restriction of $`u`$ to $`D_\sigma ^+:=(\sigma ,+\mathrm{})\times [0,1]\{+\mathrm{}\}`$. (4.6) follows by

$`E(u_\sigma ^{})`$ $`={\displaystyle _{D_\sigma ^{}}}\omega (_su,\stackrel{~}{J}_R_su)𝑑s𝑑t={\displaystyle _{D_\sigma ^{}}}\omega (_su,_tu+\beta X_{\stackrel{~}{H}})𝑑s𝑑t`$
$`={\displaystyle _{D_\sigma ^{}}}u^{}\omega +{\displaystyle _0^1}\stackrel{~}{H}(t,u(\sigma ,t))𝑑t{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^\sigma }\beta ^{}(s)𝑑s{\displaystyle _0^1}\stackrel{~}{H}(t,u(s,t))𝑑t.`$
Thus there holds

$$𝒜_H(u(\sigma ,),[u_\sigma ^{}])_0^1\underset{pM}{sup}H(t,p)dtE(u_\sigma ^{})𝒜_H(u(\sigma ,),[u_\sigma ^{}])_0^1\underset{pM}{inf}H(t,p)dt.$$
$`4.9`$
Using $`𝒜_H(u(\sigma ,),[u_\sigma ^+])=\omega ([u])𝒜_H(u(\sigma ,),[u_\sigma ^{}])`$ and $`\omega ([u])=0`$, we get (4.7) analogously. (4.8) is obvious. (4.4) follows from (4.6) and (4.7). (4.5) follows from (4.9) and the fact $`E(u_\sigma ^{})E_R(u)`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

For the modified pair $`(\stackrel{~}{J}_R,\stackrel{~}{H}_R)`$, as in section 3, we choose an auxiliary Morse function $`f`$ and $`1`$-parameter families metrics $`g_s^j`$ on $`L`$, $`j=0,1,\mathrm{},k`$. For any $`k+1`$-tuple $`(y_0,\mathrm{},y_k)(\text{Crit}f)^{k+1}`$, we define the moduli space

$`_{y_0;y_1,\mathrm{},y_k}^0(J,H,f,(g_s^j))`$ $`4.10`$
$`=\{(u,\gamma _0,\mathrm{},\gamma _k)^0((k+1)R)\times W_{g^0}^u(y_0)\times W_{g^1}^s(y_1)\times \mathrm{}\times W_{g^k}^s(y_k)|`$
$`u(\mathrm{})=\gamma _0(0),u(jR,0)=\gamma _j(0),j=1,\mathrm{},k\}.`$
Here we remind that we have replace the disc $`D`$ by the disc $`\stackrel{~}{D}=\{\mathrm{}\}(\mathrm{},+\mathrm{})\times [0,1]\{+\mathrm{}\}`$ with the standard complex structure $`i`$, and $`z_0=\mathrm{}`$, $`z_j=(jR,0)`$.

An immediate consequence of Theorem 3.1 is

###### Corollary 4.2

Let $`(M,\omega )`$ be a closed symplectic manifold, $`L`$ be its closed rational Lagrangian submanifold with the constant $`\sigma (L)`$ as defined in section 2. The Hamiltonian $`H:[0,1]\times M`$ satisfies $`H<\sigma (L)`$. Given homogeneous cohomology classes $`\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _kH^{}(L)`$ with nontrivial cup product $`\alpha _0=\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _kH^{}(L)`$, there exist critical points $`y_0,y_1,\mathrm{},y_k\text{Crit}f`$satisfying

$$\mu (y_0)=\text{deg}\alpha _0,\mu (y_j)=\text{deg}\alpha _j,j=1,\mathrm{},k$$

such that the solution space $`_{y_0;y_1,\mathrm{},y_k}^0(J,H,f,(g_s^j))`$is nonempty.

From this existence result for finite energy solutions of (4.2), we will deduce the asserted estimate for the number of critical values for the action functional $`𝒜_H`$ by considering $`R\mathrm{}`$.

We now consider the broken flow trajectories. Let us recall the pair $`(\stackrel{~}{J},\stackrel{~}{H})`$ and the Cauchy-Riemann type equation from (2.1) with $`L`$ boundary conditions

$`(\overline{}_{J,H}u)(s,t)=_su+\stackrel{~}{J}(t,u)(_tu+X_{\stackrel{~}{H}}(u))=0,`$ $`4.11`$
$`u(s,0)L,s(\mathrm{},+\mathrm{})`$
$`u(s,1)L,s(\mathrm{},+\mathrm{}).`$
and the Hamiltonian systems with the $`L`$ boundary conditions from (2.7)

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}& \dot{x}(t)=X_{\stackrel{~}{H}}(x(t))\hfill \\ & x(0)L,x(1)L.\hfill \end{array}$$
$`4.12`$
The set of solutions of (4.12) is 1-1 correspondent with the set of the intersection points $`L\phi ^1(L)`$. We denote the set of solutions of (4.12) by $`𝒮_L(H)`$.

###### Proposition 4.3

If the number of the above solution set $`\mathrm{}𝒮_L(H)<\mathrm{}`$, then there exists a unique limit $`x𝒮_L(H)`$ for every solution of (4.11) restrict in the half area with the same boundary condition

$`(\overline{}_{J,H}u)(s,t)=_su+\stackrel{~}{J}(t,u)(_tu+X_{\stackrel{~}{H}}(u))=0,`$ $`4.13`$
$`u(s,0)L,s[0,+\mathrm{})`$
$`u(s,1)L,s[0,+\mathrm{})`$
$`E(u)<\mathrm{}.`$
that is, $`u(s,)x`$ uniformly in $`C^{\mathrm{}}([0,1],M)`$ as $`s\mathrm{}`$.

###### Demonstration Proof

This proposition is adapted from Proposition 4.4 of \[MS1\] and the proof is standard as given in \[MS1\]. We consider the reparametrized solution $`u_n=u(+s_n,)`$ for $`s_n\mathrm{}`$, we have $`E(u_n|_{[\sigma ,\sigma ]})0`$ for all $`\sigma >0`$ due to the finite energy assumption. Hence for a suitable subsequence $`u_{n_k}`$ converges in $`C_{loc}^{\mathrm{}}`$ and the limit is a translation invariant solution of $`_{J,H}u=0`$ with the mentioned boundary conditions over $`\times [0,1]`$, that is constant in $`s`$ and therefore an $`x𝒮_L(H)`$. Given two sequences $`s_n,s_n^{}\mathrm{}`$ with $`u(s_n)x`$ and $`u(s_n^{})x^{}`$ the finiteness of $`𝒮_L(H)`$ implies $`x=x^{}`$. Otherwise, one can assume that $`s_n^{}s_n\mathrm{}`$ and find, after choosing suitable subsequence, a sequence $`s_n<\stackrel{~}{s}_n<s_n^{}`$ such that without loss of generality $`u(\stackrel{~}{s}_n)\stackrel{~}{x}`$ with $`x\stackrel{~}{x}`$ and $`x^{}\stackrel{~}{x}`$. Repeating this argument finitely many times leads to a contradiction.

$`\mathrm{}`$

Without loss of generality we can assume that $`\mathrm{}𝒮_L(H)<\mathrm{}`$. Hence for a solution of (4.11) with finite energy, there exist $`x,x^{}𝒮_L(H)`$ such that

$$\underset{s\mathrm{}}{lim}u(s)=x,\underset{s\mathrm{}}{lim}u(s)=x^{}.$$

We define the following connected trajectory spaces for $`x,x^{}𝒮_L(H)`$

$$_{x,x^{}}(J,H)=\{u:\times [0,1]M|u\text{solves}(4.11),\underset{s\mathrm{}}{lim}u(s)=x,\underset{s\mathrm{}}{lim}u(s)=x^{}\}.$$

Similarly we define disk type solution spaces for the structure $`\overline{J}`$ and $`\beta `$ from above

$`_x^{}(\overline{J},H)=\{u:\times [0,1]M|`$ $`_su+\overline{J}(\pm s,t,u)(_tu+\beta (\pm s)X_{\stackrel{~}{H}}(t,u))=0`$
$`u(s,0)L,u(s,1)L,s`$
$`E(u)<\mathrm{},u(\pm \mathrm{})=x\}.`$
An element of $`_x^{}(\overline{J},H)`$ is a map which is pseudo-holomorphic in an area containing infinity (the singularity at infinity can be removed) and is a solution of (4.13) in another area containing infinity with $`x`$ as its limit.

We denote the spaces of so-called broken solutions by

$`\stackrel{~}{^0}(\overline{J},H)=\{`$ $`(u_{},u_1,\mathrm{},u_k,u_+)`$
$`_{x_0}^{}(\overline{J},H)\times _{x_0,x_1}(J,H)\times \mathrm{}\times _{x_{k1},x_k}(J,H)\times _{x_k}^+(\overline{J},H)|`$
$`x_0,\mathrm{},x_k𝒮_L(H),k0,[u_{}\mathrm{\#}u_1\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\#}u_+]=0\pi _2(M,L)\},`$
where $`\mathrm{\#}`$ is the obvious gluing operation.

