text:
# Submanifolds with splitting tangent sequence

## Introduction

In the late 50’s A. Van de Ven stated the following theorem (\[VdV58\]): the only compact submanifolds with splitting tangent sequence of the projective space are linear subspaces. For a submanifold $`X`$ of a projective manifold $`M`$ the tangent sequence denotes the natural sequence

$$0T_XT_M|_XN_{X/M}0$$

mapping the tangent bundle of $`X`$ into the restriction of $`T_M`$ to $`X`$. If the sequence splits, $`T_X`$ becomes a direct summand of $`T_M|_X`$. This means that the first linear approximations of $`X`$ and $`M`$ coincide in a neighborhood of $`X`$. The linear structure of $`_n`$ then forces $`X`$ to be a linear subspace. Most proofs of Van de Ven’s theorem rely on this fact.

Aim of this paper is to study submanifolds with splitting tangent sequence of a given projective manifold $`M`$. We will consider in particular homogeneous manifolds, for example quadrics or abelian varieties. A compact manifold $`M`$ is homogeneous if and only if its tangent bundle is globally generated. Therefore any submanifold with splitting tangent sequence of a homogeneous manifold is again homogeneous.

The idea is to study positivity of the tangent bundle: if $`T_M`$ is “positive”, then the quotient $`T_X`$ should be “positive” as well, telling us in turn hopefully something about the geometry of $`X`$. The main reason why this works out for homogeneous manifolds is the theorem of Borel and Remmert (\[BR62\]): if $`M`$ is a homogeneous manifold, then $`M`$ decomposes as

$$MA\times G/P,$$

where $`A`$ is an abelian variety (corresponding to the “trivial part” of the tangent bundle) and $`G/P`$ is rational homogeneous (the “positive” part of $`T_M`$). Rational homogeneous manifolds are quotients of semi-simple complex Lie groups and therefore completely classified in terms of Dynkin diagrams. For the abelian part we can show

3.2 Theorem. The tangent sequence of a submanifold of an abelian variety splits if and only if it is abelian.

The question arises, whether the analogous statement holds true for the positive part as well: Is a submanifold with splitting tangent sequence of a rational homogeneous manifold again rational homogeneous? So far we cannot deal with this question in general, but the answer turns out to be “yes” for all $`M`$ considered here (and it is “yes” provided that the dimension of $`X`$, relative to some positivity of $`T_M`$ is big enough, see Proposition 2.1).

4.5 Theorem. The tangent sequence of a submanifold of dimension at least $`2`$ of the quadric $`Q_n`$ splits, if and only if it is a linear subspace or a complete intersection subquadric. A curve in $`Q_n`$ with splitting tangent sequence is rational.

Key of the proof is the fact that $`Q_n`$ and the projective space are the only projective manifolds $`X`$ such that $`^2T_X`$ is ample. This is a result of Cho and Sato (\[CS95\]). But in our case we know moreover, that $`X`$ is homogeneous, meaning that in fact we do not need that strong result, just using classification (which is of course in no way easier). Next consider Grassmannians:

5.2 Proposition. If $`X`$ is a submanifold with splitting tangent sequence of a Grassmannian, then $`X`$ is rational homogeneous.

One more homogeneous example is the flag manifold $`(T__2)`$. In Proposition 5.4 we show, that the only submanifolds with splitting tangent sequence of $`(T__2)`$ are sections of lines in $`_2`$ corresponding to one of the two projections $`\pi _i:(T__2)_2`$. Finally we consider the blow-up $`_n(p)`$ of $`_n`$ in a point $`p`$, an almost homogeneous manifold, obtaining a very similar result:

6.3 Theorem. The tangent sequence of a submanifold $`X`$ in $`_n(p)`$ splits, if and only if one of the following holds: (i) $`X`$ is a linear subspace of the exceptional divisor, (ii) $`X`$ is the strict transform of a linear subspace in $`_n`$, (iii) $`X`$ is the strict transform of a smooth conic through $`p`$ or of a plane curve of degree $`3`$ with node in $`p`$.

Acknowledgements. This article contains results from the author’s thesis which was prepared at the graduate program “Complex Manifolds” at the University of Bayreuth. The author wants to express her gratitude to her adviser Th. Peternell and to the late M. Schneider. As well she would like to thank the referee for his very careful proof-reading and his many valuable remarks.

## 1. Splitting of sequences

After fixing some notations we will sum up some criterions for submanifolds with splitting tangent sequence. We will need these properties frequently in the sequel, so it might be convenient for the reader to collect them here.

###### 1.1.

Notations and Conventions. All manifolds (varieties) are assumed to be projective and defined over $``$. Let $`XM`$ be a submanifold. Then the tangent sequence of $`X`$ in $`M`$

($`𝒮_{X/M}`$)
$$0T_XT_M|_XN_{X/M}0$$

will be denoted by $`𝒮_{X/M}`$. If $`ZX`$ is a further submanifold, then we have another exact sequence

$$0N_{Z/X}N_{Z/M}N_{X/M}|_Z0,$$

the normal bundle sequence of $`Z,X,M`$. By definition, a short exact sequence of vector bundles $`0AB\stackrel{\alpha }{}C0`$ splits, if there exists a morphism $`\beta :CB`$ with $`\alpha \beta =\mathrm{id}_C`$. This is true if $`\mathrm{Ext}^1(C,A)=0`$, called $`\mathrm{Ext}`$\- or $`h^1`$-criterion. The Picard number of a manifold $`X`$ will be denoted by $`\rho (X)`$, the canonical divisor by $`K_X`$. We will identify line bundles and divisors and write $`K_X`$ instead of $`𝒪_X(K_X)`$. If $`X`$ is rational homogeneous, the (positive) generators of $`\mathrm{Pic}(X)`$ are called fundamental divisors; if $`\rho (X)=1`$, the fundamental divisor is denoted by $`𝒪_X(1)`$. If $`E`$ is a vector bundle on $`X`$, then $`(E)`$ is the projective bundle of hyperplanes in the sense of Grothendieck, $`𝐏(E)`$ is the projective bundle of lines.

###### 1.2.

Transitivity. Let $`ZX`$ and $`XM`$ be submanifolds. Then we have

We obtain by chasing the splitting obstruction in that diagram (or by constructing the splitting morphism directly):

1. If $`𝒮_{Z/M}`$ splits, that is the (horizontal) line in the middle, then $`𝒮_{Z/X}`$ splits, that is the line on top.
2. If $`𝒮_{Z/X}`$ and $`𝒮_{X/M}`$ both split, that are the top and the bottom (horizontal) lines, then the (vertical) normal bundle sequence and $`𝒮_{Z/M}`$ split. Note that it is enough that $`𝒮_{X/M}`$ splits on $`Z`$.

###### 1.3.

Fiber bundles. Let $`M`$ be a projective manifold and $`\pi :MY`$ a generic fiber bundle with typical fiber $`X`$ onto some normal reduced variety $`Y`$. Then $`𝒮_{X/M}`$ splits. To see this consider an (analytically) open set $`UY`$, where the fiber bundle is trivial and $`Y`$ is smooth. Then the normal bundle of $`X`$ in the preimage $`\pi ^1(U)`$ is trivial. On the other hand, the tangent bundle of $`\pi ^1(U)`$ is the restriction of the tangent bundle of $`M`$. We may hence assume that $`Y`$ is smooth and $`M=Y\times X`$ is a product. In this case, the assertion is trivial.

###### 1.4.

Projective bundles. Let $`E`$ be a vector bundle on the projective manifold $`M`$ and consider the projective bundle $`\pi :(E)M`$. Let $`X(E)`$ be a submanifold with splitting tangent sequence, such that the image $`\pi (X)`$ is smooth. Assume

1. $`X=(E|_{\pi (X)})`$ or
2. $`\pi |_X:X\pi (X)`$ is an isomorphism and $`\mathrm{Hom}(T_{(E)/M}|_X,T_X)=0`$.

Then $`𝒮_{\pi (X)/M}`$ splits. To prove this consider the diagram

In the first case we have $`\gamma _1=\mathrm{id}`$; in the second case the relative tangent bundle $`T_{X/\pi (X)}`$ vanishes, hence $`\gamma _1=0`$. The additional assumption in this case implies $`\psi \beta _1=0`$. In both cases we construct the splitting map $`\phi `$ as follows: for an element $`x\pi ^{}T_M|_{\pi (X)}`$ there exists some $`yT_{(E)}|_X`$ with $`\beta _2(y)=x`$. Define

$$\phi (x):=\alpha _2(\psi (y)).$$

Since $`y`$ is not unique, we of course have to check that $`\phi `$ is well-defined. This, and the splitting property $`\phi \gamma _3=\mathrm{id}_{\pi ^{}T_{\pi (X)}}`$ can be shown by diagram chase. Since $`\pi |_X`$ has connected fibers, we conclude the splitting of $`𝒮_{\pi (X)/M}`$ from the splitting of the right (vertical) column.

Assume conversely that $`X(E)`$ is a submanifold, such that $`\pi |_X:X\pi (X)`$ is an isomorphism and $`𝒮_{\pi (X)/M}`$ splits. Then $`𝒮_{X/(E)}`$ splits. Indeed: the splitting of $`𝒮_{\pi (X)/M}`$ implies the existence of a splitting map $`\phi `$ in the above diagram, and we have to show the existence of $`\psi `$. Since $`X`$ is a section, $`T_{X/\pi (X)}`$ is zero, hence $`\alpha _2`$ is an isomorphism. We define $`\psi =\alpha _2^1\phi \beta _2`$.

