text:
# Chapline-Manton interaction vertices and Hamiltonian BRST cohomology

## 1 Introduction

The problem of consistent interactions that can be introduced among fields with gauge freedom in such a way to preserve the number of gauge symmetries  has been reformulated as a deformation problem of the master equation  in the context of the antifield-BRST formalism . This technique has been applied to Chern-Simons models , Yang-Mills theories  and two-form gauge fields . Thus, the antifield BRST method was proved to be an elegant tool for analyzing the problem of consistent interactions.

In this paper we study another interesting interaction, namely, the consistent interaction between the Yang-Mills vector potential and an abelian two-form, but from the Hamiltonian BRST point of view , . Our procedure will lead to combined Yang-Mills-two-form system coupled through a Yang-Mills Chern-Simons term (the Chapline-Manton model) . Chern-Simons couplings of a two-form to Yang-Mills theory play a major role in the Green-Schwarz anomaly cancellation mechanism , and hence are useful in string theory . On the other hand, the Hamiltonian BRST approach appears to be a more natural setting for implementing the BRST symmetry in quantum mechanics  (chapter 14), as well as for establishing a proper connection with canonical quantization formalisms, like for instance the reduced phase-space or Dirac quantization procedures . To our knowledge, the Hamiltonian approach to consistent interactions among fields with gauge freedom has not been investigated until now, so our paper establishes a new result.

The strategy to be developed is the following. Initially, we begin with the “free” model describing pure Yang-Mills theory and a free abelian two-form and determine its main Hamiltonian BRST ingredients, namely, the BRST charge and BRST-invariant Hamiltonian. The BRST symmetry of the uncoupled theory, $`s`$, can be conveniently written like the sum between the Koszul-Tate differential and the exterior derivative along the gauge orbits, $`s=\delta +\gamma `$. Subsequently, we pass to the deformation procedure along the lines of a cohomological approach. Thus, we start by writing down the general equations representing the core of the Hamiltonian deformation procedure, which describe the deformation of the BRST charge, respectively, of the BRST-invariant Hamiltonian of the “free” theory. Then, we proceed to solve the main equations in relation with the model under study taking into account the BRST cohomology of the “free” theory. In this way, we reach the BRST charge and BRST-invariant Hamiltonian underlying the deformed model. Further, we identify the Hamiltonian system behind the deformation procedure by analyzing its first-class constraints, first-class Hamiltonian and the accompanying gauge algebra. It turns out that the resulting system is nothing but the Yang-Mills theory coupled to the 2-form through the Yang-Mills Chern-Simons interaction term, also known as the Chapline-Manton model.

## 2 Hamiltonian BRST symmetry for the uncoupled theory

In this section we derive the Hamiltonian BRST symmetry for the “free” theory. In this respect, we begin with a Lagrangian action equal with the sum between the actions of Yang-Mills theory and a free 2-form

$$S_0^L[A_\mu ^a,B_{\mu \nu }]=d^Dx\left(\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }^aF_a^{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{12}F_{\mu \nu \rho }F^{\mu \nu \rho }\right),$$
(1)
where

$$F_{\mu \nu }^a=_\mu A_\nu ^a_\nu A_\mu ^af_{bc}^aA_\mu ^bA_\nu ^c,$$
(2)
$$F_{\mu \nu \rho }=_\mu B_{\nu \rho }+_\rho B_{\mu \nu }+_\nu B_{\rho \mu }_{[\mu }B_{\nu \rho ]}.$$
(3)
The canonical analysis of action (1) gives the first-class constraints

$$G_a^{(1)}\pi _a^00,G_i^{(1)}\pi _{0i}0,$$
(4)
$$G_a^{(2)}\left(_j\pi _a^jf_{ac}^b\pi _b^jA_j^c\right)0,G_i^{(2)}2^j\pi _{ji}0,$$
(5)
and the first-class Hamiltonian

$`H_0={\displaystyle }d^{D1}x({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\pi _{aj}\pi _j^a+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_{ij}^aF_a^{ij}+A_0^aG_a^{(2)}`$
$`\pi _{ij}\pi ^{ij}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}F_{ijk}F^{ijk}+B^{0i}G_i^{(2)}).`$ (6)
In (42), $`\pi _a^\mu `$ and $`\pi _{\mu \nu }`$ denote the canonical momenta of $`A_\mu ^a`$, respectively, $`B^{\mu \nu }`$. The gauge algebra of the uncoupled model reads as

$$[G_a^{(1)},G_b^{(1)}]=0,[G_a^{(1)},G_b^{(2)}]=0,[G_a^{(2)},G_b^{(2)}]=f_{ab}^cG_c^{(2)},$$
(7)
$$[G_i^{(1)},G_j^{(1)}]=0,[G_i^{(1)},G_j^{(2)}]=0,[G_i^{(2)},G_j^{(2)}]=0,$$
(8)
$$[G_a^{(1)},G_i^{(1)}]=0,[G_a^{(1)},G_i^{(2)}]=0,[G_a^{(2)},G_i^{(1)}]=0,[G_a^{(2)},G_i^{(2)}]=0,$$
(9)
$$[H_0,G_a^{(1)}]=G_a^{(2)},[H_0,G_a^{(2)}]=f_{ab}^cA_0^bG_c^{(2)},$$
(10)
$$[H_0,G_i^{(1)}]=G_i^{(2)},[H_0,G_i^{(2)}]=0.$$
(11)
In addition, the constraint functions $`G_i^{(2)}`$ are first-stage reducible, i.e.,

$$^iG_i^{(2)}=0.$$
(12)
On account of (712), the BRST charge and BRST-invariant Hamiltonian of the uncoupled theory are given by

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_0={\displaystyle }d^{D1}x(G_a^{(1)}\eta _1^a+G_a^{(2)}\eta _2^a+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}f_{bc}^a𝒫_{2a}\eta _2^b\eta _2^c+`$
$`G_i^{(1)}\eta _1^i+G_i^{(2)}\eta _2^i+\eta ^i𝒫_{2i}),`$ (13)
$$H_B=H_0+d^{D1}x\left(\left(\eta _1^af_{bc}^a\eta _2^bA_0^c\right)𝒫_{2a}+\eta _1^i𝒫_{2i}\right).$$
(14)
In the above, $`\eta _1^a`$, $`\eta _2^a`$, $`\eta _1^i`$ and $`\eta _2^i`$ stand for the fermionic ghost number one Hamiltonian ghosts, $`\eta `$ denotes the bosonic ghost number two ghost for ghost, while the $`𝒫`$’s represent their corresponding canonical momenta (antighosts). The ghost number is defined like the difference between the pure ghost number ($`pgh`$) and the antighost number ($`antigh`$), with

$$pgh\left(z^A\right)=0,pgh\left(\eta ^\mathrm{\Gamma }\right)=1,pgh\left(\eta \right)=2,pgh\left(𝒫_\mathrm{\Gamma }\right)=0,pgh\left(𝒫\right)=0,$$
(15)
$$antigh\left(z^A\right)=0,antigh\left(\eta ^\mathrm{\Gamma }\right)=0,antigh\left(\eta \right)=0,$$
(16)
$$antigh\left(𝒫_\mathrm{\Gamma }\right)=1,antigh\left(𝒫\right)=2,$$
(17)
where

$$z^A=(A_\mu ^a,B^{\mu \nu },\pi _a^\mu ,\pi _{\mu \nu }),\eta ^\mathrm{\Gamma }=(\eta _1^a,\eta _2^a,\eta _1^i,\eta _2^i),𝒫_\mathrm{\Gamma }=(𝒫_{1a},𝒫_{2a},𝒫_{1i},𝒫_{2i}).$$
(18)
The BRST differential $`s=[,\mathrm{\Omega }_0]`$ of the uncoupled theory splits as

$$s=\delta +\gamma ,$$
(19)
where $`\delta `$ is the Koszul-Tate differential, and $`\gamma `$ represents the exterior longitudinal derivative along the gauge orbits. These operators act like

$$\delta z^A=0,\delta \eta ^\mathrm{\Gamma }=0,\delta \eta =0,$$
(20)
$$\delta 𝒫_{1a}=\pi _a^0,\delta 𝒫_{2a}=_j\pi _a^jf_{ac}^b\pi _b^jA_j^c,$$
(21)
$$\delta 𝒫_{1i}=\pi _{0i},\delta 𝒫_{2i}=2^j\pi _{ji},\delta 𝒫=^i𝒫_{2i},$$
(22)
$$\gamma A_0^a=\eta _1^a,\gamma A_i^a=_i\eta _2^a+f_{bc}^a\eta _2^bA_i^c,\gamma B^{0i}=\eta _1^i,\gamma B^{ij}=^{[i}\eta _2^{j]},$$
(23)
$$\gamma \pi _a^0=0,\gamma \pi _a^i=f_{ac}^b\pi _b^i\eta _2^c,\gamma \pi _{0i}=0,\gamma \pi _{ij}=0,$$
(24)
$$\gamma \eta _1^a=0,\gamma \eta _2^a=\frac{1}{2}f_{bc}^a\eta _2^b\eta _2^c,\gamma \eta _1^i=0,\gamma \eta _2^i=^i\eta ,\gamma \eta =0,$$
(25)
$$\gamma 𝒫_{1a}=0,\gamma 𝒫_{2a}=f_{ab}^c𝒫_{2c}\eta _2^b,\gamma 𝒫_{1i}=0,\gamma 𝒫_{2i}=0,\gamma 𝒫=0.$$
(26)
Formulas (2026) will be employed in the next section in the framework of the deformation procedure.

## 3 Deformation of the “free” theory

In this section we deform the uncoupled model discussed above in the framework of the Hamiltonian BRST formalism. First, we write down the general equations underlying the deformation of the BRST charge and BRST-invariant Hamiltonian. Second, we solve these equations with respect to the model under study by using the cohomological technique. Finally, we identify the new gauge theory, which turns out to be nothing but the Chapline-Manton model.

### 3.1 Hamiltonian deformation problem

It is well-known that the solution to the master equation captures all the information on a given gauge theory at the level of the antifield BRST formalism. The gauge-fixed dynamics is generated by the gauge-fixed action, which is obtained from the solution to the master equation by using a certain gauge-fixing fermion. Moreover, it has been shown that the deformation of the solution to the master equation generates consistent interactions among fields with gauge freedom . At the Hamiltonian level, the BRST charge $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ contains all the information on the structure of a first-class system. In this sense, the BRST charge plays a role similar to that of the solution to the master equation. However, in order to stipulate the correct dynamics, one needs a Hamiltonian, which is nothing but the gauge-fixed Hamiltonian $`H_K=H_B+[K,\mathrm{\Omega }_0]`$, where $`H_B`$ stands for the BRST-invariant Hamiltonian and $`K`$ is the gauge-fixing fermion. Thus, we can conclude that the problem of deforming the master equation induces at the Hamiltonian level the deformation of the equation $`[\mathrm{\Omega }_0,\mathrm{\Omega }_0]=0`$, as well as of the BRST-invariant Hamiltonian of the “free” theory.

The Lagrangian deformation implies that the BRST charge of the uncoupled theory is deformed as

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_0\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{\Omega }_0+g{\displaystyle d^{D1}\omega _1}+g^2{\displaystyle d^{D1}\omega _2}+O\left(g^3\right)=`$
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_0+g\mathrm{\Omega }_1+g^2\mathrm{\Omega }_2+O\left(g^3\right),`$ (27)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ should satisfy the equation

$$[\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Omega }]=0.$$
(28)
Equation (28) splits accordingly the deformation parameter as

$$[\mathrm{\Omega }_0,\mathrm{\Omega }_0]=0,$$
(29)
$$2[\mathrm{\Omega }_0,\mathrm{\Omega }_1]=0,$$
(30)
$$2[\mathrm{\Omega }_0,\mathrm{\Omega }_2]+[\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_1]=0,$$
(31)
$$\mathrm{}$$

Obviously, equation (29) is automatically satisfied. From the remaining equations we deduce the pieces $`\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_k\right)_{k>0}`$ on account of the “free” BRST differential. With the deformed BRST charge at hand, we then deform the BRST-invariant Hamiltonian of the “free” theory

$`H_B\stackrel{~}{H}_B=H_B+g{\displaystyle d^{D1}h_1}+g^2{\displaystyle d^{D1}h_2}+O\left(g^3\right)=`$
$`H_B+gH_1+g^2H_2+O\left(g^3\right),`$ (32)
and require that

$$[\stackrel{~}{H}_B,\mathrm{\Omega }]=0.$$
(33)
Like in the previous case, equation (33) can be decomposed accordingly the deformation parameter like

$$[H_B,\mathrm{\Omega }_0]=0,$$
(34)
$$[H_B,\mathrm{\Omega }_1]+[H_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_0]=0,$$
(35)
$$[H_B,\mathrm{\Omega }_2]+[H_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_1]+[H_2,\mathrm{\Omega }_0]=0,$$
(36)
$$\mathrm{}$$

Clearly, equation (34) is again fulfilled, while from the other equations one can determine the components $`\left(H_k\right)_{k1}`$ relying on the BRST symmetry of the “free” model.

