text:
# Untitled Document

Abelian Extensions of the Group of Diffeomorphisms of a Torus.

Yuly Billig

School of Mathematics and Statistics, Carleton University,

1125 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, K1S 5B6, Canada

e-mail: billig@math.carleton.ca

Abstract. In this Letter we construct abelian extensions of the group of diffeomorphisms of a torus. We consider the jacobian map, which is a crossed homomorphism from the group of diffeomorphisms into a toroidal gauge group. A pull-back under this map of a central 2-cocycle on a gauge group turns out to be an abelian cocycle on the group of diffeomorphisms. We show that in the case of a circle, the Virasoro-Bott cocycle is a pull-back of the Heisenberg cocycle. We also give an abelian generalization of the Virasoro-Bott cocycle to the case of a manifold with a volume form.

Mathematics Subject Classifications (2000). 22E65, 58B25, 81R10.

Key words. Group of diffeomorphisms, abelian extensions, Virasoro-Bott group.

0. Introduction.

The Lie group that corresponds to the Virasoro Lie algebra is the central extension of the group of diffeomorphisms of a circle with the Virasoro-Bott cocycle (2.1). It is well-known that the Virasoro cocycle on the Lie algebra of vector fields on a circle does not admit a generalization as a central 2-cocycle to the case of higher dimensional manifolds. Nonetheless there exist abelian extensions of the Lie algebra of vector fields on a torus that generalize the Virasoro Lie algebra. These abelian extensions play an important role in the representation theory of toroidal Lie algebras (\[EM\], \[L\], \[BB\], \[Bi\]).

The goal of this Letter is to construct the corresponding abelian extensions for the group of diffeomorphisms of a torus.

We approach this problem by linking the abelian cocycles on the group of diffeomorphisms of a torus with the central cocycles on the toroidal gauge groups. The central extensions of the toroidal gauge groups were studied in \[LMNS\] (see also \[PS\], \[FK\]).

The connection between the group of diffeomorphisms of a torus and toroidal gauge groups is given by the jacobian map. Let us briefly outline this correspondence. The differential of a diffeomorphism of a torus is a mapping of the tangent bundle into itself. However, using the fact that torus has a trivial tangent bundle, we can globally identify all tangent spaces with $`\text{}^N`$. After this identification, the differential of a diffeomorphism of a torus becomes a mapping of a torus into $`GL_N(\text{})`$. In the standard coordinates, this mapping is given by the jacobian matrix. In this way we obtain the jacobian map from the group of diffeomorphisms of a torus into a toroidal gauge group:

$$J:\text{Diff}(\text{𝕋}^N)\text{Map}(\text{𝕋}^N,GL_N(\text{})).$$

In all constructions of this Letter the torus may be replaced with an arbitrary manifold with a trivial tangent bundle.

The jacobian mapping is not a group homomorphism, but what is called a crossed homomorphism (see definition in Section 3). In case $`N=1`$, we get a crossed homomorphism from the group of diffeomorphisms of a circle into abelian loop group $`\text{Map}(S^1,\text{}^{})`$. A central extension of this loop group is an infinite dimensional Heisenberg group. We point out that the Virasoro-Bott cocycle may be interpreted as a pull-back of the Heisenberg cocycle under the jacobian map (Theorem 2.1). This observation motivates our constructions of 2-cocycles on the group of diffeomorphisms in higher dimensions.

First we describe our construction of 2-cocycles by pull-back in a very general set-up. We show (Lemma 3.1) that under a crossed homomorphism of two groups

$$j:DM,$$

a pull-back of a $`D`$ invariant central 2-cocycle on $`M`$ is an abelian 2-cocycle on $`D`$.

We apply this lemma to construct an abelian extension of the group of diffeomorphisms of a manifold with a volume form (Theorem 4.1), generalizing the Virasoro-Bott group, for which the manifold is the circle. This extension (as well as the Virasoro-Bott extension) trivializes on the subgroup of volume preserving diffeomorphisms.

We also construct another extension of the group of diffeomorphisms of a torus (Theorem 3.2) that remains non-trivial when restricted to the subgroup of volume preserving diffeomorphisms.

We would like to mention here that Ovsienko and Roger described abelian extensions of the group of diffeomorphisms of a circle with the modules of tensor densities \[OR\].

The structure of the Letter is the following. In Section 1 we present a geometric approach to the abelian extensions of the Lie algebra of vector fields on a torus and introduce the jacobian map from the group of diffeomorphisms of a torus into a toroidal gauge group. In Section 2 we give two constructions of the infinite dimensional Heisenberg group and exhibit the link between the Virasoro-Bott cocycle and the Heisenberg cocycle. In Section 3 we describe the general construction of a pull-back of a cocycle under a crossed homomorphism and use this approach to get an abelian extension of the group of diffeomorphisms of a torus. Finally in Section 4 we obtain another, inequivalent abelian cocycle that generalizes the Virasoro-Bott cocycle to the case of a manifold with a volume form.

1. Abelian extensions of the Lie algebra of vector fields of a torus.

It is well-known that the Lie algebra $`W_N`$ of vector fields on an $`N`$-dimensional torus $`\text{𝕋}^N`$ (Witt algebra) has a non-trivial central extension only when $`N=1`$. In that case there exists a unique non-trivial central extension of $`W_1`$, which is the Virasoro Lie algebra. The Virasoro cocycle can not be generalized as a central 2-cocycle to higher dimensions. However when $`N>1`$, there exist abelian extensions of $`W_N`$ that generalize the Virasoro cocycle. These abelian extensions appeared in the representation theory \[EM\], \[L\], where it was discovered that it is easier to construct representations for certain abelian extensions of $`W_N`$ rather than for the Witt algebra itself.

