text:
# Spin-orbit coupling in interacting quasi-one-dimensional electron systems

## Abstract

We present a new model for the study of spin-orbit coupling in interacting quasi-one-dimensional systems and solve it exactly to find the spectral properties of such systems. We show that the combination of spin-orbit coupling and electron-electron interactions results in: the replacement of separate spin and charge excitations with two new kinds of bosonic mixed-spin-charge excitation, and a characteristic modification of the spectral function and single-particle density of states. Our results show how manipulation of the spin-orbit coupling, with external electric fields, can be used for the experimental determination of microscopic interaction parameters in quantum wires.

In contemporary condensed matter physics there exists a great variety of electron systems that can be considered as quasi-one-dimensional (Q1D). Among them are conducting polymers , carbon nanotubes , and semiconductor heterostructures . They combine the richness of observable physical properties with the possibility of finding exact solutions to non-trivial interacting problems. The major theoretical advance in this field was the formulation and solution of the Tomonaga-Luttinger model , which revealed features that are generic to many interacting Q1D electron systems, such as separation of charge and spin degrees of freedom and the anomalous scaling of correlation functions .

The very existence of Q1D systems (or quantum wires) arises essentially from confining electrical forces, which prevent the lateral motion of electrons. The accompanying electric fields necessarily give rise to a coupling between the spin and orbital degrees of freedom of propagating electrons — the spin-orbit (SO) interaction. Although this interaction is relativistic in nature, it nevertheless results in a significant modification to the band structure of Q1D systems (see, e.g., experimental  and theoretical  papers). In strictly 1D and 2D systems, the role of the SO interaction basically reduces to a “horizontal” (in momentum space) splitting of the energy branches corresponding to spin-up and spin-down electron states. In contrast to this, the existence of quantised transverse energy subbands in quantum wires brings about an additional important manifestation of the SO coupling: the absence of a vertical symmetry axis for each spin branch (see Fig. 1 and Ref. ). This absence results in a breakdown of chiral symmetry so that the electron Fermi velocities become dependent on the direction of motion. This effect monotonically increases as the SO coupling is enhanced. As applied to interacting systems, the absence of chiral symmetry raises two fundamental questions: how does the system respond to the asymmetry of the single-particle spectrum; and what is the fate of the spin-charge separation in the presence of the SO coupling? It is the aim of this Letter, to establish a realistic model for the SO coupling in interacting 1D systems which answers these questions, and to provide experiment with a set of quantitative predictions which will allow their verification.

In constructing a Hamiltonian for such a system, we consider the case where the Fermi energy $`E_F`$ is sufficiently small, such that only the lowest energy subband in a quantum wire is partly filled, while all the others are empty. This regime has proven to be the richest in non-trivial experimental results , and the SO effects are expected  to be most pronounced here. As a natural way of capturing the essential physics in a quantum wire, we suggest the use of a modification to the Tomonaga-Luttinger model that takes into account the asymmetric single-particle spectrum in Fig. 1. Namely, we take the Hamiltonian to have the form $`H=H_0+H_{int}`$, where $`H_0`$ describes the linearized spectrum,

$`H_0`$ $`=`$ $`iv_1{\displaystyle 𝑑x\left(\psi _{R,}^{}_x\psi _{R,}\psi _{L,}^{}_x\psi _{L,}\right)}`$ (2)
$`iv_2{\displaystyle 𝑑x\left(\psi _{R,}^{}_x\psi _{R,}\psi _{L,}^{}_x\psi _{L,}\right)},`$
and $`H_{int}`$ is responsible for the EE interaction:

$`H_{int}`$ $`=`$ $`g_2{\displaystyle 𝑑x\psi _{R,}^{}\psi _{R,}\psi _{L,}^{}\psi _{L,}}`$ (3)
$`+`$ $`g_4{\displaystyle }dx\psi _{R,}^{}\psi _{R,}\psi _{R,}^{}\psi _{R,}+(RL).`$ (4)
The operators $`\psi _{r,s}(x)`$ ($`r=R,L`$; $`s=,`$) annihilate spin-up ($``$) and spin-down ($``$) electrons near the right ($`R`$) and left ($`L`$) Fermi points. In Eq. (2) the electron velocities $`v_{1,2}=E(p_{1,2})/p`$ are derived from the dispersion law in Fig. 1. In general, $`v_1v_2`$ as long as the spin-orbit interaction is finite .

In the interaction Hamiltonian (4) we include only forward scattering contributions, while the backward and Umklapp scattering are left out. Neglecting the Umklapp scattering is known  to be safe if energy bands are far from being half-filled, which is exactly the case, e.g., in quantum wires patterned in semiconductor heterostructures . As regards the backscattering, it can be shown that, similar to the case of zero SO coupling , it renormalizes to zero for repulsive interactions and therefore can also be omitted. In this letter, we concentrate on the major tendencies arising from the SO coupling in interacting electron systems, therefore we assume momentum-independent interaction potentials $`g_2>0`$ and $`g_4>0`$ in Eq. (4), which corresponds to a well-screened repulsion between electrons.

The Hamiltonian (2), (4) is reminiscent of that for the multi-component Tomonaga-Luttinger model  which consists of mutually interacting Luttinger liquids with different Fermi velocities. However, in contrast to our case, the model  assumes that each liquid has a symmetric single-electron spectrum (as occurs, for example, with Zeeman splitting ) and therefore, as we will show, it describes qualitatively different physical behaviour.

We study the interacting model (2), (4) with the help of the bosonization technique . Within this formalism, fermionic operators $`\psi _{r,s}(x)`$ are represented as $`\psi _{r,s}(x)\mathrm{exp}(i\mathrm{\Phi }_{r,s})`$, where the operators $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{r,s}(x)`$ are linear combinations of so-called phase fields $`\phi _{\rho (\sigma )}(x)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\rho (\sigma )}(x)`$ that obey the bosonic canonical commutation relations (see Refs.  for details). In terms of these phase fields, the Hamiltonian (2), (4) takes the bosonized form:

$`H={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle 𝑑x}`$ $`\{`$ $`v_\rho K_\rho (\pi \mathrm{\Pi }_\rho )^2+{\displaystyle \frac{v_\rho }{K_\rho }}(_x\phi _\rho )^2`$ (5)
$`+`$ $`v_\sigma K_\sigma (\pi \mathrm{\Pi }_\sigma )^2+{\displaystyle \frac{v_\sigma }{K_\sigma }}(_x\phi _\sigma )^2`$ (6)
$`+`$ $`\delta v[(\pi \mathrm{\Pi }_\rho )_x\phi _\sigma +(\pi \mathrm{\Pi }_\sigma )_x\phi _\rho ]\},`$ (7)
where

$$v_0=(v_1+v_2)/2,\delta v=v_2v_1$$
(8)
and $`v_{\rho (\sigma )}=\left[(v_0\pm g_4/2\pi )^2(g_2/2\pi )^2\right]^{1/2}`$ and $`K_{\rho (\sigma )}=\left[(2\pi v_0g_2\pm g_4)/(2\pi v_0\pm g_2\pm g_4)\right]^{1/2}`$. The first (second) line in Eq. (7) describes free propagation of charge (spin) density wave with the velocity $`v_{\rho (\sigma )}`$ and “stiffness” coefficient $`K_{\rho (\sigma )}`$. The third line in Eq. (7) is proportional to the velocity difference $`\delta v`$ and therefore represents the strength of the SO interaction. In the Tomonaga-Luttinger model, where $`v_1=v_2`$, this term is absent and this results in a decoupling of the charge and spin degrees of freedom: the so-called spin-charge separation . This decoupling inhibits the existence of quasi-particles with spin $`1/2`$ and charge $`e`$, the basic excitations of a Fermi liquid, and gives rise to a different state of matter, the Luttinger liquid, which has bosonic excitations in the form of independent spin and charge density waves.

As the SO interaction is switched on, i.e. at $`\delta v0`$, the third term in Eq. (7) starts to affect the dynamics of the system. It couples together the $`\rho `$\- and $`\sigma `$-fields and thereby destroys this spin-charge separation. A similar effect is also found in a spinful Luttinger model in a magnetic field . In our case, the asymmetry of the single-electron spectrum in Fig. 1 results in a different mechanism for the violation of spin-charge separation from Ref. . We stress however, that our model is exactly solvable since the Hamiltonian (2), (4) is quadratic in the phase fields. Here we choose to solve it within the functional integration formalism in imaginary (Matsubara) time .

The most profound effects of the SO coupling on interacting Q1D systems can be seen in the behaviour of single-particle characteristics, such as the spectral function $`\rho _r(q,\omega )`$,

$$\rho _r(q,\omega )=\frac{1}{\pi }\underset{s}{}\mathrm{Im}G_{r,s}^{(ret)}(q,\omega ),r=R,L,$$
(9)
and the density of states $`N(\omega )=(1/2\pi )_r𝑑q\rho _r(q,\omega )`$. Here $`q`$ and $`\omega `$ are the momentum and energy of elementary excitations and $`G_{r,s}^{(ret)}(q,\omega )`$ is the Fourier transform of the retarded Green function

$`G_{r,s}^{(ret)}(x,t)`$ $``$ $`i\theta (t)\{\psi _{r,s}(x,t),\psi _{r,s}^{}(0,0)\}`$ (10)
$`=`$ $`i\theta (t)\left[G_{r,s}(x,t)+G_{r,s}(x,t)\right],`$ (11)
where $`\theta (t)`$ is the Heaviside step function and $`G_{r,s}(x,t)=\psi _{r,s}(x,\tau )\psi _{r,s}^{}(0,0)|_{\tau it}`$ with $`\tau `$ being the Matsubara time. Leaving detailed calculations to a regular article, we give here an exact expression for $`G_{r,s}(x,t)`$ at $`T=0`$:

$$G_{r,s}(x,t)=\frac{\mathrm{exp}(ip_{r,s}x)}{2\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mathrm{\Lambda }+i(u_1tx)}\right)^{\theta _1^+}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mathrm{\Lambda }+i(u_1t+x)}\right)^{\theta _1^{}}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mathrm{\Lambda }+i(u_2tx)}\right)^{\theta _2^+}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\mathrm{\Lambda }+i(u_2t+x)}\right)^{\theta _2^{}}.$$
(12)
A small (of the order of the lattice parameter) length scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ defines ultraviolet cut-off . From Eq. (12) it follows that although the SO coupling destroys the spin-charge separation, it nevertheless preserves the anomalous scaling of correlation functions. At $`\delta v=0`$, Eq. (12) coincides with the well-known expression . The exponents $`\theta _i^\pm `$ ($`i=1,2`$) are determined by values of $`v_{\rho (\sigma )}`$, $`K_{\rho (\sigma )}`$, $`\delta v`$ and depend on the chiral $`r`$ and spin $`s`$ indices. For arbitrary interaction constants $`g_2`$ and $`g_4`$, the expressions for $`\theta _i^\pm `$ are rather lengthy and here we give them for the realistic case of equal interaction strength between all the spectral branches, i.e. for $`g_2=g_4(\pi v_0)\beta `$:

$$\theta _i^\pm (r,s)=(1)^i\xi _i^\pm (r,s)\eta _i/2(\eta _1^2\eta _2^2),$$
(13)
$`\xi _i^\pm (r,s)`$ $`=`$ $`\pm r\left[(1+rsϵ/2)^2/\eta _i\eta _i\right](1rsϵ/2)`$ (14)
$`+`$ $`\left[(1+rsϵ/2)(1ϵ^2/4)\beta ^2/2\right]/\eta _i^2.`$ (15)
Here $`ϵ=\delta v/v_0`$, and on the r.h.s. of the last equation $`r=\pm 1`$ for right (left) spectrum branches and $`s=\pm 1`$ for spin-up (spin-down) electrons.

The quantities $`\eta _{1,2}\eta _{1,2}(ϵ)`$ defined by

$$\eta _{1,2}^2(u_{1,2}/v_0)^2=1+ϵ^2/4\sqrt{\beta ^2+ϵ^2}$$
(16)
are dimensionless velocities of the new independent bosonic excitations that replace the spin and charge density waves, respectively, as the single-electron spectrum becomes asymmetric ($`ϵ0`$). Each of these new excitations are superpositions of the old ones, they carry both charge and spin, and have a sound-like spectrum $`\omega =u_{1,2}q`$. For $`ϵ=0`$, we have $`u_{1,2}=v_{\sigma (\rho )}`$ and return to the spin-charge separation. Eq. (16) demonstrates that increasing $`ϵ`$ at constant $`\beta `$ pushes $`u_1`$ and $`u_2`$ away from $`v_\sigma `$ and $`v_\rho `$ as well as from each other: one of the excitations monotonically accelerates ($`u_2`$ grows) while the other monotonically slows down ($`u_1`$ decreases). This effect becomes more pronounced in systems with stronger EE interaction. Since the parameter $`ϵ`$ is controlled by the SO interaction and therefore by the lateral electrical confinement, the strength of this confinement must affect drastically the dynamics of elementary excitations in quantum wires. Further increasing $`ϵ`$ eventually results in a vanishing of the velocity $`u_1`$ at the “critical” point $`ϵ_0=2\sqrt{1\beta }`$ and in a possible phase transition accompanied by phase separation . This phenomenon is beyond the scope of this Letter.

