text:
# Solar System Tests of Higher-Dimensional Gravity

## 1 Introduction

There is now a substantial literature on the higher-dimensional extension of Einstein’s general theory of relativity known as Kaluza-Klein gravity (Overduin and Wesson (1997); Wesson (1999)). There are several ways to test the theory, with perhaps the most straightforward involving the motion of test particles in the field of a static, spherically-symmetric mass like the Sun or the Earth. Birkhoff’s theorem in the usual sense does not hold in higher dimensions (Bronnikov and Melnikov (1995); Schmidt (1997)), so some question arises in identifying the appropriate metric to use for this problem. In the five-dimensional (5D) case (with one extra coordinate $`yx^4`$), most attention has focused on the soliton metric (Gross and Perry (1983); Sorkin (1983); Davidson and Owen (1985)), which satisfies the 5D vacuum field equations, reduces to the standard four-dimensional (4D) Schwarzschild solution on hypersurfaces $`y=`$ const, and contains no explicit $`y`$-dependence. The assumption of a vacuum in 5D is consistent with the spirit of Kaluza’s idea, that 4D matter and gauge fields appear as a manifestation of pure geometry in the higher-dimensional world. The soliton metric has been generalized in various ways to incorporate time-dependence (Liu et al. (1993)), $`y`$-dependence (Billyard and Wesson (1996)) and electric charge (Liu and Wesson (1997)), among other things (eg, Wesson and Liu (1998)); see for review Overduin and Wesson (1997). We confine ourselves here to the original (two-parameter) soliton metric.

The motion of test bodies in the gravitational field of the soliton can be studied using the familiar classical tests of general relativity (gravitational redshift, light deflection, perihelion advance and time delay), along with the geodetic precession test. Work done so far along these lines (Lim, Overduin and Wesson 1995; Kalligas, Wesson and Everitt 1995, hereafter “KWE”) has demonstrated the existence of small but potentially measurable departures from the standard 4D Einstein predictions. In the present paper, we extend these earlier calculations in several ways, clarifying the physical meaning of the light deflection and time delay results for massless test particles and presenting new generalizations of the perihelion shift and geodetic precession formulas for massive ones. We take special care to compare our results to the latest experimental data in each case, obtaining new numerical constraints on the small parameter $`b`$ associated with the extra part of the soliton metric.

## 2 The Soliton Metric

In what follows, lowercase Greek indices $`\mu ,\nu \mathrm{}`$ will be taken to run over $`0,1,2,3`$ as usual, while capital Latin indices $`A,B,C\mathrm{}`$ run over all five coordinates ($`0,1,2,3,4`$). Units are such that $`G=c=1`$ except where stated otherwise. It is important to distinguish between the 4D line element ($`ds`$) and its 5D counterpart ($`dS`$), the two being related by

$$dS^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}=ds^2+g_{44}dy^2.$$
(1)
To interpret an expression containing $`d/dS`$ physically, one can always make the conversion

$$\frac{d}{dS}=\frac{ds}{dS}\frac{d}{ds}=\sqrt{1g_{44}\left(\frac{dy}{dS}\right)^2}\frac{d}{ds}.$$
(2)
We emphasize in particular that $`d/dSd/ds`$ if $`dy/dS0`$.

The soliton metric may be written (following Gross and Perry (1983), but switching to nonisotropic form, and defining $`a1/\alpha `$, $`b\beta /\alpha `$ and $`M2m`$)

$`dS^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}`$ $`=`$ $`A^adt^2A^{ab}dr^2A^{1ab}\times `$ (3)
$`r^2\left(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2\right)A^bdy^2,`$
where $`A(r)12M/r`$, $`M`$ is a parameter related to the mass of the object at the center of the geometry, and the constants $`a,b`$ satisfy a consistency relation

$$a^2+ab+b^2=1,$$
(4)
so that any two of $`M,a,b`$ may be taken as independent metric parameters. We will treat $`b`$ as the primary free parameter of the theory in what follows, noting that the 4D Schwarzschild metric is recovered (on hypersurfaces $`y=`$ const) in the limit $`b0`$ (and $`a+1`$). In general, larger values of $`|b|`$ will give rise to increasing departures from Einstein’s theory, subject to the upper bound $`|b|2/\sqrt{3}1.15`$ imposed by equation (4). Possible theoretical expectations for this parameter in the solar system and elsewhere are discussed further in §8.

## 3 Equation of Motion

We proceed now with the analysis of experimental constraints. The Lagrangian for a test particle in the field described by the metric (3) is

$``$ $`=`$ $`[A^a\dot{t}^2A^{ab}\dot{r}^2A^{1ab}\times `$ (5)
$`r^2(\dot{\theta }^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \dot{\varphi }^2)A^b\dot{y}^2]^{1/2},`$
where the overdot represents differentiation with respect to an affine parameter $`\lambda `$ along the geodesics.

The Euler-Lagrange equations read

$$\frac{d}{d\lambda }\left(\frac{}{\dot{x}^C}\right)\frac{}{x^C}=0.$$
(6)
We confine ourselves to orbits with $`\theta =\pi /2`$ and $`\dot{\theta }=0`$, so that $``$ becomes

$$=\left(A^a\dot{t}^2A^{ab}\dot{r}^2A^{1ab}r^2\dot{\varphi }^2A^b\dot{y}^2\right)^{1/2}.$$
(7)
We can identify three constants of motion

$`\mathrm{}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{}}A^a\dot{t}=A^a{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{dS}},`$
$`h`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{}}A^{1ab}r^2\dot{\varphi }=A^{1ab}r^2{\displaystyle \frac{d\varphi }{dS}},`$
$`k`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{}}A^b\dot{y}=A^b{\displaystyle \frac{dy}{dS}},`$ (8)
where we have used the relation $`=dS/d\lambda `$. From these equations we find that

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{dr}{d\varphi }}\right)^2`$ $`+`$ $`Ar^2({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}{h^2}}A^{22ab}{\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{h^2}}A^{2a2b}`$ (9)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{h^2}}A^{2ab})r^4=0.`$
The derivation here differs slightly from that of KWE, where $`(dS/d\lambda )^2`$. Although the two approaches are physically equivalent, we have found that results are obtained more simply if the three constants of motion $`\mathrm{},h,k`$ are defined in terms of $`d/dS`$ rather than $`d/d\lambda `$ (or $`d/ds`$).

## 4 Light deflection

Experimental upper limits on possible violations of local Lorentz invariance are extremely tight (Will (1993)), so that we are justified in assuming that photons follow 4D null geodesics, $`ds=0`$. The situation is not so clear with regard to the 5D line element. However, it is economical to follow KWE and suppose that all particles follow ND null geodesics in N-dimensional gravity, whether massive or not.111This assumption is supported by various lines of argument. In one version of 5D gravity, for example, the fifth coordinate $`y`$ is related to rest mass $`m`$ (Wesson (1984)), so that one has $`dS^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}=ds^2+g_{44}(G/c^2)^2dm^2`$. If all particles move on 5D null geodesics, then $`ds^2=g_{44}(G/c^2)^2dm^2`$. It then follows that $`ds=0`$ for photons, which have $`m=`$ const$`=0`$. For massive particles with $`ds0`$, one expects variations in rest mass $`m`$, which are however below currently detectable levels, owing to the small size of the dimension-transposing constant $`G/c^2`$ (Overduin and Wesson 1997, 1998). Recent work on incorporating non-relativistic quantum theory into higher-dimensional gravity also strongly suggests that all test particles travel on ND null geodesics in the classical limit (Seahra (2000)). Proceeding on this assumption, and substituting $`ds=dS=0`$ into equation (1), we get $`dy=0`$ also, so that $`\mathrm{},h\mathrm{}`$ and $`k`$ is undefined. The ratios $`\mathrm{}/h`$ and $`k/h`$ are however well-behaved, and read

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{h}}`$ $`=`$ $`r^2A^{2a+b1}{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{d\varphi }}=\text{ finite},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{k}{h}}`$ $`=`$ $`r^2A^{a+2b1}{\displaystyle \frac{dy}{d\varphi }}=0.`$ (10)
For self-consistency, therefore, the terms in $`k/h`$ can be dropped from KWE equations (7),(8),(11) and (12). Equation (8) of that paper, in particular, reduces to

$$\left(\frac{du}{d\varphi }\right)^2+Au^2\frac{\mathrm{}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}{h^2}A^{22ab}=0,$$
(11)
and the definition of the parameter $`p`$, KWE equation (12), becomes just

$$p(22ab)\frac{\mathrm{}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}{h^2}.$$
(12)
The photon’s trajectory is deflected by an angle

$$\delta \varphi =\omega =\frac{4M}{r_\mathrm{o}}+2Mpr_\mathrm{o},$$
(13)
which agrees with KWE equation (18.1). At the closest approach to the central body, we have $`u=u_o=1/r_\mathrm{o}`$ and $`du/d\varphi =0`$, so that equation (11) gives

$$\frac{\mathrm{}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}{h^2}=A_\mathrm{o}^{2a+b1}u_o^2=\frac{1}{r_\mathrm{o}^2}+O(\epsilon ),$$
(14)
where $`\epsilon M`$ is a small parameter. Putting equations (12) and (14) into equation (13), we find for the final light deflection angle

$$\delta \varphi =(4a+2b)\frac{M}{r_\mathrm{o}}+O(\epsilon ^2),$$
(15)
as in KWE equation (18.2), where however it is presented as a special case $`k=0`$. We see here that equation (15) is in fact entirely general for light deflection, and does not depend on any choice of $`k`$, which is in any case undefined when $`ds=dS=0`$.