## 2. Positivity of the tangent bundle

Throughout this section let $`M=G/P`$ be a rational homogeneous manifold of dimension $`n`$. Then $`M`$ is in particular a Fano manifold; we denote its index by $`r`$, i.e.

$$K_M=rH,$$

where $`H\mathrm{Pic}(M)`$ is ample and $`r`$ is chosen maximal with this property. The tangent bundle of any homogeneous manifold $`M`$ is globally generated; we denote the associated morphism by $`\mathrm{\Phi }_M`$,

(2.0.1)
$$\mathrm{\Phi }_M:(T_M)(H^0(M,T_M)).$$

After Stein factorization we may assume that the fibers of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_M`$ are connected. If the maximal dimension of a fiber of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_M`$ is $`k`$, then $`T_M`$ is called $`k`$-ample by Sommese (\[So78\]). This is equivalent to saying that $`k`$ is the maximal dimension of a subvariety of $`M`$, where the restriction of $`T_M`$ has a trivial quotient. Note that $`k`$-ample vector bundles behave just like ample ones (see \[So78\]): quotients of a $`k`$-ample vector bundle are again $`k`$-ample, and there is a cohomological criterion for $`k`$-ample bundles as well. Goldstein computed the co-$`k`$-ampleness $`\mathrm{ca}(M)=nk`$ for any rational homogeneous manifold $`M`$ in \[G82\].

Another way to characterize positivity is to study exterior powers of $`T_M`$. For $`M_n`$, the tangent bundle itsself is not ample, but its determinant $`K_M=^nT_M`$ is. We may hence ask for the minimal $`l`$, such that $`^lT_M`$ is ample. Note that this implies that $`^jT_M`$ is ample for all $`jl`$. By Mori’s theorem, $`l=1`$ implies $`M_n`$, and Cho and Sato have proved in \[CS95\] that $`l=2`$ holds true if and only if $`MQ_n`$ (for $`n3`$). For general (non-homogeneous) Fano manifolds it is not known, if it is possible to give an estimate for $`l`$ in terms of index and dimension of $`M`$ (see \[P96\], (2.12.)). But for homogeneous $`M`$ we will see that it is not difficult to compute $`l`$. First we prove the following easy, but nevertheless useful statement:

###### 2.1.

Proposition. Let $`M`$ be rational homogeneous and $`XM`$ a submanifold with splitting tangent sequence. Let $`k,l`$ be the minimal numbers, such that $`T_M`$ is $`k`$-ample and $`^lT_M`$ is ample, respectively. If $`dim(X)\mathrm{min}(k+1,l)`$, then $`X`$ is rational homogeneous.

###### 2.2.

Corollary. In the situatuion of the Proposition, let $`XA\times G/P`$ be the Borel-Remmert decomposition of $`X`$. Then $`dim(A)\mathrm{min}(k,l1)`$.

###### Proof of Proposition 2.1.

Assume first $`dim(X)k+1`$. The splitting $`T_M|_XT_X0`$ yields that $`T_X`$ is $`k`$-ample and $`X`$ is homogeneous. Let $`XA\times G/P`$ be the Borel-Remmert decomposition of $`X`$ and let $`p_A:XA`$ be the projection. Then there is a surjective map $`T_Xp_A^{}T_A`$. This is not possible if $`dim(A)>0`$, since $`T_A`$ is trivial and $`k<dim(X)`$.

If $`dim(X)l`$, then $`^lT_X`$ is ample, since the splitting gives surjective maps $`^jT_M|_X^jT_X0`$ for all $`jdim(X)`$. Hence $`K_X`$ is ample. ∎

###### 2.3.

Remark. For rational homogeneous $`M`$, the numbers $`k,l`$ are related to the index $`r`$ as follows: Goldstein computed $`\mathrm{ca}(M)=nk`$. Comparing his results with $`r`$, for example found in \[A95\], we obtain

$$knr+1.$$

Equality holds for example if $`\rho (M)=1`$ and the Lie group $`G`$ defining $`M`$ is of type $`A_l`$ or $`C_l`$. There are many other cases, where equality holds, but in general not (see \[J00\]).

Concerning $`l`$: let $`K_M=rH`$, $`H`$ ample. Then $`H`$ is very ample, since $`M`$ is rational homogeneous by \[RR85\]. Consider the embedding $`\phi _{|H|}:M(H^0(M,H))`$. Take exterior powers of the natural surjection $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{}^1|_M\mathrm{\Omega }_M^10`$ and use the duality $`^lT_MK_M\mathrm{\Omega }_M^{nl}`$. Then $`^lT_M`$ is a quotient of an ample bundle, hence ample, if

(2.3.1)
$$lnr+2.$$

Let on the other hand $`K_M=_{i=1}^{\rho (M)}k_iH_i`$ in $`\mathrm{Pic}(M)`$, where $`H_i`$ are the fundamental divisors. Then $`k_i1`$ for all $`i`$. Let $`k_{i_0}`$ be a mimimal coefficient. Let $`C`$ be an $`\alpha `$-line in $`M`$ corresponding to that $`i_0`$, i.e., a smooth rational curve such that $`C.H_j=\delta _{i_0j}`$ (see \[K96\]). Then $`K_M.C=k_{i_0}`$. Let $`(a_1,\mathrm{},a_n)`$ be the splitting type of $`T_M`$ on $`C`$. Since $`T_M`$ is globally generated, all $`a_i0`$. Moreover, $`a_i2`$ for at least one $`i`$, since $`T_M|_C`$ contains the tangent bundle of $`C`$. Then there are at least $`n_ia_i+1=nk_{i_0}+1`$ zeroes in the splitting type. That means, that $`^jT_M`$ cannot be ample for $`jnk_{i_0}+1`$. Hence $`ln\mathrm{min}_i(k_i)+2`$. Since $`r=\mathrm{gcd}(k_i)\mathrm{min}_i(k_i)`$, we get

(2.3.2)
$$l=n\mathrm{min}_i(k_i)+2.$$

If in particular $`\rho (M)=1`$, then $`\mathrm{min}_i(k_i)=r`$, and we have equality in (2.3.1).

## 3. Projective space and complex tori

We will start with some comments on Van de Ven’s theorem

###### 3.1.

Theorem \[Van de Ven\]. The tangent sequence of a submanifold of the projective space splits, if and only if it is a linear subspace.

Van de Ven himself published no proof of his theorem, but there are many different ones in the literature, see for example \[L79\], \[MR78\], or \[MP97\]. Working on projective connections, I. Radloff and the author found a very short proof in \[JR04\], using that $`X`$ inherits a projective connection from $`_n`$. A direct proof can be given using Mori’s theorem, that $`_n`$ is the only projective manifold with ample tangent bundle (\[M79\]).

Another possibility is to use Wahl’s characterization of $`_n`$: if $`X_n`$ is a submanifold with splitting tangent sequence, then $`T_X𝒪__n(1)|_X`$ is globally generated, implying $`(X,𝒪__n(1)|_X)=(_m,𝒪__m(1))`$ or $`(_1,𝒪__1(2))`$ by \[Wah83\]. In the latter case use for example the Euler sequence to show that the tangent sequence of a conic in $`_2`$ does not split.

Next we consider compact complex manifolds with trivial tangent bundle, called parallelisable. A parallelisable Kähler manifold is a complex torus, in the projective case it is an abelian variety.

###### 3.2.

Theorem. The tangent sequence of a submanifold of a parallelisable manifold splits, if and only if it is parallelisable.

###### Proof.

The proof relies on the following general fact on vector bundles (see for example \[OSS80\], § 5, Exercise): a globally generated vector bundle $`E`$ with trivial determinant on some manifold $`X`$ is trivial. Indeed: since $`E`$ is globally generated, we have a surjective map from a trivial bundle $`𝒪_X^r`$ onto $`E`$. On the other hand, $`E^{}^{\mathrm{rk}(E)1}E`$ is globally generated as well, in particular has a section. This gives a map $`E𝒪_X`$. We obtain a non-zero map $`𝒪_X^r𝒪_X`$, which is hence surjective and admits a splitting. We have proved $`EE^{}𝒪_X`$. Moreover, $`E^{}`$ is again globally generated with trivial determinant. We proceed by induction on the rank.

Let $`X`$ be a submanifold of the parallelisable manifold $`M`$ with splitting tangent sequence. Then $`T_X`$ is globally generated, so we just have to prove that $`det(T_X)=K_X`$ is trivial. Obviously, $`K_X`$ is globally generated. On the other hand, $`K_X`$ is globally generated by adjunction formula, implying that $`K_X`$ is in fact trivial.

If conversely $`XM`$ is parallelisable, then the normal bundle of $`X`$ in $`M`$ is globally generated with trivial determinant, hence trivial, i.e. the tangent sequence is a sequence of trivial bundles, hence splits. ∎

## 4. Quadrics

Let $`Q_n_{n+1}`$ be the $`n`$-dimensional quadric hyperplane. We will show that the list of submanifolds with splitting tangent sequence consists (almost) of what one expects from Van de Ven’s theorem: linear subspaces and complete intersections of hyperplanes. Only curves match not exactly in that scheme, they are all rational, but may have higher degree (see Example 4.4).

For $`n3`$, the quadric $`Q_n`$ is rational homogeneous with $`\rho =1`$. The generator of $`\mathrm{Pic}(Q_n)`$ will be denoted by $`𝒪_{Q_n}(1)=𝒪_{_{n+1}}(1)|_{Q_n}`$; by adjunction formula, $`𝒪_{Q_n}(K_{Q_n})=𝒪_{Q_n}(n)`$; by \[G82\], $`T_{Q_n}`$ is $`1`$-ample. From the surjective map $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{_{n+1}}^1\mathrm{\Omega }_{Q_n}^10`$ and the Euler sequence on $`_{n+1}`$ we deduce

(4.0.1)
$$𝒪_{Q_n}(1)^N^2T_{Q_n}0$$

for $`N=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+2}{3}\right)`$. The splitting type of $`T_{Q_n}`$ on a line $`l`$ in $`Q_n`$ is

(4.0.2)
$$T_{Q_n}|_l=𝒪_l𝒪_l(1)^{(n2)}𝒪_l(2).$$

In particular, $`𝒮_{l/Q_n}`$ splits. The section in $`(T_{Q_n})`$ of any line $`l`$ induced by the projection

$$T_{Q_n}|_l𝒪_l0$$

will be contracted to a point by the morphism $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{Q_n}`$ from (2.0.1). Using the identity $`T_{Q_n}\mathrm{\Omega }_{Q_n}^1(2)`$, we may on the other hand view $`(T_{Q_n})`$ as a subvariety of the flag variety of points and lines of $`_{n+1}`$, such that the map $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{Q_n}`$ is the projection to the Grassmannian of lines. Hence the exceptional fibers of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{Q_n}`$ are exactly the sections of lines in $`Q_n`$ (see \[CW03\], Example 1).