Let us describe the construction of these abelian extensions of $`W_N`$.

Let $``$ be the algebra of $`𝒞^{\mathrm{}}`$ real-valued functions on a torus $`\text{𝕋}^N=\text{}^N/\text{}^N`$. Note that the algebra of complex-valued functions on a torus, $`\text{}`$ has a convenient topological basis

$$\left\{\mathrm{exp}\left(2\pi i\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}r_jx_j\right)\right|r_j\text{}\}.$$

Often this basis is used in algebraic setting (considering Fourier polynomials instead of Fourier series). However, the group of diffeomorphisms of a torus can not be realized using Fourier polynomials, so we will be working with $`𝒞^{\mathrm{}}`$ functions instead. We define the group $`\text{Diff}(\text{𝕋}^N)`$ as the group of $`𝒞^{\mathrm{}}`$ diffeomorphisms of a torus. An element $`F\text{Diff}(\text{𝕋}^N)`$ can be viewed as an $`N`$-tuple of functions $`F=(F_1(𝐱),\mathrm{},F_N(𝐱)),`$ such that the map

$$𝐱=(x_1,\mathrm{},x_N)(F_1(𝐱),\mathrm{},F_N(𝐱))$$

is a bijection $`\text{𝕋}^N\text{𝕋}^N`$.

The Lie algebra $`W_N`$ consists of the vector fields $`𝐯=\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}v_j(𝐱)\frac{}{x_j}`$ with $`v_j(𝐱)`$.

Consider the space of differential $`k`$-forms on $`\text{𝕋}^N`$:

$$\mathrm{\Omega }^k=\left\{\underset{1j_1<\mathrm{}<j_kN}{}a_{j_1\mathrm{}j_k}(𝐱)dx_{j_1}\mathrm{}dx_{j_k}\right|a_{j_1\mathrm{}j_k}(𝐱)\}.$$

There is a differential map $`d:\mathrm{\Omega }^k\mathrm{\Omega }^{k+1}`$:

$$d\left(a(𝐱)dx_{j_1}\mathrm{}dx_{j_k}\right)=\underset{j=1}{\overset{k}{}}\frac{a}{x_j}dx_jdx_{j_1}\mathrm{}dx_{j_k}.$$

The Lie algebra of vector fields acts in an obvious way on $``$: $`𝐯a(𝐱)=\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}v_j(𝐱)\frac{a}{x_j}`$.

The algebra of functions $``$ is also a right module for the group $`\text{Diff}(\text{𝕋}^N)`$

$$a(𝐱)(F)=a(F(𝐱)),a,F\text{Diff}(\text{𝕋}^N),$$

and so is the spaces of differential forms:

$$\left(a(𝐱)dx_{j_1}\mathrm{}dx_{j_k}\right)(F)=a(F(𝐱))dF_{j_1}(𝐱)\mathrm{}dF_{j_k}(𝐱).$$
$`(1.1)`$
It is easy to see that the differential map is a homomorphism of $`\text{Diff}(\text{𝕋}^N)`$ modules.

The action of the group $`\text{Diff}(\text{𝕋}^N)`$ on $`k`$-forms gives rise to the action of its Lie algebra $`W_N`$:

$$𝐯\left(a(𝐱)dx_{j_1}\mathrm{}dx_{j_k}\right)=$$

$$(𝐯a(𝐱))dx_{j_1}\mathrm{}dx_{j_k}+\underset{r=1}{\overset{k}{}}a(𝐱)dx_{j_1}(𝐱)\mathrm{}dv_{j_r}(𝐱)\mathrm{}dx_{j_k}.$$

This action is called the Lie derivative action.

Next we need to discuss the jacobian of a diffeomorphism of a torus, and the jacobian of a vector field.

Let $`F\text{Diff}(\text{𝕋}^N)`$, $`F:\text{𝕋}^N\text{𝕋}^N`$. The differential of $`F`$ is a map of tangent bundles:

$$dF:T(\text{𝕋}^N)T(\text{𝕋}^N),$$

with linear maps

$$T_𝐱(\text{𝕋}^N)T_{F(𝐱)}(\text{𝕋}^N).$$

However torus is a flat manifold and its tangent bundle is trivial: $`T(\text{𝕋}^N)=\text{𝕋}^N\times \text{}^N`$, so all tangent spaces can be globally identified with $`\text{}^N`$, and we define the jacobian of $`F`$ as a map

$$F^J:\text{𝕋}^NHom(\text{}^N,\text{}^N).$$

Since $`F`$ is an invertible transformation of the torus, $`F^J`$ is an invertible linear homomorphism, so

$$F^J:\text{𝕋}^NGL_N(\text{}).$$

In coordinates $`(x_1,\mathrm{}x_N)`$, the matrix of the jacobian of a diffeomorphism $`F`$ is

$$F^J=\left(\frac{F_i}{x_k}\right)_{i,j=1,\mathrm{},N}.$$

The jacobian map $`J:FF^J`$ associates with every element of $`\text{Diff}(\text{𝕋}^N)`$ an element of a gauge group $`\text{Map}(\text{𝕋}^N,GL_N)`$. However the resulting map