To obtain experimental constraints from the light deflection result, let us express equation (15) for the Sun in terms of the deviation $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{LD}}`$ from the general relativity prediction $`\delta \varphi _{\mathrm{GR}}`$, as follows

$$\delta \varphi =\delta \varphi _{\mathrm{GR}}(1+\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{LD}}),$$
(16)
where (to first order in $`\epsilon `$):

$`\delta \varphi _{\mathrm{GR}}`$ $``$ $`4M_{}/r_\mathrm{o},`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{LD}}`$ $``$ $`a+b/21.`$ (17)
Using the consistency relation (4) we find

$$a=b/2\pm (13b^2/4)^{1/2}.$$
(18)
Theoretical and numerical work indicates that $`|b|1`$ in the solar system (§8), and our experimental limits bear this out. The negative roots of equation (18) may also be ignored, as they are inconsistent with the limiting Schwarzschild case, and also imply the possibility of negative gravitational and/or inertial soliton mass (Gross and Perry (1983); Lim et al. (1995); Overduin and Wesson (1997)). We therefore take

$$a=1b/23b^2/8+O(b^4),$$
(19)
in the solar system, whereupon equation (17) gives

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{LD}}=3b^2/8+O(b^4).$$
(20)
The best available constraints on $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{LD}}`$ come from long-baseline radio interferometry, which implies that $`|\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{LD}}|0.0017`$ (Robertson et al. (1991); Lebach et al. (1995)). We therefore infer an upper limit

$$|b|0.07,$$
(21)
for the Sun. This could potentially be tightened by more than an order of magnitude using a proposed astrometric optical interferometer sensitive to departures from Einstein’s theory of as little as $`|\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{LD}}|10^5`$ (Reasenberg and Shapiro (1986)).

It is important to bear in mind, however, that the parameter $`b`$ characterizing the soliton metric (3) is not a universal constant of nature like $`G`$ or $`c`$, but may in principle vary from soliton to soliton. Kaluza-Klein gravity as an alternative to 4D general relativity is therefore best constrained by the application of two or more tests to the same system. With this in mind we can use a recent measurement of light deflection by Jupiter, for which $`|\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{LD}}|0.17`$ (Treuhaft and Lowe (1991)), to obtain

$$|b|0.7,$$
(22)
for that planet. It has also been proposed to measure light deflection by the Earth using the Hipparcos satellite, with an estimated precision of 12% (Gould (1993)). Such a test would be sensitive to values of $`|b|0.6`$ for the Earth. The Gravity Probe B satellite should also be able to detect this effect by means of its guide star telescope, though with a somewhat lower precision (Adler (2000)).

## 5 Time delay

The arguments in the previous section regarding the parameter $`k`$ also apply to the time delay (or radar ranging) test, and circular photon orbits as well. That is, terms in $`k/h`$ and $`k/\mathrm{}`$ may be dropped from KWE equations (20-24) for radar ranging, and KWE equations (28-30) for circular orbits. The final results given there, however — equations (25) and (31) respectively — are correct. In fact, they hold not only for the special case $`k=0`$, but quite generally.

In particular, the excess round-trip time delay $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$$`\tau `$ for signals emitted from Earth (at distance $`r_\mathrm{e}`$ from the Sun) which graze the Sun (at nearest distance $`r_\mathrm{o}`$) and bounce off another planet (at $`r_\mathrm{p}`$) may be calculated by setting $`k/\mathrm{}`$=0 in KWE equation (24) to obtain

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\tau =\mathrm{\Delta }\tau _{\mathrm{GR}}(1+\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{TD}}),$$
(23)
where (to first order in $`\epsilon `$)

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau _{\mathrm{GR}}`$ $``$ $`4M_{}[\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{r_\mathrm{p}+\sqrt{r_\mathrm{p}^2r_\mathrm{o}^2}}{r_\mathrm{o}}}\right)`$
$`+\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{r_\mathrm{e}+\sqrt{r_\mathrm{e}^2r_\mathrm{o}^2}}{r_\mathrm{o}}}\right)],`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{TD}}`$ $``$ $`a+b/21`$ (24)
$`=`$ $`3b^2/8+O(b^4).`$
We note that departures from 4D general relativity for time delay have exactly the same form as they do for light deflection.

The best experimental constraint on time delay so far has come from the Viking lander on Mars, and gives $`|\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{TD}}|0.002`$ (Reasenberg et al. (1979)). This leads immediately to the upper bound

$$|b|0.07,$$
(25)
for the Sun, exactly the same as the limit obtained in the case of light deflection using long-baseline interferometry.

Keeping in mind that values of $`b`$ can differ from soliton to soliton, however, it is possible that different physical setups could provide new information. For instance, one could attempt to measure $`b`$ for the Earth by sending grazing signals from an orbiting satellite past our planet and bouncing them off the Moon; retroflectors left there by Apollo astronauts are routinely used for lunar laser ranging (Williams et al. (1996)). Substituting $`M_\mathrm{e}`$ for $`M_{}`$ and replacing $`r_\mathrm{e},r_\mathrm{p}`$ and $`r_\mathrm{o}`$ with the appropriate distances, we find an expected excess time delay of order 400 ps using a satellite in geostationary orbit. This is well above the currently available resolution of $`50`$ ps (Samain et al. (1998)). The feasibility of such a proposal would likely be limited by the weakness of the reflected signal. Better results might be obtained by active ranging between two orbiting satellites, or by statistical analysis of ranging data between two such satellites and an Earth station (the latter would however require excellent atmospheric modelling).

In the same vein, one might attempt to measure $`b`$ for the Moon by grazing it with signals from the Earth and bouncing them off the Viking lander on Mars. This might be done when Mars is at nearest approach (on the same side of the Sun as the Earth) to minimize signal contamination from the competing effect of the Sun. Substituting $`M_\mathrm{m}`$ for $`M_{}`$ in equation (23), however, and replacing $`r_\mathrm{e},r_\mathrm{p}`$ and $`r_\mathrm{o}`$ with the appropriate distances, we find that the Moon’s excess time delay (of order 10 ps) would be so short as to make this a daunting task at present.

## 6 Perihelion advance

We now switch our attention to massive test particles. In terms of a new variable $`u1/r`$, equation (9) becomes

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{du}{d\varphi }}\right)^2`$ $`+`$ $`Au^2({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}{h^2}}A^{22ab}{\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{h^2}}A^{2a2b}`$ (26)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{h^2}}A^{2ab})=0.`$
Differentiating with respect to $`\varphi `$ (and letting primes denote $`d/d\varphi `$), we find that noncircular orbits ($`u^{}0`$) are governed by the following differential equation

$$u^{\prime \prime }+(1+\gamma ϵ)u=B+ϵB^1u^2+O\left(ϵ^2\right),$$
(27)
where five new quantities have been introduced

$`\gamma `$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f}{3d}},ϵ3MB,B{\displaystyle \frac{Md}{h^2}},`$
$`d`$ $``$ $`(2ab)\mathrm{}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}(22ab)`$
$`+k^2(2a2b),`$
$`f`$ $``$ $`2(2ab)(1+a+b)`$ (28)
$`+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\mathrm{}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}(2+2a+b)(1+2a+b)`$
$`+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}k^2(2a2b)(1+a+2b).`$
These expressions agree with KWE equations (32-36). (We have however chosen to relabel their $`e`$ as $`f`$, for reasons that will become clear shortly.)

The solution of the differential equation (27) is

$`u={\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}=B`$ $`+`$ $`\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{2}}\right)C\mathrm{cos}\left\{\left[1ϵ\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{2}}\right)\right]\varphi \right\}`$ (29)
$`+`$ $`ϵ(1\gamma )B+ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{C^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}{2B}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{2}}\right)^2`$
$``$ $`ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{C^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}{6B}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{2}}\right)^2\mathrm{cos}2\varphi +O(ϵ^2),`$
where $`C`$ is an integration constant. \[This result differs slightly from KWE equation (37), where the factors of $`(1\gamma /2)^2`$ were omitted.\] Equation (29) can be written in a physically more transparent form by introducing two new quantities $`e`$ and $`\omega `$ via

$$\left(1\frac{\gamma }{2}\right)CBe,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}1}ϵ\left(1\frac{\gamma }{2}\right)\omega .$$
(30)
With these definitions, we find that

$`u={\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}=B(1`$ $`+`$ $`e\mathrm{cos}\omega \varphi )+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\epsilon B^2[e^2\mathrm{cos}2\omega \varphi `$ (31)
$`+`$ $`6(1\gamma +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^2)]+O(\epsilon ^2),`$
where $`\epsilon M`$ is a small parameter as before, and

$$\omega =13\epsilon B\left(1+\frac{f}{6d}\right)+O(\epsilon ^2).$$
(32)
The first term on the right-hand side of equation (31) is of order $`\epsilon ^0`$, and shows explicitly the elliptical shape of the orbit. This is then modified by the second term, of order $`\epsilon ^1`$. Note that $`e`$ is just the eccentricity of the ellipse. The angular shift between two successive perihelia is given by

$$\delta \varphi =\varphi 2\pi =\frac{6\pi M^2d}{h^2}\left(1+\frac{f}{6d}\right)+O(\epsilon ^2),$$
(33)
in agreement with the final result (38.1) of KWE. It should be emphasized that the angular momentum $`h`$ is not in general the same quantity in 5D as it is in 4D. In particular, putting equations (2) and (3) into the second of equations (8), we find

$`h`$ $`=`$ $`A^{1ab}r^2{\displaystyle \frac{d\varphi }{dS}}=A^{1ab}r^2{\displaystyle \frac{d\varphi }{ds}}\sqrt{1+A^bk^2}`$ (34)
$`=`$ $`h_{\left(4\mathrm{D}\right)}\sqrt{1+A^bk^2}.`$
If $`k0`$, therefore, it follows that $`hh_{\left(4\mathrm{D}\right)}`$.