Considering the solution spaces $`^0(R_n)`$ for $`R_n\mathrm{}`$, we say that a sequence $`u_n^0(R_n)`$ converges weakly to a broken solution

$$u_n(v_0,v_1,\mathrm{},v_k,v_{k+1})\stackrel{~}{^0}(\overline{J},H)$$

if there are sequences $`\{\sigma _{i,n}\}_n`$, $`i=0,\mathrm{},k+1`$, such that the reparametrized maps $`u_n(+\sigma _{i,n},)`$ converge uniformly on compact subsets with all derivatives to $`v_i`$,

$$u_n(+\sigma _{i,n},)v_i\text{in}C_{loc}^{\mathrm{}}(\times [0,1],M).$$

Clearly, this requires that $`\sigma _{0,n}=0`$ and $`\sigma _{k+1,n}=R_n+1`$ for all $`n`$. The following result is analogous to Gromov’s result about the minimal energy of $`J`$-holomorphic discs, \[G\].

###### Lemma 4.4

Given a pair $`(J,H)`$ with $`\mathrm{}𝒮_L(H)<\mathrm{}`$, there exists a lower bound $`\mathrm{}(J,H)>0`$ for the energy of all non-stationary finite energy trajectories, that is,

$$\overline{}_{J,H}u=0,u(s,0)L,u(s,1)L,\text{and}_su0\text{imply}E(u)\mathrm{}(J,H).$$

###### Demonstration Proof

We follow the ideas of \[HS\] to prove the result. For the case $`H0`$, $`u`$ can be extended to a $`J`$-holomorphic disc. The result follows from the Gromov compactness. In fact, if there is a sequence of $`J`$-holomorphic discs $`u_n`$ with energy $`E(u_n)0`$, then by Gromov compactness, $`u_n`$ weakly converges to a cusp curve with positive energy, a contradiction. If $`H0`$, assume that there is a sequence of solution $`u_n`$ with $`0E(u_n)0`$. We prove that $`_su`$ converges to zero uniformly in $`\times [0,1]`$ as $`n`$ tends to $`\mathrm{}`$. Otherwise there would exist a sequence $`(s_n,t_n)`$such that $`|_su(s_n,t_n)|\delta >0`$. If $`s_n`$ is bounded, we can assume $`s_n0`$ without loss of generality. Since $`E(u_n)`$ converges to zero no bubbling can occur and hence a subsequence of $`u_n`$ converges with its derivatives uniformly on compact sets to a solution $`u:\times [0,1]M`$ with mentioned boundary conditions, $`_su(0,t^{})\delta `$ and $`E(u)=0`$. But the latter implies that $`u(s,t)x(t)`$ in contradiction to the former. If $`s_n`$ is non-bounded, then we can assume $`s_n\mathrm{}`$. We consider $`v_n(s,t)=u(s+s_n,t)`$ as in the proof of Proposition 4.3, then by the finiteness condition: $`\mathrm{}𝒮_L(H)<\mathrm{}`$, we can get $`v_nv`$ with $`|_sv(0,t^{})|\delta `$ and $`E(v)=0`$, it is still a contradiction. $`\mathrm{}`$

We denote the broken trajectory space by

$`\overline{}_{x,y}(J,H)=\{`$ $`𝕦=(u_1,\mathrm{},u_r)|u_i_{x_{i1},x_i}`$
$`i=1,\mathrm{},r,x_0=x,x_r=y,r\}.`$
It is the space of broken trajectories started from $`x𝒮_L(H)`$ and ended at $`y𝒮_L(H)`$. The energy of a broken trajectory $`𝕦=(u_1,\mathrm{},u_r)`$ satisfies

$$E(𝕦)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}E(u_i).$$

If $`𝕦\overline{}_{x,x}`$, then $`[𝕦]\pi _2(M,L)`$ is well defined and $`\omega ([𝕦])=E(𝕦)0`$, the latter follows from the fact that the start point is just the end point, so there holds

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\omega (_tu_i,JX_{\stackrel{~}{H}}(u))𝑑t=0.$$

Thus if $`𝕦x`$, then $`E(𝕦)0`$, it implies that $`\omega ([𝕦])=E(𝕦)\sigma (L)`$.

We define

$$\sigma _0(\omega ,H,J)=inf\{E(𝕦)|𝕦\overline{}_{x,x}(J,H),𝕦x,x𝒮_L(H)\}.$$

###### Theorem 4.5

Let $`\mathrm{}𝒮_L(H)<\mathrm{}`$ and $`u_n^0(R_n)`$ be a sequence of solution with $`R_n\mathrm{}`$ and uniformly bounded gradient $`u_n`$. Then there exists a subsequence $`\{\stackrel{~}{u}_{n_k}\}`$ converging weakly to a broken solution

$$u_{n_k}(v_{},v_1,\mathrm{},v_N,v_+)^0(\overline{J},H).$$

###### Demonstration Proof

This result is similar to Theorem 4.5 of \[MS1\]. Elliptic bootstrapping implies $`C_{loc}^{\mathrm{}}`$-convergence for subsequences of $`\{u_n(+s_n)\}`$ for any shifting sequences $`\{s_n\}`$, $`s_n\mathrm{}`$. Assume that we have already shifting sequences $`\{s_n\}`$ and $`\{\overline{s}_n\}`$ such that $`s_n\overline{s}_n\mathrm{}`$ and $`u_n(+s_n)v,u_n(+\overline{s}_n)w`$ in $`C_{loc}^{\mathrm{}}`$ with $`v_{x,y}(J,H)`$ and $`w_{y^{},z}(J,H)`$, we use the analogous argument as in the proof of Proposition 4.3. We show that either $`y=y^{}`$ or that modulo choosing a subsequence we find a sequence $`\tau _n\mathrm{}`$ such that $`s_n<\tau _n<\overline{s}_n`$ and $`u_n(+\tau _n)\overline{w}_{y,y^{}}(J,H)`$. This requires lifting to the covering $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0(L)`$ where the function $`𝒜_H`$ is real-valued and the energy of $`u_{x,y}(J,H)`$ is given by $`E(u)=𝒜_H(𝕪)𝒜_H(𝕩)`$, where $`𝕩`$ is the lifting of $`x`$ in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0(L)`$. From the total energy bound by $`H`$ from Corollary 4.1 and the minimal energy $`\mathrm{}(J,H)>0`$ for non-stationary trajectories from Lemma 4.4, it follows that only finite number of $`\overline{𝕪}\stackrel{~}{𝒮}_L(H)`$, the lifting of $`𝒮_L(H)`$ in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0(L)`$, can occur between $`𝕪`$ and $`𝕪^{}`$. It remains to show that $`𝒜_H(𝕪)=𝒜_H(𝕪^{})`$ implies $`y=y^{}`$. This follows from the following result.

###### Lemma 4.6

Let $`\mathrm{}𝒮_L(H)<\mathrm{}`$, there exists a $`\gamma >0`$ such that for every neighbourhood $`W`$ of $`𝒮_L(H)`$ in $`C^{\mathrm{}}([0,1],M)`$ there exists a number $`h=h(M)`$ with the following properties:

If $`u:(r,R)\times [0,1]M`$ for $`\mathrm{}r<R\mathrm{}`$ solves

$`\overline{}_{J,H}u=0,u(,0)L,u(,1)L,[u({\displaystyle \frac{r+R}{2}},)]=0\pi _1(M,L),`$ $`4.14`$
$`E(u)\gamma \text{and}Rr>2h,`$
then $`u(s)W`$ for all $`s(r+h,Rh)`$. Moreover, given $`k_0,ϵ>0`$, there exists $`h=h(k_0,ϵ)`$ such that solutions of (4.14) view as a mappings into $`M^N`$ satisfy

$$|D^\alpha (u(s,t)x(t))|ϵ,(s.t)(r+h,Rh)\times [0,1],|\alpha |k_0$$

for a suitable $`x𝒮_L(H)`$.