We start with $`Q_2_1\times _1`$:

###### 4.1.

Proposition. The tangent sequence of a submanifold of $`Q_2=_1\times _1`$ splits if and only if it is a rational curve.

###### Proof.

Let $`CQ_2`$ be a smooth curve with splitting tangent sequence. Then $`C`$ is homogeneous, hence rational or elliptic. Assume $`C`$ elliptic. By adjunction formula, $`C`$ is a divisor of bidegree $`(2,2)`$ on $`_1\times _1`$. Then the restriction of $`T_{Q_2}`$ to $`C`$ is the sum of two line bundles of degree $`4`$, whereas $`T_C`$ is trivial. A contradiction.

Let conversely $`C`$ be a rational curve in $`Q_2`$. Then $`C`$ is of type $`(1,d1)`$ for some $`d1`$, i.e. $`T_{Q_2}|_C=𝒪_C(2)𝒪_C(2d2)`$, proving the claim. ∎

###### 4.2.

Proposition. A submanifold with splitting tangent sequence in $`Q_n`$ is rational homogeneous.

###### Proof.

We have already seen the case $`n=2`$, hence assume $`n3`$. Let $`XQ_n`$ be a submanifold with splitting tangent sequence. Then $`X`$ is homogeneous, hence $`XA\times G/P`$, $`A`$ abelian, $`G/P`$ rational homogeneous. Identify a fiber of the projection $`XG/P`$ with $`A`$. Then $`𝒮_{A/Q_n}`$ splits by 1.2. The induced section $`A^{}`$ of $`A`$ in $`(T_{Q_n})`$ will be contracted to a point by $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{Q_n}`$, since $`T_A`$ is trivial. This is impossible if $`dim(A)>0`$, since all exceptional fibers of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{Q_n}`$ are rational curves. ∎

###### 4.3.

Rational curves of low degree in $`Q_n`$. Let $`CQ_n`$, $`n3`$, be a rational curve of degree $`d3`$. Let $`L_{n+1}`$ be the smallest linear subspace containing $`C`$. Then $`dim(L)=d`$ and $`C`$ is projectively normal embedded by the full linear system $`𝒪_C(d)`$ (which is in general not true for $`d4`$), meaning the restriction map $`H^0(L,𝒪_L(1))H^0(C,𝒪_C(d))`$ is an isomorphism. Therefore the dual Euler sequence

$$0\mathrm{\Omega }_L^1(1)𝒪_L^{(d+1)}𝒪_L(1)0$$

remains surjective on $`H^0`$-level on $`C`$. Hence $`h^0(C,\mathrm{\Omega }_L^1|_C(d))=0`$. On the other hand, $`T_L|_C(d)=T_L(1)|_C`$ is globally generated. This shows $`T_L|_C=𝒪_C(d+1)^d`$. Since $`𝒮_{L/_{n+1}}`$ splits, we get $`N_{C/_{n+1}}=N_{C/L}𝒪_C(d)^{(n+1d)}`$ and $`T_{_{n+1}}|_C=𝒪_C(d+1)^d𝒪_C(d)^{(n+1d)}`$.

Assume now the tangent sequence of $`C`$ in $`Q_n`$ splits. This is always the case if $`C`$ is a line (for $`d2`$ see the following Example 4.4). Let $`(a_1,\mathrm{},a_{n1})`$ be the splitting type of $`N_{C/Q_n}`$. Then $`a_id+1`$ for all $`i`$ and $`_{a_i=d+1}𝒪_C(a_i)N_{C/L}`$. Since the cokernel of this injective map is free and it cannot be an isomorphism since $`\mathrm{deg}(N_{C/L})=(d1)(d+2)`$, there are at most $`\mathrm{rk}(N_{C/L})1=d2`$ of the $`a_i`$’s greater than $`d`$. Summing up the $`a_i`$’s, we find the splitting type of $`T_{Q_n}|_C`$ is

$$(0,1,\mathrm{},1,2),(2,\mathrm{},2)\text{ and }(2,3,\mathrm{},3,4)$$

for $`d=1,2`$ and $`3`$, respectively.

###### 4.4.

Example. For $`n6`$ we construct rational curves of given degree $`d2`$ in $`Q_n`$, with splitting tangent sequence and with non-splitting one: consider two submanifolds with splitting tangent sequence in $`Q_n`$: a smooth $`2`$-dimensional complete intersection subquadric, and a $`3`$-dimensional linear subspace (which exists for $`n6`$). Both of them contain rational curves of arbitrary degree $`d`$. The tangent sequence of any rational curve in the subquadric splits, whereas the tangent sequence of a rational curve of degree $`d2`$ in the linear subspace does not.

###### 4.5.

Theorem. The tangent sequence of a submanifold $`X`$ of $`Q_n`$ of dimension $`m2`$ splits if and only if $`X_m`$ is a linear subspace or $`XQ_m`$ is a complete intersection subquadric. Curves in $`Q_n`$ with splitting tangent sequence are rational.

###### Proof.

If $`X_m`$ is a linear subspace of $`Q_n`$, then $`𝒮_{X/_{n+1}}`$ splits by Van de Ven’s theorem, hence $`𝒮_{X/Q_n}`$ splits by 1.2. Let $`Q_mQ_n`$ be a complete intersection subquadric, i.e. $`N_{Q_m/Q_n}=𝒪_{Q_m}(1)^{(nm)}`$. By \[Sn86\], $`H^1(Q_m,T_{Q_m}(1))=0`$, hence $`𝒮_{Q_m/Q_n}`$ splits by $`h^1`$-criterion.

Let conversely $`XQ_n`$ be a submanifold with splitting tangent sequence. Then $`X`$ is rational homogeneous by Proposition 4.2. In particular, if $`dim(X)=1`$, then $`X`$ is a rational curve. Assume $`dim(X)=m2`$. From the splitting $`T_{Q_n}|_XT_X0`$ we obtain that $`^2T_X`$ is ample, using (4.0.1). It follows $`X_m`$ or $`Q_m`$: for $`m=2`$ this is clear, since $`_2`$ and $`_1\times _1`$ are the only rational homogeneous surfaces. For $`m3`$, Cho-Sato’s result applies (\[CS95\]): the projective space and the quadric are the only projective manifolds $`X`$, such that $`^2T_X`$ is ample.

To complete the proof we have to determine the embeddings. Define $`d=\mathrm{deg}(X)`$ by $`𝒪_{Q_n}(1)|_X=𝒪_X(d)`$. Let $`lX`$ be a line in $`X`$. Then $`𝒮_{l/X}`$ splits and $`𝒪_{Q_n}(1).l=d`$. From 1.2 we get: $`𝒮_{l/Q_n}`$ splits, and the normal bundle sequence

$$0N_{l/X}N_{l/Q_n}N_{X/Q_n}|_l0$$

splits as well. Let $`(a_{m+1},\mathrm{},a_n)`$ be the splitting type of $`N_{X/Q_n}`$ on $`l`$. The splitting type of $`N_{l/X}`$ is either $`(1,\mathrm{},1)`$, if $`X_m`$, or $`(0,1,\mathrm{},1)`$, in the case $`XQ_m`$. Denote the splitting type of $`T_{Q_n}|_l`$ by $`(t_1,\mathrm{},t_n)`$. Then

$$(t_1,\mathrm{},t_n)=(1,\mathrm{},1,2,a_{m+1},\mathrm{},a_n)\text{ or }(0,1,\mathrm{},1,2,a_{m+1},\mathrm{},a_n),$$

if $`X_m`$ or $`Q_m`$, respectively. In 4.3 we have proved: $`(t_1,\mathrm{},t_n)=(2,\mathrm{},2)`$ and $`(2,3,\mathrm{},3,4)`$ for $`d=2,3`$, respectively. This shows $`d2,3`$. The map from (4.0.1) gives $`𝒪_l(d)^N_{ij}𝒪_l(t_i+t_j)0`$, hence $`dt_i+t_j`$ for all $`ij`$. Since $`m2`$, we have $`t_1+t_23`$. The only remaining possibility is $`d=1`$. If $`X_m`$, we are already done, for $`XQ_m`$, we have to show that $`X`$ is a complete intersection of hyperplanes.

Let $`i:X=Q_mQ_n`$ be the embedding, and consider $`Q_m_{m+1}`$ as a hypersurface of degree $`2`$. Since $`H^0(Q_m,𝒪_{Q_m}(1))H^0(_{m+1},𝒪_{_{m+1}}(1))`$, and

$$𝒪_{Q_m}(1)=𝒪_{Q_n}(1)|_{Q_m}=𝒪_{_{n+1}}(1)|_{Q_m},$$

it is possible to extend $`i`$ to $`_{m+1}`$. Hence $`Q_m_{m+1}_{n+1}`$, where the last $`_{n+1}`$ is the one containing $`Q_n`$ as a hypersurface, and $`_{m+1}_{n+1}`$ is a linear subspace. This linear subspace $`_{m+1}`$ cannot be contained in $`Q_n`$: if it were, then the splitting of $`𝒮_{Q_m/Q_n}`$ would imply the splitting of $`𝒮_{Q_m/_{m+1}}`$, which is not possible. It follows that $`Q_m`$ is the complete intersection of $`Q_n`$ and the linear subspace $`_{m+1}`$ in $`_{n+1}`$. ∎

###### 4.6.

Remark. Thinking of a generalization to other rational homogeneous manifolds, it might be interesting to have an alternative argument, avoiding Cho-Sato’s beautiful characterization of $`Q_m`$. Since we already know, that $`X`$ is rational homogeneous by Proposition 4.2, we may use classification instead: let $`K_X=_ik_iH_i`$, $`H_i\mathrm{Pic}(X)`$ the fundamental divisors. Then the ampleness of $`^2T_X`$ implies $`\mathrm{min}_i(k_i)dim(X)`$ by (2.3.2) in Remark 2.3. Now check the list for the $`k_i`$, which can be found for example in \[A95\], to verify that in fact $`X=_m,Q_m`$ are the only rational homogeneous manifolds with this property.