To eliminate $`h`$ from equation (33), let us consider the points along the orbit where $`r`$ takes its minimum value $`r_{}`$ and maximum value $`r_+`$ respectively. From inspection of equation (31) we see that $`r_{}=B^1(1+e)^1+O(\epsilon )`$ at $`\omega \varphi =0`$ and $`r_+=B^1(1e)^1+O(\epsilon )`$ at $`\omega \varphi =\pi `$. The semimajor axis $`a_\mathrm{o}`$ of the ellipse is then

$$a_\mathrm{o}\frac{1}{2}(r_{}+r_+)=\frac{1}{B(1e^2)}+O(\epsilon ),$$
(35)
so that

$$B\frac{Md}{h^2}=\frac{1}{a_\mathrm{o}(1e^2)}+O(\epsilon ),$$
(36)
or

$$h^2=\epsilon (1e^2)a_\mathrm{o}d+O(\epsilon ^2).$$
(37)
Substituting equation (36) into equation (33), we find

$$\delta \varphi =\frac{6\pi M}{a_\mathrm{o}(1e^2)}\left(1+\frac{f}{6d}\right)+O(\epsilon ^2).$$
(38)
Only one term in this result remains physically obscure, and that is the ratio $`f/d`$. This is given in terms of $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`k`$ by the definitions (28). The latter two constants are related by equation (26) as follows

$$\mathrm{}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}=h^2\left[\left(\frac{du}{d\varphi }\right)^2+Au^2\right]A^{2a+b2}+k^2A^{ab}+A^a.$$
(39)
Since $`h^2`$ is of order $`\epsilon ^1`$ by equation (37), while $`u`$ and $`u^{}`$ are of order $`\epsilon ^0`$ by equation (31), it follows from equation (39) that $`\mathrm{}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}=1+k^2+O(\epsilon )`$. Using the definitions (28), we therefore obtain

$$\frac{f}{6d}=1+a+\frac{2b}{3}+\frac{k^2b\left(ab\right)/3}{a+k^2\left(ab\right)}+O(\epsilon ),$$
(40)
so that the final perihelion precession angle (38) becomes

$$\delta \varphi =\frac{6\pi M}{a_\mathrm{o}(1e^2)}\left[a+\frac{2}{3}b+\frac{k^2(ab)b/3}{a+k^2(ab)}\right]+O(\epsilon ^2).$$
(41)
This represents the generalization of KWE equation (38.2) to cases in which $`k0`$ (and eccentricity $`e0`$). In the special case $`b=0`$ (and $`a=+1`$), for which the metric (3) reduces to Schwarzschild form on hypersurfaces $`y=`$ const, it is interesting to note that one recovers the standard 4D general relativity result, regardless of the value of $`k`$. In this limit, therefore, the perihelion shift test is insensitive to the momentum of the test body along the extra coordinate. And in general, one must choose a soliton with $`b0`$ in order to distinguish experimentally between test particles with different values of $`k`$.

As usual, let us parametrize our result in terms of the departure from 4D general relativity so that

$$\delta \varphi =\delta \varphi _{\mathrm{GR}}(1+\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{PP}}),$$
(42)
where (to first order in $`\epsilon `$):

$`\delta \varphi _{\mathrm{GR}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{6\pi M}{a_\mathrm{o}(1e^2)}},`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{PP}}`$ $``$ $`a+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}b+{\displaystyle \frac{k^2(ab)b/3}{a+k^2(ab)}}1.`$ (43)
Theoretical work indicates that $`k`$, which is a measure of momentum along the fifth dimension, is related to the charge-to-mass ratio of the test body (Wesson and Liu (1997)). For a planet such as Mercury, we may take $`k=0`$. Putting equation (19) into equation (43), we therefore have

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{PP}}=b/63b^2/8+O(b^4).$$
(44)
Perihelion precession is thus a potentially more sensitive probe of higher-dimensional gravity than either light deflection or time delay, in that it depends on the first, as well second order in $`b`$.

Unfortunately, however, this increased sensitivity is offset in the case of Mercury’s orbit about the Sun by uncertainty in the solar oblateness. The latter introduces a new term $`\xi J_2`$ inside the brackets on the right-hand side of equation (42), where $`\xi R_{}^2/2M_{}a_\mathrm{o}(1e^2)`$ and $`J_2`$ is the solar quadrupole moment (Campbell et al. (1983)). Dividing through by the orbital period $`T`$, we may therefore write for the rate of perihelion advance (to order $`b^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}}`$)

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\omega \frac{\delta \varphi }{T}=\mathrm{\Delta }\omega _{\mathrm{GR}}(1+\xi J_2+b/63b^2/8),$$
(45)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega _{\mathrm{GR}}\delta \varphi _{\mathrm{GR}}/T=42.98`$ arcsec/century. The observed value of Mercury’s perihelion precession rate is quite close to this value, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega =43.11\pm 0.21`$ arcsec per century (Shapiro, Counselman and King 1976). Experimental data on $`J_2`$ is a good deal more controversial and has ranged over two orders of magnitude, from a maximum value of $`(23.7\pm 2.3)\times 10^6`$ (Dicke and Goldenberg (1967)) to a minimum of $`(0.17\pm 0.02)\times 10^6`$ (Duvall et al. (1984)). One straightforward least-sqares fit to a number of published measurements leads to intermediate value of $`J_2=5.0\times 10^6`$, which however implies a general relativistic precession rate more than two standard deviations away from that observed (Campbell et al. (1983)). Such a discrepancy could be explained in the context of higher-dimensional gravity by modelling the Sun as a soliton with $`b=0.062`$. This is just consistent with the constraint $`|b|0.07`$ from light deflection (§4) and time delay (§5), which is intriguing since these tests probe somewhat independent aspects of relativistic gravity. Improved experimental data relating to any of the three tests would be of great interest.

Conservative limits on $`b`$ from perihelion precession may be obtained by quoting the results of a recent review in which all available data (to 1997) have been combined to give a weighted mean value for the solar oblateness of $`J_2=(3.64\pm 2.84)\times 10^6`$ (Rozelot and Rösch (1997)). Using this uncertainty range, together with that in the observed value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega `$ for Mercury’s orbit, we find that

$$b=0.03\pm 0.07,$$
(46)
for the Sun. This is consistent with the bounds obtained from light deflection and time delay. Sensitivity of the perihelion precession test to the value of $`b`$ could be improved by an order of magnitude if better data on $`J_2`$ were to become available; the proposed ASTROD mission, for example, might measure this parameter to an accuracy of $`5\times 10^8`$ (Ni (1998)).

## 7 Geodetic effect

We now move on to consider spinning massive test particles with velocity 5-vectors $`u^Cdx^C/dS`$ and spin 5-vectors $`S^C`$. The motion of these objects is governed by three central equations; namely, the geodesic equation

$$\frac{d^2x^C}{dS^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}+\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{AB}^Cu^Au^B=0,$$
(47)
the parallel transport equation

$$\frac{dS^C}{dS}+\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{AB}^CS^Au^B=0,$$
(48)
and the orthogonality condition

$$u^CS_C=0.$$
(49)
Here $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{AB}^C`$ refers to the 5D Christoffel symbol for the metric (3). This is defined in exactly the same manner as the usual 4D Christoffel symbol, with indices running over five values instead of four (see KWE, Appendix A1 for details222There are some minor typographical errors in this appendix, which we note briefly here. The factors of $`(12M)/r`$ in equations (A2.2), (A2.6) and (A2.7) should read $`12M/r`$. The same thing applies to equations (57) and (58) in the main body of KWE. Also, the exponents $`(1/2)`$ and $`1/2`$ in equations (57) and (58) should be switched, in agreement with equations (A2.7) and (A2.2) respectively. These discrepancies do not affect any of the other equations or conclusions reported in KWE, and do not appear in the new reference book on Kaluza-Klein gravity by Wesson (1999).).

In order to simplify the problem, we follow KWE in assuming that the test particle moves in a circular orbit with $`\theta =\pi /2`$, $`r=r_\mathrm{o}`$ and $`\dot{\theta }=\dot{r}=0`$. Its velocity $`u^C`$ may then be expressed as follows in terms of the constants of motion $`\mathrm{},h`$ and $`k`$, as given by equations (8)

$$u^C\frac{dx^C}{dS}=(\mathrm{}A^a,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0},\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0},hr_\mathrm{o}^2A^{a+b1},kA^b).$$
(50)
From the metric (3), we have

$$1=A^a\left(u^0\right)^2A^{1ab}r_\mathrm{o}^2\left(u^3\right)^2A^b\left(u^4\right)^2,$$
(51)
which, with equation (50), implies

$$\mathrm{}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}h^2r_\mathrm{o}^2A^{2a+b1}k^2A^{ab}A^a=0.$$
(52)
It may be shown that the motion of the test body as given by equations (50) and (52) is geodesic in the sense of equation (47).

We now propose to generalize the treatment of KWE by leaving the extra component $`S^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}}`$ of spin unrestricted, rather than setting it to zero. In fact, writing explicitly $`S^C(S^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}},S^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}},S^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}},S^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}},S^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}})`$, we find that the orthogonality condition (49) imposes the following restriction on the spin components

$$\mathrm{}S^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}}hS^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}}kS^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}}=0,$$
(53)
so that $`S^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}}`$ will not vanish in general, if the parameter $`k`$ is well-defined.