###### Demonstration Proof

We prove indirectly the second assertion. Assume that given any $`\gamma >0`$ there exist $`k(\gamma ),ϵ(\gamma )>0,h_n\mathrm{},r_n<R_n`$ with $`R_nr_n2h_n`$ and $`u_n:(r_n,R_n)\times [0,1]M`$ satisfying the boundary condition as in (4.14) and $`\overline{}_{J,H}u_n=0`$, $`_{r_n}^{R_n}_0^1|_su_n|^2𝑑s𝑑t\gamma `$ such that there exist $`(s_n,t_n)(r_n,R_n)\times [0,1]`$ and $`\alpha k`$ with

$$|D^\alpha (u_n(s_n,t_n)x(t_n))|>ϵ$$

for all $`n`$ and $`x𝒮_L(H)`$. Reparametrizing $`u_n`$ so that $`v_n(s,t)=u_n(s+s_n,t)`$ solves $`\overline{}_{J,H}v_n=0`$ with

$$_{h_n}^{h_n}_0^1|_sv_n|^2𝑑s𝑑t<\gamma \text{and}|D^\alpha (v_n(0,t_n)x(t_n))|>ϵ.$$

Without loss of generality we can replace $`t_n`$ by some $`t_0`$. Choosing $`\gamma >0`$ small enough by Gromov’s theorem about the minimal energy of pseudoholomorphic spheres or holomorphic discs with $`L`$-boundary condition (see the proof of Lemma 4.4), there exists a number $`c>0`$ such that

$$|v_n(s,t)|c(s,t)[\frac{3}{4}h_n,\frac{3}{4}h_n]\times [0,1],n.$$

Otherwise, we would obtain a pseudoholomorphic sphere or disc bubbling off with energy less than $`\gamma `$. Thus , choosing a suitable subsequence, without loss of generality denoted again by $`n`$, we obtain uniform convergence on compact subsets, $`v_n(v:\times [0,1]M)`$ in $`C_{loc}^{\mathrm{}}`$ with

$`\overline{}_{J,H}v=0,{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle _0^1}|_sv|^2\gamma \text{and}`$
$`|D^\alpha (v(0,)x())|_{L^{\mathrm{}}([0,1])}>ϵ,v(,0)L,v(,1)L.`$
But Lemma 4.4 implies for $`\gamma <\mathrm{}(J,H)`$ that $`_sv=0`$, i.e. $`v(0)𝒮_L(H)`$ providng the contradiction. $`\mathrm{}`$

This also concludes the proof of Theorem 4.5 because $`𝒜_H(𝕪)=𝒜_H(𝕪^{})`$ implies that we can find sequences $`s_n`$ and $`s_n^{}`$ such that $`u_n(s_n)y`$, $`u_n(s_n^{})y^{}`$ and $`0<s_ns_n^{}`$ with $`E(u_n|_{[s_n,s_n^{}]})0`$. Consequently, Lemma 4.6 yields $`y=y^{}`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Remark 4.7. In our case we have $`H<\sigma (L)`$, and $`E(u_n)H`$ by Corollary 4.1 for $`u_n^0(R_n)`$, bubbling-off cannot occur, thus the gradient of $`u_n`$ is uniformly bounded.

We denote the covering space of $`𝒮_L(H)`$ in the sense of section 2 by $`\stackrel{~}{𝒮}_L(H)`$, i.e., any element $`𝕩=(x,u_x)\stackrel{~}{𝒮}_L(H)`$ is a critical point of $`𝒜_H`$ in the space $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0(L)`$ and $`x`$ is a solution of $`\dot{x}=X_{\stackrel{~}{H}}(t,x)`$ with the boundary conditions $`x(0)L`$ and $`x(1)L`$. It implies $`x(0)L\phi ^1(L)`$, see (2.7). The space carries a partial ordering with respect to the gradient flow of $`𝒜_H`$.

###### Definition 4.8

Given a pair $`𝕩,𝕩^{}\stackrel{~}{𝒮}_L(H)`$, we say $`𝕩𝕩^{}`$ if there exist connecting broken flow trajectories $`\overline{}_{x,x^{}}(J,H)\mathrm{}`$. Given a Morse-Smale pair $`(f,g)`$, we say that $`𝕩𝕩^{}`$if there exist $`u_{x,x^{}}(J,H)`$ and $`y\text{Crit}f`$ with $`\mu (y)1`$ such that $`u(0,0)W_g^s(y)`$.

If $`\mathrm{}\{L\phi ^1(L)\}<\mathrm{}`$, then for a generic choice of Morse function $`f:L`$ and Riemannian metric $`g`$ on $`L`$ , there holds

$$\underset{\mu (y)1}{}W_g^s(y)L\phi ^1(L)=\mathrm{}.$$
$`4.15`$
This can be prove by standard transversal analysis (see \[MS1\]). Thus if choose $`(f,g)`$ satisfying (4.15), then for $`𝕩𝕩^{}`$ we have $`𝕩𝕩^{}`$ thus $`𝕩<𝕩^{}`$ and in particular $`𝒜_H(𝕩)<𝒜_H(𝕩^{})`$. The latter can be seen from the proof of Theorem 4.5. By this observation we have the following result.

###### Corollary 4.9

Let $`k`$ and $`(f,g_s^i)`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},k`$ satisfy condition (4.15) with respect to $`H`$ satisfying $`𝒮_L(H)<\mathrm{}`$. Given a sequence

$$u_n_{y_0;y_1,\mathrm{},y_k}^0((k+1)R_n),R_n\mathrm{}$$

with $`y_i\text{Crit}f`$, $`\mu (y_i)1`$ for $`i=0,1,\mathrm{},k`$, weakly converging to a broken trajectory, there exist solutions $`𝕩_1,\mathrm{},𝕩_N\stackrel{~}{𝒮}_L(H)`$ satisfying $`𝕩_1\mathrm{}𝕩_N`$ and $`1n_1<m_1n_2<m_2\mathrm{}n_k<m_kN`$ such that $`𝕩_{n_i}𝕩_{m_i}`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},k`$. In particular, there exists an $`l`$ such that

$$l𝒜_H(𝕩_{n_1})<\mathrm{}<𝒜_H(𝕩_{n_k})<𝒜_H(𝕩_{m_k})l+H.$$

###### Demonstration Proof

By assumption, the sequence $`u_n^0((k+1)R_n)`$ satisfies

$$u_n(jR_n,0)W_g^s(y_j),j=1,\mathrm{},k.$$

Moreover, if $`u_n`$ converges weakly to a broken solution

$$(v_{},v_1,\mathrm{},v_N,v_+)\stackrel{~}{}^0(\overline{J},H)$$

we have reparametrization sequences $`\{\sigma _{i,n}\}_n`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},N`$ such that $`u_n(+\sigma _{i,n},)v_i`$ in $`C_{loc}^{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`u_nv_{}`$, $`u_n((k+1)R_n1,)v_+`$. Considering the shifted solutions $`u_{n,j}=u_n(jR_n,)`$, we thus obtain after choosing a suitable subsequence $`C_{loc}^{\mathrm{}}`$-convergence $`u_{n,j}w_j_{x_j,x_j^{}}(J,H)`$ for some $`𝕩_j,𝕩_j^{}\stackrel{~}{𝒮}_L(H)`$, $`j=1,\mathrm{},k`$. By definition, we have $`𝕩_j𝕩_j^{}`$ and the assumption of weak convergence implies the order

$$𝕩_1𝕩_1^{}𝕩_2𝕩_2^{}\mathrm{}𝕩_k𝕩_k^{}.$$

We now can prove the main result of this paper. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Theorem 4.10

Let $`(M,\omega )`$ be a closed symplectic manifold, and $`L`$ be its closed Lagrangian submanifold satisfying the rational condition $`\omega (\pi _2(M,L))=\sigma (L),\sigma (L)>0`$. $`\phi =\phi ^1`$ is a Hamiltonian automorphism of $`(M,\omega )`$ generated by the Hamiltonian $`H:[0,1]\times M`$ with $`H<\sigma (L)`$. Then the cup-length estimate of the Lagrangian intersection holds

$$\mathrm{}\{L\phi (L)\}\text{cl}(L).$$

###### Demonstration Proof

By the assumption $`H<\sigma (L)`$, for a generic almost complex structure $`J`$ compatible with the symplectic structure $`\omega `$, let $`k+1=\text{cl}(L)`$, then by Corollary 4.2 we find solutions $`u_n_{y_0;y_1,\mathrm{},y_k}^0((k+1)R_n)`$ for some sequence $`R_n\mathrm{}`$ and $`y_i\text{Crit}f`$ where $`(f,g^i)`$ satisfy (4.15). By Corollary 4.9, Theorem 4.5 and Remark 4.7, there are $`k+1`$ critical points $`𝕩_i\stackrel{~}{𝒮}_L(H)`$ for $`𝒜_H`$ on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0(L)`$ defined in section 2 such that

$$l𝒜_H(𝕩_1)<\mathrm{}<𝒜_H(𝕩_{k+1})l+H$$

for some $`l`$. Due to the assumption $`H<\sigma (L)`$ again, there is no broken trajectory of flow started from some solution $`x𝒮_L(H)`$ and ended at the same solution. In fact, the energy of this mentioned broken trajectory should be not less than the number $`\sigma (L)`$, but on the other hand side, this energy should be not more than $`H`$ since $`E(u_n)H`$. Namely, the $`k+1`$ critical points $`𝕩_i`$ project to $`k+1`$ different solutions $`x_i𝒮_L(H)`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Remark 4.12. Remark. As in \[Ch1-Ch2\], the symplectic manifold can be more generally a tame symplectic manifold, since the tameness condition allows us to deal with $`M`$ as if it is compact, all the techniques are the same as in the compact case if we only consider the compactly supported Hamiltonian $`H`$. We recall that $`(M,\omega )`$ is tame if there exists an almost complex structure $`J`$ on $`M`$ such that $`g(,)=\omega (,J)`$ is a Riemannian metric on $`M`$ satisfying the following conditions:

(i) Riemannian manifold $`(M,g)`$ is complete,

(ii) the sectional curvature of $`g`$ is bounded,

(iii) the injectivity radius of $`g`$ is bounded away from zero.