## 5. Grassmannians and $`(T__2)`$

The Grassmannian $`𝔾=\mathrm{Gr}(k,n+1)`$ of $`k`$-dimensional subspaces of $`^{n+1}`$ is rational homogeneous with Picard number one. The dimension of $`𝔾`$ is $`k(n+1k)`$, and by \[G82\], $`T_𝔾`$ is $`(k(n+1k)n)`$-ample.

###### 5.1.

The fibers of the morphism $`\mathrm{\Phi }_𝔾`$. There is a nice description of the fibers in this case: denote the trivial bundle on $`𝔾`$ by $`𝒱=𝒪_𝔾^{n+1}`$. Let $`𝒰𝒱`$ be the universal subsheaf and $`𝒬`$ the universal quotient sheaf. Then $`T_𝔾=om(𝒰,𝒬)`$, and the projective bundle $`(T_𝔾)`$ consists of all pairs $`(U,[\phi ])`$ with $`UV`$, $`dim(U)=k`$, $`\phi \mathrm{Hom}(V/U,U)`$ and $`\phi 0`$. Thus, by composing inclusion and projection, there is a natural map

$$𝐏(T_𝔾^{})\stackrel{j}{}𝐏(om(V,V))𝔾\times 𝐏(\mathrm{Hom}(V,V))\stackrel{f}{}𝐏(\mathrm{Hom}(V,V)).$$

Hence $`\mathrm{\Phi }_𝔾=fj`$ and the fiber over a point $`[\phi _0]𝐏(\mathrm{Hom}(V,V))`$ is just the set of all pairs $`(U,[\phi ])𝐏(om(𝒬,𝒰))`$, such that $`j(\phi )=\phi _0`$, i.e., all $`U𝔾`$ with $`\mathrm{im}(\phi _0)U\mathrm{ker}(\phi _0)`$. The exceptional fibers of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_𝔾`$ are isomorphic to $`\mathrm{Gr}(kr,n+12r)`$, $`1rk1`$. This implies:

###### 5.2.

Proposition. Let $`𝔾=\mathrm{Gr}(k,n+1)`$ be a Grassmann manifold. If $`X𝔾`$ is a submanifold with splitting tangent sequence, then $`X`$ is rational homogeneous.

###### Proof.

Let $`X𝔾`$ be a submanifold with splitting tangent sequence. Then $`X`$ is homogeneous, hence $`XA\times G/P`$, $`A`$ abelian and $`G/P`$ rational homogeneous. Assume $`dim(A)>0`$. Identify a fiber of the projection $`XG/P`$ with $`A`$. Then $`𝒮_{A/𝔾}`$ splits by 1.3 and 1.2. The surjection

$$T_𝔾T_A=𝒪_A^{dim(A)}$$

induces a section $`A^{}`$ of $`A`$ in $`(T_𝔾)`$, which is contracted to a point by $`\mathrm{\Phi }_𝔾`$. But all exceptional fibers of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_𝔾`$ are Grasmannians as seen in 5.1, meaning that there exists a strictly smaller Grassmannian $`𝔾^{}𝔾`$ that contains $`A`$. By 1.2, $`𝒮_{A/𝔾^{}}`$ splits. We proceed by induction on the dimension of $`𝔾`$. Since the smallest Grassmannian is a $`_1`$, we finally get $`dim(A)=0`$. ∎

The flag manifold $`(T__2)`$ is rational homogeneous with Picard number two. It may be realized as a divisor of bidegree $`(1,1)`$ in $`_2\times _2`$. The projections are denoted by $`\pi _1,\pi _2:(T__2)_2`$; the two fundamental divisors are

$$L_i=\pi _i^{}𝒪__2(1),i=1,2.$$

We consider here just the case $`n=2`$ instead of $`(T__n)`$ in general, since we then may determine again the fibers of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{(T__2)}`$: similar to the case of $`Q_n`$ we find that any exceptional fiber of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{(T__2)}`$ is a section of some $`F=F_1+F_2`$ in $`(T__2)`$, where $`F_i`$ is a fiber of the projection $`\pi _i`$ (see \[CW03\], Example 2). Now the same argument as in Proposition 5.2 shows:

###### 5.3.

Proposition. If $`X(T__2)`$ is a submanifold with splitting tangent sequence, then $`X`$ is rational homogeneous.

###### 5.4.

Proposition. The tangent sequence of a submanifold of $`(T__2)`$ splits if and only if it is either a section of a line in $`_2`$ or a rational curve $`C`$ of bidegree $`(2,2)`$, such that $`\pi _i|_C:C_2`$ is an embedding for both projections.

###### Proof.

1.) The tangent sequence of a section of a line in $`_2`$ splits by 1.4. Let $`C(T__2)`$ be a rational curve of bidegree $`(2,2)`$, such that $`\pi _i|_C:C_2`$ is an embedding for $`i=1,2`$.

First note that such curves really exist: take any smooth conic $`C_0`$ in $`_2`$. Since the splitting type of $`T__2`$ on $`C_0`$ is $`(3,3)`$, we have $`S_1=\pi _1^1(C_0)_1\times _1`$, the second projection $`\pi _2:S_1_2`$ being a double cover. The ramification divisor is our curve $`C|𝒪_{_1\times _1}(1,1)|`$. Conversely, $`C`$ will always be contained in the surfaces

$$S_i=\pi _i^1(\pi _i(C))_1\times _1,$$

since $`\pi _i(C)_2`$ are smooth conics by assumption.

We want to show the splitting of $`𝒮_{C/(T__2)}`$. The restriction of the relative tangent sequence corresponding to $`\pi _i`$ is

$$0𝒪__1(2)T_{(T__2)}|_C𝒪__1(3)𝒪__1(3)0.$$

This sequence splits, i.e., the splitting type of $`T_{(T__2)}|_C`$ is $`(2,3,3)`$. We claim the splitting type of the normal bundle is $`(3,3)`$. Consider

$$\alpha :X(T__2)$$

the blow-up of $`(T__2)`$ along $`C`$. By classification, $`X`$ is a Fano threefold with $`\rho (X)=3`$ (see \[MM81\] and \[MM83\] or \[IP99\]), and we have the following commutative diagram (\[MM81\], Proposition 9 and 10)

where $`\alpha _i`$ is birational for $`i=1`$ and $`2`$, contracting the strict transform of the surface $`S_i`$ to a curve $`C_i`$ of the same type as $`C`$, i.e., $`C_i`$ is a curve of bidegree $`(2,2)`$, such that both projections embed $`C_i`$ into $`_2`$. Starting now with say $`C_1`$ in $`Y_1(T__2)`$, we find that the exceptional divisor

$$E=(N_{C/(T__2)}^{})$$

of the blow-up $`\alpha `$ is the strict transform of $`S^{}=\pi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}(\pi ^{}(C_1))_1\times _1`$. This shows $`E_1\times _1`$. By adjunction formula, $`\mathrm{deg}(N_{C/(T__2)})=6`$, i.e., the splitting type of $`N_{C/(T__2)}`$ is indeed $`(3,3)`$, proving the splitting of $`𝒮_{C/(T__2)}`$.

2.) For the converse we have to consider rational curves, and surfaces isomorphic to $`_2`$ or $`_1\times _1`$ by Proposition 5.3.

(i) Let $`C(T__2)`$ be a rational curve with splitting tangent sequence. Assume $`L_1.C=a`$ and $`L_2.C=b`$ with $`ab0`$. If $`b=0`$, then $`C`$ is a fiber of $`\pi _2`$ and we are done. If $`b=1`$, then $`\pi _2`$ maps $`C`$ isomorphically to a line in $`_2`$. We may hence assume $`b2`$.

Assume $`b=2`$. Then $`\pi _2^{}𝒪__2(1).C=2`$ implies $`\pi _2|_C`$ is either a double cover of a line or an isomorphism onto a smooth conic in $`_2`$. Assume first $`\pi _2(C)`$ is a line. Then $`C`$ is contained in the Hirzebruch surface

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }=(T__2|_{\pi _2(C)})=(𝒪__1(1)𝒪__1(2))$$

with $`C|𝒪_\mathrm{\Sigma }(2)\pi _2|_\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}𝒪__1(2)|`$, since $`C`$ is rational by assumption. We find that $`C`$ does not meet the minimal section of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, i.e., viewing $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=_2(p)`$ as blow-up of $`_2`$ in a point, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is isomorphic to that $`_2`$ in a neighborhood of $`C`$. But the splitting of $`𝒮_{C/(T__2)}`$ implies the splitting of $`𝒮_{C/\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$, which is impossible, since the tangent sequence of a conic in $`_2`$ does not split.

Assume $`b=2`$ and $`\pi _2(C)`$ is a conic in $`_2`$. This is impossible for $`a3`$, since the tangent sequence of a conic in $`_2`$ does not split, and 1.4 applies. Hence $`a=2`$ and as above we find $`\pi _1|_C:C_2`$ is an embedding as well.

Assume $`b3`$. Let $`(s,t)`$ be the splitting type of $`\pi _2^{}T__2|_C`$. Then $`s,tb`$ (Euler sequence). For the relative tangent sequence corresponding to $`\pi _2`$ we see $`T_{(T__2)/_2}|_C=𝒪_C(2ab)`$. The dual sequence twisted by $`𝒪_C(2)`$ then yields $`2s0`$ or $`2t0`$, since $`b2a+2<0`$ (use $`ab3`$), a contradiction.

