text:
# 1 An elementary transformation as a pair of geometric quotients

## 1 An elementary transformation as a pair of geometric quotients

Let $`G=^\times `$ act on $`X=^{m+1}\times ^{n+1}`$ by $`\lambda (uv)=\lambda u\lambda ^1v`$. If $`R=[x_0,\mathrm{},x_m,y_0,\mathrm{},y_n]`$ is the coordinate ring of $`X`$, then the action of $`G`$ induces a $``$-grading $`R=_kR_k`$ in which $`\mathrm{deg}x_i=1`$ and $`\mathrm{deg}y_j=1`$. The usual affine quotient $`X/G`$ is then $`\text{Spec}R_0`$, which is singular. Topologically, it is the quotient of $`X`$ by the equivalence relation generated by orbit closure.

But there are also two smooth quotients of open subsets of $`X`$, namely $`X^+=\text{Proj}_{k0}R_k`$ and $`X^{}=\text{Proj}_{k0}R_k`$. These are both resolutions of $`X/G`$. They are geometric quotients, the former of $`(^{m+1}\backslash \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0})\times ^{n+1}`$, and the latter of $`^{m+1}\times (^{n+1}\backslash \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0})`$, by the $`G`$-action. Consequently, $`X^+`$ is the total space of $`𝒪(1)^{n+1}`$ over $`^m`$, while $`X^{}`$ is the total space of $`𝒪(1)^{m+1}`$ over $`^n`$.

It is not hard to show that the blow-ups of these bundles along their zero-sections are isomorphic, with the same exceptional divisor $`^m\times ^n`$. In fact, both are isomorphic to the fibered product $`X^+\times _{X/G}X^{}`$: see for example Brion-Procesi  or the author . We shall refer to this whole construction as the standard example.

Now suppose that $`m=n`$. Inside $`X`$ there is then a $`G`$-invariant hypersurface $`Y`$ defined by $`_{i=0}^nx_iy_i=0`$. This is the cone on a smooth quadric, so it is singular only at the origin. Consequently, its images $`Y^+`$ and $`Y^{}`$ in the quotients $`X^+`$ and $`X^{}`$ are smooth, and the birational map $`X^+X^{}`$ restricts to one $`Y^+Y^{}`$.

Since $`Y`$ contains both axes, $`Y^+`$ and $`Y^{}`$ contain the zero-sections which are blown up. The normal bundle to $`Y`$, restricted to $`(^{n+1}\backslash \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0})\times 0`$, is the trivial bundle given by evaluating $`x_iy_i`$. So the normal bundle to $`^n`$ in $`Y^{}`$ is the kernel of the tautological map $`𝒪(1)^{n+1}𝒪`$, which is nothing but $`T^{}^n`$. Likewise the normal bundle to $`^n`$ in $`Y^+`$ is also $`T^{}^n`$. The exceptional divisor in $`\stackrel{~}{Y}`$, the proper transform of $`Y^\pm `$ in the blow-up of $`X`$, is therefore $`T^{}^n`$, which is the manifold parametrizing partial flags of type $`(1,n)`$ in $`^{n+1}`$. The two natural projections to $`^n`$ are the restrictions of the blow-downs $`\stackrel{~}{Y}Y^\pm `$ to $`T^{}^n`$.

This is the simplest example of an elementary transformation in the sense of Mukai . It differs from the standard example in that the exceptional divisor is not a product. Furthermore, the blow-ups are contained in the fibered product $`Y^+\times _{Y/G}Y^{}`$, but not equal to it. A dimension count shows that the product of the exceptional divisors forms another irreducible component.

The moduli problems whose variation has been studied in the past exhibit transformations that locally resemble the standard example $`X^\pm `$. However, as will be seen, the spaces of parabolic Higgs bundles exhibit transformations that locally resemble the variant $`Y^\pm `$.

## 2 Parabolic Higgs bundles

Now fix, for the remainder of the paper, a smooth complex projective curve $`C`$ of genus $`g`$ with distinguished points $`p_1,\mathrm{},p_n`$, where $`2g2+n0`$. Denote $`D`$ the effective divisor $`p_1+\mathrm{}+p_n`$.

A quasi-parabolic Higgs bundle $`𝑬`$ consists of an algebraic vector bundle $`E`$ over $`C`$ equipped with the following two things. First, a quasi-parabolic structure consisting of a full flag

$$0=E_{i,0}E_{i,1}\mathrm{}E_{i,r}=E_{p_i}$$

in the fiber of $`E`$ at each $`p_i`$. (It is more standard to allow partial flags, but we do not since our problem is more complicated in that case.) Second, a Higgs field $`\varphi H^0(\text{End}EK(D))`$ such that $`\varphi (E_{i,j})E_{i,j1}K(D)`$. A parabolic Higgs bundle or PHB is a quasi-parabolic Higgs bundle equipped further with parabolic weights, real numbers

$$1=\alpha _{i,0}>\alpha _{i,1}>\mathrm{}>\alpha _{i,r}0$$
(2.1)
associated to each $`p_i`$. The parabolic degree of a PHB is defined to be $`\text{pdeg}𝑬=\mathrm{deg}E+_{i,j}\alpha _{i,j}`$.

A subbundle $`F`$ of a PHB $`𝑬`$ can be given a quasi-parabolic structure simply by intersecting the flags with $`F_{p_i}`$, and discarding any subspace $`E_{i,j}F_{p_i}`$ which coincides with $`E_{i,j1}F_{p_i}`$. The weights are assigned accordingly. Likewise, for the quotient $`E/F`$, the flags can be projected to $`E_{p_i}/F_{p_i}`$. The weights of $`E/F`$ are precisely those not assigned to $`F`$. A Higgs field $`\varphi `$ on $`E`$ also restricts to one on $`F`$, and projects to one on $`E/F`$, provided that $`F`$ is $`\varphi `$-invariant, meaning that $`\varphi (F)FK(D)`$. Thus if $`F`$ is $`\varphi `$-invariant, it can be regarded as a sub-PHB $`𝑭`$.

A PHB $`𝑬`$ is said to be semistable if for all proper sub-PHBs $`𝑭`$,

$$\text{pdeg}𝑭/\text{rk}𝑭\text{pdeg}𝑬/\text{rk}𝑬,$$
(2.2)
and stable if the equality is always strict.

For fixed rank $`r`$, degree $`d`$, and weights $`\alpha _{i,j}`$, Yokogawa  has constructed a moduli space $``$ of semistable PHBs which is a normal quasi-projective variety of dimension

$$2r^2(g1)+2+nr(r1).$$

As usual in such a moduli problem, it parametrizes semistable PHBs modulo an equivalence which, on the stable PHBs, is nothing but isomorphism. Standard arguments as in Newstead \[11, §5.5\] imply the existence of a universal family over the locus of stable PHBs.

