text:
# Liquid crystal-solid interface structure at the antiferroelectric-ferroelectric phase transition

## Abstract

Total Internal Reflection (TIR) is used to probe the molecular organization at the surface of a tilted chiral smectic liquid crystal at temperatures in the vicinity of the bulk antiferroelectric-ferroelectric phase transition. Data are interpreted using an exact analytical solution of a real model for ferroelectric order at the surface. In the mixture T3, ferroelectric surface order is expelled with the bulk ferroelectric-antiferroelectric transition. The conditions for ferroelectric order at the surface of an antiferroelectric bulk are presented.

Antiferroelectric and antiferromagnetic ordering occur when there is a sufficiently strong local interaction favoring antiparallel neighboring dipoles or spins. The result is macroscopic ordering that is nonpolar in the absence of external fields. By contrast, material surfaces are inherently polar, there being an obvious direction from one material to another. Therefore at the surface of antiferroelectrics, there is an intrinsic competition between the bulk antiferroelectricity and the surface ferroelectric ordering tendency. Liquid crystals (LCs) are an attractive system for studying this behavior because their large optical anisotropy and sensitivity to surface forces make effective study of surface states possible. In this paper, we investigate surface structure of tilted chiral smectic LCs, two-dimensional polar fluid layers of rod-shaped molecules that order into either ferroelectric or antiferroelectric bulk structures.

In a given tilted smectic liquid-crystal layer, $`\widehat{n}`$, the orientation of the mean long molecular axis is given by $`\theta `$, the fixed angle of tilt relative to the layer normal $`\widehat{z}`$, as shown in Fig. 1, and by $`\varphi (x)`$, the azimuthal orientation about $`\widehat{z}`$, a Goldstone variable degenerate in the free energy in an infinite sample. Chiral tilted smectic layers are ferroelectric, the lack of mirror symmetry allowing within each layer a spontaneous polarization, $`𝐏`$, mutually perpendicular to $`\widehat{n}`$ and $`\widehat{z}`$ (see Fig. 1). This enables coupling of $`\varphi `$ to electric field E applied in the plane of the layer, tending to minimize $`𝐏𝐄`$. In the synclinic ferroelectric (SYN, Sm-C \*) tilted chiral smectic phase, adjacent layers are tilted in the same direction ($`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi =0`$), whereas, in the anticlinic antiferroelectric (ANTI, Sm-CA \*) phase, adjacent layers are tilted in opposite directions ($`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi =\pi `$).

We consider here LC-solid surface systems wherein the molecules at the surface prefer (planar) alignment, i.e., with $`\widehat{n}`$ parallel to the substrate plane. In a Sm-C * with the layers oriented perpendicular to the substrates (bookshelf geometry) and with the helix unwound (i.e., surface stabilized), such planar alignment will generate two preferred $`\widehat{n}`$ orientations corresponding to the intersection of the tilt cone with the substrate \[$`\varphi (0)=0`$ and $`\varphi (0)=\pi `$ in Fig. 1\]. Additionally, LC chirality couples with the polar nature of the surface to produce a surface energy difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }U_{\mathrm{Surf}}=U_{\mathrm{Surf}}(0)U_{\mathrm{Surf}}(\pi )`$ between these two states, tending to produce a uniform synclinic order at the surface. By contrast, in the Sm-CA * bookshelf geometry, the bulk anticlinic ordering is basically incompatible with the synclinic order preferred by the

surface. A strong polar surface interaction will cause the system to minimize its energy by adopting synclinic order near the surface, lowering the surface energy at the expense of increasing that of the anticlinic bulk \[Fig. 1(b)\]. With sufficiently small $`\mathrm{\Delta }U_{\mathrm{Surf}}`$, the ferroelectric order at the surface may be expelled by the antiferroelectric bulk. The geometry will then be the configuration of Fig. 1(a) in which the LC is uniformly anticlinic with $`\varphi (0)`$ equal to $`0`$ and $`\pi `$ in adjacent layers, and having planar alignment of $`\widehat{n}`$. We have carried out total internal reflection (TIR) measurement of the optic axis director orientation in the LC-solid interface in bookshelf tilted chiral smectic cells with planar aligned surfaces. This technique enables us to readily distinguish synclinic surface and anticlinic surface states. The results are interpreted using an exact analytic solution of a realistic theoretical model of surface ordering.

The TIR setup is presented in the inset to Fig. 2. A

He-Ne laser beam polarized in the plane of incidence illuminates the LC cell through a high refractive index hemisphere ($`n=1.79`$) at a fixed angle of incidence of $`75^{}`$. The light is totally reflected at the glass/LC interface, and an evanescent wave (probe beam) penetrates a depth $`\lambda 1000\mathrm{\AA }`$ into the LC. Hereafter, we will denote the depolarization ratio $`R(\alpha )`$ as the ratio of the detected s-wave (out of plane) intensity to the incident p-wave (in plane) intensity. $`R(\alpha )`$, measured as a function of $`\alpha ,`$ the angle between $`\widehat{z}`$ and the TIR plane of incidence, gives information about the orientation of the LC close to the TIR interface. Minima in $`R(\alpha )`$ occur when an optical axis is rotated to be either parallel or perpendicular to the TIR plane of incidence. That is, a uniform director along $`\widehat{z}`$ produces four zero-intensity minima in $`R(\alpha )`$ at $`\alpha =0,\pi /2,\pi ,3\pi /2`$. As the director tilts out of the $`\widehat{z}\widehat{y}`$ plane by an angle $`\gamma `$ \[for a Sm-C, $`\mathrm{tan}\gamma =\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\varphi (1\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \mathrm{sin}^2\varphi )^{1/2}`$\] the director is no longer perpendicular to the plane of incidence at $`\alpha =\pi /2,3\pi /2`$. $`R(\alpha =\pi /2,3\pi /2)`$ becomes nonzero and grows rapidly with increasing $`\gamma `$, evolving continuously to become a global maxima for $`\gamma >17^{}`$ (for a material with average index of refraction, $`n_{avg}`$, equal to $`1.58`$ and birefringence, $`\mathrm{\Delta }n`$, equal to $`0.1`$). We determined the orientation of the bulk optical axis of the LC by using an additional laser beam at normal incidence to the cell plates to probe the cell birefringence via measurement of the transmission \[$`T(\alpha )`$\] between crossed polarizer and analyzer. $`T(\alpha )=0`$ corresponds to having a uniformly oriented optical axis that projects onto the y-z plane parallel to the polarizer or analyzer.

We performed experiments in the (SYN, Sm-C \*) and (ANTI, Sm-CA \*) phases of the three component mixture, T3 , which has the phase sequence: Iso $`\stackrel{69^{}\mathrm{C}}{}`$ Sm-A * $`\stackrel{64^{}\mathrm{C}}{}`$ Sm-C * $`\stackrel{43^{}\mathrm{C}}{}`$ Sm-CA \*. The Sm-C * phase can be expected to have SYN order at the surface and a phase transition to a bulk ANTI phase that may or may not be accompanied by a change in the surface ordering. The high index glass substrate at the TIR interface was coated with a $`590\mathrm{\AA }`$-thick transparent conducting indium tin oxide (ITO) layer ($`n=1.96`$) and then a $`150\mathrm{\AA }`$-thick rubbed nylon (Du Pont Elvamide 8023) alignment layer to produce uniform smectic layering. The glass/ITO/nylon/LC assembly produces a TIR condition only at the ITO/nylon interface. The other cell surface was coated with unrubbed nylon. The bulk optic axis reorientation saturates with $`\widehat{n}`$ on opposite sides of the tilt cone, $`\varphi =(0,\pi )`$ at $`\pm 8\mathrm{V}/\mu \mathrm{m}`$, respectively, enabling a determination of the layer normal from the average optic axis orientation and of the tilt angle $`\theta `$, half the difference in the optic axis orientations. For T3, $`\theta =31^{}`$ in the Sm-C * ($`T=48^{}\mathrm{C})`$ and $`\theta =36^{}`$ in the Sm-CA * ($`T=25^{}\mathrm{C}`$). The T3 cells are surface stabilized.

Figure 2 shows contour plots of $`R(\alpha )`$ vs $`\alpha `$ and applied (decreasing) electric field $`𝐄`$ at $`48^{}\mathrm{C}`$ and $`25^{}\mathrm{C}`$, well into the Sm-C * and Sm-CA * phase ranges, respectively. In both phases there are four minima in R($`\alpha `$) at zero volts and at the positive and negative saturated voltages indicating that the average optic axis within $`1000\mathrm{\AA }`$ of the surface is uniform and parallel to the surface. In the Sm-C * phase at $`𝐄=\mathrm{𝟎}`$ the optic axis at the surface is rotated by $`27^{}`$ from the layer normal, close to $`\varphi =0`$ on the tilt cone and parallel to the surface. Application of $`𝐄>\mathrm{𝟎}`$ produces little change, but application of $`𝐄<\mathrm{𝟎}`$ above a threshold magnitude $`|E|0.4\mathrm{V}/\mu \mathrm{m}`$ favoring $`\varphi =\pi `$ overcomes the polar surface pinning to stabilize $`\varphi =\pi `$ at the surface and reorient the bulk Sm-C \*. During switching, the minima corresponding to the optical axis perpendicular to the plane of incidence disappear, indicating tilt relative to the surface as the molecules reorient on the smectic-C cone. By contrast, in the Sm-CA * phase, the surface optic axis is nearly along the bulk layer normal at $`𝐄=\mathrm{𝟎}`$ and the maxima in $`R(\alpha )`$ are reduced because of the smaller birefringence of the antiferroelectric (AF) ordering at the surface. Application of either sign of $`𝐄`$ produces a thresholded transition to ferroelectric (FE) order at the surface that is observed simultaneously in the bulk Sm-CA \*. Furthermore, all four minima of $`R(\alpha )`$ maintain roughly equal intensity throughout the switching indicating that there is never any tilt of the optic axis at the surface in the AF phase.

In Fig. 3, we present the evolution of the orientation,

$`\beta `$, of the optical axis relative to the layer normal in the surface and bulk at $`25^{}\mathrm{C}`$ in the Sm-CA * phase for a voltage ramp from $`9`$ to $`+9\mathrm{V}/\mu \mathrm{m}`$ at $`0.5\mathrm{mHz}`$. In response to this ramp, the bulk and surface orientations both exhibit a hysteretic transition between AF and FE states. For both positive and negative voltages, the surface saturates to a smaller angle than the bulk ($`|\beta _{\mathrm{surf}}|<|\beta _{\mathrm{bulk}}|`$). In the surface-preferred positive voltage state, the surface saturates to a tilt angle of $`32^{}`$, $`4^{}`$ less than the bulk. However, in the surface disfavored negative voltage state, the surface saturates to a tilt angle of $`34^{}`$, only $`2^{}`$ less than the bulk. Upon $`𝐄\mathrm{𝟎}`$, the surface optical axis orientation does not return completely to be along the layer normal, indicating some kind of remnant FE order characteristic of the state that it was previously in. The small remnant angle ($`2^{}`$) could be accounted for by a weakly polar state having $`𝐏`$ at the surface rotated a few degrees from the ANTI state. A $`40\mathrm{\AA }`$-thick strongly FE remnant layer (i.e., with $`\varphi =\pi `$) could also produce such a rotation. $`R(\alpha )`$ data such as in Fig. 2 were measured vs temperature near $`T=T_{\mathrm{SA}}`$ (the ANTI to SYN phase transition temperature), where, because of the ambivalence of the bulk ordering, one might expect SYN surfaces with ANTI bulk. However, measured bulk and surface optic axis orientations show a similar temperature dependence and indicate that if the state with SYN surfaces and ANTI bulk occurs, it is only over a small temperature range near $`T_{\mathrm{SA}}`$ ($`T_{\mathrm{SA}}T<1.8^{}\mathrm{C}`$).

Further interpretation of this temperature behavior requires a calculation of the structure of $`\varphi (x)`$ using a quantitative model of the bulk and surface energetics. We model the $`\varphi `$ dependence of the surface energy per unit area by

$$U_{\mathrm{Surf}}=S_p\mathrm{cos}\varphi S_{np}\mathrm{cos}2\varphi ,$$
(1)
having polar ($`S_p`$) and nonpolar ($`S_{np}`$) interaction coefficients. We model the $`\varphi `$ dependence of the bulk energy per unit volume by nearest neighbor layer interactions of the form

$`U_{\mathrm{Bulk}}=U_p(1+\mathrm{cos}(\varphi _{\mathrm{}}\varphi _{\mathrm{}+1}))`$ (2)
$`+U_{np}(1\mathrm{cos}2(\varphi _{\mathrm{}}\varphi _{\mathrm{}+1}))`$ (3)
with $`U_p`$ and $`U_{np}`$ chosen so that $`U_{\mathrm{Bulk}}`$ exhibits a local minimum for the SYN orientation and a global minimum for the ANTI orientation; $`2U_p`$ is the energy difference between the ANTI and SYN states in the absence of a surface, while $`U_B=(U_p+4U_{np})^2/8U_{np}`$ is the height of the energy barrier between these states.

To model the surface order in the ANTI phase, two configurations shown in Figs. 1(a,b) need to be considered. The uniform configuration is an ANTI state right down to the surface that minimizes the bulk energy and the nonpolar surface energy while the polar surface energy alternates between the stable and unstable minimum values ($`U_{\mathrm{Surf}}=S_{np}S_p`$ and $`U_{\mathrm{Surf}}=S_{np}+S_p`$ in adjacent layers). The bulk energy of the uniform configuration is zero, $`U_{\mathrm{Bulk}}=0`$, with a total energy $`E_U=LNdS_{np}`$ where $`L`$ is the cell length, $`N`$ is the number of layers in the cell, and $`d`$ is the layer thickness. Both configurations have an average optic axis in the $`\widehat{z}\widehat{y}`$ plane, thus satisfying the zero-pretilt required by the four minima in $`R(\alpha )`$ \[Fig. 1(b)\].