We now proceed to solve the parallel transport equation (48), taking one value of the index $`C`$ at a time. To begin with, the $`C=2`$ component gives

$$S^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}=\frac{H_2}{r_\mathrm{o}}=\text{ const},H_2=\text{ const}.$$
(54)
(Note that, due to our choice of coordinates, $`S^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}},S^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}`$ and $`S^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}}`$ are dimensionless while $`S^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}`$ and $`S^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}}`$ have units of inverse length.) Defining a new function $`g=g(S)`$ of the 5D proper time, we may write without loss of generality

$$S^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}}H_0g,H_0=\text{ const}.$$
(55)
The $`C=0`$ component of equation (48) then reads

$$S^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}=\frac{H_0}{a\mathrm{}M}r_\mathrm{o}^2A^{a+1}\frac{dg}{dS}.$$
(56)
The $`C=4`$ component, meanwhile, takes the form

$`S^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}}`$ $`=`$ $`H_4g+K_4,`$
$`H_4`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{bk}{a\mathrm{}}}H_0A^{ab}=\text{ const},`$
$`K_4`$ $`=`$ $`\text{ const},`$ (57)
where we have used equation (56). In a similar way, the $`C=3`$ component of equation (48) gives

$`S^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{H_3}{r_\mathrm{o}}}g+K_3,`$
$`H_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{hH_0}{a\mathrm{}M}}A^{2a+b1}\left[1(1+a+b){\displaystyle \frac{M}{r_\mathrm{o}}}\right]=\text{ const},`$
$`K_3`$ $`=`$ $`\text{ const}.`$ (58)
We now solve the $`C=1`$ component of equation (48), assuming for simplicity that $`K_3=K_4=0`$. Using equations (50), (55), (57) and (58), we find

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dS^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}}{dS}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{H_0M}{a\mathrm{}r_\mathrm{o}^2}}A^{a+b1}\{a^2\mathrm{}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}b^2k^2A^{ab}{\displaystyle \frac{}{}}`$ (59)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{h^2}{M^2}}[1(1+a+b){\displaystyle \frac{M}{r_\mathrm{o}}}]^2A^{2a+b1}\}g.`$
Differentiating equation (56) with respect to $`S`$, meanwhile, gives

$$\frac{dS^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}}{dS}=\frac{H_0}{a\mathrm{}M}r_\mathrm{o}^2A^{a+1}\frac{d^2g}{dS^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}.$$
(60)
Equating these two expressions, we obtain

$$\frac{d^2g}{dS^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}=\mathrm{\Omega }^2g,$$
(61)
where

$`\mathrm{\Omega }^2`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{h^2}{r_\mathrm{o}^4}}A^{b2}\{[1(1+a+b){\displaystyle \frac{M}{r_\mathrm{o}}}]^2A^{2a+b1}`$ (62)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{h^2}}(a^2\mathrm{}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}b^2k^2A^{ab})\}.`$
The general solution of equation (61) is $`g(S)=K_1\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Omega }S)+K_2\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Omega }S)`$. We choose $`K_1=1`$ and $`K_2=0`$ for simplicity. The spin components are then given by

$`S^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}}`$ $`=`$ $`H_0\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Omega }S),S^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}=H_1\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Omega }S),`$
$`S^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{H_2}{r_\mathrm{o}}},S^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}}={\displaystyle \frac{H_3}{r_\mathrm{o}}}\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Omega }S),`$
$`S^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}}`$ $`=`$ $`H_4\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Omega }S),`$ (63)
where $`H_1`$ and $`H_2`$ are arbitrary constants and

$`H_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{a\mathrm{}M}{r_\mathrm{o}^2\mathrm{\Omega }}}A^{a1}H_1,`$
$`H_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{h}{r_\mathrm{o}^2\mathrm{\Omega }}}A^{a+b2}\left[1(1+a+b){\displaystyle \frac{M}{r_\mathrm{o}}}\right]H_1,`$
$`H_4`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{bkM}{r_\mathrm{o}^2\mathrm{\Omega }}}A^{b1}H_1.`$ (64)
The spatial part of $`S^C`$ is thus seen to rotate in the plane of the orbit with angular speed $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Substituting these results into equation (53) yields

$`a\mathrm{}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{h^2}{Mr_\mathrm{o}}}A^{2a+b1}\left[1(1+a+b){\displaystyle \frac{M}{r_\mathrm{o}}}\right]`$ (65)
$``$ $`bk^2A^{ab}=0.`$
Solving simultaneously with equation (52), we obtain for the constants of motion

$`\mathrm{}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}`$ $`=`$ $`A^a\{1+k^2A^b+{\displaystyle \frac{M}{r_\mathrm{o}}}[{\displaystyle \frac{a+(ab)k^2A^b}{1(1+2a+b)M/r_\mathrm{o}}}]\},`$
$`h^2`$ $`=`$ $`Mr_\mathrm{o}A^{1ab}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{a+(ab)k^2A^b}{1\left(1+2a+b\right)M/r_\mathrm{o}}}\right].`$ (66)
These expressions can be written in terms of a small parameter $`\epsilon M`$ as usual

$`\mathrm{}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}`$ $`=`$ $`(1+k^2)\left[1\left(a{\displaystyle \frac{bk^2}{1+k^2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{M}{r_\mathrm{o}}}\right]+O(\epsilon ^2),`$
$`h^2`$ $`=`$ $`Mr_\mathrm{o}[a+(ab)k^2]\{1+[(4a+3b1)`$ (67)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2b(ab)k^2}{a+(ab)k^2}}]{\displaystyle \frac{M}{r_\mathrm{o}}}\}+O(\epsilon ^3).`$
With the aid of equation (62), we then find for the angular speed of the spin vector

$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{[a+(ab)k^2]M}{r_\mathrm{o}^3}}}\{1+{\displaystyle \frac{M}{2r_\mathrm{o}}}[3(1ab)`$ (68)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{b(ab)k^2}{a+(ab)k^2}}]+O(\epsilon ^2)\}.`$
This quantity is not the same as the test body’s orbital angular speed, which is given in terms of the 5D proper time $`dS`$ as

$`\omega `$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d\varphi }{dS}}=hr_\mathrm{o}^2A^{a+b1}`$
$`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{M}{r_\mathrm{o}^3}}}A^{(a+b1)/2}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{a+(ab)k^2A^b}{1(1+2a+b)M/r_\mathrm{o}}}},`$
where we have used equations (8) and (66). In terms of $`\epsilon `$

$`\omega `$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\left[a+(ab)k^2\right]M}{r_\mathrm{o}^3}}}\{[1+{\displaystyle \frac{M}{r_\mathrm{o}}}({\displaystyle \frac{3b}{2}}`$ (70)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{b(ab)k^2}{a+(ab)k^2}})]+O(\epsilon ^2)\}.`$
It is precisely the excess of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ over $`\omega `$ that gives rise to the geodetic effect.

Suppose the spin vector $`S^C`$ is initially oriented in the radial direction; ie, $`H_2=0`$ at $`S=0`$. During one orbit, the test body’s angular displacement $`\varphi `$ goes from $`0`$ to $`2\pi `$, so that $`\delta S=2\pi /\omega `$. In the same period, $`S^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}}`$ goes from its initial value of zero at $`S=0`$ to its final value at proper time $`S`$. To first order in $`\epsilon `$, the spin vector has advanced through an angle

$`\delta \varphi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{r_\mathrm{o}[S^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}}(S)S^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}}(0)]}{S^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}(0)}}+O(\epsilon ^2),`$ (71)
$`=`$ $`2\pi {\displaystyle \frac{H_3}{H_1}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{\omega }}1\right)+O(\epsilon ^2),`$
$`=`$ $`2\pi \left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{\omega }}1\right)+O(\epsilon ^2),`$
where we have used equations (64), (67) and (68). Combining equations (68) and (70), we find that

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{\omega }1=\frac{3M}{2r_\mathrm{o}}\left[a+\frac{2}{3}b+\frac{k^2b(ab)/3}{a+(ab)k^2}\right]+O(\epsilon ^2),$$
(72)
so that the geodetic precession angle can finally be expressed as follows in terms of its deviation from the prediction of 4D general relativity

$$\delta \varphi =\delta \varphi _{\mathrm{GR}}(1+\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{GP}}),$$
(73)
where (to first order in $`\epsilon `$)

$`\delta \varphi _{\mathrm{GR}}`$ $``$ $`3\pi M/r_\mathrm{o},`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{GP}}`$ $``$ $`a+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}b+{\displaystyle \frac{k^2(ab)b/3}{a+k^2(ab)}}1.`$ (74)
This represents the generalization of KWE equation (66) to cases in which $`S^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}}0`$. Deviations from 4D general relativity have exactly the same form for geodetic precession as they do for perihelion precession. Taking $`k=0`$ and using equation (19), as in §6, we find that

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{GP}}=b/63b^2/8+O(b^4).$$
(75)
Like the perihelion shift, geodetic precession depends on $`b`$ to first as well as second order, and is thus a potentially more sensitive probe of the theory than either light deflection or time delay.

The Gravity Probe B satellite, currently scheduled for launch in early 2001, has been designed to measure deviations from 4D general relativity with a precision of better than $`|\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{GP}}|2.5\times 10^5`$ (Buchman et al. (1996)). Using equation (75), we find that this corresponds to a sensitivity to values as small as

$$|b|1\times 10^4,$$
(76)
or better for the Earth — a constraint some five hundred times stronger than any other solar system bound obtained to date, and five thousand times stronger than the only other Earth-based test (light deflection using Hipparcos; §4).

We conclude this section by noting that a complementary analysis of geodetic precession has been carried out for a static, spherically-symmetric 5D metric different from that given by equation (3), one in which the fifth dimension is flat (Mashhoon, Liu and Wesson 1994; Mashhoon, Wesson and Liu 1998). The inclusion of spin is of special importance in this case since the classical tests (based on the equations of motion) alone cannot discriminate between 4D and 5D effects. The geodetic precession rate has been computed, and differs from the 4D Einstein value in the weak-field, low velocity limit (Liu and Wesson (1996)). A preliminary interpretation of the discrepancy indicates, however, that it is likely to be somewhat below the threshold of detection by Gravity Probe B (Overduin and Wesson (1998)).

## 8 Discussion

Having obtained upper limits on $`|b|`$ of order $`0.07`$ (and possibly $`10^4`$) from experiment, we consider here the range of values that might be expected for this parameter on theoretical grounds. These turn out to be small (perhaps of order $`10^8`$ to $`10^2`$) in the solar system, but could be larger (of order $`0.1`$) in larger systems such as clusters of galaxies.