$$J:\text{Diff}(\text{𝕋}^N)\text{Map}(\text{𝕋}^N,GL_N)$$
$`(1.2)`$
is not a group homomorphism, but what is called a crossed homomorphism \[K\]:

$$(FG)^J=F^J(G)G^J\text{(chain rule)}.$$
$`(1.3)`$
In the above formula we used the action of $`\text{Diff}(\text{𝕋}^N)`$ on the toroidal gauge group $`\text{Map}(\text{𝕋}^N,GL_N)`$ by automorphisms:

$$m(𝐱)m(F(𝐱)),\text{ where }m\text{Map}(\text{𝕋}^N,GL_N),F\text{Diff}(\text{𝕋}^N),𝐱\text{𝕋}^N.$$
$`(1.4)`$
In a similar way, the jacobian of a vector field $`𝐯`$ is defined as a matrix

$$𝐯^J=\left(\frac{v_i}{x_k}\right)_{i,j=1,\mathrm{},N},$$

thus giving a linear map from $`W_N`$ to the toroidal analog $`\text{Map}(\text{𝕋}^N,gl_N)gl_N`$ of the loop algebra.

Now we can use the jacobians to give a simple descriptions of the abelian extensions of $`W_N`$. We will actually consider two possible extension spaces. In the first case, the 2-cocycles will have values in the factor module $`𝒦=\mathrm{\Omega }^1/d\mathrm{\Omega }^0`$ . This module is of special interest since it is the space of the universal central extension for the toroidal Lie algebras. Two such $`𝒦`$ valued 2-cocycles have appeared in the representation theory (\[EM\], \[L\], \[BB\]):

$$\tau _1(𝐯,𝐰)=\text{Tr}\left(𝐯^Jd𝐰^J\right)$$

and

$$\tau _2(𝐯,𝐰)=\text{Tr}\left(𝐯^J\right)\text{Tr}\left(d𝐰^J\right).$$

Viewed as $`\mathrm{\Omega }^1`$ valued expressions these are not 2-cocycles, but modulo $`d\mathrm{\Omega }^0`$ these become skew-symmetric and satisfy the Jacobi identity.

There is a closely related pair of 2-cocycles on $`W_N`$, obtained from $`\tau _1`$, $`\tau _2`$ by applying the differential map $`d:\mathrm{\Omega }^1\mathrm{\Omega }^2`$. Since $`d^2=0`$, this map factors through the factor module $`\mathrm{\Omega }^1/d\mathrm{\Omega }^0`$. The differentials $`d\tau _1,d\tau _2`$ are thus $`\mathrm{\Omega }^2`$ valued 2-cocycles on $`W_N`$:

$$d\tau _1(𝐯,𝐰)=\text{Tr}\left(d𝐯^Jd𝐰^J\right)$$

and

$$d\tau _2(𝐯,𝐰)=\text{Tr}\left(d𝐯^J\right)\text{Tr}\left(d𝐰^J\right).$$

Dzhumadildaev proved that for $`N>1`$ the space of $`\mathrm{\Omega }^2`$ valued 2-cocycles $`H^2(W_N,\mathrm{\Omega }^2)`$ is two-dimensional and is spanned by $`d\tau _1,d\tau _2`$ \[D\].

These cocycles give 2-parametric abelian extensions of the Lie algebra of vector fields on a torus with extension spaces $`𝒦`$ or $`\mathrm{\Omega }^2`$ (see e.g. Section 2 of \[BB\]).

The main goal of this Letter is to construct the corresponding abelian extensions for the group of diffeomorphisms of a torus.

Remark 1. We can see that linear combinations of $`\tau _1,\tau _2`$ are in 1-1 correspondence with the symmetric invariant bilinear forms on $`gl_N(\text{})`$. Since for $`N>1`$ the Lie algebra $`gl_N(\text{})`$ is not simple, but only reductive, $`gl_N(\text{})=sl_N(\text{})\text{}I`$, the space of symmetric invariant forms on $`gl_N(\text{})`$ is two-dimensional and is spanned by the forms $`\text{Tr}(AB)`$ and $`\text{Tr}(A)\text{Tr}(B)`$. Thus a linear combination of $`\tau _1`$ and $`\tau _2`$ can be written as

$$\tau (𝐯,𝐰)=(𝐯^J|d𝐰^J),$$

where $`(|)`$ is a symmetric invariant bilinear form of $`gl_N(\text{})`$.

Remark 2. Cocylcles $`\tau _2`$ and $`d\tau _2`$ trivialize on the subalgebra of divergence zero vector fields, because the divergence of a vector field is equal to the trace of the jacobian: div$`(𝐯)=\text{Tr}(𝐯^J)`$.

Remark 3. In coordinates, cocycles $`\tau _1,\tau _2`$ are written as follows (cf. \[BB\]):

$$\tau _1(v(x)\frac{}{x_i},w(x)\frac{}{x_j})=\frac{v}{x_j}\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{^2w}{x_ix_k}dx_k,$$

$$\tau _2(v(x)\frac{}{x_i},w(x)\frac{}{x_j})=\frac{v}{x_i}\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{^2w}{x_jx_k}dx_k.$$

Remark 4. When $`N=1`$, cocycles $`\tau _1`$ and $`\tau _2`$ coincide (the forms $`\text{Tr}(AB)`$ and $`\text{Tr}(A)\text{Tr}(B)`$ are equal in $`gl_1`$), and become the Virasoro cocycle on the Witt algebra $`W_1`$. Thus for $`N>1`$, these cocycles are two distinct abelian generalizations of the Virasoro cocycle.

