text:
# From quantum to quantum via decoherenceDedicated to Gianfausto Dell’Antonio on his 70th birthday

## 1 INTRODUCTION

The problem of transition from microscopic to macroscopic description of Nature is a fundamental one in the discussion of the interpretation of quantum mechanics. In recent years decoherence has received much attention and has been accepted as the mechanism responsible for the appearance of classicality in quantum measurements and the absence in the real world of Schrödinger-cat-like states . It was also shown that decoherence is a universal short time phenomenon independent of the character of the system and reservoir . Different decoherence regimes that are important for the experimental search of the transition between classical and quantum worlds were discussed in . The intuitive idea of decoherence is rather clear: quantum interference effects for macroscopic systems are practically unobservable because superpositions of their quantum states are effectively destroyed by the surrounding environment. More precisely, it accepts the wave function description of such a system but contends that it is practically impossible to distinguish between vast majority of its pure states and the corresponding statistical mixtures. Therefore, this approach has been called by Bell a FAPP (for all practical purposes) solution to the measurement problem and to the Schrödinger cat paradox. However, in spite of the progress in the theoretical and experimental understanding of decoherence, its range of validity and its full meaning still need to be revealed .

### 1.1 Algebraic framework

Everybody agrees that concepts of classical and quantum physics are opposite in many aspects. Therefore, in order to demonstrate how quanta become classical, it is necessary to express them in one mathematical framework. In a recent paper  such an algebraic framework which enables a general discussion of environmentally induced classical properties in quantum systems has been proposed. It is worth noting that the idea of using the same algebraic description of both quantum and classical mechanics was suggested in . In this approach observables of any physical system are represented by self-adjoint elements of some operator algebra $``$, the so-called von Neumann algebra, acting in a Hilbert space associated with the system. Genuine quantum systems are represented by factors i.e. algebras with a trivial center $`Z()=𝐂\mathrm{𝟏}`$, $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ stands for the identity operator, whereas classical systems are represented by commutative algebras. Since a classical observable by definition commutes with all other observables so it belongs to the center of algebra $``$. Hence the appearance of classical properties of a quantum system results in the emergence of an algebra with a nontrivial center, while transition from a noncommutative to commutative algebra corresponds to the passage from quantum to classical description of the system. Since automorphic evolutions preserves the center of each algebra so this program may be accomplished only if we admit the loss of quantum coherence, i.e. that quantum systems are open and interact with their environment.

In order to study decoherence, analysis of the evolution of the reduced density matrices obtained by tracing out the environmental variables is the most convenient strategy. More precisely, the joint system composed of a quantum system and its environment evolves unitarily with the Hamiltonian $`H`$ consisting of three parts

$$H=H_S\mathrm{𝟏}_E+\mathbf{\hspace{0.25em}1}_SH_E+H_I.$$
(1)
The time evolution of the reduced density matrix is then given by

$$\rho _t=\mathrm{Tr}_E(e^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}tH}(\rho _0\omega _E)e^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}tH}),$$
(2)
where TrE denotes the partial trace with respect to the environmental variables, and $`\omega _E`$ is a reference state of the environment. Alternatively, one may define the time evolution in the Heisenberg picture by

$$T_t(A)=P_E(e^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}tH}(A\mathrm{𝟏}_E)e^{\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}tH}),$$
(3)
where $`A`$ is an observable of the system and $`P_E`$ denotes the conditional expectation onto the algebra $``$ with respect to the reference state $`\omega _E`$. In this paper we shall work in the Heisenberg picture. Superoperators $`T_t`$ being defined as the composition of a -automorphism and conditional expectation satisfy in general a complicated integro-differential equation. However, for a large class of models, this evolution can be approximated by a dynamical semigroup $`T_t=e^{tL}`$, whose generator $`L`$ is given by a Markovian master equation, see . It represents on the algebraic level irreversible evolution of the system.

We are now in a position to discuss rigorously the dynamical emergence of classical observables. As was shown in  for each (up to some technical assumptions) Markov semigroup $`T_t`$ on $``$ one may associate a decomposition

$$=_1_2$$
(4)
such that both $`_1`$ and $`_2`$ are $`T_t`$-invariant and the following properties hold:
(i) $`_1`$ is a von Neumann subalgebra of $``$ and the evolution $`T_t`$ when restricted to $`_1`$ is reversible, given by a one parameter group of -automorphisms of $`_1`$.
(ii) $`_2`$ is a linear space (closed in the norm topology) such that for any observable $`B=B^{}_2`$ and any statistical state $`\rho `$ of the system there is

$$\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}<T_tB>_\rho =\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}0},$$
(5)
where $`<A>_\rho `$ stands for the expectation value of an observable $`A`$ in state

$`\rho `$.
The above result means that any observable $`A`$ of the system may be written as a sum $`A=A_1+A_2`$, $`A_i_i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}`$, and all expectation values of the second term $`A_2`$ are beyond experimental resolution after the decoherence time. Therefore, if decoherence is efficient then almost instantaneously what we can observe are observables contained in the subalgebra $`_1`$. In other words we apply Borel’s 0th axiom: Events with very small probability never occur. Hence all possible outcomes of the process of decoherence can be directly expressed by the description of this subalgebra and its reversible evolution.

### 1.2 Four aspects of decoherence

One of the effects resulting from decoherence which has been widely discussed so far is the destruction of macroscopic interferences or, in other words, environmentally induced superselection rules. They arise when the phase factors between states belonging to two distinct subspaces of the Hilbert space of the quantum system are being continuously destroyed by the interaction with its environment. The loss of quantum coherence in the Markovian regime was established in a number of papers  giving clear evidence of dynamical appearance of superselection rules. It was also shown that superselection rules may emerge through the interaction of a charged particle with electromagnetic fields . Expressing these results in terms of the algebraic language we will say that decoherence induces superselection rules in the quantum system if the algebra $`_1`$ is still noncommutative but has a nontrivial center $`Z(_1)`$. Indeed, in such a case the algebra $`_1`$ is a block algebra with respect to the decomposition of the Hilbert space $`=_\alpha `$ associated with the central projections in $`_1`$. The discreteness or continuity of the center $`Z(_1)`$ corresponds therefore to the case of discrete or continuous superselection rules.

Another aspect of decoherence which was analyzed in a number of models is the selection of the preferred basis of pointer states, the so-called einselection, . It occurs when the reduced density matrix of the system becomes approximately diagonal in a time much shorter than the relaxation time. Most models predict that these states exist and are orthogonal so they allow to define a unique set of alternative events with well definite probabilities. It follows that pointer states do not evolve at all, while all other pure states deteriorate in time to classical probability distributions over the one-dimensional projections corresponding to these states. However, it should be pointed out that the algebra generated by these projections is always of a discrete type, and, as was shown in , the discreteness is unavoidable as long as we consider quantum systems with a finite number of degrees of freedom. A new perspective is opened when we consider quantum systems in the thermodynamic limit. In  it was shown that the interaction between an infinite quantum spin system linearly coupled to a phonon field yields a selection of a continuous family of pointer states corresponding to an apparatus with continuous readings. These results suggest the following definition. We will say that decoherence induces pointer states of the quantum system if $`_1`$ is commutative and the restriction of the evolution $`T_t`$ to $`_1`$ is trivial, i.e. $`T_t(A)=A`$ for any observable $`A_1`$ and all times $`t`$. The discreteness or continuity of the pointer states corresponds again to the same property of the algebra $`_1`$.

The origin of deterministic laws that govern the classical domain of our everyday experience has also attracted much attention in recent years. In particular, the emergence of classical mechanics described by differential, and hence local, equations of motion from the evolution of delocalized quantum states was at the center of this issue. For example, the question in which asymptotic regime non-relativistic quantum mechanics reduces to its ancestor, i.e. Hamiltonian mechanics, was addressed in . It was shown there that for very many bosons with weak two-body interactions there is a class of states for which time evolution of expectation values of certain operators in these states is approximately described by a non-linear Hartree equation. The problem under what circumstances such an equation reduces to the Newtonian mechanics of point particles was also discussed in that paper. A different point of view was taken in a seminal paper by Gell-Mann and Hartle . They gave a thorough analysis of the role of decoherence in the derivation of phenomenological classical equations of motion. Various forms of decoherence (weak, strong) and realistic mechanisms for the emergence of various degrees of classicality were also presented. In the same spirit it was shown in  that an infinite quantum system subjected to a specific interaction with another quantum system may be effectively described as a simple classical dynamical system. More precisely, the effective observables of the system were parameterized by a single collective variable which underwent a continuous periodic evolution. These results lead us to the following definition. We will say that decoherence induces classical behavior of the quantum system if $`_1`$ is commutative and its evolution is given by a continuous flow on the configuration space of the algebra $`_1`$.

While the interaction of quantum systems with their environment contributes a great deal to the appearance of classical reality like superselection rules, pointer states and classical dynamics, this is not the whole story. It is clear from the above discussion that something is missing in the presented effects of decoherence. Indeed, it may happen that phase factors are destroyed in such a specific way that the observables immune to decoherence form again a noncommutative algebra with a trivial center. In such a case, which, as far as we know, has never been addressed, one may speak of the appearance of a new genuine quantum system without any classical properties and with completely different quantum properties. The most interesting example of such an effect is of course the reduction of an infinite quantum system to a quantum system possessing only one degree of freedom. This would help in the understanding how it is possible that quantum mechanics is so efficient in the world, where almost all quantum objects should be described in terms of quantum field theory. The possibility of such transition is the main objective of the present paper. For its derivation we consider a completely solvable but simplified model of an infinite array of spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ particles. Since we neglect the position variables what we achieve is a toy model of quantum mechanics represented by a spin algebra of $`2\times 2`$ matrices with the Hamiltonian evolution given by the third Pauli matrix. This simplified model suggests, however, the possibility of deriving the Schrödinger equation form quantum theory of infinite systems interacting with their environment.

## 2 DECOHERENCE INDUCED SPIN ALGEBRA

There are two approaches to the algebraic structure associated with a quantum system. In the first one one starts with the Hilbert space of states of the system and subsequently introduces the algebra of operators corresponding to physical observables. In the second approach of statistical mechanics one postulates certain structural features, like canonical commutation or anticommutation relations, of an abstract algebra, and then recovers the traditional point of view by passing to a particular representation, the so-called Gelfand-Naimark-Segal (GNS in short) representation, of the algebra . Clearly, the description of quantum systems in the thermodynamic limit by statistical mechanics is an idealization of a finite physical system with a huge number of degrees of freedom by an infinite theoretical model. Nevertheless, such an approach proved to be very efficient in many concrete problems. In this section we use this algebraic framework to discuss the transition of an infinite system of spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ particles, linearly coupled to a phonon field, to the spin algebra.

### 2.1 The model

The infinite quantum spin system consists of a set of noninteracting spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ particles fixed at positions $`n=1,2,\mathrm{}`$ and exposed to a magnetic field. The algebra $``$ of its bounded observables is given by the $`\sigma `$-weak closure of $`\pi _0(_1^{\mathrm{}}M_{2\times 2})`$, where $`\pi _0`$ is a (faithful) GNS representation with respect to a tracial state tr on the Glimm algebra $`_1^{\mathrm{}}M_{2\times 2}`$, and $`M_{2\times 2}`$ is the algebra generated by Pauli matrices. Let us point out that $``$ is not a ”big” matrix algebra. It is a continuous algebra (factor of type II1) in which there are no pure states. In fact, any projection $`e`$ contains a nontrivial subprojection $`f`$. It is worth noting that the absence of minimal projections is a new feature which may be present only in systems in the thermodynamic limit. Since the particles are noninteracting, their evolution is given by a free Hamiltonian which corresponds to the interaction of the spins with an external magnetic field parallel to the $`z`$-axis and of strength $`H(n)`$ at the site $`n`$

$$H_S=\pi _0\left(g\mu _B\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}H(n)\sigma _n^3\right),$$
(6)
where $`g`$ is the Landé factor, $`\mu _B`$ is the Bohr magneton and $`\sigma _n^3`$ is the third Pauli matrix in the $`n`$th site. We assume that the magnetic field decreases as $`H(n)(\frac{1}{q})^n`$ for some $`q2`$. Since the coefficients $`H(n)`$ are summable, the Hamiltonian $`H_0`$ is bounded. Moreover, its eigenvalues are nondegenerate.