### 3.2 Deformation of BRST charge

Here, we solve the equations (3031) in the context of the uncoupled model under discussion taking into account that the “free” BRST differential splits as in (19). Equation (30) holds if and only if $`\omega _1`$ is a $`s`$-co-cycle modulo $`\stackrel{~}{d}=dx^i_i`$, i.e.,

$$s\omega _1=_kj^k,$$
(37)
for some $`j^k`$. In order to solve equation (37) we expand $`\omega _1`$ according to the antighost number

$$\omega _1=\underset{1}{\overset{(0)}{\omega }}+\underset{1}{\overset{(1)}{\omega }}+\mathrm{}\underset{1}{\overset{(J)}{\omega }},antigh\left(\underset{1}{\overset{(I)}{\omega }}\right)=I,$$
(38)
where the last term in (38) can be assumed to be annihilated by $`\gamma `$. Since $`antigh\left(\underset{1}{\overset{(J)}{\omega }}\right)=J`$ and $`gh\left(\underset{1}{\overset{(J)}{\omega }}\right)=1`$, it follows that $`pgh\left(\underset{1}{\overset{(J)}{\omega }}\right)=J+1`$. On the other hand, we have that

$$\rho =\frac{1}{3}f_{abc}\eta _2^a\eta _2^b\eta _2^c,$$
(39)
and the ghost for ghost $`\eta `$ are $`\gamma `$-invariant, hence we can represent $`\underset{1}{\overset{(J)}{\omega }}`$ as

$$\underset{1}{\overset{(J)}{\omega }}=\mu _J\underset{N,M}{}\left(\rho \right)^N\left(\eta \right)^M,$$
(40)
where $`N`$, $`M`$ are some nonnegative integers with $`3N+2M=J+1`$. With this choice, it is easy to check that the $`\gamma `$-invariant coefficient $`\mu _J`$ belongs to $`H_J\left(\delta |\stackrel{~}{d}\right)`$. Using the results from  adapted to the Hamiltonian treatment, it follows that $`H_J\left(\delta |\stackrel{~}{d}\right)=0`$ for $`J>2`$ in the case of our uncoupled model. This means that the last term in (38) corresponds to $`J=2`$, which then leads to $`3N+2M=3`$. As a consequence, we have that $`N=1`$, $`M=0`$ (the ghost for ghost brings no contribution), such that (38) takes the form

$$\omega _1=\underset{1}{\overset{(0)}{\omega }}+\underset{1}{\overset{(1)}{\omega }}+\underset{1}{\overset{(2)}{\omega }},$$
(41)
where

$$\underset{1}{\overset{(2)}{\omega }}=\frac{1}{3}\mu _2f_{abc}\eta _2^a\eta _2^b\eta _2^c,$$
(42)
and $`\mu _2`$ from $`H_2\left(\delta |\stackrel{~}{d}\right)`$, therefore solution to the equation

$$\delta \mu _2+_kv^k=0,$$
(43)
for some $`v^k`$. From the last relation in (22) we find that $`\mu _2=𝒫`$, so

$$\underset{1}{\overset{(2)}{\omega }}=\frac{1}{3}f_{abc}𝒫\eta _2^a\eta _2^b\eta _2^c.$$
(44)
At antighost number one, equation (37) takes the form

$$\delta \underset{1}{\overset{(2)}{\omega }}+\gamma \underset{1}{\overset{(1)}{\omega }}=_ku^k.$$
(45)
Starting from

$$\delta \underset{1}{\overset{(2)}{\omega }}=\frac{1}{3}f_{abc}\left(^i𝒫_{2i}\right)\eta _2^a\eta _2^b\eta _2^c,$$
(46)
we deduce

$$\underset{1}{\overset{(1)}{\omega }}=f_{abc}𝒫_{2i}\eta _2^a\eta _2^bA^{ci},$$
(47)
such that

$$\delta \underset{1}{\overset{(2)}{\omega }}+\gamma \underset{1}{\overset{(1)}{\omega }}=^i\left(\frac{1}{3}f_{abc}𝒫_{2i}\eta _2^a\eta _2^b\eta _2^c\right).$$
(48)
At antighost number zero, equation (37) is given by

$$\delta \underset{1}{\overset{(1)}{\omega }}+\gamma \underset{1}{\overset{(0)}{\omega }}=_kw^k.$$
(49)
On account of (47), it results that

$$\delta \underset{1}{\overset{(1)}{\omega }}=2f_{abc}\eta _2^a\eta _2^bA_i^c_j\pi ^{ji},$$
(50)
which further leads to

$$\underset{1}{\overset{(0)}{\omega }}=4\pi ^{ji}\left(_jA_{ai}\right)\eta _2^a,$$
(51)
such that

$$\delta \underset{1}{\overset{(1)}{\omega }}+\gamma \underset{1}{\overset{(0)}{\omega }}=_j\left(2f_{abc}\eta _2^a\eta _2^bA_i^c\pi ^{ji}\right).$$
(52)
Thus, we have generated the first-order deformation of the BRST charge under the form

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_1=d^{D1}x\left(4\pi ^{ji}\left(_jA_{ai}\right)\eta _2^af_{abc}𝒫_{2i}\eta _2^a\eta _2^bA^{ci}+\frac{1}{3}f_{abc}𝒫\eta _2^a\eta _2^b\eta _2^c\right).$$
(53)
The deformation is consistent also to order $`g^2`$ if and only if $`[\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_1]`$ is $`s`$-exact (see (31)). It is easy to see that $`[\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_1]=0`$, so $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2=0`$. The higher-order equations are then satisfied with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_3=\mathrm{\Omega }_4=\mathrm{}=0`$. In this way, we inferred that $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{\Omega }_0+g\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$ is a complete solution for the equation (28) that describes the deformation of the BRST charge.

### 3.3 Deformation of BRST-invariant Hamiltonian

Next we pass to determine the deformation of the BRST-invariant Hamiltonian (14). Initially, we compute $`H_1`$ as solution to the equation (35). Simple calculations lead to the expression of the first term in (35) of the type

$`[H_B,\mathrm{\Omega }_1]={\displaystyle }d^{D1}x(f_{abc}𝒫_{2i}\eta _2^a\eta _2^b(\pi ^{ci}^iA_0^cf_{de}^cA_0^dA^{ei})`$
$`4\left(\pi _a^if_{abc}A_0^bA^{ci}\right)^j\left(\pi _{ji}\eta _2^a\right)2\left(_iF^{ijk}\right)\left(_jA_{ak}\right)\eta _2^a`$
$`(\eta _1^cf_{de}^cA_0^e\eta _2^d)(f_{abc}𝒫\eta _2^a\eta _2^b+4\pi ^{ji}_jA_{ci}+2f_{abc}𝒫_{2i}A^{ai}\eta _2^b))=`$
$`{\displaystyle d^{D1}x\lambda }.`$ (54)
In consequence, (35) gives

$$sh_1+\lambda =_k\alpha ^k,$$
(55)
for some $`\alpha ^k`$. Then, we further obtain

$`h_1=4\left(A_a^0_iA_j^a\pi _{ai}A_j^a\right)\pi ^{ij}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}F^{ijk}\left(f_{abc}A_i^aA_j^bA_k^c+A_{[i}^aF_{ajk]}\right)+`$
$`2\left(\pi _a^i+f_{abc}A_0^cA^{ib}\right)\eta _2^a𝒫_{2i}+f_{abc}A_0^c𝒫\eta _2^a\eta _2^b,`$ (56)
such that

$$sh_1+\lambda =_k\left(\left(f_{abc}A_0^c𝒫_2^k\eta _2^b2F^{ijk}_iA_{aj}\right)\eta _2^a\right).$$
(57)
With $`h_1`$ at hand, we pass to solve equation (36). The first term in (36) vanishes ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_2=0`$), while the second term is given by

$`[H_1,\mathrm{\Omega }_1]={\displaystyle }d^{D1}x(4(f_{abc}𝒫_2^i\eta _2^a\eta _2^b4_j\left(\pi ^{_{ji}}\eta _{2c}\right)A^{ck}\pi _{ik})+`$
$`2\left(^i(f_{abc}A_i^aA_j^bA_k^c+A_{[i}^aF_{ajk]})\right)\left(^{[j}A_d^{k]}\right)\eta _2^d)={\displaystyle }d^{D1}x\nu .`$ (58)
Therefore, equation (36) implies

$$sh_2+\nu =^i\beta _i.$$
(59)
The solution to (59) reads as

$$h_2=8A^{ka}A_{ja}\pi _{ik}\pi ^{ij}+\frac{1}{3}\left(f_{abc}A_i^aA_j^bA_k^c+A_{[i}^aF_{ajk]}\right)^2+8A_a^j\pi _{ij}\eta _2^a𝒫_2^i,$$
(60)
so we find that

$$sh_2+\nu =^i\left(2\left(f_{abc}A_i^aA_j^bA_k^c+A_{[i}^aF_{ajk]}\right)\left(^{[j}A_d^{k]}\right)\eta _2^d\right).$$
(61)
In this manner, we inferred also the order $`g^2`$ deformation of the BRST-invariant Hamiltonian. The equation describing the order $`g^3`$ deformation is clearly satisfied for $`h_3=0`$ because all the terms that do not involve $`h_3`$ vanish. The higher-order deformation equations are then fulfilled for $`h_4=h_5=\mathrm{}=0`$. In conclusion, $`\stackrel{~}{H}_B=H_B+gd^{D1}xh_1+g^2d^{D1}xh_2`$, with $`h_1`$ and $`h_2`$ expressed by (3.3), respectively, (60), is solution to the deformation problem of the BRST-invariant Hamiltonian.

### 3.4 Identification of the new gauge theory

Putting together the results deduced in the previous two subsections, we remark that the complete solutions to the deformation problems related to the BRST charge and BRST-invariant Hamiltonian are pictured by

$`\mathrm{\Omega }={\displaystyle }d^{D1}x((_j\pi _a^jf_{ac}^b\pi _b^jA_j^c4g\pi ^{ij}_iA_{aj})\eta _2^a+`$
$`\pi _a^0\eta _1^a+\pi _{0i}\eta _1^i+\eta ^i𝒫_{2i}2\left(^j\pi _{ji}\right)\eta _2^i+`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}f_{ab}^c(𝒫_{2c}+2gA_c^i𝒫_{2i})\eta _2^a\eta _2^b+{\displaystyle \frac{g}{3}}f_{abc}𝒫\eta _2^a\eta _2^b\eta _2^c),`$ (62)
respectively,

$`\stackrel{~}{H}_B={\displaystyle }d^{D1}x(A_0^a(_j\pi _a^jf_{ac}^b\pi _b^jA_j^c4g\pi ^{ij}_iA_{aj})2B^{0i}^j\pi _{ji}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\pi _i^a+4gA^{ak}\pi _{ik}\right)\left(\pi _a^i+4gA_{aj}\pi ^{ij}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_{ij}^aF_a^{ij}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}H_{ijk}H^{ijk}`$
$`\pi _{ij}\pi ^{ij}+\left(\eta _1^i+2g\left(f_{abc}A^{bi}A_0^c+\pi _a^i+4gA_{aj}\pi ^{ij}\right)\eta _2^a\right)𝒫_{2i}+`$
$`(\eta _1^af_{bc}^aA_0^c\eta _2^b)𝒫_{2a}+gf_{abc}A_0^c\eta _2^a\eta _2^b𝒫),`$ (63)
where

$$H_{ijk}=F_{ijk}2g\left(f_{abc}A_i^aA_j^bA_k^c+A_{[i}^aF_{ajk]}\right).$$
(64)
From the antighost-independent terms in (3.4) we observe that the deformation of the BRST charge implies the deformed first-class constraints

$$\stackrel{~}{G}_a^{(2)}\left(_j\pi _a^jf_{ac}^b\pi _b^jA_j^c4g\pi ^{ij}_iA_{aj}\right)0,$$
(65)
the remaining constraints in (45) being undeformed. Moreover, the term $`gf_{ab}^cA_c^i𝒫_{2i}\eta _2^a\eta _2^b`$ shows that the Poisson brackets among the new constraint functions $`\stackrel{~}{G}_a^{(2)}`$ are also deformed like

$$[\stackrel{~}{G}_a^{(2)},\stackrel{~}{G}_b^{(2)}]=f_{ab}^c\left(\stackrel{~}{G}_c^{(2)}+2gA_c^iG_i^{(2)}\right),$$
(66)
so the first-class constraint algebra becomes open. On the other hand, the antighost-independent piece in (3.4)

$`\stackrel{~}{H}={\displaystyle }d^{D1}x(A_0^a(_j\pi _a^jf_{ac}^b\pi _b^jA_j^c4g\pi ^{ij}_iA_{aj})`$
$`2B^{0i}^j\pi _{ji}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\pi _i^a+4gA^{ak}\pi _{ik}\right)\left(\pi _a^i+4gA_{aj}\pi ^{ij}\right)`$
$`\pi _{ij}\pi ^{ij}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_{ij}^aF_a^{ij}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}H_{ijk}H^{ijk}),`$ (67)
is nothing but the first-class Hamiltonian of the deformed theory. The components linear in the antighost number one antighosts from (3.4) emphasize that the Poisson brackets among the new first-class Hamiltonian and new first-class constraint functions $`\stackrel{~}{G}_a^{(2)}`$ are modified as

$$[\stackrel{~}{H},\stackrel{~}{G}_a^{(2)}]=f_{ab}^cA_0^b\left(\stackrel{~}{G}_c^{(2)}+2gA_c^iG_i^{(2)}\right)+2g\left(\pi _a^i+4gA_{aj}\pi ^{ij}\right)G_i^{(2)},$$
(68)
the others being kept unchanged with respect to the uncoupled model. The resulting first-class Hamiltonian and gauge algebra describe the Yang-Mills Chern-Simons couplings among a Yang-Mills-2-form system, known as the Chapline-Manton model. As the first-class constraints generate gauge transformations, from the deformations (6566) we can conclude that the added interactions involved with (3.4) modify both the gauge transformations and their gauge algebra. However, our procedure does not affect in any way the reducibility relations of the uncoupled theory.