These estimates are based on the fact that the soliton’s effective 4D mass is not concentrated at a point, like that of a black hole, but has instead a finite (though sharply peaked) density profile whose steepness depends on the metric parameters (Liu and Wesson (1992); Wesson and Ponce de Leon (1994)). Quoting the latter authors, but replacing their metric parameters $`\stackrel{~}{a},ϵ,k`$ (due to Davidson and Owen 1985) with our $`M,a,b`$ via $`M2/\stackrel{~}{a}`$, $`aϵk`$ and $`bϵ`$, we find for the density of the soliton

$$8\pi \rho (r)=\frac{abM^2/r^4}{\left[1(M/2r)^2\right]^4}\left(\frac{1M/2r}{1+M/2r}\right)^{2(a+b)}.$$
(77)
Pressure is given by $`p=\rho /3`$, so that the matter described by equation (77) could be radiationlike, or composed of ultrarelativistic particles such as neutrinos. Total gravitational mass (as deduced from the asymptotic form of the metric) is $`M_g=aM`$, so it is clear that $`b`$ must be negative for positive density. Numerical analysis further reveals that the mass of the soliton is increasingly concentrated at small $`r`$ as $`|b|`$ approaches zero, and that the 4D Schwarzschild limit ($`b=0`$) can in fact be viewed as a maximally compressed soliton (Wesson and Ponce de Leon (1994)). Physically, this means that solar system bodies, which (viewed as solitons) are essentially point masses, are likely to be associated with very small values of $`|b|`$.

To attach some numbers to these qualitative remarks, we make use of equation (19) and consider the weak-field ($`rM/2`$), small-$`b`$ limit, in which

$$\rho (r)bGM_g^2/(8\pi c^2r^4),$$
(78)
where we have reverted to physical units. Equation (78) allows us to associate ranges of $`b`$-values with solitons of mass $`M_g`$, if the density $`\rho `$ can be estimated at some radius $`r`$. It has, for instance, been suggested (eg, Freese (1986); Gould (1992)) that relativistic hot dark matter in the form of massive neutrinos could be trapped inside the Earth. Krauss et al. (1986) have derived one possible density profile for such particles, assuming that equilibrium is established between those undergoing capture, annhilation, and escape from the Earth’s gravitational potential. We do not attempt to fit our equation (78) to this profile at all radii, but merely take the predicted neutrino density at the Earth’s surface as illustrative. From Fig. 2 of Krauss et al. (1986), the expected escape rate for 10 GeV neutrinos is $`2\times 10^{16}`$ s-1, which translates into a density at the Earth’s surface of $`\rho (R_{})=3\times 10^{20}`$ kg m-3 (about 50 times the canonical local halo dark matter density of $`5\times 10^{22}`$ kg m-3). If we suppose that this is rather associated with solitonic matter making up some fraction $`\zeta `$ of the Earth’s total mass ($`M_g=\zeta M_{}`$), then equation (78) gives $`b=4\times 10^{14}\zeta ^2`$. For dark matter of this kind to be significant, $`b`$ must be small for solar system bodies. With $`\zeta 10^3`$, for example, we have $`b4\times 10^8`$, while $`\zeta 10^6`$ would correspond to $`b0.04`$. These numbers are consistent with the experimental limits obtained in §§ 4 \- 7 above. It may be possible to constrain the theory more tightly by looking at violations of the weak equivalence principle by solar system bodies (Overduin (2000)).

On larger scales, systems such as galaxies and clusters of galaxies are suspected by many to harbor significant amounts of relativistic hot dark matter. We take here as an example a recent numerical simulation (Kofman et al. (1996)) in which light (2.3 eV) neutrinos make up 20% (by mass) of a cluster whose total mass $`M_T=6\times 10^{14}M_{}`$. Fig. 3 of this paper shows a typical neutrino density of $`\rho (r)200\rho _c`$ at $`r=0.03`$ Mpc, where $`\rho _c=2\times 10^{26}h_0^2`$ kg m-3 is the critical density. If this were instead attributed to solitonic dark matter of total mass $`M_g=\zeta M_T`$, then the latter would have $`b=0.01\zeta ^2`$ by equation (78), where we have taken $`h_0=0.65`$. If all the hot dark matter were solitonic ($`\zeta =0.2`$), then $`|b|`$ could be as large as 0.3. These values are illustrative only, since density profiles of hot dark matter in clusters are likely somewhat shallower than that indicated by equation (78)111 Density profiles with $`\rho r^4`$ at large $`r`$ have however been discussed in other contexts, such as elliptical galaxies (Jaffe (1983); de Zeeuw (1985); Hernquist (1990)).. Nevertheless they establish that values of $`|b|`$ in galaxy clusters might in principle be significantly larger than those in the solar system, and this encourages us to speculate that stronger tests of higher-dimensional gravity might be carried out using the excellent observational data now available on gravitational lensing by these objects.

## 9 Conclusions

We have re-examined the classical tests of general relativity, as well as the geodetic precession test, when Einstein’s theory is extended from four to five dimensions. The physical meaning of previous calculations for light deflection and time delay have been clarified physically, and the restriction of zero momentum and/or spin along the extra coordinate that characterized the earlier calculations of perihelion shift and geodetic precession has been lifted.

Our results show that Kaluza-Klein gravity remains consistent with experiment. The free parameter of the theory, however, is increasingly constrained to small values. Thus, data on light deflection, radar ranging to Mars and the perihelion precession of Mercury all imply a value of $`|b|0.07`$ for the Sun. Improved data on solar oblateness should improve the sensitivity of the perihelion precession bound by as much as an order of magnitude. And the upcoming launch of Gravity Probe B will allow us to measure values of $`|b|`$ for the Earth with an accuracy of one part in $`10^4`$ or better.

We thank P. S. Wesson for comments. H. L. acknowledges the support of the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant no. 19975007). J. O. thanks R. I. Bush and W.-T. Ni for comments on solar oblateness and radar ranging, and acknowledges the support of the National Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada. He also expresses his gratitude for the hospitality of C. W. F. Everitt and the theory group at Gravity Probe B, Stanford University, where part of this work was carried out.


format: text

text:
# Untitled Document

Relations among divisors on the moduli space of curves with marked points

Adam Logan

1. Introduction

Let $`\overline{}_g`$ be the coarse moduli space of stable curves of genus $`g`$. Eisenbud, Harris and Mumford proved a relation between certain divisors on $`\overline{}_g`$ (the Brill-Noether divisors, to be described below). Calculating their classes in $`Pic\overline{}_g𝐐`$, they succeeded in proving that $`\overline{}_g`$ is of general type for $`g>23,g+1`$ composite. In subsequent work, the restriction that $`g+1`$ be composite was removed.

In this paper, I will generalize their relation to $`\overline{}_{g,n}`$, the moduli space of stable curves of genus $`g`$ with $`n`$ marked points. This does not yield new results on the Kodaira dimension of $`\overline{}_{g,n}`$, as the “divisors of Brill-Noether type”, which I introduce below, are less effective for this purpose than certain other divisors which I studied in my dissertation \[L\]. (I expect to publish the other results of \[L\] shortly.)

The remainder of this introduction will be devoted to stating the results. For basic facts on $`\overline{}_g`$ and $`\overline{}_{g,n}`$, the reader is referred to \[HM\] and \[K\] respectively.

Definition. Fix a nonnegative integer $`g`$, and let $`r>1,d>1`$ be integers such that $`g(r+1)(gd+r)=1`$. (Here, the left side is the expected dimension of the space of $`g_d^r`$’s on a curve of genus $`g`$.) A divisor of Brill-Noether type on $`\overline{}_g`$ is a codimension-1 component of the locus of curves which have an admissible $`g_d^r`$.

(All $`g_d^r`$’s on nonsingular irreducible curves are admissible; in general, an admissible $`g_d^r`$ is a $`g_d^r`$ on each component with certain ramification conditions at the singular points of the curve. Again, see \[HM\] for details.)

The Brill-Noether Ray Theorem of Eisenbud, Harris, and Mumford then asserts that, for fixed $`g`$, all of these divisors on $`\overline{}_g`$ are linearly dependent, and calculates their class. We generalize their definition and theorem as follows:

Definition. Fix $`g`$ and $`n`$, and let integers $`r,d`$ and sequences $`\{Z_1\},\mathrm{},\{Z_n\}`$ of length $`r+1`$ be such that

$$g(r+1)(gd+r)Z_{i,j}=1.$$

(The left-hand side is the expected dimension of the set of $`g_d^r`$’s on a curve of genus $`g`$ with ramification sequences $`\{Z_1\},\mathrm{},\{Z_n\}`$ at points $`p_1,\mathrm{},p_n`$.) A divisor of Brill-Noether type on $`\overline{}_{g,n}`$ is a divisorial component of the locus of curves and sets of points such that there is a $`g_d^r`$ on the curve whose ramification sequences at the $`p_i`$ are at least $`\{Z_i\}`$.

Theorem 1.1 For any $`n>2`$, every divisor of Brill-Noether type on $`\overline{}_{g,n}`$ is a linear combination of pullbacks of divisors of Brill-Noether type from $`\overline{}_{g,2}`$. Also, the space of divisors of Brill-Noether type on $`\overline{}_{g,1}`$ has dimension $`2`$, for any $`g>2`$.

Corollary 1.2 The dimension of the subspace of $`Pic\overline{}_{g,n}𝐐`$ spanned by the divisors of Brill-Noether type is $`1+n+\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{2}\right)`$.

Acknowledgments. This paper is a lightly revised version of parts of my 1999 doctoral dissertation \[L\], written under the direction of Joe Harris, to whom I am very grateful. I would also like to thank Mira Bernstein for teaching me how to work with moduli spaces. Support for this work was provided by a Sloan Dissertation Fellowship.

2. The First Case

Throughout the paper, we work over an algebraically closed field of characteristic 0 (though this is surely unnecessary), and we deal only with genus $`3`$. We start by introducing some notation. Arbarello and Cornalba have given a basis for $`Pic\overline{}_{g,n}𝐐`$ \[AC, Thm. 2\]:

Theorem 2.1 $`Pic_{\text{fun}}\overline{}_{g,n}`$, the Picard group of the moduli stack $`\overline{}_{g,n}`$, is free on the following generators: $`\lambda ,\delta _0,\psi _i(1in),`$ and $`\delta _{i;S}(0ig/2),S\{1,2,\mathrm{},n\}),cardS>1\text{ if }i=0`$.