In the distorted configuration, a bulk ANTI state deforms into a SYN state at the surface, where in general $`\varphi (0)0`$. We assume that the $`\varphi _l(x)`$ for all even layers are identical and the negative of their odd neighbors, i.e., $`\varphi _{\mathrm{}}(x)=\varphi _{\mathrm{}+1}(x)`$, reducing the problem to the determination of the single field, $`\varphi (x)`$, degree of freedom. Working in the one-elastic constant approximation, the bulk free energy arising from elastic deformation, layer-layer interaction, and polarization self interaction is given by

$`H_b[\varphi (x)]=A{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}dx({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}K({\displaystyle \frac{d\varphi }{dx}})^2+`$ (4)
$`U_{\mathrm{Bulk}}(\varphi )+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2ϵ_o}}𝒫^2\mathrm{cos}^2(\varphi )),`$ (5)
where $`A=LNd`$. The form of the polarization self-interaction energy (the third term) is the same as the polar term in the interlayer potential so that $`U_pU_p+𝒫^2/4ϵ_o`$ in the following discussion. A solution, $`\varphi (x)`$, minimizing the bulk energy $`H_b[\varphi (x)]`$, subject to the constraint at the surface, $`\varphi (0)`$, has a sigmoidal, soliton-like form characterized by a penetration length $`\xi \sqrt{K/U_p+4U_{np}}`$ and can be found exactly via standard methods. Inserting this solution $`\varphi (x)`$ into eq. 4, we find the bulk energy as a function of the surface polarization boundary condition, $`\varphi (0)`$,

$`H_b[\varphi (0)]=A{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{K}}{2}}\mathrm{tan}\varphi (0)`$ (6)
$`\times (U_p+U_{np}+U_p\mathrm{cos}2\varphi (0)U_{np}\mathrm{cos}4\varphi (0))^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ (7)
$`A{\displaystyle \frac{U_p}{4}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2K}{U_{np}}}}\mathrm{arctan}({\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{\frac{U_{np}}{U_p}}\mathrm{sin}\varphi (0)}{\sqrt{U_p+2U_{np}2U_2\mathrm{cos}2\varphi (0)}}})`$ (8)
Combining this bulk energy with the energy of the surface (eq. 1), we can exactly find the energy of the distorted state and the equilibrium surface angle $`\varphi (0)`$ by minimizing the total energy $`E_D=H_b(\varphi (0))+AU_{\mathrm{Surf}}(\varphi (0))`$ over $`\varphi (0)`$.

The bulk Sm-C * to Sm-CA * transition is first order as evidenced by coexistence of Sm-C * to Sm-CA * domains in electro-optic experiments. Consequently, $`U_B>2U_p`$ (where $`U_p`$ includes the polarization self interaction) so that $`U_B`$ always provides the dominant contribution to the distortion energy. For the range of parameters relevant to our experiment, it can be shown that $`H_b`$ is proportional to $`\sqrt{KU_B}`$. Because both the uniform and distorted states minimize the planar interaction energy in Eq. 1, $`S_{np}`$ gives approximately equal contribution to the energy of both the uniform and distorted states. This leaves only $`\sqrt{KU_B}`$ and $`S_p`$ as competing energies to determine the stability of the distorted state and leads to the phase boundary illustrated in Fig. 4.

There is a critical value, $`S_{pc}\sqrt{KU_B}`$, above which the polar surface interaction is strong enough to induce the ferroelectric distortion. For LC-surface systems where $`\sqrt{KU_B}>S_p`$, the surfaces are too weak to pay the energy cost of the ferroelectric distortion and the LC will be uniformly antiferroelectric with surface optic axis along the layer normal.

This analysis shows that it is essential to include the nonpolar term in the bulk free energy in calculations of surface states of AFLCs. Although with high $`𝐏`$ there is always a polar term in the free energy, this contribution will be unimportant in low $`𝐏`$ mixtures near the Sm-C * to Sm-CA * transition, but the barrier between the synclinic and anticlinic states (provided by the nonpolar term) should still be present and will determine the surface state.

One possible explanation for the difference between the bulk and the surface optic axis orientation at zero applied field is a weakly ferroelectric surface state characterized by $`\varphi (x=0)\pi /2`$ and a long penetration depth into the bulk. However, our model demonstrates that FE surface states with large $`\varphi `$ ($`𝐏`$ only slightly rotated from the AF orientation) are energetically unfavorable compared to the uniform state. Consequently, for a ferroelectric layer to explain a small optical axis rotation, the layer must have small $`\varphi (x=0)`$ and small decay length. From measurements of the polarization ($`P=170\mathrm{nC}/\mathrm{cm}^2`$) and the critical field for inducing the ferroelectric state ($`5\mathrm{V}/\mu `$), we deduced the value of parameter $`U_1=8.5\mathrm{kJ}/\mathrm{m}^3U_B`$. We then used a typical value for a liquid crystal elastic constant to estimate the decay length $`\xi 1000\mathrm{\AA }`$ of the ferroelectric surface order in the T3-nylon system. This decay length is similar to the TIR probe depth so that a TIR measurement of a T3 cell in the distorted state will detect an optical axis oriented along the tilt cone. Consequently, according to this model, the T3-nylon system at $`25^{}\mathrm{C}`$ is in the uniform state.

The discovery of a material with a second-order Sm-C * to Sm-CA * phase transition and small polarization, $`P`$, would present the opportunity to observe the distorted state as described by our model. As long as bulk energy dominates, $`\sqrt{KU_B}>S_{pc}`$ at $`T=T_c`$, the cell will remain in the uniform state until the bulk transition is reached. However, at a second-order phase transition, $`U_B`$ vanishes as $`TT_c^{}`$. At some finite temperature below the transition, $`\sqrt{KU_B}`$ would be less than $`S_p`$ and the distortion would appear. Furthermore, as the LC approaches the second order transition from below, the decay length diverges. This would have the effect of reducing the AF to FE transition temperature in thin cells, where the cell thickness is of order of the decay length.

We conclude that in systems with surface interactions strong enough to induce ferroelectricity, the ferroelectricity will extend into the bulk over a distance $`\xi `$ governed by $`K`$ and $`U_B`$. For a first-order Sm-CA * to Sm-C * transitions, the polar surface term must be larger than $`\sqrt{KU_B}`$ to induce the ferroelectric state. However, for second-order transitions, the distorted state always appears below $`T_c`$. Consequences of this are a pretransitional ferroelectric ordering at the surface and the depression of $`T_c`$ in thin cells. Based on our measurements, we conclude that the polar surface interactions are not strong enough to induce ferroelectric surfaces in the T3-nylon system. It may be possible to increase the polar surface interaction, perhaps by using a material with a larger surface electroclinic effect.

This work has been supported by NSF MRSEC Grant No. DMR-9809555 and AFOSR MURI Grant No. F49620-97-1-0014.


format: text

text:
# Quantizing the Line Element Field.

## 1 Introduction.

The difference between a Lorentzian and a positive definite metric can be expressed as a double-sided vector field $`U`$ called the line element field. This is done in p.38, but there only the ratio of vectors in the two spaces is considered; this appears to be the only reference on the line element field and it is from it that the nomenclature is taken. Thus the study of fields or extented objects in Lorentzian spacetime is reduced to the study of the same object in a positive definite space and the study of the corresponding line element field. In particlular this can be done for gravity, where the positive defininte action is sometimes called the Euclidean action . Things not looked at here include: firstly any relationship to analytic continuation, whether for quantum field theory on curved spacetime or for the energy condition p.89, secondly any classical or quantum detailed mechanism or perturbation whereby a positive definite space could change to a Lorentzian spacetime, for example in the early universe, thirdly the connection with the Kubo-Martin-Schwinger  condition where the transformation $`\tau it`$ has thermal properties, fourtly a quantized line element field might fluctuate, this fluctuation could be thought of in terms of the tetrad rather than the metric, leading to fluctuating null cones, compare Penrose , fifthly any comparison with the Toll  \- Scharnhorst  effect, where fluctuations in the quantum electrodynamical vacuum cause fluctuations in the speed of light, sixthly any comparison with the average size of these fluctuations, compare Ellis et al  and Yu and Ford , seventhly not only can the difference between the two signatures be thought of as a vector field, also the difference between tensors constructed from the resulting metrics is tensorial, the Bianchi identities will also differ by a tensorial object constructed from the line element field and this gives another way of investigating conservation laws for the two signatures, compare .

In §2 some examples of positive definite metrics are presented and how to change their signature via a vector field is shown; this is successively generalized to vanishing shift metrics and then the general theory, next the first derivatives are studied, and expressed in terms of a contorsion tensor. The second derivatives of the metric are governed by the Riemann tensor which can be expressed by independent terms in the contorsion and Christoffel contection. In §3 the Einstein-Hilbert action is decomposed into a postitive definite part and a line element field part, the line element field part is varied with repect to both $`U`$ and $`\dot{U}`$. The variation with respect to $`\dot{U}`$ gives the momentum. Quantization is implemented by replacing this momentum by a differential operator to give a modified Klein-Gordon equation. Then the lowest order approximation to the modified Klein-Gordon equation is calculated, and the wavefunction is calculated for some specific spacetimes.

Notation used includes the bracket notation of p.20

$$2V_{(a,c)}=V_{a,c}+V_{c,a}=2V_{(a;c)}+2\{_{ca}^e\}V_e,2V_{[a,c]}=2V_{[a;c]}=V_{a,c}V_{c,a},$$
(1)
the scalars constructed from the expansion and vorticity

$$\theta \theta _{.a}^a,\omega ^2\omega ^{ab}\omega _{ab},\sigma ^2\sigma ^{ab}\sigma _{ab},$$
(2)
and vector fields

$`U_a\mathrm{for}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{general}\mathrm{vector},`$
$`V_a\mathrm{for}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{normalization}\mathrm{of}\mathrm{this}\mathrm{to}\pm 1,`$
$`W_a\mathrm{for}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{specific}\mathrm{vector}.`$ (3)
## 2 Curvature.

For a given positive definite metric $`\underset{ab}{\overset{+}{p}}`$ and vector field $`\underset{a}{\overset{++}{U}}`$, one can construct a Lorentzian spacetime with covariant metric

$$\underset{ab}{\overset{+}{g}}=2\frac{\underset{a}{\overset{++}{U}}\underset{b}{\overset{++}{U}}}{\stackrel{2}{\stackrel{++}{U}}}+\underset{ab}{\overset{++}{p}},$$
(4)
This can be illustrated using the positive definite Schwarzschild metric

$$\stackrel{2}{\stackrel{++}{ds}}=+(1\frac{2m}{r})dx_0^2+(1\frac{2m}{r})^1+r^2d\mathrm{\Sigma }_2^2,\underset{a}{\overset{++}{W}}=\sqrt{1\frac{2m}{r}},\stackrel{a}{\stackrel{++}{W}}\underset{a}{\overset{++}{W}}=+1,$$
(5)
or the positive definite Robertson-Walker metric

$$\stackrel{2}{\stackrel{++}{ds}}=+dx_0^2+R^2d\mathrm{\Sigma }_3^2,\underset{a}{\overset{++}{W}}=(1,0),$$
(6)
then using 4 the spacetime metric is recovered. Instead of $`U`$ it is often convenient to work with the unit vector

$$V_a=\frac{U_a}{\sqrt{\pm U^2}},U^2=U^aU_a,$$
(7)
There is a problem of what the contravariant form of $`\stackrel{+}{g},p\&U`$ should be. Say we are given a positive definite space with shift-free metric and vector field

$`\underset{ab}{\overset{++}{p}}=(p^2,p_{ij}),\stackrel{ab}{\stackrel{++}{p}}=({\displaystyle \frac{1}{p^2}},p^{ij}),det(\underset{ab}{\overset{++}{p}})=pdet(p_{ij}),`$
$`\underset{a}{\overset{++}{W}}=(p,0),\stackrel{a}{\stackrel{++}{W}}=({\displaystyle \frac{1}{p}},0),`$ (8)
where for simplicity there are no cross terms $`(\tau ,i)`$ terms, as that would require either $`W_a`$ or $`W^a`$ to be no longer one component. Now one can construct a Lorentzian spacetime with covariant metric

$$\underset{ab}{\overset{+}{g}}=(p^2,p_{ij}),det(\underset{ab}{\overset{+}{g}})=det(\underset{ab}{\overset{++}{p}}).$$
(9)
Consistency seems to require

$$\stackrel{ab}{\stackrel{+}{g}}=2\stackrel{a}{\stackrel{++}{V}}\stackrel{b}{\stackrel{++}{V}}+\stackrel{ab}{\stackrel{++}{p}}=(\frac{1}{p^2},p^{ij}),$$
(10)
note that only cross terms in $`V`$ occur so perhaps $`\stackrel{+}{V}`$ could have been used, 17 shows that this is not the case. Taking $`\underset{a}{\overset{+}{V}}=\underset{a}{\overset{++}{V}}`$ and raising using this metric

$$\stackrel{a}{\stackrel{+}{W}}=(\frac{1}{p},0),\stackrel{2}{\stackrel{+}{W}}=1,$$
(11)
so that $`\stackrel{+}{V}`$ is a timelike vector. Similiarly taking $`\underset{ab}{\overset{+}{p}}=\underset{ab}{\overset{++}{p}}`$ and raising indices using 10 gives

$$\stackrel{ab}{\stackrel{+}{p}}=\stackrel{ab}{\stackrel{++}{p}}.$$
(12)
Some products using the above tensors are