The reservoir is chosen to consist of noninteracting phonons of an infinitely extended one dimensional harmonic crystal at the inverse temperature $`\beta =\frac{1}{kT}`$. The Hilbert space $``$ representing pure states of a single phonon is (in the momentum representation) $`=L^2(𝐑,dk)`$. A phonon energy operator is given by the dispersion relation $`\omega (k)=|k|`$ ($`\mathrm{}=1,c=1)`$. It follows that the Hilbert space of the reservoir is $``$, where $``$ is the symmetric Fock space over $``$. A phonon field $`\varphi (f)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(a^{}(f)+a(f))`$, where $`a^{}(f)`$ and $`a(f)`$ are given by the Araki-Woods representation :

$$a^{}(f)=a_F^{}((1+\rho )^{1/2}f)I+Ia_F(\rho ^{1/2}\overline{f}),$$
(7)
$$a(f)=a_F((1+\rho )^{1/2}f)I+Ia_F^{}(\rho ^{1/2}\overline{f}).$$
(8)
Here $`a_F^{}(a_F)`$ denotes respectively creation (annihilation) operators in the Fock space, and $`\rho `$ is the thermal equilibrium distribution related to the phonons energy according to the Planck law

$$\rho (k)=\frac{1}{e^{\beta \omega (k)}1}.$$
(9)
Since the phonons are noninteracting, their dynamics is completely determined by the energy operator

$$H_E=H_0IIH_0,$$
(10)
where $`H_0=d\mathrm{\Gamma }(\omega )=\omega (k)a_F^{}(k)a_F(k)𝑑k`$ describes dynamics of the reservoir at zero temperature. The reference state of the reservoir is taken to be a gauge-invariant quasi-free thermal state given by

$$\omega _E(a^{}(f)a(g))=\rho (k)\overline{g}(k)f(k)𝑑k.$$
(11)
Clearly, $`\omega _E`$ is invariant with respect to the free dynamics of the environment.

The Hamiltonian $`H`$ of the joint system consists of the three parts $`H=H_S+H_E+H_I`$, where $`H_I`$ is the interacting Hamiltonian. We assume that the coupling is linear (as in the spin-boson model), i.e. $`H_I=\lambda Q\varphi (g)`$, where

$$Q=\pi _0\left(\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_n\sigma _n^1\right),$$
(12)
$`\sigma _n^1`$ stands for the first Pauli matrix in the $`n`$th site, $`\lambda >0`$ is a coupling constant, and $`a_n(\frac{1}{p})^n`$ for some $`p2`$. Again, since the coefficients $`a_n`$ are summable, the coupling operator $`Q`$ is bounded and has a nondegenerate spectrum. Finally, we impose some restriction on the test function $`g(k)`$ of the phonon field. We assume that $`g(k)=|k|^{1/2}\chi (k)`$, where $`\chi (k)`$ is an even and real valued function such that: (i) $`\chi `$ is differentiable with bounded derivative, (ii) for large $`|k|`$, $`|\chi (k)|\frac{C}{k^{2+ϵ}}`$, $`C>0`$, $`ϵ>0`$, and $`\chi (0)=1`$. The behavior of the test function $`g`$ at the origin and its asymptotic bound are taken to ensure that $`H`$ is essentially self-adjoint. Hence it induces a unitary evolution of the compound system.

### 2.2 Description of effective observables

The reduced (irreversible) dynamics of the system is given by Eq. (3) with the Hamiltonian $`H`$ introduced in the previous subsection. Because neither $`H_S`$ and $`H_I`$, nor $`H_E`$ and $`H_I`$ commute, it is a nontrivial step to derive an explicit formula for the superoperators $`T_t`$. However, as was mentioned in the Introduction, one may apply the Markovian approximation to simplify the problem. Because the thermal correlation function

$`<\varphi _t(g)\varphi (g)>=\omega _E(e^{itH_E}\varphi (g)e^{itH_E}\varphi (g))`$
$`=\omega _E(\varphi (e^{it\omega }g)\varphi (g))`$ (13)
is integrable, we use the so-called singular coupling limit to conclude that $`T_t=e^{tL}`$ is a quantum Markov semigroup with the generator $`L`$ given by the following master equation, see ,

$$L(A)=i[H_SbQ^2,A]+L_D(A),$$
(14)
where

$$L_D(A)=\frac{2\pi \lambda }{\beta }(QAQ\frac{1}{2}\{Q^2,A\}),$$
(15)
and $`b=_0^{\mathrm{}}\chi ^2(k)𝑑k>0`$. The first part in Eq. (14) is the commutator with a new collective Hamiltonian $`H_C=H_SbQ^2`$, while the second term is a dissipative operator. The collective Hamiltonian

$`H_C=\pi _0\left(g\mu _B{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}H(n)\sigma _n^3\right)`$
$`\pi _0\left(b{\displaystyle \underset{n,m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}J(n+m)\sigma _n^1\sigma _m^1\right),`$ (16)
where $`J(n)=a_n`$, is similar to that of the anisotropic Heisenberg model with an infinite range interaction. However, the potentials $`H(n)`$ and $`J(n)`$ are not translationally invariant.

We are now in a position to formulate our main result (its proof will be given in the Appendix).
THEOREM: For the semigroup $`T_t=e^{tL}`$ the decomposition (4) holds with $`_1=𝐂\mathrm{𝟏}_S`$. If we put in Eq. (12) $`a_1=0`$, then $`_1=M_{2\times 2}`$ and for any $`A_1`$

$$T_t(A)=e^{ith_1\sigma ^3}Ae^{ith_1\sigma ^3},$$
(17)
where $`h_1=H(1)`$.
This result shows that the infinite quantum spin system, subjected to a specific interaction with the phonon field, after the decoherence time may be effectively described as a quantum system with only one degree of freedom (generalization to a finite number of degrees of freedom is straightforward). In other words, the environment forces the spin particles to behave in a collective way what allows introduction of three collective observables which satisfy the standard commutation relations of spin momenta. Although, the presented model neglects position variables and so is not complex enough to allow derivation of the Schrödinger equation, it suggests that decoherence induced reduction of quantum statistical mechanics of many body systems to quantum mechanics of wave functions is possible.

*

## Appendix A Proof of theorem

Step 1. It is clear from the form of the generator $`L`$, see Eq. (14), that it generates a semigroup of completely positive and normal superoperators which are contractive in the operator norm. Moreover, tr$`L(A)=0`$, which implies that the semigroup $`T_t`$ is trace preserving. Hence the decomposition (4) follows from Theorem 11 in .

Step 2. The subalgebra $`_1`$ is defined by the property $`T_t^{}T_tx=T_tT_t^{}x=x`$ for all $`t0`$ . Hence

$$\underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\text{ker}L_D\delta _{H_C}^l_1,$$

where $`\delta _{H_C}()=i[H_C,]`$. We prove now the reverse inclusion. Suppose that $`x_1`$. Then, by differentiating the equation $`T_t^{}T_tx=x`$ at time $`t=0`$, we get $`_1\text{ker}L_D`$. Assume that

$$_1\underset{l=0}{\overset{n1}{}}\text{ker}L_D\delta _{H_C}^l$$

for some $`n1`$. Because

$$\frac{d^{n+1}}{dt^{n+1}}T_t^{}T_tx|_{t=0}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}0}$$

so

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^{n+1}}{dt^{n+1}}}T_t^{}T_tx|_0=`$
$`=`$ $`(\delta _{H_C}+L_D)^{n+1}(x)+{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+1}{m}}\right)(\delta _{H_C}+L_D)^{n+1m}(\delta _{H_C}+L_D)^m(x)`$
$`+(\delta _{H_C}+L_D)^{n+1}(x)`$
$`=`$ $`(1)^{n+1}\delta _{H_C}^{n+1}(x)+(1)^nL_D\delta _{H_C}^n(x)+\delta _{H_C}^{n+1}(x)+L_D\delta _{H_C}^n(x)+`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+1}{m}}\right)(\delta _{H_C}+L_D)^{n+1m}\delta _{H_C}^m(x)`$
$`=`$ $`(1)^{n+1}\delta _{H_C}^{n+1}(x)+(1)^nL_D\delta _{H_C}^n(x)+\delta _{H_C}^{n+1}(x)+L_D\delta _{H_C}^n(x)+`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+1}{m}}\right)(1)^{n+1m}\delta _{H_C}^{n+1}(x)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+1}{m}}\right)(1)^{nm}L_D\delta _{H_C}^n(x)=\delta _{H_C}^{n+1}(x){\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{n+1}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+1}{m}}\right)(1)^{n+1m}`$
$`+\{1+(1)^n[{\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{n+1}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+1}{m}}\right)(1)^m(1)^{n+1}]\}L_D\delta _{H_C}^n(x)=2L_D\delta _{H_S}^n(x)=0.`$
Hence, by induction,

$$_1\underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\text{ker}L_D\delta _{H_C}^l.$$

Step 3. Let $`C_1`$ (respectively $`C_3`$) be a $`C^{}`$-subalgebra in the Glimm algebra generated by $`\{\sigma _1^{i_1}\mathrm{}\sigma _n^{i_n}\}`$, where $`i_k=0,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}`$ ($`i_k=0,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}`$ respectively), and $`n𝐍`$. Then both $`\pi _0(C_1)`$ and $`\pi _0(C_3)`$ are maximal Abelian self-adjoint algebras (m.a.s.a in short) in $``$ such that $`\pi _0(C_1)\pi _0(C_3)=𝐂\mathrm{𝟏}_S`$. The choice of coefficients $`(H(n))`$ and $`(a_n)`$ guarantees that $`L^{\mathrm{}}(Q)=\pi _0(C_1)`$ and $`L^{\mathrm{}}(H_S)=\pi _0(C_3)`$, where $`L^{\mathrm{}}(Q)`$ is the von Neumann algebra generated by operator $`Q`$. Hence $`L^{\mathrm{}}(Q)L^{\mathrm{}}(H_S)=𝐂\mathrm{𝟏}_S`$.

Step 4. We show now that if $`[Q,[Q,x]]=0`$ for some $`x`$, then $`xL^{\mathrm{}}(Q)`$. Let us define the derivation $`\delta _x()=i[,x]`$. If $`[Q,[Q,x]]=0`$, then $`[Q,x]L^{\mathrm{}}(Q)`$ since, by step 3, $`L^{\mathrm{}}(Q)`$ is a m.a.s.a. Suppose that $`P`$ is a polynomial. Then

$$\delta _x(P(Q))=i[Q,x]P^{}(Q)L^{\mathrm{}}(Q).$$

This implies that $`\delta _x(L^{\mathrm{}}(Q))L^{\mathrm{}}(Q)`$ since $`\delta _x`$ is continuous in the weak operator topology. Because $`L^{\mathrm{}}(Q)`$ is commutative so $`\delta _x|_{L^{\mathrm{}}(Q)}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}0}`$, and hence $`[Q,x]=0`$. Because $`L^{\mathrm{}}(Q)`$ is a m.a.s.a so $`xL^{\mathrm{}}(Q)`$.

Step 5. Next we show that ker$`L_DL^{\mathrm{}}(H_C)^{}=𝐂\mathrm{𝟏}_S`$. Here $`L^{\mathrm{}}(H_C)^{}`$ stands for the commutant in $``$ of the algebra $`L^{\mathrm{}}(H_C)`$. Suppose that $`x\text{ker}L_DL^{\mathrm{}}(H_C)^{}`$. Then $`[Q,[Q,x]]=0`$ and $`[H_C,x]=0`$. By step 4, $`xL^{\mathrm{}}(Q)`$ which implies that $`[H_S,x]=[H_C+bQ^2,x]=0`$. Hence $`xL^{\mathrm{}}(H_S)`$. Because, by step 3, $`L^{\mathrm{}}(Q)L^{\mathrm{}}(H_S)=𝐂\mathrm{𝟏}_S`$ so $`x=z\mathrm{𝟏}_S`$, where $`z𝐂`$.