Here $`\lambda `$ is the pullback of $`\lambda `$ on $`\overline{}_g`$, $`\delta _0`$ the divisor corresponding to the locus of curves with a nondisconnecting node, $`\delta _{i,S}`$ the divisor corresponding to the locus of curves with a node whose removal leaves one component of genus $`i`$ with precisely the marked points indexed by $`S`$, and $`\psi _i`$ is the divisor class on the moduli stack which takes the value $`\pi _{}(\sigma _i^2)`$ on the family $`𝒳\stackrel{\pi }{}B`$ with the $`\sigma _i`$ as sections.

Usually we will prefer to work with $`\omega _i`$, the relative dualizing sheaf of the $`i`$th projection map from $`\overline{}_{g,n}`$ to $`\overline{}_{g,n1}`$. If we replace $`\psi _i`$ by $`\omega _i`$ in the above, the theorem remains true, because $`\omega _i=\psi _i_{iS}\delta _{0;S}`$, as will be seen below.

We will be pulling back divisors, so it also seems appropriate to state the results concerning this. Again, the answer is given in \[AC, p. 161\]:

Theorem 2.2 The pullback map is given as follows:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \pi _n^{}\lambda & =\lambda ,\hfill \\ \hfill \pi _n^{}\delta _0& =\delta _0,\hfill \\ \hfill \pi _n^{}\omega _i& =\omega _i,\hfill \\ \hfill \pi _n^{}\psi _i& =\psi _i\delta _{0;\{i,n\}}\hfill \\ \hfill \pi _n^{}\delta _{i;S}& =\delta _{i;S}+\delta _{i;S\{n\}},\hfill \end{array}$$

except that

$$\pi _1^{}\delta _{g/2;\mathrm{}}=\delta _{g/2;\mathrm{}}$$

for $`n=1`$.

For notational simplicity, we have only stated this for $`\pi _n`$, but the action of the symmetric group $`𝒮_n`$ on $`\overline{}_{g,n}`$ makes it easy to describe the effects of the other $`\pi `$. Also observe that, by an easy induction starting from $`\psi =\omega `$ on $`\overline{}_{g,1}`$, we get

$$\psi _i=\omega _i+\underset{iS\{1,2,\mathrm{},n\},S\{i\}}{}\delta _{0;S}$$

on $`\overline{}_{g,n}`$, as asserted above.

We now start by dealing with the case $`n=1`$.

Definition. Let $`BN`$ be the divisor class

$$(g+3)\lambda \frac{(g+1)}{6}\delta _0\underset{i=1}{\overset{g/2}{}}i(gi)\delta _i$$

on $`\overline{}_g`$.

If $`g+1`$ is not prime, then $`BN`$ is a positive multiple of the class of an effective divisor, namely that of the union of the codimension-$`1`$ components of the locus of curves admitting a $`g_d^r`$, where $`(r+1)(gd+r)=g+1`$ \[EH, Thm. 1\] (the condition on $`r,d`$, and $`g`$ ensures that there are such components).

This will be one of the generators of the Brill-Noether space on $`\overline{}_{g,1}`$ when $`g+1`$ is not prime; the other will be the Weierstrass divisor, that is, the locus of Weierstrass points. Its class was computed by Cukierman \[Cuk, Thm. 2.0.12 and following remark\]. His result is as follows:

Theorem 2.3 Let $`g2`$. The class on $`\overline{}_{g,1}`$ of the Weierstrass divisor $`𝒲`$, which is the closure of the divisor on $`_{g,1}`$ given by Weierstrass points of smooth curves, is

$$\frac{g(g+1)}{2}\omega \lambda \underset{i=1}{\overset{g1}{}}\frac{(gi)(gi+1)}{2}\delta _i.$$

Proof. See \[Cuk\]. Alternatively, this can be done by the method of test curves.

We recall the Plücker formula, which counts the ramification points of a $`g_d^r`$ on a smooth curve. It asserts that if $`C`$ is a smooth curve of genus $`g`$ and $`V`$ a $`g_d^r`$, then $`_{pC}\beta (V,p)=(r+1)(d+r(g1))`$. Here $`\beta (V,p)=_0^ra_i(V,p)i`$, where the $`a_i`$ give the sequence of orders of vanishing of $`V`$ at $`p`$.

Proposition 2.4 The classical Plücker formula remains valid for reducible curves with no nondisconnecting nodes. (Of course, “$`g_d^r`$” is understood to mean “limit linear series”. Also, the ramification conditions at the node imposed by the definition of “limit linear series” are not considered as contributing to ramification.)

Proof. By induction, it suffices to consider curves with exactly two components. Applying the Plücker formula to each component separately, we get a total of $`(r+1)(2d+r(g2))`$ there. However, the definition of limit linear series imposes exactly $`(r+1)(dr)`$ conditions at the node, leaving $`(r+1)(d+r(g1))`$ in total, as claimed.

Definition. Let $`r`$ and $`d`$ be positive integers such that $`a=g(r+1)(gd+r)1`$, and $`Z`$ a possible ramification sequence for a $`g_d^r`$ which sums to $`a`$. We define the divisor $`D_{g,r,d,Z}`$ on $`\overline{}_{g,1}`$ to be the divisor of curves and points $`(C,p)`$ such that $`C`$ admits a $`g_d^r`$, $`V`$, whose ramification sequence at the marked point equals or exceeds $`Z`$.

The $`D_{g,r,d}`$ are the divisors of Brill-Noether type on $`\overline{}_{g,1}`$. In order to study the $`D_{g,r,d}`$, we consider the following two maps to $`\overline{}_{g,1}`$:

1. Map $`\overline{}_{0,g+1}`$ to $`\overline{}_{g,1}`$ by attaching a fixed elliptic curve at each of the first $`g`$ points.

2. Map $`\overline{}_{2,1}𝒲`$ to $`\overline{}_{g,1}`$ by attaching a fixed general curve of genus $`g2`$ with two marked points.

We claim that the images of these maps are disjoint from $`D`$, and that this implies the linear dependence claimed. For the first of these maps, it is enough to count ramification points; there are not enough to spare on the component of genus $`0`$. In particular, at each point of attachment we must have $`\beta r`$ on this component, making at least $`gr`$. Even if the remaining $`(r+1)(dr)gr=g(r+1)(gd+r)=a`$ units of ramification are all concentrated at one point, that isn’t quite enough. For the second map, this follows from the extended Brill-Noether theorem, \[EH, Thm. 1.1\].

In order to deduce the dependence from this, it is necessary to determine the pullback map on divisors induced by the two maps given above. In both cases, most of the work takes care of itself, since these maps fit into commutative diagrams in which one arrow is the map in question, one arrow is a map for which the pullback is computed in \[EH, proof of Thms. 2.1, 3.1\], and the other arrow(s) are easily understood. Specifically, to study the first map, insert it into a commutative diagram as follows, in which the vertical projections are simply the forgetful maps as shown:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\overline{}_{0,g+1}& \stackrel{f^{}}{}& \overline{}_{g,1}\\ \pi _{g+1}& & \pi _1\\ \overline{}_{0,g}& \stackrel{f}{}& \overline{}_g\end{array}$$

This diagram being commutative, the two pullback maps on $`Pic𝐐`$ must be equal. Since the pullback maps on the vertical arrows are as described in Theorem 2.2, and the map on the bottom arrow is given by Eisenbud and Harris, we can easily determine $`f^{}`$ of any class on $`\overline{}_{g,1}`$ pulled back from $`\overline{}_g`$. For example, since $`\pi _{g+1}^{}f^{}\lambda =0`$ (indeed, $`f^{}\lambda =0`$), as in \[EH\], and since $`\pi _1^{}\lambda =\lambda `$, it follows that $`f^{}\lambda =0`$, and likewise for $`\delta _0`$ in place of $`\lambda `$.

Definition. Let $`\theta _iPic\overline{}_{0,g+1}=_{ST}\delta _{0,S}`$, where $`T`$ runs over subsets of $`\{1,\mathrm{},g+1\}`$ of cardinality $`i+1`$ that contain $`g+1`$. Also, let $`ϵ_i=_{cardS=i}\delta _{0;S}.`$

It is easy to see that $`\theta _i+\theta _{gi}=\pi _{g+1}^{}ϵ_i.`$ (As usual, the case $`2i=g`$ is an exception: then the pullback is just $`\theta _i`$.) Since $`ϵ_i=f^{}\delta _i`$ for $`i>1`$, and since for $`i<g1`$ we have that $`f^{}\delta _i`$ is supported on $`\theta _i`$, it follows immediately that $`f^{}\delta _i=\theta _i`$ in this range.