$`\underset{c}{\overset{c}{\stackrel{+}{g}}}\stackrel{ab}{\stackrel{+}{g}}\underset{bc}{\overset{+}{g}}=\underset{c}{\overset{a}{\stackrel{++}{p}}}2\stackrel{a}{\stackrel{++}{V}}\underset{c}{\overset{++}{V}},\stackrel{ab}{\stackrel{++}{p}}\underset{bc}{\overset{+}{g}}=2\stackrel{a}{\stackrel{+}{V}}\underset{c}{\overset{+}{V}}+\underset{c}{\overset{a}{\stackrel{+}{g}}},`$ (13)
$`\underset{a}{\overset{+}{V}}=\stackrel{b}{\stackrel{+}{V}}\underset{bc}{\overset{+}{g}},\stackrel{a}{\stackrel{+}{V}}=\stackrel{c}{\stackrel{+}{V}}\underset{c}{\overset{a}{\stackrel{+}{g}}}=\underset{c}{\overset{+}{V}}\stackrel{ab}{\stackrel{++}{p}},\stackrel{ac}{\stackrel{++}{p}}\underset{c}{\overset{+}{V}}=\stackrel{a}{\stackrel{+}{V}}.`$
Collecting this together consistency requires

$$\stackrel{ab}{\stackrel{+}{g}}=2\frac{\stackrel{a}{\stackrel{++}{U}}\stackrel{b}{\stackrel{++}{U}}}{\stackrel{2}{\stackrel{++}{U}}}+\stackrel{ab}{\stackrel{++}{p}},$$
(14)
and

$$\underset{a}{\overset{+}{V}}=\underset{a}{\overset{++}{V}},\stackrel{a}{\stackrel{+}{V}}=\stackrel{a}{\stackrel{++}{V}},\underset{ab}{\overset{+}{p}}=\underset{ab}{\overset{++}{p}},\stackrel{ab}{\stackrel{+}{p}}=+\underset{ab}{\overset{++}{p}}.$$
(15)
The above system is new and slips can be made by relying on ones intuition from studying spacetimes using the projection tensor, see 18 below, or confusing the (-+) and (++) spaces. The most common of these is

$$4=g_a^a\stackrel{\mathrm{?}}{=}2V_aV^a+p_a^a=2V_aV^a+4,$$
(16)
suggesting that $`V`$ is null, contrary to assumption. The correct calculation is

$$4=\stackrel{ab}{\stackrel{+}{g}}\underset{ab}{\overset{+}{g}}=(2\frac{\stackrel{a}{\stackrel{++}{U}}\stackrel{b}{\stackrel{++}{U}}}{\stackrel{2}{\stackrel{++}{U}}}+p^{ab})(2\frac{\underset{a}{\overset{++}{U}}\underset{b}{\overset{++}{U}}}{\stackrel{2}{\stackrel{++}{U}}}+p_{ab})=(4\frac{\stackrel{2}{\stackrel{++}{U}}}{\stackrel{2}{\stackrel{++}{U}}}22)\frac{\stackrel{2}{\stackrel{++}{U}}}{\stackrel{2}{\stackrel{++}{U}}}+4,$$
(17)
which also serves as showing that $`\stackrel{++}{U}`$ rather than $`\stackrel{+}{U}`$ should be used for $`\stackrel{+}{g}`$ in 14. The projection tensor is defined as

$$\underset{ab}{\overset{+}{h}}\underset{ab}{\overset{+}{g}}+\frac{\underset{a}{\overset{+}{U}}\underset{b}{\overset{+}{U}}}{\stackrel{2}{\stackrel{+}{U}}}=\underset{ab}{\overset{++}{p}}2\frac{\underset{a}{\overset{++}{U}}\underset{b}{\overset{++}{U}}}{\stackrel{2}{\stackrel{++}{U}}}\frac{\underset{a}{\overset{+}{U}}\underset{b}{\overset{+}{U}}}{\stackrel{2}{\stackrel{+}{U}}}=\underset{ab}{\overset{+}{p}}+\frac{\underset{a}{\overset{+}{U}}\underset{b}{\overset{+}{U}}}{\stackrel{2}{\stackrel{+}{U}}}=\underset{ab}{\overset{++}{p}}\frac{\underset{a}{\overset{++}{U}}\underset{b}{\overset{++}{U}}}{\stackrel{2}{\stackrel{++}{U}}},$$
(18)
where in this case the indices can be raised and lowered without change of form.

Having formed the metric the next problem is the properties of its first derivatives. To form the connection $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ with $`g`$ in terms of the connection $`\{\}`$ with $`p`$ one has

$`2\underset{abc}{\overset{g}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}g_{ba,c}+g_{ca,b}g_{bc,a}`$ (19)
$`=2\{_{abc}\}+4U^2(U_a\{_{bc}^e\}U_eU_aU_{(b;c)}+U_bU_{[c;a]}+U_cU_{[b;a]})`$
$`+4U^4U_e\left(2U_aU_{(b}U_{.c)}^eU_bU_cU_{.a}^e\right),`$
where the bracket notation 1 is used and the covariant derivatives on the rhs of 2 are formed with $`p`$. Raising with the metric 10

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{bc}^a\stackrel{ad}{\stackrel{+}{g}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{dbc},$$
(20)
so that

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{bc}^a=\{_{bc}^a\}+L_e^a\{_{bc}^e\}+K_{bc}^a,$$
(21)
it is found that $`L=0`$ implying that the system is covariant. From 21 there is the relation between the covariant derivatives.

$$\underset{a\stackrel{+}{;}b}{\overset{++}{V}}=\underset{a\stackrel{++}{;}b}{\overset{++}{V}}K_{ab}^c\underset{c}{\overset{++}{V}},$$
(22)
The contorsion tensor $`K`$ is

$`2K_{bc}^a+8U^2U_{(b}J_{c)}^a+4U^2U^aU_{(bc)}2U^4M_{bc}^a,`$
$`J_{ab}U_{[a;b]}2U^2U_bU^cU_{[a;c]},`$ (23)
$`M_{bc}^a(U^2)^aU_bU_c+(U^2)_bU^aU_c+(U^2)_cU^aU_b2U^2U^aU_bU_cU^e(U^2)_e,`$
there is no term in the accelerations $`\dot{U}^a,\dot{U}^b\mathrm{or}\dot{U}^c`$, $`M`$ vanishes if $`U`$ is a constant vector. Some properties of the contorsion $`K`$ are

$`K_{ac}^a=0,K_{ba}^a=0,K_{bc}^a=K_{cb}^a,U^bU^cK_{bc}^a=0,`$
$`U_aK_{bc}^a=2U_{bc}2U^2(U_{(b}\dot{U}_{c)}+U_eU_{(b}U_{.c)}^e)+2U^4U_bU_cU_e\dot{U}^e,`$ (24)
the dot being formed with the $`p`$ covariant derivatives; such sysytems involving a connection and a contorsion occur repeatedly in the study of curvature; for instance in geometries involving torsion and/or metricity such as the geometries of Weyl and Schouten , the study of a conformal factor, and the study of weak metric perturbations . Alternatively the contorsion can be expressed in terms of the decomposed vector field for a (-+) Lorentzian spacetime define $`\theta `$ as in 2 and

$$\omega _{ab}h_a^ch_b^dV_{[c;d]},\theta _{ab}h_a^ch_b^dV_{(c;d)},\sigma _{ab}\theta _{ab}\frac{1}{3}\theta h_{ab},\dot{X}_{abc\mathrm{}}V^eX_{abc\mathrm{};e},$$
(25)
which allow the covariant derivative of a (-+) spacetime to be decomposed

$$U_{a;b}=\theta _{ab}+\omega _{ab}+U^2U_b\dot{U}_a+U^2U_aU^eU_{eb}U^4U_aU_bU^e\dot{U}_e,$$
(26)
choosing a constant vector field this reduces to eq.4.17. Now the equations 2 are in the (++) space and 25 are in a (-+) spacetime; they can be related using the projection tensor 18. The projections of the covariant derivative are

$`h_a^ch_b^dU_{(c;d)}=U_{(a;b)}U^2U_{(a}\dot{U}_{b)}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}U^2U_{(a}(U^2)_{b)}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}U^4U_aU_b\dot{(U^2)}`$
$`h_a^ch_b^dU_{[c;d]}=U_{[a;b]}U^2\dot{U}_{[a}U_{b]}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}U^2U_{[a}(U^2)_{b]}`$ (27)
To transfer these quanties to the (++) space, the projection tensor 18 shows that it is only necessary to note that the negative quantity $`U^2=\underset{a}{\overset{+}{U}}\stackrel{a}{\stackrel{+}{U}}<0`$ is changed to the positive quantity $`U^2=\underset{a}{\overset{++}{U}}\stackrel{a}{\stackrel{++}{U}}>0`$, and also that the covariant derivative in the expansion is changed using 22. $`U_eK_{ab}^e`$ is $`2`$ times $`\theta _{ab}`$ so that the sign of $`\theta _{ab}`$ in the (++) space is the negative of the form in 27 and from 25. In particular

$$\theta =U_{.;a}^a\frac{\dot{(U^2)}}{U^2}.$$
(28)
Using 2 and 27 the contorsion tensor is found to be

$$J_{ab}=\omega _{ab}\frac{\dot{U}_{(a}U_{b)}}{U^2}+\frac{U_{(a}(U^2)_{b)}}{2U^2},K_{bc}^a=\frac{4}{U^2}U_{(b}\omega _{c)}^a\frac{2}{U^2}U^a\theta _{bc}2\sqrt{U^2}\dot{\left(\frac{U^a}{\sqrt{U^2}}\right)}\frac{U_bU_c}{U^4}.$$
(29)
The second derivatives are governed by the Riemann tensor which is, c.f.eq.111

$$\underset{bcd}{\overset{g}{R^a}}=\underset{bcd}{\overset{p}{R^a}}+2K_{.[d|b|;c]}^a+2K_{.[c|e|}^aK_{.d]b}^e.$$
(30)
## 3 Quantization.

Contracting the expression for the Reimann tensor 30 and using 9 the Einstein-Hilbert Lagrangian is

$$_H=\sqrt{g}\stackrel{g}{R}=\sqrt{det(p_{ab})}[\stackrel{p}{R}+2K_{.[b|.|;a]}^{ab}+2K_{.[a|e|}^aK_{..b}^{eb]}]=_1+_2+_3.$$
(31)
$`_1`$ is the positive definite action, sometimes called the Euclidean action which has previously been studied, $`_2\&_3`$ are new and easiest to describe in terms of the decomposed vector quantities 25

$`_2={\displaystyle \frac{2}{U^2}}(\dot{\theta }\theta ^2)2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{U^2}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{U^a}{\sqrt{U^2}}}\right)^{}\right)_al_1+l_2+l_3,`$
$`_3={\displaystyle \frac{4\omega ^2}{U^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{4}{U^4}}\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{U^a}{\sqrt{U^2}}}\right)^{}U_a\right]^2l_4+l_5,\omega ^2\omega ^{ab}\omega _{ab},`$ (32)
expanding $`l_5=0`$. Varing with respect to $`U`$,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta l_1}{\delta U^c}}=`$ $`2U^2\theta _c+2\left(\left(U^2U^eU^2\right)_e\right)_c2U^2\left(U^2U^e\right)_e(U^2)_c`$ (33)
$`4U_c\left(U^2\left({}_{}{}^{2}U_{}^{f}\right)_fU^e\right)_e4U^4\left(U^2U^e\right)_e(U^2)^{}U_c,`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta l_2}{\delta U^c}}=`$ $`4\left(U^2\theta \right)_c+4U^4\theta (U^2)_c8U_c\left(U^4\theta U^e\right)_e8U^6(U^2)^{}U_c,`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta l_4}{\delta U^c}}=`$ $`8\left(U^2\omega ^{ce}\right)_e+4U^2\omega ^{ce}\left(2\dot{U}_eU^2(U^2)_e\right),`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta l_3}{\delta U^c}}={\displaystyle \frac{\delta l_5}{\delta U^c}}=0.`$
Varing with respect to $`\dot{U}^c`$

$$\frac{\delta l_1}{\delta \dot{U}^c}=\frac{4\theta U_c}{U^4},\frac{\delta l_2}{\delta \dot{U}^c}=+8\frac{\theta U_c}{U^4},\frac{\delta l_3}{\delta \dot{U}^c}=\frac{\delta l_3}{\delta \dot{U}^c}=\frac{\delta l_3}{\delta \dot{U}^c}=0.$$
(34)
Therefore

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_a=\frac{\delta }{\delta \dot{U}^a}(l_1+l_2)=\frac{4\theta U_a}{U^4}.$$
(35)
This equation is not fully invertable $`U_a=f(\mathrm{\Pi })\mathrm{\Pi }_a`$, but is partially invertible $`U_a=f(\mathrm{\Pi },U)\mathrm{\Pi }_a`$,

$$\frac{U_a}{\sqrt{U^2}}=\frac{\mathrm{\Pi }_a}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Pi }^2}},$$
(36)
and partially invertible $`U_a=f(\mathrm{\Pi },\theta )\mathrm{\Pi }_a`$,

$$U_a=(4\theta )^{\frac{1}{3}}\mathrm{\Pi }^{\frac{4}{3}}\mathrm{\Pi }_a.$$
(37)
35 gives the constraint

$$\lambda =\mathrm{\Pi }_c\mathrm{\Pi }^c\frac{16\theta ^2}{U^6}.$$
(38)
This is the only constraint so that quantization can be achieved via

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_ai\mathrm{}_a$$
(39)
with $`U`$ and hence $`\theta `$ remaining unchanged. Plancks constant $`\mathrm{}`$ is of the same dimensions as action, explicitly $`Mass\times Lenght^2\times Time^1`$, so that 39 has introduced a ”mass” into the system. Applying 39 to the constraint gives a modified Klein-Gordon equation

$$\lambda \psi =\mathrm{}^2\left(\mathrm{}+\frac{16\theta ^2}{\mathrm{}^2U^6}\right)\psi =0.$$
(40)
Defining

$$Si\mathrm{}\mathrm{ln}\psi $$
(41)
the modified Klein-Gordon equation 40 becomes

$$i\mathrm{}S_{.a}^s+S^aS_a\frac{16\theta ^2}{U^6}=0,$$
(42)
expanding in terms of $`\mathrm{}`$ using

$$S_a=\mathrm{\Pi }_a+\mathrm{}ϵ_a+𝒪(\mathrm{}^2),$$
(43)
the $`\mathrm{}^0`$ term is just the constraint 38, the $`\mathrm{}^1`$ term is

$$ı\mathrm{\Pi }_{.a}^a+2ϵ_a\mathrm{\Pi }^a=0,$$
(44)
For $`\theta =0`$, the lagrangians $`l_1`$ and $`l_2`$ vanish as does $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$, so that to lowest order $`\mathrm{}^0`$, $`S_a=0`$, implying that the wavefunction $`\psi `$ is a constant to lowest order, thus for $`\theta =0`$ the wavefunction has no dynamical information corresponding to the classical theory.