Step 6. By step 2, $`\delta _{H_C}(_1)_1`$. Hence, the derivation $`\delta _1:=\delta _{H_C}|__1`$ is well defined and bounded. Thus $`\delta _1()=i[H_1,]`$, where $`H_1=H_1^{}_1`$ . By step 2 again, $`H_1\text{ker}L_D`$. On the other hand

$$[H_C,H_1]=i\delta _1(H_1)=[H_1,H_1]=\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}0}.$$

Hence $`H_1L^{\mathrm{}}(H_C)^{}`$ and so, by step 5, $`H_1`$ is proportional to the identity operator. Suppose now that $`x_1`$. Then $`[H_C,x]=i\delta _1(x)=0`$, and so $`xL^{\mathrm{}}(H_C)^{}`$. Because $`x\text{ker}L_D`$ so, by step 5, $`x`$ is proportional to the identity operator. Hence $`_1=𝐂\mathrm{𝟏}_S`$.

Step 7. Finally, suppose that in Eq. (12) the coefficient $`a_1=0`$. The corresponding semigroup we shall denote by $`T_t^1`$. Let $`𝒜`$ be a subalgebra in $``$ generated by $`\{\pi _0(\sigma _1^k):k=0,1,2,3\}`$. Suppose that $`x`$. Then

$$x=\underset{k=0}{\overset{3}{}}\pi _0(\sigma _1^k)x_k,$$

where operators $`x_k`$ belong to $`𝒜^{}`$, the commutant in $``$ of algebra $`𝒜`$. Let $`S_t`$ be a semigroup on $``$ with a generator $`L_0`$ given by the following Markov master equation

$$L_0(A)=i[H_S^0bQ^2,A]+L_D(A),$$

where $`L_D`$ is defined in Eq. (15), and

$$H_S^0=\pi _0\left(g\mu _B\underset{n=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}H(n)\sigma _n^3\right).$$

Note that the summation index ranges from 2 to infinity. Then

$$T_t^1(x)=\underset{k=0}{\overset{3}{}}\pi _0(U_t^{}\sigma _1^kU_t)S_t(x_k),$$

where $`U_t=e^{ith_1\sigma _1^3}`$. Let $`L^2()`$ be the noncommutative Hilbert space of square integrable (with respect to the trace tr) operators. Since operators $`\pi _0(U_t^{}\sigma _1^kU_t)`$, $`k=0,1,2,3`$, are orthogonal in $`L^2()`$ so

$$T_t^1(x)_{L^2}^2=\underset{k=0}{\overset{3}{}}S_t(x_k)_{L^2}^2.$$

Let us notice that the semigroup $`S_t`$ restricted to the commutant $`𝒜^{}`$ has the same properties as the semigroup $`T_t`$. Hence, if any of $`x_k`$ is not proportional to the identity operator, then, by step 6, $`S_t(x_k)_{L^2}<x_k_{L^2}`$ for all $`t>0`$. Thus $`T_t^1(x)_{L^2}<x_{L^2}`$, too, which implies that such an operator cannot belong to $`_1`$. Hence, if $`x_1`$, then $`x_k=z_k\mathrm{𝟏}_S`$, $`z_k𝐂`$, for all $`k=0,1,2,3`$, and so $`x𝒜`$. It follows that $`_1=𝒜=M_{2\times 2}`$, and the dynamics on it is given by unitary operators $`U_t`$.


format: text

text:
# A quick survey of foliations on 4-manifolds

## 1. Introduction

While there is a wealth of known facts concerning codimension-$`1`$ foliations (and in particular foliations on $`3`$-manifolds), the geometric results are quite scarce once one considers higher codimensions, for example $`2`$-dimensional foliations on $`4`$-manifolds. And while there are strong suggestions that the field might yield remarkable insights, one often accuses a lack of methods for attacking it.

This survey has two goals: to quickly gather the known (geometric-topologic) results concerning $`2`$-dimensional foliations on $`4`$-manifolds, and also to frame the context of possible future developments. The biases of the author will become obvious soon enough.

### 1.1. Quick definition

In general, a $`k`$-dimensional foliation $``$ is a partition of a manifold $`M^m`$ into “slices” called leaves. Locally, a foliation must look like the partition of $`^m`$ into $`^k\times \{0\}`$ (see Figure 1).

###### Example 1.1.

An important example is the Reeb foliation of the solid torus. The boundary torus is a leaf, and the interior is foliated by leaves that are planes. (See Figure 2.)

For a rigorous introduction to foliations, see for example \[CC00\]. For a general survey of $`4`$-manifold theory, see \[GS99\].

Unless otherwise specified, all foliations considered from now on are oriented $`2`$-dimensional foliations of oriented closed $`4`$-manifolds.

### 1.2. Why bother?

One hint that foliations on $`4`$-manifolds are worth studying (especially *taut* foliations) is Kronheimer’s Theorem 6.2 and Conjecture 6.3. Taut foliations might offer *minimal genus bounds* for embedded surfaces.

In a slightly larger context, the relationship (if any) between foliations on $`4`$-manifolds and *Seiberg–Witten theory* is worth elucidating.

Another question worth asking is: For what foliations is the induced almost-complex structure “nice” (i.e. close to symplectic). One such problem asks for which foliations does the induced almost-complex structure have *Gromov compactness* (i.e. whether the space of $`J`$-holomorphic curves of a fixed genus and homology class is compact).

In general, one can hope that foliations will help better visualize, manipulate and understand *almost-complex structures*, maybe in a manner similar to the one in which open-book decompositions help understand contact structures on $`3`$-manifolds.

### 1.3. Larger context

In Figure 3 we have tried to map the larger mathematical neighborhood in which $`2`$-dimensional foliations on $`4`$-manifolds could be placed:

Foliations, in the presence of a metric, induce almost-complex structures. Almost-complex structures are also induced from symplectic structures, and are themselves a particular case of a spin$`^𝐂`$-structure (one can think of a spin$`^𝐂`$-structure as an almost-complex structure defined on the $`2`$-skeleton). Spin$`^𝐂`$-structures are used to build the Seiberg–Witten invariants: one can think of the latter as invariants of various spin$`^𝐂`$-structures. In the case of a symplectic manifold, the Seiberg–Witten invariant can be interpreted as a count of holomorphic curves. The existence of symplectic structures is essentially equivalent to the existence of Lefschetz pencils on the manifold. The latter can be thought of as being singular taut foliations. In general, almost-complex structures can be deformed to admit singular foliations, see Section 8. Seiberg–Witten theory yields bounds on the minimal genus of an embedded surface in a $`4`$-manifold. In certain special cases, taut foliations also offer genus bounds, and it is conjectured that that might be true in general.

## 2. Generalities

Let $``$ be a $`2`$-dimensional foliation on a $`4`$-manifold $`M`$. It has a tangent bundle $`T_{}`$ (tangent to the leaves), and a normal bundle $`N_{}=T_M/T_{}`$. An auxiliary Riemannian metric $`g`$ determines an embedding of the normal bundle $`N_{}`$ as a subbundle of $`T_M`$. We then have the $`g`$-orthogonal splitting $`T_M=T_{}N_{}`$.

In the presence of a Riemannian metric, a foliation $``$ induces an *almost-complex structure* $`J=J_{}`$ on $`M`$: essentially $`J`$ rotates the plane-fibers of $`T_{}`$ and $`N_{}`$ by $`\pi /2`$ in the right directions. Or: pick a orienting orthonormal frame $`\{\tau _1,\tau _2,\nu _1,\nu _2\}`$ in $`T_M`$ such that $`\tau _1,\tau _2T_{}`$ and $`\nu _1,\nu _2N_{}`$, and define the almost-complex structure $`J`$ by $`J\tau _1=\tau _2`$ and $`J\nu _1=\nu _2`$. The leaves of $``$ are then $`J`$-holomorphic, and the homotopy class of $`J_{}`$ is independent of $`g`$.

Due to this almost-complex structure $`J_{}`$, we have well-defined Chern classes: $`c_1(T_M,J)=c_1(T_{})+c_1(N_{})`$ and $`c_2(T_M,J)=c_1(T_{})c_1(N_{})`$. That can be written:

$$c_1(T_M,J)=e(T_{})+e(N_{})$$

$$\chi (M)=e(T_{})e(N_{})$$

The class $`c_1(T_M)`$ also has the *a priori* properties of any Chern class:

$$c_1(T_M)w_2(M)(mod2)$$

$$p_1(M)=c_1(T_M)^22\chi (M)$$

(Note that $`p_1(M)=3\sigma (M)`$, where $`\sigma (M)`$ is the signature of $`M`$.)

## 3. Thurston’s $`h`$-principle

W. Thurston proved in \[Thu74\] that any $`2`$-plane field on a $`4`$-manifold can be homotoped to be tangent to a foliation. Namely:

###### Theorem 3.1 (W. Thurston 1974).

Let $`\tau `$ be a $`2`$-plane field on a manifold $`M`$ of dimension at least $`4`$. Let $`K`$ be a compact subset of $`M`$ such that $`\tau `$ is completely integrable in a neighborhood of $`K`$ ($`K`$ can be empty). Then $`\tau `$ is homotopic $`\mathrm{rel}K`$ to a completely integrable plane field.

This theorem is also true on $`3`$-manifolds (see \[Thu76\]), but *not* in a relative version.

The theorem is proved by first lifting the plane field to a Haefliger structure, and then deforming the latter to become a foliation using the main theorem of \[Thu74\]. The latter result has an alternate proof in \[EM98\].

Of course, as a precondition of the existence of any foliation on $`M`$, the tangent bundle of $`M`$ must split in a sum of two plane bundles (candidates for $`T_M=T_{}N_{}`$). In particular, $`M`$ must admit almost-complex structures. Nonetheless, if we admit foliations with singularities, these restrictions can be circumvented.

###### Remark 3.2.

By construction, the foliations yielded by Thurston’s theorem are not taut: they contain Reeb components. Flexibility comes with a price.

## 4. Taut foliations

(Most statements of this section admit obvious generalizations to arbitrary dimensions and codimensions.)

### 4.1. Definition

A foliation $``$ on a Riemannian manifold $`(M,g)`$ is called minimal if all its leaves are minimal surfaces in $`(M,g)`$ (i.e. they locally minimize area; for any compact piece $`K`$ of a leaf, any small perturbation of $`K`$ rel $`K`$ will have bigger area; that is equivalent to each leaf having zero mean curvature).

A foliation $``$ on $`M`$ is called taut if there is a Riemannian metric $`g`$ such that $``$ is minimal in $`(M,g)`$

###### Remark 4.1.

In the special case of a codimension-$`1`$ foliation, tautness is equivalent to the existence of a $`1`$-manifold transverse to $``$ and crossing all the leaves. A similar condition is much too strong for higher codimensions.

### 4.2. Mean curvature and characteristic form

We define the mean curvature vector field $`H_{,g}`$ as (half) the normal component of $`_{\tau _1}^g\tau _1+_{\tau _2}^g\tau _2`$, for any orthonormal orienting frame $`\{\tau _1,\tau _2\}`$ in $`T_{}`$, with $`^g`$ the Levi-Cività connection of $`g`$. Perturbing a leaf in the direction opposite to $`H`$ most decreases its area. If $`H=0`$ along a leaf, then that leaf is a minimal surface in $`(M,g)`$.

###### Proposition 4.2.

Let $``$ be a foliation on $`(M,g)`$. Let $`\mu `$ be any $`2`$-form on $`M`$ such that $`\mu |_{\text{Leaf}}=vol_g|_{\text{Leaf}}`$ and $`\mu (\tau ,\nu )=0`$ for any $`\tau T_{}`$ and $`\nu N_{}`$. Denote by $`H`$ the mean curvature vector field of the leaves. Then

$$d\mu (\tau _1,\tau _2,\nu )=H,\nu $$

for any orthonormal orienting basis $`\tau _1,\tau _2`$ in $`T_{}`$ and any $`\nu N_{}`$.

In particular, $``$ is minimal if and only if $`d\mu (\tau _1,\tau _2,\nu )=0`$ for all $`\tau _1,\tau _2T_{}`$ and $`\nu N_{}`$.  $`\mathrm{}`$

Forms $`\mu `$ as above always exist, and are not unique. A particular such $`\mu `$ is the characteristic form $`\chi =\chi _{,g}`$, defined to be the unique $`2`$-form such that $`\chi |_{\text{Leaf}}=vol_g|_{\text{Leaf}}`$ and $`\chi (x,\nu )=0`$ for any $`xT_M`$ and $`\nu N_{}`$. (In other words, $`\chi `$ is just the volume form along the leaves.)