On the other hand,

$$\pi _{g+1}^{}f^{}\delta _1=\underset{i=2}{\overset{g2}{}}\frac{i(gi)}{(g1)}\theta _i,$$

as follows from the calculation of $`f^{}\delta _1`$ in \[EH, Thm. 3.1\]. This, therefore, is $`f^{}(\delta _1+\delta _{g1})`$, and so

$$f^{}(\delta _{g1})=\underset{i=1}{\overset{g2}{}}\frac{i(gi)}{(g1)}\theta _i.$$

Finally it is necessary to compute $`f^{}\omega `$. The easiest way to do this is simply to use the fact that $`f^{}𝒲=0`$. Using Cukierman’s formula (Theorem 2.3), one translates this into the statement that

$$f^{}\omega =\underset{i=1}{\overset{g2}{}}\frac{(gi)(gi1)}{g(g1)}\theta _i.$$

Next we consider the second map, to which a similar procedure applies, complete with a similar commutative diagram:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\overline{}_{2,1}& \stackrel{g^{}}{}& \overline{}_{g,1}\\ =& & \pi _1\\ \overline{}_{2,1}& \stackrel{g}{}& \overline{}_g\end{array}$$

This time, according to \[EH, Sect. 2\], we have

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill g^{}\delta _0& =\delta _0,\hfill \\ \hfill g^{}\delta _1& =\delta _1,\hfill \\ \hfill g^{}\delta _2& =\omega ,\hfill \\ \hfill g^{}\lambda & =\lambda =\delta _0/10+\delta _1/5,\hfill \\ \hfill g^{}\delta _i& =0\mathrm{for}i>2.\hfill \end{array}$$

Therefore we will get

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill g^{}\delta _0& =\delta _0,\hfill \\ \hfill g^{}\lambda & =\lambda =\delta _0/10+\delta _1/5,\hfill \\ \hfill g^{}\delta _{g1}& =\delta _1,\hfill \\ \hfill g^{}\delta _{g2}& =\omega ,\hfill \end{array}$$

with all $`\delta `$ not yet mentioned going to $`0`$. After all, $`\pi _1{}_{}{}^{}\delta _{i}^{}=\delta _i+\delta _{gi}`$, and as $`g^{}\delta _i`$ reflects the nodes of the curve of genus $`2`$, the marked points are not on the genus-$`i`$ side. Note also that the relation $`\lambda =\delta _0/10+\delta _1/5`$ on $`\overline{}_2`$ pulls back to $`\overline{}_{2,1}`$ without any change in its appearance.

To complete the description, we show that $`g^{}\omega =0`$. Using the push-pull formula, we see that it is enough to show that $`\omega g_{}^{}C=0`$ for any curve $`C`$ contained in $`\overline{}_{2,1}`$. But this is easy, as $`\omega `$ is the self-intersection of a constant section on the component of genus $`g2`$. The variation of the other component, which is attached at some other point, has no effect on this.

To prove the theorem, we show that the intersection of the kernels has dimension $`2`$. This is most easily seen as follows: if we know the coefficients of $`\delta _0`$ and $`\lambda `$ in a divisor contained in $`\mathrm{ker}g^{}`$, that determines its coefficients of $`\delta _{g1}`$ and $`\delta _{g2}`$. However, a knowledge of these two coefficients determines the coefficient of $`\omega `$ (in order that the coefficient of $`\theta _{g2}`$ in the pullback by $`f^{}`$ be $`0`$), and that forces the coefficients of all of the rest. Assuming that the $`\theta _i`$ are independent, we conclude that the dimension is at most 2; it is at least 2 because the Weierstrass and Brill-Noether classes are contained in the kernel. (Of course, we have only shown that the Brill-Noether class is in the kernel when it is the class of an effective divisor, but one can check with no difficulty that it never survives the map $`f^{}`$.)

Now we prove that the $`\theta _i`$ are actually independent in $`Pic(\overline{}_{0,g+1})𝐐`$. This is not quite trivial: there are relations between the different $`\delta _{0;S}`$ on $`\overline{}_{0,n}`$. Since $`\overline{}_{0,4}𝐏^1`$, for example, and the Picard group of $`𝐏^1`$ has rank $`1`$, we must have $`\delta _{0;\{1,2\}}=\delta _{0;\{1,3\}}=\delta _{0;\{1,4\}}`$. But it is not difficult either.

To start with, only $`\theta _1`$ has nonzero degree on a fiber of $`\pi _{g+1}`$, so its coefficient must be $`0`$ in any relation. Then $`\theta _{g1}`$ is the only other $`\theta `$ with nonzero degree on a fiber of $`\pi _1`$, so its coefficient must be $`0`$ as well. For the rest, put a fixed number $`i`$, from $`1`$ to $`g3`$, of the first $`g`$ points on a $`𝐏^1`$ together with $`p_{g+1}`$, attach another $`𝐏^1`$ at another point with the remaining marked points, and consider a curve in which one of these points moves along its component. This curve will intersect $`\theta _{g1}`$ (where the moving point meets another marked point on its component), $`\theta _i`$ (generically), and $`\theta _{i+1}`$ (where the moving point reaches the point of attachment), and the coefficient of $`\theta _{i+1}`$ will be $`1`$. Therefore, by easy induction on $`i`$, all the coefficients of $`\theta _i`$ from $`2`$ to $`g2`$ in our putative relation must be $`0`$, and we are done.

Moreover, it is easy to see that the space spanned by these divisors is actually of dimension $`2`$ (not $`1`$). If $`g+1`$ is not prime, this is clear, because $`𝒲`$ has a nonzero coefficient of $`\omega `$ while the pullback of the Brill-Noether class from $`\overline{}_g`$ does not. If $`g+1`$ is prime, it is not much harder. (Details will appear in a paper presenting the results of \[L\].)

3. The General Case

Recall the definition of the divisor class $`BN`$ on $`\overline{}_g`$ as

$$(g+3)\lambda \frac{g+1}{6}\delta _0i(gi)\delta _i.$$

If $`g+1`$ is composite, $`BN`$ is effective, but otherwise it may not be. We may define divisors on $`\overline{}_{g,n}`$ for any $`g,n`$ by taking any $`r`$ and $`d`$ for which the expected dimension of the space of $`g_d^r`$’s on a curve of genus $`g`$ is $`k(1)`$, and imposing exactly enough ramification conditions separately at the $`n`$ distinct points to reduce the expected dimension to $`1`$. This produces a locus in $`\overline{}_{g,n}`$ which may in general have components of various dimensions. We will refer to any codimension-1 component of any of these loci as a Brill-Noether type divisor, and to the subspace of $`Pic\overline{}_{g,n}𝐐`$ generated by all Brill-Noether type divisors as the Brill-Noether subspace. Observe that if we pull back a divisor of Brill-Noether type from $`\overline{}_{g,n1}`$ to $`\overline{}_{g,n}`$, we get another divisor of Brill-Noether type: the same conditions are imposed at $`p_1,\mathrm{},p_{n1}`$, and none at $`p_n`$. The main purpose of this paper is to study the classes of these divisors: this is what we will do in this section.

The proofs of the earlier results on linear dependence suggest a way to proceed, and we will follow it. As before, we consider maps

$$\overline{}_{0,g+n}\overline{}_{g,n}$$

given by attaching a fixed elliptic curve at each of the first $`g`$ points, and

$$\overline{}_{2,1}\overline{}_{g,n}$$

given by attaching a fixed $`n+1`$-pointed curve of genus $`g`$ at a marked point. And as before, the Plücker formula shows that the first map misses all of these divisors, while the extended Brill-Noether theorem proves that the image of $`\overline{}_{2,1}𝒲`$ by second map has trivial intersection with them. Therefore, their classes must lie in the intersections of the kernels of these two maps. These facts are not quite enough to characterize the Brill-Noether subspace, though. We will prove the following theorem instead:

Theorem 3.1 For any $`g>2`$, the Brill-Noether subspace of $`Pic(\overline{}_{g,n})𝐐`$ has dimension $`1+n+\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{2}\right)`$, unless $`g+1`$ is prime and $`n=0`$. In particular, its projection with respect to the standard basis onto the subspace spanned by $`\lambda `$, the $`\omega `$, and the $`\delta _{0;\{i,j\}}`$ is an isomorphism.

Proof. To start the argument, observe that $`BN`$ has a nonzero coefficient of $`\lambda `$, and the pullback of $`𝒲`$ by the map which forgets all but the $`i`$th point has nonzero coefficient of $`\omega _i`$ and $`\lambda `$, while all of their other coefficients in the space we have projected to are $`0`$. This, together with the results of the previous section, takes care of the cases $`n=0,1`$.

We start by proving that the projection is surjective. The case $`n=2`$ is disposed of as soon as we find a divisor of Brill-Noether type with nonzero coefficient of $`\delta _{0;\{1,2\}}`$. To do this, we need a bit of notation.

Definition. Let $`A(g,m,n)=A^{}(g,d,n)`$ be the number of $`g_d^1`$’s on a general curve of genus $`g`$ ramified to order $`m1`$ at a specified point and to order $`n1`$ at an unspecified point, where $`2d=g+m+n1`$.

Theorem 3.2 (\[L\], thm. 3.2)

$$A^{}(g,d,n)=g!(n^21)\underset{j=\mathrm{max}(0,m+nd1)}{\overset{\mathrm{min}(m1,n1,d)}{}}\frac{(m+n2j1)}{((dmn+j+1)!(dj)!)}.$$

(It seems almost certain that this was known long before \[L\], but I know of no reference.)

In odd genus $`g`$, we consider the divisor $`D`$ on $`\overline{}_{g,2}`$ of curves and points such that there is a $`g_{(g+3)/2}^1`$ ramified at both of the points. On the one hand, there are $`c_{(g+1)/2}g_{(g+3)/2}^1`$’s ramified at a given point, and each of them is ramified at exactly $`3g`$ other points, so the degree on a fiber is $`3gc_{(g+1)/2}`$. (Here $`c_n`$ is the $`n`$th Catalan number $`(2n)!/n!(n+1)!`$.) On the other hand, consider $`\pi _1{}_{}{}^{}D\delta _{0;\{1,2\}}`$. An easy argument with linear series shows this to consist of the sum of the pullback of a Brill-Noether divisor from $`\overline{}_g`$ and a divisor of Brill-Noether type on $`\overline{}_{g,1}`$, to wit, that of curves and points where the curve has a $`g_{(g+3)/2}^1`$ doubly ramified at the marked point. The degree of this on a fiber is $`A(g,1,3)=24\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{g}{(g+3)/2}\right)`$, and the coefficient of $`\delta _{0;\{1,2\}}`$ will be $`0`$ iff this is equal to $`6gc_{(g+1)/2}`$. Expanding out both sides and multiplying through by

$$\frac{((g+1)/2)!((g+3)/2)!}{6g!},$$

we get $`g(g+1)=(g1)(g+1)`$, which holds for no positive integer, so the coefficient is nonzero as desired.