$`U`$ remains unchanged during quantization, but once a solution $`ϵ`$ to 43 is known, one would hope to be able to calculates the $`\mathrm{}^1`$ order correction to $`U`$ and hence $`g`$. There is a problem with trying this, as $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ is only partially invertible 36 & 37 this cannot be done without an additional assumption. Here this assumption is that $`\theta `$ remains negligible to order $`\mathrm{}^1`$ in the quantum theory, then it is possible to find the correction to $`U`$ from 37, denoting the quantum quantities with a ”\*” $`U`$ becomes

$$U_a^{}=(4\theta )^{\frac{1}{3}}S^{_{\frac{4}{3}}}S_a.$$
(45)
Substituting for $`S`$ using 43 and expanding

$$U_a^{}=U_a+\frac{\mathrm{}}{4}\frac{U^4}{\theta }\left(ϵ_a\frac{8}{3}\frac{U_cϵ^c}{U^2}U_a\right)+𝒪(\mathrm{}^2).$$
(46)
It is now possible to investigate whether the assumption that $`\theta `$ is negligible by noting

$`\theta ^{}U_{.;a}^aU^2\left(U^2\right)^{}=\theta `$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{4}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{U^4}{\theta }}\left(ϵ^a{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}U^2U^cϵ_cU^a\right)\right]_a+{\displaystyle \frac{5\mathrm{}}{6}}\left[U^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{U^4ϵ_aU^a}{\theta }}\right)^{}{\displaystyle \frac{(U^2)^{}ϵ_aU^a}{\theta }}\right]+𝒪(\mathrm{}^2).`$ (47)
Substituting for $`U^{}`$ the change in the metric is

$$g_{ab}^{}=g_{ab}+\frac{\mathrm{}}{\theta }\left(U_cϵ^cU_aU_bU^2U_{(a}ϵ_{b)}\right)+𝒪(\mathrm{}^2).$$
(48)
The change in the metric can also be directly calculated from the wavefunction

$$g_{ab}^{}g_{ab}2U^2U_aU_b=2U^2U_a^{}U_b^{}=2S^{\frac{4}{3}}S_aS_b=2\mathrm{}^2(i\mathrm{}\mathrm{ln}\psi )^{\frac{4}{3}}\psi ^2\psi _a\psi _b.$$
(49)
The modified Klein-Gordon equation 40 can be studied for particular examples, for example in Robertson-Walker spacetime 6 it is

$$\psi _{00}+3\frac{R_0}{R}\psi _0+\frac{144}{\mathrm{}^2}\frac{R_0^2}{R^2}\psi \frac{l(l+2)}{R^2}\psi =0,$$
(50)
where the last term comes from decomposing the ”spatial” part into spherical harmonics §4.1. For the Milne universe, which is flat when $`k=1`$ , $`R=t`$ and 50 has solution

$$\psi =At^{1\pm \sqrt{1\alpha }},\alpha =\frac{144}{\mathrm{}^2}l(l+2),$$
(51)
so that $`g^{}`$ is of the form $`f\mathrm{}^2/t^2`$. For deSitter space p.125, $`R=\mathrm{exp}(\sqrt{\mathrm{\Lambda }/3}t)`$ and when $`l=0`$ 50 has solution

$$\psi =A\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{3\mathrm{\Lambda }}(1\pm \sqrt{116/\mathrm{}^2})t\right),$$
(52)
so that $`g^{}`$ is of the form $`f\mathrm{}^2`$.

## 4 Conclusion.

The transformation between some specific positive definite spaces and Lorentzian spacetime can be achieved via a line element field 5 6. This can be generalized to shift-free and then arbitrary metrics; there is a problem of what the contravariant form of the metric should be, consistency requires 14. Once the Lorenztian metric has been expressed in terms of a positive definite metric and a vector field it is possible to study first derivatives. In 21 $`L=0`$ so that the Lorentzian connection splits up into the positive definite connection and a contorsion term constructed from the line element field $`U`$; this is similar to many other systems, such as those involving Schouten  geometries and weak perturbations ; that $`L=0`$ perhaps is not surprising as the decomposition of the Lorentzian metric is covariant. The form of the contorsion tensor 2 involves a lot of terms when expressed soley in terms of $`U`$, however using rotation and shear it takes a simler form 29. Covariant derivatives in Lorentzian spacetime and the positive definite space are equated via 22, so that the difference is expressible as $`V_cK_{ab}^c`$ and this is proportional to the expansion of $`U`$, changing spaces has the effect of changing the sign of the expansion. Second derivatives of the line element field $`U`$ can be calculated once the contorsion $`K`$ is known via 30.

To quantize the system it is necessary to have more information, such as what the Lagrangian and momentum are. Here the vacuum-Einstein-Hilbert Lagrangian is assumed 31, and further that it can be decomposed into a positive definite part and a line element field part which have well-defined and usefull variations. Variations with respect to the metric and the line element field 33 can be done, however of more use is variation with respect to $`\dot{U}`$ which is taken to give a momentum 35; variations with respect to dotted quantities also occur in the quantization of perfect fluids . The momentum obeys the constraint 38. The two-sided nature of $`U`$, the Lorentzian metric is invariant under $`UU`$; and the ability to use $`U`$ of different sizes to construct the Lorentzian metric do not seem to lead to further constraints. Quantization can be achieved via 39. The problem with this is that it introduces a mass into the system. The classical theory is just a theory involving lenght and time, however Planck’s constant has dimensions $`Mass\times Length^2\times Time^1`$, so that using it in quantization introduces new quantities of dimension $`Mass`$. Theories, such as the vacuum-Einstein equations, involving just lenght and time are usually reversible, in the sense that the sign on the time coordinate can be changed and the field equations still obeyed; however this is no longer necessarily the case once quantities of dimensions of mass have been introduced, as illustrated by the fact that things fall down not up. This is not only a problem for the theory under study here, similiarly using $`\mathrm{}`$ in quantization of the vacuum-Einstein equations will introduce a mass. The specific wavefunctions 51 and 52 illustrate the above, of the two terms in the square root one is dimensionless ”$`1`$” and the other is dimensionfull and proportional to $`\mathrm{}^2`$. A way of avoiding the above is to divide $`\mathrm{}`$ by the Planck mass or perhaps an arbitrary mass so that objects of dimensions of mass no longer occur in the quantum system; also by analogy with the point particle one could perhaps pre-multiply the line element field Lagrangian by an arbitrary $`m`$, but on the analysis so far such an $`m`$ does not occur naturally, perhaps it might do so in an extended theory which in some way incorporates that $`U`$ is not necessarily of unit size. Any given Lorentzian metric can be constructed from many different sets of a positive definite metric and a line element field. For example flat spacetime can be expressed by the Minkowski metric and this can be constructed from a diagonal metric and unit expansion free line element field; also flat spacetime can be expressed by the Milne universe 51 for which $`U`$ has expansion. In the first case there is no expansion and hence no momentum or quantum theory, in the second there is with wavefunction 51. Thus it might be that ”Euclidean” quantum gravity expresses the full quantum nature of a Lorentzian spacetime if the relating line element field is expansion free; however the main application of such theories is to the early universe where expansion is the most salient feature.


text:
# A subexponential-time quantum algorithm for the dihedral hidden subgroup problem

## I Introduction

The hidden subgroup problem (HSP) in quantum computation takes as input a group $`G`$, a finite set $`S`$, and a black-box function (or oracle) $`f:GS`$. By promise there is a subgroup $`HG`$ such that $`f(a)=f(b)`$ if and only if $`a`$ and $`b`$ are in the same (right) coset of $`H`$. The problem is to identify the subgroup $`H`$. We assume that $`G`$ is given explicitly; black-box groups are a separate topic IMS:instances.

Shor’s algorithm Shor:factorization solves HSP when $`G=`$ in polynomial time in the length of the output. An important predecessor is Simon’s algorithm Simon:power for the case $`G=(/2)^n`$. Shor’s algorithm extends to the general abelian case Kitaev:abelian, to the case when $`H`$ is normal HRT:normal, and to the case when $`H`$ has few conjugates GSVV:quantum. Since the main step in the generalized algorithm is the quantum character transform on the group algebra $`[G]`$, we will call it the *character algorithm*.

In the dihedral hidden subgroup problem (DHSP), $`G`$ is the dihedral group $`D_N`$ and $`H`$ is generated by a reflection. (Other subgroups of $`D_N`$ are only easier to find; see Proposition LABEL:p:arbhide.) In this case $`H`$ has many conjugates and the character algorithm works poorly. This hidden subgroup problem was first considered by Ettinger and Høyer EH:noncomm. They presented an algorithm that finds $`H`$ with a linear number of queries (in the length of the output) but an exponential amount of computation. Ettinger, Høyer, and Knill generalized this result to the general finite hidden subgroup problem EHK:almost.

In this paper we will describe a new quantum algorithm for the dihedral group $`D_N`$ with a favorable compromise between query complexity and computation time per query.

###### Theorem I.1.

There is a quantum algorithm that finds a hidden reflection in the dihedral group $`G=D_N`$ (of order $`2N`$) with time and query complexity $`2^{O(\sqrt{\mathrm{log}N})}`$.

The time complexity $`2^{O(\sqrt{\mathrm{log}N})}`$ is not polynomial, but it is subexponential. By contrast any classical algorithm requires at least $`2N^{1/2}`$ queries on average. Unfortunately our algorithm also requires $`2^{O(\sqrt{\mathrm{log}N})}`$ quantum space.

We will prove Theorem I.1 in a convenient case, $`N=2^n`$, in Section LABEL:s:basic. In Section LABEL:s:other, we will provide another algorithm that works for all $`N`$, and we will obtain the sharper time and query complexity bound $`\stackrel{~}{O}(3^{\sqrt{2\mathrm{log}_3N}})`$ when $`N=r^n`$ for some fixed radix $`r`$. The algorithm for this last case generalizes to many other smooth values of $`N`$.

###### Acknowledgements.

Some elements of the algorithms in this article are due to Ettinger and Høyer EH:noncomm. Regev has presented some related ideas related to lattice problems Regev:quantum, and more recently has found a space-efficient variation of the algorithms in this article Regev:dhsp. (We have also borrowed some aspects of his exposition of our algorithm.) The author would like to thank Robert Beals, Robert Guralnick, Peter Høyer, and Eric Rains for useful discussions. The also would also like to thank the referees for useful comments.

## II Group conventions

The dihedral group $`D_N`$ with $`2N`$ elements has the conventional presentation

$$D_N=x,y|x^N=y^2=yxyx=1.$$

(See Artin (Artin:algebra, §5.3).) An element of the form $`x^s`$ is a *rotation* and an element of the form $`yx^s`$ is a *reflection*. The parameter $`s`$ is the *slope* of the reflection $`yx^s`$. This terminology is motivated by realizing $`D_N`$ as the symmetry group of a regular $`N`$-gon in the plane (Figure LABEL:f:dihedral). In this model $`yx^s`$ is a reflection through a line which makes an angle of $`\frac{\pi s}{N}`$ with the reflection line of $`y`$.


text:
# The Dehn function of 𝑃𝑆𝐿₂(ℤ[1/𝑝])

## 1. Introduction

Let $`<S|R>`$ be a finite presentation of a group $`G`$, with $`|S|<\mathrm{}`$. If $`wF(S)`$ is a word in the free group generated by the set $`S`$ and $`w=_G1`$, then $`w`$ can be expressed as

$$w=\mathrm{\Pi }_{i=1}^{A(w)}s_iR_is_i^1$$

for $`s_iF(S)`$ and $`R_iR`$, where $`A(w)`$ denotes the minimal number of conjugates of relators necessary to express $`w`$. The Dehn function $`\delta :[0,\mathrm{})`$ of the presentation $`<S|R>`$ is given by

$$\delta (n)=\underset{|w|n}{\mathrm{max}}A(w)$$

where $`|w|`$ is the number of letters in $`w`$.

Define the following equivalence relation on the set of functions $`f:[0,\mathrm{})`$. If $`f`$ and $`g`$ are two such functions, and there are constants $`A,B,C,D,E`$ so that

$$f(n)Ag(Bn+C)+Dn+E$$

for all $`n`$, then we write $`fg`$. If $`fg`$ and $`gf`$ then $`f`$ is equivalent to $`g`$, written $`fg`$.