2. Realization of the Virasoro-Bott cocycle via the Heisenberg group.

The Virasoro-Bott cocycle on the group of diffeomorphisms of $`S^1`$ has a rather mysterious form \[Bo\]:

$$(F,\alpha )(G,\beta )=(FG,\alpha +\beta +B(F,G)),$$

where $`F,G\text{Diff}(S^1)`$, $`\alpha ,\beta \text{}`$ and

$$B(F,G)=\underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}\mathrm{ln}|F^{}(G(t))|d\mathrm{ln}|G^{}(t)|.$$
$`(2.1)`$
The cocycle $`B(F,G)`$ seems to have more analytic flavour rather than algebraic, and looks quite different from other cocycles on the infinite dimensional groups, e.g., affine groups. We are now going to elucidate the situation with the unusual form of this cocycle. We will link the Virasoro-Bott cocycle with the Heisenberg cocycle, which is defined in more algebraic terms. The infinite dimensional Heisenberg group is the affine group which corresponds to $`GL_1`$, thus the Heisenberg cocycle may be viewed as the simplest case of the affine group cocycle.

The link between $`\text{Diff}(S^1)`$ and the loop group of $`GL_1`$ has been seen in fact in (1.2) in the previous section, where the jacobian $`J`$ maps the former group into the latter. We will recover the Virasoro-Bott cocycle by evaluating the Heisenberg cocycle on the jacobians of the diffeomorphisms.

Let us recall the construction of the infinite dimensional Heisenberg group. We will in fact give two versions of the Heisenberg group, one algebraic, and another analytic.

In our first construction, we will directly exponentiate the infinite dimensional Heisenberg Lie algebra. This Lie algebra has the basis $`\left\{H_j,c\right|j\text{}\}`$ and the Lie bracket

$$[H_n,H_m]=n\delta _{n,m}c,$$

and $`c`$ is central.

By the direct exponentiation we will get the Heisenberg group:

$$\left\{\mathrm{exp}(\alpha c)\mathrm{exp}(\underset{j0}{}a_jH_j)\mathrm{exp}(\underset{j>0}{}a_jH_j)\right\},$$
$`(2.2)`$
where $`a_k\text{}`$ with only finitely many non-zero $`a_k`$. Using the formula

$$\mathrm{exp}(A)\mathrm{exp}(B)=\mathrm{exp}([A,B])\mathrm{exp}(B)\mathrm{exp}(A),$$

which holds when $`[A,B]`$ commutes with $`A`$ and $`B`$, we get the multiplication law in the Heisenberg group:

$$\mathrm{exp}(\alpha c)\mathrm{exp}(\underset{j0}{}a_jH_j)\mathrm{exp}(\underset{j>0}{}a_jH_j)\times \mathrm{exp}(\beta c)\mathrm{exp}(\underset{j0}{}b_jH_j)\mathrm{exp}(\underset{j>0}{}b_jH_j)$$

$$=\mathrm{exp}((\alpha +\beta +\underset{j>0}{}ja_jb_j)c)\mathrm{exp}(\underset{j0}{}(\alpha _j+\beta _j)H_j)\mathrm{exp}(\underset{j>0}{}(\alpha _j+\beta _j)H_j).$$

This version is an algebraic version of the Heisenberg group since only finite products are allowed in (2.2). The group of diffeomorphisms on the other hand is of analytic nature, so we would need to consider a certain completion of the algebraic version of the Heisenberg group. The construction of the analytic version of the Heisenberg group will follow the general pattern of the affine extensions of the loop groups \[PS\].

Consider the group $`\text{Map}(S^1,\text{}^{})`$ of $`𝒞^{\mathrm{}}`$ loops in $`\text{}^{}=GL_1(\text{})`$, and its connected component of identity $`\text{Map}_0(S^1,\text{}^{})=\text{Map}(S^1,\text{}_+^{})`$. The group structure in a loop group is given by pointwise multiplication. In order to define a central extension of $`\text{Map}(S^1,\text{}_+^{})`$, we need to consider contractions of elements $`f\text{Map}(S^1,\text{}_+^{})`$ to identity. The general scheme of affine extensions simplifies in our case since there exists a canonical contraction for each $`f`$. This is due to the fact that the exponential map from  (the Lie algebra of $`\text{}_+^{}`$) to $`\text{}_+^{}`$ is bijective.