The Lagrangian version of the resulting deformed model can be derived as usually, via employing the extended and total formalisms, which then produce nothing but the well-known Lagrangian action

$$\stackrel{~}{S}_0^L[A_\mu ^a,B_{\mu \nu }]=d^Dx\left(\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }^aF_a^{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{12}H_{\mu \nu \rho }H^{\mu \nu \rho }\right),$$
(69)
subject to the gauge transformations

$$\delta _ϵA_\mu ^a=\left(D_\mu \right)_b^aϵ^b,\delta _ϵB_{\mu \nu }=_{[\mu }ϵ_{\nu ]}+2gϵ_a_{[\mu }A_{\nu ]}^a,$$
(70)
where

$$H_{\mu \nu \rho }=F_{\mu \nu \rho }2g\left(f_{abc}A_\mu ^aA_\nu ^bA_\rho ^c+A_{[\mu }^aF_{a\nu \rho ]}\right),$$
(71)
and $`\left(D_\mu \right)_b^a=\delta _b^a_\mu +f_{bc}^aA_\mu ^c`$ is the covariant derivative. It is precisely the piece linear in the deformation parameter from (65) that leads to the second term in the Lagrangian gauge transformations of $`B_{\mu \nu }`$.

## 4 Conclusion

To conclude with, in this paper we have derived the consistent interactions that can be introduced among Yang-Mills gauge fields and an abelian two-form. Beginning with the BRST differential for the uncoupled model, we have initially deduced the first-order deformation of the BRST charge by expanding the co-cycles accordingly the antighost number. Subsequently, we have shown that this deformation is consistent also at higher-orders. In the next step we have determined a deformed BRST-invariant Hamiltonian, that is quadratic in the deformation parameter. In this manner, we have generated precisely the combined Yang-Mills-two-form system coupled through Yang-Mills Chern-Simons term. The added interactions deform both the gauge transformations and gauge algebra, but not the reducibility relations.

## Acknowledgment

Two of the authors (C.B. and S.O.S.) acknowledge financial support from a Romanian National Council for Academic Scientific Research (CNCSIS) grant.


format: text

text:
# One-Dimensional Textures and Critical Velocity in Superfluid 3He-A

## I Introduction

The superflow of 3He-A differs markedly from the well known superfluid 4He, where the decay of persistent currents is prevented by topological constraints. The circulation of the superfluid velocity $`𝐯_\mathrm{s}`$ on a closed contour is not quantized in 3He-A, but depends on the field $`\widehat{𝐥}(𝐫)`$ of the orbital anisotropy vector. Thus 3He-A can respond to externally applied flow by forming an inhomogeneous texture of $`\widehat{𝐥}(𝐫)`$. The rigidity of the order parameter stabilizes the uniform bulk state (with $`\widehat{𝐥}(𝐫)=`$ constant) for small flow velocities in most cases, depending on the magnitude and direction of the external magnetic field $`𝐇`$. With increasing velocity this configuration becomes unstable against textural inhomogeneities that finally lead to the formation of “continuous” vortices. In several cases a helical texture of $`\widehat{𝐥}(𝐫)`$ is stabilized at intermediate velocities.

The flow properties of bulk 3He-A were studied in many theoretical papers which peak in the late 1970’s . The majority of that work studied the case where the superfluid velocity and the magnetic field are parallel. Various methods were used to generate the flow experimentally (torsional oscillator, thermal gradient, a piston, etc. see Refs.  for reviews). Although some of the predicted features were seen in the experiments, no satisfactory agreement between theory and experiment was found.

More recently, a rotating cryostat has been used to generate superflow . This method gives a well defined dc superfluid velocity under very steady conditions. These experiments motivated our theoretical studies. Firstly, it was necessary to study the case where $`𝐯_\mathrm{s}`$ is perpendicular to $`𝐇`$. The helical texture in this case was previously considered only in one paper . Secondly, the calculation has to be generalized to temperatures substantially below the superfluid transition temperature $`T_\mathrm{c}`$. Thirdly, we consider two different types of “solitons”. These are domain-wall like structures whose effect on the flow properties were previously considered in a few cases . Here we present detailed calculations of the critical velocities $`v_\mathrm{c}`$ for the appearance of helical textures and of vortices in different cases with $`𝐯_\mathrm{s}𝐇`$. The comparison of the results with experimental measurements has been given before .

The hydrodynamic free energy describing the current-carrying states of 3He-A is recalled in Sec. II. In Sec. III we study the general features of our one-dimensional model and its numerical solution. Sec. IV discusses the instabilities of uniform and helical textures. In Sec. V the critical velocity associated with two initially inhomogeneous textures, a dipole-locked and a dipole-unlocked soliton, is investigated. The comparison to experiments is briefly discussed in Sec. VI.

## II Hydrostatic theory

The order parameter of 3He-A is fully specified by defining an orthonormal triad $`\{\widehat{𝐦}`$, $`\widehat{𝐧}`$, $`\widehat{𝐥}\}`$ and a unit vector $`\widehat{𝐝}`$. The triad describes the orbital part and $`\widehat{𝐝}`$ the spin part of the tensor order parameter

$$A_{\mu j}=\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{d}_\mu (\widehat{m}_j+\mathrm{i}\widehat{n}_j).$$
(1)
Here $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is a (temperature-dependent) constant and $`\widehat{𝐥}\widehat{𝐦}\times \widehat{𝐧}`$. All the unit vectors may vary as functions of location $`𝐫`$. A change in the total phase $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ of the order parameter (1) is given by

$$\delta \mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{1}{2}\underset{j}{}\left[\widehat{m}_j\delta \widehat{n}_j\widehat{n}_j\delta \widehat{m}_j\right]=\underset{j}{}\widehat{m}_j\delta \widehat{n}_j.$$
(2)
This allows for the definition for the superfluid velocity as

$$𝐯_\mathrm{s}=\frac{\mathrm{}}{2m}\underset{j}{}\widehat{m}_j\mathbf{}\widehat{n}_j,$$
(3)
where $`m`$ in the prefactor is the mass of a 3He atom. The equilibrium properties of the superfluid are determined by the order-parameter configuration that minimizes the total free energy. In the hydrodynamic approximation it has the form

$$F=\mathrm{d}^3𝐫f=\mathrm{d}^3𝐫(f_{\mathrm{gr}}+f_\mathrm{d}+f_\mathrm{h}).$$
(4)
The gradient energy density can be written as

$`f_{\mathrm{gr}}`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}\rho _{}𝐯_\mathrm{s}^2+\frac{1}{2}(\rho _{}\rho _{})(\widehat{𝐥}𝐯_\mathrm{s})^2`$ (5)
$`+`$ $`C𝐯_\mathrm{s}\times \widehat{𝐥}C_0(\widehat{𝐥}𝐯_\mathrm{s})(\widehat{𝐥}\times \widehat{𝐥})`$ (6)
$`+`$ $`\frac{1}{2}K_\mathrm{s}(\widehat{𝐥})^2+\frac{1}{2}K_\mathrm{t}(\widehat{𝐥}\times \widehat{𝐥})^2+\frac{1}{2}K_\mathrm{b}|\widehat{𝐥}\times (\times \widehat{𝐥})|^2`$ (7)
$`+`$ $`\frac{1}{2}K_5|(\widehat{𝐥})\widehat{𝐝}|^2+\frac{1}{2}K_6_{ij}[(\widehat{𝐥}\times )_i\widehat{𝐝}_j]^2.`$ (8)
The first four terms give the kinetic energy of the anisotropic superfluid. The $`C`$ and $`C_0`$ terms give coupling between flow and an inhomogeneous $`\widehat{𝐥}`$ field. The remaining five terms are the bending energy densities for $`\widehat{𝐥}`$ and $`\widehat{𝐝}`$.

The energy density of dipole-dipole interaction is

$$f_\mathrm{d}=\frac{1}{2}g_\mathrm{d}(\widehat{𝐝}\widehat{𝐥})^2.$$
(9)
Comparing this to the kinetic energy (8) defines the dipole velocity $`v_\mathrm{d}=\sqrt{g_\mathrm{d}/\rho _{}}1`$ mm/s and the dipole length $`\xi _\mathrm{d}=\mathrm{}/2mv_\mathrm{d}10\mu `$m. In addition, the energy density in the presence of an external magnetic field $`𝐇`$ is

$$f_\mathrm{h}=\frac{1}{2}g_\mathrm{h}(\widehat{𝐝}𝐇)^2.$$
(10)
It is customary to define the dipole field $`H_\mathrm{d}=\sqrt{g_\mathrm{d}/g_\mathrm{h}}`$ 2 mT by comparing (9) and (10).

All the coefficients $`\rho _{}`$, $`\rho _{}`$, $`C`$, $`C_0`$, $`K_\mathrm{s}`$, $`K_\mathrm{t}`$, $`K_\mathrm{b}`$, $`K_5`$, $`K_6`$, $`g_\mathrm{d}`$, and $`g_\mathrm{h}`$ are positive and depend on the temperature $`T`$ and the pressure $`p`$. Their values are determined as explained in Ref. . In particular, the coefficients are calculated using consistently the weak-coupling approximation. In reduced units of $`v_\mathrm{d}`$, $`\xi _\mathrm{d}`$ and $`H_\mathrm{d}`$ our results are independent of $`g_\mathrm{d}`$ and $`g_\mathrm{h}`$, but they are needed for comparison to experiments . For $`g_\mathrm{d}`$ we write

$$g_\mathrm{d}(T,p)=4g_\mathrm{D}^0(p)\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{A}^2(T,p),$$
(11)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{A}`$ is the maximum energy gap in the weak-coupling approximation. All calculations are done at the melting pressure where $`g_\mathrm{D}^0=5.910^{44}\mathrm{J}^1\mathrm{m}^3`$ . We wish to emphasize that the calculations contain no adjustable parameters.

The hydrostatic theory gives a good description of the superflow in 3He-A over most of the temperature region $`0<T<T_\mathrm{c}`$. It becomes invalid in a small region $`T_\mathrm{c}T10^6T_\mathrm{c}`$ around $`T_\mathrm{c}`$, where the Ginzburg-Landau critical velocity $`\frac{\mathrm{}}{2m}\xi _{\mathrm{GL}}^1`$ is smaller than $`v_\mathrm{d}`$. We also limit to such low fields that the deformation of the A phase order parameter (1) towards the A1 phase can be neglected.

## III One-dimensional calculation

We study flow in bulk 3He-A far from any walls. The main assumption in the present work is that the order parameter (1) depends only on one spatial coordinate $`x`$. It follows from the definition (3) that $`𝐯_\mathrm{s}`$ is always parallel to the $`x`$ axis, $`𝐯_\mathrm{s}\widehat{𝐱}`$. In addition to the homogeneous state, the 1D model allows us to calculate the structure of helical textures and the deformation of solitons in a flow that is perpendicular to the soliton wall. Moreover, we also can determine the stability limits of such textures against 1D perturbations. We will argue in section VI that the local stability of the states we consider is indeed determined by such perturbations.

The cases of $`H=0`$  and $`𝐇\widehat{𝐱}`$  have been studied extensively in the literature . Here we study the more complicated case $`𝐇\widehat{𝐱}`$ . We study in particular the high field limit $`HH_\mathrm{d}`$, where $`\widehat{𝐝}𝐇`$ everywhere.

The order parameter of 3He-A can be parametrized by introducing three Euler angles $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$ for the orbital triad $`\{\widehat{𝐦}`$, $`\widehat{𝐧}`$, $`\widehat{𝐥}\}`$ and polar and azimuthal angles $`\psi `$ and $`\varphi `$ for $`\widehat{𝐝}`$. In this representation one has to beware the unphysical singularities at the poles $`\mathrm{sin}\beta =0`$ or $`\mathrm{sin}\psi =0`$. For this reason we choose the polar axis $`\widehat{𝐳}`$ of the fixed coordinate system perpendicular to the direction of $`𝐯_\mathrm{s}`$ (and parallel to the external magnetic field). This results in a more complicated form of the energy functional but it enables us to avoid the singularities in all stationary states. With these definitions

$`\widehat{𝐥}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}\beta \mathrm{cos}\alpha \widehat{𝐱}+\mathrm{sin}\beta \mathrm{sin}\alpha \widehat{𝐲}+\mathrm{cos}\beta \widehat{𝐳}`$ (12)
$`\widehat{𝐝}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}\psi \mathrm{cos}\varphi \widehat{𝐱}+\mathrm{sin}\psi \mathrm{sin}\varphi \widehat{𝐲}+\mathrm{cos}\psi \widehat{𝐳}`$ (13)
$`𝐯_\mathrm{s}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2m}}({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\gamma }{\mathrm{d}x}}+\mathrm{cos}\beta {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\alpha }{\mathrm{d}x}})\widehat{𝐱}.`$ (14)
The form of the unknown functions $`\alpha (x)`$, $`\beta (x)`$, $`\gamma (x)`$, $`\psi (x)`$ and $`\varphi (x)`$ in equilibrium corresponds to the minimum of the free energy functional (4) where

$$\frac{\delta f}{\delta \alpha }\frac{f}{\alpha }\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}x}\left[\frac{f}{(\mathrm{d}\alpha /\mathrm{d}x)}\right]=0,$$
(15)
and similarly for other angles.