If $`f`$ and $`g`$ are Dehn functions arising from presentations of quasi-isometric groups, then $`fg`$. Since two different presentations for a group $`G`$ yield quasi-isometric Cayley graphs, define the Dehn function of a finitely presented group $`G`$ to be the equivalence class of the Dehn function arising from any of its presentations. Thus the Dehn function of a finitely generated group is independent of the choice of finite generating set.

The following fact is a consequence of the above equivalence relation. If a group $`G`$, in a given presentation, has a Dehn function $`f(n)`$ which is, for example, exponential in $`n`$ (or linear or polynomial), then a Dehn function arising from any other presentation of $`G`$ will also be exponential (or linear or polynomial, respectively) in $`n`$.

If $`h:[0,\mathrm{})`$ is a function satisfying $`max_{|w|n}A(w)h(n)`$ for all $`n`$, then $`h`$ is called an isoperimetric function for $`G`$ in the presentation $`S|R`$. We again group these isoperimetric functions into equivalence classes via the equivalence relation defined above to obtain isoperimetric functions for $`G`$. The Dehn function is the minimal isoperimetric function for $`G`$.

One can also define the (geometric) Dehn function of a Riemannian manifold $`M`$ as follows. Let $`f:S^1M`$ be a Lipschitz map and let $`\gamma =f(S^1)`$ with $`l(\gamma )=length(\gamma )`$. By the Whitney Extension Theorem, the continuous extension of $`f`$ to $`\widehat{f}:D^2M`$ can also be chosen to be Lipschitz, with the same constant. We define the area $`A(\gamma )`$ of $`\gamma `$ to be the minimal area of all Lipschitz discs bounded by $`\gamma `$. The Dehn function of $`M`$ is defined by

$$\delta _M(x)=\underset{l(\gamma )x}{sup}A(\gamma ).$$

In this paper, we prove that the group $`PSL_2([\frac{1}{p}])`$ has an exponential Dehn function. We do this using a geometric model $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$ for the group, which is described below. The Dehn function of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$ is well defined since we can define Lipschitz loops in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$ and compute their area. It follows from \[BT\] that the Dehn functions of the group $`PSL_2([\frac{1}{p}])`$ and the space $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$ are equivalent in the sense defined above.

The space $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$ has an intricate boundary consisting of quasi-isometrically embedded copies of the solvable Baumslag-Solitar group $`BS(1,p^2)`$, an example of the more general solvable Baumslag-Solitar group $`BS(1,n)`$, for $`n>1`$, which has presentation

$$BS(1,n)=<a,b|aba^1=b^n>.$$

It is well known that the Dehn function of $`BS(1,n)`$ is exponential for $`n>1`$. (\[G\], \[E+\]) Using the boundary components of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$, we easily obtain an exponential lower bound for the Dehn function of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$, and thus of $`PSL_2([\frac{1}{p}])`$. To determine that this Dehn function is actually exponential, we construct a combing of $`PSL_2([\frac{1}{p}])`$ with bounded asynchronous width, and apply a result of Bridson \[B\] to obtain an exponential upper bound.

## 2. The geometry of $`PSL_2([\frac{1}{p}])`$

### 2.1. The geometric model

To construct a geometric model for $`PSL_2([\frac{1}{p}])`$, we will consider

$$PSL_2([\frac{1}{p}])PSL_2()\times PSL_2(_p)$$

as the image of the diagonal map $`\eta `$ given by $`\eta (M)=(M,M)`$ for $`MPSL_2([\frac{1}{p}])`$. Viewed in this way, $`PSL_2([\frac{1}{p}])`$ is a lattice in the group $`PSL_2()\times PSL_2(_p)`$, for any prime $`p`$.

The group $`PSL_2()\times PSL_2(_p)`$ acts by isometries on the space $`^2\times T_p`$, where $`T_p`$ is the Bruhat-Tits tree associated to $`PGL_2(_p)`$ (see \[S\] for the construction of $`T_p`$). This follows from the fact that $`PSL_2()`$ acts by isometries on $`^2`$ and $`PSL_2(_p)`$ acts by isometries on $`T_p`$. The tree $`T_p`$ is the regular $`(p+1)`$-valent tree, oriented so that each vertex has one incoming and $`p`$ outgoing edges.

We will always view $`^2`$ as two dimensional hyperbolic space in the upper half space model. Namely, $`^2=\{(x,y)|x,y>0\}`$ with the metric $`\frac{dx^2+dy^2}{y^2}`$.

The goal is to find a space $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p^2\times T_p`$ on which $`PSL_2([\frac{1}{p}])`$ acts properly discontinuously and cocompactly by isometries. The Milnor-Svarc criterion \[M\] states that if a finitely generated group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ acts properly discontinuously and cocompactly by isometries on a space $`X`$, then $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is quasi-isometric to $`X`$. It follows that $`PSL_2([\frac{1}{p}])`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$ are quasi-isometric.

The restriction of the action of $`PSL_2()\times PSL_2(_p)`$ on $`^2\times T_p`$ to $`PSL_2([\frac{1}{p}])`$ is not cocompact, although it is still by isometries and properly discontinuous. Namely, the fundamental domain $`D`$ for the action of $`PSL_2([\frac{1}{p}])`$ on $`^2\times T_p`$, when intersected with $`^2`$, is the same as the fundamental domain for the action of $`PSL_2()`$ on $`^2`$, which is unbounded in one direction. We now describe a method for constructing a subspace of $`^2\times T_p`$ on which this action is cocompact. (For a more complete construction of this subspace, we refer the reader to §$`3`$ of \[T\].)

Let $`w`$ be the intersection of the horocircle $`y=h_0`$ based at $`\mathrm{}`$ in $`^2`$ with the fundamental domain $`D`$. Let $`w^{}`$ be a lift of $`w`$ to a horocircle $`y=B`$ in a fixed copy of $`^2^2\times T_p`$. The orbit of the segment $`w^{}`$ under $`PSL_2([\frac{1}{p}])`$ is a disjoint collection $``$ of horocircles based at $`\{\mathrm{}\}_{\mathrm{}}^2`$ in each copy of $`^2^2\times T_p`$.

A horosphere $`\sigma _\alpha `$ of $`^2\times T_p`$ based at $`\alpha \{\mathrm{}\}`$ is defined to be a particular subset of $``$, namely all horocircles in $``$ based at $`\alpha `$. For each copy of $`^2^2\times T_p`$ there is a unique horocircle in $``$ lying in $`^2`$ which is based at $`\alpha `$.

In order to have a “connected” picture of a horosphere, add an edge $`e`$ between adjacent vertices $`v_1`$ and $`v_2`$ of $`T_p`$. Let $`h_1`$ and $`h_2`$ be the horocircles in $``$ based at $`\alpha `$ in $`^2\times \{v_1\}`$ and $`^2\times \{v_2\}`$ respectively. Extend the horosphere linearly in $`^2\times e`$ from $`h_1`$ to $`h_2`$, obtaining a connected picture of a horosphere.

The space $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$, where $`PSL_2([\frac{1}{p}])`$ acts properly discontinuously and cocompactly by isometries, is defined to be $`^2\times T_p`$ with the interiors of all the horospheres removed. The interior of a horosphere is the union of the interiors of the component horocircles.

Below we will consider the horosphere $`\sigma _{\mathrm{}}`$ of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$ based at $`\mathrm{}`$. By construction, for any $`^2^2\times T_p`$, the intersection $`\sigma _{\mathrm{}}^2`$ is a horocircle $`h^2`$ based at $`\mathrm{}`$. A matrix computation shows that these intersections are the horocircles $`\{y=p^{2r}B\}`$ for $`r`$, where $`r`$ changes continuously, increasing along lines in $`T_p`$ and $`B`$ is fixed above. Topologically $`\sigma _{\mathrm{}}`$, and thus any horosphere, is $`\times T_p`$.

The following theorem states that the product metric on $`^2\times T_p`$, restricted to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$, is Lipschitz equivalent to the word metric on $`PSL_2([\frac{1}{p}])`$. In §3 we use this metric to define an asynchronous combing of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$.

###### Theorem 2.1.

\[LMR\] If $`G`$ is a semisimple Lie group of rank at least $`2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is an irreducible lattice in $`G`$ then, $`d_R`$ restricted to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is Lipschitz equivalent to $`d_W`$, where $`d_W`$ is the word metric on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`d_R`$ is the left invariant Riemannian metric on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

By construction, $`PSL_2([\frac{1}{p}])`$ acts properly discontinuously and cocompactly by isometries on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$.

### 2.2. The geometry of the horospheres

The horospheres $`\{\sigma _\alpha \}`$ of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$ also have interesting geometric structure. The solvable Baumslag-Solitar group $`BS(1,n)=<a,b|aba^1=b^n>`$ for $`n>1`$ acts properly discontinuously and cocompactly by isometries on a metric $`2`$-complex $`X_n`$ defined explicitly in \[FM\]. This complex $`X_n`$ is topologically $`T_n\times `$, where $`T_n`$ is a regular $`(n+1)`$-valent tree, directed so that each vertex has $`1`$ incoming edge and $`n`$ outgoing edges.

We can describe $`X_n`$ metrically after fixing a height function $`h`$ on the tree $`T_p`$. A height function on $`T_p`$ is a continuous function $`h:T_p`$ which maps each oriented edge of $`T_p`$ homeomorphically onto an oriented interval of a given length $`d`$. Fix a basepoint $`t_0`$ for $`T_p`$ with height $`0`$. Then each point $`t`$ of $`T_p`$ is assigned a height $`h(t)`$; for example, a vertex $`t`$ connected to $`t_0`$ by an edge leaving $`t_0`$ has height $`d`$. If $`lT_p`$ is a line on which $`h`$ is strictly increasing, then $`l\times X_p`$ is metrically a hyperbolic plane.

The map sending the generators $`a`$ and $`b`$ of $`BS(1,p^2)`$ to the matrices $`A=\left(\begin{array}{cc}p& 0\\ 0& \frac{1}{p}\end{array}\right)`$ and $`B=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 1\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)`$ respectively is a homomorphism of $`BS(1,p^2)`$ into the group $`PSL_2(_p)`$. The orbit of the segment $`w^{}^2\times T_p`$ (defined in §2.1) under the group generated by the matrices $`A`$ and $`B`$ is exactly the horosphere $`\sigma _{\mathrm{}}`$ of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$. (\[T\], §3.5)

One checks that the horosphere $`\sigma _{\mathrm{}}`$ of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$ (and hence any horosphere of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$) is a quasi-isometrically embedded copy of the complex $`X_{p^2}`$ corresponding to $`BS(1,p^2)`$. (\[T\], §3.5) The Dehn function of $`BS(1,n)`$ is known to be exponential for $`n>1`$. (See, e.g. \[E+\] or \[G\].)

## 3. A combing of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$

Below we construct a combing of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$ which we show to have bounded asynchronous width. We will eventually use this combing to obtain an exponential upper bound on the Dehn function of $`PSL_2([\frac{1}{p}])`$. We follow \[B\] in our definitions.

Let $`G`$ be a group with a finite generating set $`X=\{x_1,\mathrm{}x_k\}`$, and let $`X^{}`$ denote the set of all words in the letters of $`X`$ (and their inverses). A combing of $`G`$ is a choice, for each $`gG`$, of a word in $`X^{}`$ representing $`G`$, i.e. a section of the natural map $`X^{}G`$. Bridson does not require his combing paths to be quasigeodesics, although later we will add some conditions on the length of the combing paths in order to obtain the results that we need.

One can view the combing geometrically as a set of paths in the Cayley graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(G,X)`$: for each $`gG`$, the combing gives a unique choice of path from the identity to $`g`$. We keep track of the width between these paths, which is a bound on the distance between points moving at unit speed along combing lines which end at points distance 1 apart, as well as the length of the paths. If $`\sigma :GX^{}`$ is a combing, let $`\sigma _g(t)`$ denote the (parametrized) combing path from the identity to $`gG`$. The length function for the combing is defined to be

$$L(n)=\mathrm{max}\{length(\sigma _g)|d(id,g)n\}.$$

For this paper, we are interested in asynchronous combings, in which we are allowed to consider the combing paths traversed at different speeds. Rather than observing the width of the combing, we instead consider the asynchronous width, which is defined as follows.

Fix a combing of the finitely generated group $`G`$, namely $`\sigma :GX^{}`$. We first consider the set of all possible reparametrizations of our combing paths, i.e. the set of functions

$$R=\{\rho :|\rho (0)=0,\rho (n+1)[\rho (n),\rho (n)+1]n,\rho \text{ unbounded}\}.$$

Given two elements $`g,hG`$, we choose functions $`\rho `$ and $`\rho ^{}`$ in $`R`$ with which we reparametrize the combing paths $`\sigma _g`$ and $`\sigma _h`$, respectively, and we consider the width between these paths. We then minimize this width over all possible reparametrization functions in the set $`R`$. In summary, we define

$$D_\sigma (g,h)=min_{\rho ,\rho ^{}R}\{\underset{t}{\mathrm{max}}\{d(\sigma _g(\rho (t)),\sigma _h(\rho ^{}(t)))\}\}.$$

Then the asynchronous width of $`\sigma `$ is defined to be the function

$$\varphi (n)=\mathrm{max}\{D_\sigma (g,h)|d(id,g)n,d(id,h)n,d(g,h)=1\}.$$

All distances above are computed using the word metric in the Cayley graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(G,X)`$.

Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ be a metric space with a fixed basepoint $`x_0`$. We can define a combing of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ as a choice of path from $`x_0`$ to each point $`x\mathrm{\Omega }`$. We define the length function $`L(n)`$ and asynchronous width function analogously, replacing any instance of the identity of the group with the basepoint $`x_0`$. The reparametrization functions in the set $`R`$ must now be continuous functions from $`^{}=^+\{0\}`$ to $`^{}`$, satisfying the same conditions as the discrete functions in $`R`$ defined above. In particular, we now construct a combing of the space $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$ defined in §2.

We will show that the combing constructed below of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$ has bounded asynchronous width. Since $`PSL_2([\frac{1}{p}])`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$ are quasi-isometric, we explain below that the associated combing of $`PSL_2([\frac{1}{p}])`$ will also have bounded asynchronous width.

It will also follow from the construction of the combing paths in $`PSL_2([\frac{1}{p}])`$ that the length of $`\sigma _g`$ is at most exponential in $`d(id,g)`$, for $`gPSL_2([\frac{1}{p}])`$. This fact, together with the bounded asynchronous width of the combing, allows us to apply a theorem of Bridson which guarantees an exponential upper bound for the Dehn function of $`PSL_2([\frac{1}{p}])`$.

### 3.1. Constructing the combing paths

Fix a height function $`h`$ on $`T_p`$, and a basepoint $`t_0T_p`$ at height $`0`$. We use the coordinates $`(x,y,t)`$ on $`^2\times T_p`$, where $`(x,y)`$, with $`y>0`$, denotes a point in $`^2`$ and $`tT_p`$. Let $`\alpha =(x^{},y^{},t^{})`$ be any point in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$. We now describe a canonical path from a fixed basepoint $`\alpha _0=(x_0,y_0,t_0)\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$ to $`\alpha `$. Consider the following pair of paths in $`^2\times T_p`$. If $`\xi _1`$ is the unique path in $`T_p`$ lying between $`t_0`$ and $`t^{}`$ and $`\xi _2`$ is the unique hyperbolic geodesic between the points $`(x_0,y_0)`$ and $`(x^{},y^{})`$, then let

$$\gamma _1=\{(x_0,y_0,t)|t\xi _1\}\text{ and }\gamma _2=\{(x,y,t^{})|(x,y)\xi _2\}.$$

So $`\gamma _1`$ lies entirely in the tree factor and $`\gamma _2`$ lies entirely in an $`^2`$ factor. The composition $`\gamma =\gamma _2\gamma _1`$ is a path from $`\alpha _0`$ to $`\alpha `$, in which the path $`\gamma _1`$ is followed by $`\gamma _2`$. Following theorem 2.1, we use the product metric on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$ as a subspace of $`^2\times T_p`$. Thus $`d(\alpha _0,\alpha )=length(\gamma _1)+length(\gamma _2)`$. The path $`\gamma `$ may not lie completely in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$. We adapt it below so that it will be contained in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$.

#### 3.1.1. Adapting the path in the tree factor

Suppose that $`I`$ is a maximal connected closed interval of $`\gamma _1`$ of length $`k`$ not lying in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$, but inside a horosphere $`\sigma `$. Without loss of generality we assume that $`\sigma =\sigma _{\mathrm{}}`$.

Let $`v_1=(x_0,y_0,t_1)`$ and $`v_2=(x_0,y_0,t_2)`$ be the endpoints of $`I`$. Either both $`v_i`$ lie in $`\sigma _{\mathrm{}}`$ or we have $`v_1\sigma _{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`v_2`$ in the interior of $`\sigma _{\mathrm{}}`$. In the first case, when both endpoints are in $`\sigma _{\mathrm{}}`$, let $`\eta _1`$ be the unique path in $`T_p`$ between $`t_1`$ and $`t_2`$. We replace $`I`$ by the path $`I^{}`$ in $`\sigma _{\mathrm{}}`$ lying between $`v_1`$ and $`v_2`$. Recall from §2.1 above and §3 of \[T\] that points in $`\sigma _{\mathrm{}}`$ can be described by coordinates $`(x,p^{2h(t)}B,t)`$ where $`h`$ is a fixed height function on $`T_p`$, $`x`$, with $`tT_p`$ and $`B>1`$ is a fixed constant. Thus the path $`I^{}`$ has the form $`(x_0,p^{2h(t)}B,t)`$ for $`t\eta _1`$.

If $`v_1\sigma _{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`v_2`$ lies in the interior of $`\sigma _{\mathrm{}}`$, then let $`\eta _1`$ be as above, and replace $`I`$ by the path $`I^{}=\{(x_0,p^{2h(t)}B,t)|t\eta _1\}`$. Notice that in this case, $`I^{}`$ has one distinct endpoint from $`I`$, namely $`(x_0,p^{2h(t^{})}B,t^{})`$, which is different from $`v_2`$. Since $`I`$ was chosen to be a maximal connected interval of $`\gamma _1`$ not contained in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$, the only way this case occurs is if $`v_2`$ is the endpoint of $`\gamma _1`$, i.e. $`v_2=(x_0,y_0,t^{})`$. Let $`v_2^{}`$ denote this new endpoint. When we adapt $`\gamma _2`$ below we will ensure that the path from $`\alpha _0`$ to $`\alpha `$ is connected.

In either case the path $`I^{}`$ is composed of segments of vertical geodesics in the hyperbolic planes of $`\sigma _{\mathrm{}}`$. If the length of $`I`$ was $`l`$, the length of $`I^{}`$ is at most $`K^{}l`$ where $`K^{}`$ is the fixed quasi-isometry constant obtained when considering the quasi-isometric embedding of the horospheres into $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$. \[T\]

For each such interval $`I\gamma _1`$, replace $`I`$ by $`I^{}`$ constructed as above, obtaining a new path $`\gamma _1^{}`$, satisfying $`length(\gamma _1^{})K^{}length(\gamma _1)`$. Note that $`\gamma _1^{}`$ may have a different (non-basepoint) endpoint $`v_2^{}`$ than $`\gamma _1`$.

#### 3.1.2. Adapting the path in the hyperbolic factor

Now suppose that $`J`$ is a maximal connected closed interval of $`\gamma _2`$ of length $`k`$ not lying in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$, but inside a horosphere $`\sigma `$. If there is no such interval $`J`$ then $`\sigma _\alpha =\gamma _2\gamma _1^{}`$ is the desired path from $`\alpha _0`$ to $`\alpha `$, completely contained in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$.

Now assume that such an interval $`J`$ exists. Without loss of generality we assume that $`\sigma =\sigma _{\mathrm{}}`$ and that the endpoints of $`J`$ are $`v_3`$ and $`v_4`$.

Suppose that both $`v_3`$ and $`v_4`$ lie on $`\sigma _{\mathrm{}}`$. In this case we replace $`J`$ with the horocyclic segment $`J^{}`$ lying in $`\sigma _{\mathrm{}}`$ between the endpoints. It is well known that downward projection along vertical geodesics in $`^2`$ onto a horosphere increases length exponentially. Thus the length of $`J`$ is increased exponentially.

If this is not the case, then $`v_3=v_2`$ lies in the interior of $`\sigma _{\mathrm{}}`$ and is the common endpoint of $`\gamma _1`$ and $`\gamma _2`$. Recall that $`v_2=(x_0,y_0,t^{})`$ and define $`v_2^{}=(x_0,p^{2h(t^{})}B,t^{})`$ to be the projection of $`v_2`$ onto $`\sigma _{\mathrm{}}`$ along vertical geodesics. Replace $`J`$ with the the horocyclic segment $`J^{}`$ of $`\sigma _{\mathrm{}}`$ between $`v_2^{}`$ and $`v_4=(x_4,p^{2h(t^{})}B,t^{})`$, namely the path

$$J^{}=\{(x,p^{2h(t^{})}B,t^{})|x[x_0,x_4]\}.$$

Replacing each interval $`J`$ of this form by the corresponding interval $`J^{}`$ constructed as above, we obtain a new path $`\gamma _2^{}`$, whose length satisfies $`length(\gamma _2^{})e^{length(\gamma _2)}`$. By construction, $`\gamma _1^{}`$ and $`\gamma _2^{}`$ have a common endpoint, so that $`\gamma _2\gamma _1`$ is a path from $`\alpha _0`$ to $`\alpha `$, whose length is at most exponential in $`length(\gamma )`$. We define the combing path $`\sigma _\alpha `$ to be $`\gamma _2\gamma _1`$.

We summarize conditions on the length of the combing paths in the following lemma.

###### Lemma 3.1.

Let $`\sigma `$ denote the combing of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$ defined above. Then the length function of $`\sigma `$ satisfies an exponential upper bound, i.e. $`L(n)e^n`$.

#### 3.1.3. Bounded asynchronous width

We now prove that the asynchronous width of the combing of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$ defined above is bounded. Let $`\alpha _1`$ and $`\alpha _2`$ denote points in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$ at distance $`1`$ from each other, and let $`\sigma _{\alpha _i}`$ denote the combing path from a fixed basepoint $`\alpha _0`$ of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$ to $`\alpha _i`$ for $`i=1,2`$. We keep the notation $`\gamma _2\gamma _1`$ for the combing paths, so that we can tell which part of each path lies in the hyperbolic factor ($`\gamma _2`$), and which in the tree factor ($`\gamma _1`$).

We begin with two lemmas which prove that geodesics in $`^2`$ emanating from a common point and ending one unit apart have bounded asynchronous width.

We define some notation used in the lemmas below. Let $`(x_1,y_1)`$ and $`(x_2,y_2)`$ be points in $`^2`$ at distance $`1`$ from each other. By applying a hyperbolic isometry $`\varphi `$, we may assume that $`(x_1,y_1)`$ and $`(x_2,y_2)`$ lie on a vertical geodesic $`x=n`$. Let $`z=(z_1,z_2)^2`$ be a point distinct from $`(x_1,y_1)`$ and $`(x_2,y_2)`$, not lying on the same vertical geodesic, and let $`\chi _i`$ be the geodesic segment connecting $`z`$ and $`(x_i,y_i)`$ for $`i=1,2`$. It will be useful in the arguments below to express $`\chi _1`$ and $`\chi _2`$ in the coordinates $`(x,y)`$ of $`^2`$. Namely, after applying the hyperbolic isometry $`\varphi `$ to ensure that $`(x_1,y_1)`$ and $`(x_2,y_2)`$ lie on a common geodesic, we will assume that $`\chi _1`$ lies on the circle with equation $`(xa)^2+y^2=R_1^2`$ and $`\chi _2`$ on the circle with equation $`(x+a)^2+y^2=R_2^2`$, for some $`a>0`$. Also assume that each $`\chi _i`$ is parameterized by $`s[0,length(\chi _i)]`$, and that $`length(\chi _2)>length(\chi _1)`$.

###### Lemma 3.2.

Let $`(x_i,y_i)`$ and $`\chi _i`$ be as above, for $`i=1,2`$. Then there exists a function $`\rho ^{}R`$ which is strictly increasing with the property that $`\chi _2(s)`$ and $`\chi _1(\rho ^{}(s))`$ lie on a vertical geodesic in $`^2`$, for $`s[0,length(\chi _2)]`$.

###### Proof.

It is clear that there exists such a function $`\rho ^{}`$ so that the points in question lie on the same vertical geodesic; we now show that this function is increasing. We first note that as functions of $`s`$, the parameterizations $`\chi _1`$ and $`\chi _2`$ are strictly increasing, because the parameter $`s`$ represents path length. We will write $`\chi _i(s_1)<\chi _i(s_2)`$ to mean that the point $`\chi _i(s_2)`$ is further along the path $`\chi _i`$ (beginning at $`z`$) than $`\chi _i(s_1)`$.

Suppose $`\rho ^{}(x)`$ was not increasing, so there are points $`s_1,s_2[0,length(\chi _1)]`$ with $`s_1<s_2`$ but $`\rho ^{}(s_1)\rho ^{}(s_2)`$. Then $`\chi _1(\rho ^{}(s_1))\chi _1(\rho ^{}(s_2))`$. However, $`\chi _2(s_1)<\chi _2(s_2)`$, and $`\chi _2(s_i)`$ and $`\chi _1(\rho ^{}(s_i))`$ lie on a common vertical geodesic, a contradiction. ∎

###### Lemma 3.3.

Let $`(x_i,y_i)`$ and $`\chi _i`$ for $`i=1,2`$ be as above, and $`\rho ^{}(x)R`$ the function guaranteed in lemma 3.2. Then for any $`s[0,length(\chi _2)]`$, we have $`d_^2(\chi _1(\rho ^{}(s)),\chi _2(s))1`$, where $`d_^2`$ represents distance in the hyperbolic plane $`^2`$.

###### Proof.

Using the equations given above for the circles containing $`\chi _1`$ and $`\chi _2`$, we express the hyperbolic distance between the points $`\chi _1(\rho ^{}(s))`$ and $`\chi _2(s)`$ which lie on a vertical geodesic as a function $`f(s)`$ of $`s`$. Namely,

$$f(s)=\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\sqrt{R_1^2(ta)^2}}{\sqrt{R_2^2(t+a)^2}}\right)=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{R_1^2(ta)^2}{R_2^2(t+a)^2}\right).$$

To prove the lemma we show that this function is strictly increasing. Then, since

$$f(l(\chi _2))=d_^2(\chi _1(\rho (length(\chi _1)),\chi _2(length(\chi _2)))=d_^2(x_1,x_2)1,$$

the inequality in the lemma follows.