Let $`J`$ be an almost complex structure on $`M`$ such that $`(M,\omega ,J)`$ is a tame almost Kähler manifold, denote by $`𝒥`$ the space of such stuctures. Let $`\sigma _S(M,J)`$ denote the minimal area of a $`J`$-holomorphic sphere in $`M`$, and $`\sigma _D(M,L,J)`$ denote the minimal area of a $`J`$-holomorphic disc in $`M`$ with boundary on $`L`$. These numbers may equal infinity if there are no such $`J`$-holomorphic curves. Otherwise, minimals are achieves due to the Gromov compactness theorem (see \[G\])and are clearly positive. Let

$$\sigma (M,L,J)=\mathrm{min}(\sigma _S(M,J),\sigma _D(M,L,J))$$

We remind the number $`\sigma _0(\omega ,H,J)`$ is defined just before Theorem 4.5. The following result does not require that $`L`$ is rational Lagrangian submanifold of $`M`$.

###### Theorem 4.13

If $`H<\mathrm{min}(\sigma _0(\omega ,H,J),\sigma (M,L,J))`$, then the standard cup-length estimate is valid

$$\mathrm{}(L\phi (L))\text{cl}(M).$$

###### Demonstration Proof

The proof is the same as in the proof of Theorem 4.11. With the condition $`H<\mathrm{min}(\sigma _0(\omega ,H,J),\sigma (M,L,J))`$, the bubbling-off can not occur, we can also guarantee that the different critical points $`𝕩_i\stackrel{~}{𝒮}_L(H)`$ can be project to different $`x_i𝒮_L(H)`$ as done in the proof of Theorem 4.11. $`\mathrm{}`$


format: text

text:
# Enhancement of Macroscopic Quantum Tunneling by Landau–Zener Transitions

## Abstract

Motivated by recent realizations of qubits with a readout by macroscopic quantum tunneling in a Josephson junction, we study the problem of barrier penetration in presence of coupling to a spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ system. It is shown that when the diabatic potentials for fixed spin intersect in the barrier region, Landau–Zener transitions lead to an enhancement of the tunneling rate. The effect of these spin flips in imaginary time is in qualitative agreement with experimental observations.

Macroscopic Quantum Tunneling (MQT) in Josephson systems leggett  has been studied in detail both experimentally devoret  and theoretically grabert  in the eighties but has gained renewed interest very recently vion ; martinis  since the exponential dependence of the MQT rate on parameters allows for a high fidelity readout of qubits based on superconducting circuits. In this context a new variety of quantum tunneling problem arises, namely, barrier penetration in presence of coupling to a spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ describing the qubit. For fixed spin the phase of the Josephson junction tunnels through a diabatic potential barrier, and the exponentially large difference between the MQT rates corresponding to the barrier potentials for the two spin directions is exploited in the readout to determine the spin state. However, there is an interesting parameter range where the diabatic potentials intersect in the barrier region so that Landau-Zener (LZ) transitions may arise. In contrast to the well-studied problem of LZ transitions in real time LZ , here, within the standard semiclassical approach to quantum tunneling, these transitions occur in “imaginary” time. It is shown that they cause an enhancement of the tunneling rate in the appropriate parameter range in agreement with experimental observations vion2 . To motivate the Hamiltonian underlying this work, we briefly consider the quantronium circuit vion  consisting of a small superconducting electrode, the island, carrying an excess number of $`N`$ Cooper pairs. This island is attached to a superconducting loop via two Josephson junctions with Josephson energy $`E_J/2`$, and it can be biased by a voltage source $`U`$ through a gate capacitance $`C_g`$ inducing the dimensionless gate charge $`N_g=C_gU/2e`$. For sufficiently large Coulomb charging energy $`E_C=(2e)^2/2C`$, where $`C`$ is the island capacitance, and for $`N_g`$ near $`\frac{1}{2}`$ only two charge states $`N=0,1`$ are relevant, and the island corresponds to an effective spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ system that can serve as a qubit manipulated via the gate. For readout purposes the superconducting loop is interrupted by a Josephson junction with Josephson energy $`E_J^{}`$ that is shunted by a large capacitance $`C^{}`$ and can be biased by a current $`I_b`$. This circuit is described by the Hamiltonian

$``$ $`=`$ $`E_C(NN_g)^2E_J\mathrm{cos}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\theta +\varphi }{2}}\right)\mathrm{cos}(\delta )`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{2C^{}}}E_J^{}\mathrm{cos}(\theta ){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}I_b}{2e}}\theta `$
with the conjugate observables $`[N,\delta ]=i`$ for the qubit and $`[Q,\theta ]=2ie`$ for the readout junction, respectively. $`\varphi `$ denotes the external magnetic flux through the superconducting loop in units of the flux quantum $`\mathrm{}/2e`$.

Within the subspace spanned by the eigenvectors $`|0,|1`$ of the operator $`N`$, the qubit can be described by Pauli matrices $`\sigma _i`$. Further, measuring all energies in units of $`E_J^{}`$, we obtain the dimensionless Hamiltonian

$$H=ϵ\sigma _zj\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{\theta +\varphi }{2}\right)\sigma _x+\frac{p_\theta ^2}{2m}\mathrm{cos}(\theta )i_b\theta $$
(1)
with the dimensionless parameters $`ϵ=(E_C/E_J^{})(N_g\frac{1}{2})`$, $`j=E_J/E_J^{}`$, and $`i_b=\mathrm{}I_b/2eE_J^{}`$. The variables $`p_\theta =Q/2e`$ and $`\theta `$, with the commutator $`[p_\theta ,\theta ]=i`$, may be viewed as dimensionless momentum and coordinate of a particle with dimensionless mass $`m=C^{}E_J^{}/4e^2`$. We do not discuss here the manipulations of the qubit done for $`i_b=0`$, but address the readout when the bias current is increased to a value slightly below the dimensionless critical current $`i_c=1`$. The problem at hand then is tunneling of this ficticious particle through a barrier of the potential $`\mathrm{cos}(\theta )i_b\theta `$ in presence of the interaction with the spin.

In view of the large mass $`m`$ the coordinate $`\theta `$ is almost a classical variable. When the kinetic energy $`p_\theta ^2/2m`$ is neglected, the Hamiltonian (1) can easily be diagonalized with the eigenvalues

$$\lambda _\pm (i_b,\theta )=\mathrm{cos}(\theta )i_b\theta \pm \sqrt{ϵ^2+j^2\mathrm{cos}^2[(\theta +\varphi )/2]}$$

that determine two adiabatic potential surfaces. At zero temperature and for vanishing bias current the system will approach the minimum of the lower surface $`\lambda _{}(i_b=0,\theta )`$ which for small $`ϵ`$ and $`j`$ lies close to $`\theta =0`$. As usual in MQT experiments, the switching of the bias current form $`0`$ to a value close to $`i_c=1`$ is slow compared to the characteristic time scales of the circuit. When the system follows the bias current adiabatically, the particle lies at finite bias $`i_b`$ near the minimum $`\theta _{}(i_b)`$ of the adiabatic potential $`\lambda _{}(i_b,\theta )`$. This state serves as the initial state for the calculation of the tunneling rate.

For this initial state it is natural to use the spin eigenvectors $`|\theta _{},+,|\theta _{},`$ associated with the eigenvalues $`\lambda _\pm (i_b,\theta _{})`$ as a basis for a matrix representation of the Hamiltonian (1). We then find

$$H=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{p_\theta ^2}{2m}+V_+(\theta )& \mathrm{\Delta }(\theta )\\ \mathrm{\Delta }(\theta )& \frac{p_\theta ^2}{2m}+V_{}(\theta )\end{array}\right)$$
(2)
where

$$V_\pm (\theta )=\mathrm{cos}(\theta )i_b\theta \pm \left(\sqrt{ϵ^2+V_0^2}+\kappa _0[V(\theta )V_0]\right)$$
(3)
are now two diabatic surfaces corresponding to the two spin orientations $`|\theta _{},+,|\theta _{},`$, and

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(\theta )=ϵ\kappa _0\left[1\frac{V(\theta )}{V_0}\right]$$

is the $`\theta `$ dependent coupling between them. For convenience, we introduced

$$V(\theta )=j\mathrm{cos}[(\theta +\varphi )/2],$$

and $`V_0=V(\theta _{})`$, as well as

$$\kappa _0=2V_0\frac{ϵ+\sqrt{ϵ^2+V_0^2}}{(ϵ+\sqrt{ϵ^2+V_0^2})^2+V_0^2}.$$

Apparently, for $`\theta =\theta _{}`$ the Hamiltonian (2) is diagonal. It further becomes diagonal in the limits $`ϵ0`$ or $`j0`$.