Indeed let $`x=\mathrm{ln}(f)`$, $`x\text{Map}(S^1,\text{})`$. Then $`\stackrel{~}{f}(\tau )=\mathrm{exp}(\tau x),\tau [0,1]`$ is a homotopy between identity and $`f`$. This canonical contraction respects multiplication: $`\stackrel{~}{fg}=\stackrel{~}{f}\stackrel{~}{g}`$ because $`\text{}^{}`$ is commutative, and the usual properties of the logarithm and the exponential functions hold. In the general scheme of affine extensions one has to consider all possible contractions of elements of a loop group to identity. In our case this is not necessary because of the existence of a canonical contraction. The affine cocycle is given by the formula \[PS\]:

$$C(f,g)=_{S^1}_{[0,1]}\stackrel{~}{f}^1𝑑\stackrel{~}{f}d\stackrel{~}{g}\stackrel{~}{g}^1.$$

Here $`\stackrel{~}{f},\stackrel{~}{g}`$ are viewed as functions of two variables: $`t`$ – the parameter along $`S^1`$ and $`\tau `$ – the parameter of the homotopy. Let $`x(t)=\mathrm{ln}(f(t))`$, $`y(t)=\mathrm{ln}(g(t))`$. Then we can calculate $`C(f,g)`$ explicitly in the following way:

$$C(f,g)=_{S^1}_{[0,1]}\frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{f}\stackrel{~}{g}}\left(\frac{\stackrel{~}{f}}{\tau }\frac{\stackrel{~}{g}}{t}\frac{\stackrel{~}{f}}{t}\frac{\stackrel{~}{g}}{\tau }\right)𝑑\tau dt$$

$$=_{S^1}_{[0,1]}\tau \left(x(t)\frac{dy}{dt}\frac{dx}{dt}y(t)\right)𝑑\tau dt.$$

Integrating in $`\tau `$, and then integrating the second term by parts with respect to $`t`$ we get

$$C(f,g)=_{S^1}x(t)𝑑y(t).$$

We see that the formula for the Heisenberg cocycle becomes very similar to the formula for the Virasoro-Bott cocycle:

$$C(f,g)=_{S^1}\mathrm{ln}(f)d\mathrm{ln}(g).$$
$`(2.3)`$
Now $`x(t)`$ and $`y(t)`$ are periodic $`𝒞^{\mathrm{}}`$ functions. These can be represented by Fourier series:

$$x(t)=\frac{a_0}{2}+\underset{j>0}{}a_j\mathrm{cos}(2\pi jt)+\underset{j>0}{}a_j\mathrm{sin}(2\pi jt),$$

$$y(t)=\frac{b_0}{2}+\underset{j>0}{}b_j\mathrm{cos}(2\pi jt)+\underset{j>0}{}b_j\mathrm{sin}(2\pi jt).$$

The functions $`x(t)`$, $`y(t)`$ are of class $`𝒞^{\mathrm{}}`$ if and only if the Fourier coefficients satisfy the condition

$$\underset{j\pm \mathrm{}}{lim}j^ka_j=\underset{j\pm \mathrm{}}{lim}j^kb_j=0\text{ for all }k\text{}.$$
$`(2.4)`$
Now by direct integration of (2.3) we can get the formula for the cocycle in terms of the Fourier coefficients:

$$C(f,g)=\pi \underset{j\text{}}{}ja_jb_j.$$

The analytic version of the Heisenberg group is the set of pairs $`(f,\alpha )`$, where $`f\text{Map}(S^1,\text{}_+^{})`$, $`\alpha \text{}`$, and the group law is

$$(f,\alpha )(g,\beta )=(fg,\alpha +\beta +C(f,g)).$$

It is easy to see that this cocycle is equivalent to the cocycle from the first version of the Heisenberg group. Indeed, the isomorphism between the latter analytic version and the completion of the algebraic version can be given as follows:

$$\phi (\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{a_0}{2}+\underset{j>0}{}a_j\mathrm{cos}(2\pi jt)+\underset{j>0}{}a_j\mathrm{sin}(2\pi jt)\right),\alpha )=$$

$$\mathrm{exp}((\frac{\alpha }{2\pi }+\frac{1}{2}\underset{j>0}{}ja_ja_j)c)\mathrm{exp}(\underset{j0}{}a_jH_j)\mathrm{exp}(\underset{j>0}{}a_jH_j).$$

The condition on coefficients $`\{a_j\}`$ for the completion of the first version of the Heisenberg group should be taken the same as the $`𝒞^{\mathrm{}}`$ condition (2.4).

Remark 5. We can lift the cocycle (2.3) to the group $`\text{Map}(S^1,\text{}^{})=`$ $`\text{Map}(S^1,\text{}_+^{})\times \text{}_2`$ by taking absolute values of the loops:

$$C(f,g)=_{S^1}\mathrm{ln}|f|d\mathrm{ln}|g|.$$
$`(2.5)`$
Now we can give interpretation of the Virasoro-Bott cocycle by means of the cocycle of the Heisenberg group.

Theorem 2.1. Let $`J`$ be the jacobian map $`J:\text{Diff}(S^1)\text{Map}(S^1,\text{}^{})`$. The Virasoro-Bott cocycle on $`\text{Diff}(S^1)`$ can be obtained by evaluating the Heisenberg cocycle (2.5) on $`F^J(G)`$ and $`G^J`$:

$$B(F,G)=C(F^J(G),G^J).$$

Proof. This follows immediately from comparing the formulas (2.1) and (2.5).

