format: text

text:
# Complex anti-self-dual instantons and Cayley submanifolds

## 1 Introduction

Let $`M`$ be a manifold of dimension $`8`$, and let $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ be a $`4`$-form which defines an almost $`Spin(7)`$-structure on $`M`$. An $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-anti-self-dual instanton is a connection $`A`$ on a vector bundle over $`M`$ such that the curvature $`F_A`$ satisfies

$$F_A+(\mathrm{\Omega }F_A)=0.$$
(1)
If $`M`$ is an almost Calabi-Yau manifold, then the $`4`$-form $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ can be written as

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=4\text{Re}(\theta )+\frac{1}{2}\omega ^2,$$

where $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }^{1,1}(M)`$ denotes the symplectic form and $`\theta \mathrm{\Omega }^{0,4}(M)`$ is the complex volume form. The complex volume form induces an anti-linear involution $`_\theta :\mathrm{\Omega }^{0,2}(M)\mathrm{\Omega }^{0,2}(M)`$. Then the anti-self-duality equation (1) is equivalent to

$$F_A^{1,1}\omega =0$$
(2)
and

$$(1+_\theta )F_A^{0,2}=0.$$
(3)
The space of $`2`$-forms splits as a direct sum

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }^2TM=\mathrm{\Lambda }_+^2TM\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^2TM,$$
(4)
where

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_+^2TM=\{\phi \mathrm{\Lambda }^2M:3\phi (\mathrm{\Omega }\phi )=0\}$$
(5)
and

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^2TM=\{\phi \mathrm{\Lambda }^2M:\phi +(\mathrm{\Omega }\phi )=0\}.$$
(6)
Note that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_+^2M`$ is a vector space of dimension $`7`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^2(M)`$ is a vector space of dimension $`21`$. Let $`P_+`$ and $`P_{}`$ be the projections associated to the splitting (4). This implies

$$P_+\phi =\frac{1}{4}(\phi +(\mathrm{\Omega }\phi ))$$

and

$$P_{}\phi =\frac{1}{4}(3\phi (\mathrm{\Omega }\phi )).$$

We denote by $`\mathrm{\Omega }_+^2(M)`$ the space of sections of the vector bundle $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_+^2TM`$. Similarly, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{}^2(M)`$ is the space of sections of the vector bundle $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^2TM`$.

If $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is closed, then the anti-self-duality equation (1) implies the Yang-Mills equation $`D_A^{}F_A=0`$.

The equations (1),(2) generalize the anti-self-dual equations in dimension $`4`$ (see e.g. ), and have been studied by various authors, including S. K. Donaldson and R. P. Thomas , L. Baulieu, H. Kanno, and I. M. Singer , J. Chen , and G. Tian . These submanifolds are also of considerable interest in mathematical physics.

G. Tian constructed a compactification of the moduli space of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-anti-self-dual instantons over $`M`$. He proved that every sequence $`A_k`$ of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-anti-self-dual instantons over $`M`$ has a subsequence, still denoted by $`A_k`$, such that

$$\underset{k\mathrm{}}{lim}_Mc_2(A_k)\psi =_Mc_2(A_{\mathrm{}})\psi +_S\mathrm{\Theta }\psi ,$$

where $`c_2`$ denotes the $`4`$-form representing the second Chern class of the bundle, and $`\psi `$ is a smooth $`4`$-form on $`M`$. Furthermore, $`A_{\mathrm{}}`$ is a $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-anti-self-dual instanton which is smooth outside a set of vanishing $`^4`$-measure. Furthermore, $`S`$ is a Cayley submanifold, i.e. a submanifold calibrated by the $`4`$-form $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Cayley submanifolds were studied by R. Harvey and H. B. Lawson . There is a rich class of examples. For instance, this class contains as limiting cases the holomorphic subvarieties and the special Lagrangian submanifolds of $`M`$. Special Lagrangian submanifolds have been studied extensively, see e.g. . Cayley submanifolds play a role in high-energy physics, see for example .

Our aim in this paper is to construct smooth complex anti-self-dual instantons such that the energy density $`|F_A|^2`$ is concentrated near a given Cayley submanifold $`S`$.

In the first step, we construct a suitable family of approximate solutions. To this end, we assume that the normal bundle $`NS`$ can be endowed with a complex structure $`J`$ and a complex volume form $`\omega `$. Each approximate solution is described by a set $`(v,\lambda ,J,\omega )`$, where $`v`$ is a section of the normal bundle of $`S`$, $`\lambda `$ is a positive function on $`S`$, and $`(J,\omega )`$ is a $`SU(2)`$-structure on $`NS`$. The covariant derivative of the pair $`(J,\omega )`$ can be described by a $`1`$-form $`\theta `$ with values in the Lie algebra $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_+^2NS`$.

The covariant derivative of the $`4`$-form $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ can be written in the form

$$_X\mathrm{\Omega }=\underset{k=1}{\overset{8}{}}i_{e_k}\alpha (X)i_{e_k}\mathrm{\Omega },$$

where $`\alpha `$ is a $`1`$-form with values in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_+^2TM`$.

We consider the elliptic complex

$$0\mathrm{\Omega }^0(M)\begin{array}{c}d\\ \end{array}\mathrm{\Omega }^1(M)\begin{array}{c}P_+d\\ \end{array}\mathrm{\Omega }_+^2(M)0.$$

The first and the second cohomology groups associated to this elliptic comples are $`H^0(M)`$ and $`H^1(M)`$. The third cohomology group is denoted by $`H_+^2(M)`$.

###### Theorem 1.1.

Suppose that $`H_+^2(M)=0`$. Then, for each $`\epsilon >0`$, there exists a mapping $`\mathrm{\Xi }_\epsilon `$ whch assigns to each set of glueing data $`(v,\lambda ,J,\omega )𝒞^{2,\gamma }(S)`$ a section of the vector bundle $`VW`$ of class $`𝒞^\gamma (S)`$ such that the following holds.

(i) If $`(v,\lambda ,J,\omega )`$ is a set of glueing data such that

$$v_{𝒞^{1,\gamma }(S)}K,$$

$$\lambda _{𝒞^{1,\gamma }(S)}K,inf\lambda 1,$$

$$(J,\omega )_{𝒞^{1,\gamma }(S)}K,$$

then we have the estimate

$``$ $`\mathrm{\Xi }_\epsilon (v,\lambda ,J,\omega )`$
$`4(\text{proj}_V({\displaystyle \underset{i,j=1}{\overset{4}{}}}(_iv_k+\alpha _{ik,l}v_l)e_ie_k^{}),`$
$`\text{proj}_W\left({\displaystyle \underset{i,k,l=1}{\overset{4}{}}}(\lambda ^1_i\lambda \delta _{kl}+\theta _{i,kl}+\alpha _{ik,l})e_ie_k^{}e_l^{}\right)_{𝒞^\gamma (S)}C\epsilon ^{\frac{1}{32}}.`$
(ii) If $`\mathrm{\Xi }_\epsilon (v,\lambda ,J,\omega )=0`$, then the approximate solution $`A`$ corresponding to $`(v,\lambda ,J,\omega )`$ can be deformed to a nearby connection $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ satisfying $`F_{\stackrel{~}{A}}+(\mathrm{\Omega }F_{\stackrel{~}{A}})=0`$.

In Section 2, we study the mapping properties of a model operator on $`^8`$.

In Section 3, we construct a family of approximate solutions of the Yang-Mills equations. More precisely, given any set of glueing data $`(v,\lambda ,J,\omega )`$ satisfying

$$v_{𝒞^{1,\gamma }(S)}K,$$

$$\lambda _{𝒞^{1,\gamma }(S)}K,inf\lambda 1,$$

$$(J,\omega )_{𝒞^{1,\gamma }(S)}K,$$

we construct a connection $`A`$ such that

$$F_A+(\mathrm{\Omega }F_A)_{𝒞_3^\gamma (M)}C\epsilon ^2.$$

Here, the weighted Hölder space $`𝒞_\nu ^\gamma (M)`$ is defined as

$`u_{𝒞_\nu ^\gamma (M)}`$ $`=sup(\epsilon +\text{dist}(p,S))^\nu |u(p)|`$
$`+\underset{\begin{array}{c}4\text{dist}(p_1,p_2)\\ \epsilon +\text{dist}(p_1,S)+\text{dist}(p_2,S)\end{array}}{sup}(\epsilon +\text{dist}(p_1,S)+\text{dist}(p_2,S))^{\nu +\gamma }{\displaystyle \frac{|u(p_1)u(p_2)|}{\text{dist}(p_1,p_2)^\gamma }}.`$
In Section 4, we derive estimates for the linearized operator which are independent of $`\epsilon `$.

In Section 5, we apply the contraction mapping principle to deform the approximate solution $`A`$ to a nearby connection $`\stackrel{~}{A}=A+a`$ such that

$$(\text{I})(F_{\stackrel{~}{A}}+(\mathrm{\Omega }F_{\stackrel{~}{A}}))=0,$$

where $`(\text{I})`$ is the fibrewise projection from $`𝒞_\nu ^\gamma (M)`$ to the subspace $`𝒢_\nu ^\gamma (M)`$. In particular, if the balancing condition

$$(F_{\stackrel{~}{A}}+(\mathrm{\Omega }F_{\stackrel{~}{A}}))=0$$

is satisfied, then $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ is an $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-anti-self-dual instanton.

In Section 6, we calculate the leading term in the asymptotic expansion of

$$(F_{\stackrel{~}{A}}+(\mathrm{\Omega }F_{\stackrel{~}{A}}))=0.$$

This concludes the proof of Theorem 1.1.

The author is grateful to Professor Gerhard Huisken and Professor Gang Tian for discussions.

## 2 The model problem on $`^8`$

The $`Spin(7)`$-structure on $`^8`$ is given by

$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ $`=e_1e_2e_1^{}e_2^{}e_1e_2e_3^{}e_4^{}e_3e_4e_1^{}e_2^{}`$
$`e_3e_4e_3^{}e_4^{}+e_1e_3e_2^{}e_4^{}e_1e_3e_1^{}e_3^{}`$
$`e_2e_4e_2^{}e_4^{}+e_2e_4e_1^{}e_3^{}e_1e_4e_2^{}e_3^{}`$
$`e_1e_4e_1^{}e_4^{}e_2e_3e_2^{}e_3^{}e_2e_3e_1^{}e_4^{}`$
$`+e_1e_2e_3e_4+e_1^{}e_2^{}e_3^{}e_4^{}.`$
Hence, the $`2`$-forms

$`e_1e_2+e_3e_4e_1^{}e_2^{}e_3^{}e_4^{},`$
$`e_1e_3e_2e_4e_1^{}e_3^{}+e_2^{}e_4^{},`$
$`e_1e_4+e_2e_3e_1^{}e_4^{}e_2^{}e_3^{},`$
$`e_1e_1^{}+e_2e_2^{}+e_3e_3^{}+e_4e_4^{},`$
$`e_1e_2^{}e_2e_1^{}e_3e_4^{}+e_4e_3^{},`$
$`e_1e_3^{}+e_2e_4^{}e_3e_1^{}e_4e_2^{},`$
$`e_1e_4^{}e_2e_3^{}+e_3e_2^{}e_4e_1^{}`$
form a basis for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_+^2^8`$.

Let now $`E`$ be a Cayley subspace of $`^8`$, i.e. a subspace calibrated by $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. The group $`Spin(7)`$ acts transitively on the set of Cayley subspaces and leaves the $`4`$-form $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ invariant (cf. ). Hence, we may assume without loss of generality that $`E`$ is spanned by $`\{e_i:1i4\}`$ and $`E^{}`$ is spanned by $`\{e_i^{}:1i4\}`$.

We define two vector spaces $`VEE^{}`$ and $`WEE^{}E^{}`$ over the submanifold $`S`$. The following elements form a basis for $`V`$:

$$e_1e_1^{}+e_2e_2^{}+e_3e_3^{}+e_4e_4^{},$$

$$e_1e_2^{}e_2e_1^{}e_3e_4^{}+e_4e_3^{},$$

$$e_1e_3^{}+e_2e_4^{}e_3e_1^{}e_4e_2^{},$$

$$e_1e_4^{}e_2e_3^{}+e_3e_2^{}e_4e_1^{}.$$

The following elements form a basis for $`W`$:

$`e_1(e_1^{}e_1^{}+e_2^{}e_2^{}+e_3^{}e_3^{}+e_4^{}e_4^{})`$
$`+e_2(e_2^{}e_1^{}e_1^{}e_2^{}+e_4^{}e_3^{}e_3^{}e_4^{})`$
$`+e_3(e_3^{}e_1^{}e_4^{}e_2^{}e_1^{}e_3^{}+e_2^{}e_4^{})`$
$`+e_4(e_4^{}e_1^{}+e_3^{}e_2^{}e_2^{}e_3^{}e_1^{}e_4^{}),`$
$`e_1(e_2^{}e_1^{}e_1^{}e_2^{}+e_4^{}e_3^{}e_3^{}e_4^{})`$
$`e_2(e_1^{}e_1^{}+e_2^{}e_2^{}+e_3^{}e_3^{}+e_4^{}e_4^{})`$
$`e_3(e_4^{}e_1^{}+e_3^{}e_2^{}e_2^{}e_3^{}e_1^{}e_4^{})`$
$`+e_4(e_3^{}e_1^{}e_4^{}e_2^{}e_1^{}e_3^{}+e_2^{}e_4^{}),`$
$`e_1(e_3^{}e_1^{}e_4^{}e_2^{}e_1^{}e_3^{}+e_2^{}e_4^{})`$
$`+e_2(e_4^{}e_1^{}+e_3^{}e_2^{}e_2^{}e_3^{}e_1^{}e_4^{})`$
$`e_3(e_1^{}e_1^{}+e_2^{}e_2^{}+e_3^{}e_3^{}+e_4^{}e_4^{})`$
$`e_4(e_2^{}e_1^{}e_1^{}e_2^{}+e_4^{}e_3^{}e_3^{}e_4^{}),`$
$`e_1(e_4^{}e_1^{}+e_3^{}e_2^{}e_2^{}e_3^{}e_1^{}e_4^{})`$
$`e_2(e_3^{}e_1^{}e_4^{}e_2^{}e_1^{}e_3^{}+e_2^{}e_4^{})`$
$`+e_3(e_2^{}e_1^{}e_1^{}e_2^{}+e_4^{}e_3^{}e_3^{}e_4^{})`$
$`e_4(e_1^{}e_1^{}+e_2^{}e_2^{}+e_3^{}e_3^{}+e_4^{}e_4^{}).`$
Let $`B`$ be a connection which is invariant under translations along $`E`$ and agrees with the basic instanton along $`E^{}`$. More precisely, we define

$`B(e_1^{})`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{y_2𝔦y_3𝔧y_4𝔨}{\epsilon ^2+|y|^2}}`$
$`B(e_2^{})`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{y_1𝔦y_4𝔧+y_3𝔨}{\epsilon ^2+|y|^2}}`$
$`B(e_3^{})`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{y_4𝔦+y_1𝔧y_2𝔨}{\epsilon ^2+|y|^2}}`$
$`B(e_4^{})`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{y_3𝔦+y_2𝔧+y_1𝔨}{\epsilon ^2+|y|^2}},`$
where

$`𝔦(e_1^{})=e_2^{},𝔦(e_2^{})=e_1^{},𝔦(e_3^{})=e_4^{},𝔦(e_4^{})=e_3^{},`$
$`𝔧(e_1^{})=e_3^{},𝔧(e_2^{})=e_4^{},𝔧(e_3^{})=e_1^{},𝔧(e_4^{})=e_2^{},`$
$`𝔨(e_1^{})=e_4^{},𝔨(e_2^{})=e_3^{},𝔨(e_3^{})=e_2^{},𝔨(e_4^{})=e_1^{}.`$
Furthermore, $`B(e_i)=0`$ for $`1i4`$.