It is sufficient to show that the function

$$g(x)=\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{R_1^2(xa)^2}{R_2^2(x+a)^2}\right)=\mathrm{ln}(R_1^2(xa)^2)\mathrm{ln}(R_2^2(x+a)^2)$$

is increasing. Computing $`g^{}(s)`$ we see that

$$g^{}(s)=\frac{2(xa)}{R_1^2(xa)^2}\frac{2(x+a)}{R_2^2(x+a)^2}\frac{4a}{R_1^2(xa)^2}>0,$$

since $`a>0`$. Thus $`g(s)`$, and more importantly $`f(s)`$, are strictly increasing, as desired. ∎

In the following corollary, we no longer assume that the points $`(x_1,y_1)`$ and $`(x_2,y_2)`$ lie on a vertical geodesic.

###### Corollary 3.4.

Let $`(x_i,y_i)^2`$ for $`i=1,2`$ with $`d_^2((x_1,y_1),(x_2,y_2))1`$, and $`z^2`$. Let $`\chi _i`$ denote the hyperbolic geodesic from $`z`$ to $`(x_i,y_i)`$. Then there is a reparametrization function $`\rho R`$ so that $`d_^2(\chi _1(\rho (s)),\chi _2(s))1`$ for all $`s[0,length(\chi _2)]`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`\varphi `$ denote a hyperbolic isometry such that $`\varphi (x_1,y_1)`$ and $`\varphi (x_2,y_2)`$ lie on a vertical geodesic. Let $`\rho ^{}`$ be the reparametrization function guaranteed in lemma 3.2. Then $`\rho =\varphi ^1\rho ^{}\varphi `$ satisfies the conditions of the corollary. ∎

Returning to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$, let $`\alpha _1,\alpha _2\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$ with $`d(\alpha _1,\alpha _2)1`$. Let $`\sigma _{\alpha _i}`$ for $`i=1,2`$ denote the combing path contained in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$ described in §3.1 from the basepoint $`\alpha _0`$ to $`\alpha _i`$. Then $`\sigma _{\alpha _1}=\gamma _2\gamma _1`$ and $`\sigma _{\alpha _2}=\xi _2\xi _1`$ where $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_2`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }_2`$ are each contained entirely in the hyperbolic factor and $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }_1`$ are contained entirely in the tree factor before they are adapted to lie in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$. We keep the notation $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_i`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }_i`$ to denote the combing paths before they have been adapted to lie in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$.

Let $`\pi `$ denote downward projection along vertical geodesics onto $`\sigma _{\mathrm{}}`$ in any $`^2^2\times T_p`$. This is the projection used to adapt the initial hyperbolic geodesics into combing paths as described above.

Our goal is to prove the following proposition.

###### Proposition 3.5.

The combing of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$ defined above has bounded asynchronous width.

It is clear that since $`d(\alpha _1,\alpha _2)1`$, the pieces $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }_1`$ of the combing paths which lie in the tree factor can be reparametrized by a function $`\psi R`$ so that $`d(\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_1(\psi (s)),\stackrel{~}{\xi }_1(s))1`$ for $`s[0,length(\stackrel{~}{\xi }_1)]`$. It immediately follows that $`d(\gamma _1(\psi (s)),\xi _1(s))2\mathrm{log}p`$. We are therefore concerned with showing the analogous condition for the pieces of the combing paths which lie in the hyperbolic factor. We do this via a reparametrization of the unadapted combing paths $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_2`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }_2`$ which is inherited by the adapted combing paths. We divide the proof into several cases. We first consider the case when at least one of $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_2`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }_2`$ is completely contained in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$. If both paths are completely contained in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$, then $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_2=\gamma _2`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }_2=\xi _2`$, and the bounded asynchronous width is immediate from corollary 3.4.

To obtain bounded asynchronous width when $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_2`$ intersects $`\sigma _{\mathrm{}}`$, we need only the following basic hyperbolic geometry lemma.

###### Lemma 3.6.

Let $`m=(x_1,y_1)`$ and $`n=(x_2,y_2)`$ be points in $`^2`$ so that $`d_^2(m,n)1`$, and let $`y=h`$ be any horocircle intersecting the geodesic segment $`[m,n]`$ at a point $`km,n`$ labelled so that $`y_1<h<y_2`$. Let $`n^{}`$ be the projection $`\pi (n)`$ of $`n`$ onto $`y=h`$ along vertical geodesics. Then $`d_^2(m,n^{})2`$.

###### Proof.

The lemma follows from the fact that the shortest distance between a point and a horocircle in $`^2`$ is measured along a vertical geodesic, and the triangle inequality. ∎

The following corollary is immediate.

###### Corollary 3.7.

Suppose that $`\gamma _2`$ and $`\xi _2`$ are components of combing paths $`\sigma _{\alpha _1}`$ and $`\sigma _{\alpha _2}`$, respectively, with $`d(\alpha _1,\alpha _2)1`$, as defined above, arising from the hyperbolic geodesics $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_2`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }_2`$, where $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }_2\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$ but $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_2\sigma _{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{}`$. Then for a suitable reparametrization function $`\rho R`$, we have $`d_^2(\xi _2(t),\gamma _2(\rho (t)))`$ uniformly bounded, for $`t[0,length(\xi _2)]`$.

###### Proof.

Reparametrize $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_2`$ using the function $`\rho `$ produced above in corollary 3.4, and project $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_2`$ via $`\pi `$ to obtain $`\gamma _2`$. Lemma 3.6 then asserts that $`d_^2(\gamma _1(t),\gamma _2(\rho (t)))2`$. ∎

We now consider the case when both $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_2`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }_2`$ have nontrivial intersection with $`\sigma _{\mathrm{}}`$, as depicted in figure 2. In this case we define completely new parametrizations of both paths in order to show that the asynchronous width is bounded. We do this below in several cases. Many of the cases involve the original parametrization $`\rho `$ of corollary 3.4.

We define a parametrization $`\omega _1`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }_2`$ and $`\omega _2`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_2`$. Note that we have not yet projected the paths so that they lie in the space $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$, and thus $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }_2`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_2`$ are hyperbolic geodesics. We begin with a few distinguished points. Let $`A`$ and $`B`$ be the points of intersection of $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }_2`$ with $`\sigma _{\mathrm{}}`$, where $`A`$ is closer to $`z`$ than $`B`$. Using the initial parametrization of $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }_2`$ by $`t`$ and of $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_2`$ by $`\rho (t)`$, for $`t[0,length(\stackrel{~}{\xi }_2)]`$, let $`t_A`$ denote the parameter value so that $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }_2(t_A)=A`$, and $`t_B`$ the parameter value so that $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }_2(t_B)=B`$.

Now let $`\overline{A}=\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_2(\rho (t_A))`$, and $`\overline{B}=\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_2(\rho (t_B))`$. Let $`A^{}`$ (resp. $`B^{}`$) be the point of $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_2`$ lying on the vertical geodesic containing $`A`$ (resp. $`B`$). Define $`t_A^{}[0,length(\stackrel{~}{\xi }_2)]`$ to be the parameter value so that $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_2(\rho (t_A^{}))=A^{}`$. Define $`t_B^{}`$ analogously.

We now define parametrizations $`\omega _1`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }_2`$ and $`\omega _2`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_2`$ which will be used to show that the adapted paths $`\xi _2`$ and $`\gamma _2`$, which are contained in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$, have bounded asynchronous width. We again use the notation $`M<N`$ if $`M`$ and $`N`$ are two points on either $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }_2`$ or $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_2`$, and $`M`$ is closer in hyperbolic distance to $`z`$ than $`N`$.

We will make use of the following function $`v(t)`$ in the parametrizations defined below. Suppose that for some interval $`I[0,length(\stackrel{~}{\xi }_2)]`$, we parametrize $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }_2`$ by $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }_2(t)`$ for $`tI`$. Let $`v(t)`$ for $`tI`$ be defined so that $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_2(v(t))`$ is the unique point of $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_2`$ which lies on the same vertical geodesic in $`^2`$ as $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }_2(t)`$.

The idea behind the parametrizations is the following. Keeping in mind that to form the ultimate combing paths we must project $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }_2`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_2`$ via the projection $`\pi `$, define $`\omega _1`$ and $`\omega _2`$ so that between the points $`A`$ and $`B`$, the same parameter value corresponds to points on $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }_2`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_2`$ lying on a common vertical geodesic. The images of these points under $`\pi `$ will be identical. The remainder of the definitions of $`\omega _1`$ and $`\omega _2`$ ensures that after the projection $`\pi `$, the bounded asynchronous width condition will be satisfied for the rest of the paths. The parametrizations $`\omega _1`$ and $`\omega _2`$ are defined as follows.

We first define the parametrization of both paths from the point z to the points $`B`$ and $`B^{}`$, respectively.

1. If $`\overline{A}>A^{}`$, then define $`\omega _1(t)=t`$ for $`t[0,t_B]`$, and $`\omega _2(t)=v(t)`$ for $`t[0,t_B]`$.
2. If $`\overline{A}A^{}`$ begin by defining $`\omega _1(t)=\{\begin{array}{cc}t\hfill & t[0,t_A]\hfill \\ t_A\hfill & t[t_A,t_A^{}]\hfill \end{array}`$ and $`\omega _2(t)=\rho (t)`$ for $`t[0,t_A^{}]`$. We then use $`\omega _1`$ to rescale the interval $`[t_A^{},t_B]`$ so that at the endpoints of the interval, we have $`\omega _1(t_A^{})=t_A`$ and $`\omega _1(t_B)=t_B`$. For $`s[t_A^{},t_B]`$, define $`\omega _2(s)=v(\omega _1(s))`$.

We now continue the parametrizations to the end of each path.
3. If $`\overline{B}B^{}`$, then $`\omega _1(t)=t`$ for $`t[t_B,length(\stackrel{~}{\xi }_2)]`$, and $`\omega _2(t)=\{\begin{array}{cc}t_B^{}\hfill & t[t_B,t_B^{}]\hfill \\ \rho (t)\hfill & t[t_B^{},length(\stackrel{~}{\xi }_2)]\hfill \end{array}`$.
4. If $`\overline{B}>B^{}`$, we must subdivide the interval $`[t_B,length(\stackrel{~}{\xi }_2)]`$ in order to complete the parametrization functions. According to the definition of $`\omega _2`$, we have that $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_2(\omega _2(t_B))=B^{}`$. We introduce an intermediate point $`d`$ with $`t_B<d<length(\stackrel{~}{\xi }_2)`$, and scale as follows.

We use a function $`f`$ to scale $`[t_B,d]`$ for the definition of $`\omega _2`$, so that the following conditions hold. At the endpoints of the interval, we have that $`\omega _2(t_B)=f(t_B)=\rho (t_B^{})`$ and $`\omega _2(d)=f(d)=\rho (t_B)`$. On the interior of the interval, we use the definition $`\omega _2(t)=\rho (f(t))`$. We define $`\omega _1(t)=t_B`$ for $`t[t_B,d]`$.

On the interval $`[d,length(\stackrel{~}{\xi }_2)]`$, we again use a scaling function $`g`$, subject to the following conditions. On the endpoints, we require that $`\omega _1(d)=g(d)=t_B`$ and $`\omega _1(length(\stackrel{~}{\xi }_2))=g(length(\stackrel{~}{\xi }_2))=length(\stackrel{~}{\xi }_2)`$. Then define $`\omega _1(t)=g(t)`$, and $`\omega _2(t)=\rho (g(t))`$ for $`t[d,length(\stackrel{~}{\xi }_2)]`$ .

The parameterizations $`\omega _1`$ and $`\omega _2`$ apply to the unadapted paths $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }_2`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_2`$. We are interested in showing that the paths $`\xi _2`$ and $`\gamma _2`$ which lie in the space $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$ have bounded asynchronous width. These paths will inherit the parametrizations $`\omega _1`$ and $`\omega _2`$, respectively.

###### Lemma 3.8.

Suppose that $`\gamma _2`$ and $`\xi _2`$ are components of combing paths $`\sigma _{\alpha _1}`$ and $`\sigma _{\alpha _2}`$, with $`\alpha _1`$ and $`\alpha _2`$ lying in a common hyperbolic plane, and $`d(\alpha _1,\alpha _2)1`$, as defined above, arising from the hyperbolic geodesics $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_2`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }_2`$, neither of which is completely contained in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$. Then there are parametrization functions $`\omega _1,\omega _2R`$ so that $`d_^2(\xi _2(\omega _1(t)),\gamma _2(\omega _2(t))`$ is uniformly bounded, for $`t[0,length(\stackrel{~}{\xi }_2)]`$.

###### Proof.

We show that the parametrization functions $`\omega _1`$ and $`\omega _2`$ defined above satisfy the condition of the lemma. We go through the proof according to the cases of the parameterizations above, showing in each case that the distance between the points is uniformly bounded.

1. Suppose that $`\overline{A}>A^{}`$. Notice that $`d_^2(A^{},\sigma _{\mathrm{}})d_^2(\overline{A},\sigma _{\mathrm{}})d_^2(\overline{A},A)1`$. Thus if we restrict to the initial segments of $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }_2`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_2`$ from $`z`$ to $`A`$ and $`z`$ to $`A^{}`$ respectively, we see that we have a pair of geodesics satisfying the conditions of lemma 3.3. Thus we may conclude that points on these paths lying on a common vertical geodesic are at most distance $`1`$ apart as well. It is then clear that the projection $`\pi `$ along vertical geodesics can only decrease this distance.

For $`t[t_A,t_B]`$, we have that

$$\xi _2(\omega _1(t))=\pi (\stackrel{~}{\xi }_2(\omega _1(t)))=\pi (\stackrel{~}{\xi }_2(t))=\pi (\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_2(v(t)))=\pi (\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_2(\omega _2(t)))=\gamma _2(\omega _2(t))$$

and thus the distance between the points in question is $`0`$.
2. Suppose that $`\overline{A}A^{}`$. By construction, $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }_2([0,t_A])=\xi _2([0,t_A])\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$. Thus for any point $`\gamma _2(\omega _2(t))`$ for $`t[0,t_A]`$, either lemma 3.6 or the definition of $`\rho `$, implies that $`d_^2(\xi _2(\omega _1(t)),\gamma _2(\omega _2(t)))2`$.