We point out two analytic observations that are useful in testing the convergence and the accuracy of the numerical solution. Firstly, the superfluid velocity $`𝐯_\mathrm{s}`$ (14), and therefore also the total free energy (4), do not depend explicitly on the angle $`\gamma `$ but only on its derivative. The corresponding Euler equation (15) reduces to a conservation law

$$\frac{f}{(\mathrm{d}\gamma /\mathrm{d}x)}p=\mathrm{const}.$$
(16)
The quantity $`(2m/\mathrm{})p`$ is the $`x`$ component of the supercurrent density

$`𝐣_\mathrm{s}`$ $`=`$ $`\rho _{}𝐯_\mathrm{s}+(\rho _{}\rho _{})\widehat{𝐥}(\widehat{𝐥}𝐯_\mathrm{s})`$ (17)
$`+`$ $`C\times \widehat{𝐥}C_0\widehat{𝐥}(\widehat{𝐥}\times \widehat{𝐥}).`$ (18)
Another conserved quantity in the problem is the one corresponding to the fact that the free energy (4) does not depend explicitly on $`x`$ either. The invariant related to this is analogous to the Hamiltonian of classical mechanics and can be brought to the form

$$f_{\mathrm{gr}}f_\mathrm{d}f_\mathrm{h}=\mathrm{const}.$$
(19)
We wish to study a one-dimensional interval of length $`L\xi _\mathrm{d}`$. A flow through the system is achieved by keeping a fixed phase difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }(L/2)\mathrm{\Phi }(L/2)`$ between the endpoints of the line. The constancy of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }`$ as a function of time $`t`$ is enforced by imposing the boundary condition

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }}{\mathrm{d}t}}`$ $``$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\gamma }{\mathrm{d}t}}+\mathrm{cos}\beta {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\alpha }{\mathrm{d}t}}\right)_{x=\frac{L}{2}}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\gamma }{\mathrm{d}t}}+\mathrm{cos}\beta {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\alpha }{\mathrm{d}t}}\right)_{x=\frac{L}{2}}`$ (20)
$`=`$ $`0.`$ (21)
It is, however, more advantageous to express the results in terms of a driving velocity defined by $`v_\mathrm{n}=(\mathrm{}/2m)\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }/L`$. This is a more convenient quantity than $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }`$ because all our results are independent of $`L`$ when expressed in terms of $`v_\mathrm{n}`$. $`v_\mathrm{n}`$ could be identified as the velocity of the normal component that drives the superfluid component of the liquid. However, $`v_\mathrm{n}`$ should be considered as a scalar parameter since all vector quantities in this paper (like $`𝐯_\mathrm{s}`$ and $`𝐣_\mathrm{s}`$) are given in the frame where the normal fluid is at rest, $`𝐯_\mathrm{n}0`$. (See Ref.  for a general formulation with $`𝐯_\mathrm{n}0`$.)

In general case we have to use numerical methods to determine the equilibrium state of the system. The order parameter is taken to be defined at $`N`$ equally spaced discrete points on the line. The discretization length $`\mathrm{\Delta }xL/N`$ is chosen much smaller than the dipole length, usually $`\mathrm{\Delta }x0.1\xi _\mathrm{d}`$. As a first step we have to choose some initial configuration for the five angles. A given $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }`$ or $`v_\mathrm{n}`$ is implemented by taking an initial guess $`\gamma (x)=\frac{2m}{\mathrm{}}v_\mathrm{n}x`$. The angle functions are then iterated numerically towards the equilibrium state for a given $`v_\mathrm{n}`$ using the following diffusion-like equations

$`\mu _1\mathrm{sin}^2\beta {\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta f}{\delta \alpha }}`$ (22)
$`\mu _1{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta f}{\delta \beta }}`$ (23)
$`\mu _2{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta f}{\delta \gamma }}`$ (24)
$`\mu _3\mathrm{sin}^2\psi {\displaystyle \frac{\varphi }{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta f}{\delta \varphi }}`$ (25)
$`\mu _3{\displaystyle \frac{\psi }{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta f}{\delta \psi }}`$ (26)
together with the boundary condition (21). The simplest discretized expressions have been used in representing the derivatives in equations (26). Since we do not attempt to describe the true time evolution of the textures, the viscosity constants $`\mu _1`$, $`\mu _2`$ and $`\mu _3`$ can be chosen according to numerical convenience.

## IV Uniform and Helical textures

The simplest texture has constant $`\widehat{𝐥}\widehat{𝐝}\widehat{𝐱}`$. This uniform state minimizes both the dipole-dipole energy (9) and the field energy (10) for $`𝐇\widehat{𝐱}`$. It also corresponds to the minimum of the first two terms in the gradient energy (8) because $`\rho _{}<\rho _{}`$. The current in this state is linear in $`v_\mathrm{n}`$, $`𝐣_\mathrm{s}=\rho _{}v_\mathrm{n}\widehat{𝐱}`$, as illustrated in Fig. 1.

The uniform state is stable at small velocities (if $`H0`$). We call the stability limit of the uniform texture as the first critical velocity $`v_{\mathrm{c1}}`$. At $`v_\mathrm{n}=v_{\mathrm{c1}}`$ the uniform state becomes unstable against a helical deformation where $`\widehat{𝐥}`$ winds around the direction of the flow, see Fig. 2.

At this point the energy cost in forming an inhomogeneous texture is compensated by reductions in other energy terms. In particular, the superfluid velocity $`v_\mathrm{s}`$ (14) is lowered for a given $`v_\mathrm{n}`$ and there is a negative contribution from the energy term with the coefficient $`C_0`$ (8) .

The instability point can be studied by expanding the energy (4) around the uniform solution. This calculation was done by Lin-Liu et al in the Ginzburg-Landau region . We generalize this calculation to all temperatures. We define $`\gamma `$ as above but otherwise use a parametrization that is different from (12-14):

$`\widehat{𝐥}`$ $`=`$ $`[1\frac{1}{2}(l_y^2+l_z^2)\frac{1}{8}(l_y^2+l_z^2)^2]\widehat{𝐱}+l_y\widehat{𝐲}+l_z\widehat{𝐳}`$ (27)
$`\widehat{𝐝}`$ $`=`$ $`[1\frac{1}{2}(d_y^2+d_z^2)\frac{1}{8}(d_y^2+d_z^2)^2]\widehat{𝐱}+d_y\widehat{𝐲}+d_z\widehat{𝐳}`$ (28)
$`𝐯_\mathrm{s}`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{\mathrm{}}{2m}\{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}\gamma }{\mathrm{d}x}}+\frac{1}{2}(l_y{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}l_z}{\mathrm{d}x}}l_z{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}l_y}{\mathrm{d}x}})[1+\frac{1}{4}(l_y^2+l_z^2)]\}\widehat{𝐱}.`$ (29)
These equations are valid up to fourth order in $`l_y`$, $`l_z`$, $`d_y`$, and $`d_z`$. We eliminate $`\gamma (x)`$ in favor of the current $`p`$ (16) by defining a new free energy $`G=F+dx(\mathrm{d}\gamma /\mathrm{d}x)p`$. Substitution of (27-29) into $`G`$ and expansion to second order gives linear Euler-Lagrange equations. These have the solution

$`l_y(x)`$ $`=`$ $`us\mathrm{sin}(qx)`$ (30)
$`l_z(x)`$ $`=`$ $`(u/s)\mathrm{cos}(qx)`$ (31)
$`d_y(x)`$ $`=`$ $`u\delta _1s\mathrm{sin}(qx)`$ (32)
$`d_z(x)`$ $`=`$ $`(u\delta _2/s)\mathrm{cos}(qx)`$ (33)
where $`q`$ is the wave vector of the helix. The magnetic field in the transverse $`z`$ direction introduces “easy” and “hard” directions for the amplitudes, and thus the helix has an elliptically distorted form. When $`G`$ is minimized with respect to $`s`$, $`\delta _1`$, and $`\delta _2`$ we find

$`\delta _1`$ $`=`$ $`(K_5q^2+1)^1`$ (34)
$`\delta _2`$ $`=`$ $`(K_5q^2+H^2+1)^1`$ (35)
$`s^2`$ $`=`$ $`K_2/K_1`$ (36)
$`K_i^2`$ $`=`$ $`1+(\rho _{}1)p^2+K_\mathrm{b}q^2\delta _i.`$ (37)
For the free energy we find the expansion

$`G=G_0+\frac{1}{2}Au^2+\frac{1}{4}Bu^4`$ (38)
where

$`G_0`$ $`=\frac{1}{2}(1+p^2)`$ (39)
$`A`$ $`=K_1K_2(2C_0+1)qp`$ (40)
$`B`$ $`=[(2\rho _{}1)C_0\frac{1}{4}]({\displaystyle \frac{K_2}{K_1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{K_1}{K_2}})qp+\frac{1}{4}\{`$ (48)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{K_2^2}{K_1^2}}[3\delta _1(1\delta _1)^2+(K_\mathrm{s}+(K_6K_5)\delta _1^2`$
$`+K_5\delta _1^4)q^23(\rho _{}1)^2p^2]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{K_2^2}{K_1^2}}[3\delta _2(1\delta _2)^2+(K_\mathrm{s}+(K_6K_5)\delta _2^2`$
$`+K_5\delta _2^4)q^23(\rho _{}1)^2p^2]`$
$`+[8K_\mathrm{t}2K_\mathrm{s}8C_0^28K_\mathrm{b}`$
$`+3(K_6K_5)(\delta _1^2+\delta _2^2)2K_5\delta _1^2\delta _2^2]q^2`$
$`+(1\delta _1)(1\delta _2)(\delta _1+\delta _2)2(\rho _{}1)^2p^2\}.`$
For simplicity, we have used units where $`g_\mathrm{d}=g_\mathrm{h}=\rho _{}=\frac{\mathrm{}}{2m}=1`$ in Eqs. (34)-(48). Near the superfluid transition temperature these results reduce to those by Lin-Liu et al .

The uniform texture is stable if the coefficient $`A`$ is positive. The line where $`A`$ vanishes in the $`v_\mathrm{n}`$$`q`$ plane is shown by solid line in Fig. 3.

In a long interval $`L\xi _\mathrm{d}`$ the value of the wave vector $`q`$ is not limited. This means that the uniform texture is stable only below the critical velocity $`v_{\mathrm{c1}}`$ defined by the conditions $`A=A/q=0`$. The velocity $`v_{\mathrm{c1}}`$ is plotted as a function of magnetic field and temperature in Fig. 4.

Note that $`v_{\mathrm{c1}}`$ vanishes in zero field for temperatures $`T0.85T_\mathrm{c}`$.

The stability of small-angle helical textures is determined by the coefficient $`B`$. The helix is stable if $`B>0`$ and unstable if $`B<0`$. The stability as a function of $`T`$ and $`H`$ is indicated in Fig. 4.

Helical textures with general opening angles were studied numerically. The periodicity of the helix allows the numerical calculations to be limited to a single wavelength $`\lambda =2\pi /q`$ using periodic boundary conditions for $`\widehat{𝐥}`$ and $`\widehat{𝐝}`$. In fact, making use of all the symmetries even a quarter of $`\lambda `$ would be sufficient. We then minimize the free energy (4) with respect to the five angle fields in (12)-(14). This gives the energy as a function of $`v_\mathrm{n}`$ and $`q`$: $`F(v_\mathrm{n},q)`$.

For each value of $`v_\mathrm{n}`$ we determine the optimum wave vector $`q_{\mathrm{opt}}`$ at which the energy of the helix is minimized. This process is simplified by the fact that the derivative of $`F`$ with respect to $`q`$ can be obtained using the formula

$$\frac{F}{q}=\frac{1}{q}\left(2F_{\mathrm{gr}}v_\mathrm{n}J_{\mathrm{s},x}\right),$$
(49)
with $`F_{\mathrm{gr}}`$ and $`J_{\mathrm{s},x}`$ defined to be the corresponding densities $`f_{\mathrm{gr}}`$ and $`j_{\mathrm{s},x}`$ integrated over the one-dimensional interval. At the optimum value $`q=q_{\mathrm{opt}}(v_\mathrm{n})`$ the derivative given by (49) vanishes. The dependence of $`q_{\mathrm{opt}}`$ on $`v_\mathrm{n}`$ is illustrated in Fig. 3.

The stability of helical textures is determined by the eigenvalues of the Hessian matrix of $`F(v_\mathrm{n},q)`$:

$$=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{^2F}{v_{\mathrm{n}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}& \frac{^2F}{v_\mathrm{n}q}\\ & \\ \frac{^2F}{v_\mathrm{n}q}& \frac{^2F}{q^2}\end{array}\right).$$

A texture is stable if both the eigenvalues of the Hessian matrix are positive, and unstable otherwise. The stability region is indicated by a dashed line in Fig. 3. The velocity where the state at optimal wave vector $`q_{\mathrm{opt}}`$ becomes unstable is defined as the second critical velocity, $`v_{\mathrm{c2}}`$. In helical texture the current increases much slower with $`v_\mathrm{n}`$ than in the uniform state (Fig. 1). Therefore, the critical current $`j_{\mathrm{c2}}`$ is substantially smaller than $`\rho _{}v_{\mathrm{c2}}`$. At $`H=0`$ and $`TT_\mathrm{c}`$ we find that $`v_{\mathrm{c2}}1.28v_\mathrm{d}`$ whereas $`j_{\mathrm{c2}}1.13\rho _{}v_\mathrm{d}`$  (Fig. 4). In general we find essentially no field dependence of $`v_{\mathrm{c2}}`$, in contrast to $`v_{\mathrm{c1}}`$ which vanishes at $`H=0`$ when $`T0.85T_\mathrm{c}`$. The temperature dependencies of $`v_{c1}`$, $`v_{c2}`$ and $`j_{c2}`$ in the high field limit are presented in Fig. 5.

At high temperatures $`T>0.8T_\mathrm{c}`$ there is no stable helical texture and thus $`v_{\mathrm{c1}}`$ and $`v_{\mathrm{c2}}`$ coincide. At lower temperatures $`v_{\mathrm{c2}}`$ is seen to grow distinctly above $`v_{\mathrm{c1}}`$. Below $`0.5T_\mathrm{c}`$ helical textures again become unstable (Fig. 4).