Remark 6. Using the jacobian map we also get a similar relation between the Virasoro and Heisenberg cocycles at the level of Lie algebras. The Heisenberg cocycle on the abelian Lie algebra of functions on a circle is

$$h(u_1(x),u_2(x))=_{S^1}u_1(x)𝑑u_2(x).$$

The Virasoro cocycle on $`W_1`$ is obtained by evaluating the Heisenberg cocycle on the jacobians (i.e. first derivatives) of vector fields:

$$(v(x)\frac{}{x},w(x)\frac{}{x})=h(𝐯^J,𝐰^J)=_{S^1}v^{}(x)𝑑w^{}(x).$$

Remark 7. Integration along $`S^1`$ in the formulas (2.3) and (2.5) realizes the isomorphism between $`\mathrm{\Omega }^1/d\mathrm{\Omega }^0`$ and . We thus can also write the Heisenberg cocycle as a $`\mathrm{\Omega }^1/d\mathrm{\Omega }^0`$ valued cocycle

$$C(f,g)=\mathrm{ln}|f|d\mathrm{ln}|g|.$$
$`(2.6)`$
Proposition 2.2. Let $`X`$ be a $`𝒞^{\mathrm{}}`$ real manifold. Then the formula (2.6) gives an $`\mathrm{\Omega }^1(X)/d\mathrm{\Omega }^0(X)`$ valued central 2-cocycle on the group $`\text{Map}(X,\text{}^{})`$.

Proof. We first verify the claim for the subgroup $`\text{Map}(X,\text{}_+^{})`$. Applying the logarithm function, we get that the multiplicative group $`\text{Map}(X,\text{}_+^{})`$ is isomorphic to the additive group of $`𝒞^{\mathrm{}}`$ functions on $`X`$. Under this isomorphism (2.5) transforms into

$$C_1(u,v)=u(x)dv(x),$$
$`(2.7)`$
where $`u=\mathrm{ln}(f),v=\mathrm{ln}(g)`$. To see that (2.7) satisfies the cocycle condition, we need to check that

$$C_1(u,v)+C_1(u+v,w)=C_1(v,w)+C_1(u,v+w),$$

which follows immediately from the linearity of (2.7).

Finally, the group $`\text{Map}(X,\text{}^{})`$ is a direct product $`\text{Map}(X,\text{}_+^{})\times \text{}_2^n`$, where $`n`$ is the number of connected components of $`X`$, thus a central cocycle on the subgroup $`\text{Map}(X,\text{}_+^{})`$ lifts to a cocycle on $`\text{Map}(X,\text{}^{})`$.

Even though the above theorems are just very simple observations, they allow us to construct interesting generalizations of the Virasoro-Bott cocycle that will be explored in the next two sections.

3. Abelian extension of the group of diffeomorphisms of a torus.

The Virasoro cocycle can not be generalized as a central cocycle to the case of a Lie algebra of vector fields in dimension greater than one. However in the case of a torus, it is known that there are abelian generalizations of the Virasoro cocycle. We thus may expect that we can also construct abelian extensions of the group of diffeomorphisms of a torus.

In this section we will construct an abelian extension that corresponds to Lie algebra cocycle $`d\tau _1`$. The space of the extension will be $`\mathrm{\Omega }^2(\text{𝕋}^N)`$. This cocycle will be non-vanishing on the subgroup of volume-preserving diffeomorphisms.

As we have seen in Section 1, the two abelian cocycles on $`W_N`$, $`\tau _1`$ and $`\tau _2`$, correspond to the decomposition of $`gl_N`$ into $`sl_N\text{}I`$. The cocycle that will be constructed in this section corresponds to the $`sl_N`$ component. In Section 4 we will construct a cocycle that corresponds to the component of scalar matrices.

Motivated by Theorem 2.1, our idea is to use the crossed homomorphism (1.2) and pull back a central 2-cocycle on $`\text{Map}(\text{𝕋}^N,GL_N)`$ to an abelian 2-cocycle on $`\text{Diff}(\text{𝕋}^N)`$ .

We will first describe our construction in a very general set-up.

Let a group $`D`$ acts on a group $`M`$ on the right by automorphisms:

$$mm(d),\text{ for }mM,dD.$$

Definition. A crossed homomorphism is a map

$$j:DM,$$

such that

$$j(d_1d_2)=j(d_1)(d_2)j(d_2)$$
$`(3.1)`$
for all $`d_1,d_2D`$.

Suppose we indeed have a crossed homomorphism $`j:DM`$.

Let $`K`$ be an abelian (additive) group and let

$$c:M\times MK$$

be a central 2-cocycle on $`M`$. Suppose that $`D`$ also acts on $`K`$ on the right by automorphisms.

Lemma 3.1. If the $`K`$ valued 2-cocycle $`c`$ on $`M`$ is $`D`$ invariant, i.e.,

$$c(m_1,m_2)(d)=c(m_1(d),m_2(d)),\text{ for all }m_1,m_2M,dD,$$

then

$$b(d_1,d_2)=c(j(d_1)(d_2),j(d_2))$$
$`(3.2)`$
defines an abelian $`K`$ valued 2-cocycle on $`D`$.

Proof. Using the fact that $`c`$ satisfies the central cocycle condition

$$c(m_1,m_2)+c(m_1m_2,m_3)=c(m_1,m_2m_3)+c(m_2,m_3),$$
$`(3.3)`$
we need to show that $`b`$ is an abelian cocycle:

$$b(d_1,d_2)(d_3)+b(d_1d_2,d_3)=b(d_1,d_2d_3)+b(d_2,d_3).$$
$`(3.4)`$
From the definition (3.2), we get that the left hand side is

$$c(j(d_1)(d_2),j(d_2))(d_3)+c(j(d_1d_2)(d_3),j(d_3)),$$

which using the invariance of cocycle $`c`$ and (3.1), becomes

$$c(j(d_1)(d_2d_3),j(d_2)(d_3))+c(j(d_1)(d_2d_3)j(d_2)(d_3),j(d_3)).$$

By (3.3) this equals

$$c(j(d_1)(d_2d_3),j(d_2)(d_3)j(d_3))+c(j(d_2)(d_3),j(d_3))$$

$$=c(j(d_1)(d_2d_3),j(d_2d_3))+c(j(d_2)(d_3),j(d_3))$$

$$=b(d_1,d_2d_3)+b(d_2,d_3),$$

which is the left hand side of (3.4). The Lemma is proved.