(ii) Let $`S(T__2)`$ be a surface with splitting tangent sequence. From the ideal sequence we obtain $`h^0((T__2),𝒪_{(T__2)}(K_{(T__2)}+S))=0`$ since

$$h^0((T__2),K_{(T__2)})=h^0(S,K_S)=0.$$

Assume $`S|aL_1+bL_2|`$ with $`ab0`$. Consider $`(T__2)`$ as a divisor of bidegree $`(1,1)`$ in $`_2\times _2`$. Then the above vanishing implies

$$h^0(_2\times _2,𝒪_{_2\times _2}(a2,b2))=h^0(_2\times _2,𝒪_{_2\times _2}(a3,b3)),$$

which implies $`b1`$ by Künneth’s formula. If $`b=0`$, then there exists a smooth curve $`C`$ of degree $`a`$ in $`_2`$, such that $`S(T__2|_C)`$. Then $`C`$ is rational and $`S_1\times _1`$, which is impossible. If $`b=1`$, then $`S_2`$ is a section of $`\pi _1`$ and $`9=K_S^2=8a(a+1)`$ by adjunction formula, again a contradiction. ∎

## 6. Blow-up of $`_n`$ in a point

The blow-up of $`_n`$ in a point $`p_n`$ is not homogeneous but almost homogeneous. We use the classification theorem of Huckleberry and Oeljeklaus for almost homogeneous varieties with exceptional locus a point (\[HO84\]).

Denote the blow-up of $`_n`$ in the point $`p`$ by $`\phi :_n(p)_n`$. Call the exceptional divisor $`E`$. Then $`|\phi ^{}𝒪__n(1)E|`$ defines a morphism $`\pi :_n(p)_{n1}`$, identifying $`_n(p)`$ with the projective bundle $`(𝒪_{_{n1}}𝒪_{_{n1}}(1))`$:

The tautological line bundle $`𝒪(1)`$ of $`(𝒪_{_{n1}}𝒪_{_{n1}}(1))`$ is $`\phi ^{}𝒪__n(1)`$, the exceptional divisor $`E`$ of $`\phi `$ is the minimal section of $`\pi `$. We have

###### 6.1.

Lemma. Let $`_m_n`$ be a linear subspace. Then the tangent sequence of the strict transform of $`_m`$ in $`_n(p)`$ splits.

###### Proof.

If $`_m`$ does not contain the point $`p`$, then the assertion is trivial, we may hence assume $`p_m`$. Then the strict transform of $`_m`$ is $`_m(p)`$. By the transitivity principle 1.2, we may assume $`n=m+12`$. The claim hence follows from the vanishing of

$$H^1(_m(p),T_{_m(p)}\pi ^{}𝒪_{_{m1}}(1)).$$

We consider the relative tangent sequence

$$0𝒪(2)\pi ^{}𝒪_{_{m1}}(1)T_{_m(p)}\pi ^{}T_{_{m1}}0,$$

twisted by $`\pi ^{}𝒪_{_{m1}}(1)`$. Since all higher direct image sheaves vanish, we obtain the desired vanishing for $`m3`$ by Bott’s formula. For $`m=2`$, consider the twisted tangent sequence

$$0T_{_2(p)}\pi ^{}𝒪__1(1)T_{_3(p)}\pi ^{}𝒪__2(1)|_{_2(p)}𝒪_{_2(p)}0.$$

We have to show that this sequence is exact on $`H^0`$-level, which follows from the identity

$$H^1(_2(p),T_{_2(p)}\pi ^{}𝒪__1(1))H^1(_2(p),T_{_3(p)}\pi ^{}𝒪__1(1)|_{_2(p)}),$$

since $`H^1(_2(p),𝒪_{_2(p)})`$ vanishes. Applying the above argument twice, we show that both $`H^1`$’s are onedimensional, where we use the twisted ideal sequence of $`_2(p)`$ in $`_3(p)`$ to compute the right hand side. In the case $`m=1`$, $`_1(p)_1`$ is a fiber of $`\pi `$, i.e. the claim follows by 1.3. ∎

Now let $`X_n(p)`$ be a submanifold with splitting tangent sequence, not contained in $`E`$. There are vector fields on $`_n`$ with zero in $`p`$, generating $`T__n`$ outside $`p`$. These generate $`T_{_n(p)}`$ outside $`E`$ and the same holds true for the quotient bundle $`T_X`$. Therefore $`X`$ and $`\phi (X)`$ are almost homogeneous varieties with exceptional locus contained in $`E`$ and $`\{p\}`$, respectively. We will start considering curves:

###### 6.2.

Curves in $`_n(p)`$ with splitting tangent sequence. Let $`C_n(p)`$ be a smooth curve. If $`C`$ is contained in $`E`$, then $`𝒮_{C/_n(p)}`$ splits, if and only if $`C`$ is a line in $`E`$; if $`C`$ does not meet $`E`$, then $`𝒮_{C/_n(p)}`$ splits, if and only if $`C`$ is the strict transform of a line in $`_n`$.

Assume $`𝒮_{C/_n(p)}`$ splits and $`C`$ meets $`E`$ in points. Then there are vector fields with zeroes on $`C`$, hence $`1E.C2`$ and $`C`$ is rational. Define

$$k=E.C\text{ and }d=\phi ^{}𝒪__n(1).C.$$

We have $`1k2`$ and $`dk`$. From $`\pi ^{}𝒪_{_{n1}}(1)=\phi ^{}𝒪__n(1)𝒪_{_n(p)}(E)`$ we obtain

$$\pi ^{}𝒪_{_{n1}}(1).C=dk.$$

Show $`dk2`$. Let $`(t_1,\mathrm{},t_{n1})`$ be the splitting type of $`\pi ^{}T_{_{n1}}|_C`$. Pulling back the Euler sequence shows $`t_idk0`$ for all $`i`$. Consider the relative tangent sequence restricted to $`C`$

(6.2.1)
$$0𝒪_C(d+k)T_{_n(p)}|_C\pi ^{}T_{_{n1}}|_C0.$$

From the splitting we have a “2” in the splitting type of $`T_{_n(p)}|_C`$. Then either $`d=k=1`$, or there is at least one $`t_i2`$. Hence $`0dk2`$ as claimed. We consider the cases $`dk=0,1,2`$ seperately, having in mind that $`k=1,2`$.

1.) $`dk=0`$. Then $`d=k=1`$, i.e. $`C`$ is a fiber of $`\pi `$, that is the strict transform of a line in $`_n`$ and $`𝒮_{C/_n(p)}`$ indeed splits by Lemma 6.1.

2.) $`dk=1`$. We claim that $`𝒮_{C/_n(p)}`$ splits if and only if we are in the situation of 3. in Theorem 6.3. The morphism $`\pi |_C`$ is defined by sections from $`|\pi ^{}𝒪_{_{n1}}(1)|_C|=|𝒪_C(1)|`$, hence $`C`$ maps isomorphically to a line in $`_{n1}`$. Then $`C`$ is a section of the Hirzebruch surface

(6.2.2)
$$\mathrm{\Sigma }=(𝒪_{_{n1}}|_{\pi (C)}𝒪_{_{n1}}(1)|_{\pi (C)})=(𝒪__1𝒪__1(1)).$$

The relative tangent sequence restricted to $`C`$ looks like

$$0𝒪_C(d+k)T_\mathrm{\Sigma }|_C𝒪_C(2)0$$

and splits by $`h^1`$-criterion, i.e. $`T_\mathrm{\Sigma }|_C=T_C𝒪_C(d+k)`$. Then $`𝒮_{C/\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ splits. On the other hand, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is the blow-up of a linear subspace $`_2_n`$ in $`p`$, meaning $`𝒮_{\mathrm{\Sigma }/_n(p)}`$ splits by Lemma 6.1. This implies the splitting of $`𝒮_{C/_n(p)}`$ (transitivity principle 1.2). The image $`\phi (C)`$ is a plane curve of degree $`d`$ in $`_n`$. There are two possibilities: if $`k=1`$, then $`d=2`$ and $`\phi (C)`$ is a smooth conic in $`_n`$; if $`k=2`$, then $`d=3`$ and $`\phi (C)`$ is a curve of degree $`3`$ with a node in $`p`$.

3.) $`dk=2`$. We will show that $`𝒮_{C/_n(p)}`$ does not split in this case. Since $`\pi ^{}𝒪_{_{n1}}(1).C=2`$, $`\pi |_C`$ is either an isomorphism onto a smooth conic in $`_{n1}`$, or a 2:1-covering of a line. Assume the latter case. Then $`C`$ is a multisection of degree $`2`$ in the Hirzebruch surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ from (6.2.2). By adjunction formula, $`C|𝒪_\mathrm{\Sigma }(2)|`$, where $`𝒪_\mathrm{\Sigma }(1)`$ is the tautological line bundle on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. If $`C_0`$ denotes the minimal section of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, then $`C.C_0=0`$. On the other hand, $`C_0`$ is the restriction of $`E`$ to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, hence $`C.C_0=k`$ by definition. This is impossible.

Assume $`\pi |_C:C\pi (C)`$ is an isomorphism. We have $`T_{_n(p)/_{n1}}|_C=𝒪_C(d+k)`$ from (6.2.1) and $`d+k=2k+24`$, i.e. $`\mathrm{Hom}(T_{_n(p)/_{n1}}|_C,T_C)=0`$. Since $`𝒮_{\pi (C)/_{n1}}`$ does not split, $`𝒮_{C/_n(p)}`$ cannot split by 1.4.

###### 6.3.

Theorem. The tangent sequence of a submanifold $`X`$ of the blow-up $`_n(p)`$ of $`_n`$ in a point $`p`$ splits if and only if one of the following holds:

1. $`X`$ is a linear subspace of the exceptional divisor,
2. $`X`$ is the strict transform of a linear subspace in $`_n`$,
3. $`X`$ is the strict transform of a smooth conic through $`p`$ or of a plane curve of degree $`3`$ with node in $`p`$.