Depending on the external flux $`\varphi `$ and $`ϵ/j`$ the two diabatic potentials (3) may intersect. As can be seen from Fig. 1 this is always the case for $`\varphi `$ near $`\frac{\pi }{2}`$ and $`ϵ`$ small compared to $`j`$.

Near such a crossing point $`\theta _{}`$, which is determined by

$$\frac{ϵ}{j}=\left[\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{\theta _{}+\varphi }{2}\right)\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{\theta _{}+\varphi }{2}\right)\right]^{1/2},$$

the diabatic potential surfaces are strongly coupled by the off-diagonal element of the Hamiltonian (2). To quantify the strength of this coupling we may introduce the parameter

$$g(\theta )=\left|\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }(\theta )}{V_+(\theta )V_{}(\theta )}\right|$$

which diverges at the crossing point $`\theta _{}`$. A LZ region where spin-flips may occur can then be defined by the condition $`g(\theta )>1`$. We assume that this region is restricted to the vicinity of $`\theta _{}`$. In fact, when the bias current is sufficiently far from the critical current to allow for several states in the metastable minimum, the LZ region turns out to be narrow except near the boundary between the regions I and II in Fig. 1. This crossover region will be discussed further below.

To determine the tunneling rate we employ the “bounce technique” bounce  which relates the rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ essentially to an imaginary time trajectory in the inverted potential, the so–called bounce. This method is equivalent to WKB and starts out form the partition function of the metastable system

$$Z=\mathrm{Tr}\{|\theta _{},\theta _{},|\mathrm{e}^{\beta H}\}$$

which has to be evaluated in the semiclassical limit for $`\beta \mathrm{}`$. Within the path integral representation this takes the form

$`Z`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }𝒟[\theta ]\mathrm{e}^{S_{}[\theta ]}\{1+`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle _0^\beta }𝑑s_{2n}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle _0^{s_2}}𝑑s_1\mathrm{\Delta }[\theta (s_{2n})]\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }[\theta (s_1)]`$
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle _{s_{2k1}}^{s_{2k}}}d\tau (V_{}[\theta ]V_+[\theta ])\right]\}`$
where the path sum runs over all orbits with period $`\beta `$ switching $`2n`$ times between $`V_{}`$ and $`V_+`$ at times $`s_1<s_2<\mathrm{}<s_{2n}`$. The Euclidian action on $`V_{}`$ is

$$S_{}=_0^\beta 𝑑\tau \left[\frac{p_\theta ^2}{2m}+V_{}(\theta )\right].$$

In the semiclassical limit $`Z`$ decomposes into $`Z_{sc}Z_w+Z_0+Z_2`$. Here $`Z_w`$ is the partition function of the well which is obtained by summing over paths in the vicinity of the trivial trajectory $`\theta (\tau )=\theta _{}`$ sitting at the well minimum. $`Z_0`$ is the contribution of paths in the vicinity of the standard non–flip bounce trajectory in $`V_{}`$. In region II we also have to take into account the contribution $`Z_2`$ from paths that flip when the bounce traverses the LZ region. Trajectories with four and more spin–flips can be neglected away form the boundary between regions I and II. Both the bounce and spin–flip bounce are saddlepoint trajectories with an unstable fluctuation mode which after an analytical continuation bounce  yield imaginary and, compared to $`Z_w`$, exponentially small contributions that determine the rate. Following standard procedures, we obtain for the dimensionless rate, in units of $`E_J^{}/\mathrm{}`$,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=\underset{\beta \mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{2}{\beta }\mathrm{}(Z_0+Z_2)/Z_w=\mathrm{\Gamma }_0+\mathrm{\Gamma }_2.$$
(4)
To evaluate this explicitly, we first note that within the barrier region the potentials $`V_\pm `$ can very accurately be approximated by cubic polynomials. It is convenient to introduce for each diabatic potential the frequency at the well bottom

$$\omega _\pm ^2=V_\pm ^{\prime \prime }(\theta _\pm )/m,$$

and a scaled distance

$$x_{}^\pm =(\theta _{}\theta _\pm )/(\theta _\pm ^0\theta _\pm )$$

between the well bottom and the “exit point” $`\theta _\pm ^0`$ where $`V_\pm (\theta _\pm ^0)=V_\pm (\theta _\pm )`$. Further, $`V_b^\pm `$ is the barrier height with respect to the minimum $`V_\pm (\theta _\pm )`$.

Since we are interested in the limit $`\beta \mathrm{}`$, it is natural to look for solutions in the time interval $`s[\beta /2,\beta /2]`$. The simple bounce trajectory in the inverted potential $`V_{}(\theta )`$ then reads (see Fig. 2)

$$\theta _{\mathrm{bounce}}(s)=\theta _{}+(\theta _{}^0\theta _{})/\mathrm{cosh}^2(\omega _{}s/2).$$

This trajectory dominates the non-flip contribution $`Z_0`$ that has been evaluated previously yielding the well-known MQT rate in the absence of damping caldeira

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=6\sqrt{6\omega _{}V_b^{}/\pi }\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{36}{5}\frac{V_b^{}}{\omega _{}}\right)$$
(5)
which determines the rate in region I of Fig. 1.

In region II the semiclassical trajectory may switch to the potential surface $`V_+(\theta )`$ in the LZ region. The lowest order flip contribution reads

$`Z_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝒟[\theta ]\mathrm{e}^{S_{}[\theta ]}_0^\beta 𝑑s_2_0^{s_2}𝑑s_1\mathrm{\Delta }[\theta (s_2)]\mathrm{\Delta }[\theta (s_1)]}`$
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle _{s_1}^{s_2}}𝑑\tau (V_{}[\theta ]V_+[\theta ])\right].`$
To determine $`Z_2`$ we proceed as follows: First, the action for the flip bounce is calculated for arbitrary flipping times $`s_1<s_2`$. Due to energy conservation and the periodic boundary condition one finds that the restriction $`\theta (s_1)=\theta (s_2)`$ applies. For a path running in the interval $`[\beta /2,\beta /2]`$ this means that the flips have to occur symmetrically around $`s=0`$. Second, as a function of $`s_1`$ the action has a minimum at an optimal flipping time $`s_1^{}`$ determined by

$$p_\theta \frac{t_+[\theta ]}{\theta }\{V_+[\theta ]V_{}[\theta ]\}|_{s=s_1^{}}=0$$
(6)
where $`t_+[\theta ]`$ is the time the bounce spends on the $`V_+`$ surface. As one might have guessed, Eq. (6) yields $`V_+[\theta ]=V_{}[\theta ]`$, so that the optimal flips occur at the intersection point $`\theta _{}`$ of the diabatic potentials. Then $`\theta _{}=\theta (s_1^{})`$ and $`s_2^{}s_1^{}=t_+(\theta _{}):=t_+`$. \[Other solutions of Eq. (6) with $`p_\theta (s_1^{})=0`$ mean that flips occur either in the well or at the turning point. In both cases the orbit has no energy to run on $`V_+`$ and one regains the simple bounce action on $`V_{}`$. Further, solutions with $`t_+[\theta ]/\theta =0`$ corresponds to a maximum of the action.\]

This way the trajectory at the saddlepoint of the action is obtained as

$$\theta _{\mathrm{flip}}(s)=h(|s|\frac{t_+}{2})\theta _{\mathrm{flip}}^{}(s)+h(\frac{t_+}{2}|s|)\theta _{\mathrm{flip}}^+(s).$$

Here the step functions $`h()`$ select the time segments spend on the two potential surfaces, where

$$t_+=\frac{2}{\omega _+\lambda }\mathrm{F}(\phi |\overline{m}).$$
(7)
The parameter $`\lambda =[P^{}(x_0)]^{1/4}`$ is determined by the slope $`P^{}`$ of the polynomial

$$P(x)=x^3x^2\frac{4}{27}\rho ,\text{with }\rho =\frac{V_+(\theta _+)V_{}(\theta _{})}{V_b^+}$$
(8)
at its zero where $`P(x_0)=0`$, and $`\mathrm{F}(\phi |\overline{m})`$ is the elliptic integral of the first kind with modulus $`\overline{m}=1/2+P^{\prime \prime }(x_0)/8\lambda ^2`$ and angle $`\mathrm{cos}(\phi )=[\lambda ^2(x_0x_{}^+)]/[\lambda ^2+(x_0x_{}^+)]`$. Further, $`\theta _{\mathrm{flip}}^{}(s)=\theta _{\mathrm{bounce}}[s\mathrm{sign}(s)\alpha ]`$ describes the segments of the flip bounce on the surface $`V_{}`$ where it coincides with the simple bounce apart from a phase

$$\alpha =\frac{t_+}{2}\frac{2}{\omega _{}}\mathrm{Arccosh}(\sqrt{x_{}^{}}).$$

Finally, the segment running on $`V_+`$ follows as

$$\theta _{\mathrm{flip}}^+(s)=\theta _++(\theta _+^0\theta _+)\left[x_0+\lambda ^2\frac{\mathrm{cn}(\lambda s\omega _+|\overline{m})1}{\mathrm{cn}(\lambda s\omega _+|\overline{m})+1}\right]$$

where $`\mathrm{cn}()`$ is a Jacobi function (see Fig. 2).