We will apply this Lemma to the groups $`D=\text{Diff}(\text{𝕋}^N)`$ and $`M=\text{Map}(\text{𝕋}^N,GL_N)`$. The extension group $`K`$ will be $`\mathrm{\Omega }^2(\text{𝕋}^N)`$ and the crossed homomorphism between $`\text{Diff}(\text{𝕋}^N)`$ and $`\text{Map}(\text{𝕋}^N,GL_N)`$ is the jacobian map (1.2). The action of $`\text{Diff}(\text{𝕋}^N)`$ on $`\text{Map}(\text{𝕋}^N,GL_N)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }^2`$ is given by (1.4) and (1.1).

The central 2-cocycle on $`\text{Map}(\text{𝕋}^N,GL_N)`$ that we will use is (cf. \[PS\], \[LNMS\]):

$$C(f(𝐱),g(𝐱))=\text{Tr}\left(f^1dfdgg^1\right).$$
$`(3.5)`$
Let us verify the cocycle condition

$$C(f,g)+C(fg,h)=C(f,gh)+C(g,h).$$
$`(3.6)`$
The left hand side here is

$$\text{Tr}\left(f^1dfdgg^1\right)+\text{Tr}\left((fg)^1d(fg)dhh^1\right)$$

$$=\text{Tr}\left(f^1dfdgg^1\right)+\text{Tr}\left(g^1f^1d(f)gdhh^1\right)+\text{Tr}\left(g^1dgdhh^1\right).$$

Similarly, the left hand side of (3.6) becomes

$$\text{Tr}\left(f^1dfd(gh)(gh)^1\right)+\text{Tr}\left(g^1dgdhh^1\right)$$

$$=\text{Tr}\left(f^1dfdgg^1\right)+\text{Tr}\left(f^1d(f)gdhh^1g^1\right)+\text{Tr}\left(g^1dgdhh^1\right).$$

Both sides are equal because

$$\text{Tr}\left(g^1f^1d(f)gdhh^1\right)=\text{Tr}\left(f^1d(f)gdhh^1g^1\right)$$

by the commutativity of the trace: $`\text{Tr}(AB)=\text{Tr}(BA)`$.

Finally we note that the cocycle (3.5) on $`\text{Map}(\text{𝕋}^N,GL_N)`$ is $`\text{Diff}(\text{𝕋}^N)`$ invariant, since the action of diffeomorphisms on differential forms (1.1) agrees with the action on functions (1.4):

$$\text{Tr}\left(f^1dfdgg^1\right)(H)=\text{Tr}\left(f^1(H)df(H)dg(H)g^1(H)\right).$$

We thus obtain the following result:

Theorem 3.2. The set $`\text{Diff}(\text{𝕋}^N)\times \mathrm{\Omega }^2(\text{𝕋}^N)`$ becomes an extension of the group of diffeomorphisms with the abelian group $`\mathrm{\Omega }^2(\text{𝕋}^N)`$ with multiplication defined as follows:

$$(F,\alpha )(G,\beta )=(FG,\alpha (G)+\beta +\text{Tr}\left(f^1dfdgg^1\right)),$$

where $`f=F^J(G),g=G^J`$.

Remark 8. It is easy to compute that the corresponding Lie algebra extension of $`W_N`$ is given by cocycle $`d\tau _1`$.

Problem. Construct an abelian extension of $`\text{Diff}(\text{𝕋}^N)`$ with abelian subgroup $`\mathrm{\Omega }^1/d\mathrm{\Omega }^0`$ which corresponds to the Lie algebra 2-cocycle $`\tau _1`$.

4. Abelian extension of the group of diffeomorphisms of a manifold with a volume form.

In this section we introduce an abelian extension of the group of diffeomorphisms of a manifold with a volume form that generalizes the Virasoro-Bott central extension.

Let $`X`$ be a real $`𝒞^{\mathrm{}}`$ manifold with the volume form $`\omega `$. We note that for an arbitrary diffeomorphism $`F\text{Diff}(X)`$, the quotient $`\frac{\omega (F)}{\omega }`$ is a well-defined non-vanishing function. Moreover, the map

$$\delta :\text{Diff}(X)\text{Map}(X,\text{}^{}),$$

given by

$$\delta (F)=\frac{\omega (F)}{\omega }$$

is a crossed homomorphism. Indeed,

$$\delta (FG)=\frac{\omega (FG)}{\omega }=\frac{\omega (FG)}{\omega (G)}\frac{\omega (G)}{\omega }=\delta (F)(G)\delta (G).$$

As an immediate consequence of this observation, Lemma 3.1 and Proposition 2.2, we get the following:

Theorem 4.1. Let $`X`$ be a $`𝒞^{\mathrm{}}`$ real manifold with a volume form $`\omega `$ and let $`C(f,g)`$ be the Heisenberg cocycle (2.6) on $`\text{Map}(X,\text{}^{})`$. Then

$$B(F,G)=C(\frac{\omega (FG)}{\omega (G)},\frac{\omega (G)}{\omega })$$

$$=\mathrm{ln}\left|\frac{\omega (FG)}{\omega (G)}\right|d\mathrm{ln}\left|\frac{\omega (G)}{\omega }\right|$$
$`(4.1)`$
is an abelian $`\mathrm{\Omega }^1(X)/d\mathrm{\Omega }^0(X)`$ valued 2-cocycle on the group of diffeomorphisms $`\text{Diff}(X)`$.