The condition $`d\mu (\tau _1,\tau _2,\nu )=0`$ is strictly weaker than asking that $`\mu `$ be closed. For example, for the characteristic form:

###### Lemma 4.3.

If $`d\chi {}_{,g}{}^{}=0`$, then $``$ is minimal and $`^{}`$ is integrable.  $`\mathrm{}`$

The integrability of $`^{}`$ is measured by the other significant component of $`d\chi `$, namely $`d\chi (\tau ,\nu _1,\nu _2)`$ for $`\tau T_{}`$ and $`\nu _1,\nu _2N_{}`$. More precisely, we have

$$d\chi (\tau ,\nu _1,\nu _2)=\chi (\tau ,[\nu _1,\nu _2])$$

### 4.3. Rummler’s criterion

In the direction opposite to the above Proposition 4.2, it was proved in \[Rum79\]:

###### Theorem 4.4 (H. Rummler 1979).

Let $``$ be a foliation on $`M`$. Assume that there is a $`2`$-form $`\mu `$ such that $`\mu |_{\text{Leaf}}>0`$ and $`d\mu |_{\text{Leaf}}=0`$. Then $``$ is taut.

When writing “$`\mu |_{\text{Leaf}}>0`$ and $`d\mu |_{\text{Leaf}}=0`$” we mean “$`\mu (\tau _1,\tau _2)>0`$ and $`d\mu (\tau _1,\tau _2,z)=0`$ for all orienting pairs $`\tau _1,\tau _2T_{}`$ and $`zT_M`$”.

###### Proof.

If $`\mu `$ is positive on the leaves, then there is a metric $`g^\tau `$, defined only on $`T_{}`$ such that $`\mu |_{\text{Leaf}}=vol_{g^\tau }|_{\text{Leaf}}`$. We need to extend $`g^\tau `$ to a genuine metric $`g`$ on $`M`$ that will determine a normal bundle $`N_{}`$ for $``$ such that $`\mu (\tau ,\nu )=0`$ for any $`\tau T_{}`$ and $`\nu N_{}`$. We will first find $`N_{}`$, then extend $`g^\tau `$. Concretely, if $`\tau _1,\tau _2`$ is any basis in $`T_{}`$, we define $`N_{}`$ as $`\mathrm{ker}\mu (\tau _1,)\mathrm{ker}\mu (\tau _2,)`$. Then, after choosing some random metric $`g^\nu `$ on $`N_{}`$, we can extend $`g^\tau `$ to the whole $`T_M=T_{}N_{}`$ simply as $`g=g^\tau g^\nu `$. In view of Proposition 4.2, this $`g`$ will make $``$ minimal. ∎

###### Remark 4.5.

A condition stronger than tautness would be the existence of a $`2`$-form $`\mu `$ such that $`\mu |_{\text{Leaf}}>0`$ and $`d\mu =0`$. The foliation $``$ is then calibrated by $`\mu `$ (see \[HL82\]), and, for a suitable metric $`g`$, the leaves are not only locally area minimizing, but are locally area minimizing in their homology classes (i.e. if $`K`$ is any compact piece of a leaf and $`K^{}`$ is any immersed surface with $`K^{}=K`$ and representing the same class as $`K`$ in $`H_2(M,K)`$, then $`K^{}`$ has bigger area than $`K`$).

###### Example 4.6.

*A Reeb component is not taut.* Denote by $`C`$ a solid torus foliated so that the boundary torus $`C`$ is a leaf, and the interior is foliated by planes (see Figure 2). Consider any $`2`$-dimensional foliation $``$ (of any codimension) containing such a $`C`$. Assume that $``$ is taut. Then there is a $`2`$-form $`\mu `$ satisfying the conditions from Rummler’s Theorem 4.4. But then

$$0=_C𝑑\mu =_C\mu >0$$

which is impossible.

The strong link between $`2`$-forms and minimality of foliations is also suggested (via almost-complex structures) by the following formula:

###### Lemma 4.7.

Let $`g(x,y)=x,y`$ be a Riemannian metric on $`M^4`$ and $``$ its Levi-Cività connection. Let $`J`$ be any $`g`$-orthogonal almost-complex structure, and let $`\omega (x,y)=Jx,y`$ be its fundamental $`2`$-form. Let $`x`$, $`z`$ be any vector fields on $`M`$. Then:

$$d\omega (x,Jx,z)=[x,Jx],Jz{}_{x}{}^{}x+{}_{Jx}{}^{}Jx,z$$

The term $`[x,Jx]`$ measures the integrability of the $`J`$-holomorphic plane field $`x,Jx`$, while the normal component of the term $`{}_{x}{}^{}x+{}_{Jx}{}^{}Jx`$ is the mean curvature of the plane field $`x,Jx`$, and thus measures its $`g`$-minimality. (Lemma 4.7 will be proved at the end of the paper, in Section 9.)

### 4.4. Sullivan’s criterion

In what follows, we wish to at least suggest the nature of Sullivan’s criterion for tautness. Rigor must suffer. In a way, Sullivan’s criterion is a far-reaching generalization of the Reeb Example 4.6 above.

A $`2`$-chain $`\sigma `$ in $`M`$ is called a tangent homology in $`(M,)`$ if there is a $`3`$-chain $`\xi `$ such that $`\xi =\sigma `$ and $`T_{}|_\xi T_\xi `$. (In other words, $`\sigma `$ is a boundary that can be “filled-in” using a chain $`\xi `$ that is tangent to $``$.)

###### Lemma 4.8.

If a sequence of tangent homologies converges to an (oriented) union of compact leaves of $``$, then $``$ is not taut.

###### Proof.

Let $`L_1,\mathrm{},L_k`$ be some compact leaves of $``$, and let $`\sigma _n=\xi _n`$ be a sequence of tangent homologies that converges to $`L_1\mathrm{}L_k`$. Assume that $``$ is taut, and thus there is a $`2`$-form $`\mu `$ with $`\mu |_{\text{Leaf}}>0`$ and $`d\mu |_{\text{Leaf}}=0`$. Then:

$$0=_{\xi _n}𝑑\mu =_{\xi _n}\mu =_{\sigma _n}\mu \stackrel{n}{}_{L_1\mathrm{}L_k}\mu >0$$

which is impossible ∎

(The appropriate notion of convergence here is, of course, a convergence “in measure”.)

Of course, in general, $``$ might not have compact leaves at all. Nonetheless, a set of non-compact leaves might come back on itself in a regular enough fashion that it could be called a “foliation cycle”. Somewhat more rigorously, a foliation cycle can be defined as a transverse measure that is holonomy-invariant. Think of this measure as a way of weighting the leaves of $``$. Then:

###### Theorem 4.9 (D. Sullivan 1979).

A foliation $``$ is taut if and only if no non-trivial foliation cycle can be approximated by tangent homologies.  $`\mathrm{}`$

This result was proved in \[Sul79\], based on the theory developed in \[Sul76\]. A complete recent discussion can be found in \[CC00, Ch. 10\]. The rigorous development of these ideas involves currents.

A (rarely applicable) consequence of this criterion is:

###### Corollary 4.10.

Let $``$ be a foliation on $`M`$. If for every leaf $`L`$ of $``$ there is a surface transverse to $``$ that crosses $`L`$, then $``$ is taut. In fact, $``$ can be calibrated.

Surfaces transverse to foliations are a rare occurrence, though (unlike the codimension-$`1`$ case, where tautness is equivalent to the existence of transverse circles).

## 5. More differential geometry

Here are a couple of general results of a differential geometric nature, from \[Bri84\] and \[GN95\]:

###### Proposition 5.1 (B. Fabiano 1984).

Let $``$ be a minimal codimension-$`2`$ foliation on the Riemannian manifold $`M^m`$. If $`M`$ has non-negative Ricci curvature and $``$ admits a complementary foliation $`^{}`$, then: $``$ is totally geodesic, or $`e(^{})0`$

###### Proposition 5.2 (F.J. García & A.M. Naveira 1995).

Let $``$ be a minimal foliation on the Riemannian manifold $`M^m`$. If $`M`$ has non-positive Ricci curvature and $``$ admits a complementary foliation $`^{}`$, then: $``$ is totally geodesic, or the leaves of $`^{}`$ have non-zero scalar curvature.

As one can notice, these general results have pretty restrictive conditions (mainly: the existence of a complementary foliation). In general, it is worth noticing that foliations of codimension $`2`$ are much harder to study that those of codimension $`1`$. This, in part, explains the success of foliation theory for investigating $`3`$-manifolds, and the lack of much of a theory for $`4`$-manifolds.

## 6. Minimal genus of embedded surfaces

Given any class $`aH_2(M;)`$, there are always embedded surfaces in $`M`$ that represent it. An open problem is to determine how simple such surfaces can be, or, in other words, what is the minimal genus that a surface representing $`a`$ can have. (Remember that $`\chi (S)=22g(S)`$, so minimum genus is maximum Euler characteristic.)

### 6.1. Adjunctions

Notice that, if $`S`$ is a $`J`$-holomorphic surface for some almost-complex structure $`J`$, then

$$\chi (S)+SS=c_1(J)S$$

(simply because $`c_1(J)S=c_1(T_M|_S)=c_1(T_S)+c_1(N_S)=\chi (S)+SS`$). This equality is known as the *Adjunction formula* for $`S`$.

In general, the main and most powerful tool for obtaining genus bounds comes from Seiberg–Witten theory \[KM94, OS00\]:

###### Proposition 6.1 (Adjunction Inequality).

Let $`S`$ be any embedded surface in $`M`$. Assume that either $`M`$ is of Seiberg–Witten simple type and $`S`$ has no sphere components, or that $`SS0`$. Then, for any Seiberg–Witten basic class $`𝛆`$, we have:

$$\chi (S)+SS𝜺S$$

In particular, if $`J`$ is an almost-complex structure admitting a symplectic structure, then

$$\chi (S)+SSc_1(J)S$$

Notice that one can reverse the orientation of $`S`$ and change only the sign of $`𝜺S`$. Thus one often writes the adjunction inequality more sharply as

$$\chi (S)+SS\left|𝜺S\right|$$

### 6.2. Enter foliation

Nonetheless, the bounds offered by Seiberg–Witten basic classes are not always sharp. For example, in the case of manifolds $`M=N^3\times 𝕊^1`$, P. Kronheimer has proved in \[Kro99\] that foliations give *better* bounds:

###### Theorem 6.2 (P. Kronheimer 1999).

Consider $`M=N^3\times 𝕊^1`$, with $`N`$ a closed irreducible $`3`$-manifold. Let $`\overline{}`$ be a taut foliation in $`N`$, with Euler class $`\overline{𝛆}=e(T_\overline{})`$. Let $`𝛆`$ be the image of $`\overline{𝛆}`$ in $`H^2(N\times 𝕊^1)`$. Then, for any embedded surface $`S`$ in $`M`$, without sphere components, we have

$$\chi (S)+SS𝜺S$$

In general, $`𝜺`$ is *not* a Seiberg–Witten basic class. (Nonetheless, the proof of Theorem 6.2 does use Seiberg–Witten theory: the taut foliation $`\overline{}`$ is perturbed to a tight contact structure, which is then symplectically filled in a suitable way, and a version of the Seiberg–Witten invariants is used.)

A taut foliation $`\overline{}`$ on $`N^3`$ induces an obvious product foliation $`=\overline{}\times 𝕊^1`$ on $`M=N\times 𝕊^1`$ (with leaves $`\text{Leaf}\times \{pt\}`$). Then $``$ is also taut (pick a product metric), $`𝜺=e(T_{})`$ is the pull-back of $`\overline{𝜺}=e(T_\overline{})`$, and the almost-complex structure that $``$ determines has $`c_1(J_{})=𝜺=e(T_{})`$. One can then try to generalize Theorem 6.2 as

###### Conjecture 6.3 (P. Kronheimer 1999).

Let $``$ be a taut foliation on $`M^4`$, and $`J_{}`$ be an almost-complex structure induced by $``$. Then, for any embedded surface $`S`$ without sphere components, we have

$$\chi (S)+SSc_1(J_{})S$$

A few extra requirements are needed, e.g. to exclude manifolds like $`S\times 𝕊^2`$. Kronheimer also proposes that the foliations be allowed singularities.