The numerical calculation of the Hessian matrix is simplified by the fact that both first derivatives (16) and (49) are easily available. Thus the calculation of the Hessian at point $`(v_\mathrm{n},q)`$ requires texture minimizations only at three points: $`(v_\mathrm{n},q)`$, $`(v_\mathrm{n},q+\mathrm{\Delta }q)`$ and $`(v_\mathrm{n}+\mathrm{\Delta }v_\mathrm{n},q)`$. In order to minimize errors the number $`N`$ of discretization points within a wave length $`\lambda `$ was kept constant and the discretization length $`\mathrm{\Delta }x=\lambda /N`$ was varied instead.

For all helices the opening angle grows continuously from zero with increasing $`v_\mathrm{n}`$, see Fig. 6.

The largest stable values for the opening angle found in the simulations were $`60`$ degrees. We have made numerical simulations in an interval containing several wave lengths of the helix, $`L\lambda `$. When the limit of stability is exceeded, it seems that the number of windings of the helix changes if a stable texture is possible at a given $`v_\mathrm{n}`$. Otherwise, the instability seems to lead to the growth of the opening angle. Most likely this leads to formation of continuous vortex structures . However, we were not able to follow this process beyond $`90^{}`$ opening angles because of the singularity in the coordinate system (12)-(14).

## V Soliton textures

In the previous section we studied the case where a flow was applied to an initially uniform texture. Here we investigate some cases where the initial state is inhomogeneous. Let us consider a texture where $`\widehat{𝐥}`$ changes from the direction $`\widehat{𝐱}`$ to $`\widehat{𝐱}`$, as depicted in Fig. 7.

Such a texture has the property, which follows directly from the definition (2), that if it is rotated around $`\widehat{𝐱}`$ by angle $`\theta `$, the phase difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }`$ changes by $`2\theta `$. Thus if nothing prevents the rotation of the texture, the critical current vanishes and the supercurrent is always dissipative. The presence of magnetic field perpendicular to $`\widehat{𝐱}`$ prefers to have $`\widehat{𝐝}`$, and via the dipole-dipole energy (9) also $`\widehat{𝐥}`$, in the plane perpendicular to $`𝐇`$. This gives rise to a finite critical velocity that we aim to calculate.

We study two different inhomogeneous structures. The first is known as (dipole-unlocked) soliton . This is a domain-wall like object where on one side $`\widehat{𝐝}=\widehat{𝐥}`$ and on the other side $`\widehat{𝐝}=\widehat{𝐥}`$. Because the change between these two orientations costs dipole-dipole energy, the thickness of the wall is on the order of the dipole length $`\xi _\mathrm{d}`$. In the absence of flow the asymptotic directions of $`\widehat{𝐥}`$ deviate from the normal $`\pm \widehat{𝐱}`$ of the wall by an angle that depends on the temperature. When a small flow is applied perpendicular to the wall, the anisotropy of the kinetic energy $`(\widehat{𝐥}𝐯_\mathrm{s})^2`$ forces the asymptotic directions of $`\widehat{𝐥}`$ to $`\pm \widehat{𝐱}`$. The calculated structure of the soliton is presented in Fig. 8.

The second structure we study could be called a dipole-locked soliton. The dipole-locking means that $`\widehat{𝐝}(x)\widehat{𝐥}(x)`$ everywhere. The region where $`\widehat{𝐥}`$ varies has finite length only in the presence of flow. The calculated structure of the locked soliton is presented in Fig. 9.

For both soliton structures the flow makes $`\beta `$ to deviate from $`\pi /2`$. When the flow is further increased, the structures become unstable against unlimited winding around the flow direction. The critical values of $`v_\mathrm{n}`$ are denoted by $`v_{\mathrm{cLS}}`$ for locked soliton and $`v_{\mathrm{cUS}}`$ for unlocked soliton. The critical velocities are plotted in Figs. 5 and 10.

The unlocked case has previously been studied by Vollhardt and Maki  at $`TT_\mathrm{c}`$ using a variational approach. Our calculations give a much lower critical velocity than theirs. We note that the same process that leads to $`v_{\mathrm{cUS}}`$ also determines the critical velocity of a vortex sheet . The locked soliton has previously been studied only for $`H=0`$ or $`𝐇𝐯_\mathrm{s}`$, where the critical velocity vanishes and only dissipative state exists .

In the simulations the length $`L`$ of the computational region has to be chosen large in comparison to $`\xi _\mathrm{d}v_\mathrm{d}/v_\mathrm{n}`$. The fast variation in the unlocked soliton sets an upper limit for the discretization length, which was typically chosen as $`0.1\xi _\mathrm{d}`$. If $`L`$ is not very long, the correct procedure is to extract the critical current $`j_{\mathrm{cLS}}`$ (and $`j_{\mathrm{cUS}}`$) from the numerical calculation and then find the critical velocity using $`v_{\mathrm{cLS}}=j_{\mathrm{cLS}}/\rho _{}`$ (and $`v_{\mathrm{cUS}}=j_{\mathrm{cUS}}/\rho _{}`$).

## VI Conclusions

We have studied different 1D textures and determined their stability against 1D perturbations. It is reasonable to ask if limiting to 1D perturbations is sufficient to determine the local stability. Namely, we know at least one situation in 3He-A where this is not the case: uniform $`\widehat{𝐥}𝐇\widehat{𝐱}`$. Here the 1D model above gives stability until $`v_{\mathrm{c1}}=v_{\mathrm{c2}}=\sqrt{g_\mathrm{d}/(\rho _{}\rho _{})}`$ (for $`HH_\mathrm{d}`$), but allowing $`𝐯_\mathrm{s}`$ to deviate from the direction of the applied phase difference gives instability at $`v_\mathrm{n}`$ that is by factor $`\sqrt{\rho _{}/\rho _{}}`$ lower . This situation differs, however, from the ones studied in the previous sections. For a homogeneous texture with $`𝐇\widehat{𝐱}`$ there exists a strict proof that only 1D perturbations are relevant . For helical and soliton textures the 1D model allows a natural decay mechanism for the current, and we are not aware of any mechanism that could give a lower critical velocity. Therefore we believe that other than 1D perturbations are unimportant for the helical and soliton textures studied above, although a strict proof remains open.

Measurements of the critical velocity are done by Ruutu et al . They study 3He-A in a circular cylinder that is rotated around its axis. In the vortex-free container the relevant driving velocity $`v_\mathrm{n}=\mathrm{\Omega }R`$, where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the angular velocity and $`R`$ the radius of the cylinder. Because $`R\xi _\mathrm{d}`$, the flow near the cylindrical wall is one-dimensional to a good approximation. The magnetic field along the axis of the cylinder corresponds to transverse field relative to the flow along the whole perimeter of the cylinder, and thus the calculations presented above should apply to this case. If the field is perpendicular to the axis, all possible angles exist between the field and flow. In this case the critical velocity of the “uniform” texture is determined by the orientation $`𝐇𝐯_\mathrm{s}`$ , which gives a lower value of $`v_{c2}`$ than $`𝐇𝐯_\mathrm{s}`$.

Ruutu et al find a considerable spread in the critical velocities. On one hand, our largest calculated values of $`v_\mathrm{c}`$ correspond to the instability of the helical texture and coincide relatively well with the largest values observed in the experiments. On the other hand, the lowest measured critical velocities can be explained by assuming the presence of a dipole-unlocked soliton. Quantitative comparison is given by Ruutu et al . The comparison supports the basic assumption that the critical velocity in superfluid 3He-A indicates an instability of the bulk, and it depends on the underlying texture. The bulk critical velocity is quantitatively better understood in superfluid 3He-A than in any other superfluid.

## Acknowledgments

This research was supported by Vilho, Yrjö and Kalle Väisälä Foundation and by the Academy of Finland.


text:
# Attainable sets for left invariant control systems and Carnot–Caratheodory metrics on nilpotent Lie groups

## 1 Introduction

Let $`N`$ be a Lie group and $`C`$ be a subset of its Lie algebra $`𝒩`$ identified with the tangent space to $`N`$ at the identity $`e`$. Denote by $`\text{T}(C)`$ the set of all piecewise smooth curves with both one-side tangent vectors in the corresponding left translation of $`C`$:

$$\gamma ^{}(t)d_e\lambda _{\gamma (t)}(C)\text{where}\lambda _g(h)=gh.$$
(1)
The attainable set $`\text{R}(C,p)`$ is the closure of endpoints for curves in $`\text{T}(C)`$ which start at $`p`$. Put $`\text{R}(C)=\text{R}(C,e)`$ where $`e`$ is the identity. We consider the problem: given $`C`$, find $`\text{R}(C)`$. In this setting we may assume without loss of generality that $`C`$ is a closed convex cone. If $`\text{R}(C)=N`$ then $`C`$ is called controllable. The opposite property is the globality: put

$$H(C)=\{\xi 𝒩:\mathrm{exp}(t\xi )\text{R}(C)\text{for all}t0\},$$

then $`C`$ is called global if $`H(C)=C`$. The group $`N`$ is supposed to be nilpotent and simply connected. For generating cones in nilpotent Lie algebras the criterion of controllability due to Hilgert, Hofmann, and Lawson , is known from early 80-th:

$$\text{R}(C)=N\text{if and only if }IntC[𝒩,𝒩]\text{}.$$
(2)
If $`C[𝒩,𝒩]=\{0\}`$ then the cone is global. We consider the intermediate case

$$Int(C)[𝒩,𝒩]=\text{},C[𝒩,𝒩]\{0\}.$$

This situation can be described as follows: there exist a boundary point of $`C`$ and a supporting hyperplane $`H`$ at this point which includes $`[𝒩,𝒩]`$. Then the set $`\text{R}(C)`$ cannot coincide with $`N`$ – it is included to a ”halfspace”

$$N_\chi ^+=\chi ^1(\text{}^+),$$

where $`\chi `$ is the continuous homomorphism $`N\text{}`$ whose tangent homomorphism annihilates $`H`$, $`\text{}^+=[0,\mathrm{})`$. We shall prove that $`\text{R}(C)=N_\chi ^+`$ for some $`\chi `$ if the degree of contact of $`C`$ with certain subspaces is sufficiently high. The role of the degree of contact was notified in  where global $`Ad`$-invariant cones were characterized – while the final answer was formulated by the algebraic language, in fact, the globality of an invariant cone in a Lie algebra is determined by the degree of contact of the cone with the linear sum of two distinct nilpotent subalgebras. In this article we use Carnot–Caratheodory metrics to prove the result mentioned above. Probably, these metrics can be a natural and essential tool in Geometric Control Theory, in particular, for the investigation of attainable sets. In any way, the usage of Carnot–Caratheodory metrics clarifies the dependence of $`\text{R}(C)`$ on the degree of contact. They also give quantitative versions for the criterion of controllability (2). For a discussion of the role of Lie groups and algebras in Control Theory and further references, see , .

## 2 Preliminaries and statement of the result

2.1 Realization of simply connected nilpotent Lie groups. Let $`𝒩`$ be a nilpotent Lie algebra. The corresponding Lie group $`N`$ can be realized as $`𝒩`$ with the group multiplication defined by the Campbell–Hausdorff formula:

$$xy=x+y+\frac{1}{2}[x,y]+P_3(x,y)+\mathrm{}+P_d(x,y),$$
(3)
where $`P_k(x,y)`$, $`k=3,\mathrm{},d`$, is the sum of Lie products of the length $`k`$. Thus $`P_k`$ is a homogeneous polynomial of the degree $`k`$ with values in $`𝒩`$. It follows from (3) that for all $`\xi 𝒩`$

$$\mathrm{exp}(\xi )=\xi ,\xi ^1=\xi ,$$
(4)
$`e=0`$, and the multiplicative commutator has the form

$$\{x,y\}=xyx^1y^1=[x,y]+(\text{Lie products of the length}>2)$$
(5)
We shall consider simultaneously the Lie group and the Lie algebra structures. In particular, we keep the vector notation for addition and multiplication by scalars. It will be convenient to fix the euclidean distance in $`𝒩`$ which will be denoted by $`||`$. Thus, for example,

$$x^n=nx\text{and}|x^n|=|n||x|\text{for all integer}n.$$
(6)
Put

$$𝒩^1=𝒩,𝒩^{k+1}=[𝒩,𝒩^k];𝒩^1𝒩^2\mathrm{}𝒩^d𝒩^{d+1}=\{0\},$$
(7)
where $`𝒩^d\{0\}`$. Then $`𝒩^k`$, $`k=1,\mathrm{},d`$ is also a normal subgroup of $`𝒩`$ which sometimes will be denoted by $`N^k`$. For each $`k`$ chose in $`𝒩^k`$ a complementary to $`𝒩^{k+1}`$ subspace $`𝒩_k`$. Then $`𝒩`$ is the linear direct sum of these subspaces

$$𝒩=𝒩_1𝒩_2\mathrm{}𝒩_d$$
(8)
and $`𝒩_1`$ generates $`𝒩`$ as a Lie algebra.