For purely numerical reasons, PHBs which are semistable but not stable can only appear when the weights take special values. The space of all possible values for the weights $`\alpha _{i,j}`$ can be viewed as a product $`𝒮=𝒮_r^n`$ of $`n`$ open simplices of dimension $`r`$, determined by (2.1). Any PHB which is semistable but not stable with respect to weights $`(\alpha _{i,j})`$ must have an invariant subbundle such that equality holds in (2.2). This means that

$$\text{rk}𝑭\text{pdeg}𝑬=\text{rk}𝑬\text{pdeg}𝑭$$

and hence

$$r^+(d+\underset{i,j}{}\alpha _{i,j})=r(d^++\underset{i,j}{}n_{i,j}^+\alpha _{i,j}),$$
(2.3)
where $`r^+=\text{rk}F`$, $`d^+=\mathrm{deg}F`$, and the $`n_{i,j}^+=dim(E_{i,j}F_{p_i})/(E_{i,j1}F_{p_i})`$, the latter all being either 0 or 1. We will refer to $`r^+`$, $`d^+`$, and $`n_{i,j}^+`$ as the discrete data $`𝒅^+`$ associated to any subbundle of a PHB. If the discrete data are fixed, equation (2.3) requires that the point $`(\alpha _{i,j})`$ belongs to the intersection of an affine hyperplane with $`𝒮`$. Call this intersection a wall. Now $`r^+`$ and the $`n_{i,j}^+`$ can only take a finite number of values, since $`0<r^+<\text{rk}E`$ and $`0n_{i,j}^+1`$, and for each choice of these, there are only finitely many values of $`d^+`$ for which the affine hyperplane touches $`𝒮`$. The walls are therefore finite in number.

(2.4)  The only other discrete data $`𝐝^{}`$ giving rise to the same wall are $`r^{}=rr^+`$, $`d^{}=dd^+`$, and $`n_{i,j}^{}=1n_{i,j}^+`$.

This is readily verified from (2.3). However, it is what fails if the flags are not full.

On the complement of the walls, the stability condition is evidently equivalent to semi-stability, and is locally constant. On each connected component of the complement, called a chamber, the moduli space of stable PHBs is therefore a fixed quasi-projective variety. The remainder of the paper is devoted to showing how the moduli space changes when a wall is crossed.

## 3 Deformation theory of parabolic Higgs bundles

We will need some basic facts about the deformation theory of PHBs. This has been worked out very carefully by Yokogawa \[18, 2.1, 4.2\] and Markman \[8, 6.3\]. Most of the results we need are special cases of their work, so we will only sketch the proofs here.

Given bundles $`E`$, $`F`$ over $`C`$ with parabolic structures at $`p_1,\mathrm{},p_n`$ and weights $`\alpha _{i,j}`$ and $`\beta _{i,k}`$ respectively, a homomorphism $`\rho :EF`$ is said to be parabolic if $`\rho (E_{i,j})F_{i,k1}`$ whenever $`\alpha _{i,j}>\beta _{i,k}`$, and strongly parabolic if $`\rho (E_{i,j})F_{i,k1}`$ whenever $`\alpha _{i,j}\beta _{i,k}`$. Let $`\text{Par}\text{Hom}(E,F)`$ and $`\text{S\hspace{0.17em}Par}\text{Hom}(E,F)`$ denote the subsheaves of $`\text{Hom}(E,F)`$ consisting of parabolic and strongly parabolic homomorphisms, respectively. Also let $`\text{Par}\text{End}E=\text{Par}\text{Hom}(E,E)`$ and $`\text{S\hspace{0.17em}Par}\text{End}E=\text{S\hspace{0.17em}Par}\text{Hom}(E,E)`$. Note that $`\text{S\hspace{0.17em}Par}\text{Hom}(E,F(D))`$ is naturally dual to $`\text{Par}\text{Hom}(F,E)`$ and that any Higgs field $`\varphi `$ belongs to $`H^0(\text{S\hspace{0.17em}Par}\text{End}EK(D))`$ by definition.

If $`𝑬`$ and $`𝑭`$ are PHBs with Higgs fields $`\varphi `$ and $`\psi `$ respectively, define then a two-term complex $`\text{Hom}(𝑬,𝑭)`$ by

$$\text{Par}\text{Hom}(E,F)\text{S\hspace{0.17em}Par}\text{Hom}(E,F)K(D),$$
(3.1)
with the map given by $`ff\varphi \psi f`$. Also let $`\text{End}𝑬=\text{Hom}(𝑬,𝑬)`$.

(3.2)  The endomorphisms and infinitesimal deformations of a PHB $`𝐄`$ are given by the hypercohomology $`𝐇^0(\text{End}𝐄)`$ and $`𝐇^1(\text{End}𝐄)`$ respectively.

Sketch of proof. Choose trivializations of $`E`$ on open sets $`V_\alpha `$ covering $`C`$.

The local endomorphisms $`g_\alpha H^0(V_\alpha ;\text{Par}\text{End}E)`$ define a global endomorphism of $`𝑬`$ if and only if first, they agree on the overlaps, and second, they preserve the Higgs field. This happens precisely when the two components of the hypercohomology differential on Čech cochains

$$C^0(\text{Par}\text{End}E)C^1(\text{Par}\text{End}E)C^0(\text{S\hspace{0.17em}Par}\text{End}EK(D))$$

both vanish on $`(g_\alpha )`$.

Let $`S=\text{Spec}[\epsilon ]/(\epsilon ^2)`$ be the spectrum of the ring of dual numbers. Then an infinitesimal deformation of $`𝑬`$, that is, an extension of $`𝑬`$ to $`S\times C`$, has transition functions $`1+\epsilon f_{\alpha \beta }`$ and local Higgs fields $`\varphi +\epsilon \psi _\alpha `$ for

$$(f_{\alpha \beta },\psi _\alpha )C^1(\text{Par}\text{End}E)C^0(\text{S\hspace{0.17em}Par}\text{End}E)K(D).$$

The compatibility conditions say that this is a Čech cocycle, and equivalent deformations differ by a change of trivialization, which is a Čech coboundary.  $`\mathrm{}`$

(3.3)  Let $`𝐄`$ and $`𝐅`$ be stable PHBs such that $`\text{pdeg}𝐄/\text{rk}𝐄\text{pdeg}𝐅/\text{rk}𝐅`$. Then $`𝐡^0(\text{Hom}(𝐄,𝐅))=1`$ if $`𝐄`$ and $`𝐅`$ are isomorphic, and 0 otherwise.

In particular, $`𝑯^0(\text{End}𝑬)`$ consists only of scalar multiplications.

Sketch of proof. If $`\psi 𝑯^0(\text{Hom}(𝑬,𝑭))`$ is not an isomorphism or zero, then either its kernel or its image generates a destabilizing subbundle. If it is an isomorphism different from a scalar times the identity, then $`\psi \lambda \text{id}`$ is not an isomorphism or zero for some scalar $`\lambda `$.  $`\mathrm{}`$

(3.4)  Let $`𝐄`$ and $`𝐅`$ be families of PHBs over $`C`$ parametrized by the same variety $`X`$, and suppose that $`𝐄_x𝐅_x`$ for all $`xX`$. Then there exists a line bundle $`L`$ over $`X`$ such that $`𝐅𝐄\pi ^{}L`$, where $`\pi :C\times XX`$ is the projection.

Sketch of proof. Let $`L`$ be the hyper-direct image $`(𝑹^0\pi )_{}\text{Hom}(𝑬,𝑭)`$. This is a line bundle by (3), and it is straightforward to construct the desired isomorphism.  $`\mathrm{}`$

If $`\text{Hom}^{}`$ denotes the complex obtained from $`\text{Hom}`$ by taking duals and reversing arrows, then the natural duality mentioned at the beginning of the section implies that $`\text{Hom}(𝑬,𝑭)=\text{Hom}^{}(𝑭,𝑬)K`$. By Serre duality for hypercohomology, it follows that $`𝑯^i(\text{Hom}(𝑬,𝑭))=𝑯^{2i}(\text{Hom}(𝑭,𝑬))^{}`$. Thus if $`𝑬`$ is stable, $`𝒉^0(\text{End}𝑬)=𝒉^2(\text{End}𝑬)=1`$ by (3), so $`𝒉^1(\text{End}𝑬)`$, the dimension of the deformation space, depends only on the rank and degree of $`𝑬`$. Hence the moduli space is smooth at the stable points, with tangent space $`T_𝑬=𝑯^1(\text{End}𝑬)`$.