###### Remark 6.4.

The situation in Theorem 6.2 has another peculiarity: $``$ admits transverse foliations. Indeed, since $`\overline{}`$ has codimension $`1`$, any nowhere-zero vector-field in $`N^3`$ normal to $`\overline{}`$ integrates to a $`1`$-dimensional foliation of $`N`$ that is transverse to $`\overline{}`$. By multiplying its leaves by $`𝕊^1`$, this $`1`$-dimensional foliation induces a $`2`$-dimensional foliation in $`M`$ that is transverse to $``$.

One could thus think of strengthening the hypothesis of Conjecture 6.3 by requiring $``$ not only to be taut, but also to admit a transverse foliation. One might push things even further and ask that the second foliation be taut as well. But then one almost runs into:

###### Proposition 6.5 (Two taut makes one symplectic).

Let $``$ and $`𝒢`$ be transverse foliations on $`M^4`$. If there is a metric $`g`$ that makes both $``$ and $`𝒢`$ be minimal and orthogonal, then $`M`$ must admit a symplectic structure. Therefore, for any embedded surface $`S`$ we have

$$\chi (S)+SSc_1(J_{})S$$

(This is an immediate consequence of Lemma 4.7.)

###### Remark 6.6.

*No taut, no symplectic.* At the other extreme, if $`M`$ admits a *non-taut* foliation $``$, then *no* almost-complex structure compatible with $``$ admits symplectic structures (or, more directly, $`M`$ admits no symplectic structures making the leaves of $``$ symplectic submanifolds).

### 6.3. Contrast with dimension $`3`$

Taut foliations on $`3`$-manifolds are well-understood, and are strongly related to minimal genus surfaces \[Thu86, Gab83\]:

###### Proposition 6.7 (W. Thurston 1986).

Let $`N^3`$ be a closed irreducible $`3`$-manifold, and $``$ a taut foliation on $`N`$. For any embedded surface $`S`$ without sphere-components, we have

$$\chi (S)e(T_{})S$$

(Usually written more sharply as $`\chi (S)\left|e(T_F)S\right|`$.)

###### Proposition 6.8 (D. Gabai 1983).

Let $`N^3`$ be a closed irreducible $`3`$-manifold. An embedded surface $`S`$ has minimal genus if and only if it is the leaf of a taut foliation of $`N`$.  $`\mathrm{}`$

No similar statement is known for $`4`$-manifolds. For a survey of foliations on $`3`$-manifolds, see for example \[Gab01\].

## 7. Foliations and Gromov compactness

First, an example that shows the flexibility of foliations:

###### Example 7.1.

*Creating a torus leaf.* Let $``$ be *any* foliation on a $`4`$-manifold $`M`$. Let $`c:𝕊^1M`$ be any embedding. The curve $`c`$ can always be slightly perturbed to be transverse to $``$. Choose another local coordinate near $`c`$, transverse both to $``$ and to $`c`$, and think of it as *time* (with $`c`$ appearing at time $`t=0`$). Start at time $`t=1`$. As time goes on, begin pushing more and more the leaves of $``$ parallel with the direction of $`c`$, wrapping them around more and more as time approaches $`t=0`$ (see Figures 4 and 5). At $`t=0`$, we can fit in a torus leaf, with the interior of the torus foliated by leaves diffeomorphic to $`^2`$—a *Reeb component*. As time goes on from $`t=0`$, we play the movie backward. Notice that the new foliation is *homotopic* with the one we started with (compare with Corollary 8.8).

Combining with Theorem 8.2 below, this yields:

###### Corollary 7.2.

Any almost-complex structure is homotopic to one for which Gromov compactness fails.

Gromov compactness here means the compactness of the space of all $`J`$-holomorphic curves (curve = real surface). In other words, any sequence of holomorphic curves $`f_n:(\mathrm{\Sigma },j_n)(M,J)`$ has a subsequence converging to a limit $`f:\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}M`$ that is $`J`$-holomorphic (and may have nodal singularities, see also Figure 6; the limit domain $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ is obtained by collapsing circles of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$). Gromov compactness always holds for symplectic structures, due to the following \[Gro85\]:

###### Theorem 7.3 (Gromov compactness).

Let $`J`$ be an almost-complex structure on $`M`$, and $`g`$ a compatible Riemannian metric. Let $`f_n:(\mathrm{\Sigma },j_n)(M,J)`$ be a sequence of holomorphic compact curves in $`M`$. If the $`g`$-area of $`f_n(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ is bounded, then $`f_n`$ has a subsequence that converges to a holomorphic curve $`f:(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{},j)(M,J)`$, which might have nodal singularities.

And the area bound condition is satisfied if $`J`$ admits a compatible *symplectic* structure, and if all $`f_n(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ represent a same homology class. (This is actually how the theorem is most used.) For a thorough discussion, see for example \[AL94\].

###### Proof of Corollary 7.2.

By Theorem 8.2, an almost-complex structure can be deformed till there is a singular foliation $``$ with all leaves holomorphic. As in Example 7.1 above, create a torus leaf. Actually, by “freezing” the movie at $`t=0`$ (expanding the frame at $`t=0`$ to all $`t[\epsilon ,\epsilon ]`$), create a lot of tori. Now pick a second curve, orthogonal to these tori, and apply that example again. What appears in the end is a torus that explodes to make room for a new Reeb component. Thinking in terms of an almost-complex structure $`J`$ induced by the final foliation, we have a sequence of $`J`$-holomorphic tori that has no decent limit. ∎

###### Question 7.4 (R. Kirby 2002).

Let $``$ be a foliation on $`M`$, and $`J`$ an almost-complex structure making the leaves $`J`$-holomorphic. What conditions imposed on $``$ insure that Gromov compactness holds for $`J`$?

In the extreme, if $``$ is a Lefschetz pencil (see Example 8.1), then Gromov compactness holds (the manifold is symplectic). Compare also with Proposition 6.5.

The flexibility from our examples, at least, is done away with if we require the foliations to be *taut* (since that excludes Reeb components).

## 8. Singular foliations

For a fuller treatment of the topic of this section, see \[Sco03\].

For a foliation $``$ to exist on a manifold $`M`$, the tangent bundle must split $`T_M=T_{}N_{}`$. Since in general that does not happen, one must allow for singularities of $``$. An important example is \[Don99\]:

###### Theorem 8.1 (S.K. Donaldson).

Let $`J`$ be an almost-complex structure on $`M`$ that admits a compatible symplectic structure. Then $`J`$ can be deformed to an almost-complex structure $`J^{}`$ such that $`M`$ admits a Lefschetz pencil with $`J^{}`$-holomorphic fibers.

A Lefschetz pencil is a *singular fibration* $`M^1`$ (see Figures 7 and 8) with singularities modeled locally by

$$(z_1,z_2)z_1/z_2\text{or}(z_1,z_2)z_1z_2$$

for suitable local complex coordinates (compatible with the orientation of $`M`$). Note that all fibers pass through all singularities of type $`z_1/z_2`$. The existence of a Lefschetz pencil is equivalent to the existence of a symplectic structure. See \[GS99, ch. 8\] for a survey.

One can think of a Lefschetz pencil as a special case of a taut *singular foliation*.

As mentioned before, a (non-singular) foliation $``$ on $`M`$ induces almost-complex structures, and we have $`c_1(J_{})=e(T_{})+e(N_{})`$ and $`\chi (M)=e(T_{})e(N_{})`$ If the foliation $``$ has singularities, then the second equality above fails, and the defect $`\chi (M)e(T_{})e(N_{})`$ measures the number of singularities (or, for more general singularities, their complexity).

Call a class $`cH^2(M;)`$ a complex class of the $`4`$-manifold $`M`$ if

$$cw_2(M)(mod2)\text{and}p_1(M)=c^22\chi (M)$$

An element $`cH^2(M;)`$ is a complex class if and only if there is an almost-complex structure $`J`$ on $`M`$ such that $`c_1(T_M,J)=c`$.

###### Theorem 8.2 (Existence theorem).

Let $`cH^2(M;)`$ be a complex class, and let $`c=\tau +\nu `$ be any splitting such that $`\chi (M)\tau \nu 0`$. Then there is a singular foliation $``$ with $`e(T_{})=\tau `$ and $`e(N_{})=\nu `$, with $`n=\chi (M)\tau \nu `$ singularities that can be chosen to be modeled on the levels of the complex functions $`(z_1,z_2)z_1/z_2`$ or $`(z_1,z_2)z_1z_2`$.

###### Remark 8.3.

Due to the singularities, the bundles $`T_{}`$ and $`N_{}`$ are only defined on $`M\{\text{singularities}\}`$. Their Euler classes *a priori* belong to $`H^2(M\{\text{singularities}\};)`$, but can be pulled-back to $`H^2(M;)`$, since the isolated singularities can be chosen to affect only the 4-skeleton of $`M`$, and thus to not influence $`H^2`$.

###### Remark 8.4.

Unlike a Lefschetz pencil, in general *not all* leaves of the foliation pass through the $`z_1/z_2`$-singularities. If they did, then the foliation would be taut, which is rather rare.

Finding a splitting $`c=\tau +\nu `$ with $`\chi (M)\tau \nu 0`$ is possible for most $`4`$-manifolds that admit almost-complex structures. For example, if

$$\chi (M)0$$

(e.g. for all *simply-connected* $`M`$’s), then one can choose either one of $`\tau `$ or $`\nu `$ to be $`0`$, and conclude that such foliations exist. Or:

###### Lemma 8.5.

If $`b_2^+(M)>0`$, then there are infinitely many splittings $`c=\tau +\nu `$ with $`\chi (M)\tau \nu 0`$ (and thus infinitely many homotopy types of foliations). If $`b_2^+(M)=0`$, there are at most finitely many.

###### Proof.

If $`b_2^+(M)>0`$, there is a class $`\alpha `$ with $`\alpha \alpha >0`$. Choose $`\tau =ck\alpha `$ and $`\nu =k\alpha `$ ($`k`$). Then $`\chi (M)\tau \nu =\chi (M)kc\alpha +k^2\alpha ^2`$, and for $`k`$ big enough it will be positive. ∎

The main restriction to the existence of such foliations remains, of course, the existence of a complex class. But Theorem 8.2 can be generalized for the case when $`c`$ is merely an *integral lift* of $`w_2(M)`$ (corresponding to weakening almost-complex structures to *spin$`^𝐂`$-structures*). In that case, singularities are also modeled using local complex coordinates, but are allowed to be compatible either with the orientation of $`M`$ or with the *opposite orientation*. This is similar to the generalization of Lefschetz pencils to *achiral Lefschetz pencils*, see \[GS99, §8.4\].

The singularities of $``$ are exactly the singularities that appear in a Lefschetz pencil. They can be chosen in either combination of types as long as their number is $`n=\chi (M)\tau \nu `$. For example, there are always foliations with only $`z_1/z_2`$-singularities, that can thus be eliminated by blowing-up. In fact, other choices of singularities are possible.

Namely, for any isolated singularity $`p`$ of a foliation that is compatible with an almost-complex structure one can define its Hopf degree $`\mathrm{deg}p0`$ (essentially a Hopf invariant of the tangent plane field above a small $`3`$-sphere around $`p`$), and then one can choose any suitable set of singularities $`\{p_i\}`$ as long as

$$\mathrm{}\mathrm{deg}p_i=\chi (M)\tau \nu $$

Let $``$ be a foliation. If $`S`$ is a closed transversal of $``$, then we must have

$`e(T_{})S=e(T_{}|_S)=e(N_S)=SS`$
$`e(N_{})S=e(N_{}|_S)=e(T_S)=\chi (S)`$
These conditions are, in fact, sufficient:

###### Theorem 8.6 (Closed transversal).

Let $`S`$ be a closed connected surface. Let $`c`$ be a complex class with a splitting $`c=\tau +\nu `$ such that $`\chi (M)\tau \nu 0`$. If

$$\chi (S)=\nu SSS=\tau S$$

then there is a singular foliation $``$ with $`e(T_{})=\tau `$, $`e(N_{})=\nu `$, and having $`S`$ as a closed transversal.