2.2 Graded nilpotent Lie algebras. If $`[𝒩_k,𝒩_l]𝒩_{k+l}`$ then (8) is the gradation of $`𝒩`$ which satisfies the additional condition

$$[𝒩_1,𝒩_l]=𝒩_{l+1},l=1,\mathrm{},d.$$
(9)
which is equivalent to the assumption that $`𝒩_1`$ generates $`𝒩`$. Let us pick $`x𝒩`$, decompose it according to (8)

$$x=x_1+\mathrm{}+x_d,$$

and put

$$Dx=x_1+2x_2+\mathrm{}+dx_d.$$

If (8) is the gradation then $`D`$ is a differentiation of $`𝒩`$ and

$$\delta _t:x_1+x_2+\mathrm{}+x_dtx_1+t^2x_2+\mathrm{}+t^dx_d,t>0$$
(10)
is the corresponding one-parametrical group of automorphisms written in the multiplicative form. Since $`\mathrm{exp}`$ is identical, $`\delta _t`$ is also the isomorphism of the group $`N`$. Further, the group $`\{\delta _t\}_{t0}`$ can be extended to the complexification of $`𝒩`$ and nonzero complex values of $`t`$. This implies that

$$\delta _1:x_1+x_2+\mathrm{}+x_dx_1+x_2+\mathrm{}+(1)^kx_k+\mathrm{}+(1)^dx_d$$
(11)
is an isomorphism of $`𝒩`$ and $`N`$.

2.3 Asymptotic group. If (8) is not a gradation then the formula

$$[x,y]^a=\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}\delta _t^1[\delta _tx,\delta _ty]$$
(12)
defines the asymptotic Lie product in $`𝒩`$ and (8) is the gradation for it. This gradation also can be defined by the standard factorization procedure for the filtration (7): the new Lie bracket for $`x𝒩_k`$, $`y𝒩_l`$ is the projection of the old one in $`𝒩^{k+l}`$ to $`𝒩_{k+l}`$ along $`𝒩^{k+l+1}`$. Indeed, let

$$[x,y]=[x,y]_1+\mathrm{}+[x,y]_d,x=x_1+\mathrm{}+x_d,y=y_1+\mathrm{}+y_d$$

be corresponding to (8) decompositions; then

$$\delta _t^1[\delta _tx,\delta _ty]=\underset{pk+l}{}t^{k+lp}[x_k,y_l]_p=\underset{p=k+l}{}[x_k,y_l]_p+\alpha (t),$$
(13)
where $`|\alpha (t)|=O(\frac{1}{t})`$, and the limit can be easily calculated in this notation. The corresponding group $`N_a`$ also can be realized as a limit. For each $`t>0`$, put

$$x_ty=\delta _t^1(\delta _tx\delta _ty).$$

This introduces in $`𝒩`$ the structure of a Lie group isomorphic to $`N`$. It follows from the Campbell-Hausdorff formula and (13) that for every $`x,yN`$ there exists the limit

$$x_ay=\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}x_ty$$
(14)
Moreover, by (13) and (3)

$$x_ty=\delta _t^1(\delta _tx\delta _ty)=x_ay+\beta (x,y,t),$$
(15)
where

$$|\beta (x,y,t)|\frac{A}{t}(|x|+|x|^d)(|y|+|y|^d)$$

and $`A>0`$ depends only on the algebra $`𝒩`$.

2.4 A construction for curves in $`\text{T}(C)`$. Let $`\gamma _1:[0,a_1]N`$ and $`\gamma _2:[0,a_2]N`$ be paths in $`N`$ starting at $`e`$: $`\gamma _k(0)=e`$, $`k=1,2`$. Put

$$\gamma _1\gamma _2(t)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\gamma _1(t),& t[0,a_1]\\ \gamma _1(a_1)\gamma _2(ta_1),& t[a_1,a_1+a_2]\end{array}$$

Then, for any $`C𝒩`$, $`\gamma _1\gamma _2`$ belongs to $`\text{T}(C)`$ if so are $`\gamma _1`$ and $`\gamma _2`$. An important particular case of this construction is as follows: for $`\xi 𝒩`$ put $`\overline{\xi }(t)=\mathrm{exp}(t\xi )`$, $`t[0,1]`$, and

$$\overline{x}=\overline{\xi }_1\overline{\xi }_2\mathrm{}\overline{\xi }_n,\text{where}x=(\xi _1,\mathrm{},\xi _n),\xi _1,\mathrm{},\xi _nC.$$
(16)
Then $`\overline{x}(n)=\mathrm{exp}(t\xi _1)\mathrm{}\mathrm{exp}(t\xi _n)`$. Furthermore, if $`\xi _1,\mathrm{},\xi _nC`$ then $`\overline{x}\text{T}(C)`$. For the Riemannian left invariant metric defined by the euclidean norm $`||`$

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }(\overline{x})=\mathrm{\Lambda }(\overline{\xi }_1)+\mathrm{}+\mathrm{\Lambda }(\overline{\xi }_n),$$
(17)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(\gamma )`$ denotes the length of the curve $`\gamma `$. The length of the curve $`\overline{\xi }`$, $`\xi C`$, can be easily derived: $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(\overline{\xi })=|\xi |`$. Hence for $`\xi _1,\mathrm{},\xi _nC`$

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }(\overline{x})=|\xi _1|+\mathrm{}+|\xi _n|.$$
(18)
Clearly, each curve in $`\text{T}(C)`$ can be approximated by curves of the type (16).

2.5 Carnot–Caratheodory metrics. Recall the definition of Carnot–Caratheodory metrics which also are known as subriemannian or nonholonomic Riemannian ones. Any euclidean norm $`||`$ on $`𝒩_1`$ uniquely determines the left invariant norm on the left invariant distribution of subspaces generated by $`𝒩_1`$. Hence the length of a curve $`\gamma \text{T}(𝒩_1)`$ can be defined by the standard formula

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }(\gamma )=_a^b|\gamma ^{}(t)|_{\gamma (t)}𝑑t.$$
(19)
Since $`\overline{\xi }\text{T}(𝒩_1)`$ for $`\xi 𝒩_1`$, the left invariance of the Carnot–Caratheodory metric implies that (17) and (18) are true for curves described in Subsection 2.4 with $`C=𝒩_1`$. The Carnot–Caratheodory distance $`\kappa (x,y)`$ between $`x`$ and $`y`$ is defined as the least lower bound for lengths of curves in $`\text{T}(𝒩_1)`$ which join $`x`$ and $`y`$:

$$\kappa (x,y)=inf\{\mathrm{\Lambda }(\gamma ):\gamma \text{T}(𝒩_1),\gamma :[a,b]N,\gamma (a)=x,\gamma (b)=y\}.$$
(20)
Each piecewise smooth curve in $`𝒩_1`$ has the unique lift to the curve in $`\text{T}(𝒩_1)`$. Hence the natural projection $`\pi _k:NN/N^k`$, $`k=2,\mathrm{},d`$, keeps the length of a curve $`\gamma `$ in $`\text{T}(𝒩^1)`$ which is equal to the usual euclidean length of $`\pi _2\gamma `$:

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }(\pi _2\gamma )=\mathrm{\Lambda }(\pi _3\gamma )=\mathrm{}=\mathrm{\Lambda }(\pi _d\gamma )=\mathrm{\Lambda }(\gamma ).$$
(21)
If (8) is the gradation satisfying (9) then $`\delta _t`$ is an automorphism, hence it commutes with the lifting procedure. Therefore, $`\delta _t`$ in (10) is a metric dilation for $`t>0`$, i.e.

$$\rho (\delta _t(x),\delta _t(y))=t\rho (x,y),x,yN.$$
(22)
Since $`\delta _t(\xi )=t\xi `$ for $`\xi 𝒩_1`$, (22) follows from (19) and the definition of $`\kappa `$. Further, (19) and (11) implies that $`\delta _1`$ is an isometry:

$$\kappa (\delta _1(x),\delta _1(y))=\kappa (x,y)\text{for all}x,yN.$$
(23)
If $`𝒩`$ is not graded then $`\delta _t`$ is not an automorphism but this is true for the limit group defined by (14). It can be equipped with the limit metric

$$\kappa _a(x,y)=\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}\kappa _t(x,y),\text{where}\kappa _t(x,y)=\frac{1}{t}\kappa (\delta _tx,\delta _ty).$$
(24)
The asymptotic group could be realized as the Gromov–Hausdorff limit of metric spaces – groups with left invariant metrics $`\kappa _t`$. For more details on this subject, see (), ().

2.6 Inner metrics. We use a definition of the inner metric which is equivalent to the standard one in the class of left invariant metrics on Lie groups (see ). Let $`\rho `$ be a left invariant metric which is compatible with the topology, $`B(x,r)`$ denote the open ball at $`x`$ of radius $`r>0`$, $`B(x,0)=\{x\}`$. Put $`B(r)=B(e,r)`$ and $`B(0)=\{e\}`$. The left invariance of the metric $`\rho `$ means that

$$B(x,r)=xB(r).$$

We shall say that $`\rho `$ is inner if

$$B(r)B(s)=B(r+s)\text{for all}r,s0.$$
(25)
The product of sets is taken pointwise: $`AB=\{ab:aA,bB\}`$. The same equality is true for closed ball since they are compact. Taken together with the left invariance, this implies for any two points in $`N`$ the existence of the shortest curve which joins them. If $`H`$ is a normal closed subgroup of a Lie group $`G`$ with the inner metric $`\rho `$ and $`\pi :GG/H`$ is the canonical projection then $`\stackrel{~}{B}(r)=\pi B(r)`$ is the unit ball for the metric

$$\stackrel{~}{\rho }(\stackrel{~}{x},\stackrel{~}{y})=inf\{\rho (xh_1,yh_2):h_1,h_2H\}.$$
(26)
Clearly, this metric is inner because (25) is satisfied for it. Furthermore, Riemannian and Carnot–Caratheodory metrics are inner – this follows from (20) for Carnot–Caratheodory metrics and from the analogous formula for Riemannian ones. The identity (25), in particular, implies that all inner metrics are equivalent ”in large”: for each pair of inner metrics $`\rho `$, $`\rho ^{}`$ which define the same topology and any $`\epsilon >0`$, there exist $`C,c>0`$ such that

$$x,yG,\rho (x,y)>\epsilon c<\frac{\rho ^{}(x,y)}{\rho (x,y)}<C$$
(27)
Indeed, for some $`C,c>0`$ inclusions $`B(c\epsilon )B^{}(\epsilon )B(C\epsilon )`$ holds, where $`B^{}(\epsilon )`$ is the $`\rho ^{}`$-ball. By (25),

$$B(nc\epsilon )B^{}(n\epsilon )B(nC\epsilon )$$

for all positive integer $`n`$, and the left invariance of these metrics implies (27). Thus, each inner metric asymptotically (for great distances) equivalent to a Carnot–Caratheodory metric. Note that the Carnot–Caratheodory metric for the asimptotic group is self-similar – it admits metric dilations. Left invariant inner metrics on topological groups were studied in (), (). For Lie groups, they are Finsler (maybe nonholonomic) ones.

2.7 Degree of contact. Let $`\eta `$ be an increasing function defined on some interval in $`\text{}`$ with the left endpoint $`0`$, $`\underset{\epsilon 0}{lim}\eta (\epsilon )=0`$, $``$ be a linear subspace of the euclidean space $`𝒩`$. We shall say that a cone $`C`$ has the degree of contact with $``$ at the point $`xC`$ greater than $`\eta `$ if

$$dist(C,x+y)=o(\eta (|y|))\text{as}y0\text{in}$$
(28)
The degree of contact of $`C`$ with $``$ at $`x`$ is greater or equal to $`\eta `$ if there exist $`Q>0`$ and a neighborhood $`U`$ of zero in $``$ such that

$$Q\eta (|y|)dist(C,x+y)\text{for all}yU$$

Suppose that $`x`$; then the degree of contact is equal to $`\eta `$ if it is greater or equal and the inverse inequality holds with some another constant. If $`x`$ then one has to replace $``$ in this definition to any subspace $`^{}`$ complementary to $`\text{}x`$ in $``$, the definition doesn’t depend on the choice of $`^{}`$.

If $`\eta (\epsilon )=\epsilon ^a`$ then $`a`$ will be called the degree of contact and denoted by $`cont(C,,x)`$; $`cont(C,,x)>a`$ ($`cont(C,,x)a`$, $`cont(C,,x)=a`$) will mean that the degree of contact is greater than (respectively, greater or equal to, equal to) $`\epsilon ^a`$. For example, the degree of contact of any Lorentian cone with each its tangent hyperplane is equal to 2: $`cont(C,T_xC,x)=2`$ for any $`xC`$.

2.8 Statement of the main result. The result is proved for slightly more general setting then it was mentioned above: the group need not be nilpotent in general – it is supposed to be a semidirect product of $`\text{}`$ and a nilpotent group. We keep the notation for $`𝒩`$, $`N`$, particularly (7), which were introduced above. Let $`\text{}^+`$ denote the set of all nonnegative real numbers. By $`𝒢`$ we denote a real Lie algebra of a simply connected Lie group $`G`$ which is a semidirect product of $`\text{}`$ and a nilpotent group $`N`$, $`\chi :G\text{}`$ be the projection homomorphisms to the factor $`\text{}`$. Set $`G^+=\chi ^1(R^+)`$, and $`𝒢^+=d_e^1\chi (\text{}^+)`$ (hence $`\mathrm{exp}(𝒢^+)=G^+`$).

###### Theorem 1

Let $`C𝒢^+`$ be a convex closed generating cone, $`d>1`$, $`pC𝒩^d`$; further, suppose that there exists $`v𝒵(p)Int(C)\text{}`$ admitting $`ad(v)`$-invariant linear subspace $`𝒩_1𝒩^1`$ complementary to $`𝒩^2`$, and

$$cont(C,𝒩_1,p)>\frac{d}{d1}.$$
(29)
Then $`\text{R}(C)=G^+`$.

## 3 Quantitative versions of the controllability

In the following two lemmas the Lie algebra $`𝒩`$ is supposed to be graded as in (8), (9).