The linearized operator $`𝕃_B:\mathrm{\Omega }^1(^8)\mathrm{\Omega }_+^2(^8)`$ is given by

$$𝕃_Ba=2P_+D_Ba.$$

The adjoint operator $`𝕃_B^{}:\mathrm{\Omega }_+^2(^8)\mathrm{\Omega }^1(^8)`$ is given by

$$𝕃_B^{}\phi =2D_B^{}\phi .$$

We define the weighted Hölder space $`𝒞_\nu ^\gamma (^8)`$ by

$`u_{𝒞_\nu ^\gamma (^8)}`$ $`=sup(\epsilon +|y|)^\nu |u(x,y)|`$
$`+\underset{\begin{array}{c}4(|x_1x_2|+|y_1y_2|)\\ \epsilon +|y_1|+|y_2|\end{array}}{sup}(\epsilon +|y_1|+|y_2|)^{\nu +\gamma }{\displaystyle \frac{|u(x_1,y_1)u(x_2,y_2)|}{(|x_1x_2|+|y_1y_2|)^\gamma }}.`$
More generally, we define

$$u_{𝒞_\nu ^{k,\gamma }(^8)}=\underset{l=0}{\overset{k}{}}^lu_{𝒞_{\nu +l}^\gamma (^8)}.$$

Let $`𝒢_\nu ^{k,\gamma }(^8)`$ be the set of all $`\phi \mathrm{\Omega }_+^2(^8)`$ such that $`\phi 𝒞_\nu ^{k,\gamma }(^8)`$, and

$$_{x+E^{}}\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{4}{}}\left(\epsilon s_{ik}+t_{ikl}y_l\right)\phi (e_i,e_j^{}),F_B(e_k^{},e_j^{})=0$$

for all $`xE`$, $`sV`$, and $`tW`$.

We first derive a Weitzenböck formula for the operator $`𝕃_B𝕃_B^{}:\mathrm{\Omega }_+^2(^8)\mathrm{\Omega }_+^2(^8)`$. We shall need two algebraic facts which can be verified by direct calculation. For simplicity, let $`e_5=e_1^{}`$, $`e_6=e_2^{}`$, $`e_7=e_3^{}`$, $`e_8=e_4^{}`$.

###### Lemma 2.1.

For every $`\phi \mathrm{\Lambda }_+^2^8`$, we have

$$2P_+\left(e_k(i_{e_l}\phi )+e_l(i_{e_k}\phi )\right)=\delta _{kl}\phi .$$

###### Lemma 2.2.

For every $`\phi \mathrm{\Lambda }_+^2^8`$, we have

$$\underset{k,l=1}{\overset{8}{}}e_k[F_B(e_k,e_l),i_{e_l}\phi ]\mathrm{\Lambda }_+^2^8.$$

###### Proposition 2.3.

The operator $`𝕃_B𝕃_B^{}`$ satisfies the Weitzenböck formula

$$𝕃_B𝕃_B^{}\phi =_B^{}_B\phi 2\underset{k,l=1}{\overset{4}{}}e_k^{}[F_B(e_k^{},e_l^{}),i_{e_l^{}}\phi ]$$

for every $`\phi \mathrm{\Omega }_+^2(^8)`$.

Proof. For every $`\phi \mathrm{\Omega }_+^2(^8)`$, we obtain

$`4D_BD_B^{}\phi `$ $`=4{\displaystyle \underset{k,l=1}{\overset{8}{}}}e_k(i_{e_l}D_{B,e_k}D_{B,e_l}\phi )`$
$`=2{\displaystyle \underset{k,l=1}{\overset{8}{}}}\left(e_k(i_{e_l}D_{B,e_k}D_{B,e_l}\phi )+e_l(i_{e_k}D_{B,e_k}D_{B,e_l}\phi )\right)`$
$`2{\displaystyle \underset{k,l=1}{\overset{8}{}}}e_k\left(i_{e_l}(D_{B,e_k}D_{B,e_l}\phi D_{B,e_l}D_{B,e_k}\phi )\right)`$
$`=2{\displaystyle \underset{k,l=1}{\overset{8}{}}}\left(e_k(i_{e_l}D_{B,e_k}D_{B,e_l}\phi )+e_l(i_{e_k}D_{B,e_k}D_{B,e_l}\phi )\right)`$
$`2{\displaystyle \underset{k,l=1}{\overset{8}{}}}e_k[F_B(e_k,e_l),i_{e_l}\phi ].`$
Since $`\phi \mathrm{\Omega }_+^2(^8)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is parallel, it follows that $`D_{B,e_k}D_{B,e_l}\phi \mathrm{\Omega }_+^2(^8)`$. Using Lemma 2.1, we obtain

$$2P_+\left(e_k(i_{e_l}D_{B,e_k}D_{B,e_l}\phi )+e_l(i_{e_k}D_{B,e_k}D_{B,e_l}\phi )\right)=\delta _{kl}D_{B,e_k}D_{B,e_l}\phi .$$

From this it follows that

$$4P_+D_BD_B^{}\phi =_B^{}_B\phi 2\underset{k,l=1}{\overset{8}{}}P_+(e_k[F_B(e_k,e_l),i_{e_l}\phi ]).$$

Moreover, Lemma 2.2 implies that

$$\underset{k,l=1}{\overset{8}{}}e_k[F_B(e_k,e_l),i_{e_l}\phi ]\mathrm{\Omega }_+^2(^8).$$

Thus, we conclude that

$$4P_+D_BD_B^{}\phi =_B^{}_B\phi 2\underset{k,l=1}{\overset{8}{}}e_k[F_B(e_k,e_l),i_{e_l}\phi ].$$

This proves the assertion.

###### Proposition 2.4.

Suppose that $`\psi 𝒢_{3+\nu }^\gamma (^8)`$ has compact support. Then there exists some $`\phi 𝒢_{1+\nu }^{2,\gamma }(^8)`$ such that

$$\phi _{𝒞_{1+\nu }^{2,\gamma }(^8)}C\psi _{𝒞_{3+\nu }^\gamma (^8)}$$

and

$$𝕃_B𝕃_B^{}\phi =\psi .$$

Proof. Since $`\psi \mathrm{\Omega }_+^2(^8)`$, we may write

$`\psi `$ $`=(e_1e_2+e_3e_4e_1^{}e_2^{}e_3^{}e_4^{})g_2`$
$`+(e_1e_3e_2e_4e_1^{}e_3^{}+e_2^{}e_4^{})g_3`$
$`+(e_1e_4+e_2e_3e_1^{}e_4^{}e_2^{}e_3^{})g_4`$
$`+(e_1e_1^{}+e_2e_2^{}+e_3e_3^{}+e_4e_4^{})g_1^{}`$
$`+(e_1e_2^{}e_2e_1^{}e_3e_4^{}+e_4e_3^{})g_2^{}`$
$`+(e_1e_3^{}+e_2e_4^{}e_3e_1^{}e_4e_2^{})g_3^{}`$
$`+(e_1e_4^{}e_2e_3^{}+e_3e_2^{}e_4e_1^{})g_4^{},`$
where $`g_j,g_j^{}𝒞_{3+\nu }^\gamma (^8)`$. Furthermore, since $`\psi 𝒢_{3+\nu }^\gamma (^8)`$, we deduce that

$$_{x+E^{}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{4}{}}g_j^{},F_B(X,e_j^{})=0$$

for all $`xE`$ and all vector fields of the form

$$X=\epsilon w_ke_k^{}+\mu y_ke_k^{}+r_{kl}y_le_k^{}.$$

Using Corollary 3.6 in , we can find $`f_j,f_j^{}𝒞_{1+\nu }^{2,\gamma }(^8)`$ such that

$$_B^{}_Bf_j=g_j$$

and

$$_B^{}_Bf_j^{}2\underset{k=1}{\overset{4}{}}[F_B(e_j^{},e_k^{}),f_k^{}]=g_j^{}$$

and

$$_{x+E^{}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{4}{}}f_j^{},F_B(X,e_j^{})=0$$

for all $`xE`$ and all vector fields of the form

$$X=\epsilon w_ke_k^{}+\mu y_ke_k^{}+r_{kl}y_le_k^{}.$$

We now define

$`\phi `$ $`=(e_1e_2+e_3e_4e_1^{}e_2^{}e_3^{}e_4^{})f_2`$
$`+(e_1e_3e_2e_4e_1^{}e_3^{}+e_2^{}e_4^{})f_3`$
$`+(e_1e_4+e_2e_3e_1^{}e_4^{}e_2^{}e_3^{})f_4`$
$`+(e_1e_1^{}+e_2e_2^{}+e_3e_3^{}+e_4e_4^{})f_1^{}`$
$`+(e_1e_2^{}e_2e_1^{}e_3e_4^{}+e_4e_3^{})f_2^{}`$
$`+(e_1e_3^{}+e_2e_4^{}e_3e_1^{}e_4e_2^{})f_3^{}`$
$`+(e_1e_4^{}e_2e_3^{}+e_3e_2^{}e_4e_1^{})f_4^{}.`$
Then $`\phi 𝒢_{1+\nu }^{2,\gamma }(^8)`$, and

$$𝕃_B𝕃_B^{}\phi =\psi $$

by Proposition 2.3. This proves the assertion.

###### Corollary 2.5.

Suppose that $`\psi 𝒢_{3+\nu }^\gamma (^8)`$ has compact support. Then there exists a $`1`$-form $`a𝒞_{2+\nu }^{1,\gamma }(^8)`$ such that

$$a_{𝒞_{2+\nu }^{1,\gamma }(^8)}C\psi _{𝒞_{3+\nu }^\gamma (^8)}$$

and

$$𝕃_Ba=\psi .$$

Proof. By Proposition 2.4, there exists some $`\phi 𝒢_{1+\nu }^{2,\gamma }(^8)`$ such that

$$\phi _{𝒞_{1+\nu }^{2,\gamma }(^8)}C\psi _{𝒞_{3+\nu }^\gamma (^8)}$$

and

$$𝕃_B𝕃_B^{}\phi =\psi .$$

Let $`a=𝕃_B^{}\phi `$. Then $`a𝒞_{2+\nu }^{1,\gamma }(^8)`$ satisfies

$$a_{𝒞_{2+\nu }^{1,\gamma }(^8)}C\psi _{𝒞_{3+\nu }^\gamma (^8)}$$

and

$$𝕃_Ba=\psi .$$

This proves the assertion.

###### Proposition 2.6.

Let $`0<\nu <1`$. Suppose that $`\psi 𝒢_{3+\nu }^\gamma (^8)`$ is supported in the set $`\{(x,y)^8:|x|\delta ,|y|2\delta ^4\}`$. Then there exists a $`1`$-form $`a𝒞_{2+\nu }^{1,\gamma }(^8)`$ such that $`a`$ is supported in $`\{(x,y)^8:|x|2\delta ,|y|2\delta ^2\}`$,

$$a_{𝒞_{2+\nu }^{1,\gamma }(^8)}C\psi _{𝒞_{3+\nu }^\gamma (^8)}$$

and

$$𝕃_Ba\psi _{𝒞_{3+\nu }^\gamma (\{(x,y)^8:|y|2\delta ^4\})}C\delta \psi _{𝒞_{3+\nu }^\gamma (^8)},$$

and

$$𝕃_Ba\psi _{𝒞_{3+\nu }^\gamma (^8)}C|\mathrm{log}\delta |^1\psi _{𝒞_{3+\nu }^\gamma (^8)}.$$

Proof. By Corollary 2.5, there exists a $`1`$-form $`a𝒞_{2+\nu }^{1,\gamma }(^8)`$ such that

$$a_{𝒞_{2+\nu }^{1,\gamma }(^8)}C\psi _{𝒞_{3+\nu }^\gamma (^8)}$$

and

$$𝕃_Ba=\psi .$$

Let $`\zeta `$ be a cut-off function on $`E`$ such that $`\zeta (x)=1`$ for $`|x|\delta `$, $`\zeta (x)=0`$ for $`|x|2\delta `$, and

$$sup\delta |\zeta |C.$$

Furthermore, let $`\eta `$ be a cut-off function on $`E^{}`$ satisfying $`\eta (y)=1`$ for $`|y|2\delta ^4`$, $`\eta (y)=0`$ for $`|y|2\delta ^2`$, and

$$sup|y||\eta |C|\mathrm{log}\delta |^1.$$

Then we have the estimates

$$\eta \zeta a_{𝒞_{2+\nu }^{1,\gamma }(^8)}C\psi _{𝒞_{3+\nu }^\gamma (^8)}$$

and

$`|𝕃_B(\zeta a)\psi _{𝒞_{3+\nu }^\gamma (\{(x,y)^8:|y|2\delta ^4\})}`$
$`=𝕃_B(\zeta a)\zeta 𝕃_Ba_{𝒞_{3+\nu }^\gamma (\{(x,y)^8:|y|2\delta ^4\})}`$
$`C\delta a_{𝒞_{2+\nu }^\gamma (^8)}`$
$`C\delta \psi _{𝒞_{3+\nu }^\gamma (^8)}`$
and

$`|𝕃_B(\eta \zeta a)\psi _{𝒞_{3+\nu }^\gamma (^8)}`$
$`=𝕃_B(\eta \zeta a)\eta \zeta 𝕃_Ba_{𝒞_{3+\nu }^\gamma (^8)}`$
$`C|\mathrm{log}\delta |^1a_{𝒞_{2+\nu }^\gamma (^8)}`$
$`C|\mathrm{log}\delta |^1\psi _{𝒞_{3+\nu }^\gamma (^8)}.`$
From this the assertion follows.