For the action of this flip bounce one finds

$`S_{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{18V_b^{}}{5\omega _{}}}\left[\sqrt{(1x_{}^{})^3}\left(3\sqrt{(1x_{}^{})}5\right)+2\right]`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{18V_b^+}{5\omega _+}}[{\displaystyle \frac{2x_02\lambda ^2+9\rho }{2\lambda }}\mathrm{F}(\phi |\overline{m})+2\lambda \mathrm{E}(\phi |\overline{m})`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{P(x_{}^+)}({\displaystyle \frac{4}{\lambda ^2+x_0x_{}^+}}+P^{\prime \prime }(x_{}^+))].`$
Here, E$`()`$ is the elliptic integral of the second kind.

Next, the action is expanded around $`S_{}`$ with respect to variations of the flipping times up to second order. For this purpose it is convenient to introduce sum, $`u=s_1+s_2`$, and difference, $`v=s_2s_1`$, times, respectively. The Gaussian factor describing deviations from $`s_1^{},s_2^{}`$ then depends only on $`v`$, i.e. only on the relative position of the flips but not on the absolute position of the bounce in time. Hence, like the conventional non–flip bounce, the flip bounce has one zero mode (corresponding to the integration over $`u`$), while the integration over $`v`$ is weighted with a Gaussian factor $`\mathrm{exp}[\mathrm{\Omega }_1^2/2(vt_+[\theta _{}])^2]`$. The frequency

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_1=\frac{2}{m}V_{}(\theta _{})[V_+^{}(\theta _{})V_{}^{}(\theta _{})]\frac{t_+(\theta )}{\theta }|_{\theta =\theta _{}}$$

is proportional to the second derivative of the action at $`s_1^{},s_2^{}`$. Here, $`t_+(\theta )`$ for arbitrary $`\theta `$ is given by the expression (7) where the parameters $`\lambda (\theta )`$ and $`\overline{m}(\theta )`$ are gained by replacing in (8) $`\rho \rho (\theta )=\rho +[V_{}(\theta )V_+(\theta )]/V_b^+`$ and the angle $`\phi (\theta )`$ follows from $`\mathrm{cos}(\phi )=[\lambda ^2(x_0x^+)]/[\lambda ^2+(x_0x^+)]`$ with $`x^+(\theta )=(\theta \theta _+)/(\theta _+^0\theta _+)`$.

Finally, fluctuations in $`\theta `$ are calculated in the usual way bounce  from a ratio of two determinants where the zero eigenvalue is omitted and replaced by the proper zero mode normalization factor while the unstable mode is accounted for by an analytic continuation leading to the imaginary part.

Eventually, one obtains in the limit $`\beta \mathrm{}`$ for the contribution $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ to the rate (4)

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_2=6\sqrt{\frac{3V_b^{}}{\omega _{}}}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }(\theta _{})^2}{\mathrm{\Omega }_1}\mathrm{erfc}\left[\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_1t_+(\theta _{})}{\sqrt{2}}\right]\mathrm{e}^S_{}.$$

This can be combined with (5) to yield the central result of this paper, namely, the decay rate in region II

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Gamma }_0\left\{1+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }(\theta _{})^2}{\omega _{}\mathrm{\Omega }_1}\sqrt{\frac{\pi }{2}}\mathrm{erfc}\left[\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_1t_+(\theta _{})}{\sqrt{2}}\right]\mathrm{e}^{(S_{}S_{})}\right\}$$

with $`S_{}=\frac{36}{5}V_b^{}/\omega _{}`$. The corresponding rate enhancement is shown in Fig. 3.

Apparently, there is a pronounced exponential increase of the total rate due to spin flips in the LZ range along the bounce. This is in agreement with experimental findings of the peak current variation with magnetic flux in the quantronium device vion2 .

As one approaches the boundary between I and II the LZ region grows and in a narrow boundary layer the parameter $`g(\theta )`$ in (Enhancement of Macroscopic Quantum Tunneling by Landau–Zener Transitions) is larger than 1 in the entire barrier range. Then, multi–spin flips can occur anywhere along the bounce and also during the switching on of the bias current. However, since the exponential factors of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ coincide at the boundary, this breakdown of the nonadiabatic approach utilized here, essentially reduces to a prefactor effect smoothing the transition between the results in region I and II. A more interesting extension of the present work would consider initial states where due to manipulations via the charge gate the system moves on the upper adiabatic potential surface $`\lambda _+(i_b,\theta )`$. This will be addressed in future work.

The authors would like to thank D. Esteve, P. Joyez, H. Pothier, C. Urbina, and D. Vion for motivating this work and fruitful discussions. Financial support has been provided by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (Bonn) and the European Community.


text:
# Lyapunov timescales and black hole binaries

## II Schwarzschild orbits

### A Circular orbits

Here we evaluate the Lyapunov exponent of unstable orbits around the Schwarzschild black hole. We consider the usual geodesics of a non-spinning, light companion. We work in Schwarzschild time, the time measured by an observer asymptotically far from the black hole. The Lyapunov exponent was already evaluated in Ref.  in a different time coordinate system. This exemplifies the ambiguity of time. Still, the timescales which were compared in that paper were all measured in the same coordinate system and therefore the general conclusions of Ref.  still hold.

To isolate $`\lambda `$, we begin with the Lagrangian for a (non-spinning) test particle in the Schwarzschild spacetime

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}({\displaystyle \frac{(r2)}{r}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{dt}{ds}}\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{r}{r2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{dr}{ds}}\right)^2`$ (8)
$`+r^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\theta }{ds}}\right)^2+r^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \left({\displaystyle \frac{d\varphi }{ds}}\right)^2).`$
The black hole mass has been set to unity. We consider motion in an equatorial plane to eliminate the cylic $`\theta `$ variable by setting it equal to $`\pi /2`$ and define the canonical momenta by $`\delta /\delta (dq/ds)=p_q`$:

$`p_t`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{r2}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{ds}}=E`$ (9)
$`p_\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`r^2{\displaystyle \frac{d\varphi }{ds}}=L`$ (10)
$`p_r`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{r}{r2}}{\displaystyle \frac{dr}{ds}}.`$ (11)
To change into Schwarzschild time $`t`$, we use eqn. (9) to define the transformation

$$\frac{d}{ds}=\frac{Er}{r2}\frac{d}{dt}.$$
(12)
Notice that in Ref.  an unusual time coordinate $`t^{}`$ was used instead which was defined by the transformation

$$\frac{d}{ds}=\frac{r2}{Er}\frac{d}{dt^{}}.$$
(13)
We will redo the stability analysis in Schwarzschild time $`t`$. The equations of motion can be derived through

$$\frac{\delta }{\delta dr/ds}\frac{\delta }{\delta r}=0$$
(14)
and reduce to a two-dimensional system:

$`\dot{p}_r`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{E}{r(r2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{r2}{r^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{p_r^2}{E}}+{\displaystyle \frac{r2}{r^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{L^2}{E}}`$ (15)
$`\dot{r}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{r2}{r}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{p_r}{E}}`$ (16)
where an overdot denotes differentiation with respect to Schwarzschild time $`t`$. To compare with Ref. , we first consider circular orbits. Linearizing the equations of motion with $`X_i(t)=(p_r,r)`$ about orbits of constant $`r`$ gives

$$K_{ij}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \frac{2(r1)E}{r^2(r2)^2}\frac{L^2}{E}\frac{(3r8)}{r^5}\\ \left(\frac{r2}{r}\right)^2\frac{1}{E}& 0\end{array}\right)$$
(17)
The eigenvalues along circular orbits are

$`\lambda _\pm =\pm \left[{\displaystyle \frac{2(r1)}{r^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{(3r8)(r2)^2}{r^7}}{\displaystyle \frac{L^2}{E^2}}\right]^{1/2}.`$ (18)
For the unstable circular orbit at $`r=4`$ the angular momentum and energy are $`L=4,E=1`$ respectively and the eigenvalues of $`K_{ij}`$ are

$$\lambda _\pm =\pm \frac{1}{8\sqrt{2}}.$$
(19)
The conservation of energy ensures that in these canonical coordinates, the Lyapunov exponents must come in plus-minus pairs to conserve the volume of phase space.