###### Proof.

We have seen the result for curves in 6.2, so assume $`dimX2`$. Then Lemma 6.1 shows the “if”-part of the theorem. It remains to prove the converse.

Let $`X_n(p)`$ be a submanifold with splitting tangent sequence of dimension at least $`2`$. If $`XE=\mathrm{}`$ or $`XE`$, then the claim is trivial by Van de Ven’s theorem and 1.2. We may hence assume $`XE\{\mathrm{},X\}`$.

From the splitting, the image $`\phi (X)_n`$ is an almost homogeneous variety of dimension greater than $`1`$ with exceptional locus contained in $`\{p\}`$. Then by \[HO84\], p.113, Theorem 1, the normalization $`\mu :X^{}\phi (X)`$ is a cone over a rational homogeneous manifold $`Q`$. That means: $`X^{}`$ is the image of the contraction of the minimal section $`Q_0`$ of the projective bundle $`Z=(𝒪_QL)`$ over $`Q`$ for some very ample line bundle $`L`$ on $`Q`$:

By construction, $`X^{}`$ is smooth outside $`\psi (Q_0)=p^{}`$ and $`p^{}`$ lies over $`p`$. The induced map $`\phi ^{}`$ is an isomorphism on $`X\backslash (EX)\stackrel{}{}X^{}\backslash \mu ^1(p)`$, where $`\mu ^1(p)`$ is a finite set containing $`p^{}`$. On the other hand, $`\psi `$ is an isomorphism on $`Z\backslash Q_0\stackrel{}{}X^{}\backslash \{p^{}\}`$, hence

(6.3.1)
$$\chi =\phi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\psi :Z\backslash (Q_0\mathrm{points})\stackrel{}{}X\backslash (EX)$$

is an isomorphism. Choose a general $`Q_1|𝒪_Z(1)|`$, the tautological line bundle on $`Z`$, such that $`Q_1`$ does not meet the exceptional points in (6.3.1). Since $`Q_1Q_0=\mathrm{}`$, we find an isomorphic image $`\chi (Q_1)Q_1`$ in $`X`$, not meeting $`E`$. Since $`𝒮_{Q_1/Z}`$ splits by 1.4, also $`𝒮_{\chi (Q_1)/X}`$ splits. This implies the splitting of $`𝒮_{\chi (Q_1)/_n(p)}`$ by 1.2. Since $`\chi (Q_1)`$ does not meet $`E`$, the image $`\phi (\chi (Q_1))`$ is isomorphic to $`\chi (Q_1)`$ in a neighborhood of $`\chi (Q_1)`$, hence $`\phi (\chi (Q_1))`$ is smooth and $`𝒮_{\phi (\chi (Q_1))/_n}`$ again splits. By Van de Ven’s theorem, then $`\phi (\chi (Q_1))_m`$ is a linear subspace.

We conclude: $`Q_m`$ and $`L=𝒪__m(k)`$ for some $`k1`$. Since $`\psi `$ is defined by $`|𝒪_Z(1)|`$, we find $`\psi ^{}\mu ^{}𝒪__n(1)=𝒪_Z(d)`$ for some $`d1`$. Restricting to $`Q_1_m`$ gives $`kd=1`$, since the image of $`Q_1`$ in $`_n`$ is a linear subspace. Hence $`k=d=1`$, i.e., $`X^{}_{m+1}`$ is smooth and $`\mu `$ is an isomorphism. Then $`\phi (X)X^{}_{m+1}`$ is a linear subspace of $`_n`$, completing the proof. ∎


format: text

text:
# Comparison of quantum mechanical and classical trajectory calculations of cross sections for ion-atom impact ionization of negative - and positive -ions for heavy ion fusion applications

## I Introduction

Ion-atom ionizing collisions play an important role in many applications, such as heavy ion inertial fusion HIF reference , collisional and radiative processes in the Earth’s upper atmosphere atmosphere , ion-beam lifetimes in accelerators accelerators life time , atomic spectroscopy spectroscopy  and ion stopping in matter beam stopping , and are also of considerable academic interest in atomic physics Review atomic physics .

To estimate the ionization and stripping rates of fast ions propagating through gas or plasma, the values of ion-atom ionization cross sections are necessary. In contrast to the electron Voronov  and proton Rudd ; Rudd 2  ionization cross sections, where experimental data or theoretical calculations exist for practically any ion and atom, the knowledge of ionization cross sections by fast complex ions and atoms is far from complete Shvelko book . While specific values of the cross sections for various pairs of projectile ions and target atoms have been measured at several energies our PoP hif ; Olson exp ; Watson exp , the scaling of cross sections with energy and target or projectile nucleus charge has not been experimentally mapped.

There are several theoretical approaches to cross section calculations. These include: classical calculations that make use of a classical trajectory and the atomic electron velocity distribution functions given by quantum mechanics \[this approach is frequently referred to as the classical trajectory Monte Carlo (CTMC) approach\]; quantum mechanical calculations based on the Born, eikonal or quasiclassical approximations, and so forth Shvelko book . All approaches are computationally intensive, and the error and range of validity have to be assessed carefully before making any approximations or applying the results.

Classical trajectory calculations are simpler to perform in comparison with quantum mechanical calculations. Moreover, in some cases the CTMC calculations yield results close to the quantum mechanical calculations our PoP hif ; Mueller new ; Our new . The reason for similar results lies in the fact that the Rutherford scattering cross section is identical in both classical and quantum mechanical derivations Landau book . Therefore, when an ionizing collision is predominantly a consequence of electron scattering at small impact parameters close to the nucleus, the quantum mechanical uncertainty in the scattering angle is small compared with the angle itself, and the classical calculation can yield an accurate description Bohr ; my PAC Xsection . But this is not always a case, as we demonstrate below. For fast projectile velocities and low ionization potentials, the difference between the classical and quantum mechanical calculations of ionization cross section can be as large as a factor of six for parameters to relevant to heavy ion fusion cross sections.

In the present analysis, we consider at first only the stripping cross section of loosely bound electron orbitals of $`I^{}`$ and $`Cs^+`$ ions colliding with a neutral atom of nitrogen, or with a fully stripped nitrogen ion with $`Z_T=7`$ (for comparison). Atomic units are used throughout this paper with $`e=\mathrm{}=m_e=1`$, which corresponds to length normalized to $`a_0=\mathrm{}^2/(m_ee^2)=0.52910^8cm,`$ velocity normalized to $`v_0=e^2/\mathrm{}=2.1910^8cm/s`$, and energy normalized to $`E_0=m_ev_0^2=2Ry=27.2eV`$, where $`Ry`$ is the Rydberg energy. The normalizing coefficients are retained in all equations for robust application of the formulas. For efficient manipulation of the formulas, it is worth noting that the normalized velocity is $`v/v_0=0.2\sqrt{E[keV/amu]}`$, where $`E`$ is energy per nucleon in $`keV/amu`$. Therefore, $`25keV/amu`$ corresponds to the atomic velocity scale.

The typical scale for the electron orbital velocity with ionization potential $`I_{nl}`$ is $`v_{nl}=v_0\sqrt{2I_{nl}/E_0}`$. Here, $`n,l`$ is the standard notation for the main quantum number and the orbital angular momentum quantum number Landau book . The collision dynamics is very different depending on whether $`v`$ is smaller or larger than $`v_{nl}`$.

## II Behavior of cross sections at large values of projectile velocity $`v>v_{nl}`$

When $`v>>v_{nl}`$, the projectile interaction with the target atom occurs for a very short time, and the interaction time decreases as the velocity increases. For $`3.2GeV`$ $`I^{}`$ ions, envisioned for heavy ion fusion applications, the projectile velocity in atomic units is $`32v_0`$, while the electron orbital velocity is $`v_{nl}=0.5v_0`$ for the first ($`3.06eV`$) ionization potential of $`I^{}`$, and $`v_{nl}=1.3v_0`$ for the first ($`22.4eV`$) ionization potential of $`Cs^+`$. Therefore, we shall use the limit $`v>>v_{nl}`$.

In the limit, where $`v>v_0Z_T`$ and $`v>>v_{nl}`$, the Born approximation of quantum mechanics can be used Landau book ; Mueller new . The first inequality assures that the nitrogen atomic potential can be taken into account as a small perturbation (the Born approximation); the second inequality allows us to use the unperturbed atomic wave function.

In both classical mechanics and in the Born approximation, the ionization cross section can be recast in the form Shvelko book ; Bethe ; Bethe book ; Our new ,

$$\sigma =_0^{\mathrm{}}P_P(q)\frac{d\sigma }{dq}𝑑q,$$
(1)
where $`P_P(q)`$ is the probability of electron stripping from the projectile when the electron acquires the momentum $`q`$, and $`d\sigma /dq`$ is the differential cross section for scattering with momentum $`q`$.