## 3 Construction of the approximate solutions

In this section, we outline the construction of a certain class of approximate solutions. To this end, we assume that the normal bundle $`NS`$ can be endowed with a $`SU(2)`$-structure $`(J,\omega )`$. Here, $`J`$ is a complex structure and $`\omega `$ is a complex volume form on $`NS`$.

Let $`^{}=+\theta `$ be a connection on the normal bundle $`NS`$ such that $`\theta `$ is a $`1`$-form with values in the Lie algebra $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_+^2NS`$ and $`(J,\omega )`$ is parallel with respect to the connection $`^{}`$. The $`1`$-form $`\theta `$ is uniquely determined by the covariant derivative of the pair $`(J,\omega )`$ with respect to the Levi-Civita connection $``$. Since $`(J,\omega )`$ is parallel with respect to $`^{}`$, the connection induced by $`^{}`$ on the bundle $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_+^2NS`$ is flat.

The connection $`^{}`$ induces a splitting of the tangent space $`TNS`$ into horizontal and vertical subspaces. Let $`\{e_i^{}:1i4\}`$ be an orthonormal basis for the horizontal subspace with respect to $`^{}`$, and let $`\{e_j^{}:1j4\}`$ be a $`SU(2)`$ basis for the vertical subspace.

In the first step, we define a connection on the pull-back bundle $`\pi ^{}NS`$ of the normal bundle under the natural projection $`\pi :NSS`$. Since we may identify a neighborhood of $`S`$ in $`M`$ with a neighborhood of the zero section in $`NS`$, this gives a connection on a small neighborhood of $`S`$ in $`M`$. In the second step, we show that this connection can be extended to the whole of $`M`$ using suitable cut-off functions.

The glueing data consist of a set $`(v,\lambda ,J,\omega )`$, where $`v`$ is a section of the normal bundle $`NS`$, $`\lambda `$ is a positive function on $`S`$, and $`(J,\omega )`$ is a $`SU(2)`$ structure on the normal bundle $`NS`$. Let $`\{𝔦,𝔧,𝔨\}`$ be a basis for the Lie algebra $`𝔰𝔲(NS)`$ such that

$`𝔦(e_1^{})=e_2^{},𝔦(e_2^{})=e_1^{},𝔦(e_3^{})=e_4^{},𝔦(e_4^{})=e_3^{},`$
$`𝔧(e_1^{})=e_3^{},𝔧(e_2^{})=e_4^{},𝔧(e_3^{})=e_1^{},𝔧(e_4^{})=e_2^{},`$
$`𝔨(e_1^{})=e_4^{},𝔨(e_2^{})=e_3^{},𝔨(e_3^{})=e_2^{},𝔨(e_4^{})=e_1^{}.`$
We consider a connection of the form $`D_A=^{}+A`$. The vertical components of $`A`$ are defined by

$`A(e_1^{})`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{(y\epsilon v)_2𝔦(y\epsilon v)_3𝔧(y\epsilon v)_4𝔨}{\epsilon ^2\lambda ^2+|y\epsilon v|^2}}`$
$`A(e_2^{})`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{(y\epsilon v)_1𝔦(y\epsilon v)_4𝔧+(y\epsilon v)_3𝔨}{\epsilon ^2\lambda ^2+|y\epsilon v|^2}}`$
$`A(e_3^{})`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{(y\epsilon v)_4𝔦+(y\epsilon v)_1𝔧(y\epsilon v)_2𝔨}{\epsilon ^2\lambda ^2+|y\epsilon v|^2}}`$
$`A(e_4^{})`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{(y\epsilon v)_3𝔦+(y\epsilon v)_2𝔧+(y\epsilon v)_1𝔨}{\epsilon ^2\lambda ^2+|y\epsilon v|^2}}.`$
Since the basic instanton on $`^4`$ is $`SU(2)`$-equivariant, this definition is independent of the choice of $`SU(2)`$-frame $`\{e_j^{}:1j4\}`$. Furthermore, the horizontal components of $`A`$ are defined by

$$A(e_i^{})=\epsilon _i^{}v_kA(e_k^{})\lambda ^1_i\lambda (y\epsilon v)_kA(e_k^{})$$

for $`1i4`$.

###### Lemma 3.1.

The curvature of $`A`$ is given by

$$F_A(e_i^{},e_j^{})=\left(\epsilon _i^{}v_k+\lambda ^1_i\lambda (y\epsilon v)_k\right)F_A(e_k^{},e_j^{})$$

and

$`F_A(e_i^{},e_j^{})`$ $`=\left(\epsilon _i^{}v_k+\lambda ^1_i\lambda (y\epsilon v)_k\right)`$
$`\left(\epsilon _j^{}v_l+\lambda ^1_i\lambda (y\epsilon v)_l\right)F_A(e_k^{},e_l^{})`$
$`+C_{ij}+A\left(C_{ij}(y\epsilon v)\right),`$
where $`C_{ij}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^2NS`$ is the curvature of the connection $`^{}`$.

If $`\{e_i:1i4\}`$ is an orthonormal basis for the horizontal subspace with respect to the Levi-Civita connection $``$, then we obtain the following result:

###### Lemma 3.2.

The curvature of $`A`$ satisfies

$$F_A(e_i,e_j^{})=\left(\epsilon _iv_k+\lambda ^1_i\lambda (y\epsilon v)_k+\theta _{i,kl}(y\epsilon v)_l\right)F_A(e_k^{},e_j^{})$$

and

$`F_A(e_i,e_j)`$ $`=\left(\epsilon _iv_k+\lambda ^1_i\lambda (y\epsilon v)_k+\theta _{i,km}(y\epsilon v)_m\right)`$
$`\left(\epsilon _jv_l+\lambda ^1_j\lambda (y\epsilon v)_l+\theta _{j,ln}(y\epsilon v)_n\right)F_A(e_k^{},e_l^{})`$
$`+C_{ij}+A\left(C_{ij}(y\epsilon v)\right),`$
where $`C_{ij}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^2NS`$ is the curvature of $`^{}`$.

###### Lemma 3.3.

Suppose that $`\mu `$ is constant and $`r`$ is a section of the vector bundle $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_+^2NS`$ such that $`^{}r=0`$. Let

$$u=(\epsilon ^2\lambda ^2+|y\epsilon v|^2)^{\frac{1}{2}}\left(\mu (y\epsilon v)_k+r_{kl}(y\epsilon v)_l\right)e_k^{}.$$

Then the covariant derivative of $`u`$ satisfies the estimate

$$D_Au_{𝒞_3^\gamma (M)}C\epsilon ^2.$$

Hence, as we move away from the submanifold $`S`$, the connection $`A`$ approaches a flat connection. Therefore, we can extend $`A`$ trivially to $`M`$.

Our aim is to derive estimates for $`F_A+(\mathrm{\Omega }F_A)`$ in $`𝒞_3^\gamma (M)`$. To this end, we assume that the glueing data $`(v,\lambda ,J,\omega )`$ satisfy the estimates

$$v_{𝒞^{1,\gamma (M)}(S)}K,$$

$$\lambda _{𝒞^{1,\gamma (M)}(S)}K,inf\lambda 1,$$

$$(J,\omega )_{𝒞^{1,\gamma (M)}(S)}K$$

for some $`K>0`$. All implicite constants will depend on $`K`$.

###### Proposition 3.4.

If the set $`(v,\lambda ,J,\omega )`$ is admissible, then we have the estimate

$$F_A+(\mathrm{\Omega }F_A)_{𝒞_3^\gamma (M)}C\epsilon ^2.$$

Proof. Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ be a $`4`$-form which defines an almost $`Spin(7)`$-structure on $`M`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Omega }(x)=\mathrm{\Omega }_0(x)`$ for all $`xS`$ and $`_X\mathrm{\Omega }(x)=0`$ for all $`xS`$ and $`XNS_x`$. Then we have the estimate

$`F_A+(\mathrm{\Omega }_0F_A)_{𝒞_3^\gamma (M)}`$
$`F_A(e_1,e_2)+F_A(e_3,e_4)F_A(e_1^{},e_2^{})F_A(e_3^{},e_4^{})_{𝒞_3^\gamma (M)}`$
$`+F_A(e_1,e_3)F_A(e_2,e_4)F_A(e_1^{},e_3^{})+F_A(e_2^{},e_4^{})_{𝒞_3^\gamma (M)}`$
$`+F_A(e_1,e_4)+F_A(e_2,e_3)F_A(e_1^{},e_4^{})F_A(e_2^{},e_3^{})_{𝒞_3^\gamma (M)}`$
$`+F_A(e_1,e_1^{})+F_A(e_2,e_2^{})+F_A(e_3,e_3^{})+F_A(e_4,e_4^{})_{𝒞_3^\gamma (M)}`$
$`+F_A(e_1,e_2^{})F_A(e_2,e_1^{})F_A(e_3,e_4^{})+F_A(e_4,e_3^{})_{𝒞_3^\gamma (M)}`$
$`+F_A(e_1,e_3^{})+F_A(e_2,e_4^{})F_A(e_3,e_1^{})F_A(e_4,e_2^{})_{𝒞_3^\gamma (M)}`$
$`+F_A(e_1,e_4^{})F_A(e_2,e_3^{})+F_A(e_3,e_2^{})F_A(e_4,e_1^{})_{𝒞_3^\gamma (M)}.`$
Using the identities

$`F_A(e_1^{},e_2^{})+F_A(e_3^{},e_4^{})=0`$
$`F_A(e_1^{},e_3^{})+F_A(e_4^{},e_2^{})=0`$
$`F_A(e_1^{},e_4^{})+F_A(e_2^{},e_3^{})=0,`$
we obtain

$$F_A+(\mathrm{\Omega }_0F_A)_{𝒞_3^\gamma (M)}C\epsilon ^2.$$

Since $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{\Omega }_0+O(|y|)`$, we conclude that

$$F_A+(\mathrm{\Omega }F_A)_{𝒞_3^\gamma (M)}F_A+(\mathrm{\Omega }_0F_A)_{𝒞_3^\gamma (M)}+F_A_{𝒞_4^\gamma (M)}C\epsilon ^2.$$

## 4 Estimates for the linearized operator in weighted Hölder spaces

Our aim in this section is to analyze the mapping properties of the linearized operator $`𝕃_A:\mathrm{\Omega }^1(M)\mathrm{\Omega }_+^2(M)`$.

As in Section 2, we define two vector bundles $`VTSNS`$ and $`WTSNSNS`$ over the submanifold $`S`$. Both vector bundles have rank $`4`$. The following elements form a basis for $`V`$:

$$e_1e_1^{}+e_2e_2^{}+e_3e_3^{}+e_4e_4^{},$$

$$e_1e_2^{}e_2e_1^{}e_3e_4^{}+e_4e_3^{},$$

$$e_1e_3^{}+e_2e_4^{}e_3e_1^{}e_4e_2^{},$$

$$e_1e_4^{}e_2e_3^{}+e_3e_2^{}e_4e_1^{}.$$

Similarly, the following elements form a basis for $`W`$:

$`e_1(e_1^{}e_1^{}+e_2^{}e_2^{}+e_3^{}e_3^{}+e_4^{}e_4^{})`$
$`+e_2(e_2^{}e_1^{}e_1^{}e_2^{}+e_4^{}e_3^{}e_3^{}e_4^{})`$
$`+e_3(e_3^{}e_1^{}e_4^{}e_2^{}e_1^{}e_3^{}+e_2^{}e_4^{})`$
$`+e_4(e_4^{}e_1^{}+e_3^{}e_2^{}e_2^{}e_3^{}e_1^{}e_4^{}),`$
$`e_1(e_2^{}e_1^{}e_1^{}e_2^{}+e_4^{}e_3^{}e_3^{}e_4^{})`$
$`e_2(e_1^{}e_1^{}+e_2^{}e_2^{}+e_3^{}e_3^{}+e_4^{}e_4^{})`$
$`e_3(e_4^{}e_1^{}+e_3^{}e_2^{}e_2^{}e_3^{}e_1^{}e_4^{})`$
$`+e_4(e_3^{}e_1^{}e_4^{}e_2^{}e_1^{}e_3^{}+e_2^{}e_4^{}),`$
$`e_1(e_3^{}e_1^{}e_4^{}e_2^{}e_1^{}e_3^{}+e_2^{}e_4^{})`$
$`+e_2(e_4^{}e_1^{}+e_3^{}e_2^{}e_2^{}e_3^{}e_1^{}e_4^{})`$
$`e_3(e_1^{}e_1^{}+e_2^{}e_2^{}+e_3^{}e_3^{}+e_4^{}e_4^{})`$
$`e_4(e_2^{}e_1^{}e_1^{}e_2^{}+e_4^{}e_3^{}e_3^{}e_4^{}),`$
$`e_1(e_4^{}e_1^{}+e_3^{}e_2^{}e_2^{}e_3^{}e_1^{}e_4^{})`$
$`e_2(e_3^{}e_1^{}e_4^{}e_2^{}e_1^{}e_3^{}+e_2^{}e_4^{})`$
$`+e_3(e_2^{}e_1^{}e_1^{}e_2^{}+e_4^{}e_3^{}e_3^{}e_4^{})`$
$`e_4(e_1^{}e_1^{}+e_2^{}e_2^{}+e_3^{}e_3^{}+e_4^{}e_4^{}).`$
###### Proposition 4.1.