Eq. (12) allows one to calculate the spectral function $`\rho _r(q,\omega )`$ which can be obtained in magnetotunneling experiments . Fig. 2 shows the spectral function $`\rho _R(q,\omega )`$ for right-moving electrons in the range of energies $`\omega `$ where all singularities of $`\rho _R(q,\omega )`$ are located. At each value of $`ϵ<ϵ_0`$, the spectral function has two singular points corresponding to the bosonic excitations with velocities $`u_1`$ and $`u_2`$ \[see Eq. (16)\]. In full accordance with Eq. (16), the distance between the singular points grows with $`ϵ`$. The singularities of $`\rho _R(q,\omega )`$ are governed by power laws with exponents depending on $`v_{\rho (\sigma )}`$, $`K_{\rho (\sigma )}`$, and $`ϵ`$. The dependence on $`ϵ`$ is such that one of the singularities becomes sharper while the other becomes smoother as $`ϵ`$ grows. It is noteworthy that the dependence of $`\rho _R`$ on $`q`$ at fixed $`\omega `$ is very similar to that shown in Fig. 2 and exhibits the same tendencies as a function of $`ϵ`$.

From Eqs. (9), (11), and (12) one can also calculate the single-particle density of states $`N(\omega )`$. This quantity may be obtained in tunneling measurements since the tunneling current, e.g., between a wide metal and an interacting quantum wire is proportional to $`N(eV)`$, where $`V`$ is an applied voltage (see Ref. ). It can also be determined in angle-integrated photoemission experiments . For $`\omega 0`$ we obtain the following behaviour:

$$\frac{N(\omega )}{N_0}=\frac{1}{4}\underset{r,s}{}\frac{(\omega /\omega _0)^{\theta _1+\theta _21}}{\eta _1^{\theta _1}\eta _2^{\theta _2}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\theta _1+\theta _2)},\theta _i=\theta _i^++\theta _i^{}.$$
(17)
Here $`\omega _0=v_0/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the natural energy unit of the order of the Fermi energy, $`N_0=2/\pi v_0`$ is the constant density of states at $`\beta =ϵ=0`$, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(x)`$ is the Gamma function.

Fig. 3a demonstrates the effect of the EE interaction on the density of states $`N(\omega )`$ at a fixed strength of the SO coupling. At zero EE interaction ($`\beta =0`$), the function $`N(\omega )`$ is a constant, $`N(\omega )/N_0=1/(1ϵ^2/4)`$. As the EE interaction is switched on ($`\beta 0`$), it starts to affect the formation of the lowest lying excitations and $`N(\omega )`$ takes on a power-law behaviour in the vicinity of $`\omega =0`$. The width of this power-law interval becomes progressively larger as $`\beta `$ grows and leads to a monotonic suppression of the density of states. This effect is also present for zero SO coupling .

Fig. 3b shows the evolution of the function $`N(\omega )`$ for fixed $`\beta `$ as the SO coupling is varied. For large values of $`\omega `$, where the role of EE interactions is not significant, the magnitude of $`N(\omega )`$ increases as $`ϵ`$ grows. However, at small values of $`\omega `$, where the nature of the elementary excitations is essentially dictated by EE interactions, the effect of the SO coupling on $`N(\omega )`$ is qualitatively the same as that of the EE interaction, that is, increasing $`ϵ`$ leads to a suppression of the density of states. We emphasize that in the standard multi-component Tomonaga-Luttinger model  as well as in spin-polarized Luttinger liquids , there is no interval of $`\omega `$ where the density of states is suppressed by increasing the velocity difference between spectral branches. The existence of such an interval is a unique manifestation of the SO coupling in quantum wires.

The characteristic dependence of the spectral function $`\rho (q,\omega )`$ and the density of states $`N(\omega )`$ on the microscopic parameter $`ϵ`$, for fixed $`\beta `$, should enable one to extract both quantities from experiment and thus determine how strong the EE and SO interactions are. Such dependencies can be obtained experimentally by changing the SO coupling directly by varying an electric field perpendicular to a quantum wire (quantum-well field) as it was done, e.g., in Ref. .

Theoretical calculations  of the electron bandstructure modified by the SO coupling indicate that the value of $`ϵ`$ in typical Q1D semiconductor systems should be $`0.1`$$`0.2`$ and appears sufficiently large to observe the principal tendencies in the behaviour of $`\rho (q,\omega )`$ and $`N(\omega )`$ caused by the SO coupling.

In conclusion, we have formulated and solved analytically the problem of the interplay between EE and SO interactions in Q1D electron systems and found that: (i) the spin-charge separation breaks down while the anomalous scaling of correlation functions is preserved; (ii) the single-particle characteristics, such as the spectral function and the density of states, are essentially modified and controlled by the strength of the SO coupling; (iii) varying the SO coupling with the external electric field can be used to extract the microscopic parameters of quantum wires.

AVM thanks the ORS, COT, and Corpus Christi College for financial support. KVS and CHWB thank the EPSRC for financial support.


format: text

text:
# New constraints for non-Newtonian gravity in nanometer range from the improved precision measurement of the Casimir force

## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors are grateful to U. Mohideen for several helpful discussions. G.L.K. and V.M.M. are indebted to Center of Theoretical Sciences and Institute of Theoretical Physics of Leipzig University, where this work was performed, for kind hospitality. G.L.K. was supported by Graduate College on Quantum Field Theory at Leipzig University. V.M.M. was supported by Saxonian Ministry for Science and Fine Arts.


text:
# On effective non-vanishing and base-point-freeness

## 1 semipositivity

The semipositivity theorem proved in  was used for the study of algebraic fiber spaces whose fibers have nonnegative Kodaira dimension. Now its logarithmic generalization will be applied for those with negative Kodaira dimension as well.

We start with recalling the semipositivity theorem ( Theorem 5) with slightly different expression:

###### Theorem 1.1.

Let $`X`$ and $`S`$ be smooth projective varieties and let $`f:XS`$ be a surjective morphism. Let $`n=dimXdimY`$. Assume that there exists a normal crossing divisor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ on $`S`$ such that $`f`$ is smooth over $`S_0=S\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Then the following hold:

(1) $`=f_{}𝒪_X(K_{X/S})`$ is a locally free sheaf, where $`K_{X/S}=K_Xf^{}K_S`$.

(2) Let $`\pi :P=()S`$ be the associated projective space bundle, and let $`P_0=\pi ^1(S_0)`$. Then the tautological invertible sheaf $`𝒪_P(1)`$ on $`P`$ has a singular hermitian metric $`h`$ which is smooth over $`P_0`$ and such that the curvature current $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is semipositive and that the corresponding multiplier ideal sheaf coincides with $`𝒪_P`$.

(3) Let $`X_0=f^1(S_0)`$ and $`f_0=f|_{X_0}`$. If the local monodromies of $`R^nf_0_{X_0}`$ around the branches of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ are unipotent, then the Lelong number of $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ vanishes at any point of $`P`$. In particular, $``$ is numerically semipositive. If $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is strictly positive at a point on $`P_0`$, then $`𝒪_P(1)`$ is also big.

###### Proof.

The hermitian metric $`\stackrel{~}{h}`$ on $`|_{S_0}`$ is defined by the integration along the fiber: for $`sS_0`$ and $`u,v_s`$,

$$\stackrel{~}{h}_s(u,v)=\mathrm{const}._{f^1(x)}u\overline{v}.$$

By , the curvature form of $`\stackrel{~}{h}`$ is Griffiths semipositive. Hence the smooth metric $`h`$ on $`𝒪_P(1)|_{P_0}`$ induced from $`\stackrel{~}{h}`$ has semipositive curvature form as well. Moreover, it is extended to a singular hermitian metric $`h`$ over $`P`$. The multiplier ideal sheaf is trivial because the sections of $``$ are $`L^2`$. In the case (3), the growth of the metric is logarithmic. So the Lelong number vanishes, and the last statements follow from the regularization of positive currents (). ∎

The semipositivity theorem is generalized to the logarithmic case by the covering method:

###### Theorem 1.2.

Let $`X`$ and $`S`$ be smooth projective varieties, let $`f:XS`$ be a surjective morphism, and let $`B`$ be an effective $``$-divisor on $`X`$ whose support is a normal crossing divisor and whose coefficients are strictly less than $`1`$. Assume that there exists a normal crossing divisor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ on $`S`$ such that $`f`$ is smooth and $`\mathrm{Supp}(B)`$ is relative normal crossing over $`S_0=S\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Let $`D`$ be a Cartier divisor on $`X`$. Assume that $`D_{}K_{X/S}+B`$. Then the following hold:

(1) $`=f_{}𝒪_X(D)`$ is a locally free sheaf.

(2) Let $`\pi :P=()S`$ be the associated projective space bundle, and let $`P_0=\pi ^1(S_0)`$. Then the tautological invertible sheaf $`𝒪_P(1)`$ on $`P`$ has a singular hermitian metric $`h`$ which is smooth over $`P_0`$ and such that the curvature current $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is semipositive and that the corresponding multiplier ideal sheaf coincides with $`𝒪_P`$.

(3) There exists a finite surjective morphism $`\sigma :S^{}S`$ from a smooth projective variety $`S^{}`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}=\sigma ^1(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ is a normal crossing divisor and satisfies the following conditions: Let $`X^{}X\times _SS^{}`$ be a birational morphism from a smooth projective variety which is isomorphic over $`S_0`$ and such that the union of the pull-back of the support of $`B`$, the pull-back of the support of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and the exceptional locus is a normal crossing divisor. Let $`f^{}:X^{}S^{}`$ and $`\tau :X^{}X`$ be the induced morphisms. An effective $``$-divisor $`B^{}`$ on $`X^{}`$ is defined such that its coefficients are strictly less than $`1`$ and that $`R=\tau ^{}(K_{X/S}+B)(K_{X^{}/S^{}}+B^{})`$ is a divisor. Let $`D^{}=\tau ^{}DR`$. Then $`R`$ is effective, and the assumptions of the theorem are satisfied by $`f^{}:X^{}S^{}`$, $`B^{}`$ and $`D^{}`$. The locally free sheaf $`^{}=f_{}^{}𝒪_X^{}(D^{})`$ on $`S^{}`$ satisfies that $`\sigma ^{}^{}`$. The singular hermitian metric $`h`$ induces a singular hermitian metric $`h^{}`$ on the tautological invertible sheaf $`𝒪_P^{}(1)`$ on $`P^{}=(^{})`$, and the Lelong number of the curvature current $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{}`$ vanishes at any point of $`P^{}`$. In particular, $`^{}`$ is numerically semipositive. If $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{}`$ is strictly positive at a point on $`P_0^{}`$, then $`𝒪_P^{}(1)`$ is also big.

###### Proof.

Let $`m`$ be the minimal positive number such that $`mDm(K_{X/S}+B)`$. We take a rational function $`h`$ on $`X`$ such that $`\text{div}(h)=mD+m(K_{X/S}+B)`$. Let $`\pi :YX`$ be the normalization of $`X`$ in the field $`(X)(h^{1/m})`$, and let $`\mu :Y^{}Y`$ be a desingularization such that the composite morphism $`g:Y^{}S`$ is smooth over $`S_0`$. We have

$$\pi _{}𝒪_Y\underset{k=0}{\overset{m1}{}}𝒪_X(kD+kK_{X/S}+\mathrm{}kB\mathrm{}).$$

The Galois group $`G/m`$ acts on $`Y`$ such that the above direct summands of $`\pi _{}𝒪_Y`$ are eigenspaces with eigenvalues $`\text{exp}(2\pi \sqrt{1}k/m)`$.

Since $`\pi `$ is etale outside the support of $`B`$, $`Y`$ has only rational singularities, hence $`\mu _{}𝒪_Y^{}(K_Y^{})=𝒪_Y(K_Y)`$. We apply Theorem 1.1 to the sheaf $`g_{}𝒪_Y^{}(K_{Y^{}/S})=f_{}\pi _{}𝒪_Y(K_{Y/S})`$. By duality, we have

$$\pi _{}𝒪_Y(K_Y)\underset{k=0}{\overset{m1}{}}𝒪_X(K_X+kDkK_{X/S}\mathrm{}kB\mathrm{}).$$

By taking $`k=1`$ (we may assume that $`m2`$), we obtain our assertions (1) and (2) since $`f_{}𝒪_X(D\mathrm{}B\mathrm{})=f_{}𝒪_X(D)`$.