Furthermore, this tangent space is naturally self-dual. This induces a nondegenerate holomorphic 2-tensor on the moduli space $``$. It turns out to be alternating and closed, and hence a symplectic form, but we will not need to know this.

Given bundles $`E^+`$, $`E^{}`$ over $`C`$ with parabolic structures at $`p_1,\mathrm{},p_n`$, an extension of $`E^{}`$ by $`E^+`$ is a short exact sequence

$$0E^+EE^{}0,$$

where $`E`$ has parabolic structure at $`p_1,\mathrm{},p_n`$, all morphisms are parabolic, and the weights of $`E`$ at $`p_i`$ are those of $`E^+`$ together with those of $`E^{}`$, ordered so that they are decreasing. (To prevent repeats, assume that $`\alpha _{i,j}\beta _{i,k}`$ for all $`i,j,k`$.) A direct sum of parabolic bundles is, of course, a split extension. An extension of PHBs $`𝑬^{}`$ by $`𝑬^+`$ is an extension of the underlying parabolic bundles as above, together with a Higgs field $`\varphi `$ on $`E`$ which restricts to the given Higgs field on $`E^+`$ (in particular, $`E^+`$ is $`\varphi `$-invariant) and projects to the given Higgs field on $`E^{}`$ (this projection being well-defined thanks to the $`\varphi `$-invariance of $`E^+`$).

(3.5)  If $`𝐄^+`$ and $`𝐄^{}`$ are PHBs, the extensions of $`𝐄^{}`$ by $`𝐄^+`$, modulo equivalence, are classified by $`𝐇^1(\text{Hom}(𝐄^{},𝐄^+))`$.

Sketch of proof. In terms of local trivializations of $`E^+`$ and $`E^{}`$ on an open cover $`V_\alpha `$, any extension must have transition functions and Higgs fields of the forms

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& f_{\alpha \beta }\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)\text{ and }\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& \psi _\alpha \\ 0& 1\end{array}\right),$$

respectively, for a Čech cochain

$$(f_{\alpha \beta },\psi _\alpha )C^1(\text{Par}\text{Hom}(E^{},E^+))C^0(\text{S\hspace{0.17em}Par}\text{Hom}(E^{},E^+)K(D)).$$

The compatibility conditions say that this is a Čech cocycle, and equivalent extensions differ by a Čech coboundary.  $`\mathrm{}`$

For any extension $`𝑬`$ of PHBs $`𝑬^{}`$ by $`𝑬^+`$, let $`\text{Par}\text{End}^{}E`$ and $`\text{S\hspace{0.17em}Par}\text{End}^{}E`$ be the subsheaves of $`\text{Par}\text{End}E`$ and $`\text{S\hspace{0.17em}Par}\text{End}E`$ preserving $`E^+`$, and let $`\text{End}^{}𝑬`$ be the complex defined as in (3.1), but using these subsheaves.

(3.6)  The endomorphisms and infinitesimal deformations of the extension (that is, of $`𝐄`$ together with the sub-PHB $`𝐄^+`$) are given by $`𝐇^0(\text{End}^{}𝐄)`$ and $`𝐇^1(\text{End}^{}𝐄)`$ respectively.

Sketch of proof. Similar to that of (3), except that both the transition functions and the local Higgs fields must be upper-triangular with respect to parabolic local splittings $`E|_{V_\alpha }=E^+|_{V_\alpha }E^{}|_{V_\alpha }`$.  $`\mathrm{}`$

## 4 Elementary modification of families of parabolic Higgs bundles

Let $`𝑬`$ be a family of PHBs over $`C`$ parametrized by a base scheme $`Y`$ of finite type, and let $`\iota :ZY`$ be a Cartier divisor. Let $`𝑬^+𝑬|_{C\times Z}`$ be a family on $`Z`$ of sub-PHBs, and let $`𝑬^{}`$ be the family of quotients.

Let $`E^{}`$ be the kernel of the natural surjection $`E\iota _{}E^{}`$ of coherent sheaves. As the elementary modification of a locally free sheaf along a Cartier divisor, this is locally free \[4, 2.16\].

At every point $`xZ`$, by (3.1) and (3) there are deformation maps $`T_xY𝑯^1(\text{End}𝑬)`$ and $`T_xZ𝑯^1(\text{End}^{}𝑬)`$. Since there is a short exact sequence of two-term complexes

$$0\text{End}^{}𝑬\text{End}𝑬\text{Hom}(𝑬^+,𝑬^{})0,$$

this determines a well-defined map from the normal space to $`𝑯^1(\text{Hom}(𝑬^+,𝑬^{}))`$. Since the normal space to a Cartier divisor is 1-dimensional, this gives a class $`\rho _x𝑯^1(\text{Hom}(𝑬^+,𝑬^{}))`$, well-defined up to a scalar.

(4.1)  There is a natural family $`𝐄^{}`$ of PHBs with underlying bundle $`E^{}`$, such that for $`xZ`$, $`𝐄_x^{}=𝐄_x^{}`$, and for $`xZ`$, $`𝐄_x^{}`$ is an extension of $`𝐄_x^+`$ by $`𝐄_x^{}`$ with extension class $`\rho _x`$.

Proof. Let $`E_{i,0}E_{i,1}\mathrm{}E_{i,r}`$ be the filtration of $`E|_{\{p_i\}\times Y}`$ defining the parabolic structure. Then the image of each $`E_{i,j}`$ in $`\iota _{}(E^{}|_{\{p_i\}\times Z})`$ is a subbundle. Hence $`E_{i,j}^{}=E_{i,j}E^{}|_{\{p_i\}\times Y}`$ is an elementary modification of $`E_{i,j}`$, and hence a subbundle of $`E^{}|_{\{p_i\}\times Y}`$. Since these subbundles are nested, this provides a family of parabolic bundles with underlying bundle $`E^{}`$.

Since $`E^+`$ is a family of sub-PHBs of $`E|_{C\times Z}`$, the Higgs field $`\varphi `$ of $`𝑬`$ preserves $`E^{}`$. It therefore induces a section $`\varphi ^{}`$ of $`\text{End}E^{}K(D)`$. This agrees with $`\varphi `$ away from $`Z`$, so there it certainly satisfies the condition $`\varphi ^{}(E_{i,j}^{})E_{i,j1}K(D)`$. But this is a closed condition, so it is satisfied everywhere and $`\varphi ^{}`$ is a Higgs field. This provides the desired family $`𝑬^{}`$ of PHBs, which agrees with $`𝑬`$ away from $`Z`$.

It remains only to prove the last statement. We claim that the general case follows from the special case where $`Y`$ is $`S=\text{Spec}[\epsilon ]/(\epsilon ^2)`$, the spectrum of the ring of dual numbers, and $`Z`$ is the closed point. For in the general case, given any $`xZ`$, choose an embedding $`SX`$ which takes the closed point to $`x`$, but whose image is not contained in $`Z`$. The pull-back of the exact sequence

$$0E^{}E\iota _{}E^{}0$$

to $`C\times S`$ is then still exact: since tensoring with the ring of dual numbers is exact on the right, the only doubtful thing is the injectivity of the first map, and this follows since $`S`$ not contained in $`Z`$ implies that $`E_S^{}`$ and $`E_S^{}`$ are isomorphic at the generic point, and any map of locally free sheaves which is an isomorphism at the generic point is injective. And the constructions of the previous paragraphs for a parabolic structure and Higgs field on $`E^{}`$ clearly commute with this pull-back.