###### Lemma 1

Let $`\rho `$ be an inner metric in $`N`$, $`zN_d`$, $`\epsilon >0`$, and $`r=\rho (e,z)`$. Then

$$eB(z,\epsilon )^n\text{if and only if }n>\left(\frac{r}{\epsilon }\right)^{\frac{d}{d1}}.$$
(30)
Moreover, for any $`s>0`$, if

$$n^{\frac{1}{d}}r+s<n\epsilon $$
(31)
then $`B(z,\epsilon )^nB(s)`$.

Proof.Since $`z`$ belongs to the center of $`N`$,

$$B(z,\epsilon )=zB(\epsilon )=B(\epsilon )z.$$
(32)
Taken together with (25) and (6), (32) implies that

$$B(z,\epsilon )^n=(zB(\epsilon ))^n=(nz)B(n\epsilon )=B(nz,n\epsilon ).$$
(33)
Therefore, the inclusion in the left side of (30) is equivalent to the inequality

$$\rho (e,nz)<n\epsilon .$$
(34)
By (22) and (10),

$$\rho (e,nz)=n^{\frac{1}{d}}\rho (e,z)=n^{\frac{1}{d}}r.$$

Thus inequality (33) holds if and only if

$$n^{\frac{1}{d}}r<n\epsilon .$$

This is equivalent to the right part of (30).

For $`wN`$, the assumption $`\rho (w,nz)<n\epsilon `$ is equivalent to $`wB(nz,n\epsilon )`$. By the triangle inequality,

$$\rho (e,nz)<t,\rho (e,w)<swB(nz,t+s),$$

hence the inclusion $`B(nz,t+s)B(s)`$. Put $`t=n^{\frac{1}{d}}r`$. Then, according to (33), (34), and (31), we receive the desired inclusion.$``$

###### Corollary 1

For non-graded $`𝒩`$, if $`s>0`$ then there exists $`C>0`$ such that for all $`\epsilon >0`$

$$C(n^{\frac{1}{d}}r+s)<n\epsilon $$
(35)
implies $`B(z,\epsilon )^nB(s)`$.

Proof.This follows from the existence of the asymptotic metric (24) for which the assertion holds by the lemma, and (27).$``$

###### Lemma 2

Let $`x𝒩_{d1}`$, $`\epsilon >0`$. Suppose that $`B(x,\epsilon )^n𝒩_d\{0\}`$. Then $`eB(x,2\epsilon )^{2n}`$.

Proof.Since the metric is left invariant, $`B(x,\epsilon )=xB(\epsilon )`$. Let

$$z=xy_1xy_2\mathrm{}xy_n𝒩^d$$

where $`y_1,y_2\mathrm{}y_nB(\epsilon )`$. If $`d`$ is odd then $`\delta _1x=x`$, and $`\delta _1z=z=z^1`$. Hence

$$e=zz^1=xy_1\mathrm{}xy_nx\delta _1(y_1)xy_2\mathrm{}x\delta _1(y_n)B(x,\epsilon )^{2n}.$$

If $`d`$ is even then $`\delta _1x=x^1=x`$, and $`\delta _1z=z`$. Therefore,

$$e=z\delta _1(z^1)=xy_1\mathrm{}xy_n\delta _1(y_n)x\mathrm{}\delta _1(y_1)xeB(x,2\epsilon )^{2n}$$

since $`y_n\delta _1(y_n)B(2\epsilon )`$.$``$

###### Corollary 2

Let $`x𝒩^{d1}`$, $`\epsilon >0`$. Then

$$n>2\left(\frac{2r}{\epsilon }\right)^{\frac{d}{d1}}eB(x,\epsilon )^n.$$
(36)
Proof.Applying (30) to the factor group $`N/N^d`$ we receive

$$n>\left(\frac{r}{\epsilon }\right)^{\frac{d}{d1}}B(x,\epsilon )^nN^d\text{},$$

and Lemma 1, with $`\epsilon `$ replaced by $`\frac{\epsilon }{2}`$, implies the desired inclusion.$``$

There is a natural way to realize any finite dimensional nilpotent Lie algebra $`𝒩`$ as a factor algebra of a finite dimensional graded Lie algebra $`\stackrel{~}{𝒩}`$. Let $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_l`$ be a set of generators for $`𝒩`$ (the linear basis of $`𝒩_1`$). Then $`𝒩`$ is the homomorphic image of the free Lie algebra $``$ generated by $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_l`$. The kernel of the homomorphism includes the ideal $`^d`$ generated by all products of length $`>d`$. This means that $`𝒩`$ is the homomorphic image of the finite dimensional Lie algebra $`\stackrel{~}{𝒩}=/^d`$ whose natural gradation satisfies the condition (9). Let $`\pi :\stackrel{~}{𝒩}𝒩`$ denote this homomorphism. Clearly, $`\pi \stackrel{~}{𝒩}^k=𝒩^k`$ for $`k=1,\mathrm{},d`$. Note that $`\stackrel{~}{𝒩}`$ has the same height $`d`$ and that generating spaces $`𝒩_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{𝒩}_1`$ may be identified. Thus the euclidean norm $`||`$ in $`𝒩_1`$ defines Carnot–Caratheodory metrics $`\kappa `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }`$ in $`N=𝒩`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{N}=\stackrel{~}{𝒩}`$ respectively. We shall equip with $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ symbols denoting objects in $`\stackrel{~}{𝒩}`$ corresponding to objects in $`𝒩`$. Put

$$\kappa (x)=\kappa (e,x),\stackrel{~}{\kappa }(\stackrel{~}{x})=\stackrel{~}{\kappa }(\stackrel{~}{e},\stackrel{~}{x}).$$

Clearly, $`\kappa (\pi \stackrel{~}{x})\stackrel{~}{\kappa }(\stackrel{~}{x}),\stackrel{~}{x}\stackrel{~}{N}`$. In the following theorem we do not assume that $`𝒩`$ is graded but keep the notation of the previous section.

###### Theorem 2

Let $`d>2`$, $`k=d`$ or $`k=d1`$, $`xN^kN^{k+1}`$, and $`r=\kappa (x)`$. Then there exists $`Q1`$ such that for all $`\epsilon >0`$ the condition

$$n>Q\left(\frac{r}{\epsilon }\right)^{\frac{k}{k1}}$$
(37)
implies that $`eB(x,\epsilon )^n`$, where $`B(x,\epsilon )`$ is the ball for the Carnot–Caratheodory metric $`\kappa `$.

Proof.If $`𝒩`$ is graded as in (8), (9), then the assertion of the theorem is an easy consequence of Lemma 1 for $`k=d`$ and Corollary 2 for $`k=d1`$. In general case, let us realize $`𝒩`$ as the factor algebra of the graded Lie algebra $`\stackrel{~}{𝒩}`$ by the construction described above. Let $`\pi \stackrel{~}{x}\stackrel{~}{𝒩}^k𝒩^{k+1}`$, $`\pi \stackrel{~}{x}=x`$, and put $`\stackrel{~}{r}=\stackrel{~}{\kappa }(\stackrel{~}{x})`$, $`K=\frac{\stackrel{~}{r}}{r}`$. Then, by Lemma 1 or Corollary 2, there exists $`A>0`$ such that

$$n>A\left(\frac{\stackrel{~}{r}}{\epsilon }\right)^{\frac{k}{k1}}\text{implies}\stackrel{~}{e}\stackrel{~}{B}(\stackrel{~}{x},\epsilon )^n.$$

Since $`\pi \stackrel{~}{B}(\stackrel{~}{x},\epsilon )^n=B(x,\epsilon )^n`$, the inclusion $`eB(x,\epsilon )^n`$ is true for

$$Q=\mathrm{max}\{1,K^{\frac{k}{k1}}A\}..$$

The following theorem is in fact a reformulation of Theorem 2 by another words. Let $`\rho `$ be the Riemannian metric defined by the euclidean norm $`||`$ in $`𝒩`$ and $`\kappa `$ be the Carnot–Caratheodory metric corresponding to the restriction of this norm to $`𝒩_1`$. Put $`(r)=\{\xi 𝒩:|\xi |<r\}`$

###### Theorem 3

Let $`d`$, $`k`$, $`x`$, $`\rho `$ be as above, and let $`r=\rho (e,x)`$. Then there exists $`P>0`$ such that for all safficiently small $`\epsilon >0`$ the group $`N`$ admits a closed curve $`\gamma \text{T}(x+(\epsilon ))`$ whose $`\rho `$-length satisfies the inequality

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_\rho (\gamma )P\left(\frac{r}{\epsilon }\right)^{\frac{k}{k1}}.$$
(38)
Proof.Put $`R=|x|`$; clearly, $`rR\kappa (x)`$. If $`\epsilon >R`$ then the assertion is evident. Hence we may assume that $`\epsilon <R`$. Then there exists $`a(0,1)`$ such that $`x+(\epsilon )`$ includes the $`\rho `$-ball at $`x`$ of radius $`a\epsilon `$ for all $`\epsilon (0,R)`$ (recall that we identify $`𝒩`$ and $`N`$). Hence it includes the $`\kappa `$-ball $`B(x,a\epsilon )`$. Let $`Q`$ be as in Theorem 2. Then there exists integer $`n`$ which satisfies inequalities

$$Q\left(\frac{\kappa (x)}{a\epsilon }\right)^{\frac{k}{k1}}<n2Q\left(\frac{\kappa (x)}{a\epsilon }\right)^{\frac{k}{k1}}.$$

Then, by the first of them and Theorem 2, there exist $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_nB(x,a\epsilon )`$ such that $`x_1\mathrm{}x_n=e`$. Since $`\mathrm{exp}`$ is identical, it follows from the construction of Subsection 2.4 that $`\overline{x}_1,\mathrm{}\overline{x}_n\text{T}(B(x,a\epsilon ))`$ and the curve $`\gamma =\overline{x}_1\mathrm{}\overline{x}_n`$ is closed. By (18),

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_\rho (\gamma )=|x_1|+\mathrm{}+|x_n|2Rn<P\left(\frac{r}{\epsilon }\right)^{\frac{k}{k1}},$$

where

$$P=4QR\left(\frac{\kappa (x)}{ar}\right)^{\frac{k}{k1}}.$$

This proves the theorem.$``$

## 4 Attainable sets

Everywhere in this section we suppose that the assumption of Theorem 1 are satisfied. Let $`𝒢`$ be equipped with the euclidean norm $`||`$ and $`G`$ with the corresponding left invariant Riemannian metric $`\rho `$ and $`N`$ with Carnot–Caratheodory metric $`\kappa `$. Then the semidirect product $`G=\text{}\text{}N`$ is defined by the one-parametrical group $`A_t=e^{tad(v)}`$, $`t\text{}`$, of group automorphisms of $`N`$. Since $`\mathrm{exp}`$ is identical for the coordinate system in $`N`$ which we use, $`A_t`$ is also the one-parametrical group of automorphisms of $`𝒩`$. Hence $`A_t`$ is linear in these coordinates. Put

$$M=sup\{A_t:|t|1\}.$$
(39)
The multiplication law in the group $`G`$ can be written explicitly:

$$(t,x)(s,y)=(t+s,(A_sx)y),\text{where}x,yN,t,s\text{}.$$

We denote $`v=(1,0)`$. By the assumtion of the theorem,

$`p+vInt(C),`$ (40)
$`v𝒵(p).`$ (41)
Set

$$=\{\xi 𝒢:|\xi |<1\},_1=𝒩_1,$$

and let $`B_\kappa (r)`$ the $`\kappa `$-ball with the center $`e`$ of the radius $`r`$. In the following lemma we consider these sets as subsets of the group $`N`$.