Suppose that $`\psi 𝒞_{3+\nu }^\gamma (M)`$ is supported in the set $`\{pM:\text{dist}(p,S)2\delta ^4\}`$ and satisfies

$$_{NS_x}\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{4}{}}\left(\epsilon s_{ik}+t_{ikl}(y\epsilon v)_l\right)\psi (e_i,e_j^{}),F_A(e_k^{},e_j^{})=0$$

for all $`xS`$, $`sV_x`$, and $`tW_x`$. Then there exists a $`1`$-form $`a𝒞_{2+\nu }^{1,\gamma }(M)`$ which is supported in the region $`\{pM:\text{dist}(p,S)2\delta ^2\}`$ such that

$$a_{𝒞_{2+\nu }^{1,\gamma }(M)}C\psi _{𝒞_{3+\nu }^\gamma (M)}$$

and

$$𝕃_Aa\psi _{𝒞_{3+\nu }^\gamma (\{pM:\text{dist}(p,S)2\delta ^4\})}C\delta \psi _{𝒞_{3+\nu }^\gamma (M)},$$

and

$$𝕃_Aa\psi _{𝒞_{3+\nu }^\gamma (M)}C|\mathrm{log}\delta |^1\psi _{𝒞_{3+\nu }^\gamma (M)}.$$

Proof. Let $`\{\zeta ^{(j)}:1jj_0\}`$ be a partition of unity on $`S`$ such that each function $`\zeta ^{(j)}`$ is supported in a ball $`B_\delta (p_j)`$, and

$$|\{1jj_0:xB_{4\delta }(p_j)\}|C$$

for all $`xS`$ and some uniform constant $`C`$. For each $`1jj_0`$, there exists a $`1`$-form $`a^{(j)}𝒞_{2+\nu }^{1,\gamma }(M)`$ which is supported in the region $`\{(x,y)NS:xB_{2\delta }(p_j),|y|2\delta ^2\}`$ such that

$$a^{(j)}_{𝒞_{2+\nu }^{1,\gamma }(M)}C\zeta ^{(j)}\psi _{𝒞_{3+\nu }^\gamma (M)}$$

and

$$𝕃_Aa^{(j)}\zeta ^{(j)}\psi _{𝒞_{3+\nu }^\gamma (\{pM:\text{dist}(p,S)2\delta ^4\})}C\delta \zeta ^{(j)}\psi _{𝒞_{3+\nu }^\gamma (M)},$$

and

$$𝕃_Aa^{(j)}\zeta ^{(j)}\psi _{𝒞_{3+\nu }^\gamma (M)}C|\mathrm{log}\delta |^1\zeta ^{(j)}\psi _{𝒞_{3+\nu }^\gamma (M)}.$$

We now define

$$a=\underset{j=1}{\overset{j_0}{}}a^{(j)}.$$

Then we have the estimates

$`a_{𝒞_{2+\nu }^{1,\gamma }(M)}`$ $`C\underset{1jj_0}{sup}a^{(j)}_{𝒞_{2+\nu }^{1,\gamma }(M)}`$
$`C\underset{1jj_0}{sup}\zeta ^{(j)}\psi _{𝒞_{3+\nu }^\gamma (M)}`$
$`C\psi _{𝒞_{3+\nu }^\gamma (M)},`$
$`𝕃_Aa\psi _{𝒞_{3+\nu }^\gamma (\{pM:\text{dist}(p,S)2\delta ^4\})}`$ $`C\underset{1jj_0}{sup}𝕃_Aa^{(j)}\zeta ^{(j)}\psi _{𝒞_{3+\nu }^\gamma (\{pM:\text{dist}(p,S)2\delta ^4\})}`$
$`C\delta \underset{1jj_0}{sup}\zeta ^{(j)}\psi _{𝒞_{3+\nu }^\gamma (M)}`$
$`C\delta \psi _{𝒞_{3+\nu }^\gamma (M)},`$
$`𝕃_Aa\psi _{𝒞_{3+\nu }^\gamma (M)}`$ $`C\underset{1jj_0}{sup}𝕃_Aa^{(j)}\zeta ^{(j)}\psi _{𝒞_{3+\nu }^\gamma (M)}`$
$`C|\mathrm{log}\delta |^1\underset{1jj_0}{sup}\zeta ^{(j)}\psi _{𝒞_{3+\nu }^\gamma (M)}`$
$`C|\mathrm{log}\delta |^1\psi _{𝒞_{3+\nu }^\gamma (M)}.`$
This proves the assertion.

###### Proposition 4.2.

For every $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-self-dual $`2`$-form $`\psi 𝒞_{3+\nu }^\gamma (M)`$, there exists a $`1`$-form $`a𝒞_{2+\nu }^{1,\gamma }(M)`$ such that

$$a_{𝒞_{2+\nu }^{1,\gamma }(M)}C\psi _{𝒞_{3+\nu }^\gamma (M)}$$

and

$$P_+da=\psi .$$

Proof. We consider the elliptic operator $`P_+dd^{}:\mathrm{\Omega }_+^2(M)\mathrm{\Omega }_+^2(M)`$. Its kernel is given by

$$\mathrm{ker}(P_+dd^{}:\mathrm{\Omega }_+^2(M)\mathrm{\Omega }_+^2(M))=H_+^2(M).$$

Since the cohomology group $`H_+^2(M)`$ vanishes, the operator $`P_+dd^{}:\mathrm{\Omega }_+^2(M)\mathrm{\Omega }_+^2(M)`$ is invertible. Consequently, there exists a $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-self-dual $`2`$-form $`\phi `$ such that

$$P_+dd^{}\phi =\psi .$$

We claim that

$$\phi _{𝒞_{1+\nu }^{2,\gamma }(M)}CP_+dd^{}\phi _{𝒞_{3+\nu }^\gamma (M)}.$$

By Schauder estimates, it suffices to show that

$$sup(\epsilon +\text{dist}(p,S))^{1+\nu }|\phi |Csup(\epsilon +\text{dist}(p,S))^{3+\nu }|P_+dd^{}\phi |.$$

If this estimate fails, then there exists a sequence of positive real numbers $`\epsilon _j`$ and a sequence of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-self-dual $`2`$-forms $`\phi ^{(j)}𝒞_{1+\nu }^{2,\gamma }(M)`$ such that

$$sup(\epsilon _j+\text{dist}(p,S))^{1+\nu }|\phi ^{(j)}|=1$$

and

$$sup(\epsilon _j+\text{dist}(p,S))^{3+\nu }|P_+dd^{}\phi ^{(j)}|0.$$

Then there exists a sequence of points $`p_jM`$ such that

$$sup(\epsilon _j+\text{dist}(p_j,S))^{1+\nu }|\phi ^{(j)}(p_j)|\frac{1}{2}.$$

There are two possibilities:

(i) Suppose that $`\text{dist}(p_j,S)`$ is bounded from below. After passing to a subsequence, we may assume that the sequence $`\phi ^{(j)}`$ converges to a $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-self-dual $`2`$-form $`\phi \mathrm{\Omega }_+^2(M)`$ such that

$$sup\text{dist}(p,S)^{1+\nu }|\phi |1$$

and

$$P_+dd^{}\phi =0.$$

From this it follows that $`\phi `$ is smooth. Since the operator $`P_+dd^{}:\mathrm{\Omega }_+^2(M)\mathrm{\Omega }_+^2(M)`$ has trivial kernel, it follows that $`\phi =0`$. This is a contradiction.

(ii) We now assume that $`\text{dist}(p_j,S)0`$. After rescaling and taking the limit, we obtain a $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-self-dual $`2`$-form $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }\mathrm{\Omega }_+^2(^8)`$ such that

$$sup|y|^{1+\nu }|\stackrel{~}{\phi }|1$$

and

$$P_+dd^{}\stackrel{~}{\phi }=0.$$

Thus, we conclude that $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }=0`$. This is a contradiction.

This implies

$$\phi _{𝒞_{1+\nu }^{2,\gamma }(M)}C\psi _{𝒞_{3+\nu }^\gamma (M)}.$$

Letting $`a=d^{}\phi `$, the assertion follows.

###### Proposition 4.3.

Suppose that $`\psi 𝒞_{3+\nu }^\gamma (M)`$ is supported in the region $`\{pM:\text{dist}(p,S)\delta ^4\}`$. Then there exists a $`1`$-form $`a𝒞_{2+\nu }^{1,\gamma }(M)`$ which is supported in the region $`\{pM:\text{dist}(p,S)\delta ^8\}`$ such that

$$a_{𝒞_{2+\nu }^{1,\gamma }(M)}C\psi _{𝒞_{3+\nu }^\gamma (M)}$$

and

$$𝕃_Aa\psi _{𝒞_{3+\nu }^\gamma (M)}C\left(|\mathrm{log}\delta |^1+\delta ^{16}\epsilon ^2\right)\psi _{𝒞_{3+\nu }^\gamma (M)}.$$

Proof. By Proposition 4.2, exists a $`1`$-form $`a`$ such that

$$a_{𝒞_{2+\nu }^{1,\gamma }(M)}C\psi _{𝒞_{3+\nu }^\gamma (M)}$$

and

$$2P_+da=\psi .$$

Let $`\eta `$ be a cut-off function such that $`\eta (p)=0`$ for $`\text{dist}(p,S)\delta ^8`$, $`\eta (p)=1`$ for $`\text{dist}(p,S)\delta ^4`$ and

$$sup\text{dist}(p,S)|\eta |C|\mathrm{log}\delta |^1.$$

Then the $`1`$-form $`\eta a`$ is supported in the region $`\{pM:\text{dist}(p,S)\delta ^8\}`$ and satisfies

$`𝕃_A(\eta a)\psi _{𝒞_{3+\nu }^\gamma (M)}`$
$`=2P_+D_A(\eta a)\eta P_+da_{𝒞_{3+\nu }^\gamma (M)}`$
$`2P_+D_A(\eta a)P_+d(\eta a)_{𝒞_{3+\nu }^\gamma (M)}+2P_+d(\eta a)\eta P_+da_{𝒞_{3+\nu }^\gamma (M)}`$
$`C\delta ^{16}\epsilon ^2a_{𝒞_{2+\nu }^\gamma (M)}+C|\mathrm{log}\delta |^1a_{𝒞_{2+\nu }^\gamma (M)}`$
$`C\delta ^{16}\epsilon ^2\psi _{𝒞_{3+\nu }^\gamma (M)}+C|\mathrm{log}\delta |^1\psi _{𝒞_{3+\nu }^\gamma (M)}.`$
This proves the assertion.

In the following, we will choose $`\delta =\epsilon ^{\frac{1}{16}}`$. Let $`\kappa `$ be a cut-off function such that $`\kappa (p)=1`$ for $`\text{dist}(p,S)\epsilon ^{\frac{1}{4}}`$ and $`\kappa (p)=0`$ for $`\text{dist}(p,S)2\epsilon ^{\frac{1}{4}}`$.

Let $`𝒢_\nu ^{k,\gamma }(M)`$ be the set of all $`\psi \mathrm{\Omega }_+^2(M)`$ such that $`\psi 𝒞_\nu ^{k,\gamma }(M)`$ and

$$_{NS_x}\kappa \underset{i,j=1}{\overset{4}{}}\left(\epsilon s_{ik}+t_{ikl}(y\epsilon v)_l\right)\psi (e_i,e_j^{}),F_A(e_k^{},e_j^{})=0$$

for all $`xS`$, $`sV_x`$, and $`tW_x`$.

We denote by $`\text{I}`$ the fibrewise projection from $`𝒞_\nu ^\gamma (M)`$ to the subspace $`𝒢_\nu ^\gamma (M)`$. Hence, if $`\psi `$ is an $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-self-dual $`2`$-form, then the projection $`\psi `$ is of the form

$$\psi (e_i,e_j^{})=\kappa \left(\epsilon s_{ik}+t_{ikl}(y\epsilon v)_l\right)F_A(e_k^{},e_j^{})$$

for suitable $`sV`$ and $`tW`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ be the linear operator which assigns to every $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-self-dual $`2`$-form $`\psi `$ the pair

$$\mathrm{\Pi }\psi =(s,t)VW.$$

We shall need the following estimate for the operator norm of the projection operator $``$.

###### Proposition 4.4.

For every $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-self-dual $`2`$-form $`\psi 𝒞_{3+\nu }^\gamma (M)`$, we have the estimates

$$\mathrm{\Pi }\psi _{𝒞^\gamma (S)}C\epsilon ^{2\nu \gamma }\psi _{𝒞_{3+\nu }^\gamma (M)}$$

and

$$\psi _{𝒞_{3+\nu }^\gamma (M)}C\epsilon ^{\nu \gamma }\psi _{𝒞_{3+\nu }^\gamma (M)}.$$

Proof. This follows from , Proposition 5.4.

###### Proposition 4.5.

For every $`\psi 𝒢_{3+\nu }^\gamma (M)`$ there exists a $`1`$-form $`a𝒞_{2+\nu }^{1,\gamma }(M)`$ such that

$$a_{𝒞_{2+\nu }^{1,\gamma }(M)}C\psi _{𝒞_{3+\nu }^\gamma (M)}$$

and

$$𝕃_Aa\psi _{𝒞_{3+\nu }^\gamma (\{pM:\text{dist}(p,S)\epsilon ^{\frac{1}{2}}\})}C\epsilon ^{\frac{1}{16}}\psi _{𝒞_{3+\nu }^\gamma (M)},$$

and

$$𝕃_Aa\psi _{𝒞_{3+\nu }^\gamma (M)}C|\mathrm{log}\epsilon |^1\psi _{𝒞_{3+\nu }^\gamma (M)}.$$

Proof. Apply Proposition 4.1 to $`\kappa \psi `$ and Proposition 4.3 to $`(1\kappa )\psi `$.