The unit normalized eigenvectors corresponding to $`\lambda _\pm `$ are

$`𝐞_+`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}(1,2\sqrt{2})`$ (20)
$`𝐞_{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}(1,2\sqrt{2}).`$ (21)
In this eigenbasis $`K_{ij}`$ is diagonal with

$$K_{ij}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{8\sqrt{2}}& 0\\ 0& \frac{1}{8\sqrt{2}}\end{array}\right)$$
(22)
so that

$$L_{ij}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{exp}(\frac{1}{8\sqrt{2}}t)& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{exp}(\frac{1}{8\sqrt{2}}t)\end{array}\right).$$
(23)
Notice that in Ref. , the analysis was carried out in a four-dimensional coordinate system: $`X_i^{}=(p_r,p_\varphi ,r,\varphi )`$. The additional coordinates are unimportant in the dynamical study and only hampered the diagonalization of $`K_{ij}`$ . If we were to redo the stability analysis in three coordinates $`X^{\prime \prime }=(p_r,p_\varphi ,r)`$, we would get the same eigenvalues (19) and an additional $`\lambda =0`$. If we move up to the four coordinates of $`X_i^{}`$ we add yet another $`\lambda =0`$ giving a degenerate set of eigenvalues. The matrix $`K_{ij}`$ cannot be diagonalized in the event of degenerate eigenvalues which leads to an unnecessary complication. For this reason, we stick to the pertinent two-dimensional system $`X_i=(p_r,r)`$.

The relativity of time and the influence on the Lyapunov exponent is apparent at this stage. In Schwarschild time $`t`$ we find $`\lambda _\pm =\pm \frac{1}{8\sqrt{2}}`$ while in the time $`t^{}`$ used in Ref. , at $`r=4`$ the exponents were found to be $`\lambda _\pm ^{}=\pm \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}`$. The Lyapunov exponents are not coordinate invariant. However at $`r=4`$, $`t^{}=t/4`$ and it follows that the combination

$$\lambda t=\lambda ^{}t^{}$$
(24)
is invariant.

We compare the Lyapunov timescale $`T_\lambda =1/\lambda `$ to the gravitational wave timescale $`T_w=2\pi /\dot{\varphi }`$. For the orbit at $`r=4`$, $`T_\lambda /T_w=\sqrt{2}/\pi 0.45`$. The Lyapunov timescale is less than about one orbit around the central black hole. Notice that even though Ref.  operated in an unusual time, the calculations were performed self-consistently so that the ratio of $`T_\lambda `$ to $`T_w`$ is correct. The Lyapunov timescale is shorter than the gravitational wave timescale, making the instability observationally relevant.

In principle we could also compare $`T_\lambda `$ to the decay time due to energy lost in the form of gravitational radiation. For a test-particle in a circular orbit around a Schwarzschild black hole the decay time is $`T_d=(5/256)r^4/\mu `$ where $`\mu `$ is the reduced mass. At $`r=4`$ this is $`T_d=5/(3\mu )1`$ since in the test-particle limit $`\mu 1`$ and $`T_\lambda `$ will be shorter than the decay time, again making the instability observationally relevant.

### B Homoclinic orbits

Although the unstable circular obits are often emphasized they are actually a subset of the pertinent orbits. The division between stability and instability for a Schwarzschild black hole is often taken to be the innermost stable circular orbit (ISCO). The ISCO is actually the saddle point at which the unstable circular orbit coincides with the stable circular orbit. From a dynamical systems point of view, the true division between stability and instability occurs more generally along the homoclinic orbits .

The stable manifold of a periodic orbit is defined as the set of points in phase space that, when evolved forwards in time, approach the periodic orbit. The unstable manifold is the set of points in phase that, when evolved backwards in time, approach the periodic orbit. For an integrable, nonchaotic system, the stable and unstable manifolds can intersect each other along a single orbit. This orbit is called homoclinic if it approaches the same fixed point in the past and in the future. For black holes the homoclinic orbits begin at an unstable circular orbit, roll out to a maximum radius and fall back in to the same unstable circular orbit. An example is shown in fig. 1. The homoclinic orbits are sometimes called zoom-and-whirl orbits in the gravitational wave literature because the orbits whirl around the center of mass and then zoom out into an ellipse before whirling in again.

Under perturbation the homoclinic orbits can become the site of a homoclinic tangle. The tangle occurs when the stable and unstable manifolds intersect transversely at an infinite number of points. The intersection will no longer occur along a simple line but will instead define a fractal set of chaotic orbits. In this section, we study the stability of the nonchaotic, simple set of homoclinic orbits around a Schwarzschild black hole. In §IV we study chaotic orbits of spinning black holes.

As is well known, orbital motion around a Schwarzschild black hole conveniently reduces to one-dimensional motion in an effective potential

$$\frac{1}{2}\dot{r}^2+V_{\mathrm{eff}}(r)=E$$
(25)
with

$$V_{\mathrm{eff}}(r)=E+\frac{(r2)^3}{2E^2r^3}\left(1+\frac{L^2}{r^2}\right)\frac{(r2)^2}{2r^2}.$$
(26)
Circular orbits are solutions of $`V_{\mathrm{eff}}=E`$. For large enough angular momentum there are two circular orbits, one unstable and one stable. As found in Ref. , the homoclinic orbits have $`E<1`$ and are described by the solution

$`p_r`$ $`=`$ $`\pm {\displaystyle \frac{r}{r2}}\left[E^2{\displaystyle \frac{r2}{r}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{L^2}{r^2}}\right)\right]^{1/2}`$ (27)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{12\beta }{6}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{2}}\mathrm{tanh}^2(\sqrt{\beta }\varphi /2)`$ (28)
where $`0\beta 1/2`$ and $`t(\varphi )`$ is a complicated function . ***There appears to be typo in eqn. (1.5) of . Eqn. (27) has a factor 1/2 which is missing from the second term in eqn. (1.5). The circular orbits can also be parameterzied by $`\beta `$ as

$`r_{\mathrm{unstable}}`$ $`=`$ $`6/(1+\beta )`$ (30)
$`r_{\mathrm{stable}}`$ $`=`$ $`6/(1\beta )`$ (31)
$`L`$ $`=`$ $`2\sqrt{3/(1\beta ^2)}`$ (32)
$`E`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\beta }{3}}\sqrt{2/(1\beta )}.`$ (33)
A homoclinic oribt starts at $`r_{\mathrm{unstable}}`$ and rolls out to

$$r_{\mathrm{max}}=6/(12\beta )$$
(34)
winding around the black hole as it does so and then drops back in to $`r_{\mathrm{unstable}}`$. The ISCO is a homoclinic orbit with $`\beta =0`$. The first homoclinic orbit at $`\beta =1/2`$ starts at the unstable orbit at $`r=4`$ and rolls out to infinity before returning. For $`\beta =1/4`$, $`r_{\mathrm{unstable}}=4.8`$, $`r_{\mathrm{stable}}=8`$ and $`r_{\mathrm{max}}=12`$. The effective potential for the homoclinic orbit is drawn in fig. 2. A segment of the orbit in the equatorial plane is represented in fig. 1.

To analyze the stability we linearize to find

$$K_{ij}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{2(r2)}{r^3}\frac{p_r}{E}& \frac{2(r1)E}{r^2(r2)^2}+\frac{2(r3)}{r^4}\frac{p_r^2}{E}\frac{L^2}{E}\frac{(3r8)}{r^5}\\ \left(\frac{r2}{r}\right)^2\frac{1}{E}& \frac{4(r2)}{r^3}\frac{p_r}{E}\end{array}\right).$$
(35)
The most general eigenvalues are

$`\mathrm{}_\pm =\left({\displaystyle \frac{r2}{r^2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{p_r}{E}}`$ $`\pm `$ $`[(2r5){\displaystyle \frac{(r2)^2}{r^6}}{\displaystyle \frac{p_r^2}{E^2}}`$ (36)
$`+`$ $`2{\displaystyle \frac{(r1)}{r^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{(3r8)(r2)^2}{r^7}}{\displaystyle \frac{L^2}{E^2}}]^{1/2}`$ (37)
Strictly speaking, $`\mathrm{}`$ is a stability exponent and is not identical to the time averaged Lyapunov exponent defined in eqn. (6). Figure 3 shows the real and imaginary parts of the positive stability exponent. As expected, the exponent is postive near the unstable inner radius and becomes imaginary in the vicinity of the stable circular radius dropping down to nearly zero as it reaches the apihelion and then runs back through these values as it moves back in to perihelion.

Because of this time variability in the stability along the orbit, we have to be cautious in interpreting the timescales. The gravitational wave frequency will jag up and down as the orbit zooms and whirls . And it isn’t obvious which timescales to compare. Instead of using the variable, analytic result we could try a time average.

To this end we compare the analytic value of $`\mathrm{}`$ from eqn. (36) to the time average Lyapunov exponent defined from eqn. (6)

$$\lambda =\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{t}\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{L_{jj}(t)}{L_{jj}(0)}\right).$$
(38)
For comparison we first look along the unstable circular orbit at $`r=4.8`$. The upper panel of figure 4 shows the Lyapunov exponent as defined by eqn. (6) for the unstable circular orbit. The exponent was obtained by numerically integrating the $`L_{ij}`$ using eqn. (5) and figure 4 shows $`\lambda t`$ versus $`t`$ from eqn. (6). The numerically calculated value shown in figure 4 is identical to the analytic value given by eqn. (18) of $`\lambda 0.475`$.