###### Lemma 3

For any $`r>0`$

$$B_\kappa (r)=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(\frac{r}{n}_1\right)^n.$$
(42)
Proof.For each $`x_1`$ the curve $`\overline{x}`$ belongs to $`\text{T}(_1)`$. Hence $`\frac{r}{n}_1B_\kappa (\frac{r}{n})`$. By (25), the left side of the equality includes the right one. Let $`\gamma :[0,r]N`$ be a curve in $`\text{T}(_1)`$. It follows from the definition of Carnot–Caratheodory metric that the open ball $`B_\kappa (r)`$ is filled by points $`\gamma (r)`$ for such curves $`\gamma `$. Let $`\lambda _g(h)=gh`$ be the left shift by $`g`$. The endpoint of the curve

$$\gamma _n=\overline{x}_1\mathrm{}\overline{x}_n,$$

where

$$x_k=\frac{1}{n}d_{\gamma (t_k)}\lambda _{\gamma (t_k)}^1(\gamma ^{}(t_k)),t_k=\frac{rk}{n},k=1,\mathrm{},n,$$

belongs to the right side of (42). Clearly, $`\gamma _n(t)\gamma (t)`$ as $`n\mathrm{}`$ for each $`t[0,r]`$. Hence the right side of (42) is dense in the left one. Further, it follows from (5) and (4) that $`(s_1)^k`$ is open for sufficiently large $`k`$ depending only on $`𝒩`$. Therefore, the right side of (42) is open; let us denote it by $`\stackrel{~}{B}(r)`$. By standard arguments it is not difficult to show that

$$\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(\frac{r}{n}_1\right)^n=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(\frac{r}{2^n}_1\right)^{2^n}.$$

Hence $`\stackrel{~}{B}(\frac{r}{2})^2=\stackrel{~}{B}(r)`$, and this division procedure can be continued. This implies that $`\stackrel{~}{B}(r)`$ coincides with the interior of it’s closure. Since $`\stackrel{~}{B}(r)`$ is dense in $`B_\kappa (r)`$ and open, $`\stackrel{~}{B}(r)=B_\kappa (r)`$.$``$

###### Lemma 4

If $`qN^d`$, $`\epsilon >0`$, $`t>0`$, $`n\text{}`$, and $`nt<1`$ then

$`(t,q+M\epsilon _1)^n(nt,nq+(\epsilon _1)^n);`$ (43)
$`(t,B_\kappa (q,M\epsilon ))^n(nt,B_\kappa (q,\epsilon )^n).`$ (44)
Proof.Let $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_n(p+\epsilon _1)`$. Put $`\stackrel{~}{x}_k=(t,A_{(nk)t}x_k)`$. Then

$`\stackrel{~}{x}_1\stackrel{~}{x}_2\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{x}_n=(t,A_{(n1)t}x_1)(t,A_{(n2)t}x_2)\mathrm{}(t,x_n)=`$
$`(2t,A_{(n2)t}(x_1x_2))\mathrm{}(t,x_n)=\mathrm{}=(nt,x_1x_2\mathrm{}x_n).`$
Since $`𝒩_1`$ is $`A_t`$-invariant, $`nt<1`$, by (41) and (39), $`A_{(nk)t}x_k(p+M\epsilon _1)`$ for all $`k=1,\mathrm{},n`$. To prove (43), it remains to note that $`(q+\epsilon _1)^n=nq+(\epsilon _1)^n`$ because $`p`$ belongs to the center of $`N`$. The inclusion (44) follows from the same equality, with $`x_kB_\kappa (q,\epsilon )`$, and the inequality $`\kappa (e,A_tx)M\kappa (e,A_tx)`$ which is an easy consequence of the definition Carnot–Caratheodory metric $`\kappa `$.$``$

The following elementary lemma whose assertion could be a definition of the degree of contact was already proved in (). We omit the proof – it is rather long than hard. Let $``$ be as in Subsection 2.7. Put

$$_{}=\{y:y,|y|1\}.$$

###### Lemma 5

Let $`C`$ be a generating closed cone in $`𝒩`$, $`xC`$, $`x0`$. Suppose that $`cont(C,,x)>a1`$, $`v`$, and $`x+vInt(C)`$. Then there exists a function $`\phi `$ defined on some interval $`(0,\alpha )`$, $`\alpha >0`$, such that $`\phi (\epsilon )=o(\epsilon ^a)`$ as $`\epsilon 0`$ and

$$x+\phi (\epsilon )v+\epsilon _{}Int(C)$$

for all $`\epsilon (0,\alpha )`$.$``$

Proof of Theorem 1. Let $`B_\kappa (p,\epsilon )`$ be the Carnot–Caratheodory ball in $`N`$, $`B_\kappa =B(e,1)`$, $`\alpha `$, $`\phi `$ be as in Lemma 5 with $`a=\frac{d}{d1}`$, $`=𝒩_1`$. There exists a function $`\psi `$ such that

$`\underset{t0}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{\phi (t)}{\psi (t)}}=0,`$ (45)
$`\psi (t)=o(t^{\frac{d}{d1}}).`$ (46)
It follows from Corollary 1 that there exists $`A>0`$ such that

$$n>A\epsilon ^{\frac{d}{d1}}B_\kappa (p,\epsilon )^nB_\kappa .$$

For these $`n`$ and sufficiently small $`\epsilon >0`$, applying (44) we receive

$$(\psi (\epsilon ),B_\kappa (p,M\epsilon ))^n(n\psi (\epsilon ),B_\kappa (p,\epsilon )^n)(n\psi (\epsilon ),B_\kappa ).$$

By (46), since $`n`$ can be chosen satisfying the inequality $`n<2A\epsilon ^{\frac{d}{d1}}`$, the set $`\text{R}(C)`$ includes the ball $`B_\kappa `$, hence the group $`N`$ and the halfspace $`G^+`$. Therefore, it is sufficient to prove the inclusion

$$\text{R}(C)(\psi (\epsilon ),B_\kappa (p,M\epsilon ))$$
(47)
for $`\epsilon (0,\alpha )`$ for some $`\alpha >0`$. It follows from Lemma 5 and (45) that

$$C(\psi (\epsilon )v,p+M^2\epsilon _1)$$

if $`\epsilon `$ is sufficiently small. Since $`C`$ is a cone,

$$C\frac{1}{n}(\psi (\epsilon )v,p+M^2\epsilon _1),n\text{},$$

hence

$$\text{R}(C)\left(\frac{1}{n}(\psi (\epsilon ),p+M^2\epsilon _1)\right)^n((\psi (\epsilon ),p+(\frac{M\epsilon }{n}_1)^n)$$

by (43), and the desired inclusion (47) follows from Lemma 3.$``$

Omsk State University, prosp. Mira 55a, Omsk 644077, Russia

Current address: Mathematical Department, Omsk State University, prosp. Mira, Omsk, Russia

E-mail address: gichev@math.omsu.omskreg.ru


text:
# The big bang as a higher-dimensional shock wave

## I Introduction

The idea that the universe was created from nothing has a very long history. Some highlights in the scientific literature include the argument that the big bang was a transition from an earlier four-dimensional Minkowski space to a later space with standard Friedmann-Robertson-Walker properties . It is also possible in principle that the big bang was a quantum tunneling event from nothing into 4D de Sitter space . These and other ideas connected with inflation can be put on a firmer basis if the manifold is extended from 4D to higher dimensions (for a review see ). For example, it is well known that any solution of 4D general relativity can be embedded in a *flat* 10D space. In what follows, we will use the minimal extension from 4D (Einstein) space to 5D (Kaluza-Klein) space to argue that the 4D big bang may be the signature of a 5D blip or shock wave.

We will draw on recent results in three areas of higher-dimensional cosmology.

1. We can take an empty 5D space that is in general curved and derive from it a matter-filled 4D space . That such models have matter in 4D but are empty in 5D follows from new work on an old theorem of differential geometry due to Campbell (1926). Let us consider a solution of the 4D Einstein field equations $`G_{\alpha \beta }=8\pi T_{\alpha \beta }`$, where $`G_{\alpha \beta }`$ is the Einstein tensor and $`T_{\alpha \beta }`$ is the energy-momentum tensor. (Here and elsewhere we use a choice of units to set the gravitational constant and the speed of light equal to unity; lowercase Greek letters run 0,123 and uppercase Latin letters run 0,123,4.) Then it can be shown that the 4D Einstein equations can be locally embedded in the field equations of 5D Kaluza-Klein theory *without* sources, which are given in terms of the Ricci tensor by $`R_{AB}=0`$ . This is a very powerful theorem.
2. We can take an empty and *flat* 5D space and embed in it matter-filled *curved* 4D spaces . This means that the 4D big bang could be an artifact of a bad choice of 5D coordinates.
3. We can study *wave-like* solutions of $`R_{AB}=0`$ . Some of these have remarkable physical properties, and indicate that the big bang could have been a quantum transition from an oscillating to a growing (inflationary) mode.

In the next section, we will combine results from the above three areas to derive an exact solution in 5D which has good physical properties in 4D and implies a significant change in how we can view the big bang.

## II A 5D shock wave and the 4D big bang

We choose coordinates $`x^A=t,r\theta \varphi ,l`$ with $`d\mathrm{\Omega }^2d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2`$, as usual. A wave in the $`t/l`$plane should depend on $`utl`$. One such solution of $`R_{AB}=0`$ is given by the following 5D line element:

$`dS^2`$ $`=`$ $`b^2dt^2a^2\left(dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2\right)b^2dl^2`$ (1)
$`a`$ $`=`$ $`\left(hu\right)^{\frac{1}{2+3\alpha }}`$ (2)
$`b`$ $`=`$ $`\left(hu\right)^{\frac{1+3\alpha }{2\left(2+3\alpha \right)}}.`$ (3)
This may be confirmed either algebraically using the expanded form of the field equations  or computationally using a fast computer package . The class (1)–(3) depends on two constants, $`h`$ and $`\alpha `$. The first has physical dimensions of $`L^1`$ and is related to Hubble’s parameter (see below). The second is dimensionless and is related to the properties of matter associated with the solution. These can be evaluated using the regular technique, wherein $`R_{AB}=0`$ is broken down to $`G_{\alpha \beta }=8\pi T_{\alpha \beta }`$ with an induced or effective energy-momentum tensor that depends on the pressure $`p`$ and density $`\rho `$ of a cosmological perfect fluid . There is an associated equation of state, and after some algebra we find

$`p`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha \rho `$ (4)
$`8\pi \rho `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3h^2}{\left(2+3\alpha \right)^2}}a^{3\left(1+\alpha \right)}.`$ (5)
We see that $`\alpha =0`$ corresponds to the late (dust) universe, and $`\alpha =1/3`$ corresponds the the early (radiation) universe.

To elucidate the physical properties of the solution, it is instructive to change from the coordinate time $`t`$ to the proper time $`T`$. This is defined by $`dT=bdt`$, so

$$T=\frac{2}{3}\left(\frac{2+3\alpha }{1+\alpha }\right)\frac{1}{h}\left(hu\right)^{\frac{3}{2}\left(\frac{1+\alpha }{2+3\alpha }\right)}.$$
(6)
The 4D scale factor which determines the dynamics of the model by (2) and (6) is then

$$a(T)=\left[\frac{3}{2}\left(\frac{1+\alpha }{2+3\alpha }\right)hT\right]^{\frac{2}{3\left(1+\alpha \right)}}.$$
(7)
For $`\alpha =0`$, $`a(T)T^{2/3}`$ as in the standard (Einstein-de Sitter) dust model. For $`\alpha =1/3`$, $`a(T)T^{1/2}`$ as in the standard radiation model. The value of Hubble’s parameter is given by

$`H{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a}}{\displaystyle \frac{a}{T}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{a}}{\displaystyle \frac{a}{t}}{\displaystyle \frac{dt}{dT}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{h}{\left(2+3\alpha \right)}}\left(hu\right)^{\frac{3}{2}\left(\frac{1+\alpha }{2+3\alpha }\right)}`$ (8)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3\left(1+\alpha \right)T}}.`$ (9)
For $`\alpha =0`$ and $`1/3`$, (9) shows that $`H`$ has its standard values in terms of the proper time. We can also convert the density (5) from $`t`$ to $`T`$ using (6), and find

$$8\pi \rho =\frac{4}{3}\frac{1}{\left(1+\alpha \right)^2}\frac{1}{T^2}.$$
(10)
For $`\alpha =0`$ we have $`\rho =1/6\pi T^2`$, and for $`\alpha =1/3`$ we have $`\rho =3/32\pi T^2`$, the standard FRW values. Thus, the 5D solution (1)–(3) contains 4D dynamics and 4D matter that are the same as in the standard 4D cosmologies for the late and early universe.

However, while the 5D approach does no violence to the 4D one, it adds significant insight. The big bang occurs in proper time at $`T=0`$ by (10); but it occurs in coordinate time at $`a=0`$ or $`u=tl=0`$ by (5) and (2). Now the field equations $`R_{AB}=0`$ are fully covariant, so any choice of coordinates is valid. Therefore, we can interpret the physically-defined big bang either as a singularity in 4D or as a hypersurface $`t=l`$ in 5D. Both interpretations are mathematically valid, so the choice is to a certain extent philosophical. Our opinion is tipped by a closer examination of the solution (1)–(3) using a computer package . It shows that not only is $`R_{AB}=0`$, but the Riemann-Christoffel tensor is $`R_{ABCD}=0`$ also. This puts the solution (1)–(3) into the same mathematical class as others in the literature ). But this fact also puts the solution into a new physical class: it is a plane wave or soliton moving in a *flat* and empty 5D space. \[In 5D, the group of coordinate transformations $`x^Ax^A(x^B)`$ is wider that the 4D group $`x^\alpha x^\alpha (x^\beta )`$, so $`x^4`$-dependent transformations are mathematically equivalent in 5D but physically *non*-equivalent in 4D. In principle it is possible to find coordinate transformations between all metrics with $`R_{ABCD}=0`$, but in practice the algebraic complexity involved makes the task presently impossible.\] In other words, we can view the big bang either as a singularity in 4D, or as a *non*-singular event in 5D. In the latter interpretation, it is analogous to a 3D shock wave passing through a 2D surface.

## III Conclusion

We have given an exact solution (1)–(3) of the 5D field equations $`R_{AB}=0`$ which when reduced to the 4D field equations $`G_{\alpha \beta }=8\pi T_{\alpha \beta }`$ describes a cosmology with good physical properties (4), (5), (10) and good dynamics (7), (9). Kaluza-Klein gravity agrees with the classical tests of relativity in the solar system ; and the cosmological solution gives back the same properties as the 4D Friedmann-Robertson-Walker models with flat space sections, so to this extent it is agreement with astrophysical data . However, the solution adds the insight that the singular 4D big bang may be viewed as a non-singular 5D shock wave.

The mere existence of solutions (1)–(3) raises fundamental questions about observational cosmology. Is the universe higher-dimensional? (This is implied by particle physics, and what we have done above can clearly be extended to 10D superstrings and 11D supergravity: see ). If there are extra dimensions, then what coordinate system is practical cosmology using? (There is no big bang in a geometrical sense in 5D, but there is in a physical sense in 4D because of the choice of time ; see ). It seems to us that these questions can be answered empirically. The best way appears to involve the 3 K microwave background radiation. In the conventional 4D view, this is thermalized in the big-bang fireball. In the higher-dimensional view, some other mechanism must operate, such as a variation of particle masses that leads to efficient Thomson scattering . We need to look into the detailed physics and decide by observational data which is the best approach.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank A. Billyard and J. M. Overduin for comments, and NSERC for financial support.