For (3), we use the unipotent reduction theorem for the local monodromies of $`g`$ (). ∎

If the base space is $`1`$-dimensional, we have a simpler expression:

###### Corollary 1.3.

Let $`X`$ be a complete normal variety, and $`B`$ an effective $``$-divisor on $`X`$ such that the pair $`(X,B)`$ is KLT. Let $`f:XC`$ be a surjective morphism to a smooth curve. Let $`D`$ be a Cartier divisor on $`X`$ such that $`D_{}K_{X/C}+B`$. Then $`f_{}𝒪_X(D)`$ is a numerically semipositive locally free sheaf on $`C`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`\mu :X^{}X`$ be a log resolution for the pair $`(X,B)`$, and set $`\mu ^{}(K_X+B)=K_X^{}+B^{}`$. The coefficients of $`B^{}`$ are less than $`1`$ and negative coefficients appear only for exceptional divisors of $`\mu `$. We set $`B^{}=B_I^{}+B_F^{}`$ where $`B_I^{}`$ is an effective integral divisor and $`B_F^{}`$ is a $``$-divisor whose coefficients belong to the interval $`(0,1)`$. Since the support of $`B_I^{}`$ is exceptional for $`\mu `$, we have $`\mu _{}𝒪_X^{}(B_I^{})=𝒪_X`$. By applying the theorem to the pair $`(X^{},B_F^{})`$, we deduce that the sheaf $`f_{}𝒪_X(D)=f_{}\mu _{}𝒪_X^{}(\mu ^{}D+B_I^{})`$ is numerically semipositive. ∎

###### Corollary 1.4.

Let $`X,B`$ and $`f:XC`$ be as in Corollary 1.3. Let $`D`$ be a Cartier divisor on $`X`$ such that $`H=D(K_{X/C}+B)`$ is nef and big. Then $`f_{}𝒪_X(D)`$ is a numerically semipositive locally free sheaf on $`C`$.

###### Proof.

There exists an effective $``$-divisor $`B^{}`$ such that $`(X,B+B^{})`$ is KLT and $`D_{}K_{X/C}+B+B^{}`$. ∎

In the case of rank one sheaf, we have a more precise result which is not used later:

###### Corollary 1.5.

In Theorem 1.2, assume that $`=𝒪_S(F)`$ is an invertible sheaf. Let $`E`$ be an effective divisor such that $`EDf^{}F`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ be the smallest $``$-divisor supported on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ such that $`(X,BE+f^{}(\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Delta }))`$ is subLC over the generic points of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Then $`F\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is nef.

###### Proof.

Let $`\mu :X^{}X`$ be the log resolution of the pair $`(X,B+E+f^{}\mathrm{\Gamma })`$. We have $`\mu ^{}f^{}F\mu ^{}(DE)_{}\mu ^{}(K_{X/S}+BE)_{}K_{X^{}/S}+B^{}`$ for some $``$-divisor $`B^{}`$. Then our assertion is proved in  Theorem 2. ∎

## 2 Reduction

We consider the following problem:

###### Conjecture 2.1.

Let $`X`$ be a complete normal variety, $`B`$ an effective $``$-divisor on $`X`$ such that the pair $`(X,B)`$ is KLT, and $`D`$ a Cartier divisor on $`X`$. Assume that $`D`$ is nef, and that $`H=D(K_X+B)`$ is nef and big. Then $`H^0(X,D)0`$.

This problem was considered in  in order to construct ladders on log Fano varieties. By the generalization of the Kodaira Vanishing Theorem ( Theorem 1.2.5), we have $`H^p(X,D)=0`$ for any positive integer $`p`$. Thus the condition $`H^0(X,D)0`$ is equivalent to saying that $`\chi (X,D)0`$. Our problem is a topological question, unlike the case of the Abundance Conjectures.

The base point free theorem says that there exists a positive integer $`m_1`$ such that the linear system $`|mD|`$ is free for $`mm_1`$. The following reduction theorem is obtained as an application of the base point free theorem and the semipositivity theorem with the help of the perturbation technique.

###### Theorem 2.2.

In Conjecture 2.1, one may assume that $`B`$ is a $``$-divisor and that $`H`$ is ample. Moreover, one may assume that $`D`$ is also ample if one replaces $`X`$ suitably.

###### Proof.

By the Kodaira lemma, there exists an effecive $``$-divisor $`E`$ such that $`B+E`$ is a $``$-divisor, the pair $`(X,B+E)`$ is KLT, and that $`HE`$ is ample. Therefore, we may assume that $`B`$ is a $``$-divisor and that $`H`$ is ample.

By the Base Point Free Theorem, there exists a proper surjective morphism $`\varphi :XX^{}`$ with connected fibers to a normal projective variety such that $`D\varphi ^{}D^{}`$ for an ample Cartier divisor $`D^{}`$ on $`X^{}`$. We have $`H^0(X,D)0`$ if and only if $`H^0(X^{},D^{})0`$. We shall show that there exists an effective $``$-divisor $`B^{}`$ on $`X^{}`$ such that $`(X^{},B^{})`$ is KLT and $`D^{}(K_X^{}+B^{})`$ is ample.

Since $`H`$ is already assumed to be ample, we can write $`H=H_0+2\varphi ^{}H^{}`$ with $`H_0`$ and $`H^{}`$ being ample $``$-divisors. Since $`H_0`$ is ample, there exists an effective $``$-divisor $`B_0`$ such that $`B+H_0_{}B_0`$ and that $`(X,B_0)`$ is KLT. We set $`D_0=K_X+B_0`$. Then $`D_0_{}\varphi ^{}D_0^{}`$ for $`D_0^{}=D^{}2H^{}`$.

We construct birational morphisms $`\mu :YX`$ and $`\mu ^{}:Y^{}X^{}`$ from smooth projective varieties such that $`\varphi \mu =\mu ^{}\psi `$ for a morphism $`\psi :YY^{}`$. We write $`\mu ^{}(K_X+B_0)K_Y+E_0`$. If $`\mu `$ and $`\mu ^{}`$ are chosen suitably, then we may assume that the conditions of  Theorem 2 are satisfied for $`\psi `$ and $`E_0`$. Then there exist $``$-divisors $`E_0^{}`$ and $`M`$ on $`Y^{}`$ such that $`K_Y+E_0_{}K_Y^{}+E_0^{}+M`$, $`\mu _{}^{}E_0^{}`$ is effective, $`\mathrm{}E_0^{}\mathrm{}0`$ and $`M`$ is nef. Since $`H^{}`$ is ample, there exists a $``$-divisor $`E^{}_{}E_0^{}+M+\mu ^{}H^{}`$ on $`Y^{}`$ such that $`B^{}=\mu _{}^{}E^{}`$ is effective and $`\mathrm{}E^{}\mathrm{}0`$. Then we have $`D_0^{}+H^{}_{}K_X^{}+B^{}`$ and $`(X^{},B^{})`$ is KLT. Since $`D^{}_{}K_X^{}+B^{}+H^{}`$, we obtain our assertion. ∎

## 3 Surface case

We have a complete answer in dimension $`2`$.

###### Theorem 3.1.

Let $`X,B`$ and $`D`$ be as in Conjecture 2.1. Assume that the numerical Kodaira dimension $`\nu (X,D)`$ is at most $`2`$; namely, assume that $`D^30`$. Then the following hold.

(1) $`H^0(X,D)0`$.

(2) The linear system $`|mD|`$ is free for any integer $`m`$ such that $`m2`$.

###### Proof.

We may assume that $`dimX=\nu (X,D)2`$ by Theorem 2.2. Let $`\mu :X^{}X`$ be the minimal resolution of singularities. Since $`\mu ^{}K_XK_X^{}`$ is effective, we can write $`\mu ^{}(K_X+B)=K_X^{}+B^{}`$ with $`(X^{},B^{})`$ being KLT. Therefore, we may assume that $`X`$ is smooth. By Theorem 2.2 again, we may also assume that $`H`$ is ample and that $`D`$ is big.

Assume first that $`dimX=1`$. Then the assertions follow immediately from the Riemann-Roch theorem.

We assume that $`dimX=2`$ in the following. We prove (1). By the Riemann-Roch theorem, $`\chi (X,D)=\frac{1}{2}D(B+H)+\chi (X,𝒪_X)`$. Thus, if $`\chi (X,𝒪_X)0`$, then $`\chi (X,D)>0`$. Let us assume that $`\chi (X,𝒪_X)=1g<0`$. Then there exists a surjective morphism $`f:XC`$ to a curve of genus $`g`$ whose generic fiber is isomorphism to $`^1`$. By Corollary 1.4, the vector bundle $`f_{}𝒪_X(Df^{}K_C)`$ is numerically semipositive. Since $`𝒪_X(D)`$ is $`f`$-nef, it is $`f`$-generated, hence we have a surjective homomorphism $`f^{}f_{}𝒪_X(Df^{}K_C)𝒪_X(Df^{}K_C)`$, and the latter sheaf is nef. Thus $`(Df^{}K_C)(B+H)0`$. Since $`f^{}K_C(B+H)f^{}K_CK_X=4g4`$, we have $`\chi (X,D)g1>0`$.

In order to prove (2), we take a general member $`Y|D|`$ as a subscheme of $`X`$. We have an exact sequence $`0𝒪_X((m1)D)𝒪_X(mD)𝒪_Y(mD)0`$ and $`H^1(X,(m1)D)=0`$, hence it is sufficient to prove the freeness of $`|𝒪_Y(mD)|`$. Let $`𝔪`$ be any ideal sheaf of $`𝒪_Y`$ of colength $`1`$. We shall prove that $`H^1(Y,𝔪(mD))=0`$. By duality, it is equivalent to $`\text{Hom}(𝔪,\omega _Y(mD))=0`$. Since $`\text{deg }\omega _Y`$ is even and $`Y(B+H)>0`$, we have $`\text{deg }\omega _Y(mD)2`$, and we have the desired vanishing. ∎

Our bound for the freeness in Theorem 3.1 is better than the one given by the Fujita conjecture. But we cannot expect similar thing in higher dimensions:

###### Example 3.2.

(1) (Oguiso) Let $`X`$ be a general weighted hypersurface of degree $`10`$ in a weighted projective space $`(1,1,1,2,5)`$. Then $`X`$ is smooth, $`dimX=3`$, and $`K_X0`$. Let $`D=H=𝒪_X(1)`$. We have $`H^0(X,D)0`$, and $`|2D|`$ is free. But $`|3D|`$ is not free, and $`|4D|`$ is not very ample.

(2) Let $`d`$ be an odd integer such that $`d3`$, and let $`X`$ be a general weighted hypersurface of degree $`2d`$ in $`(1,\mathrm{},1,2,d)`$, where the number of $`1`$’s is equal to $`n=\text{dim X}`$. Then $`X`$ is smooth. Let $`D=𝒪_X(1)`$. We have $`K_X(dn2)D`$, $`D^n=1`$ and $`|mD|`$ is not free if $`m`$ is odd and $`m<d`$. For example, if $`n=d2`$, then $`K_X0`$ and $`|nD|`$ is not free.

(3) Let $`d`$ be an integer such that $`d0`$ ($`\text{mod }3`$) and $`d4`$. Let $`X`$ be a general weighted hypersurface of degree $`3d`$ in $`(1,\mathrm{},1,3,d)`$ as in (2). Then $`X`$ is smooth. Let $`D=𝒪_X(1)`$. We have $`K_X(2dn3)D`$, $`D^n=1`$, and $`|mD|`$ is not free if $`m0`$ ($`\text{mod }3`$) and $`m<d`$. For example, $`|2D|`$ is not free, and $`|(d1)D|`$ is not free if $`d2`$ ($`\text{mod }3`$).

## 4 Minimal $`3`$-fold

We have so far an affirmative answer only for minimal varieties in the case of dimension $`3`$.

###### Proposition 4.1.

Let $`X`$ be a $`3`$-dimensional projective variety with at most canonical singularities, and $`D`$ a Cartier divisor. Assume that $`K_X`$ is nef, and $`DK_X`$ is nef and big. Then $`H^0(X,D)0`$.