In quantum mechanics, $`P_{quP}(q)`$ can be expressed by the square of the corresponding matrix element of transition from the initial state $`|nl>`$ to the state of the ejected electron $`|𝐤>`$ with momentum $`𝐤`$, integrated over all $`𝐤`$. This gives

$$P_{quP}(q)=\left|<nl|e^{i𝐪𝐫}|𝐤>\right|^2d^3𝐤.$$
(2)
The analytical form of $`P_{quP}(q)`$ for hydrogen-like electron functions is given in Ref. Bethe . In classical mechanics, $`P_{clP}(q)`$ is given by the integral over the electron velocity distribution function $`f(𝐯_e)`$ defined by

$$P_{clP}(q)=\mathrm{\Theta }\left(𝐪𝐯_e+\frac{q^2}{2m_e}I_{nl}\right)f(𝐯_e)\mathrm{𝐝𝐯}_e.$$
(3)
Classical mechanics prescribes the electron velocity distribution function (EVDF) for hydrogen-like orbitals as a microcanonical ensemble, where

$$f\left(𝐯_e\right)=Cv_e^2\delta \left(\frac{m_ev_e^2}{2}\frac{e^2Z_T}{r}+I_{nl}\right)r^2𝑑r.$$

Here, $`C`$ is a normalization constant defined so that $`f\left(v_e\right)𝑑v_e=1`$, and $`\delta (\mathrm{})`$ denotes the Dirac delta-function. Interestingly, the EVDF for a hydrogen-like electron orbitals is identical in both the quantum mechanical and classical calculations Landau book , with

$$f\left(v_e\right)=\frac{32v_{nl}^7}{\pi }\frac{v_e^2}{\left[v_e^2+v_{nl}^2\right]^4},$$
(4)
where $`v_{nl}`$ is the scale of the electron orbital velocity defined by

$$v_{nl}=v_0\sqrt{2I_{nl}/E_0}.$$
(5)
In the Born approximation of quantum mechanics, $`d\sigma /dq`$ is given by Landau book ; Shevelko paper

$$\frac{d\sigma }{dq}=8\pi a_0^2\frac{v_0^2(m_ev_0)^2}{v^2}\frac{Z_{quT}^2(q)+N_{eT}(q)}{q^3},$$
(6)
where

$$Z_{quT}(q)=\left|Z_T\underset{nl}{}F_{nlT}(q)\right|,N_{eT}(q)=[N_{eT}^{total}\underset{nlT}{}\left|F_{nlT}(q)\right|^2].$$
(7)
Here, $`Z_{quT}(q)`$ is the effective charge, subscript $`qu`$ stands for quantum mechanics, $`F_{nlT}(q)=e^{i𝐪𝐫}\rho _{nlT}(r)d^3𝐫`$ is the form factor of the target atom’s orbital $`nl`$ with the electron density $`\rho _{nlT}(r)`$, and $`N_{eT}^{total}`$ is the total number of electrons in the target atom \[$`N_{eT}(q\mathrm{})=`$ $`N_{eT}^{total}`$\].

In classical mechanics, $`d\sigma /dq`$ is given by

$$\frac{d\sigma }{dq}=2\pi \rho \frac{d\rho }{dq}.$$
(8)
Here, $`\rho (q)`$ is the impact parameter for a collision resulting in the momentum transfer $`q.`$ For fast collisions, $`q`$ is mainly perpendicular to the projectile velocity, and $`q`$ is determined by integration of the electric field of the target atom on the electron, which gives

$$q(\rho )=\frac{2\rho }{v}_\rho ^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dU_T}{dr}\frac{1}{\sqrt{r^2\rho ^2}}𝑑r,$$
(9)
where $`U_T(r)`$ is the atomic potential of the target atom. To compare the classical calculation with the quantum mechanical calculation, we recast Eqs.(8) and (9) into a form similar to Eq.(6), introducing the effective charge $`Z_{clT}(q)`$ defined by

$$Z_{clT}(q)=\frac{qv}{2m_ea_0v_0^2}\sqrt{q\rho (q)\frac{d\rho }{dq}},$$
(10)
where subscript $`cl`$ stands for classical mechanics. Note that for the bare target ion, $`U_T=e^2Z_T/r`$ and $`Z_{clT}(q)=Z_T`$. Finally, making use of the effective charge in Eq.(10), the differential cross section in classical mechanics takes on a form similar to Eq.(6) in quantum mechanics, i.e.,

$$\frac{d\sigma }{dq}=8\pi a_0^2\frac{v_0^2(m_ev_0)^2}{v^2}\frac{Z_{clT}(q)^2+N_{eT}^{total}}{q^3}.$$
(11)
Here, the final term accounts for ionization by the $`N_{eT}^{total}`$ target electrons.

Figure 1 shows a comparison of the ionization probabilities \[$`P_{quP}(q)`$ in Eq.(2), and $`P_{clP}(q)`$ in Eq.(3)\] and the effective charges \[$`Z_{quT}(q)`$ in Eq.(7), and $`Z_{clT}(q)`$ in Eq.(10)\] in quantum mechanics and classical mechanics for $`3.2GeV`$ $`I^{}`$ ions colliding with a nitrogen atom. Ionization of only the outer electron shell is considered (here, $`I_{nlP}=3.06eV`$, approximating as a hydrogen-like orbital).

Figure 2 shows that for stripping by neutral atoms, the main contributions arise from intermediate momenta in the range $`q=0.51`$, while for stripping by the bare target nucleus, small values of $`q`$ make the largest contribution to the cross section, which corresponds to large impact parameters (due to the Coulomb long-range interaction). Because $`P_{quP}>P_{clP}`$ for $`q<<1`$, but $`Z_{quT}<Z_{clT}(q)`$, the quantum mechanical cross sections are larger than the classical stripping cross sections for stripping by the bare nucleus, but smaller than the classical stripping cross sections for the atoms. Carrying out the integration in Eq. (1) gives the stripping cross sections for only one electron from the outer electron shell for different ions with the same velocity $`v=32v_0`$ colliding with a nitrogen atom. The results are shown in Table 1 for $`3.2GeV`$ $`I^{}`$ ions; in Table 2 for $`3.35GeV`$ $`Cs^+`$ ions; and in Table 3 for $`25MeV`$ $`H^{}`$.

| $`\sigma ,10^{16}cm^2`$ | quantum | classical |
| --- | --- | --- |
| N | 0.08 | 0.47 |
| N+7 | 2.5 | 1.29 |

Table 1. Cross section for stripping of $`3.2GeV`$ $`I^{}`$ ions colliding with a nitrogen atom and a fully stripped nitrogen ion ( stripping of only one electron from the outer electron shell is considered here with $`I_{nlP}=3.06eV`$ ).

| $`\sigma ,10^{16}cm^2`$ | quantum | classical |
| --- | --- | --- |
| N | 0.045 | 0.10 |
| N+7 | 0.32 | 0.17 |

Table 2. Cross section for stripping of $`3.35GeV`$ $`Cs^+`$ ions (the same velocity as $`3.2GeV`$ $`I^{}`$) colliding with a nitrogen atom or a fully stripped nitrogen ion ( stripping of only one electron from the outer electron shell is considered here with $`I_{nlP}=22.4eV`$ ).

| $`\sigma ,10^{16}cm^2`$ | quantum | classical |
| --- | --- | --- |
| N | 0.10 | 1.34 |
| N+7 | 12.5 | 5.05 |

Table 3. Cross section for stripping of $`25MeV`$ $`H^{}`$ ions (the same velocity as $`3.2GeV`$ $`I^{}`$) colliding with a nitrogen atom or a fully stripped nitrogen ion ( stripping of only one electron from the outer electron shell is considered here with $`I_{nlP}=0.75eV`$ ).
Figure 3 shows the same results as in Fig.2, but the results are obtained for $`3.35GeV`$ $`Cs^+`$ ions (ionization of only one outer electron shell is considered here with $`I_{nlP}=22.4eV`$ ). Note that $`3.35GeV`$ $`Cs^+`$ is chosen to have the same velocity as a $`3.2GeV`$ $`I^{}`$ ion.

In the limit $`v>>v_{nl},`$ the stripping cross section by a fully stripped ion can be analytically evaluated. The Bohr formula, derived by means of classical mechanics, neglects the electron atomic velocity, and gives for the cross section Bohr

$$\sigma ^{Bohr}(v,I_{nl},Z_p)=2\pi Z_p^2a_0^2\frac{v_0^2E_0}{v^2I_{nl}}.$$
(12)
Accounting for the electron atomic velocity gives an additional factor of $`5/3`$ Our new . The Bethe formula Bethe  derived by means of the Born approximation of quantum mechanics gives

$$\sigma ^{Bethe}=\sigma ^{Bohr}(v,I_{nl},Z_p)\left[0.566\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{v}{v_{nl}}\right)+1.261\right].$$
(13)
The results of cross sections calculations using Eq.(12) with a factor $`5/3`$ and the result in Eq.(13) coincide with the results in Tables 1, 2 and 3 of stripping cross sections by a fully stripped nitrogen ions calculated in classical trajectory approximation and the Born approximation of quantum mechanics, respectively.

The stripping cross sections calculated in classical trajectory approximation for $`Cs^+`$ and $`I^{}`$ ions by fully stripped nitrogen ions is only factor 2-3 larger than the stripping cross sections by neutral nitrogen atoms, which is in qualitative agreement with the observations in Ref.Olson exp . However, there is a large difference, up to a factor 30, in the stripping cross sections calculated in the Born approximation of quantum mechanics.

It is evident that the stripping of $`Cs^+`$ ions by fully stripped nitrogen ions decreases by a factor of $`22.4eV/3eV=7.5`$ compared with $`I^{}`$ ions, which is in agreement with the Bohr \[Eq.(12)\] and Bethe \[Eq.(13)\] formulas. The stripping cross sections for $`Cs^+`$ and $`I^{}`$ions by neutral nitrogen atoms differ by only a factor of 2. In classical mechanics, because the interaction potential is a strong function of the separation, to transfer a considerably larger momentum requires a rather small decrease in impact parameter. This is why, notwithstanding the large difference in ionization potential by a factor of $`7`$, the difference between the two cross sections is only a factor of 2. Table 3 shows that the difference between the quantum and classical treatments increases for smaller ionization potentials (compare Table 3 with Table 1).

The reason for such a large difference between the quantum mechanical and classical mechanical stripping cross sections for $`I^{}`$ can be easily understood from the example of elastic electron scattering from the shielded Coulomb potential $`U(r)=\mathrm{exp}(r/a_0)/r`$. The differential cross section for elastic scattering is shown in Fig.4 .

For the shielded Coulomb potential, direct application of the Born approximation gives Landau book

$$\frac{d\sigma }{qdq}=8\pi a_0^2\frac{v_0^2(m_ev_0)^2}{v^2}\frac{1}{(q^2+m_e^2\mathrm{}^2/a_0^2)^2},$$
(14)
and the total cross section is $`\sigma =4\pi a_0^2v_0^2/v^2.`$ The total classical cross section, obtained from integrating $`\rho 𝑑\rho `$, diverges because of the contributions from large $`\rho `$ (small $`q)`$. Evidently, the quantum mechanical cross section departs from the Rutherford scattering formula for $`q/(m_ev_0)<1`$, whereas the classical mechanical cross section departs from the Rutherford scattering formula only for $`q/(m_ev_0)<2v_0/v`$ \[see Eq.(9) and Fig.4\]. Therefore, the classical differential cross section differs from the quantum mechanical result by a factor of $`[v/(2v_0)]^4`$, which for $`v=32v_0`$ gives a difference in small-angle differential cross section of up to a factor of $`10^4`$ (see Fig.4).