###### Proposition 4.6.

For every $`\psi 𝒢_{3+\nu }^\gamma (M)`$ there exists a $`1`$-form $`a𝒞_{2+\nu }^{1,\gamma }(M)`$ such that

$$a_{𝒞_{2+\nu }^{1,\gamma }(M)}C\psi _{𝒞_{3+\nu }^\gamma (M)}$$

and

$$(\text{I})𝕃_Aa=\psi .$$

Furthermore, $`a`$ satisfies the estimate

$$\mathrm{\Pi }𝕃_Aa_{𝒞^\gamma (S)}C\epsilon ^{2+\frac{1}{32}}\psi _{𝒞_{3+\nu }^\gamma (M)}.$$

Proof. By Proposition 4.5, there exists an operator $`𝕊:𝒢_{3+\nu }^\gamma (M)𝒞_{2+\nu }^{1,\gamma }(M)`$ such that

$$𝕊\psi _{𝒞_{2+\nu }^{1,\gamma }(M)}C\psi _{𝒞_{3+\nu }^\gamma (M)}$$

and

$$𝕃_A𝕊\psi \psi _{𝒞_{3+\nu }^\gamma (\{pM:\text{dist}(p,S)\epsilon ^{\frac{1}{2}}\})}C\epsilon ^{\frac{1}{16}}\psi _{𝒞_{3+\nu }^\gamma (M)},$$

and

$$𝕃_A𝕊\psi \psi _{𝒞_{3+\nu }^\gamma (M)}C|\mathrm{log}\epsilon |^1\psi _{𝒞_{3+\nu }^\gamma (M)}.$$

This implies

$$\mathrm{\Pi }𝕃_A𝕊\psi _{𝒞^\gamma (S)}=\mathrm{\Pi }(𝕃_A𝕊\psi \psi )_{𝒞^\gamma (S)}C\epsilon ^{2+\frac{1}{16}\nu \gamma }\psi _{𝒞_{3+\nu }^\gamma (M)}.$$

From this it follows that

$$(\text{I})𝕃_A𝕊\psi \psi _{𝒞_{3+\nu }^\gamma (M)}C|\mathrm{log}\epsilon |^1\psi _{𝒞_{3+\nu }^\gamma (M)}.$$

Therefore, the operator $`(\text{I})𝕃_A𝕊:𝒢_{3+\nu }^\gamma (M)𝒢_{3+\nu }^\gamma (M)`$ is invertible. Hence, if we define

$$a=𝕊\left[(\text{I})𝕃_A𝕊\right]^1\psi ,$$

then $`a`$ satisfies

$$a_{𝒞_{2+\nu }^{1,\gamma }(M)}C\psi _{𝒞_{3+\nu }^\gamma (M)}$$

and

$$(\text{I})𝕃_Aa=\psi .$$

This proves the assertion.

## 5 The nonlinear problem

###### Proposition 5.1.

For every approximate solution $`A`$, there exists a nearby connection $`\stackrel{~}{A}=A+a`$ such that

$$a_{C_{2+\nu }^{1,\gamma }(M)}C\epsilon ^{2\nu \gamma }$$

and

$$(\text{I})(F_{\stackrel{~}{A}}+(\mathrm{\Omega }F_{\stackrel{~}{A}}))=0.$$

Furthermore, $`a`$ satisfies the estimate

$$\mathrm{\Pi }𝕃_Aa_{𝒞^\gamma (S)}C\epsilon ^{\frac{1}{32}}.$$

Proof. The connection $`\stackrel{~}{A}=A+a`$ satisfies

$$F_{\stackrel{~}{A}}+(\mathrm{\Omega }F_{\stackrel{~}{A}})=F_A+(\mathrm{\Omega }F_A)+D_Aa+(\mathrm{\Omega }D_Aa)+[a,a]+(\mathrm{\Omega }[a,a]).$$

This implies

$$F_{\stackrel{~}{A}}+(\mathrm{\Omega }F_{\stackrel{~}{A}})=F_A+(\mathrm{\Omega }F_A)+2𝕃_Aa+[a,a]+(\mathrm{\Omega }[a,a]).$$

According to Proposition 4.6, there exists an operator $`𝔾:𝒢_{3+\nu }^\gamma (M)𝒞_{2+\nu }^{1,\gamma }(M)`$ such that

$$𝔾\psi _{𝒞_{2+\nu }^{1,\gamma }(M)}C\psi _{𝒞_{3+\nu }^\gamma (M)}$$

and

$$(\text{I})𝕃_A𝔾=\text{I}.$$

We now define a mapping $`\mathrm{\Phi }:𝒞_{2+\nu }^{1,\gamma }(M)𝒞_{2+\nu }^{1,\gamma }(M)`$ by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(a)=\frac{1}{2}𝔾(\text{I})(F_A+(\mathrm{\Omega }F_A))\frac{1}{2}𝔾(\text{I})([a,a]+(\mathrm{\Omega }[a,a])).$$

Then we have the estimate

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(a)_{𝒞_{2+\nu }^{1,\gamma }(M)}`$ $`C(\text{I})(F_A+(\mathrm{\Omega }F_A))_{𝒞_{3+\nu }^\gamma (M)}`$
$`+C(\text{I})([a,a]+(\mathrm{\Omega }[a,a]))_{𝒞_{3+\nu }^\gamma (M)}`$
$`C\epsilon ^{\nu \gamma }F_A+(\mathrm{\Omega }F_A)_{𝒞_{3+\nu }^\gamma (M)}`$
$`+C\epsilon ^{\nu \gamma }[a,a]_{𝒞_{3+\nu }^\gamma (M)}`$
$`C\epsilon ^{\nu \gamma }F_A+(\mathrm{\Omega }F_A)_{𝒞_{3+\nu }^\gamma (M)}`$
$`+C\epsilon ^{12\nu \gamma }a_{𝒞_{2+\nu }^{1,\gamma }(M)}^2`$
$`C\epsilon ^{2\nu \gamma }`$
for all $`a𝒞_{2+\nu }^{1,\gamma }(M)`$ satisfying

$$a_{𝒞_{2+\nu }^{1,\gamma }(M)}\epsilon ^{\frac{7}{4}}.$$

Moreover, we have

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(a)\mathrm{\Phi }(a^{})_{𝒞_{1+\nu }^{2,\gamma }(M)}`$ $`C\epsilon ^{\nu \gamma }[a,a][a^{},a^{}]_{𝒞_{3+\nu }^\gamma (M)}`$
$`C\epsilon ^{\frac{3}{4}2\nu \gamma }aa^{}_{𝒞_{1+\nu }^{2,\gamma }(M)}`$
for all $`a,a^{}𝒞_{2+\nu }^{1,\gamma }(M)`$ satisfying

$$a_{𝒞_{2+\nu }^{1,\gamma }(M)},a^{}_{𝒞_{2+\nu }^{1,\gamma }(M)}\epsilon ^{\frac{7}{4}}.$$

Hence, it follows from the contraction mapping principle that there exists a $`1`$-form $`a𝒞_{2+\nu }^{1,\gamma }(M)`$ such that

$$a_{𝒞_{2+\nu }^{1,\gamma }(M)}C\epsilon ^{2\nu \gamma }$$

and

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(a)=a.$$

From this it follows that

$$𝔾(\text{I})(F_A+(\mathrm{\Omega }F_A))+2a+𝔾(\text{I})([a,a]+(\mathrm{\Omega }[a,a])=0,$$

hence

$$(\text{I})(F_A+(\mathrm{\Omega }F_A))+2(\text{I})𝕃_Aa+(\text{I})([a,a]+(\mathrm{\Omega }[a,a])=0.$$

Thus, we conclude that

$$(\text{I})(F_{\stackrel{~}{A}}+(\mathrm{\Omega }F_{\stackrel{~}{A}}))=0.$$

This proves the assertion.

###### Corollary 5.2.

If $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ satisfies

$$(F_{\stackrel{~}{A}}+(\mathrm{\Omega }F_{\stackrel{~}{A}}))=0,$$

then $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ is an $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-anti-self-dual instanton, i.e.

$$F_{\stackrel{~}{A}}+(\mathrm{\Omega }F_{\stackrel{~}{A}})=0.$$

## 6 The balancing condition

By Corollary 5.2, the problem is reduced to finding a set of glueing data $`(v,\lambda ,J,\omega )`$ such that

$$(F_{\stackrel{~}{A}}+(\mathrm{\Omega }F_{\stackrel{~}{A}}))=0.$$

Our aim in this section is to derive a formula for the error term

$$(F_{\stackrel{~}{A}}+(\mathrm{\Omega }F_{\stackrel{~}{A}})).$$

###### Proposition 6.1.

The curvature of $`A`$ satisfies

$`\mathrm{\Pi }(F_A+(\mathrm{\Omega }_0F_A))=4(`$ $`\text{proj}_V\left({\displaystyle \underset{i,j=1}{\overset{4}{}}}_iv_ke_ie_k^{}\right),`$
$`\text{proj}_W\left({\displaystyle \underset{i,k,l=1}{\overset{4}{}}}(\lambda ^1_i\lambda \delta _{kl}+\theta _{i,kl})e_ie_k^{}e_l^{}\right).`$
Proof. This is a consequence of the identity

$$F_A(e_i,e_j^{})=\left(\epsilon _iv_k+\lambda ^1_i\lambda (y\epsilon v)_k+\theta _{i,kl}(y\epsilon v)_l\right)F_A(e_k^{},e_j^{}).$$

The covariant derivative of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ can be described by a $`1`$-form $`\alpha `$ with values in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_+^2TM`$. For every vector field $`XTM`$, we write

$$_X\mathrm{\Omega }=\underset{k=1}{\overset{8}{}}i_{e_k}\alpha (X)i_{e_k}\mathrm{\Omega },$$

where $`\alpha (X)\mathrm{\Lambda }_+^2TM`$. From this it follows that

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{\Omega }_0+\underset{k=1}{\overset{8}{}}i_{e_k}\alpha (y)i_{e_k}\mathrm{\Omega }_0+O(|y|^2),$$

where $`\alpha (y)\mathrm{\Lambda }_+^2TM`$.

###### Proposition 6.2.

The curvature of $`A`$ satisfies

$``$ $`\mathrm{\Pi }(F_A+(\mathrm{\Omega }F_A))`$
$`4(\text{proj}_V({\displaystyle \underset{i,j=1}{\overset{4}{}}}(_iv_k+\alpha _{ik,l}v_l)e_ie_k^{}),`$
$`\text{proj}_W\left({\displaystyle \underset{i,k,l=1}{\overset{4}{}}}(\lambda ^1_i\lambda \delta _{kl}+\theta _{i,kl}+\alpha _{ik,l})e_ie_k^{}e_l^{}\right)_{𝒞^\gamma (S)}C\epsilon .`$
Proof. Using the identity

$$\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }_0\underset{k=1}{\overset{8}{}}i_{e_k}\alpha (y)i_{e_k}\mathrm{\Omega }_0=O(|y|^2),$$

we obtain

$$\mathrm{\Omega }F_A\mathrm{\Omega }_0F_A\underset{k=1}{\overset{8}{}}i_{e_k}\alpha (y)i_{e_k}\mathrm{\Omega }_0F_A_{𝒞_2^\gamma (M)}C\epsilon ^2.$$

This implies

$``$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }F_A\mathrm{\Omega }_0F_A+{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{8}{}}}i_{e_k}\alpha (y)i_{e_k}(\mathrm{\Omega }_0F_A)`$
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_0{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{8}{}}}i_{e_k}\alpha (y)i_{e_k}F_A_{𝒞_2^\gamma (M)}C\epsilon ^2,`$
hence

$``$ $`(\mathrm{\Omega }F_A)(\mathrm{\Omega }_0F_A)+{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{8}{}}}i_{e_k}\alpha (y)i_{e_k}(\mathrm{\Omega }_0F_A)`$
$`(\mathrm{\Omega }_0{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{8}{}}}i_{e_k}\alpha (y)i_{e_k}F_A)_{𝒞_2^\gamma (M)}C\epsilon ^2.`$
Therefore, we obtain

$``$ $`(F_A+(\mathrm{\Omega }F_A))(F_A+(\mathrm{\Omega }_0F_A))+{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{8}{}}}i_{e_k}\alpha (y)i_{e_k}(F_A+(\mathrm{\Omega }_0F_A))`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{8}{}}}i_{e_k}\alpha (y)i_{e_k}F_A(\mathrm{\Omega }_0{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{8}{}}}i_{e_k}\alpha (y)i_{e_k}F_A)_{𝒞_2^\gamma (M)}C\epsilon ^2.`$
According to Proposition 3.4, we have

$$F_A+(\mathrm{\Omega }_0F_A)_{𝒞_3^\gamma (M)}C\epsilon ^2,$$

hence

$$\underset{k=1}{\overset{8}{}}i_{e_k}\alpha (y)i_{e_k}(F_A+(\mathrm{\Omega }_0F_A))_{𝒞_2^\gamma (M)}C\epsilon ^2.$$

Moreover, we have

$$3\underset{k=1}{\overset{8}{}}i_{e_k}\alpha (y)i_{e_k}F_A(\mathrm{\Omega }_0\underset{k=1}{\overset{8}{}}i_{e_k}\alpha (y)i_{e_k}F_A)=0.$$

Thus, we conclude that

$$(F_A+(\mathrm{\Omega }F_A))(F_A+(\mathrm{\Omega }_0F_A))4\underset{k=1}{\overset{8}{}}i_{e_k}\alpha (y)i_{e_k}F_A_{𝒞_2^\gamma (M)}C\epsilon ^2.$$

The assertion follows now from Proposition 6.1.