###### Proof.

By a crepant blowings-up, we may assume that $`X`$ has only terminal singularities. Then we have $`\chi (𝒪_X)\frac{1}{24}K_Xc_2`$ by , and $`3c_2K_X^2`$ is pseudo-effective by Miyaoka  (see also ). By the Riemann-Roch theorem, we calculate

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill h^0(X,D)& =\frac{1}{6}D^3\frac{1}{4}D^2K_X+\frac{1}{12}DK_X^2+\frac{1}{12}Dc_2+\chi (𝒪_X)\hfill \\ & =\frac{1}{12}(2DK_X)\{\frac{1}{6}D^2+\frac{2}{3}D(DK_X)+\frac{1}{6}(DK_X)^2\}\hfill \\ & +\frac{1}{72}(2DK_X)(3c_2K_X^2)+\frac{1}{24}K_Xc_2+\chi (𝒪_X)\hfill \\ & >0.\hfill \end{array}$$

###### Proposition 4.2.

Let $`X`$ be a complete variety of dimension $`3`$ with at most Gorenstein canonical singularities, and $`D`$ a Cartier divisor. Assume that $`K_X0`$ and $`D`$ is ample. Let $`Y|D|`$ be a general member whose existence is guaranteed by Proposition 4.1. Then the pair $`(X,Y)`$ is LC. In particular, $`Y`$ is SLC.

###### Proof.

Assume that $`(X,Y)`$ is not LC. Let $`c`$ be the LC threshold for $`(X,0)`$ so that $`c<1`$ and $`(X,cY)`$ is properly LC. Let $`W`$ be a minimal center. By  Theorem 1, for any positive rational number $`ϵ`$, there exists an effective $``$-divisor $`B^{}`$ on $`W`$ such that $`(K_X+cY+ϵD)|_W_{}K_W+B^{}`$ and $`(W,B^{})`$ is KLT. By the perturbation technique, we may assume that $`W`$ is the only LC center for $`(X,cY+ϵD)`$ and there exists only one LC place $`E`$ above $`W`$ if we replace $`c`$ and $`ϵ`$ suitably.

Therefore, there exists a birational morphism $`\mu :YX`$ from a smooth projective variety such that we can write $`\mu ^{}(K_X+cY+ϵD)=K_Y+E+F`$, where the support of $`E+F`$ is a normal crossing divisor and the coefficients of $`F`$ are strictly less than $`1`$.

We consider an exact sequence

$$0_W(D)𝒪_X(D)𝒪_W(D|_W)0,$$

where $`_W=\mu _{}𝒪_Y(E)`$ is the ideal sheaf for $`W`$. Since $`D(K_X+cY+ϵD)`$ is ample, we have $`H^p(Y,\mu ^{}DE+\mathrm{}F\mathrm{})=0`$ and $`R^p\mu _{}𝒪_Y(\mu ^{}DE+\mathrm{}F\mathrm{})=0`$ for $`p>0`$ by the generalization of the Kodaira vanishing theorem. Since $`\mu _{}𝒪_Y(\mathrm{}F\mathrm{})=𝒪_X`$, we obtain $`H^1(X,_W(D))=0`$. Hence the homomorphism $`H^0(X,D)H^0(W,D|_W)`$ is surjective. We have $`H^0(W,D|_W)0`$ by Theorem 3.1. It follows that $`W`$ is not contained in the base locus of $`|D|`$, a contradiction. ∎

## 5 Weak log Fano varieties

The following is proved by Ambro . We shall give a shorter proof of the second part as an application of Theorem 3.1.

###### Theorem 5.1.

Let $`X,B`$ and $`D`$ be as in Conjecture 2.1. Assume that there exists a positive rational number $`r`$ such that $`r>dimX30`$ and $`(K_X+B)_{}rD`$. Then the following hold.

(1) $`H^0(X,D)0`$.

(2) Let $`Y|D|`$ be a general member. Then the pair $`(X,B+Y)`$ is PLT.

###### Proof.

(1) is proved in  Lemma 2. We recall the proof for the convenience of the reader. We set $`n=dimX`$, $`d=D^n1`$, $`\beta =BD^{n1}0`$, and $`p(t)=\chi (X,tD)`$ for $`t`$. Since $`p(0)=1`$ and $`p(1)=p(2)=\mathrm{}=p(n+3)=0`$, we can write

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill p(t)& =\frac{d}{n!}t^n+\frac{\beta +dr}{2(n1)!}t^{n1}+\mathrm{}\hfill \\ & =\frac{d}{n!}(t+1)(t+2)\mathrm{}(t+n3)(t^3+at^2+bt+\frac{n(n1)(n2)}{d}\hfill \end{array}$$

for some numbers $`a,b`$. Hence

$$a=\frac{n(rn+5)}{2}3+\frac{\beta n}{2d}.$$

On the other hand, we have

$$0(1)^np(n+2)=\frac{d}{n(n1)}((n2)^2a(n2)+b)1.$$

Therefore

$$h^0(X,D)=p(1)=n1+(1)^np(n+2)+\frac{\beta +d(rn+3)}{2}>0.$$

(2) We may assume that $`D`$ is ample by the base point free theorem. Assume that $`(X,B+Y)`$ is not PLT, and let $`c1`$ be the LC threshold so that $`(X,B+cY)`$ is properly LC. Let $`W`$ be a minimal center. By , for any positive rational number $`ϵ`$, there exists an effective $``$-divisor $`B^{}`$ on $`W`$ such that $`(K_X+B+cY+ϵD)|_W_{}K_W+B^{}`$ and $`(W,B^{})`$ is KLT. Then $`(K_W+B^{})_{}r^{}D|_W`$ for $`r^{}=rcϵ`$. Since $`ϵ`$ can be arbitrarily small, we have $`r^{}>\text{dim }W3`$ and $`r^{}>1`$.

If $`\text{dim }W3`$, then $`H^0(W,D|_W)0`$ by (1). Otherwise, we have also $`H^0(W,D|_W)0`$ by Theorem 3.1. By the vanishing theorem, we have $`H^1(X,_W(D))=0`$ as in the proof of Proposition 4.2. From an exact sequence

$$0_W(D)𝒪_X(D)𝒪_W(D|_W)0,$$

it follows that $`W`$ is not contained in the base locus of $`|D|`$, a contradiction. ∎

The following result deals with the case which is just beyond the scope of Theorem 5.1.

###### Theorem 5.2.

Let $`X`$ be a complete variety of dimension $`4`$ with at most Gorenstein canonical singularities. Assume that $`DK_X`$ is ample. Then the following hold.

(1) $`H^0(X,D)0`$.

(2) Let $`Y|D|`$ be a general member. Then $`(X,Y)`$ is PLT, hence $`K_Y0`$ and $`Y`$ has only Gorenstein canonical singularities.

###### Proof.

We shall prove (1) and (2) simultaneously. Let $`m`$ be the smallest positive integer such that $`H^0(X,mD)0`$. We shall derive a contradiction from $`m>1`$. We take a general member $`Y|mD|`$.

Assume first that $`(X,Y)`$ is PLT and $`m>1`$. Then $`Y`$ is Gorenstein canonical. We have an exact sequence

$$0𝒪_X(D)𝒪_X((m1)D)𝒪_Y(K_Y)0.$$

We have $`\chi (X,𝒪_X(D))=1`$ and $`\chi (X,𝒪_X((m1)D))=0`$. On the other hand, we have $`\chi (Y,K_Y)=\frac{1}{24}K_Yc_20`$ by , a contradiction.

Next assume that $`(X,Y)`$ is not PLT and $`m1`$. Let $`c`$ be the LC threshold so that $`c1`$ and $`(X,cY)`$ is properly LC. Let $`W`$ be a minimal center. If $`\text{dim }W=3`$, then we have $`c\frac{1}{2}`$. By , for any positive rational number $`ϵ`$, there exists an effective $``$-divisor $`B^{}`$ on $`W`$ such that $`(K_X+cY+ϵD)|_W_{}K_W+B^{}`$ and $`(W,B^{})`$ is KLT. By the perturbation technique, we may assume that $`W`$ is the only center if we replace $`c`$ and $`ϵ`$ suitably.

We consider an exact sequence

$$0_W(mD)𝒪_X(mD)𝒪_W(mD|_W)0.$$

Since $`mD(K_X+cY+ϵD)`$ is ample, we have $`H^1(X,_W(mD))=0`$ by the vanishing theorem. Hence the homomorphism $`H^0(X,mD)H^0(W,mD|_W)`$ is surjective. If $`\text{dim }W2`$, then we have $`H^0(W,mD|_W)0`$ by Theorem 3.1. We shall also prove that $`H^0(W,mD|_W)0`$ in the case $`\text{dim }W=3`$. Then it follows that $`W`$ is not contained in the base locus of $`|mD|`$, a contradiction, and (1) and (2) are proved.

Assume that $`\text{dim }W=3`$. We set $`r^{}=cm1+ϵ`$ so that $`K_W+B^{}_{}r^{}D|_W`$. Let $`p(t)=\chi (W,tD|_W)`$. If we set $`d=(D|_W)^3>0`$ and $`\delta =B^{}(D|_W)^20`$, then

$$p(t)=\frac{d}{6}t^3+\frac{r^{}d+\delta }{4}t^2+bt+c$$

for some numbers $`b`$ and $`c`$ by the Riemann-Roch theorem. By the vanishing theorem, we have $`p(1)0`$ and $`p(m1)0`$, because $`r^{}<m1`$. Then

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill p(m)=& \frac{(m1)(m+1)d}{3}+\frac{(m+1)(r^{}d+\delta )}{4}\hfill \\ & +\frac{p(1)+(m+1)p(m1)}{m}>0.\hfill \end{array}$$

Thus we have $`H^0(W,mD|_W)0`$. ∎

Department of Mathematical Sciences, University of Tokyo,

Komaba, Meguro, Tokyo, 153-8914, Japan

kawamata@ms.u-tokyo.ac.jp


text:
# 1 (a) A welcher-weg biprism experiment to demonstrate violation of the Complementarity Principle; (b) a welcher-weg Mach-Zender interferometry experiment that can test the Complementarity Principle more rigorously.

Welcher Weg Experiments, Duality and the Orthodox Bohr’s Complementarity Principle

S. Bandyopadhyay111Corresponding author. E-mail: bandy@quantum1.unl.edu
Department of Electrical Engineering, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska 68588-0511, USA

## Abstract

In its most orthodox form, Bohr’s Complementarity Principle states that a quanton (a quantum system consisting of a Boson or Fermion) can either behave as a particle or as wave, but never simultaneosuly as both. A less orthodox interpretation of this Principle is the “duality condition” embodied in a mathematical inequality due to Englert \[B-G Englert, Phys. Rev. Lett.,  77, 2154 (1996)\] which allows wave and particle attributes to co-exist, but postulates that a stronger manifestation of the particle nature leads to a weaker manifestation of the wave nature and vice versa. In this Letter, we show that some recent welcher weg (”which path”) experiments in interferometers and similar set-ups, that claim to have validated, or invalidated, the Complementarity Principle, actually shed no light on the orthodox interpretation. They may have instead validated the weaker duality condition, but even that is not completely obvious. We propose simple modifications to these experiments which we believe can test the orthodox Complementarity Principle and also shed light on the nature of wavefunction collapse and quantum erasure.

Keywords: Complementarity Principle, Wave-Particle Duality, Welcher Weg, Wavefunction Collapse

The orthodox Bohr’s complementarity principle  states that a quanton can behave either as a particle or as a wave, but never as both at the same time. Welcher weg experiments conducted with two-path interferometers (or analogous set-ups) are a suitable vehicle to test this strict complementarity between the wave- and particle-nature. If one can determine - even in principle - which of the two paths in the interferometer was traversed by the quanton, then the entity behaves as a “particle” since a “wave” would have sampled both paths simultaneously. In this case, there should be no interference (or any other wave-like behavior) if the orthodox Complementarity Principle holds. On the other hand, if there is interference, then the wave property is intact in which case it should have been impossible to discern the particle attribute, i.e. to tell which path was traversed. The orthodox Complementarity principle therefore allows only sharp wave or sharp particle attribute, but not both. A somewhat tempered version of the Complementarity Principle is the duality principle due to Englert  which states that a quantum system can simultaneosuly exhibit wave and particle behavior, but sharperning of the wave character blurs the particle character and vice versa. In fact, Englert derives an inequality

$$P^2+V^21$$
(1)
where $`P`$ is a measure of the “which-path” information (particle attribute) and $`V`$ is a measure of the “(interference) fringe-visibility” (wave attribute). Equation (1) immediately shows that stronger wave or stronger particle behavior can be manifested only at the expense of each other.