Tables 4 and 5 are similar to Tables 1 and 2, but the calculations are carried out for ion energies 30 times smaller, in the range of $`100MeV.`$ Table 5 shows that the predictions of the classical and quantum mechanical theories are similar for 100MeV ions. However, they are a factor two different for $`I^{}`$ ions, and the cross sections are the same within 10% accuracy for $`Cs^+`$ ions. The contribution from small $`q`$ to the stripping cross section by a neutral nitrogen atom is smaller for $`Cs^+`$ ions than for $`I^{}`$ ions, thereby significantly reducing the stripping cross section of $`Cs^+`$ ions compared with $`I^{}`$ ions, especially for the calculation in the classical trajectory approximation (see Tables 4 and 5, and Fig.5).

| $`\sigma ,10^{16}cm^2`$ | quantum | classical |
| --- | --- | --- |
| N | 2.47 | 6.8 |
| N+7 | 61 | 37 |

Table 4. Cross section for the stripping of $`105MeV`$ $`I^{}`$ ions ($`v=5.75v_0`$) colliding with a nitrogen atom and a fully stripped nitrogen ion (stripping of only one electron from the outer electron shell is considered here with $`I_{nlP}=3eV`$ ).

| $`\sigma ,10^{16}cm^2`$ | quantum | classical |
| --- | --- | --- |
| N | 1.36 | 1.4 |
| N+7 | 6.6 | 5.2 |

Table 5. Cross section for the stripping of $`110MeV`$ $`Cs^+`$ ions ($`v=5.75v_0`$) colliding with a nitrogen atom and a fully stripped nitrogen ion (stripping of only one electron from the outer electron shell is considered here with $`I_{nlP}=22.4eV`$).

## III Calculation of total cross sections

The total stripping cross section is defined as

$$\sigma ^{total}=\underset{m}{}m\sigma _m,$$
(15)
where $`\sigma _m`$ is the cross section for stripping $`m`$ electrons in each collision. This cross section is convenient to use for electron production calculations. The stripping cross section for any degree of ionization is defined as

$$\sigma =\underset{m}{}\sigma _m,$$
(16)
which is a convenient expression to use to determine the ion confinement time in an accelerator. In the limit $`v>>v_{nl}`$, the calculation of the total stripping cross section can be performed assuming that the stripping from different electron orbitals occurs independently Shvelko book , i.e.,

$$\sigma ^{total}=\underset{nl}{}N_{nl}\sigma _{nl,}$$
(17)
where $`\sigma _{nl}`$ is the stripping cross section of only one electron from the electron orbital $`nl`$, and $`N_{nl}`$ is the number of electrons in the orbital. The structure of the electron orbitals for $`I^{}`$ ions is shown in Table 6.

| $`nl`$ | 5p | 5s | 4d | 4p | 4s | 3d | 3p | 3s | 2p | 2s |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Nnl | 6 | 2 | 10 | 6 | 2 | 10 | 6 | 2 | 6 | 2 |
| Inl | 3.08 | 13.2 | 50.1 | 125.0 | 185.83 | 623.26 | 892.5 | 1.07e3 | 4.65e3 | 5.2e3 |
| $`\sigma _{nl}`$($`v=32v_0)`$ | 0.080 | 0.054 | 0.030 | 0.018 | 0.013 | 5.5e-3 | 4.2e-3 | 3.6e-3 | 8.3e-4 | 7.3e-4 |
| $`\sigma _{nl}`$($`v=5.75v_0)`$ | 2.45 | 1.65 | 0.92 | 0.52 | 0.39 | 0.12 | 0.078 | 0.062 | 5.8e-3 | 4.6e-3 |

Table 6. The structure of electron orbitals for $`I^{}`$ ions and the individual cross sections avaluated for an orbital electron in units of $`10^{16}cm^2`$.

Here, $`nl`$ denotes the atomic orbital quantum numbers, Inl is the ionization potential in eV, and $`\sigma _{nl}`$ denotes the individual cross section for an orbital electron in units of $`10^{16}cm^2`$. The sum over all orbitals gives $`\sigma ^{total}=1.110^{16}cm^2`$ for 3.2GeV $`I^{}`$ ions. To correctly account for multiple ionization, the inclusion of multi-electron effects is necessary. This will be addressed in a future publication. However, it is clear that the stripping cross section for any degree of ionization by neutral atoms is limited by the geometrical cross section of the atom (the geometrical cross section of a nitrogen atom is much smaller than the geometrical cross section of a $`Cs^+`$ ion or a $`I^{}`$ion Periodic table ). The nitrogen atom geometric cross section is $`\sigma _N=1.510^{16}cm^2`$Periodic table , and therefore $`\sigma <\sigma _N`$ is expected. Preliminary estimates suggest that single electron stripping is expected under these conditions.

For 105MeV $`I^{}`$ ions, however, the sum over all orbitals gives $`\sigma ^{total}=3310^{16}cm^2`$, whereas $`\sigma _N=1.510^{16}cm^2.`$ This indicates that multi-electron ionization is expected. However, it is clear that the stripping cross section for any degree of ionization is limited from above by $`\sigma _N=1.510^{16}cm^2`$.

The structure of the electron orbitals for $`Cs^+`$ ions, and the individual cross sections for an orbital electron in units of $`10^{16}cm^2`$ are illustrated in Table 7. Note that a $`Cs^+`$ ion has the same number of electrons on each orbital as a $`I^{}`$ ion.

| $`nl`$ | 5p | 5s | 4d | 4p | 4s | 3d | 3p | 3s | 2p | 2s |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Nnl | 6 | 2 | 10 | 6 | 2 | 10 | 6 | 2 | 6 | 2 |
| Inl | 22.4 | 34.0 | 88.3 | 176 | 242 | 742 | 1.03e3 | 1.2e3 | 5.1e3 | 5.7e3 |
| $`\sigma _{nl}`$($`v=32v_0)`$ | 0.044 | 0.037 | 0.022 | 0.014 | 0.011 | 4.8e-3 | 3.7e-3 | 3.2e-3 | 7.4e-4 | 6.5e-4 |
| $`\sigma _{nl}`$($`v=5.75v_0)`$ | 1.35 | 1.12 | 0.66 | 0.41 | 0.32 | 0.098 | 0.065 | 0.052 | 4.7e-3 | 3.8e-3 |

Table 7. The structure of electron orbitals for $`Cs^+`$ ions and the individual cross sections for an orbital electron in units of $`10^{16}cm^2`$.

For 3.35GeV $`Cs^+`$ ions colliding with a nitrogen atom with velocity $`v=32v_0`$ ($`25MeV/amu`$), the summation in Eq.(17) over all orbitals gives $`\sigma ^{total}=0.7210^{16}cm^2.`$ This estimate of the cross section is consistent with Olson’s result in Ref.Olson exp , $`\sigma =210^{16}cm^2`$ for $`25MeV/amu`$ $`Xe^+.`$ Note that the factor of three difference between the results presented in Table 7 and the results in Ref.Olson exp  is due to the fact that the cross sections in Table 7 are predicted by making use of quantum mechanics, whereas results in Ref.Olson exp  are classical trajectory calculations, not applicable at such high projectile velocities.

For $`110MeV`$ $`Cs^+`$ ions colliding with a nitrogen atom, $`v=5.75v_0`$ ($`0.8Mev/amu`$) and the summation over all orbitals in Eq.(17) gives $`\sigma ^{total}=2110^{16}cm^2,`$ whereas the geometrical cross section of a nitrogen atom is only $`\sigma _N=1.510^{16}cm^2<<\sigma ^{total}.`$ This indicates that multi-electron ionization is expected, similar to $`I^{}`$ ions at the same velocity. As noted earlier, to correctly account for multiple ionization, multi-electron calculations are necessary. However, it is clear that the stripping cross section $`\sigma `$ for any degree ionization is limited by $`\sigma _N=1.510^{16}cm^2`$. This estimate of the cross section is consistent with Olson’s result Olson exp , $`\sigma ^{total}=410^{16}cm^2`$ for $`2MeV/amu`$ $`Xe^+`$. The inequality $`\sigma ^{total}>\sigma _N`$ indicates the important effect of multi-electron events.

## IV Conclusions

For low ionization potential, where a small momentum transfer $`q`$ contributes to stripping, the classical approach is not valid. For $`3.2GeV`$ $`I^{}`$ ions, the classical trajectory approach overestimates by a factor of six the stripping cross section by atomic nitrogen, and by a factor of two the stripping cross section of $`3.35GeV`$ $`Cs^+`$ ions. For $`110MeV`$ $`Cs^+`$ ions and $`105MeV`$ $`I^{}`$ ions colliding with a nitrogen atom at velocity $`v=5.75v_0`$ ($`0.8Mev/amu`$), multi-electron ionization is expected. For a correct description of multiple ionization, multi-electron calculations are necessary. However, it is clear that the stripping cross section for any degree of ionization is limited from above by the geometrical cross section of nitrogen, with $`\sigma _N=1.510^{16}cm^2`$, and should be be similar in magnitude for $`I^{}`$ ions and $`Cs^+`$ ions at energies in the 100MeV range. (The geometrical cross section of a nitrogen atom is much smaller than the geometrical cross section of a $`Cs^+`$ ion or a $`I^{}`$ion Periodic table . This effect is similar to the hole produced by a bullet piercing a paper target, where the hole size is determined by the bullet cross section, not by the paper target.)

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy. It is a pleasure to acknowledge the benefits of useful discussion with Christine Celata, Larry Grisham, Grant Logan and Art Molvik.