###### Proposition 6.3.

The curvature of $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ satisfies

$``$ $`\mathrm{\Pi }(F_{\stackrel{~}{A}}+(\mathrm{\Omega }F_{\stackrel{~}{A}}))`$
$`4(\text{proj}_V({\displaystyle \underset{i,j=1}{\overset{4}{}}}(_iv_k+\alpha _{ik,l}v_l)e_ie_k^{}),`$
$`\text{proj}_W\left({\displaystyle \underset{i,k,l=1}{\overset{4}{}}}(\lambda ^1_i\lambda \delta _{kl}+\theta _{i,kl}+\alpha _{ik,l})e_ie_k^{}e_l^{}\right)_{𝒞^\gamma (S)}C\epsilon ^{\frac{1}{32}}.`$
Proof. Using the estimate

$$a_{C_{2+\nu }^{1,\gamma }(M)}C\epsilon ^{2\nu \gamma },$$

we obtain

$`\mathrm{\Pi }([a,a]+(\mathrm{\Omega }[a,a]))_{𝒞^\gamma (S)}`$ $`C\epsilon ^{2\nu \gamma }[a,a]+(\mathrm{\Omega }[a,a])_{𝒞_{3+\nu }^\gamma (M)}`$
$`C\epsilon ^{32\nu \gamma }a_{𝒞_{2+\nu }^{1,\gamma }(M)}^2`$
$`C\epsilon ^{14\nu 3\gamma }.`$
Moreover, we have

$$\mathrm{\Pi }𝕃_Aa_{𝒞^\gamma (S)}C\epsilon ^{\frac{1}{32}}.$$

Hence, the assertion follows from Proposition 6.2.

Proof of Theorem 1.1. Let

$$\mathrm{\Xi }_\epsilon (v,\lambda ,J,\omega )=\mathrm{\Pi }(F_{\stackrel{~}{A}}+(\mathrm{\Omega }F_{\stackrel{~}{A}})).$$

The first part of Theorem 1.1 follows from Proposition 5.2, the second part from Proposition 6.3.

## 7 Discussion

In this final section, we show how the first order balancing condition derived in this paper is related to the second order balancing condition in . To this end, we assume that $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is parallel. Then the Riemann curvature tensor of $`M`$ belongs to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^2TM\mathrm{\Lambda }_{}^2TM`$. Since $`S`$ is a Cayley submanifold, the second fundamental form of $`S`$ satisfies

$`h(e_k,e_1,e_1^{})+h(e_k,e_2,e_2^{})+h(e_k,e_3,e_3^{})+h(e_k,e_4,e_4^{})=0`$
$`h(e_k,e_1,e_2^{})h(e_k,e_2,e_1^{})h(e_k,e_3,e_4^{})+h(e_k,e_4,e_3^{})=0`$
$`h(e_k,e_1,e_3^{})+h(e_k,e_2,e_4^{})h(e_k,e_3,e_1^{})h(e_k,e_4,e_2^{})=0`$
$`h(e_k,e_1,e_4^{})h(e_k,e_2,e_3^{})+h(e_k,e_3,e_2^{})h(e_k,e_4,e_1^{})=0.`$
We denote the curvature of the normal bundle $`NS`$ by $`E`$. Using the Gauss equations, we obtain

$`E(e_i,e_j,e_k^{},e_l^{})`$ $`=R(e_i,e_j,e_k^{},e_l^{})`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{4}{}}}h(e_m,e_i,e_k^{})h(e_m,e_j,e_l^{})+h(e_m,e_i,e_l^{})h(e_m,e_j,e_k^{}).`$
Since $`\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$, the first part of the balancing condition becomes

$`_1v_1+_2v_2+_3v_3+_4v_4=0`$
$`_1v_2_2v_1_3v_4+_4v_3=0`$
$`_1v_3+_2v_4_3v_1_4v_2=0`$
$`_1v_4_2v_3+_3v_2_4v_1=0.`$
This implies

$`0`$ $`=\mathrm{\Delta }v_1`$
$`+_1_2v_2_2_1v_2+_3_4v_2_4_3v_2`$
$`+_1_3v_3_3_1v_3+_4_2v_3_2_4v_3`$
$`+_1_4v_4_4_1v_4+_2_3v_4_3_2v_4`$
$`0`$ $`=\mathrm{\Delta }v_2`$
$`_1_2v_1+_2_1v_1_3_4v_1+_4_3v_1`$
$`_1_3v_4+_3_1v_4_4_2v_4+_2_4v_4`$
$`+_1_4v_3_4_1v_3+_2_3v_3_3_2v_3`$
$`0`$ $`=\mathrm{\Delta }v_3`$
$`+_1_2v_4_2_1v_4+_3_4v_4_4_3v_4`$
$`_1_3v_1+_3_1v_1_4_2v_1+_2_4v_1`$
$`_1_4v_2+_4_1v_2_2_3v_2+_3_2v_2`$
$`0`$ $`=\mathrm{\Delta }v_4`$
$`_1_2v_3+_2_1v_3_3_4v_3+_4_3v_3`$
$`+_1_3v_2_3_1v_2+_4_2v_2_2_4v_2`$
$`_1_4v_1+_4_1v_1_2_3v_1+_3_2v_1.`$
From this it follows that

$`0`$ $`=\mathrm{\Delta }v_1`$
$`+(E(e_1,e_2,e_1^{},e_2^{})+E(e_3,e_4,e_1^{},e_2^{})+E(e_1,e_3,e_1^{},e_3^{})+E(e_4,e_2,e_1^{},e_3^{})`$
$`+E(e_1,e_4,e_1^{},e_4^{})+E(e_2,e_3,e_1^{},e_4^{}))v_1`$
$`+\left(E(e_1,e_3,e_2^{},e_3^{})+E(e_4,e_2,e_2^{},e_3^{})+E(e_1,e_4,e_2^{},e_4^{})+E(e_2,e_3,e_2^{},e_4^{})\right)v_2`$
$`+\left(E(e_1,e_2,e_3^{},e_2^{})+E(e_3,e_4,e_3^{},e_2^{})+E(e_1,e_4,e_3^{},e_4^{})+E(e_2,e_3,e_3^{},e_4^{})\right)v_3`$
$`+\left(E(e_1,e_2,e_4^{},e_2^{})+E(e_3,e_4,e_4^{},e_2^{})+E(e_1,e_3,e_4^{},e_3^{})+E(e_4,e_2,e_4^{},e_3^{})\right)v_4`$
$`0`$ $`=\mathrm{\Delta }v_2`$
$`+\left(E(e_3,e_1,e_1^{},e_4^{})+E(e_2,e_4,e_1^{},e_4^{})+E(e_1,e_4,e_1^{},e_3^{})+E(e_2,e_3,e_1^{},e_3^{})\right)v_1`$
$`+(E(e_2,e_1,e_2^{},e_1^{})+E(e_4,e_3,e_2^{},e_1^{})+E(e_3,e_1,e_2^{},e_4^{})+E(e_2,e_4,e_2^{},e_4^{})`$
$`+E(e_1,e_4,e_2^{},e_3^{})+E(e_2,e_3,e_2^{},e_3^{}))v_2`$
$`+\left(E(e_2,e_1,e_3^{},e_1^{})+E(e_4,e_3,e_3^{},e_1^{})+E(e_3,e_1,e_3^{},e_4^{})+E(e_2,e_4,e_3^{},e_4^{})\right)v_3`$
$`+\left(E(e_2,e_1,e_4^{},e_1^{})+E(e_4,e_3,e_4^{},e_1^{})+E(e_1,e_4,e_4^{},e_3^{})+E(e_2,e_3,e_4^{},e_3^{})\right)v_4`$
$`0`$ $`=\mathrm{\Delta }v_3`$
$`+\left(E(e_1,e_2,e_1^{},e_4^{})+E(e_3,e_4,e_1^{},e_4^{})+E(e_4,e_1,e_1^{},e_2^{})+E(e_3,e_2,e_1^{},e_2^{})\right)v_1`$
$`+\left(E(e_1,e_2,e_2^{},e_4^{})+E(e_3,e_4,e_2^{},e_4^{})+E(e_3,e_1,e_2^{},e_1^{})+E(e_2,e_4,e_2^{},e_1^{})\right)v_2`$
$`+(E(e_1,e_2,e_3^{},e_4^{})+E(e_3,e_4,e_3^{},e_4^{})+E(e_3,e_1,e_3^{},e_1^{})+E(e_2,e_4,e_3^{},e_1^{})`$
$`+E(e_4,e_1,e_3^{},e_2^{})+E(e_3,e_2,e_3^{},e_2^{}))v_3`$
$`+\left(E(e_3,e_1,e_4^{},e_1^{})+E(e_2,e_4,e_4^{},e_1^{})+E(e_4,e_1,e_4^{},e_2^{})+E(e_3,e_2,e_4^{},e_2^{})\right)v_4`$
$`0`$ $`=\mathrm{\Delta }v_4`$
$`+\left(E(e_2,e_1,e_1^{},e_3^{})+E(e_4,e_3,e_1^{},e_3^{})+E(e_1,e_3,e_1^{},e_2^{})+E(e_4,e_2,e_1^{},e_2^{})\right)v_1`$
$`+\left(E(e_2,e_1,e_2^{},e_3^{})+E(e_4,e_3,e_2^{},e_3^{})+E(e_4,e_1,e_2^{},e_1^{})+E(e_3,e_2,e_2^{},e_1^{})\right)v_2`$
$`+\left(E(e_1,e_3,e_3^{},e_2^{})+E(e_4,e_2,e_3^{},e_2^{})+E(e_4,e_1,e_3^{},e_1^{})+E(e_3,e_2,e_3^{},e_1^{})\right)v_3`$
$`+(E(e_2,e_1,e_4^{},e_3^{})+E(e_4,e_3,e_4^{},e_3^{})+E(e_1,e_3,e_4^{},e_2^{})+E(e_4,e_2,e_4^{},e_2^{})`$
$`+E(e_4,e_1,e_4^{},e_1^{})+E(e_3,e_2,e_4^{},e_1^{}))v_4.`$
Hence, we obtain

$$0=\mathrm{\Delta }v_1+\underset{i,j,k=1}{\overset{4}{}}h(e_i,e_j,e_1^{})h(e_i,e_j,e_k^{})v_k+\underset{i,k=1}{\overset{4}{}}R(e_i,e_1^{},e_k^{},e_i)v_k$$

$$0=\mathrm{\Delta }v_2+\underset{i,j,k=1}{\overset{4}{}}h(e_i,e_j,e_2^{})h(e_i,e_j,e_k^{})v_k+\underset{i,k=1}{\overset{4}{}}R(e_i,e_2^{},e_k^{},e_i)v_k$$

$$0=\mathrm{\Delta }v_3+\underset{i,j,k=1}{\overset{4}{}}h(e_i,e_j,e_3^{})h(e_i,e_j,e_k^{})v_k+\underset{i,k=1}{\overset{4}{}}R(e_i,e_3^{},e_k^{},e_i)v_k$$

$$0=\mathrm{\Delta }v_4+\underset{i,j,k=1}{\overset{4}{}}h(e_i,e_j,e_4^{})h(e_i,e_j,e_k^{})v_k+\underset{i,k=1}{\overset{4}{}}R(e_i,e_4^{},e_k^{},e_i)v_k.$$

Furthermore, the second part of the balancing condition can be written in the form

$`2\lambda ^1_1\lambda +(\theta _{2,21}+\theta _{2,43})+(\theta _{3,31}+\theta _{3,24})+(\theta _{4,41}+\theta _{4,32})=0`$
$`(\theta _{1,21}+\theta _{1,43})2\lambda ^1_2\lambda (\theta _{3,41}+\theta _{3,32})+(\theta _{4,31}+\theta _{4,24})=0`$
$`(\theta _{1,31}+\theta _{1,24})+(\theta _{2,41}+\theta _{2,32})2\lambda ^1_3\lambda (\theta _{4,21}+\theta _{4,43})=0`$
$`(\theta _{1,41}+\theta _{1,32})(\theta _{2,31}+\theta _{2,24})+(\theta _{3,21}+\theta _{3,43})2\lambda ^1_4\lambda =0.`$
This implies

$`0`$ $`=2\lambda ^1\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda 2\lambda ^2|\lambda |^2`$
$`+_1\theta _{2,21}_2\theta _{1,21}+_1\theta _{2,43}_2\theta _{1,43}`$
$`+_3\theta _{4,21}_4\theta _{3,21}+_3\theta _{4,43}_4\theta _{3,43}`$
$`+_1\theta _{3,31}_3\theta _{1,31}+_1\theta _{3,24}_3\theta _{1,24}`$
$`+_4\theta _{2,31}_2\theta _{4,31}+_4\theta _{2,24}_2\theta _{4,24}`$
$`+_1\theta _{4,41}_4\theta _{1,41}+_1\theta _{4,32}_4\theta _{1,32}`$
$`+_2\theta _{3,41}_3\theta _{2,41}+_2\theta _{3,32}_3\theta _{2,32},`$
hence

$`0`$ $`=2\lambda ^1\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}|\theta |^2`$
$`+_1\theta _{2,21}_2\theta _{1,21}+[\theta _1,\theta _2]_{21}+_1\theta _{2,43}_2\theta _{1,43}+[\theta _1,\theta _2]_{43}`$
$`+_3\theta _{4,21}_4\theta _{3,21}+[\theta _3,\theta _4]_{21}+_3\theta _{4,43}_4\theta _{3,43}+[\theta _3,\theta _4]_{43}`$
$`+_1\theta _{3,31}_3\theta _{1,31}+[\theta _1,\theta _3]_{31}+_1\theta _{3,24}_3\theta _{1,24}+[\theta _1,\theta _3]_{24}`$
$`+_4\theta _{2,31}_2\theta _{4,31}+[\theta _4,\theta _2]_{31}+_4\theta _{2,24}_2\theta _{4,24}+[\theta _4,\theta _2]_{24}`$
$`+_1\theta _{4,41}_4\theta _{1,41}+[\theta _1,\theta _4]_{41}+_1\theta _{4,32}_4\theta _{1,32}+[\theta _1,\theta _4]_{32}`$
$`+_2\theta _{3,41}_3\theta _{2,41}+[\theta _2,\theta _3]_{41}+_2\theta _{3,32}_3\theta _{2,32}+[\theta _2,\theta _3]_{32}.`$
From this it follows that