Choose an open cover $`V_\alpha `$ of $`C`$ where $`E_x`$ splits as a direct sum of parabolic bundles, $`E_x|_{V_\alpha }=E_x^+|_{V_\alpha }E_x^{}|_{V_\alpha }`$, and extend this splitting over $`S\times V_\alpha `$. Relative to this splitting, $`E_x^{}|_{V_\alpha }=E_x^+|_{V_\alpha }(E^{}_{(\epsilon )})_x|_{V_\alpha }`$. Since $`𝑬_x`$ is an extension, the transition functions on $`V_\alpha V_\beta `$ and the Higgs field on $`V_\alpha `$ respectively have the forms

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}1+\epsilon & \\ \epsilon f_{\alpha \beta }& 1+\epsilon \end{array}\right)\text{ and }\left(\begin{array}{cc}\varphi ^++\epsilon & \\ \epsilon \psi _\alpha & \varphi ^{}+\epsilon \end{array}\right),$$

where $`\varphi ^\pm `$ are the Higgs fields on $`E^\pm `$, and

$$(f_{\alpha \beta },\psi _\alpha )C^0(\text{Par}\text{Hom}(E_x^+,E_x^{}))C^1(\text{S\hspace{0.17em}Par}\text{Hom}(E_x^+,E_x^{})K(D))$$

is a Čech cochain representing the class $`\rho _x`$.

The fibers of $`E_x^{}`$ are spanned by nonvanishing sections of $`E^+`$, and by $`\epsilon `$ times nonvanishing sections of $`E^{}`$. Hence to find the transition functions and local Higgs fields for $`𝑬_x^{}`$, we must take the coefficients of

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}\epsilon ^0& \epsilon ^1\\ \epsilon ^1& \epsilon ^0\end{array}\right)$$

in the above matrices. These are

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ f_{\alpha \beta }& 1\end{array}\right)\text{ and }\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ \psi _\alpha & 1\end{array}\right)$$

respectively. Consequently, $`𝑬_x^{}`$ is precisely the extension of $`𝑬_x^+`$ by $`𝑬_x^{}`$ with extension class $`\rho _x`$, as desired.  $`\mathrm{}`$

## 5 What appears and disappears when a wall is crossed

Choose a point in $`𝒮_r^n`$ lying on only one wall $`W`$. A small neighborhood of this point touches exactly two chambers, say $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$, and our goal in this section is to see what PHBs become unstable as we pass from one to the other.

Say a quasi-PHB is $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$-stable (resp. $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$-stable) if it is stable with respect to weights $`(\alpha _{i,j})\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ (resp. $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$). Then we seek those $`𝑬`$ that are $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$-stable but $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$-unstable.

To put it another way, let $`^+`$ and $`^{}`$ denote the moduli spaces of $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$-stable and $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$-stable PHBs, respectively. Since, as we will see, a generic $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$-stable PHB is also $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$-stable, there is a birational map $`^{}^+`$. We seek to understand the exceptional locus of this map.

Choosing the wall $`W`$ is equivalent to choosing discrete data $`𝒅^+`$ so that equality holds in (2.3) when $`(\alpha _{i,j})W`$. According to (2), the only ambiguity is the possibility of exchanging $`𝒅^+`$ for $`𝒅^{}`$. By making this exchange if necessary, we may assume without loss of generality that $``$ holds in (2.3) when $`(\alpha _{i,j})\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$.

(5.1)  If $`𝐄`$ is $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$-stable but $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$-unstable, then any destabilizing bundle has discrete data $`𝐝^+`$.

Proof. As the weights $`(\alpha _{i,j})`$ cross from $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ to $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$, the destabilizing subbundle $`𝑬^+`$ of $`𝑬`$ must cease to destabilize. Hence the inequality (2.2) must change from $`>`$ to $`<`$. By (2), this implies that $`𝑬^+`$ has discrete data $`𝒅^+`$.  $`\mathrm{}`$

(5.2)  If $`𝐄`$ is $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$-stable but $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$-unstable with destabilizing subbundle $`𝐄^+`$, then $`𝐄^+`$ and the quotient $`𝐄^{}`$ are both $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$-stable and $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$-stable.

Proof. A $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$-destabilizing subbundle of $`𝑬^+`$ would also destabilize $`𝑬`$ and have different discrete data. Similarly, the inverse image in $`𝑬`$ of a destabilizing subbundle of $`𝑬^{}`$ would destabilize $`𝑬`$ and have different discrete data. Hence $`𝑬^\pm `$ are $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$-stable. If they were $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$-unstable, the destabilizing subbundle would again have different discrete data from $`𝒅^+`$ or $`𝒅^{}`$ and so would violate (2).  $`\mathrm{}`$

(5.3)  If $`𝐄`$ is $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$-stable but $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$-unstable, then the $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$-destabilizing subbundle $`𝐄^+`$ is unique.

Proof. Let $`𝑬^{}`$ be the quotient of $`𝑬`$ by $`𝑬^+`$. If $`𝑭`$ is another $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$-destabilizing subbundle, by (5) it is $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$-stable, and by (5) it must have the same discrete data, and in particular, rank. There is then a nontrivial homomorphism $`𝑭𝑬^{}`$ of PHBs, and hence a nontrivial element of $`𝑯^0(\text{Hom}(𝑭,𝑬^{}))`$, contradicting (3).  $`\mathrm{}`$

(5.4)  Let $`𝐄^+`$ and $`𝐄^{}`$ be $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$-stable PHBs with discrete data $`𝐝^+`$ and $`𝐝^{}`$. Then any extension of $`𝐄^{}`$ by $`𝐄^+`$ is $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$-unstable, and is $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$-stable if and only if it is not split.

Proof. The $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$-instability is obvious: $`𝑬^+`$ is the destabilizing sub-PHB. It is equally clear that if $`𝑬`$ splits as $`𝑬^+𝑬^{}`$, then $`𝑬^{}`$ is $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$-destabilizing.

If the extension $`𝑬`$ is $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$-unstable, on the other hand, then by (5) the $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$-destabilizing subbundle $`𝑭`$ must not be $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$-destabilizing, and hence has discrete data $`𝒅^{}`$. The composite map $`𝑭𝑬𝑬^{}`$ must be a nontrivial homomorphism of PHBs, since $`𝑭`$ and $`𝑬^{}`$ have the same incidences with the flags. Hence there is a nonzero element of $`𝑯^0(\text{Hom}(𝑭,𝑬^{}))`$, which by (3) must be an isomorphism, and hence splits $`𝑬`$.  $`\mathrm{}`$

Putting together the last four results, we find:

(5.5)  If $`𝐄`$ is $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$-stable but $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$-unstable, then it can be expressed uniquely as a nonsplit extension of PHBs

$$0𝑬^+𝑬𝑬^{}0$$

where $`𝐄^\pm `$ are stable with discrete data $`𝐝^\pm `$. Conversely, any such extension is $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$-stable but $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$-unstable.