If, on the other hand, $`S`$ is a closed leaf of $``$, then we have

$`e(T_{})S=e(T_{}|_S)=e(T_S)=\chi (S)`$
$`e(N_{})S=e(N_{}|_S)=e(N_S)=SS`$
Conversely:

###### Theorem 8.7 (Closed leaf).

Let $`S`$ be a closed connected surface with $`SS0`$. Let $`c`$ be a complex class with a splitting $`c=\tau +\nu `$ such that $`\chi (M)\tau \nu SS`$. If

$$\chi (S)=\tau SSS=\nu S$$

then there is a singular foliation $``$ with $`e(T_{})=\tau `$, $`e(N_{})=\nu `$, and having $`S`$ as a closed leaf. (The number of singularities along $`S`$ is $`SS`$.)

An immediate consequence is:

###### Corollary 8.8 (Trivial tori).

A homologically-trivial torus can always be made a leaf or a transversal of a foliation.

Such flexibility is a strong suggestion that more rigidity is needed in order to actually catch any of the topology of $`M`$ with the aid of foliations. Requiring foliations to be taut seems, once again, a natural suggestion.

## 9. Appendix

### 9.1. Minimality and $`2`$-forms

###### Proof of Lemma 4.7.

We prove that, if $`g`$ is a Riemannian metric, $``$ its Levi-Cività connection, $`J`$ be any $`g`$-orthogonal almost-complex structure, and $`\omega (x,y)=Jx,y`$ its fundamental $`2`$-form, then, for any vector fields $`x,z`$ on $`M`$, we have:

$$(d\omega )(x,Jx,z)=[x,Jx],Jz{}_{x}{}^{}x+{}_{Jx}{}^{}Jx,z$$

For any $`2`$-form $`\alpha `$ we have:

$`(d\alpha )(x,y,z)`$ $`=\left({}_{x}{}^{}\alpha \right)(y,z)+\left({}_{y}{}^{}\alpha \right)(z,x)+\left({}_{z}{}^{}\alpha \right)(x,y)`$
$`=x\alpha (y,z)+y\alpha (z,x)+z\alpha (x,y)`$
$`\alpha ({}_{x}{}^{}y,z)\alpha ({}_{y}{}^{}z,x)\alpha ({}_{z}{}^{}x,y)`$
$`\alpha (y,{}_{x}{}^{}z)\alpha (z,{}_{y}{}^{}x)\alpha (x,{}_{z}{}^{}y)`$
Applying this to $`\omega (a,b)=Ja,b`$, we have:

$`(d\omega )(x,Jx,z)`$ $`=xx,z+(Jx)Jz,x+zJx,Jx`$
$`J{}_{x}{}^{}Jx,zJ{}_{Jx}{}^{}z,xJ{}_{z}{}^{}x,Jx`$
$`+x,{}_{x}{}^{}zJz,{}_{Jx}{}^{}xJx,{}_{z}{}^{}Jx`$
Using that $`a,Jb=Ja,b`$ we get:

$`(d\omega )(x,Jx,z)`$ $`=xx,z+(Jx)Jz,x+zx,x`$
$`+{}_{x}{}^{}Jx,Jz+{}_{Jx}{}^{}z,Jx{}_{z}{}^{}x,x`$
$`+x,{}_{x}{}^{}zJz,{}_{Jx}{}^{}xJx,{}_{z}{}^{}Jx`$
Since $`{}_{z}{}^{}x,x=\frac{1}{2}zx,x`$ and $`Jx,{}_{z}{}^{}Jx=\frac{1}{2}zJx,Jx=\frac{1}{2}zx,x`$, we cancel the last terms of each line, and get:

$`(d\omega )(x,Jx,z)`$ $`=xx,z+(Jx)Jz,x`$
$`+{}_{x}{}^{}Jx,Jz+{}_{Jx}{}^{}z,Jx`$
$`+x,{}_{x}{}^{}zJz,{}_{Jx}{}^{}x`$
But $`xx,z={}_{x}{}^{}x,z+x,{}_{x}{}^{}z`$, so $`(Jx)Jz,x=(Jx)z,Jx={}_{Jx}{}^{}z,Jxz,{}_{Jx}{}^{}Jx`$, and therefore:

$`(d\omega )(x,Jx,z)`$ $`={}_{x}{}^{}x,zx,{}_{x}{}^{}z{}_{Jx}{}^{}z,Jxz,{}_{Jx}{}^{}Jx`$
$`+{}_{x}{}^{}Jx,Jz+{}_{Jx}{}^{}z,Jx+x,{}_{x}{}^{}zJz,{}_{Jx}{}^{}x`$
$`(d\omega )(x,Jx,z)`$ $`={}_{x}{}^{}x,zz,{}_{Jx}{}^{}Jx+{}_{x}{}^{}Jx,JzJz,{}_{Jx}{}^{}x`$
Since $``$ is torsion-free, we have $`{}_{x}{}^{}Jx{}_{Jx}{}^{}x=[x,Jx]`$, so:

$$(d\omega )(x,Jx,z)=[x,Jx],Jz{}_{x}{}^{}x+{}_{Jx}{}^{}Jx,z$$

which concludes the proof. ∎

In particular, if $`\omega `$ is symplectic (i.e. $`d\omega =0`$), then any integrable $`J`$-holomorphic plane field is $`g`$-minimal, and, vice-versa, any $`g`$-minimal $`J`$-holomorphic plane field must be integrable. The converse is also true: If there are enough $`J`$-holomorphic integrable minimal plane fields, then $`\omega `$ must be symplectic. Thus:

###### Corollary 9.1.

Assume that $`M`$ admits two transversal $`2`$-dimensional foliations $``$ and $`𝒢`$ such that: there is a metric $`g`$ such that both $``$ and $`𝒢`$ are $`g`$-minimal; and there is an $`g`$-orthogonal almost-complex structure $`J`$ that makes both $``$ and $`𝒢`$ be $`J`$-holomorphic. Then $`M`$ admits the symplectic structure $`\omega (x,y)=g(Jx,y)`$.

In particular, if the first condition is satisfied, and further $``$ and $`𝒢`$ are $`g`$-orthogonal, then the second condition is automatically satisfied, and Proposition 6.5 follows:

*If a Riemannian manifold $`M`$ admits two $`g`$-orthogonal and $`g`$-minimal foliations, then $`M`$ admits a symplectic structure.*

### 9.2. Foliated surgery

We add here a few comments on some surgical techniques that can be used to combine foliations.

###### 9.2.

Transverse surfaces to foliations can be used to glue foliated manifolds using a *normal connected sum*: Let $`(M,)`$ and $`(N,𝒢)`$ be foliated manifolds. Assume that there is an embedded surface $`S_1`$ in $`M`$ transverse to $``$, and an embedded surface $`S_2`$ in $`M`$ transverse to $`𝒢`$. Assume further that $`S_1S_2`$ and $`S_1S_1=S_2S_2`$. Then the foliated manifolds $`(M,)`$ and $`(N,𝒢)`$ admit a foliated normal connected sum along $`S_1S_2`$

###### 9.3.

For regular *connected sums*, one can use pencil singularities of opposite orientations. Namely, when doing the connected sum, pick small $`3`$-spheres around two pencil singularities of opposite types. The result of the connected sum is a foliated manifold with one less positive pencil singularity and one less negative pencil singularity.

###### 9.4.

Another surgery is the *logarithmic transformation* performed along a torus $`T`$ that is transverse to a foliation and has $`TT=0`$. One takes a neighborhood $`T\times D^2`$ of the torus $`T`$, cuts it out and glues it back in using an automorphism of the boundary $`(T\times D^2)=𝕊^1\times 𝕊^1\times 𝕊^1`$ (see Figure 9, where a logarithmic transformation of multiplicity $`2`$ is suggested, with the unrepresented $`𝕊^1`$-factor belonging to $`T`$). If $`T`$ is transverse to the foliation $``$, then one way of continuing the foliation across the glued-in $`T\times D^2`$ is suggested in Figure 10, but it needs a (circle of) Reeb components and thus ruins tautness.


text:
# Probing Extra Dimensions with Neutrino Oscillations

## I Introduction

This article is dedicated to Prof. Hiroshi Ezawa on the occasion of his seventieth birthday. I met Hiroshi in the early 1960’s, at the University of Maryland. Right away it was clear that I could learn much from him, both in physics and in mathematics. What I did not realize until later was his administrative talent and his superb quality in leadership, both amply demonstrated in his illustrious career. I would like to take this opportunity to wish Hiroshi a happy birthday, a happy retirement, and many many happy returns.

The possible existence of extra (spatial) dimensions beyond our three was first suggested by Theodor Kaluza in 1919, later modified by Oskar Klein in 1926. When superstring came along, consistency requires it to live in six extra dimensions. Unfortunately, there is no experimental evidence to date for the presence of these extra dimensions. That may be due to the smallness of the extra dimensions, too small even for the largest accelerators to see. The lack of Kaluza-Klein excited states up to about 1 TeV places an upper bound on the size of the extra dimensions to be about $`10^{19}`$ m.

Inspired by the discovery of higher-dimensional D-branes in non-perturbative string theories , where open strings are trapped, a braneworld scenario was proposed  in which the Standard-Model (SM) particles are confined to our three dimensional world, called a 3-brane. Only SM singlets such as gravitons and right-handed neutrinos may leave our world to roam in the extra-dimensional bulk. In that scenario, SM particles have no Kaluza-Klein (KK) excited states simply because they cannot get into the bulk, so the upper bound of $`10^{19}`$ m placed on the size of the extra dimensions is no longer valid. In order to probe the presence and the property of the extra dimensions, we must use either gravity, or the right-handed neutrinos $`\nu _R`$.

A deviation from the inverse-square law of gravity can be used to detect the presence of an extra dimension. In a $`3+n`$ dimensional world, the surface area of a sphere of radius $`r`$ is proportional to $`r^{2+n}`$. Hence the gravitational force between two masses $`m_1`$ and $`m_2`$ is given by $`G_nm_1m_2/r^{2+n}`$, where $`G_n`$ is the Newtonian gravitational constant in $`n`$ extra dimensions. This is the case when $`r`$ is less than the size $`R`$ of the extra dimensions. Otherwise, the sphere is squashed in the extra dimensions to a size $`R`$, so the surface area of the squashed object is now proportional to $`r^2R^n`$. The resulting gravitational force $`G_n(\kappa /R^n)/r^2`$ once again obeys the inverse-square law, where $`\kappa `$ is a computable geometrical factor. If a deviation from the inverse-square law is detected experimentally at $`r<R`$, then $`R`$ marks the size of the extra dimension. Present experiments found no deviation down to about 0.2 mm , so $`R`$ must be smaller than that. However, it could be as large as 0.1 mm. If so, and if there are at least two extra dimensions, then $`G_n=G_0R_n/\kappa `$ is large enough for strong gravitational effects to be seen at TeV energies. This possibility led to a lot of excitement and many papers.

What if the size of the extra dimension is much smaller than 0.1 mm, or, there is only one extra dimension with such a large size? In that case gravity remains weak, and it is powerless to yield any information in the near future on extra dimensions.

What about the other probe, the right-handed neutrinos $`\nu _R`$? They are assumed to be absent in the SM. In any case, they are SM singlets, hence sterile, in the sense that they experience none of the SM forces. How can they be detected even when they are present?

The answer is ‘mass’. If $`\nu _R`$’s exist, they would probably produce neutrino masses through the Dirac-mass coupling $`\overline{\nu _R}\nu _L`$ with the left-handed neutrinos $`\nu _L`$. A good indication of the presence of a right-handed neutrino is therefore the presence of a neutrino mass.

No mass has been detected in the tritium $`\beta `$-decay experiments. This places an upper bound of 2.2 eV on the mass of the electron-antineutrino, $`\overline{\nu }_e`$. However, the pioneering neutrino experiments led by Davis and by Koshiba, the beautiful data coming from Super-Kamiokande, SNO, and KamLAND , support an oscillation explanation for the missing neutrinos they detected. It demands at least two of three neutrinos to have non-zero masses. Specifically, if $`M_1,M_2,M_3`$ are the masses of the three mass eigenstates, then $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_{}M_2^2M_1^2(7.5\times 10^3\mathrm{eV})^2`$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_{atm}^2|M_3^2M_2^2|(50\times 10^3\mathrm{eV})^2`$. There are also astrophysical evidence suggesting the neutrino masses to be bounded above by 0.23 eV, if they are degenerate .