In even genus, consider the divisor $`D`$ on $`\overline{}_{g,2}`$ of curves and points such that there is a $`g_{(g+4)/2}^1`$ ramified doubly at the first point and singly at the second. When we cut and push forward, we get the divisor $`D_{g;2}+D_{g;4}`$ on $`\overline{}_{g,1}`$. Again, to show that $`D`$ has nonzero coefficient of $`\delta _{0;\{1,2\}}`$, we must prove that the sum of the degrees on the fibers of $`D`$ is not equal to the degree on the fibers of its pushforward; in other words, that $`A(g,2,3)+A(g,3,2)A(g,1,2)+A(g,1,4)`$. Writing these out in terms of the formula for $`A`$ given in Theorem 3.2 and dividing through by $`g!`$, we get

$$11\underset{j=0}{\overset{1}{}}\frac{(42j)}{(g/2+j2)!(g/2j+2)!}\frac{6}{(g/21)!(g/2+1)!}+\frac{60}{(g/22)!(g/2+2)!},$$

which on multiplying through by $`(g/21)!(g/2+2)!`$ becomes

$$44(g/21)+22(g/2+2)6(g/2+2)+60(g/21),$$

a statement that is always true.

Then, on $`\overline{}_{g,n}`$, we can prescribe the coefficients of the $`\delta _{0;\{i,j\}}`$ by pulling back these divisors from $`\overline{}_{g,2}`$ in appropriate ways. The $`\omega `$’s are dealt with by pulling back $`𝒲`$ from $`\overline{}_{g,1}`$, and $`\lambda `$ by pulling back $`BN`$ from $`\overline{}_g`$. We must show, now, that a divisor in the Brill-Noether subspace whose coefficients of $`\lambda `$, the $`\omega `$, and the $`\delta _{0;\{i,j\}}`$ are all $`0`$ is $`0`$.

Lemma 3.3 Let $`S=\{i,j\}\{1,\mathrm{},n+1\}`$. The map

$$Pic\overline{}_{g,n+1}𝐐Pic\overline{}_{g,n}𝐐$$

given by $`D\pi _j{}_{}{}^{}(D\delta _{0;S})`$ maps the Brill-Noether subspace to the Brill-Noether subspace. (Note that this is the pullback map on Picard groups induced by the map $`\overline{}_{g,n}\overline{}_{g,n+1}`$ which takes the point representing $`(C,p_1,\mathrm{},p_i,\mathrm{},p_n)`$ to $`(C^{},p_1,\mathrm{},P_1,\mathrm{},P_2,\mathrm{},p_n)`$, where $`C^{}`$ is $`C`$ with a copy of $`𝐏^1`$ attached at $`p_i`$ and the $`P_i`$ are points on this copy of $`𝐏^1`$.

Proof. It suffices to prove this on a set of generators for the Brill-Noether subspace. So let $`D`$ be a divisor of Brill-Noether type. Then for a point of $`\delta _{0;S}`$ to be contained in $`D`$ means that there is a limit linear series on the reducible curve the point corresponds to that satisfies the necessary ramification conditions. On the $`𝐏^1`$ containing $`p_i`$ and $`p_j`$, there is no choice in the matter: we know what the total order of vanishing must be at the point of attachment. This forces the total order of vanishing on the genus-$`g`$ component, and it is easily checked that this results in a codimension-$`1`$ condition for each way to distribute the vanishing between base points and ramification. Thus $`D`$ maps to a sum of divisors of Brill-Noether type, and the lemma is proved.

Lemma 3.4 Let $`DBNS`$ be a divisor whose coefficients of $`\lambda `$, the $`\omega `$, and the $`\delta _{0;\{i,j\}}`$ are all $`0`$, with respect to the standard basis. Then for any $`S`$, the coefficient of $`\delta _{0;S}`$ in $`D`$ is $`0`$ as well. (Note that we do not yet assert that its coefficient of $`\delta _0`$ must be $`0`$).

Proof. Let $`S\{1,\mathrm{},n\}(cardS>2)`$, and fix a $`cardS`$-pointed $`𝐏^1`$ and a general $`(n+1cardS)`$-pointed curve of genus $`g`$. Consider a family of curves whose base is isomorphic to $`𝐏^1`$, and whose fiber at a point $`P`$ has the $`cardS`$-pointed $`𝐏^1`$ attached at $`P`$ to the curve of genus $`g`$ at the first point. For each element $`xS`$, this family meets $`\delta _{0;S\{x\}}`$ once, and it meets $`\delta _{0;S}`$ with multiplicity $`2cardS`$—the section on the curve of genus $`g`$ is constant, so has self-intersection $`0`$, while the section on the $`𝐏^1`$ is a diagonal on $`𝐏^1\times 𝐏^1`$, blown up at $`cardS`$ points. On the other hand, it is plain that this curve does not meet any of the other boundary components or $`\lambda `$. In addition, I claim that the intersection with each $`\omega _i`$ is $`0`$.

For $`iS`$, this is obvious. For $`iS`$, the self-intersection of the $`i`$th section is $`1`$, so this contributes $`1`$. For every element $`x`$ of $`S`$ other than $`i`$, we get a contribution to $`\omega _i`$ of $`1`$ from $`\delta _{0;S\{x\}}`$, thus $`cardS1`$. Finally, we add the intersection with $`\delta _{0;S}`$, which is $`2cardS`$; total $`0`$.

By the extended Brill-Noether theorem \[EH, Thm. 1.1\], this curve misses all divisors of Brill-Noether type entirely, and so for every $`S`$ of cardinality greater than $`2`$ we get a relation

$$(2cardS)d_{0;S}+\underset{xS}{}d_{0;S\{x\}}=0.$$

(Roman letters are the coefficients of divisors named by similar Greek letters.) Therefore, if $`D`$ is a divisor in the Brill-Noether subspace with coefficients of $`\delta _{0;\{i,j\}}`$ equal to $`0`$, an induction on $`cardS`$ proves the lemma.

Now we are ready to settle the case $`n=2`$ in Theorem 3.1. Suppose that $`DBNS`$ has all coefficients of $`\lambda ,\omega ,`$ and $`\delta _{0;\{i,j\}}`$ equal to 0, but suppose that the coefficient of $`\delta _{i,S}`$ is nonzero. If $`S`$ is empty, then consider $`\pi _{}\delta _{0;\{1,2\}}D`$—it is in the Brill-Noether subspace and has a nonzero coefficient of $`\delta _{i,\mathrm{}}`$, contradiction. We may thus assume that all of the $`\delta _{i;\mathrm{}}`$ are $`0`$.

We now know that $`D`$ pulls back to $`0`$ on $`Pic\overline{}_{0,g+2}`$. Define $`\theta _{i;S}`$ on $`\overline{}_{0,g+2}`$ to be the sum

$$\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{T\{1,2,\mathrm{},g\}}{cardT=i}}{}\delta _{0;T(S+n)},$$

where $`S+n`$ is the set obtained by adding $`n`$ to each element of $`S`$, so that $`\theta _{i;S}`$ is the pullback of $`\delta _{i;S}`$. Let

$$D=a_i\delta _{i;\{1\}}+d\delta _0;$$

then $`a_i\theta _{i;\{1\}}=0`$. We show that the $`\theta _{i;\{1\}}`$ are linearly independent.

To start, only $`\theta _{1;\{1\}}`$ has nonzero degree on a fiber of $`\pi _{g+1}`$, so it cannot appear in a relation. Next, only $`\theta _{g1;\{1\}}`$ of the remaining $`\theta `$ has nonzero degree on a fiber of any of the other projection maps. For the rest, fix $`1<i<g2`$, put $`i`$ of the first $`g`$ points and $`p_{g+2}`$ on a $`𝐏^1`$ and attach this $`𝐏^1`$ to another $`𝐏^1`$ which has the other $`gi`$ of the first $`g`$ marked points and $`p_{g+1}`$. Then let one of the points vary on the first $`𝐏^1`$. This meets only $`\theta _{gi;\{1\}}`$ and $`\theta _{gi+1;\{1\}}`$ of the $`\theta `$, the latter with multiplicity $`1`$. Again it is immediate that the $`\theta `$ are in fact linearly independent.

This proves that all of the $`a_i`$ are $`0`$, so $`D`$ is just a multiple of $`\delta _0`$. That means that $`D=0`$, though, because the map $`\overline{}_{2,1}\overline{}_{g,2}`$ does not pull any nonzero multiple of $`\delta _0`$ back to a multiple of $`𝒲`$. This completes the proof in the case $`n=2`$.

Finally, for general $`n`$, given $`D`$ we start by removing its coefficients of $`\lambda `$, the $`\omega `$, and the $`\delta _{0;\{i,j\}}`$. Its coefficients of $`\delta _{0;S}`$ are automatically $`0`$; suppose that its coefficient of $`\delta _{i;S}`$ is nonzero. Choose $`j,k`$ so that either $`j,kS`$ or $`j,kS`$, cut with $`\delta _{0;\{j,k\}}`$, and forget the $`k`$th point. This produces a smaller $`n`$ and $`D`$ with such a nonzero coefficient, and proceeding in this way we get down to the case $`n=2`$, contradiction. So all the $`\delta _{i;S}`$ have a coefficient of $`0`$. We finish the proof of the theorem by concluding as before that $`\delta _0`$ cannot appear.

References

\[AC\] E. Arbarello, M. Cornalba, The Picard groups of the moduli spaces of curves. Topology 26, 153–171, 1987.

\[Cuk\] F. Cukierman, Families of Weierstrass points. Duke Math. J. 58, 317–346, 1989.

\[EH\] D. Eisenbud, J. Harris, The Kodaira dimension of the moduli space of curves of genus $`23`$. Inv. Math. 90, 359–387, 1987.

\[HM\] J. Harris, I. Morrison, Moduli of Curves. GTM 167. Springer-Verlag, 1998.

\[K\] F. Knudsen, The projectivity of the moduli space of stable curves, II. The stacks $`_{g,n}`$, Math. Scand. 52 no. 2, 161–199, 1983.

\[L\] A. Logan, Moduli spaces of curves with marked points. Harvard University doctoral dissertation, June 1999.