So let $`𝒩^+`$ and $`𝒩^{}`$ be the moduli spaces of semistable (hence stable) PHBs with discrete data $`𝒅^+`$ and $`𝒅^{}`$, respectively, and let $`𝑬^\pm `$ be universal PHBs over $`𝒩^\pm \times C`$. Define $`U^\pm `$ to be the hyper-direct images $`(𝑹^1\pi )_{}\text{Hom}(𝑬^\pm ,𝑬^{})`$, where $`\pi `$ is the projection on $`𝒩^+\times 𝒩^{}`$. By (3) and Serre duality for hypercohomology, $`(𝑹^0\pi )_{}`$ and $`(𝑹^2\pi )_{}`$ vanish, so $`U^\pm `$ are vector bundles and are dual to each other. The projectivization $`U^{}`$ parametrizes all non-split extensions of PHBs in $`𝒩^{}`$ by those in $`𝒩^+`$. Applying the Leray spectral sequence first to the projection $`𝒩^+\times 𝒩^{}\times C𝒩^+\times 𝒩^{}`$, then to the projection $`U^{}𝒩^+\times 𝒩^{}`$, gives natural isomorphisms

$`H^0(𝒩^+\times 𝒩^{};U^+U^{})`$ $`=`$ $`𝑯^1(𝒩^+\times 𝒩^{}\times C;U^+\text{Hom}(𝑬^{},𝑬^+))`$
$`=`$ $`𝑯^1(U^{}\times C;\text{Hom}(𝑬^{},𝑬^+)𝒪(1)).`$
The image of the identity endomorphism has the tautological property that, for any $`xU^{}`$, its restriction to $`\{x\}\times C`$ is the class in $`𝑯^1(C;\text{Hom}(𝑬_x^{},𝑬_x^+))`$ determined by $`x`$, up to a scalar. It therefore can be used to define a universal extension of $`𝑬^{}`$ by $`𝑬^+𝒪(1)`$: let

$$(\alpha ,\beta )C^1(\text{Par}\text{Hom}(E^{},E^+(1)))C^0(\text{S\hspace{0.17em}Par}\text{Hom}(E^{},E^+(1))K(D))$$

be a Čech representative; then $`\alpha `$ defines a family of extensions of parabolic bundles, and $`\beta `$ defines a family of Higgs fields on them, just as in (3).

By (5) every PHB in this family is $`𝒅^{}`$-stable. So by the universal property of the moduli space $`^{}`$, there exists a morphism $`U^{}^{}`$ whose image is precisely the locus of PHBs which become unstable when the wall is crossed. An easy dimension count shows that $`dimU^{}<dim^{}`$, and hence that a generic $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$-stable PHB is also $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$-stable, as promised.

Let $`V^{}`$ be the cotangent bundle to the fibers of $`U^{}`$. Then there is certainly a map $`\pi ^{}:V^{}U^{}`$, but the “Euler sequence” of the cotangent bundle in this case is

$$0V^{}\stackrel{\pi ^+}{}U^+(1)𝒪0,$$

so there is also a map $`\pi ^+:V^{}U^+`$. In fact $`V^{}`$ is the bundle of partial flags in $`U^{}`$ of type $`(1,\text{rk}U^{}1)`$, and $`\pi ^\pm `$ are the forgetful morphisms that discard one subspace.

(5.6)  The morphism $`U^{}^{}`$ is an embedding with normal bundle $`V^{}`$, such that the following diagram commutes:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}T_x^{}& & 𝑯^1(\text{End}𝑬_x)\\ & & \\ V_x^{}& \stackrel{\pi ^+}{}& 𝑯^1(\text{Hom}(𝑬_x^+,𝑬_x^{})).\end{array}$$

Proof. It follows from (5) that the morphism is injective. To show that it is an embedding, we must show that its derivative is also injective.

Consider the long exact sequence over $`\{x\}\times C`$ of

$$0\text{Hom}(𝑬^{},𝑬^+(1))\text{End}^{}𝑬\text{End}𝑬^+\text{End}𝑬^{}0.$$

Call these complexes $`A^{}`$, $`B^{}`$, and $`C^{}`$ respectively. By Serre duality and (3), $`𝒉^2(C^{})=2`$ and $`𝒉^2(A^{})=0`$. Therefore $`𝒉^2(B^{})=2`$. On the other hand, by (3) again, $`𝒉^0(B^{})=1`$, generated by scalar multiplications, since $`B^{}`$ is a subcomplex of $`\text{End}𝑬`$. The connecting homomorphism from $`𝑯^0(C^{})`$ to $`𝑯^1(A^{})`$ therefore has rank 1. Its image must be the line spanned by the extension class $`\rho `$ of $`𝑬`$. This follows from exactness, since by (3) $`𝑯^1(\text{End}^{}𝑬)`$ classifies infinitesimal deformations of extensions, and the deformation of any extension along its extension class is certainly isomorphic to a trivial one.

On the other hand, $`U^{}`$ parametrizes a family of extensions, so for each $`xU^{}`$, there is a natural map $`T_xU^{}𝑯^1(\text{End}^{}𝑬_x)`$. By the previous paragraph this extends to a short exact sequence of maps:

$$\begin{array}{ccccccccc}0& & (V^{})^{}& & TU^{}& & T𝒩^+T𝒩^{}& & 0\\ & & & & & & & & \\ 0& & 𝑯^1(A^{})/\rho & & 𝑯^1(B^{})& & 𝑯^1(C^{})& & 0.\end{array}$$

The outer maps are clearly isomorphisms, hence so is the middle one by the 5-lemma.

Now consider the long exact sequence over $`\{x\}\times C`$ of

$$0\text{End}^{}𝑬\text{End}𝑬\text{Hom}(𝑬^+(1),𝑬^{})0.$$

It shows that $`𝑯^1(\text{End}^{}𝑬)`$ injects in $`𝑯^1(\text{End}𝑬)`$; since the former is $`TU^{}`$, and the latter is $`T`$, this completes the proof that the derivative of our morphism is injective. Furthermore, since $`𝒉^2(\text{Hom}(𝑬^+(1),𝑬^{}))=0`$, $`𝒉^2(\text{End}𝑬)=1`$, and $`𝒉^2(\text{End}^{}𝑬)=2`$ as seen above, the connecting homomorphism $`𝑯^1(\text{Hom}(𝑬^+(1),𝑬^{}))𝑯^2(\text{End}^{}𝑬)`$ has rank 1, and hence the map $`𝑯^1(\text{End}𝑬)𝑯^1(\text{Hom}(𝑬^+(1),𝑬^{}))`$, whose image is the normal bundle we seek, has corank 1. Now this map is Serre dual to the natural map $`𝑯^1(\text{Hom}(𝑬^{},𝑬^+(1)))𝑯^1(\text{End}𝑬)`$ taking a deformation of the extension class $`\rho `$ of $`𝑬`$ to a deformation of the bundle itself. Since, as observed before, a deformation in the direction of $`\rho `$ itself is isomorphic to a trivial deformation, the kernel of this map contains the line through $`\rho `$, hence equals it since it has rank 1. Therefore the normal bundle is the annihilator of $`\rho `$ in $`𝑯^1(\text{Hom}(𝑬^+(1),𝑬^{}))`$, which is exactly $`V^{}`$.  $`\mathrm{}`$

## 6 The elementary transformation of the moduli space

Let $`\stackrel{~}{}^{}`$ be the blow-up of $`^{}`$ along the image of the embedding $`U^{}^{}`$ of (5). The exceptional divisor is $`V^{}`$, which is the bundle of partial flags in $`U^{}`$ of type $`(1,\text{rk}U^{}1)`$. Since $`U^+`$ is dual to $`U^{}`$, forgetting the 1-dimensional subspace gives a morphism $`V^{}U^+`$.