Unlike the quarks, oscillation experiments discover that neutrinos mix strongly among themselves. Three rotation angles and one phase angle are needed to describe the mixing of three left-handed fermions. In the case of quarks, all three rotation angles are small. In the case of neutrinos, two of them ($`\theta _{12}`$ and $`\theta _{23}`$) are large and one of them ($`\theta _{13}`$) is small.

Now that we know the neutrinos have a mass, we shall assume the right-handed neutrinos to exist. Where do we find them? Neutrino mixing is large but quark mixing is small; neutrino masses are small but quark masses are at least a million times larger. These differences suggest that neutrinos are quite different from the quarks. Since the left-handed quarks and the left-handed neutrinos behave in much the same way under the SM, that indicates the right-handed quarks and the right-handed neutrinos are very different. Right-handed quarks are found at the SM energies, this difference may be telling us that the right-handed neutrinos should be found elsewhere.

Where? The popular scenario is to assume the right-handed neutrinos to live at very high energies. Through the seesaw mechanism , this scenario explains the smallness of the neutrino mass, though extra assumptions are needed to explain the large mixing of neutrinos this way.

With the braneworld scenario, there is another possibility. Quarks are confined to the 3-brane we live in, but $`\nu _R`$’s are free to roam in the bulk. That distinction might give rise to the qualitative difference between quarks and neutrinos. In the rest of this article, we shall examine this possibility more closely.

Each neutrino in the bulk yields an infinite tower of KK neutrinos in four dimensions, which we shall refer to as the bulk neutrinos, or the bulk states. These neutrinos are non-chiral, containing both the left-handed and the right-handed components. Since they originate from the bulk, they are sterile.

To proceed further, let us keep two general questions in mind. First, can the braneworld scenario explain the difference between quarks and neutrinos in a natural way? That is important because that is the raison d’être for going into extra dimensions. Second, do the data on neutrino oscillations even allow the extra-dimensions to exist? The second question is relevant because solar and atmospheric neutrino data demand the mixing with sterile neutrinos to be small, but in the braneworld scenario all the bulk neutrinos are necessarily sterile.

The answer to these questions depends to some extent on the size $`R`$ of the extra dimension. In most of the recent literature , the size is assumed to be large. A size of $`R=0.1`$ mm corresponds to a characteristic energy of $`2\times 10^3`$ eV, putting it in the right ball park of the neutrino masses. Using perturbation theory, a weak coupling between the left-handed brane (the SM) neutrinos and the right-handed bulk neutrinos can be shown to produce a small neutrino mass as well as a small mixing with the sterile neutrinos. It however does not explain the large neutrino mixing in a natural way, though that can be arranged.

What if the size of the extra dimensions is much smaller than 0.1 mm? Then the weak-coupling assumption explains nothing, so neutrino oscillation is no longer a useful probe for extra dimensions. Neither is gravity in that case. We are then back to the unenviable position of having no way to tell the presence or absence of an extra dimension.

That however is based on the assumption that the brane-bulk coupling is weak. We shall argue that it is more natural to expect that coupling to be strong, not weak. In that case, things are quite different, and neutrino oscillation can provide useful information even when the extra dimensions are small.

Strong coupling with the bulk may induce a large mixing between the brane neutrinos, thereby explaining naturally why neutrino mixing can be large while quark mixing is small. This answers the first question posted before in the affirmative. But why then is one of the three neutrino mixing angles small, instead of being all large? We shall show that the smallness of that particular mixing angle is intimately related to the smallness of the mass-gap ratio $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_{}^2/\mathrm{\Delta }M_{atm}^2`$.

What about the second question? With a strong coupling surely we expect a large amount of sterile neutrinos showing up in the the solar and atmospheric data, contrary to observation. Is there any way out of this fatal problem?

There is. The details will be discussed in the rest of this article, but let us summarize here what is involved.

The trick is to introduce an extra sterile neutrino on the brane, so that most of the mixings are between the sterile brane and bulk neutrinos, and not between the active and sterile neutrinos. In the strong coupling limit, the introduction of this sterile brane neutrino is forced on us by the dynamics; it is not arbitrary and artificial. This is so because one of the brane neutrinos is always absorbed by the KK tower of bulk neutrinos in the strong coupling limit. In other words, if we start with $`f`$ flavor neutrinos in the brane, in the strong coupling limit there are only $`f1`$ mass eigenstates left on the brane.

Therefore, in order to have two separate mass gaps needed to explain the solar and atmospheric neutrino experiments, we need to have three mass eigenstates in the brane, and hence four favor states to start out with. We know from the $`Z^0`$ width that there are only three active neutrinos, $`\nu _e,\nu _\mu `$, and $`\nu _\tau `$, so the fourth one must be sterile. We shall denote it by $`\nu _s`$.

With the extra dimensions small, the small mass of these neutrinos can no longer be explained in the usual way , so seesaw or some other mechanism must be invoked. In what follows we shall not ask the origin of these small masses, we simply introduce four parameters $`m_a`$ to describe the Majorana masses of the flavor neutrinos on the brane.

All masses from now on are understood to be measured in some unit $`U`$, so the parameters $`m_a`$ and later on $`d_a`$ are dimensionless.

In addition to the four brane neutrinos, a minimal model would consist of a single massless bulk neutrino in five spacetime dimensions. It decomposes into an infinite tower of four-dimensional KK neutrinos, to be called the bulk neutrinos, or bulk states. With $`U`$ properly chosen, the spectrum of this infinite tower can be taken to be the set of all integers.

A Dirac mass coupling of the type $`d\overline{\nu _R}\nu _L+h.c.`$ is introduced to couple the left-handed brane neutrinos $`\nu _L`$ to the right-handed bulk neutrinos $`\nu _R`$. Since the KK tower comes from a single neutrino in the bulk, there is only one coupling constant $`d_a`$ per brane neutrino.

If the Dirac masses $`d_a`$ are comparable to the Dirac mass of any of the charged fermions, and if the Majorana masses $`m_a`$ are comparable to the neutrino masses, then $`d_a`$ is larger than $`m_b`$ by more than a million times. Defining the overall coupling strength to be $`d^2=_{a=1}^4d_a^2`$, and letting $`e_a=d_a/d`$, it is therefore likely that Nature is operating in the strong-coupling regime, where $`dm_a,e_a,1`$.

In summary, there are eight real parameters in the minimal theory. Four $`m_a`$’s, and four $`d_a`$’s. The flavor neutrinos are the states when $`d=0`$; the mass eigenstates in the strong-coupling limit are the neutrinos when $`d\mathrm{}`$.

To get the mass eigenstates for $`d0`$, we have to diagonalize an infinite dimensional matrix, whose rows and columns are labeled by the four flavor neutrinos on the brane, and the infinite number of flavor neutrinos of the bulk. The neat thing is that the eigenvalues and the eigenvectors of this infinite dimensional matrix take on a very simple form in the strong coupling limit.

As mentioned before, one brane neutrino is absorbed into the KK tower of bulk neutrinos. Taking this into account, the final mass spectrum in the strong coupling limit is as follows. The whole bulk spectrum is rigidly shifted by half a unit, so that the masses are now half integers. The three mass eigenvalues $`M_1,M_2,M_3`$ on the brane are sandwiched between the four Majorana masses $`m_a`$ of the flavor neutrinos. Namely, if we order the parameters according to $`m_1<m_2<m_3<m_4`$, and $`M_1<M_2<M_3`$, then $`m_1<M_1<m_2<M_2<m_3<M_3<m_4`$. We shall refer to this inequality as the ordering relation. It is a crucial feature of the strong coupling model.

In the strong coupling limit, we are left with seven free parameters, four $`m_a`$’s and three independent $`e_a`$’s (because $`_{a=1}^4e_a^2=1`$). It turns out that we can replace them by the four $`m_a`$’s and the three $`M_i`$’s, provided the ordering relation is maintained. Technically this is quite important because it is much simpler to deal with the latter set of parameters than the former set.

The eigenvalues, and hence the unitary overlapping matrix between the flavor and the mass eigenstates, can also be worked out.

One can then compute the probability amplitude of a flavor neutrino $`\nu _a`$ oscillating into a flavor neutrino $`\nu _b`$, after traversing a distance $`L`$. To do so, we must decompose the flavor neutrino $`\nu _a`$ into a linear combination of the eigenstates, because it is these normal states that propagate with a definite frequency. After a distance $`L`$, the mass eigenstates must all be converted back into the flavor state $`\nu _b`$ to get the probability amplitude.

When $`d`$ is large, the flavor states on the brane have only a tiny overlap with each of the bulk eigenstates. Nevertheless, since there are an infinite number of bulk eigenstates that a strongly coupled flavor brane neutrino can reach into, the total effect of the bulk is not negligible. The contribution from the infinite number of bulk states destructively interfere with one another, so completely that any active neutrino that oscillates into the bulk will not be able to come back. In other words, the bulk acts like an absorber to the active neutrinos in the brane.

Oscillations that go through the three brane eigenstates act just like ordinary oscillations without the presence of extra dimensions.

In other words, the effect of the extra dimensions is to cause part of the oscillating flux of active neutrinos to be lost in the bulk. This then is the signature of the presence of an extra dimension that we should look for.

We can now describe the physical significance of the seven parameters in the theory. $`M_1,M_2,M_3`$ are the eigenmasses of the three active brane neutrinos. Since the mass is actually $`M_iU`$, it is only these products that can be determined experimentally. Different values of $`U`$ corresponds to different size $`R`$ of the extra dimension, because $`U`$ was chosen to make the flavor mass of the bulk neutrinos to be an integer. Since $`U`$ alone cannot be determined from the experiment, neither can $`R`$.

This is not to say that we can use this method to probe an extra dimension no matter how small it is. The strong-coupling requirement $`d1`$ places a limit how small $`RU^1`$ can be, if we assume the Dirac mass $`dUd/R`$ to be comparable to the Dirac mass of the charged fermions. The precise value of course depends on what we use for $`d`$. Let us illustrate it with two extremes. If $`d/R`$ is the electron mass 0.5 MeV, then we need to have $`R4\times 10^{13}`$ m. If it is the top quark mass 175 GeV, then we can go down to an $`R10^{18}`$ m.

The other four parameters, $`m_1,m_2,m_3,m_4`$ can be used to fit the three mixing angles, and the amount of absorption by the bulk. Note that there is only one free parameter to describe the potential absorption for any $`\nu _a`$ oscillating into any $`\nu _b`$, so there are predictions that can be potentially falsified.

No absorption has been detected in the present data. Refined and precise data in the future may. It that happens, it is a good indication that an extra dimension exists.

In the minimal medel, the absence of absorption can be achieved by letting $`m_4\mathrm{}`$. In that limit the mixing between the active neutrinos $`\nu _e,\nu _\mu ,\nu _\tau `$ and the sterile neutrino $`\nu _s`$ also disappears. Then we revert to a situation indistinguishable from the case without extra dimensions. In principle, there is actually a way that might tell them apart, because the three parameters $`m_1,m_2,m_3`$ in the minimal model are constrained by the neutrino masses $`M_1`$ and $`M_2`$ through the ordering relation. As such we may not be able to use them to fit the three experimentally measured mixing angles. In reality these constraints are fulfilled in the fit, so these two cases become indistinguishable.

When $`M_1`$ approaches $`M_2`$, the ordering constraint requires $`M_1=m_2=M_2`$. This pinching of $`m_2`$ implies $`\theta _{13}=0`$. So in this model, one obtains the interesting prediction that $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_{}^2=0`$ implies $`\theta _{13}=0`$. The smallness of $`\theta _{13}`$ is then related to the smallness of the mass gap ratio $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_{}^2/\mathrm{\Delta }M_{atm}^2`$.

This minimal model in five spacetime dimensions can be substantially generalized without changing any of the crucial features discussed above.

These descriptions and conclusions will be put into mathematical formulas in the next few sections. In Sec. 2, the mass matrix, its eigenvalue, and its eigenvectors of the minimal model are examined. They are then used to compute the oscillating amplitude in Sec. 3. Generalization beyond the minimal model will be discussed in Sec. 4.

## II The Minimal Model and Its Solution

The mathematical solution of the minimal model will be sketched here. For more details, please consult Refs.  and .