Welcher Weg experiments that question the orthodox Complementarity Principle

Experiments purported to demonstrate violation of the orthodox version of the Complementarity Principle were proposed and carried out in the past. Ghose, Home and Agarwal  had proposed a biprism experiment schematically depicted in Fig. 1(a). A single photon source emits a single photon which is split into orthogonal states $`\psi _r`$ and $`\psi _t`$ by a 50:50 beam splitter. They are detected by two photon detectors $`D_r`$ and $`D_t`$. If the photon behaves truly as a particle, then it should be detected at either $`D_r`$ or $`D_t`$ (but never at both) since a particle cannot traverse two paths simultaneously. That is, there should be perfect anti-coincidence between $`D_r`$ and $`D_t`$, or, in other words, either $`D_r`$ or $`D_r`$ will click but both will never click in between the arrival of two successive photons. The clever twist in this experiment, motivated by an experiment performed in the 19th century by Jagdish Chandra Bose , is the placement of the biprism with a small tunneling gap in the path of the transmitted photon. If $`D_t`$ clicks and $`D_r`$ does not, then we have made a “which path” determination (the particle took the path of transmission as opposed to reflection) and a sharp particle nature is demonstrated . Yet, to arrive at $`D_t`$, the particle must have tunneled through the biprism and tunneling is a sharp wave attribute. In this experiment, later conducted by Mizobuchi and Ohtake , perfect anti-coincidence was found between $`D_t`$ and $`D_r`$ demonstrating the particle nature. Yet, the very fact that $`D_t`$ ever clicked required tunneling and hence the existence of a wave nature. It was claimed that in this experiment, a photon was behaving both sharply as a particle and as a wave in violation of Bohr’s Complementarity Principle. A slight modification of this experiment has been proposed by Rangwala and Roy  where interference is used instead of tunneling to showcase the wave-like behavior. They claimed that quantum mechanics does not prohibit the demonstration of simultaneous wave and particle behavior; rather, it prohibits their simultaneity only when the wave and particle attributes are “complementary”  in the sense that projection operators associated with them do not commute. This is actually consistent with Englert’s work  in that Englert takes pain to point out that Equation (1) does not rely on Heisneberg type uncertainty, i.e. the following relation need not hold:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }P\mathrm{\Delta }V\frac{1}{2}|<[P,V]>|.$$
(2)
In the experiments of refs. , the wave and particle behavior supposedly are not truly complementary and hence not subject to the restrictions of the orthodox Complementarity Principle.

A mathematical framework to determine true “complementarity” between wave and particle attributes was first addressed by Kar. et. al. . Complementary observables as those whose projection operators do not commute, i.e. have no common eigenvectors. In the experiments of refs. , the Hilbert spaces $`H_r`$ and $`H_t`$ associated with the reflected state $`\psi _r`$ and the transmitted state $`\psi _t`$ are orthogonal (since there is always anti-coincidence between reflection and transmission). Hence the projection operators $`P_r`$ and $`P_t`$, corresponding to reflection and transmission respectively, always commute. If we assume that the wave property (tunneling) is represented by some projection operator $`P_{wave}`$, its Hilbert space is contained within the Hilbert space of $`P_t`$. i.e. $`<\psi |P_{wave}|\psi >`$ $``$ $`<\psi |P_t|\psi >`$ and is hence orthogonal to $`H_r`$. Thus, $`P_{wave}`$ commutes with $`P_r`$. But $`P_{wave}`$ must also commute with $`P_t`$ since every state $`\psi _t`$ that tunnels through the biprism and reaches $`D_t`$ is a common eigenvector of these two operators. Thus, $`P_{wave}`$, $`P_t`$ and $`P_r`$ all commute with each other. Hence the sharp wave property (tunneling) and the sharp particle property (anti-coincidence between detectors $`D_t`$ and $`D_r`$) are not complementary and their simultaneous observation is not prohibited by the Complementarity Principle (equation (1) however, must still be obeyed, but the experiments did not test this inequality). In concluding their paper, Kar et. al.  point out that the experiments of refs.  do not test wave and particle properties that are complementary and hence can draw no conclusion about the validity or invalidity of the “orthodox” Complementarity Principle.

An alternate welcher weg experiment to test the orthodox Complementarity Principle

We propose an alternate welcher weg experiment where sharp particle behavior and sharp wave behavior would be complementary in the sense defined by Kar and co-workers. Consequently, this is an unambiguous experiment where simultaneous exhibition of sharp particle- and wave-character will give lie to the orthodox version of the Complementarity Principle. We point out that these experiments are worth conducting since their outcome is by no means a foregone conclusion. The orthodox Complementarity Principle is not sacrosanct (even though it is viewed by some as a cornerstone of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics); viewpoints due to Einstein and DeBroglie do not subscribe to the Complementarity Principle .

Consider a Mach-Zender type interferometer as shown in Fig. 1(b). Proximity photon detectors $`D_1`$ and $`D_2`$ are placed near each limb as shown. A single photon source injects photons at terminal $`S`$ which reaches a screen $`D`$ after traveling along the two possible paths comprising the arms of the ring (actually there are a denumerably infinite number of paths possible if we take into account multiple reflections, but they are not important in this context).

To demonstrate an invalidation of the orthodox Complementarity Principle, we need to demonstrate two effects simultaneously:

1. Perfect anti-coincidence between $`D_1`$ and $`D_2`$ (sharp particle nature).
2. Existence of an interference pattern at $`D`$ (sharp wave nature)

In this example, the projection operators $`P_1`$ and $`P_2`$ corresponding to the traversal of the two paths of the interferometer are orthogonal, but $`P_{wave}`$ is manifestedly not orthogonal to either one of them. Note that the Hilbert space $`H_{wave}`$ is not contained within either $`H_1`$ or $`H_2`$ since neither of the two paths alone is sufficient to cause interference (both paths are needed). Also note that $`\psi _1`$ and $`\psi _2`$ (while eigenfunctions of $`P_1`$ and $`P_2`$ respectively), are not eigenfunctions of $`P_{wave}`$. Hence, unlike in the experiments in ref. , $`P_{wave}`$ does not commute with $`P_1`$ and $`P_2`$ and therefore the wave and particle properties are indeed complementary. Thus, their simultaneous manifestation will definitely give lie to the Complementarity Principle.

Welcher weg experiments that claim to have validated Complementarity or Duality

The duality principle embodied in Englert’s inequality \[Equation (1)\] was verified in atom interference experiments  and perhaps even in recent experiments conducted with electrons traversing an Aharonov-Bohm (A-B) quantum interferometer whose one arm contained a quantum dot (QD) with a nearby quantum point contact (QPC) . The QD has a non-critical, peripheral role; it merely serves to trap an electron traveling that path long enough for the QPC to detect it. The trapping changes the transmission probability through the QPC (and hence its conductance) thus allowing “which path” detection.

The experiment  showed that the A-B interference was diluted if one could even in principle detect which path was traversed, irrespective of whether the detection actually took place. When the QPC detector was turned on, the interference peaks were diluted regardless of whether one monitored or not any change in the QPC conductance caused by a fleeting electron in the nearby path. This result, remarkable as it is, does not shed any light on the orthodox version of Bohr’s complementarity principle. Validation of the orthodox version would require demonstrating complete vanishing of interference along with the demonstration of perfect anti-coincidence between two QPC detectors placed near the two paths of the interferometer. Unfortunately, this was not attempted in the experiment. Second, the experimental result may be consistent with the Duality Principle \[Equation (1)\] (like ref. ), but does not quite validate it either (validation is a stronger condition than consistence). We say this because turning the QPC on introduces an asymmetry into the interferometer (e.g. decrease the transmittivity of one path relative to another) and this alone can cause a dilution of the interference as we show in the appendix.

We suggest some modifications to this experiment to test the orthodox version of Bohr’s complementarity principle. The configuration of the interferometer used in ref.  is shown in Fig. 2(a). It was defined on a high mobility two-dimensional electron gas using standard split-gate technology. The modifications are the following:

1. Introduce electrons one at a time into the interferometer using single charge tunneling (single electron pump or turnstile) . This can be done by delineating a small island at the mouth of the emitter and isolating it from the emitter with a tunnel barrier whose resistance is much higher than $`h/e^2`$ ($`h`$ = Planck’s constant and $`e`$ = single electron charge). Modulating the barrier with an external potential can cause electrons to be injected one at a time. There may be other, more complicated, schemes for pumping single electrons  that may be more appropriate depending on the measurement approach.
2. Place two tunnel barriers in the two arms of the A-B interferometer near the detector $`C`$. They can also be defined by split gates and are shown as striped metal gates in Fig. 2(b). If an electron is detected and it collapses to a “particle”, it cannot tunnel through the barrier and reach the collector C since only waves tunnel and particles do not tunnel. Therefore, it must be reflected back into the emitter. Thereafter it cannot take the other path to the collector either because there is a tunnel barrier in that path as well. Consequently there should be no current. The evolution of the particle nature should not only destroy the interference, but actually reduce the current to zero.
3. Place a narrow slit defined by split gates in between the QPC detectors and the detector C. This connects the two paths. Normally this slit is pinched off by the split gates to isolate the two paths, but it can be opened (made conducting) by the split gate voltages, if necessary. This arrangement is relevant to the study of ”quantum erasure” as shown later.
4. Place two QD-QPC detectors alongside both arms. They serve two purposes. They can make the interferometer symmetric and they could also be used to demonstrate a perfect anti-coincidence between the detection events in the two paths (detection events correspond to a change in the QPC current when an electron passes by).

With the above modifications, the A-B interferometer can now be used to remove all the objections that we raised in relation to the experiment of ref. . The interferometer is nominally symmetric as long as both detectors are turned on. Perfect anti-coincidence can be demonstrated if it exists, and the tunnel barriers in the interferometer arms will conclusively demonstrate if the wave nature is present or absent. Thus sharp particle- and wave-behavior can be exhibited with no ambiguity.

Which path determination and quantum erasure

In addition to other differences, a major point of departure between the experiment of ref.  and the above experiment is that the photon experiment purports to demonstrate wave behavior before the particle behavior is evidenced in the transmission path, whereas here the opposite is proposed. The tunneling gap in Fig. 1(a) precedes the detector $`D_t`$. In our experiment (Fig. 2(b)), the reverse is true; the detector precedes the tunnel barrier. Thus, simultaneous exhibition of wave- and particle- nature in our proposed experiment would require an electron to first “become” a particle and then be reincarnated as a wave. “Which path” determination does not prohibit this since entanglement of the electron’s wavefunction with that of the detector does not cause the entangled pure state to evolve into a mixed state irreversibly. We show this below.

Let $`\psi _1`$ and $`\psi _2`$ be the wavefunctions in the two arms of the interferometer and $`\theta `$ is the A-B phase difference between the two arms. Then, neglecting multiple reflection effects , the wavefunction $`\psi `$ at the detector D is

$$\psi =\psi _1+e^{i\theta }\psi _2$$
(3)
The current density at the detector is

$$J=\frac{ie\mathrm{}}{2m^{}}\left[\psi (\psi )^{}\psi ^{}\psi \right]$$
(4)
Thus, for propagating states (plane waves along the direction of propagation), Equations (1) and (2) yield

$$J|\psi |^2=|\psi _1|^2+|\psi _2|^2+e^{i\theta }\psi _1^{}\psi _2+e^{i\theta }\psi _2^{}\psi _1$$
(5)
The last two terms account for the A-B interference.

A fundamental result of quantum measurement theory is that if a detector tries to detect which arm was traversed by the interferometer, the wavefunction of the detector becomes entangled with that of the electron. The entangled wavefunction can be written as

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\psi _1|1>+e^{i\theta }\psi _2|2>$$
(6)
where the wavefunctions $`|1>`$ and $`|2>`$ span the Hilbert space of the detector. The state $`|1>`$ corresponds to detecting the particle in path 1 and $`|2>`$ corresponds to detecting the particle in path 2.

The current density associated with this wave function is

$`J_{entangled}|\mathrm{\Phi }|^2=|\psi _1|^2<1|1>+|\psi _2|^2<2|2>`$
$`+<1|2>e^{i\theta }\psi _1^{}\psi _2+<2|1>e^{i\theta }\psi _2^{}\psi _1`$ (7)
If the detector is an “unambiguous” detector which unambiguously determines which path is traversed by the particle, then $`|1>`$ and $`|2>`$ are orthonormal and hence the interference terms vanish in Equation (5) and the wave behavior is lost. This is interpreted as dephasing or collapse.

$$J_{collapsed}\left[|\psi _1|^2+|\psi _2|^2\right]$$
(8)
In truth however, the collapse is not quite irreversible since if we design an experiment whose result is the probability of a particular outcome of the welcher weg determination and finding the detector in the symmetric state $`[|1>+|2>]`$, we find

$`J_{erase}`$ $``$ $`|[<1|+<2|]|\mathrm{\Phi }>|^2`$ (9)
$`=`$ $`|[<1|+<2|]|[\psi _1|1>+e^{i\theta }\psi _2|2>]|^2`$
$`=`$ $`[\psi _1|^2+|\psi _2|^2+e^{i\theta }\psi _1^{}\psi _2+e^{i\theta }\psi _2^{}\psi _1]`$
$`=`$ $`|\psi _1+e^{i\theta }\psi _2|^2=|\mathrm{\Phi }|^2`$
Thus, the original wavefunction of Equation (4) (along with the interference terms) is regenerated from the entangled wavefunction once we choose to erase the ”which path” information. This is termed “quantum erasure”  and is possible because the entangled state of Equation (4) is still a pure state and not a mixed state. Evolution of a pure state into a mixed state (termed orthodox collapse)  is irreversible, but that is not the case here.