However for a homoclinic orbit which begins at $`r=4.8`$, the time averaged (6) behaves as though there is no instability (lower panel of figure 4), when we know from the analytic result shown in fig. 3 that there is. The time averaged Lyapunov exponent will vanish along this orbit even though it clearly has an unstable segment. We have to be very cautious therefore when we interpret the Lyapunov exponent.

For emphasis, if one was just scanning numerically, the mistaken conclusion could be drawn that these orbits were dynamically simple. This may turn out to be particularly important for the chaotic orbits of §IV.

## III Post-Newtonian Orbits

To move beyond the test particle limit, the two-body problem has been expanded in a Post-Newtonian (PN) expansion approximation to the fully relativistic two-body problem . In this section we consider two black holes which are not spinning. In Ref.  the stability of the fixed points in the PN equations to second-order (2PN) was tested following . We quote the results of Ref.  here. To second-order in the PN expansion, the center of mass equations of motion for the binary orbit can be written in harmonic coordinates as

$`\ddot{r}_h`$ $`=`$ $`r_h\dot{\varphi }^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r_h^2}}\left(A+B\dot{r}_h\right)`$ (39)
$`\ddot{\varphi }`$ $`=`$ $`\dot{\varphi }\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{r_h^2}}B+2{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{r}_h}{r_h}}\right)`$ (40)
where $`M=1`$ is the total mass of the pair. The transformation between harmonic coordinates and Schwarzschild coordinates is $`r_h=rm`$. The form of $`A(r_h,\dot{r}_h,\dot{\varphi })`$ and $`B(r_h,\dot{r}_h,\dot{\varphi })`$ depends on the relative masses of the two black holes and on the order of the PN expansion and can be found in Ref. .

As in Ref. , the stability of the fixed points is tested by perturbing eqns. (39)-(40) about a circular orbit to obtain,

$$K_{ij}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 1& 0\\ a& 0& b\\ 0& c& 0\end{array}\right)$$
(41)
with

$`a`$ $`=`$ $`3\dot{\varphi }_o^2{\displaystyle \frac{m}{r_{ho}^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{A}{r_h}}\right)_o`$ (42)
$`b`$ $`=`$ $`2r_{ho}\dot{\varphi }_o{\displaystyle \frac{m}{r_{ho}^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{A}{\dot{\varphi }}}\right)_o`$ (43)
$`c`$ $`=`$ $`\dot{\varphi }_o\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{r_{ho}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{m}{r_{ho}^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{B}{\dot{r}_h}}\right)_o\right),`$ (44)
where $`r_{ho}`$ is the radius of the circular orbit in harmonic coordinates and $`\dot{\varphi }_o^2=mA_o/r_{ho}^3`$ is a function of the radius of the orbit and is found explicitly in Ref. . The eigenvalues of (41) are,

$$\mathrm{}=0,\mathrm{}_\pm =\pm (a+bc)^{1/2}.$$
(45)
Stable oscillations about a circular orbit correspond to imaginary $`\mathrm{}`$ so that $`a+bc<0`$. Unstable orbits correspond to real positive $`\mathrm{}`$ and so have $`a+bc>0`$. The value of $`\mathrm{}^2`$ for equal mass binaries as a function of the circular radius is plotted in fig. 5.

Using the results of Ref.  we deduce that in the test-mass limit, the innermost unstable circular orbit occurs at Schwarzschild radius $`r_o=r_{ho}+1=4.96`$. A comparison to the gravitational wave timescale in the PN expansion then gives $`T_\lambda /T_w0.158`$. In the opposite extreme of equal mass binaries, the innermost unstable circular orbit occurs at $`r_o=r_{ho}+1=5.78`$ and $`T_\lambda /T_w0.21`$. A direct comparison to the Schwarzschild case isn’t that valuable. What is noteworthy is that the Lyapunov timescales are again less than about one orbit around the center of mass. Consequently, one expects the decoherence of the gravitational waveform to be observationally significant. The instability timescales are comparable to the decay times although of course even a small loss in energy can induce merger for such an unstable orbit.

The analysis extended to homoclinic orbits can be gleaned from Ref. . The homoclinic orbits to 2PN order show similar features to the homoclinic orbits of the Schwarzschild spacetime. The analytic Lyapunov exponent will pass from positive to imaginary values as the orbit winds around the center of mass. However, the time-averaged exponent will dilute these critical features.

None of these orbits are chaotic although they are unstable. We turn to the chaotic orbits of rapidly spinning binaries next.

## IV Chaotic orbits

The dynamics can become chaotic when the homoclinic orbit is perturbed leading to a homoclinic tangle. The intersection of the stable and unstable manifold will no longer occur along a line but will intersect transversally an infinite number of times. The fractal set of unstable chaotic orbits lies along this tangled intersection. Ref.  studied generic gravitational perturbations along the homoclinic orbits and found, as they expected, that the dynamics could become chaotic. The physical significance of the perturbations however wasn’t clear and therefore the observational consequences were difficult to assess.

The chaotic dynamics discovered in Ref.  for a supra-maximally spinning test-particle and for rapidly spinning pairs in the Post-Newtonian expansion , may occur along these homoclinic orbits. At the least the chaotic behaviour kicks up most conspicuously in the vicinity of these orbits.

We cannot determine the Lyapunov exponents analytically since the orbits are not analytically soluble - the very meaning of nonintegrability. We can however use eqn. (6) to numerically determine the exponents as we have done in Ref. . The Lyapunov exponent for a maximally spinning pair of black holes is shown in fig. 6. The value read from this is $`T_\lambda 11`$ in units of windings around the center of mass. A segment of the orbit projected onto a plane is shown in fig. 7.

For such an erratic orbit, it is not simple to define the gravitational wave timescale or the radiation reaction timescale. By starting the numerical simulation at a radius greater than 20 we found a rough estimate of $`T_d45`$ orbits so that $`T_\lambda /T_d>2`$ and the Lyapunov timescale is longer than the dissipation timescale. For this orbit the gravitational waveform will not have time to decohere before plunge and observations will not be severly disrupted by irregularity. However a factor of 2 is a tight margin especially since the PN-expansion is being pushed to extremes at such small separations.

It is important to stress that this is but one specific orbit and the ratio of $`T_\lambda /T_w`$ will vary from orbit to orbit. Some chaotic orbits will undoubtedly have a longer Lyapunov timescale to dissipation timescale. A broad survey of the irregular region of phase space would be valuable. At 2PN order this is not so useful since the PN-expansion converges very slowly to the full relativistic problem. Notice for instance that $`T_\lambda `$ is longer for this two-body approximation than it is for the fully relativistic Schwarzschild orbits. This may be a consequence of the slow convergence of the expansion and may show an underestimate of the instability. It is also possible that, like the homoclinic orbits, the measure of instability is diluted by the time average across the orbit. A survey at higher orders may be useful but requires a greater than 3PN-expansion that includes all spin arrangements and is not restricted to circular or quasi-circular orbits. We hope these higher orders will be available imminently and a survey of orbits will be viable in the near future.

## Summary

The Lyapunov exponents can be very useful for comparisons of physical scales. However, Lyapunov exponents also have some shortcomings which require we tread cautiously:

$``$ Lyapunov exponents are relative. They depend on the worldline of the observer and the time they measure.

$``$ They vary from orbit to orbit and may not contain generic information.

$``$ They can give zero when averaged over orbits which move in and out of unstable regions.

Therefore, while important and useful, the Lyapunov exponents can be misleading and can only be used cautiously.

As far as we can trust them, the Lyapunov exponents give an estimate of the importance of instability to observations of gravitational waves. If the Lyapunov timescale is short compared to the inverse frequency of the gravitational waves emitted and is short compared to the dissipation timescale then instability will cause an observable decoherence of gravitational waves. We found that

$``$ the Lyapunov timescale is shorter than both the gravitational wave timescale and the dissipation timescale for unstable circular orbits in the approximation of a test-particle around a Schwarzschild black hole,

$``$ the Lyapunov timescale is shorter than the gravitational wave timesecale and comparable to the dissipation timescale for unstable circular orbits in the 2PN approximation in the absence of spins,

$``$ and that the Lyapunov time was about a factor of 2 larger than the decay time for one randomly sampled chaotic orbit of a pair of maximally spinning black holes in the 2PN expansion.

The longer Lyapunov time for orbits in the 2PN approximation versus the test-particle approximation may be a real effect or it may be due to the slow convergence of the 2PN expansion to the full nonlinear problem or finally it may be due to the time average over such a varied orbit. In short, dissipation due to gravitational waves does abate chaos although the competition between chaos and dissipation is close. Better approximations to the two-body problem are needed to determine conclusively if chaos will affect observations of gravitational waves.

## Acknowledgements

NJC is supported in part by National Science Foundation Grant No. PHY-0099532. JL is supported by a PPARC Advanced Fellowship and an award from NESTA.