First consider the case when $`\overline{A}\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$. If $`t[t_A,t_A^{}]`$, it is clear that under the projection $`\pi `$, we have $`d_^2(A,\pi (\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_2(\omega _2(t))))d_^2(A,\pi (\overline{A}))`$. Then $`\pi (\overline{A}),A,\text{and }\overline{A}`$ form a geodesic triangle with $`d_^2(\pi (\overline{A}),\overline{A})d_^2(A,\overline{A})1`$ and thus $`d_^2(\pi (\overline{A}),A)2`$ forcing the distance between these points when measured along the horocircle to be at most $`e^2`$.

If $`\overline{A}\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_2(\omega _2(t))\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$ for some $`t[t_A,t_A^{}]`$, the triangle inequality again shows that $`d_^2(A,\gamma _2(\omega _2(t)))2`$. The triangle inequality also implies that if $`D`$ is the left most point of intersection of $`\sigma _{\mathrm{}}`$ with $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_2`$, then $`d_^2(A,D)e^2`$. The above argument shows that $`d_^2(A,\gamma _2(\omega _2(t)))e^2`$ when $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_2(\omega _2(t))\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$ and $`t[t_A,t_A^{}]`$.

For $`t[t_A^{},t_B]`$, we have that

$$\xi _2(\omega _1(t))=\pi (\stackrel{~}{\xi }_2(\omega _1(t)))=\pi (\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_2(v(\omega _1(t))))=\gamma _2(v(\omega _1(t)))=\gamma _2(\omega _2(t))$$

and thus the distance between the points in question is $`0`$.
3. Suppose that $`\overline{B}B^{}`$. For $`t[t_B,t_B^{}]`$, it follows from the triangle inequality that $`d_^2(\xi _2(t),\gamma _2(t_B^{}))=d_^2(\xi _2(t),B)2`$.

For $`t[t_B^{},length(\stackrel{~}{\xi }_2)]`$, we see that the geodesic $`[\xi _2(t_B^{}),\alpha _2]`$ is contained in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$. Lemma 3.6 and the definition of $`\rho `$ then imply that $`d_^2(\xi _2(\omega _1(t)),\gamma _2(\omega _2(t)))2`$ for $`t`$ in this interval.
4. Suppose that $`\overline{B}>B^{}`$, and consider $`t[t_B,d]`$. If $`\overline{B}\sigma _{\mathrm{}}`$, it follows from the above arguments that the distance $`d_^2(\xi _2(t_B),\gamma _2(\omega _2(t)))=d_^2(B,\gamma _2(\omega _2(t)))e^2`$. If $`\overline{B}\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$, we must supply an additional argument. Let $`D`$ be the final point of intersection of $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_2`$ and $`\sigma _{\mathrm{}}`$. Using the fact that the shortest distance between a point and a horocircle is always measured along a vertical geodesic, we easily see that $`d_^2(\overline{B},\sigma _{\mathrm{}})d_^2(\overline{B},D)d_^2(\overline{B},B)1`$, and thus the distance along the horocircle between $`B`$ and $`D`$ is at most $`e^2`$. The points on the segment $`\gamma _2(\omega _2(t))`$ for $`t[t_B,d]`$ exactly lie on the horcyclic segment from $`B`$ to $`D`$ union the geodesic segment from $`D`$ to $`\overline{B}`$. It is clear from the previous measurements that for any such point $`q`$ on this union, $`d_^2(q,B)1+e^2`$.

Lastly, consider $`t[d,length(\stackrel{~}{\xi }_2)]`$. If $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_2(\omega _2(t))\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$, then the parametrization agrees with $`\rho `$ and it immediately follows that $`d_^2(\xi _2(\omega _1(t)),\gamma _2(\omega _2(t)))1`$. If $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_2(\omega _2(t))\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$, then the fact that $`d_^2(\xi _2(\omega _1(t)),\gamma _2(\omega _2(t)))2`$ follows from lemma 3.6.

Combining the above cases, we have shown that $`d_^2(\xi _2(\omega _1(t)),\gamma _2(\omega _2(t)))e^2+1`$. ∎

We now use lemma 3.8 to prove proposition 3.5.

Proof of proposition 3.5. Let $`\alpha _1,\alpha _2\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$ with $`d(\alpha _1,\alpha _2)1`$. As above, the combing paths are given by $`\sigma _{\alpha _1}=\gamma _2\gamma _1`$ and $`\sigma _{\alpha _2}=\xi _2\xi _1`$. Let $`\psi R`$ be the reparametrization function described above satisfying $`d(\xi _1(\psi (t)),\gamma _1(t))2\mathrm{log}p`$ for $`t[0,length(\gamma _1)]`$.

Suppose that $`\gamma _1=\xi _1`$, so that the points $`\alpha _1`$ and $`\alpha _2`$ lie in a common hyperbolic plane. Combining $`\psi `$ with the reparametrization functions $`\omega _1`$ and $`\omega _2`$ of $`\xi _2`$ and $`\gamma _2`$, to get $`\overline{\omega _1}`$ and $`\overline{\omega _2}`$ respectively, we see that $`d(\sigma _{\alpha _1}(\overline{\omega _1}(t)),\sigma _{\alpha _2}(\overline{\omega _2}(t)))e^2+2`$ for all $`t[0,length(\sigma _{\alpha _2})]`$.

If $`\gamma _1\xi _1`$, so that the points $`\alpha _1`$ and $`\alpha _2`$ lie in different hyperbolic planes within $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$, we recall that we use the product metric on $`^2\times T_p`$, which is Lipschitz equivalent to the word metric on $`PSL_2([\frac{1}{p}])`$. The above argument again bounds the asynchronous width between the paths by the constant $`\mathrm{max}\{2\mathrm{log}p,e^2+2\}`$.

Thus we see that the asynchronous width of the combing of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$ defined above is bounded. ∎

###### Corollary 3.9.

The group $`PSL_2([\frac{1}{p}])`$ has a combing with bounded asynchronous width.

###### Proof.

From proposition 3.5, we know that the combing constructed above of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$ has bounded asynchronous width. Since $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$ and $`PSL_2([\frac{1}{p}])`$ are quasi-isometric, choose a finite generating set $`X`$ for $`PSL_2([\frac{1}{p}])`$ and let $`f:\mathrm{\Omega }_pPSL_2([\frac{1}{p}])`$ be a $`(K,C)`$-quasi-isometry, where $`PSL_2([\frac{1}{p}])`$ is viewed as generated by $`X`$. A different choice of generating set would simply result in a different quasi-isometry. Using the standard connect-the-dots procedure (see, e.g., \[FS\]), adapt $`f`$ so that it is continuous. As in theorem 3.6.4 of \[E+\], use $`f`$ to determine a combing of $`PSL_2([\frac{1}{p}])`$ in the generating set $`X`$ by taking the images of the combing paths in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$. It follows that for a constant $`M`$ depending on the quasi-isometry constants $`K`$ and $`C`$ and the bound on the asynchronous width of the combing above, the induced combing of $`PSL_2([\frac{1}{p}])`$ has asynchronous width bounded by $`M`$. ∎

## 4. The Dehn function of $`PSL_2([\frac{1}{p}])`$

We now prove the following theorem, using the combing constructed in §3.

###### Theorem 4.1.

The Dehn function of $`PSL_2([\frac{1}{p}])`$ is exponential.

The proof of theorem 4.1 consists of showing that the Dehn function of $`PSL_2([\frac{1}{p}])`$ has both exponential upper and lower bounds.

### 4.1. An exponential lower bound

We begin the proof that the Dehn function of $`PSL_2([\frac{1}{p}])`$ is exponential by exhibiting an exponential lower bound, again using the space $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$. The Dehn function of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$ is well defined since we can define Lipschitz loops in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$ and consider the area of their fillings. It follows from \[BT\] that the Dehn functions of the group $`PSL_2([\frac{1}{p}])`$ and space $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$ are equivalent, in the sense described in §1. Thus if the Dehn function of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$ has an exponential lower bound, then so does the Dehn function of $`PSL_2([\frac{1}{p}])`$.

The space $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$ has boundary components modelled on the solvable Baumslag-Solitar group $`BS(1,p^2)`$, which we know has exponential Dehn function. A simple projection argument, given below, easily shows that the Dehn function of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$, and hence $`PSL_2([\frac{1}{p}])`$, has an exponential lower bound.

Let $`X`$ be the space $`^2\times T_p`$ with the interior of the horosphere $`\sigma _{\mathrm{}}`$ based at $`\mathrm{}`$ removed. Since the Dehn function of $`BS(1,n)`$, for integral $`n>1`$, is exponential, there are families of loops in $`\sigma _{\mathrm{}}=X_n`$, the $`2`$-complex defined in §2.2, whose minimal filling is exponential in the length of the loop. (See \[E+\] for the precise definition of these loops.)

###### Lemma 4.2.

The Dehn function of $`PSL_2([\frac{1}{p}])`$ has an exponential lower bound.

###### Proof.

Let $`f:S^1\sigma _{\mathrm{}}`$ be a Lipschitz loop in $`\sigma _{\mathrm{}}`$, with $`\gamma =f(S^1)`$, whose minimal filling in $`\sigma _{\mathrm{}}`$ is exponential in $`n=length(\gamma )`$. Let $`\widehat{f}:D^2\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$ be any filling of $`\gamma `$ lying in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$. In order to show that the Dehn function of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$ is at least exponential, we construct a projection $`\pi :X\sigma _{\mathrm{}}`$ which does not increase the area of $`F=\widehat{f}(D^2)`$ by more than a bounded amount. For each $`^2^2\times T_p`$, let the map $`\pi `$ project upwards in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p^2`$ along vertical geodesics to $`\sigma _{\mathrm{}}^2`$. In coordinates, if $`h(t)`$ denotes the height of the point $`tT_p`$, then $`\pi (x,y,t)=(x,p^{2h(t)}B,t)`$ where $`B`$ was chosen in §2.1.

Let $`(dx,dy,dt)`$ be the canonical coordinates for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$ viewed as a subspace of $`^3`$. If $`S\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$ is a segment of the form $`(x,y,[t_1,t_2])`$, where $`t_1`$ and $`t_2`$ are adjacent vertices in $`T_p`$ and $`(x,y)`$ is fixed, then $`\pi (S)`$ has length $`2\mathrm{log}p`$ in $`\sigma _{\mathrm{}}`$ whereas $`S`$ has length $`1`$ in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$. \[T\] Hence $`\pi _{}(dt)=Ldt`$ where $`L=2\mathrm{log}p`$. So the area of $`\pi (F)`$, which is at least exponential in the length of $`\gamma `$, is at most $`L`$ times the area of $`F`$. This provides an exponential lower bound for the Dehn function of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$. It follows from \[BT\] that the Dehn functions of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$ and $`PSL_2([\frac{1}{p}])`$ are equivalent, and thus the Dehn function of $`PSL_2([\frac{1}{p}])`$ also satisfies an exponential lower bound. ∎

### 4.2. An exponential upper bound

To prove theorem 4.1, we must obtain an exponential upper bound on the Dehn function of $`PSL_2([\frac{1}{p}])`$. To do this, we apply the following theorem of Bridson \[B\] to the combing of $`PSL_2([\frac{1}{p}])`$ obtained in §3.

###### Theorem 4.3 (\[B\], thms. 5.2(a), 6.1).

Suppose that $`\sigma :GX^{}`$ is a combing with asynchronous width $`\varphi (n)`$ and length $`L(n)`$. If there exist constants $`\alpha >1`$ and $`C>0`$ so that the inequalities $`L(n)e^{Cn}`$ and $`\varphi (n)<\alpha n`$ for large $`n`$, then there is a constant $`k>0`$ so that $`e^{kn}`$ is an isoperimetric function for some finite presentation of $`G`$.

###### Lemma 4.4.

The Dehn function of $`PSL_2([\frac{1}{p}])`$ has an exponential upper bound.

###### Proof.

In §3, we constructed a combing of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$ which satisfied $`L(n)e^n`$ for all positive integers $`n`$. If $`f:\mathrm{\Omega }_pPSL_2([\frac{1}{p}])`$ is a $`(K,C)`$-quasi-isometry, which has been adapted to be continuous, as in the proof of corollary 3.9 we use $`f`$ to determine a combing of $`PSL_2([\frac{1}{p}])`$.

Lemma 3.1 states that the length function $`L(n)`$ of the combing of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$ satisfies $`L(n)e^n`$. Thus, for a constant $`M=M(C,K)`$, it follows that the length function $`L(n)`$ of the combing of $`PSL_2([\frac{1}{p}])`$ satisfies $`L(n)e^{Mn}`$. From corollary 3.9 we know that this combing of $`PSL_2([\frac{1}{p}])`$ has bounded asynchronous width. Thus both conditions of theorem 4.3 are satisfied, and we conclude that in some finite presentation, hence all finite presentations, $`PSL_2([\frac{1}{p}])`$ has an exponential isoperimetric function, i.e. the Dehn function has an exponential upper bound. ∎

Combining lemmas 4.2 and 4.4, we obtain the proof of theorem 4.1. The following corollary is immediate.

###### Corollary 4.5.

$`PSL_2([\frac{1}{p}])`$ is not an automatic group.

###### Proof.

It is shown in theorem 2.3.12 of \[E+\] that an automatic group satisfies a quadratic isoperimetric inequality, namely its Dehn function is bounded above by a quadratic function. It then follows from theorem 4.1 that $`PSL_2([\frac{1}{p}])`$ is not an automatic group. ∎