This model contains four flavor neutrinos in the brane, and a single massless flavor neutrino in a five dimensional spacetime. The latter decomposes into a KK tower of bulk neutrinos with integer masses, and the former are each given a Majorana mass $`m_a(a=1,2,3,4)`$. The brane neutrinos are coupled to the bulk neutrinos by a Dirac-mass coupling, with coupling strengths $`d_a`$. We assume all masses to be expressed in some common unit $`U`$, so that the eight real parameters $`m_a`$ and $`d_a`$ are dimensionless. Direct coupling between the brane neutrinos is assumed to be absent, and CP violation is ignored in this simple model.

The symmetric mass matrix of this model is

$`=\left(\begin{array}{cc}m& D\\ D^T& B\end{array}\right),`$ (1)
where $`m=\mathrm{diag}(m_1,m_2,m_3,m_4)`$ is the $`4\times 4`$ mass matrix of the brane neutrinos, and $`B=\mathrm{diag}(0,+1,1,+2,2,+3,3,\mathrm{})`$ is the infinite dimensional mass matrix of the bulk neutrinos. The coupling between the two is supplied by $`D`$, a $`4\times \mathrm{}`$ matrix in which every element of the $`i`$th row is equal to $`d_a`$.

The eigenvalue equation for the mass matrix is

$`\left(\begin{array}{c}w\\ v\end{array}\right)=\lambda \left(\begin{array}{c}w\\ v\end{array}\right),`$ (2)
where $`w`$ is a $`4`$-dimensional column vector with components $`w_a`$, and $`v`$ is an $`\mathrm{}`$-dimensional column vector with components $`v_n`$. $`\lambda `$ is the mass eigenvalue. In component form, (2) reads

$`m_aw_a+d_aA`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda w_a,`$ (3)
$`b+(Bv)_n`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda v_n,`$ (4)
where

$`A`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}v_n,`$ (5)
$`b`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{4}{}}}d_aw_a.`$ (6)
We shall choose the normalization of the eigenvectors by setting $`b=1`$.

The eigenvector components can be solved from (3) and (4) to be

$`v_n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda n}},`$ (7)
$`w_a`$ $`=`$ $`A{\displaystyle \frac{d_a}{\lambda m_a}}=(Ad){\displaystyle \frac{e_a}{\lambda m_a}},`$ (8)
where

$`d^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{4}{}}}d_a^2,`$ (9)
$`e_a`$ $``$ $`d_a/d,`$ (10)
$`1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{4}{}}}e_a^2.`$ (11)
The constant $`A`$ may now be computed to be

$`A={\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}v_n={\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda m}}={\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{\mathrm{tan}(\pi \lambda )}}.`$ (12)
The eigenvalue equation is obtained from (12) and (8) and the normalization condition $`b=1`$ to be

$`1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{4}{}}}d_aw_a=Ad^2{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{4}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{e_a^2}{\lambda m_a}},`$ (13)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}\mathrm{tan}(\pi \lambda )`$ $`=`$ $`d^2{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{4}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{e_a^2}{\lambda m_a}}d^2r(\lambda ).`$ (14)
Let us solve this equation for the flavor eigenvalue ($`d=0`$), and for the mass eigenvalue in the strong coupling limit ($`d\mathrm{}`$). For $`d=0`$, it follows from (14) that $`\mathrm{tan}(\pi \lambda )=0`$, which implies $`\lambda 𝐙`$, unless $`\lambda =m_a`$ for some $`a`$. These are the expected eigenvalues because they are simply the matrix elements of the diagonal matrix $``$ when $`d=0`$.

For $`d\mathrm{}`$, we should have $`\mathrm{tan}(\pi \lambda )=\mathrm{}`$, which implies $`\lambda =𝐙+\frac{1}{2}`$, unless $`r(\lambda )=0`$. The former are the bulk eigenvalues, and the solutions of the latter are the brane eigenvalues $`M_i(i=1,2,3)`$. Since $`r(\lambda )`$ approaches $`\pm \mathrm{}`$ when $`\lambda m_a+0^\pm `$, there is one zero of $`r(\lambda )`$ between each successive pairs of $`m_a`$’s. In other words, the ordering relation $`m_1<M_1<m_2<M_2<m_3<M_3<m_4`$ mentioned in the Introduction is obeyed.

If $`d`$ is large but not infinite, the eigenvalues will shift somewhat, but they are still bounded between consecutive $`m_a`$’s or consecutive $`n`$’s.

We will now show that the three independent parameters $`e_a^2`$ may be replaced by the three independent parameters $`M_i^2`$, provided the ordering relation holds. The argument is based on the simple observation that $`r(\lambda )`$ is a meromorphic function of $`\lambda `$, with four simple poles occuring at $`\lambda =m_a`$, and three zeros occuring at $`\lambda =M_i`$. Moreover, $`r(\lambda )`$ approaches $`1/\lambda `$ when $`|\lambda |\mathrm{}`$. Hence we can write $`r(\lambda )=_{i=1}^3(\lambda M_a)/_{a=1}^4(\lambda m_a)`$. The residue at $`\lambda =m_b`$ is then

$`e_b^2={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}(m_bM_i)/{\displaystyle \underset{ab}{}}(m_bm_a).`$ (15)
This formula determines $`e_a^2`$ once $`m_a`$ and $`M_i`$ are known. To keep $`e_a^2>0`$, the ordering relation has to be obeyed.

Let $`U_\lambda `$ be the normalized eigenvector, with components $`U_{a\lambda }=w_a/N`$ and $`U_{n\lambda }=v_n/N`$. The norm $`N^2`$ of the original eigenvector $`(w_a,v_n)`$ is given by $`N^2=(Ad)^2s+T`$, where

$`s`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(Ad)^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{4}{}}}w_a^2={\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{4}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{e_a^2}{(\lambda m_a)^2}},`$ (16)
$`T`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}v_n^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\lambda n)^2}}.`$ (17)
## III Oscillation Amplitude

Using (8) and (17), we can calculate the transition amplitude $`𝒜_{ab}`$ from a brane neutrino of flavor $`b`$ and energy $`E`$ (measured in units of $`U`$), to a brane neutrino of flavor $`a`$ after it has traversed a distance $`L=2E\tau `$ (measured in units of $`U^1`$). The transition amplitude is determined by the formula

$`𝒜_{ab}(\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda }{}}U_{a\lambda }^{}U_{b\lambda }e^{i\lambda ^2\tau }𝒜_{ab}^S(\tau )+𝒜_{ab}^K(\tau ),`$ (18)
where $`𝒜^S`$ is the contribution from the brane eigenvalues $`\lambda =M_1,M_2,M_3`$, and $`𝒜^K`$ is the contribution from the bulk eigenvalues $`\lambda 𝐙+\frac{1}{2}`$.

When $`d\mathrm{}`$, the quantities $`v_n,w_a/Ad,s`$ and $`T`$ are all of order 1, so the magnitude of $`w_a`$ is determined by $`Ad`$ and the magnitude of $`N^2`$ is determined by $`(Ad)^2`$. According to (14), $`Ad=1/(dr)`$. For bulk eigenvalues, $`r=O(1)`$, so $`Ad=O(1/d)`$. This implies $`N^2T`$ and $`U_{a\lambda }=O(1/d)`$. In that case the bulk components of an eigenvector are much larger than the brane components. For brane eigenvalues, $`A=O(1)`$, hence $`Ad=O(d)`$ and $`w_a=O(d)`$. In that case the brane components of an eigenvector dominate and $`N^2(Ad)^2s`$.

Let us denote the large-$`d`$ value of $`U_{aM_i}`$ by $`V_{ai}`$, the value of $`s`$ at $`\lambda =M_i`$ by $`s_i`$, and $`1/(M_im_a)`$ by $`x_{ai}`$. Then

$`V_{ai}=e_ax_{ai}/\sqrt{s_i}(1a4,1i3),`$ (19)
and

$`𝒜_{ab}^S(\tau )={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}V_{ai}^{}V_{bi}e^{iM_i^2\tau }.`$ (20)
As it stands, $`V`$ is a $`4\times 3`$ matrix, but we can make it into a square $`4\times 4`$ matrix by letting the last column to be $`V_{af}=e_a`$. The meaning of this last column will be discussed later. Note that we can write $`V_{a4}`$ in the same form as the other $`V_{ai}`$, namely, $`V_{a4}=e_ax_{a4}/\sqrt{s_4}`$, provided we let $`\lambda =\mathrm{}`$.

The resulting $`4\times 4`$ matrix $`V`$ can be shown to be real orthogonal. It depends on the seven parameters, $`m_a`$ and $`M_i`$.

We have shown in (15) how to express $`e_b^2`$ in terms of these parameters. Similarly, it can be shown that

$`s_i={\displaystyle \underset{ki}{\overset{3}{}}}(M_iM_k)/{\displaystyle \underset{c=1}{\overset{4}{}}}(M_im_c).`$ (21)
We turn to the contribution from the bulk eigenvalues. Since $`U_{a\lambda }`$ is unitary, it follows from (18) that $`𝒜_{ab}(0)=\delta _{ab}`$, hence

$`𝒜_{ab}^K(0)=\delta _{ab}𝒜_{ab}^S(0).`$ (22)
Using (20) and the unitarity of the matrix $`V`$, we conclude that

$`𝒜_{ab}^S(0)=\delta _{ab}V_{af}^{}V_{bf}=\delta _{ab}e_ae_f.`$ (23)
Therefore

$`𝒜_{ab}^K(0)=e_ae_b.`$ (24)
The contribution from the bulk eigenvalues can also be obtained directly from (18) and the paragraph following that equation to be

$`𝒜_{ab}^K(\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda 𝐙+\frac{1}{2}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(dr)^2T}}{\displaystyle \frac{e_ae_b}{(\lambda m_a)(\lambda m_b)}}e^{i\lambda ^2\tau }e_ae_bF(\tau ).`$ (25)
Both $`r`$ and $`T`$ are of order 1 as $`d\mathrm{}`$, so the contribution from each bulk eigenvalue to the sum is $`O(1/d^2)`$. Since there are an infinite number of bulk eigenvalues, the total contribution to the sum in (25) is not necessarily zero. In fact, we know from (24) that $`F(0)=1`$ even at an infinite $`d`$.

It can be shown that $`F(\tau )=g(K^2\tau )`$, where $`K^2=d^2(1+\pi ^2d^2)`$, and that

$`g(x){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{iu^2x}}{u^2+1}}`$ (26)
is zero at $`x=0`$, and decrease to 0 like $`(1i)/\sqrt{2\pi x}`$ for large $`x`$. This means that $`𝒜_{ab}^K(\tau )=e_ae_bg(K^2\tau )`$ is zero whenever $`\tau >0`$, in the limit $`d\mathrm{}`$. This function describes the absorption of the active neutrino flux into the bulk.

Therefore, in the strong coupling limit, we end up with

$`𝒜_{ab}(\tau )=𝒜_{ab}^S(\tau )={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}V_{ai}^{}V_{bi}e^{iM_i^2\tau }.`$ (27)
In the limit $`m_4\mathrm{}`$, it follows from (15) that $`e_4^21`$, and hence from (11) that $`e_b0`$ for $`b=1,2,3`$. Since the matrix $`V`$ is real orthogonal, and $`e_4=V_{44}`$, it also follows that $`V_{a4}=0`$ for $`a=1,2,3`$. As a result, the active neutrinos $`\nu _e,\nu _\mu ,\nu _\tau `$ do not mix with the sterile neutrino $`\nu _s`$, and the active neutrinos do not get absorbed by the bulk.

If furthermore $`M_1=M_2`$, then the ordering relation forces $`m_2=M_1`$. In that case $`V_{23}=0`$. This means the mixing angle $`\theta _{13}=0`$ if we identify the $`a=2`$ flavor neutrino with $`\nu _e`$. Hence a vanishing $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_{}^2/\mathrm{\Delta }M_{atm}^2`$ implies a vanishing $`\theta _{13}`$.

## IV Generalization of the Minimal Model

The final result (27) remains valid for almost all $`B`$ in (1). This is reasonable because (27) does not depend on the property of the absorptive bulk, which $`B`$ affects. For a detailed argument, please consult Ref. .

This research is supported by NSERC and FRNT.