$`0`$ $`=2\lambda ^1\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}|\theta |^2`$
$`+E(e_1,e_2,e_1^{},e_2^{})+E(e_1,e_2,e_3^{},e_4^{})+E(e_3,e_4,e_1^{},e_2^{})+E(e_3,e_4,e_3^{},e_4^{})`$
$`+E(e_1,e_3,e_1^{},e_3^{})+E(e_1,e_3,e_4^{},e_2^{})+E(e_4,e_2,e_1^{},e_3^{})+E(e_4,e_2,e_4^{},e_2^{})`$
$`+E(e_1,e_4,e_1^{},e_4^{})+E(e_1,e_4,e_2^{},e_3^{})+E(e_2,e_3,e_1^{},e_4^{})+E(e_2,e_3,e_2^{},e_3^{}).`$
Using the identities

$`E(e_1,e_2,e_1^{},e_2^{})+E(e_3,e_4,e_1^{},e_2^{})+E(e_1,e_3,e_1^{},e_3^{})+E(e_4,e_2,e_1^{},e_3^{})`$
$`+E(e_1,e_4,e_1^{},e_4^{})+E(e_2,e_3,e_1^{},e_4^{})`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{i,j=1}{\overset{4}{}}}h(e_i,e_j,e_1^{})h(e_i,e_j,e_1^{})+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}}R(e_i,e_1^{},e_1^{},e_i)`$
$`E(e_2,e_1,e_2^{},e_1^{})+E(e_4,e_3,e_2^{},e_1^{})+E(e_3,e_1,e_2^{},e_4^{})+E(e_2,e_4,e_2^{},e_4^{})`$
$`+E(e_1,e_4,e_2^{},e_3^{})+E(e_2,e_3,e_2^{},e_3^{})`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{i,j=1}{\overset{4}{}}}h(e_i,e_j,e_2^{})h(e_i,e_j,e_2^{})+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}}R(e_i,e_2^{},e_2^{},e_i)`$
$`E(e_1,e_2,e_3^{},e_4^{})+E(e_3,e_4,e_3^{},e_4^{})+E(e_3,e_1,e_3^{},e_1^{})+E(e_2,e_4,e_3^{},e_1^{})`$
$`+E(e_4,e_1,e_3^{},e_2^{})+E(e_3,e_2,e_3^{},e_2^{})`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{i,j=1}{\overset{4}{}}}h(e_i,e_j,e_3^{})h(e_i,e_j,e_3^{})+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}}R(e_i,e_3^{},e_3^{},e_i)`$
$`E(e_2,e_1,e_4^{},e_3^{})+E(e_4,e_3,e_4^{},e_3^{})+E(e_1,e_3,e_4^{},e_2^{})+E(e_4,e_2,e_4^{},e_2^{})`$
$`+E(e_4,e_1,e_4^{},e_1^{})+E(e_3,e_2,e_4^{},e_1^{})`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{i,j=1}{\overset{4}{}}}h(e_i,e_j,e_4^{})h(e_i,e_j,e_4^{})+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}}R(e_i,e_4^{},e_4^{},e_i),`$
we obtain

$`2E(e_1,e_2,e_1^{},e_2^{})+2E(e_1,e_2,e_3^{},e_4^{})+2E(e_3,e_4,e_1^{},e_2^{})+2E(e_3,e_4,e_3^{},e_4^{})`$
$`+2E(e_1,e_3,e_1^{},e_3^{})+2E(e_1,e_3,e_4^{},e_2^{})+2E(e_4,e_2,e_1^{},e_3^{})+2E(e_4,e_2,e_4^{},e_2^{})`$
$`+2E(e_1,e_4,e_1^{},e_4^{})+2E(e_1,e_4,e_2^{},e_3^{})+2E(e_2,e_3,e_1^{},e_4^{})+2E(e_2,e_3,e_2^{},e_3^{})`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{i,j,k=1}{\overset{4}{}}}h(e_i,e_j,e_k^{})h(e_i,e_j,e_k^{})+{\displaystyle \underset{i,k=1}{\overset{4}{}}}R(e_i,e_k^{},e_k^{},e_i).`$
Thus, we conclude that

$$0=4\lambda ^1\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda |\theta |^2+\underset{i,j,k=1}{\overset{4}{}}h(e_i,e_j,e_k^{})h(e_i,e_j,e_k^{})+\underset{i,k=1}{\overset{4}{}}R(e_i,e_k^{},e_k^{},e_i).$$

A similar calculation gives

$$0=\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}(_i\theta _i+2\lambda ^1_i\lambda \theta _i).$$

Thus, the first order balancing condition implies the second order balancing condition derived in .


text:
# Extra dimensions and invisible decay of orthopositronium

## Abstract

We point out that some models with infinite additional dimension(s) of Randall-Sundrum type predict the disappearance of orthopositronium ($`oPs`$) into additional dimension(s). The experimental signature of this effect is the $`oPsinvisible`$ decay of orthopositronium which may occur at a rate within three orders of magnitude of the present experimental upper limit. This result enhances existing motivations for a more sensitive search for this decay mode and suggests additional directions for testing extra dimensions in non accelerator experiments.

Positronium ($`Ps`$), the positron-electron bound state, is the lightest known atom, which is bounded and self-annihilates through the same, electromagnetic interaction. At the current levels of experimental and theoretical precision this is the only interaction present in this system, see e.g. rich . This feature has made positronium an ideal system for testing of the QED calculations accuracy for bound states, in particular for the triplet ($`1^3S_1`$) state of $`Ps`$, orthopositronium ($`oPs`$). Due to the odd-parity under C-transformation $`oPs`$ decays predominantly into three photons. As compared with singlet ($`1^1S_0`$) state (parapositronium), the ”slowness” of $`oPs`$ decay, due to the phase-space and additional $`\alpha `$ suppression factors, gives an enhancement factor $`10^3`$, making it more sensitive to an admixture of new interactions which are not accommodated in the Standard Model (SM), see e.g. do .

Within the SM orthopositronium can decay invisibly into neutrino-antineutrino pair. The $`oPs\nu _e\overline{\nu }_e`$ decay occurs through $`W`$ exchange in $`t`$ channel and $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation via $`Z`$. The decay width is czar

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(oPs\nu _e\overline{\nu }_e)6.210^{18}\mathrm{\Gamma }(oPs3\gamma )`$ (1)
For other neutrino flavours only the $`Z`$-diagram contributes. For $`le`$ the decay width is czar

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(oPs\nu _l\overline{\nu }_l)9.510^{21}\mathrm{\Gamma }(oPs3\gamma )`$ (2)
Thus, in the SM the $`oPs\nu \overline{\nu }`$ decay width is very small and its contribution to the total decay width can be neglected.

Presently there is a big interest in models with additional dimensions which might provide solution to the gauge hierarchy problem randall -giud , for a recent review see e.g. rubakov . For instance, as it has been shown in the five dimensional model, so called RS 2-model randall , there exists a thin-brane solution to the 5-dimensional Einstein equations which has flat 4-dimensional hypersurfaces,

$$ds^2=a^2(z)\eta _{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu dz^2.$$
(3)
Here

$$a(z)=exp(k|z|)$$
(4)
and the parameter $`k>0`$ is determined by the 5-dimensional Planck mass and bulk cosmological constant.

Recently, a peculiar feature of massive matter in brane world has been reported tinyakov . It has been shown that tunnelling of massive matter into extra dimensions is a generic to fields that can have bulk modes. The massive matter becomes unstable, namely the discrete zero modes turn into quasi-localised states with finite 4-dimensional mass and finite width tinyakov . For massive scalar particle $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ with the mass $`m`$ the transition rate into additional dimension is given by tinyakov

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Phi }add.dim.)=\frac{\pi m}{16}(\frac{m}{k})^2$$
(5)
It should be noted that even for a massless scalar particle the nonzero transition rate into additional dimension(s) results in a nonzero imaginary part of the corresponding scalar propagator tinyakov

$$D(p^2)=\frac{1}{p^2i\theta (p^2)\sqrt{p^2}\mathrm{\Gamma }(p^2)}$$
(6)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(p^2)\frac{\pi }{4}\sqrt{p^2}(\frac{p^2}{k^2})`$. It means that even for the massless case, when the transition rate on mass shell is zero, the virtual scalar particle has nonzero transition rate into additional dimension. The explicit expression for the transition rate into additional dimension depends on the concrete model.

To be specific, let us consider a model for the localisation of gauge fields suggested in ref.oda ; rubilnik . One begins with the solution to $`(4+n+1)`$-dimensional Einstein equations,

$$ds^2=\frac{1}{(1+k|\xi |)^2}\left(dt^2d𝐱^2\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}R_i^2d\theta _i^2d\xi ^2\right)$$
(7)
where $`\theta _i[0,2\pi ]`$ are compact coordinates, $`R_i`$ are radii of compact dimensions and $`k`$ is the inverse adS radius determined by the bulk cosmological constant. There is a single brane located at $`\xi =0`$. The only difference between this metric and the Randall-Sundrum metric is the presence of extra compact dimensions $`\theta _i`$. These dimensions are added for obtaining a localised zero mode of the gauge field. In what follows we assume that their radii $`R_i`$ are the smallest length scales involved, so all fields are taken independent of $`\theta _i`$. The inverse adS radii $`k`$ is assumed to be the largest energy scale involved. For the model of ref.oda ; rubilnik  with additional (n+1) dimensions and metric of Randall-Sundrum type the imaginary part of the propagator of massless scalar particle is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\sqrt{p^2}(\frac{p^2}{k^2})^{1+n/2}`$.

The case of the electromagnetic field propagating in the Randall-Sundram type of metric of Eq.(7) has been considered in ref.rubilnik . It was shown that the transition rate of a virtual photon with the virtual mass $`m_\gamma ^{}=\sqrt{p^2}`$ into additional dimensions is different from zero and it is equal to

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=k(n)m_\gamma ^{}(\frac{m_\gamma ^{}}{k})^n$$
(8)
where $`k(n)`$ a numerical coefficient.

Consider now $`oPsinvisible`$ decay, which is a good candidate for the searching for effect of disappearance into additional dimension(s) since $`oPs`$ has specific quantum numbers similar to those of vacuum and is a system which allows its constituents a rather long interaction time. To make quantitative estimate we take $`n=2`$ ( (4+2+1)-dimensional space-time). In this case disappearance rate of a virtual photon into additional dimensions is given by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(\gamma ^{}add.dim.)=\frac{\pi m_\gamma ^{}}{4}\left(\frac{m_\gamma ^{}}{k}\right)^2$$
(9)
Using Eq.(9), for the branching ratio of orthopositronium invisible decay into additional dimension(s) through single photon annihilation $`oPs\gamma ^{}add.dim.`$ one gets as an estimate

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(oPs\gamma ^{}add.dim.)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(oPs3\gamma )}}={\displaystyle \frac{9\pi }{4(\pi ^29)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha ^2}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{4}}({\displaystyle \frac{m_{oPs}}{k}})^21.210^5({\displaystyle \frac{m_{oPs}}{k}})^2`$ (10)
To solve the gauge hierarchy problem models with additional dimension(s) one may expect $`kO(10)TeV`$. It means that

$$Br(oPsadd.dim.)O(10^9)$$
(11)
Important bounds on the parameter $`k`$ and $`Br(oPsadd.dim.)`$ arise from the combined LEP result on the precise measurements of the total and partial $`Z`$ widths pdg . We can write the $`Z`$ invisible width in the following form:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{inv}=\mathrm{\Gamma }^{SM}(Z\nu \overline{\nu })+\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{inv}$$
(12)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{SM}(Z\nu \overline{\nu })`$ is the SM contribution and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{inv}`$ contains the effects beyond the SM. Assuming that each neutrino type contributes the same amount to the invisible $`Z`$ width, one has numerically peccei

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{SM}(Z\nu \overline{\nu })=3\mathrm{\Gamma }(Z\nu _i\overline{\nu }_i)`$
$`=3(167.06\pm 0.22)MeV`$ (13)
The invisible width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{inv}`$ can be obtained from the $`Z`$ total width and its partial width into hadrons and leptons using the equation

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{tot}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{had}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{lept}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{inv}$$
(14)
The value of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{inv}`$ derived from the LEP measurements of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{tot},\mathrm{\Gamma }_{had}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{lept}`$ pdg ; lep  is

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{inv}=499.0\pm 1.5MeV$$
(15)
Using (13) and (15) we obtain

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{inv}=2.7\pm 1.6MeV$$
(16)
If a conservative approach is taken to constrain the result to only positive values $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{inv}`$ and renormalising the probability for $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{inv}0`$ to be unity, then the resulting 95% CL upper limit on additional invisible decay of $`Z`$ is lep

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{inv}<2.0MeV$$
(17)
Assuming $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{inv}=\mathrm{\Gamma }(Zadd.dim.)`$ and using Eqs.(9,10) for the estimate leads to $`k17TeV`$ and to the corresponding bound:

$`Br(oPsadd.dim.)0.410^9`$ (18)
Note that combined result on direct LEP measurements of the invisible width, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{inv}=503\pm 16MeV`$ pdg  gives less stringent limit

$`Br(oPsadd.dim.)10^8`$ (19)
These estimates giving only an order of magnitude for the corresponding branching ratio show that this decay may occur at a rate within roughly three orders of magnitude of the best present experimental limit mits :

$$Br(oPsinvisible)<2.810^6$$
(20)
Thus, the region $`Br(oPsinvisible)10^9`$ is of great interest for possible observation of effect of extra dimensions. Interestingly, that for $`n=1`$ the bound $`Br(oPsadd.dim.)10^4`$ obtained from (17) is weaker than that of (20) obtained from the direct measurement. We believe these results strengthens current motivations related to the orthopositronium decay rate puzzle and mirror world glashow , millicharged particle prinz  and light gauge boson do  searches, and justify efforts for a more sensitive search for the $`oPsinvisible`$ decay in a near future experiment ethz .