(6.1)  There is a morphism $`\stackrel{~}{}^{}^+`$ such that the following diagram commutes:

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}^{}\backslash U^{}& & \stackrel{~}{}^{}& & V^{}\\ & & & & \pi ^+\\ ^+\backslash U^+& & ^+& & U^+.\end{array}$$

Proof. Let $`𝑬`$ be the universal PHB over $`^{}`$. By uniqueness of families (3), the restriction $`𝑬|_{U^{}\times C}`$ is isomorphic to the universal extension of $`𝑬^{}`$ by $`𝑬^+(1)`$ defined after (5), tensored by the pull-back of a line bundle $`L`$ over $`U^{}`$.

So if $`𝑬`$ is pulled back to $`\stackrel{~}{}^{}`$, then its restriction to the exceptional divisor $`V^{}`$ has a family $`𝑬^+L(1)`$ of sub-PHBs.

Let $`𝑬^{}`$ be the elementary modification of $`𝑬`$ along this family, in the sense of (4). Then for $`xV^{}`$, $`𝑬_x^{}=𝑬_x^{}`$, while for $`xV^{}`$, $`𝑬_x^{}`$ is an extension of $`𝑬_x^+`$ by $`𝑬_x^{}`$, with extension class given by the image of the normal space $`N_x(V^{}/\stackrel{~}{}^{})`$ in $`𝑯^1(\text{Hom}(𝑬^+,𝑬^{}))`$ via the deformation map of $`𝑬`$. This is precisely $`\pi ^+(x)`$, as we see from the commutative diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}T_x\stackrel{~}{^{}}& & T_{\pi ^{}(x)}^{}& & 𝑯^1(\text{End}𝑬_x)\\ & & & & \\ N_x(V^{}/\stackrel{~}{^{}})& & V_{\pi ^{}(x)}^{}& \stackrel{\pi ^+}{}& 𝑯^1(\text{Hom}(𝑬_x^+,𝑬_x^{})).\end{array}$$

This defines a map $`\stackrel{~}{}^{}^+`$ such that the diagram in the statement commutes; by the universal property of $`^+`$, it is a morphism.  $`\mathrm{}`$

This brings us to our main result.

(6.2)  There is a natural isomorphism $`\stackrel{~}{}^{}\stackrel{~}{^+}`$ such that the following diagram commutes:

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}^{}\backslash U^{}& & \stackrel{~}{}^{}& & V^{}\\ & & & & \\ ^+\backslash U^+& & \stackrel{~}{}^+& & V^+.\end{array}$$

Proof. The roles of the plus and minus signs in the previous proposition are completely interchangeable, so we have morphisms $`\stackrel{~}{}^{}^+`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{}^+^{}`$. Combining these with the blow-downs $`\stackrel{~}{}^\pm ^\pm `$ gives injections of both $`\stackrel{~}{}^+`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{}^{}`$ into $`^+\times ^{}`$. Indeed, both injections are embeddings, since as is easily checked they annihilate no tangent vectors, and both have the same image, namely the closure of the graph of the isomorphism $`^{}\backslash U^{}^+\backslash U^+`$. Moreover, the image of both $`V^+`$ and $`V^{}`$ is the incidence correspondence between $`U^+`$ and $`U^{}`$.  $`\mathrm{}`$

The author’s previous work  showed that, in the case of ordinary parabolic bundles, the blow-up of the moduli space $`^{}`$ is actually isomorphic to the fibered product $`^+\times _^0^{}`$. It is clear from the construction that the blow-up in the case of PHBs is an irreducible component of the fibered product. But, as in the model of §1, there is another component. A dimension count shows that the fibered product of the exceptional divisors has the same dimension as the blow-up.

Instead of PHBs with values in the canonical bundle, one could study several related moduli problems: that of PHBs with values in a bundle of higher degree, for example, or “$`K(D)`$ pairs” in the sense of Boden and Yokogawa , or the twistor family of Simpson. In those cases the counterparts of $`𝑯^2(\text{End}𝑬)`$ and $`𝑯^2(\text{End}^{}𝑬)`$ vanish, and hence the normal bundle of the blow-up locus becomes essentially $`𝑯^1(\text{Hom}(𝑬^+(1),𝑬^{}))`$. The story then is more conventional: the blow-ups and blow-downs locally resemble those of the standard example, and so on. The novelty of our situation therefore seems to be connected to the non-triviality of the obstruction space of our moduli problem, even though the obstruction map is of course zero.

A “master space” whose quotients, under different linearizations, by a fixed torus action are the moduli spaces of PHBs with different weights has not been constructed. But if there is one, it cannot be smooth, for then the blow-ups and blow-downs would resemble the standard example locally, up to a finite cover \[16, 1.15\]. Rather, we might expect it to have ordinary double points, like the cone on the quadric.


format: text

text:
# Scattering of a particle with spin by atomic chain as null test of T-violating P-even magnetism

## Abstract

T-odd P-even long-range electromagnetic interaction of a particle of spin 1/2 with the nucleus is considered. Though matrix element of the interaction is zero for the particles on mass shell, nevertheless, null test exists for the interaction. The test consists in measuring of the spin-dependent T-odd P-even forward elastic scattering amplitude of a particle of spin 1/2 by atomic chain (axis) in a crystall.

PACS: 11.30.Er, 12.20.-m, 13.60.-r

In connection with the direct observation of time-reversal symmetry violation in the system of $`K^0\overline{K}^0`$ mesons  it would be interesting to detect T-non-invariance in other nuclear or atomic systems. It is necessary to distinguish P- T- odd interaction from P-even T-odd one. While on the strength constants of the first type interactions there are rather rigid restrictions, obtained from dipole moment of atoms and particles measuring, restrictions on the constants of P-even T-odd interactions are not so strong. As it is known, zero test of the last kind interactions is observation of $`(𝝈\times 𝒏𝑺)(𝒏𝑺)`$ term in the forward elastic scattering amplitude of a particle of spin $`1/2`$ by a particle with a spin $`S1`$ , where $`𝒏`$ is a unit vector in a direction of an incident particle momentum. Relevant experiments were carried out  and plan to be performed on a superconducting synchrotron COSY .

In this work new null test of T-invariance is presented, which consists in measuring of the T-odd forward elastic scattering amplitude of a particle with spin by an atomic chain (axis) or a plane.

The motion of a particle with spin in matter can be described with the help of refraction index, depending on a spin : $`𝒩=1+{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi \mathrm{}}{p^2}}f(0),`$ where $`f(0)`$ is forward scattering amplitude of a particle with spin by a scattering centre of a medium, $`p`$ is a wave number of a particle, $`\mathrm{}`$ is the density of scatterers in the matter. The dependence of refraction index on the orientation of spin leads to the experimentally observable effects: absorption of a particles beam, depending on the orientation of particle spin (dichroism), rotation and oscillation of a particle spin .

In passage of a particle under small angles to the atomic chains or planes the scattering occurs not on the separate atom, but on the whole atomic chain or plane.

For the angles, less than Lindhard angle, negatively charged particle is captured by an axis or a plane and goes in its vicinity, i.e. the channelling phenomenon arises  (positively charged particle is localised between neighbour atomic planes). Channelling and radiation under channelling were actively studied earlier .

But we are interesting the case, when a particle goes under angle more than Lindhard one, at which the channelling, begins. However the angle is so small ( less than $`\frac{R_a}{d}`$, $`R_a`$ is atomic radius, $`d`$ is interatomic distance in chain), that the particle motion can be described by the averaged axis or plane potential.

In this case particle refraction index is also determined by the formula above, but the amplitude should be read as denoting particle forward elastic scattering amplitude by the whole axis or plane (accounted for unit axis length or unit area of the plane).