We can test the quantum erasure by opening the slit which, in principle, allows conduction between the two paths and hence effectively erases the which path information. This can then regenerate the wave nature and allow tunneling through the tunnel barriers in the two paths. Consequently, the current (which is ideally zero) with the slit closed and the QPC detectors on, will rise to a non-zero value when the slit is opened. This will be a demonstration of quantum erasure.

In conclusion, we have proposed modifications to some welcher weg experiments that we believe can rigorously test the Complementarity Principle.

Appendix

We show that introducing asymmetry between the two paths of an interferometer degrades the visibility of the interferograms independent of any other effect.

Consider a two-path interferometer. The current between the source and the detector can be written as (neglecting multiple reflection of the electron wave between the emitter and collector (due to geometric discontinuities)

$$I=|i_1+i_2e^{i\theta }|^2$$
(10)
where $`i_1(i_2)`$ is the complex amplitude of the current in path 1(2) and we assume that $`|i_1|`$ = $`\alpha |i_2|`$ (0 $``$ $`\alpha `$ 1), i.e. the transmissivity of path 2 is equal to or larger than that of path 1. Thus, $`\alpha `$ is a measure of the asymmetry; the farther $`\alpha `$ is from unity, the more is the asymmetry. The angle $`\theta `$ is the phase difference between the two paths. We now find

$$I=|i|^2[1+\alpha ^2+2\alpha cos\theta ]$$
(11)
We can adopt a suitable metric for the visibility of the oscillation. This could be the relative modulation $`M`$ of the current

$$M=\frac{I_{max}I_{min}}{I_{max}}=\frac{4\alpha }{(1+\alpha )^2}$$
(12)
From the above equation, we can see that $`M`$ is 100% if $`\alpha `$ = 1; otherwise, $`M`$ decreases as $`\alpha `$ decreases. Thus, increasing the asymmetry in a two-path interferometer degrades the visibility of the interference oscillations independent of any other effect.


text:
# Theorem 1.1.

### Acknowledgements

For very large $`D`$, Theorem 1.1 was originally obtained by D. Rohrlich \[Ro4\]. We are indebted to him for sharing his method with us, as well as for allowing us to mention several of his results here. Also, we thank him for his inspiration and for suggesting this problem to us. We are grateful to M. Baker, B. Conrad, N. Elkies, B. Gross, K. Rubin, Z. Rudnick, D. Zagier, and S. Zhang for discussions, and to Harvard University for their hospitality. S.M. was partially supported by an NSF post-doctoral fellowship as well as a Yale Hellman fellowship. T.Y. was partially supported by an AMS Centennial fellowship and NSF grant DMS-9700777.

## 2 Notation and Strategy

We first recall some facts about canonical Hecke characters from \[Ro2\]. They exist if and only if $`D3(\text{mod}4)`$ or is a multiple of 8. Multiplying a canonical character by an ideal class character always yields another canonical character. This operation preserves the root number and defines natural families of canonical Hecke characters. When $`D3(\text{mod}4)`$, there is exactly one family and it has root number $`\left(\frac{2}{D}\right)`$; when $`D`$ is a multiple of 8, there are two families – one has root number 1 and the other has root number -1.

To avoid confusion, we will sometimes write $`\chi _{\text{can}}`$ for a canonical Hecke character of $`K`$. In this paper we consider Hecke characters $`\chi `$ of $`K`$ satisfying conditions (1.1) and (1.2), which are always of the form

$$\chi _{D,d}=\chi _{\text{can}}(ϵ_dN_{K/}).$$
(2.1)
Here $`d`$ is a fundamental discriminant and $`ϵ_d=(\frac{d}{})`$ is the quadratic dirichlet character with conductor $`d`$, prime to $`D`$. The root number $`W(\chi )`$ is explicitly computed in \[Ro2\]. In particular, when $`D`$ is odd

$$W(\chi _{D,d})=\left(\frac{2}{D}\right)\text{sign}(d).$$
(2.2)
From now on we will assume that $`W(\chi )=1`$. Set

$$B=\sqrt{DN𝔣}=\{\begin{array}{cc}D|d|,\hfill & D\text{ odd}\hfill \\ 2D|d|,\hfill & 8D.\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.3)
The Hecke L-function is defined as

$`L(s,\chi )`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{𝔞\text{ integral}}{}}\chi (𝔞)(N𝔞)^s`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{\text{ideal classes }C}{}}L(s,\chi ,C),`$
where $`L(s,\chi ,C)`$ is the partial L-series summed over integral ideals in $`C`$. Their completed L-functions are defined by

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }(s,\chi )=\left(\frac{B}{2\pi }\right)^s\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)L(s,\chi )$$

and

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }(s,\chi ,C)=\left(\frac{B}{2\pi }\right)^s\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)L(s,\chi ,C).$$

###### Lemma 2.1.

When $`W(\chi )=1`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}(1,\chi )=0`$ if and only if $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}(1,\chi ,C)=0`$ for each ideal class $`C`$ of $`K`$.

Proof: Associated to $`\chi `$ is a cuspidal new form $`f`$ of weight 2 and level $`B^2`$ such that $`L(s,f)=L(s,\chi )`$. So Corollary 2 of \[GZ\] implies that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}(1,\chi )=0`$ if and only if $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}(1,\chi ^\sigma )=0`$ for every $`\sigma \text{Gal}(\overline{}/)`$. On the other hand, by Theorem 1 of \[Ro3\],

$$\{\chi ^\sigma :\sigma \text{Gal}(\overline{}/K)\}=\{\chi \varphi :\varphi \text{ is an ideal class character of }K\},$$

and $`L(s,\chi )=L(s,\overline{\chi })`$ by (1.1). Thus $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}(1,\chi )=0`$ if and only if $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}(1,\chi \varphi )=0`$ for all ideal class characters $`\varphi `$ of $`K`$. The ideal class characters are linearly independent and

$$L(s,\chi \varphi )=\underset{C}{}\varphi (C)L(s,\chi ,C),$$

so the lemma follows. $`\mathrm{}`$

To prove $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}(1,\chi )0`$, it now suffices to show $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}(1,\chi ,c_1)0`$ for the trivial class $`c_1`$ (i.e. the class of principal ideals). Since the root number $`W(\chi )=1`$, we have the functional equation

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }(s,\chi ,c_1)=\mathrm{\Lambda }(2s,\chi ,c_1).$$
(2.4)
By Cauchy’s theorem

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}(1,\chi ,c_1)=\frac{1}{2\pi i}\left(_{2i\mathrm{}}^{2+i\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Lambda }(s,\chi ,c_1)\frac{ds}{(s1)^2}_i\mathrm{}^{+i\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Lambda }(s,\chi ,c_1)\frac{ds}{(s1)^2}\right).$$

Applying (2.4) we arrive at the formula

$$\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}(1,\chi ,c_1)=\frac{1}{2\pi i}_{2i\mathrm{}}^{2+i\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Lambda }(s,\chi ,c_1)\frac{ds}{(s1)^2}.$$
(2.5)
It is clear from property (1.2) of $`\chi `$ that there is a quadratic character $`ϵ`$ of $`(𝒪/𝔣)^{}`$ such that

$$\chi (\alpha 𝒪)=ϵ(\alpha )\alpha .$$
(2.6)
We can express $`L(s,\chi ,c_1)`$ as a sum over real and complex ideals:

$$L(s,\chi ,c_1)=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}ϵ(n)n^{12s}+\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_nn^s,$$
(2.7)
where

$$a_n=\underset{\stackrel{N𝔞=n,𝔞\overline{𝔞}}{\stackrel{\text{principal,}}{\text{integral}}}}{}\chi (𝔞)=\underset{\stackrel{u^2+Dv^2=4n}{u,v>0}}{}ϵ\left(\frac{u+\sqrt{D}v}{2}\right)u.$$
(2.8)
Let

$$f(x)=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(0,x)}{x}=\frac{1}{x}_x^{\mathrm{}}e^t\frac{dt}{t}$$
(2.9)
be the inverse Mellin transform of $`\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)}{(s1)^2}`$. Indeed

$`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}f(x)x^s{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{x}}`$ $`={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle _x^{\mathrm{}}}x^{s1}e^t{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{t}}{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{x}}`$
$`={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle _0^t}{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{x}}x^{s1}e^t{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{t}}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{s1}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}t^{s1}e^t{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{t}}=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(s1)}{(s1)}}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)}{(s1)^2}},`$
so

$$f(y)=\frac{1}{2\pi i}_{Re(s)=2}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)}{(s1)^2}y^s𝑑s.$$
(2.10)
Combining (2.5), (2.7), and (2.10) we obtain

$$\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}(1,\chi ,c_1)=\stackrel{R}{\stackrel{}{\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}ϵ(n)nf(2\pi n^2/B)}}+\stackrel{C}{\stackrel{}{\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_nf\left(\frac{2\pi n}{B}\right)}}.$$
(2.11)
Formula (2.11) is essentially due to Rohrlich (\[Ro4\]), except that he expressed $`R`$ in terms of dirichlet L-functions.

### Examples: $`D=8`$ and $`11`$

We will now illustrate (2.11) with the first two discriminants which occur. Since both $`(\sqrt{8})`$ and $`(\sqrt{11})`$ have class number 1,

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}(1,\chi ,c_1)=\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}(1,\chi ).$$

In order to compute it using (2.11), we must first describe the character $`ϵ:\left(𝒪/𝔣\right)^{}\{\pm 1\}`$. When $`D=8`$, $`𝔣=2\sqrt{D}𝒪=8\sqrt{32}`$, and $`\left(𝒪/𝔣\right)^{}`$ is generated by $`\left(/8\right)^{}`$ and $`1+\sqrt{2}`$. The character $`ϵ(n)`$ must restrict to $`\left(\frac{8}{n}\right)`$ for $`n\left(/8\right)^{}`$, and is thus determined by its value on $`1+\sqrt{2}`$. In fact, $`W(\chi )=ϵ(1+\sqrt{2})`$, so in our case the values of $`ϵ`$ on the relatively-prime residue classes are given in the following chart:

| $`ϵ(u+v\sqrt{2})`$ | $`u`$ | 1 | 3 | 5 | 7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`v`$ |  |  |  |  |  |
| 0 |  | 1 | 1 | -1 | -1 |
| 1 |  | -1 | -1 | 1 | 1 |
| 2 |  | -1 | -1 | 1 | 1 |
| 3 |  | -1 | -1 | 1 | 1 |

When $`D=11`$, $`ϵ\left(\frac{u+\sqrt{11}v}{2}\right)=\left(\frac{2u}{11}\right)`$. We now compute $`L^{}(1,\chi )`$ for these canonical characters, and check (2.11) by comparing the known values of $`L^{}(1,E)`$ for the associated elliptic curves $`E`$.

|  | $`D=8`$ | $`D=11`$ |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Term $`R`$ with $`n^250`$ | 1.82582357875147 | 0.81497705252487 |
| Term $`C`$ with $`n50`$ | -0.28596530872740 | -0.0600975766040368 |
| $`L^{}(1,\chi )=\left(\frac{2\pi }{B}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }(1)\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}(1,\chi )`$ | 1.209401857169272 | 0.862372296690396 |
| $`=\frac{4\pi }{B}(R+C)`$ |  |  |
| Associated curve $`E`$ | $`y^2=x^3+4x^2+2x`$ | $`y^2+y=x^3x^27x+10`$ |
|  | (\[Cr\], curve 256A) | (\[Cr\], curve 121B) |
| $`L^{}(1,E)`$ from \[Cr\] | 1.2094018572 | .8623722967 |

### Proof of Theorem 1.1

By Lemma 2.1 and (2.11), it suffices to prove $`R>|C|`$. In the next section, we will prove that $`R`$ is bounded below by

$`R`$ $`>`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\lambda (n)nf\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\pi n^2}{B}}\right)`$ (2.12)
$`>`$ $`.5235B.8458B^{3/4}.3951B^{1/2}.`$
Here $`\lambda (n)`$ is Liouville’s function – the completely multiplicative function which is -1 at each prime.