The experimental signature of the $`oPsinvisible`$ decay is the absence of an energy deposition of $``$ 1 MeV, which is expected from the ordinary $`oPs`$ annihilation in a 4$`\pi `$ hermetic calorimeter surrounding the $`oPs`$ formation region atojan . Our first Monte Carlo simulations, based on the results of the recent search for $`oPs\gamma +invisible`$ decay bader , show that for the branching ratio one may expect a limit $`Br(oPsadd.dim.)10^8`$ if the calorimeter has a mass of $``$ 0.5 ton. Larger simulation statistics and better background evaluation are required in order to see if the sensitivity to the branching ratio as low as $`10^9`$ is experimentally reachable.

We would like to thank a referee for useful remarks. N.V.K. is indebted to V.A. Rubakov and P.G. Tinyakov for many useful discussions on models with additional infinite dimensions. The work of N.V.K. has been supported by the RFFI Grant N02-01-00601.


text:
# References

REDUCTION OF THE WAVEPACKET: HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE?

\*This paper was published in 1984 as a Los Alamos report LAUR 84-2750, and was widely circulated at the time. It is based on the talks given by the author in the Spring of 1984 at the ITP, UCSB workshop on Quantum Noise, where the key result relating decoherence time in quantum Brownian motion, Eq. (1), was first announced, and at the NATO ASI Frontiers of Nonequilibrium Quantum Statistical Physics, held in Santa Fe, June 3-16, 1984. It was eventually published in the proceedings of that meeting, NATO ASI vol. B135, pp. 145-149, G. T. Moore and M. O. Scully, eds. (Plenum, 1986). It is reproduced here in the original version, with only a few typos corrected.
W.H. Zurek

Theory Division, MS B213

Los Alamos National Laboratory

Los Alamos, New Mexico 87545

and

Institute for Theoretical Physics

University of California

Santa Barbara, California 93106

## Abstract

We show that the “reduction of the wavepacket” caused by the interaction with the environment occurs on a timescale which is typically many orders of magnitude shorter than the relaxation timescale $`\tau `$. In particular, we show that in a system interacting with a “canonical” heat bath of harmonic oscillators decorrelation timescale of two pieces of the wave-packet separated by $`N`$ thermal de Broglie wavelengths is approximately $`\tau /N^2`$. Therefore, in the classical limit $`\mathrm{}0`$ dynamical reversibility $`(\tau \mathrm{})`$ is compatible with “instantaneous” coherence loss.

INTRODUCTION

It is sometimes argued that observables of macroscopic objects which obey, to a good approximation, *reversible* classical dynamics – i.e. their relaxation timescale t is, for all practical purposes, infinite – could not have lost coherence and become “classical” due to the interaction with the environment through environment-induced superselection.1-5 For, the reasoning goes, relaxation rate is the measure of the strength of the coupling with the environment. In particular, when $`\tau \mathrm{}`$ one can neglect dissipation of energy. Consequently, one should be equally justified in neglecting any influence of the environment. We show that this argument is fallacious in an example of a free particle interacting with the environment of quantum oscillators in the high-temperature weak coupling limit. In particular, we show that the coherence between two pieces of the wave-packet $`\mathrm{\Delta }x`$ apart is lost on a *decorrelation timescale* $`\theta `$ which is typically

$$\theta =\tau \left[\left(\mathrm{}/\sqrt{4mkT}\right)/\mathrm{\Delta }x\right]^2.$$
(1)
Here, $`m`$ is the mass of the particle, $`k`$ is Boltzmann’s constant, and $`T`$ is temperature. For “canonical” classical systems $`(m1g,T300^oK)`$ and standard “macroscopic” separations $`\mathrm{\Delta }x1cm,\theta /\tau 10^{40}`$. Moreover, in the classical limit, $`\mathrm{}0,\theta /\tau 0`$. This enormous disparity between the two timescales can be regarded as the explanation of the apparent “instantaneous” collapse of the state vector of macroscopic objects, including distinguishable (i.e. separated by many *de Broglie wavelength**\*The more popular definition of *thermal de Broglie wavelength* is $`\lambda _T^2=h^2/2\pi mkT`$. It differs by a factor $`\sqrt{\pi /2}(\lambda _{dB}^2=(2/\pi )\lambda _T^2)`$ from the de Broglie wavelength $`\lambda _{dB}`$ we shall use here. $`\lambda _{dB}=\mathrm{}/\sqrt{4mkT}`$) outcomes of measurements performed by a classical apparatus on a quantum system.

DECORRELATION OF A “FREE PARTICLE”

Consider an otherwise free particle of mass $`m`$ interacting with the environment of many harmonic oscillators via the Hamiltonian:

$$H_{INT}=xc_iq_i.$$
(2)
Above, $`x`$ is the coordinate of the free particle while $`q_i`$ are the coordinates of harmonic oscillators. This interaction Hamiltonian was used extensively in many earlier discussions of relaxation,7,8 and, more recently it is being used in calculations of dephasing in a harmonic oscillator.9

We note that $`H_{INT}`$, Eq. (1), commutes with the position observable of the free particle:

$$[H_{INT},x]=0.$$
(3)
Therefore, position can be regarded as *pointer observable*,1,3,5 measured continuously by the environment of harmonic oscillators. In the absence of the self-Hamiltonian:

$$H_0=\left(\mathrm{}^2/2m\right)\left(/x\right)^2$$
(4)
$`x`$ would be a constant of motion. One would then expect combined system-environment state vector to evolve from an initial, uncorrelated state

$$|\varphi _0=|\psi |ϵ$$

into the time dependent, correlated state:

$$|\varphi _t𝑑x|\psi (x)|ϵ.$$

Tracing out an environment after it has performed idealized, perfect “measurement” – i.e. after states of the environment are correlated with different positions become orthogonal, $`ϵ_x|ϵ_y\delta (xy)`$ – yields, for the system, the density matrix:

$$\rho 𝑑x|\psi (x)|^2|xx|$$
(5)
This density matrix is diagonal in the pointer basis $`\{|x\}`$.

In the more realistic case of finite $`H_0`$ the density matrix $`\rho `$ will not achieve perfect diagonalization, Eq. (5). Rather, it will have a finite correlation length $`\lambda _{dB}`$. Moreover, the distribution will become uniform, $`x|\rho |x`$ = const., on a relaxation timescale. The estimate of the timescales of these two processes can be obtained from the effective master equation for the free particle. We shall use it in the form given by Caldeira and Leggett7. Its three consecutive terms correspond to the von Neumann’s equation for the density matrix of a free particle, to the dissipation with viscosity $`\eta =2m\gamma `$, and to the fluctuating force responsible for Brownian motion:

$`\dot{\rho }`$ $`=`$ $`\{(i\mathrm{}/2m)(^2/x^2^2/y^2)\gamma (xy)({\displaystyle \frac{}{x}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{y}})`$ (6)
$`(2m\pi kT/\mathrm{}^2)(xy)^2\}\rho `$
To compare relaxation and decorrelation timescales we consider an initial wavepacket of half-width $`\delta `$. As we shall argue in the next section, this half-width will be typically of the order of the de Broglie wavelength. We now suppose that the initial wavepacket has been “split,” coherently, into two pieces, $`|\alpha `$ and $`|\beta `$, so that the free particle is described by the wave function:

$$|\psi =\left(|\alpha +|\beta \right)/\sqrt{2}.$$
(7)
Here we assume for simplicity:

$$x|\alpha =(2\pi \delta ^2)^{1/4}\mathrm{exp}\left[(x\mathrm{\Delta }x/2)^2/4\delta ^2\right],$$
(8a)
$$x|\beta =(2\pi \delta ^2)^{1/4}\mathrm{exp}\left[(x\mathrm{\Delta }x/2)^2/4\delta ^2\right].$$
(8b)
The resulting initial density matrix

$$\rho =|\psi \psi |$$
(9)
has, in the position representation, four extremes. Two of them occur on the diagonal: (1) $`x=y=\mathrm{\Delta }x/2`$; (2) $`x=y=\mathrm{\Delta }x/2`$. They are the maxima of $`|x|\alpha |^2`$ and $`|x|\beta |^2`$. In addition, there are off-diagonal maxima of $`x|\alpha x|\beta `$ and of its Hermitian conjugate which lie at: (3) $`x=y=\mathrm{\Delta }x/2`$; (4) $`x=y=\mathrm{\Delta }x/2`$. The size of these off-diagonal maxima provides a measure of the coherence between $`|\alpha `$ and $`|\beta `$.

The rate of change of the diagonal terms due to the interaction with the environment can be estimated by calculating, from Eq. (6),

$$\tau ^1=\alpha _t|\dot{\rho }|\alpha _t(\gamma /2)\alpha _t|(xy)^2|\alpha _t\left(1/\delta ^2+1/\lambda _{dB}^2\right)$$
(10a)
Here $`|\alpha _t=\mathrm{exp}(iH_0t/\mathrm{})|\alpha `$ was used to separate out the evolution due to the environment from the evolution induced by the self-Hamiltonian $`H_O`$. Similarly, the rate of change of the off-diagonal term is:

$$\theta ^1=\alpha _t|\dot{\rho }|\beta _t(\gamma /2)\alpha _t|(xy)^2|\beta _t\left(1/\delta ^2+1/\delta _{dB}^2\right)$$
(10b)
The key and only difference between the two rates is then the size of the factor $`(xy)^2`$. For the diagonal terms it is given by

$$\alpha _t|(xy)^2|\alpha _t=\delta ^2\lambda _{dB}^2.$$
(11a)
For the off-diagonal elements, it is, on the other hand

$$\alpha _t|(xy)^2|\beta _t=(\mathrm{\Delta }x)^2.$$
(11b)
Therefore, the ratio of the two rates is

$$\tau /\theta =(\mathrm{\Delta }x/\delta )^2(\mathrm{\Delta }x/\lambda _{dB})^2.$$
(12)
in accord with Eq. (1). For “macroscopic” values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }x`$, $`m`$, and $`T`$, this ratio is enormous and enforces environment-induced superselection. It is worth pointing out that qualitative conclusions of our discussion are in accord with more elaborate path integral treatment of the harmonic oscillator, given recently by Caldeira and Leggett.9

DISCUSSION: A CLASSICAL LIMIT?

In the previous section we have shown that when $`\delta \lambda _{dB}`$, decorrelation is much more rapid than relaxation. The purpose of this section is to justify why, in the practical context, the assumption $`\delta \lambda _{dB}`$ is natural. Moreover, we shall briefly point out consequences of the disparity between the two timescales for the interpretation of quantum mechanics.

Let us first consider a classic example of measurement, patterned after the one discussed by von Neumann.10 We couple the measured system, initially in a state $`|\varphi `$, with the free particle measuring apparatus, so that their total Hamiltonian is

$$H=H_{SYSTEM}+H_0i\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }x\delta (tt_0)P(/x).$$
(13)
Here $`P`$ is the measured operator which we assume has 0 and 1 as the eigen-values, while $`x`$ is the position of the free particle which will record the outcome of the measurement.

Just before the observation the state of the apparatus must be deter- mined with the accuracy better than $`\mathrm{\Delta }x`$. If the free particle apparatus is already in contact with the heat bath of temperature $`T`$, as discussed previously, then the measurement of its position with some accuracy $`\sigma `$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }x\sigma \lambda _{dB}`$, will be a typical, sufficient preparation. Therefore, the apparatus will be left in an incoherent mixture of $`n=\sigma /\lambda _{dB}`$ wavelets. Such inexhaustive measurements may be not only “realistic,” but also advantageous, as the resulting mixture will spread slower than the pure wavepacket of comparable width.11 In the course of the interaction at $`t=t_0`$, each of the de Broglie-sized wavepackets will be split into an “unmoved” $`|\alpha `$ portion, and into the shifted one: $`\mathrm{exp}(i\mathrm{\Delta }x/x)|\alpha =|\beta `$. Therefore, immediately after the observation, the state of the combination (system - free particle apparatus) is, in effect, described by a mixture of terms of the form:

$$|\mathrm{{\rm Y}}=|\alpha (1P)|\varphi +|\beta P|\varphi $$
(14)
with all the $`|\alpha `$ contained within $`\sigma `$. Now the analysis of the decay of the pure state $`|T`$ into the density matrix of the form

$$\rho =|\alpha \alpha |(1P)|\varphi \varphi |(1P)+|\beta \beta |P|\varphi \varphi |P$$
(15)
can be conducted in accord with the discussion of the previous section. In particular, $`\delta \lambda _{dB}`$ will apply as long as the resolution $`\sigma `$ of the measurement which prepares free-particle apparatus is worse than $`\lambda _{dB}`$. Moreover, even if $`\sigma <\lambda _{dB}`$, our qualitative conclusions still hold, as in that case decorrelation will be even more rapid.

The most intriguing corollary of our discussion is, perhaps, the possibility that in the classical limit of $`\mathrm{}0`$ the relaxation timescale may approach infinity,

$$\tau \mathrm{}$$
(16)
which allows the system to follow reversible, Newtonian dynamics, and yet the decorrelation timescale will remain arbitrarily short, or, indeed, it may approach zero:

$$\theta 0.$$
(17)
We regard this limit as a *true classical limit*: Not only does it allow classical Newton’s equations of motion, but it also prevents long-range quantum correlations, by imposing the environment-induced superselection.1,2

It is worth stressing that the loss of coherence and the accompanying “irreversibility” is a consequence of the deliberate tracing out of the environment, which disposes of the mutual information,5 and not of the approximations involved in the derivation of Eq. (6). This is particularly clearly demonstrated by the analogous results obtained by path-integral methods for harmonic oscillators.9

I would like to thank Amir Caldeira and Dan Walls for discussions on the subject of this paper. This research was supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. PHY77-27084, supplemented by funds from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.