Accordingly, a density of scatterers should be understand as two-dimensional density of cross points of axes, with the plane being perpendicular to the axes, or one-dimensional density of cross points of planes by their normal line. Let’s designate the direction of an axes or direction of planes normal line by the unit vector $`𝒂`$ (fig.1) and consider spin structure of the scattering amplitude at zero angle of a particle with spin $`𝑺`$ by an axis or a plane:

$`F(0)=A+B(𝑺𝒏)+B_1(𝑺𝒂)(𝒏𝒂)+C_1(𝑺\times 𝒂𝒏)(𝒂𝒏)+A_1(𝑺𝒏)^2+`$ (1)
$`+A_2(𝑺𝒂)^2+A_3(𝑺𝒂)(𝑺𝒏)(𝒏𝒂)+C_2(𝑺\times 𝒂𝒏)(𝑺𝒂)+\mathrm{},`$ (2)
$`𝒏`$ being the unit vector in a direction of incident particle momentum. For a particle with a spin 1/2 only three first terms should be in the expression (2), the remained terms occur for particles with spins greater than 1/2. The coefficients $`A_n,B_n\mathrm{}`$ are even functions of $`(𝒏𝒂)`$. From the view-point of fundamental symmetries chesking T-violating/P-conserving $`(𝑺\times 𝒂𝒏)(𝒂𝒏)`$ and T-/P-violating $`(𝑺\times 𝒂𝒏)(𝑺𝒂)`$ terms are interesting. Experimental observation of these terms gives novel null test of T-invariance. It turns out to be, that the first term can arise from the T-odd/P-even particle interaction

$`V_T(𝒓)=(𝑺\times \widehat{𝒑}𝒓)u^T(r)(𝒓\widehat{𝒑})+(\widehat{𝒑}𝒓)u^T(r)(𝒓𝑺\times \widehat{𝒑}),`$

and the second term from the T-/P-odd

$`V_{PT}(𝒓)=(𝑺\times \widehat{𝒑}𝒓)u^{PT}(r)(𝒓𝑺)+(𝒓𝑺)u^{PT}(r)(𝒓𝑺\times \widehat{𝒑}),`$

one. $`\widehat{𝒑}`$ designates operator of particle momentum and $`u^{PT}(r)`$, $`u^T(r)`$ being some radial functions. These interactions do not lead to the observable effects in ordinary elastic scattering: evaluation of T-odd amplitude in the Born approximation gives zero. The same result will be if one calculate the scattering amplitude by chain of atoms in the Born approximation. But taking into account the perturbation of the plane waves by the cylindrical Coulomb potential of an axis in the distorted wave approximation  leads to the non zero T-odd amplitude.

Let us consider T-violating interaction arising from one photon exchange. T-non-invariant parity conserving electromagnetic interaction vertex of a particle of spin $`1/2`$ with the electromagnetic field can be written as

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_T^\mu =\frac{e𝔢_T}{m^2}\left((Pq)\gamma ^\mu (\gamma q)P^\mu \right)\frac{e𝔪_T}{2m^3}(Pq)\sigma ^{\mu \nu }q_\nu ,$$
(3)
where $`P=p_3+p_1`$, $`q=p_3p_1`$ (fig.2). Considering the spinless charged nuclei we take ordinary electromagnetic vertex in the form $`ZeP_\mu `$ , $`k=p_4+p_2`$ . After the application of ordinary diagramm technique, we obtain appropriate matrix element due to one photon exchange:

$$=\frac{Ze^2\text{i}}{m^2}\left\{𝔢_T\left((Pq)\gamma _{31}^\mu (\gamma _{31}q)P^\mu \right)\frac{e𝔪_T}{2m}(Pq)\sigma _{31}^{\mu \nu }q_\nu \right\}D_{\mu \eta }(q)k^\eta ,$$
(4)
where $`\gamma _{31}^\mu \overline{u}_3(p_3)\gamma ^\mu u_1(p_1)`$, …and $`D_{\mu \nu }(q)=4\pi g_{\mu \nu }/q^2`$ is a photon propagator. Setting $`p_1=p`$, $`p_3=p+q`$, $`q=(0,𝒒)`$ and substituting $`u(p)=\left(\begin{array}{c}\sqrt{\epsilon +m}\varphi \\ (\epsilon +m)^{1/2}(𝝈𝒑)\varphi \end{array}\right),`$ ($`\varphi `$ is spin wave function of a particle) into (4) we find the T-odd scattering amplitude of a particle by resting nucleus for the small momentum transferred $`𝒒`$:

$$f(𝒒)=\frac{}{8\pi M}=\frac{2Ze^2}{m^2}\left(\frac{𝔪_T}{m}+\frac{𝔢_T}{\epsilon +m}\right)\frac{(𝒑𝒒)(𝝈\times 𝒑𝒒)}{q^2}.$$
(5)
In evaluation of the amplitude we consider the particle being on mass shell everywhere except for the term $`(𝒑𝒒)`$. If a particle is completely on mass shell, $`(𝒑𝒒)=0`$ and the amplitude is zero. Dependence of the amplitude on momentum transferred $`𝒒`$ is the same as for elastic scattering amplitude of magnetic dipoles. So, it turns out to be that the interaction is long-range one.

Improper conclusion have been made earlier  ( repeated then in the monograph ) about non-existence of long-range (i.e. decreasing as $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^3}}`$ with distance or weaker ) T-odd potential.

We can consider scattering of a particle in a framework of the Schrodinger equation with the relativistic mass :

$$(^2+p^2)\mathrm{\Psi }(𝒓)=2\epsilon V(𝒓)\mathrm{\Psi }(𝒓).$$
(6)
In the Born approximation the amplitude (5) can be obtained from the T-odd interaction, depending on the energy:

$$V_T(𝒓)=\frac{3Ze^2}{2\epsilon m^2}\left(\frac{𝔪_T}{m}+\frac{𝔢_T}{\epsilon +m}\right)\left((\widehat{𝒑}𝒓)\frac{1}{r^5}(𝒓𝝈\times \widehat{𝒑})+(𝝈\times \widehat{𝒑}𝒓)\frac{1}{r^5}(𝒓\widehat{𝒑})\right),$$
(7)
wich can be presented in the form:

$`V_T(𝒓)={\displaystyle \frac{e}{2\epsilon m^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{𝔪_T}{m}}+{\displaystyle \frac{𝔢_T}{\epsilon +m}}\right)\left(\widehat{𝒑}\{\mathbf{}𝑬(𝒓)\}(𝝈\times \widehat{𝒑})+(𝝈\times \widehat{𝒑})\{\mathbf{}𝑬(𝒓)\}\widehat{𝒑}\right),`$

where $`𝑬(𝒓)=\mathbf{}\varphi (𝒓)=Ze{\displaystyle \frac{𝒓}{r^3}}`$ is a strength of the electric field created by the nucleus at the point $`𝒓`$. $``$ means a direct vector product. Till now we did not take into consideration screening of the nucleus field by the electrons. To remedy this we take the nucleus electric potential in the form $`\varphi (r)={\displaystyle \frac{Ze}{r}}\text{Erfc}\left(\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{r}{R_a}}\right)`$, where $`\text{Erfc}(x)=\frac{2}{\sqrt{\pi }}\underset{x}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\text{e}^{t^2}𝑑t`$ and $`R_a`$ is atomic radius. Now, as it is usually done in the theory of channelling, we find the T-odd average potential of the atomic chain, with the thermal vibrations of atoms taken into account:

$`v_T(𝝆)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{d}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle V_T(𝒓𝑹)\left(\frac{3}{2\pi }\right)^{3/2}R_T^3\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{3R^2}{2R_T^2}\right)d^3𝑹𝑑z},`$ (8)
$`v_T(𝝆)={\displaystyle \frac{e}{2m^2\epsilon }}({\displaystyle \frac{𝔪_T}{m}}+{\displaystyle \frac{𝔢_T}{\epsilon +m}})((𝝈\times \widehat{𝒑}𝝆)2g^{}(\rho ^2)(𝝆\widehat{𝒑})+(\widehat{𝒑}𝝆)2g^{}(\rho ^2)(𝝆𝝈\times \widehat{𝒑})`$ (9)
$`(𝝈\times \widehat{𝒑}𝒂)g(\rho ^2)(𝒂\widehat{𝒑})(𝒂\widehat{𝒑})g(\rho ^2)(𝝈\times \widehat{𝒑}𝒂)),`$ (10)
where $`R_T^2`$ is root-mean-square amplitude of an atom thermal vibrations. Function $`g(\rho ^2)=\frac{1}{\rho }\frac{d\mathrm{\Phi }(\rho )}{d\rho }`$ is expressed through the ordinary T-even axis potential

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(\rho )=\frac{Ze}{d}\left(E_1\left(\frac{3\rho ^2}{2R_T^2+2R_a^2}\right)E_1\left(\frac{3\rho ^2}{2R_T^2}\right)\right),$$
(11)
obtained by the averaging of the screened Coulomb potential $`\varphi (r)`$ in the manner above. $`E_1(x)=\underset{1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}t^1e^{xt}𝑑t`$ is exponential integral.

Thus, the particle interaction with the axis consists of T-odd interaction $`v_T(\rho )`$ and T-even one $`v(\rho )=e\mathrm{\Phi }(\rho )`$.

T-odd amplitude per unit length of an axis can be calculated in the distored waves approximation :

$$F_T(0)=\frac{\epsilon }{2\pi }\frac{1}{d}\underset{d/2}{\overset{d/2}{}}𝑑zd^2𝝆\mathrm{\Psi }^{()}(𝒓)v_T(𝝆)\mathrm{\Psi }^{(+)}(𝒓).$$
(12)
Plane wave distortion by the Coulomb axis potential can be easy taken into account in terms of the eikonal approximation  using Schrodinger equation (6):

$$\mathrm{\Psi }^{(+)}(𝒓)=exp\left(\text{i}𝒑𝒓\text{i}\frac{\epsilon }{p}\delta (\rho ^2,(𝒏_{}𝝆))\right),\mathrm{\Psi }^{()}(𝒓)=exp\left(\text{i}𝒑𝒓+\text{i}\frac{\epsilon }{p}\delta (\rho ^2,(𝒏_{}𝝆))\right),$$
(13)
where $`\delta (\rho ^2,(𝒏_{}𝝆))=\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{(𝒏_{}𝝆)}{}}v(𝝆𝒏_{}(𝒏_{}𝝆)+𝒏_{}t)𝑑t,`$ $`𝒏_{}`$ is perpendicular to the axis component of a unit vector in the particle momentum direction. Note, that $`\delta `$ depends from $`𝝆`$ only through combinations $`\rho ^2`$ and $`(𝒏_{}𝝆)`$, that is corollary of the cylindrical symmetry of the system considered. Apparently, the same T-odd effect is to exist for neutrons also. In this case plane wave distorting by cylindrical potential originates from the neutron magnetic moment interaction with the charged nuclei or from the strong neutron interaction with nuclei. Substituting wave functions (13) and T-odd potential (9) into the equation (12) we obtain:

$`F_T(0)={\displaystyle \frac{Ze^2\epsilon }{2\pi m^2d}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{𝔪_T}{m}}+{\displaystyle \frac{𝔢_T}{\epsilon +m}}\right)(𝒏𝒂)(𝝈𝒂\times 𝒏)`$ (14)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{n_{}^2}}{\displaystyle }e^{\text{i}\frac{\epsilon }{p}(\delta (X,Y)+\delta (X,Y))}\{(2YX{\displaystyle \frac{\delta (X,Y)}{X}}+Y^2{\displaystyle \frac{\delta (X,Y)}{Y}})2g^{}(X)`$ (15)
$`+(2Y{\displaystyle \frac{\delta (X,Y)}{X}}+n_{}^2{\displaystyle \frac{\delta (X,Y)}{Y}})g(X)\}d^2𝝆,`$ (16)
where $`X=\rho ^2`$ and $`Y=(𝝆𝒏_{})`$.

To simplify the calculations $`g(\rho ^2)`$ and potential $`v(\rho )`$ have been approximated by the simple functions:

$`g(\rho ^2)=g(0)e^{\alpha \rho ^2},v(\rho )=v(0)e^{\alpha \rho ^2},`$

where $`g(0)={\displaystyle \frac{Ze}{d}}{\displaystyle \frac{3R_a^2}{(R_T^2+R_a^2)R_T^2}}`$, and $`v(0)={\displaystyle \frac{Ze^2}{d}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{R_T^2+R_a^2}{R_T^2}}\right)`$. For the tungsten the best fitted parameter $`\alpha `$, at $`R_T=0.087\text{Å}`$ and $`R_a=0.27\text{Å}`$, appears to be equal $`\alpha =51.4\text{Å}^2`$. Distance between atoms is $`d=3.165\text{Å}`$ for an axis $`(100)`$. T-odd spin rotation angle  $`\varphi _T`$ (per unit particle path length) in tungsten target and T-odd cross section by an axis $`\sigma _T`$ (per one axis atom) for protons with the energy 100 GeV are shown in fig. 3. The quantities involved are proportional to the real and imaginary parts of $`C_1`$ from the expression (2) accordingly :

$`\varphi _T={\displaystyle \frac{2\pi \mathrm{}\text{R}eC_1}{p}}n_{}d,\sigma _T={\displaystyle \frac{2\pi \text{I}mC_1}{p}}n_{}d.`$

From the (16) it follows, that at large energies, when $`\frac{\epsilon }{p}1`$, contribution determined by $`𝔪_T`$ to the T-odd amplitude is proportional to the energy of a particle. So, T-odd cross section and angle of spin rotation, appropriate to this contribution, do not depend on energy. Let’s remind, that, according to the eq.(3), T-violating charge $`𝔢_T`$ and magnetic moment $`𝔪_T`$ are measured in terms of $`e`$ and $`e/2m`$ accordingly. Results shown in fig.3 are calculated for $`𝔪_T+𝔢_T\left(1+\frac{\epsilon }{m}\right)^1=1`$. For this case the T-odd cross section is about $`10^4`$ mbarn. Accuracy of cross section measurements reaches $`10^6`$  by now, hence, it is possible to obtain restriction $`10^2`$ on $`𝔪_T`$. Measurements should be made for angles $`10^210^3`$. In doing so frequency of the T-odd scattering amplitude oscillation is not high, in addition, spin depolarisation (relative decreasing of absolute polarisation magnitude on unit particle path length) $`\eta =4\mathrm{}\frac{Z^2e^4}{m^2}\left(\mu \frac{\epsilon }{\epsilon +m}\right)^2\frac{R_aR_T}{dn_{}}`$. is low. The depolarisation arising from scattering by atomic chains is calculated in the manner described in  and comes to $`6\%`$ in one meter target for the angle $`n_{}=10^2`$.

Author is grateful to Dr. K. Batrakov for discussions, in which an idea of the work appears, and to Prof. V. Baryshevsky for valuable remarks.