In Section 4 we consider the special case $`d=1`$, and bound term $`C`$ by Proposition 4.1:

$$|C|<\{\begin{array}{cc}.2369D,\hfill & D\text{ even}\hfill \\ .0269D,\hfill & D\text{ odd}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.13)
Having collected these estimates, proving $`R>|C|`$ is a simple calculation. Indeed, if $`D24`$ is even, then $`B=2D`$, and

$$R>.5235(2D).8458(2D)(48)^{1/4}.3951(2D)(48)^{1/2}=.2902D,$$

so

$$R>.2369D>|C|.$$

If $`D19`$ is odd then

$$R>.5235D.8458D19^{1/4}.3951D19^{1/2}>.0277D,$$

$$R>.0269D>|C|.$$

There are only two values of $`D`$ not covered by this argument: $`D=8`$ and $`11`$, which were dealt with in the examples.

$`\mathrm{}`$

### Quadratic twists

To prove non-vanishing for quadratic twists of canonical characters, the bound (2.13) is not useful. In Section 5 we apply Rohrlich’s method to obtain the following bound on $`C`$ for $`\chi _{D,d}`$ (Proposition 5.1):111The notation $`AB`$ means $`A=O(B)`$, i.e. there exists a positive constant $`C`$ such that $`|A|CB`$.

$$|C|D^{15/16+\delta }|d|^{51/16+\delta },$$
(2.14)
where $`\delta >0`$ is arbitrary and the implied constant depends only on it. Combining (2.11), (2.12), and (2.14) we conclude

###### Theorem 2.2.

For any fixed $`\delta >0`$,

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}(1,\chi _{D,d})0$$

for $`|d|D^{1/35\delta }`$ and $`W(\chi _{D,d})=1`$.

Remarks. When the root number $`W(\chi )=1`$, similar non-vanishing results for twists were obtained in \[Ro1\], \[RVY\], and \[Ya\] for the central L-value.

For canonical Hecke characters, Rohrlich (\[Ro4\]) computed $`R`$ as a contour integral of dirichlet L-functions. By shifting contours, $`R`$ can be expressed as the sum of a residue and a remainder integral. He showed the residue is of size $`D`$, and used Burgess’ sub-convexity estimate to bound the remainder integral by $`D^\alpha `$, $`\alpha <1`$. Also, he used the method in Section 5 to show $`CD^\alpha `$. The power of the main term is larger than that of the other two terms, and positivity follows for large $`D`$. However, the implied constants one gets for these estimates are quite unfavorable. In our proof of Theorem 1.1 we sacrifice the gain in the powers of $`D`$ for a tie – in favor of better constants.

## 3 The Main Term $`R`$

The purpose of this section is to prove (2.12). We will show term $`R`$ is large and positive by eventually bounding it from below by the following sum.

###### Proposition 3.1.

$$\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\lambda (n)nf\left(\frac{2\pi n^2}{x}\right)$$

is always positive for $`x>0`$ and in fact

$$\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\lambda (n)nf\left(\frac{2\pi n^2}{x}\right)>.5235x.8458x^{3/4}.3951x^{1/2}$$
(3.1)
for $`x>1`$.

Proof: Using (2.10) and the identity

$$\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\lambda (n)n^s=\frac{\zeta (2s)}{\zeta (s)},$$

we write

$`{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\lambda (n)nf\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\pi n^2}{x}}\right)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle _{\text{Re }s=2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{x}{2\pi }}\right)^s{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)}{(s1)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta (4s2)}{\zeta (2s1)}}𝑑s`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle _\gamma }\left({\displaystyle \frac{x}{2\pi }}\right)^s{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)}{(s1)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta (4s2)}{\zeta (2s1)}}𝑑s`$
$`+Res_{s=1}\left({\displaystyle \frac{x}{2\pi }}\right)^s{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)}{(s1)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta (4s2)}{\zeta (2s1)}}`$
$`+Res_{s=3/4}\left({\displaystyle \frac{x}{2\pi }}\right)^s{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)}{(s1)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta (4s2)}{\zeta (2s1)}}.`$
Here $`\gamma =C_1C_2C_3C_4C_5`$ is the contour consisting of the union of the following five line segments:

$`C_1`$ $`\text{from }1i\mathrm{}`$ $`\text{to }17i,`$
$`C_2`$ $`\text{from }17i`$ $`\text{to }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}7i,`$
$`C_3`$ $`\text{from }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}7i`$ $`\text{to }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+7i,`$
$`C_4`$ $`\text{from }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+7i`$ $`\text{to }1+7i,`$
$`C_5`$ $`\text{from }1+7i`$ $`\text{ to }1+i\mathrm{}`$
(7 is chosen because the first critical zeroes of $`\zeta (s)`$ are approximately $`\frac{1}{2}\pm 14.13472i`$). The residue at $`s=1`$ is $`\frac{\pi x}{6}.523599x`$ and the residue at $`s=3/4`$ is

$$Res_{s=3/4}\left(\frac{x}{2\pi }\right)^s\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)}{(s1)^2}\frac{\zeta (4s2)}{\zeta (2s1)}=\frac{2^{5/4}x^{3/4}\mathrm{\Gamma }(3/4)}{\pi ^{3/4}\zeta (1/2)}.845767x^{3/4}.$$

One can easily estimate the integrals over $`\gamma `$ as follows.222All computations were done using Mathematica v4.0 on an Intel Celeron processor under Windows 98. First,

$`\left|{\displaystyle _{C_1}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{x}{2\pi }}\right)^s{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)}{(s1)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta (4s2)}{\zeta (2s1)}}𝑑s\right|`$
$`=\left|{\displaystyle _{C_5}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{x}{2\pi }}\right)^s{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)}{(s1)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta (4s2)}{\zeta (2s1)}}𝑑s\right|`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{x}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _{t=7}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{|\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+it)|}{t^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{|\zeta (2+4it)|}{|\zeta (1+2it)|}}𝑑t`$
$`x(510^7).`$
Next

$`\left|{\displaystyle _{C_2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{x}{2\pi }}\right)^s{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)}{(s1)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta (4s2)}{\zeta (2s1)}}𝑑s\right|`$
$`=\left|{\displaystyle _{C_4}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{x}{2\pi }}\right)^s{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)}{(s1)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta (4s2)}{\zeta (2s1)}}𝑑s\right|`$
$`x{\displaystyle _{\sigma =1/2}^1}(2\pi )^\sigma {\displaystyle \frac{|\mathrm{\Gamma }(\sigma +7i)|}{(\sigma 1)^2+49}}{\displaystyle \frac{|\zeta (4\sigma 2+28i)|}{|\zeta (2\sigma 1+14i)|}}𝑑\sigma `$
$`x(210^6).`$
Finally,

$`\left|{\displaystyle _{C_3}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{x}{2\pi }}\right)^s{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)}{(s1)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta (4s2)}{\zeta (2s1)}}𝑑s\right|`$
$`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{x}{2\pi }}}{\displaystyle _{t=7}^7}{\displaystyle \frac{|\mathrm{\Gamma }(1/2+it)|}{1/4+t^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{|\zeta (4it)|}{|\zeta (2it)|}}𝑑t`$
$`2.48218\sqrt{x}.`$
Combining these estimates proves (3.1). For $`x20,`$

$`.5235x.8458x^{3/4}.3951x^{1/2}`$
$`(.5235.845820^{1/4}.395120^{1/2})x`$
$`.0351x>0.`$
The positivity for $`x<20`$ is handled by the next lemma. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Lemma 3.2.

For $`0<x<20`$, one has

$$f(\frac{2\pi }{x})>\underset{n=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}nf\left(\frac{2\pi n^2}{x}\right).$$

Proof: It is easy to see that for any $`0<a<1`$ and $`t>\frac{a}{1a}`$

$$f(t)>ae^t/t^2.$$

Take $`a=\frac{\pi }{10+\pi }>.23`$. Then for $`0<x<20`$, one has

$$f(\frac{2\pi }{x})>.23\frac{x^2}{4\pi ^2}e^{\frac{2\pi }{x}}.$$

One the other hand, clearly, $`f(x)<e^x/x^2`$, and so

$`{\displaystyle \underset{n=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}nf\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\pi n^2}{x}}\right)`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}n{\displaystyle \frac{x^2}{4\pi ^2n^4}}e^{2\pi n^2/x}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{x^2}{4\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}n^3e^{2\pi n^2/x}.`$
Since $`n^2n+2`$ for $`n2`$, this is

$$\frac{x^2}{4\pi ^2}\frac{e^{8\pi /x}}{8}\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}e^{2\pi n/x}=\frac{x^2e^{2\pi /x}}{4\pi ^2}\frac{1}{8}\frac{e^{6\pi /x}}{(1e^{2\pi /x})}.$$
(3.3)
Since $`\frac{1}{8}\frac{e^{6\pi /x}}{(1e^{2\pi /x})}`$ is clearly increasing, it is thus bounded above in $`0<x<20`$ by its value $`.181`$ at $`x=20`$. Therefore (3.3) is bounded above by

$$.19\frac{x^2}{4\pi ^2}e^{2\pi /x}<f(2\pi /x).$$

$`\mathrm{}`$

###### Proposition 3.3.

(1) If $`m`$ is any completely multiplicative function with values $`1,0,`$ or $`1`$, then

$$\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}m(n)nf\left(\frac{2\pi n^2}{x}\right)>0,x>0.$$
(3.4)
(2) If $`m_1`$ and $`m_2`$ are two distinct such functions with $`m_1(p)m_2(p)`$ for every prime p, then

$$\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}m_1(n)nf\left(\frac{2\pi n^2}{x}\right)>\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}m_2(n)nf\left(\frac{2\pi n^2}{x}\right)$$
(3.5)
for all $`x>0`$.

Proof: We first assume that the functions $`m`$, $`m_1`$, and $`m_2`$ differ from $`\lambda `$ at only finitely many primes. Therefore, by Proposition 3.1 and induction, it suffices to prove (3.5) under the following conditions:

(a) $`m_2`$ satisfies (3.4) for all $`x>0`$.

(b) $`m_1`$ and $`m_2`$ differ at exactly one prime, say $`p`$, and $`m_1(p)=m_2(p)+1`$. Under assumption (b), the difference is

$$\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}m_1(n)nf\left(\frac{2\pi n^2}{x}\right)\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}m_2(n)nf\left(\frac{2\pi n^2}{x}\right)$$

$$=\underset{pn}{}(m_1(n)m_2(n))nf\left(\frac{2\pi n^2}{x}\right).$$

When $`m_2(p)=1`$, $`m_1(p)=0`$, the difference is then

$$\underset{pn}{}m_2(n)nf\left(\frac{2\pi n^2}{x}\right)=p\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}m_2(n)nf\left(\frac{2\pi n^2}{x/p^2}\right)>0$$

by assumption (a). When $`m_2(p)=0`$, $`m_1(p)=1`$ and $`m_1(p^kn)=m_2(n)`$ for $`pn`$. So the difference is

$$\underset{pn}{}m_1(n)nf\left(\frac{2\pi n^2}{x}\right)=\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}p^k\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}m_2(n)nf\left(\frac{2\pi n^2}{x/p^{2k}}\right)>0$$

by assumption (a) again.

In the general case, define $`m^N(n)`$ to be the completely multiplicative function derived from $`m`$ by

$$m^N(p)=\{\begin{array}{cc}m(p),\hfill & pN\hfill \\ \lambda (p),\hfill & p>N.\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.6)
Then $`m^N`$ differs from $`\lambda `$ at only a finite number of primes, and thus

$$\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}m^N(n)nf\left(\frac{2\pi n^2}{x}\right)\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\lambda (n)nf\left(\frac{2\pi n^2}{x}\right)>0.$$

Taking the limit as $`N\mathrm{}`$,

$$\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}m(n)nf\left(\frac{2\pi n^2}{x}\right)\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\lambda (n)nf\left(\frac{2\pi n^2}{x}\right)>0.$$

This completes the proof of part (1); part (2) can be handled similarly. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Corollary 3.4.

One has

$$R\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\lambda (n)nf\left(\frac{2\pi n^2}{B}\right).$$

Combining Proposition 3.1 with Corollary 3.4, one obtains (2.12).

## 4 The Trivial Bound on Remainder Term $`C`$

In this section, we will only treat canonical characters, and prove (2.13):

###### Proposition 4.1.

When $`d=1`$ and $`D7`$, term $`C`$ is bounded by

$$|C|<\{\begin{array}{cc}.0269D,\hfill & D\text{ odd}\hfill \\ .2369D,\hfill & D\text{ even}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(4.1)
Proof: We first assume $`D`$ is odd, so $`B=D`$. From (2.8) we can bound $`C`$ term-wise, without appealing to cancellation from the character. To wit,

$$|C|\underset{\stackrel{u,v>0}{uv(\text{mod}2)}}{}uf\left(\frac{\pi }{2}(v^2+u^2/D)\right).$$

Since $`f(x)<e^x/x^2`$,

$$|C|<\underset{\stackrel{u,v>0}{vu(\text{mod}2)}}{}ue^{\frac{\pi u^2}{2D}}\frac{e^{\pi v^2/2}}{\left(\frac{\pi }{2}(v^2+u^2/D)\right)^2}$$

$$<\underset{u=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}ue^{\frac{\pi u^2}{2D}}\frac{4}{\pi ^2}\underset{\stackrel{v=1}{vu(\text{mod}2)}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}v^4e^{\pi v^2/2}.$$

The inside sum is bounded by

$$\underset{v=1,odd}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}v^4e^{\pi v^2/2}.20788,$$

so

$$|C|.0843\underset{u=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}ue^{\frac{\pi u^2}{2D}}.$$

If $`D`$ is even, then $`B=2D`$,and the same argument shows that

$`|C|`$ $`<`$ $`2\left({\displaystyle \frac{16}{\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{v=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}v^4e^{\pi v^2/4}\right)\left({\displaystyle \underset{u=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}ue^{\pi u^2/D}\right)`$
$``$ $`1.488{\displaystyle \underset{u=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}ue^{\pi u^2/D}.`$
The proof of (4.1) now follows from bound in the Lemma below. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Lemma 4.2.

For $`a1`$,

$$\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}ne^{n^2/a}<a/2.$$
(4.2)
This conclusion actually holds for all $`a>0`$.

Proof: Using the Poisson summation formula applied to $`|n|e^{n^2/a}`$,

$$\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}ne^{n^2/a}=_0^{\mathrm{}}ne^{n^2/a}𝑑n+2\underset{r=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}_0^{\mathrm{}}ne^{n^2/a}\mathrm{cos}(2\pi rn)𝑑n.$$

The first integral is $`a/2`$ and the others are actually negative. This is because

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}ne^{n^2/a}\mathrm{cos}(2\pi rn)𝑑n=\frac{a}{2}\left(1e^{a\pi ^2r^2}2\pi r\sqrt{a}_0^{\pi r\sqrt{a}}e^{t^2}𝑑t\right)$$

(cf. \[GR\], 17.13.27) and

$$_0^{\pi r\sqrt{a}}e^{t^2}𝑑t>1+_1^{a\pi ^2r^2}\frac{e^t}{2\sqrt{t}}𝑑t=1+\frac{1}{2\pi r\sqrt{a}}\left(e^{a\pi ^2r^2}e\right)>\frac{e^{a\pi ^2r^2}}{2\pi r\sqrt{a}}.$$

$`\mathrm{}`$

## 5 Rohrlich’s Bound on Remainder Term $`C`$

We now return to the general case of a canonical character twisted by $`ϵ_d=\left(\frac{d}{}\right)`$. The method here is adapted from \[Ro1\] and \[Ro4\].

###### Proposition 5.1.

For any $`\delta >0`$, term $`C`$ is bounded by

$$|C|D^{15/16+\delta }|d|^{51/16+\delta },$$

where the implied constant depends only on $`\delta `$.

Proof: Set $`A(t)=_{n<t}a_n`$. Integration by parts gives

$$C=_{D/4}^{\mathrm{}}f\left(\frac{2\pi t}{B}\right)\frac{d}{dt}A(t)𝑑t=_{D/4}^{\mathrm{}}A(t)\frac{d}{dt}f\left(\frac{2\pi t}{B}\right)𝑑t,$$
(5.1)
because there are no complex ideals of norm $`<D/4`$. By \[Ro1\], p. 553(27), $`A(t)`$ is bounded above by

$$|A(t)|t^{5/4}D^{5/16+\delta }|d|^{19/16+\delta }$$

for $`D>8`$ and $`t>0`$ (the implied constant again depends only on $`\delta `$). Along with the inequalities

$$0<\frac{d}{dt}f\left(\frac{2\pi t}{B}\right)<\frac{B}{2\pi t^2}e^{2\pi t/B}\left(1+\frac{B}{2\pi t}\right),$$

(5.1) implies

$`|C|`$ $``$ $`D^{5/16+\delta }|d|^{19/16+\delta }{\displaystyle _{D/4}^{\mathrm{}}}\left[t^{5/4}{\displaystyle \frac{B}{2\pi t^2}}e^{2\pi t/B}\left({\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{B}{2\pi t}}\right)\right]𝑑t`$
$``$ $`D^{5/16+\delta }|d|^{19/16+\delta }{\displaystyle _{D/4}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{B^2}{2\pi ^2}}t^{3/4}e^{2\pi t/B}\right]𝑑t`$
$``$ $`D^{17/16+\delta }|d|^{19/16+\delta }B^2.`$
Since either $`B=D|d|`$ or $`2D|d|`$, this completes the proof. $`\mathrm{}`$

## 6 Arithmetic Applications

Having completed their proofs, we will now give some arithmetic applications of Theorems 1.1 and 2.2, including Corollary 1.2.

Let $`j`$ be the $`j`$-invariant of a fixed isomorphism class of elliptic curves with complex multiplication (CM) by $`𝒪`$. Then $`H=K(j)`$ is the Hilbert class field of $`K`$. We can extend any Hecke character $`\chi `$ of $`K`$ to one on $`H`$ by

$$\psi =\chi N_{H/K}.$$

When $`\chi `$ satisfies (1.1) and (1.2),

$$\psi (𝔄^\sigma )=\psi (𝔄)^\sigma ,\sigma \text{Gal}(H/)$$

for every ideal $`𝔄`$ of $`H`$ relatively prime to the conductor of $`\psi `$. By Theorem 9.1.3 and Lemma 11.1.1 of \[Gr\], there is a unique elliptic $``$-curve $`A`$ over $`H`$ with

$$j(A)=j\text{ and }L(s,A/H)=L(s,\psi )L(s,\overline{\psi }).$$

(Here we recall that a “$``$-curve” is an elliptic curve over a number field which is isogenous to all of its Galois conjugates.) Furthermore, $`A`$ descends to two isogenous elliptic curves over the subfield $`F=(j)`$ (\[Gr\], Theorem 10.2.1). By abuse of notation we will also refer to these curves as $`A`$. Let $`B=\text{Res}_{F/}A`$ be the abelian variety over $``$ obtained from $`A`$ by restriction of scalars. When $`D=p`$ is prime, Gross proved (\[Gr\], Theorem 15.2.5) that $`T=\text{End}_KB`$ is a CM number field of degree $`2h`$; thus $`B`$ is also a CM abelian variety. This result actually extends to composite $`D`$ via a different argument:

###### Lemma 6.1.

(a) Let $`T`$ be the subfield of $``$ generated by $`\chi (𝔞)`$, where $`𝔞`$ runs over all ideals of K prime to $`\chi `$’s conductor. Then $`T`$ is a CM number field of degree $`2h`$, and $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\{\sigma :T|\sigma \text{ trivial on }K\}`$ is a CM type of T.

(b) B is a CM abelian variety of type $`(T,\mathrm{\Phi })`$.

Proof: For each embedding $`\sigma :T`$ fixing $`K`$, $`\sigma \chi `$ is another canonical Hecke character of $`K`$, and thus it is of the form $`\chi \varphi `$, where $`\varphi `$ is an ideal class character of $`K`$. By Theorem 1 of \[Ro3\], $`\sigma \varphi `$ actually gives a one-to-one correspondence between the complex embeddings of $`T`$ into $``$ fixing $`K`$, and the ideal class characters of $`K`$. Thus $`[T:K]=h`$ and $`[T:]=2h`$. It is a general fact that $`T`$ is a CM number field; in this case it can easily be verified using property (1.1) of $`\chi `$.

By \[Sh\], Theorem 10, there is a CM abelian variety $`B^{}/`$ of type $`(T,\mathrm{\Phi })`$ associated to $`\chi `$, and it is unique up to isogeny. In particular

$$L(s,B^{})=\underset{\sigma :T^+}{}L(s,\chi ^\sigma )=\underset{\varphi }{}L(s,\chi \varphi ),$$
(6.1)
where $`T^+`$ is the maximal totally-real subfield of $`T`$. On the other hand,

$$L(s,B)=L(s,A/F)=L(s,\psi )=\underset{\varphi }{}L(s,\chi \varphi ).$$

This shows $`L(s,B)=L(s,B^{})`$, so a theorem of Faltings \[Fa\] guarantees $`B`$ and $`B^{}`$ are isogenous, proving (b). $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Lemma 6.2.

Let $`\chi `$ be a Hecke character of $`K`$ of the form (2.1). Let $`A`$ be an associated $``$-curve over $`F=(j)`$ with $`j`$-invariant $`j`$, and let $`B=\text{Res}_{F/}A`$. If $`\text{ord}_{s=1}L(s,\chi )1`$ then

(a) The Mordell-Weil ranks of $`A`$ and $`B`$ are given by

$$\text{rank}_{}A(F)=\text{rank}_{}B()=h\text{ord}_{s=1}L(s,\chi ).$$

(b) The Shafarevich-Tate groups $`\text{X}(A/F)`$ and $`\text{X}(B/)`$ are finite.

Proof: Since the Mordell-Weil and Shafarevich-Tate groups of $`A`$ over $`F`$ are identical to those of $`B`$ over $``$, it is sufficient to prove the Lemma for $`B`$. Let $`f`$ be the normalized weight 2 new-form associated to $`\chi `$ as in the proof of Lemma 2.1. The field generated by $`f`$’s Fourier coefficients is generated by $`\chi (𝔞)+\overline{\chi (𝔞)}`$, and is thus $`T^+`$. Equation (6.1) implies

$$L(s,B)=\underset{\sigma :T^+}{}L(s,f^\sigma ).$$

Now the Lemma follows from a result of Kolyvagin and Logachev (\[KL\]). $`\mathrm{}`$

Combining Lemma 6.2 with the non-vanishing theorems above (Theorems 1.1 and 2.2) and in \[MR\], one gets the following two corollaries.

###### Corollary 6.3.

Let $`\chi =\chi _{\text{can}}`$ be a canonical Hecke character of $`K`$, and let $`A`$ and $`B=\text{Res}_{F/}A`$ respectively be associated $``$-curves and CM abelian varieties as above. Then

(a) The Mordell-Weil ranks of $`A`$ and $`B`$ are given in terms of the root number $`W(\chi )`$ by

$$\text{rank}_{}A(F)=\text{rank}_{}B()=\{\begin{array}{cc}h,\hfill & W(\chi )=1\hfill \\ 0,\hfill & W(\chi )=1.\hfill \end{array}$$

In particular, when $`D`$ is odd, these ranks are $`h`$ or zero depending on whether $`D3`$ or 7$`mod8`$.

(b) The Shafarevich-Tate groups $`\text{X}(A/F)`$ and $`\text{X}(B/)`$ are finite.

Proof of Corollary 1.2: Take $`D=p`$, $`j=j\left(\frac{1+\sqrt{p}}{2}\right)`$, $`A=A(p)`$, and apply Corollary 6.3. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Corollary 6.4.

Let $`\chi =\chi _{D,d}`$ be a Hecke character of $`K`$ of the form (2.1). Let $`A`$ and $`B=\text{Res}_{F/}A`$ be as above, and fix any $`\delta >0`$. If $`|d|D^{1/35\delta }`$ (the implied constant depending on $`\delta `$) and $`W(\chi _{D,d})=1`$, then

(a) The Mordell-Weil ranks of $`A`$ and $`B`$ are

$$\text{rank}_{}A(F)=\text{rank}_{}B()=h.$$

(b) The Shafarevich-Tate groups $`\text{X}(A/F)`$ and $`\text{X}(B/)`$ are finite.

Finally, we wish to point out that when $`D`$ is prime, all $``$-curves over $`F`$ are associated to Hecke characters of the form (2.1), though this is not true for every composite $`D`$. See \[Na\] for a more-precise description.

| Stephen D. Miller |  | Tonghai Yang |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Department of Mathematics |  | Department of Mathematics |
| Yale University |  | State University of New York |
| P.O. Box 208283 |  | Stony Brook, NY 11794-3651 |
| New Haven, CT 06520 |  | thyang@math.sunysb.edu |
| stephen.miller@yale.edu |  |  |