Corollary 4.2. The 2-cocycle on the Lie algebra of vector fields on a manifold with a volume form $`\omega `$ that corresponds to the group cocycle (4.1) is

$$c(𝐯,𝐰)=\text{div}(𝐯)d\text{div}(𝐰),$$

where the divergence of a vector field $`𝐯`$ is given by $`\text{div}(𝐯)=\frac{𝐯\omega }{\omega }`$.

Example 4.3. If $`X`$ is a torus $`\text{𝕋}^N`$ with the volume form $`\omega =dx_1\mathrm{}dx_N`$, then $`\frac{\omega (F)}{\omega }=det(F^J)`$, and the cocycle (3.1) can be written as

$$B(F,G)=\mathrm{ln}|det(F^J(G))|d\mathrm{ln}|det(G^J)|.$$

One can easily calculate that the corresponding Lie algebra cocycle on $`W_N`$ is $`\tau _2`$.

Acknowledgments. I am grateful to l’Institut des Mathématiques de Jussieu (Paris) and Mathematical Sciences Research Institute (Berkeley) for their hospitality. I also thank Dmitri Orlov for stimulating discussions.

Bibliography.

\[BB\] Berman, S. and Billig, Y.: Irreducible Representations for Toroidal Lie algebras, J. Algebra, 221 (1999), 188–231.

\[Bi\] Billig, Y.: Energy-momentum tensor for the toroidal Lie algebras, preprint, math.RT/0201313.

\[Bo\] Bott, R.: On the characteristic classes of groups of diffeomorphisms, Enseign. Math. (2), 23 (1977), 209–220.

\[D\] Dzhumadil’daev, A.: Virasoro type Lie algebras and deformations, Z. Phys. C, 72 (1996), 509–517.

\[EM\] Eswara Rao, S. and Moody, R.V.: Vertex Representations for $`N`$-Toroidal Lie Algebras and a Generalization of the Virasoro Algebra, Comm. Math. Phys., 159(1994), 239–264.

\[FK\] Frenkel, I. and Khesin, B.: Four-dimensional realization of two-dimensional current groups, Comm. Math. Phys., 178 (1996), 541–562.

\[K\] Kurosh, A.G.: The theory of groups, Chelsea, N.Y., 1956.

\[L\] Larsson, T.A.: Lowest-Energy Representations of Non-Centrally Extended Diffeomorphism Algebras, Comm. Math. Phys., 201 (1999), 461–470.

\[LMNS\] Losev, A., Moore, G., Nekrasov, N. and Shatashvili, S.: Central extensions of gauge groups revisited, Selecta Math. (N.S.), 4(1) (1998), 117–123.

\[OR\] Ovsienko, V. and Roger, C.: Generalizations of Virasoro group and Virasoro algebra through extensions by modules of tensor densities on $`S^1`$, Indag. Math. N.S., 9 (2), (1998), 277–288.

\[PS\] Pressley, A. and Segal, G.: Loop groups, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1986.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

One of the central questions in the theory of black hole evaporation concerns the detailed understanding of the characteristics scales involved in the treatment of the onset of evaporation process. In the usual treatment the characteristic scale of length for a black hole of mass $`M`$ is identified with the Schwarzschild radius222We use units in which $`G=c=\mathrm{}=1`$. $`2M`$ which for a large black hole is a macroscopic length. Therefore, for a large black hole one may be inclined to persist on the paradigm of an effective description requiring a low energy treatment of black hole evaporation involving only the characteristic energy scale $`\frac{1}{2M}`$.

The point, however, is that due to the infinite gravitational red-shift on the horizon, the long time (and long distance) observations in the outside region of a black hole exhibit correlations with the physical situations in a high energy regime in the vicinity of the horizon where the fluctuations of the (vacuum) stress tensor due to the high energy gravitational effects can no longer be neglected . This remark demonstrates that a low energy description involving only the characteristic scale $`\frac{1}{2M}`$ may not encompass the essential features of black hole evaporation. In fact it seems that high energy gravitational effects may profoundly affects the correct form of the stress-tensor fluctuations near the horizon in such a way that applicability of semiclassical methods for the treatment of outside observations becomes questionable.

A promising idea towards clarifying this issue comes from the application of the black hole complementarity principle  , which emphasizes that the role played by the high energy effects near the horizon depends essentially on whether we look at physical states from the outside or the inside of the horizon. For example, in the Hilbert space used in the description of an outside static observer, the principle demands that the high energy gravitational effects decouple themselves in form of a materialized stretched horizon where the incoming information are transferred into the outgoing thermal radiation. Thus as long as physical states are strictly localized outside the (stretched) horizon one may assume that the high energy gravitational effects are suppressed in such a way that the correct form of the stress-tensor fluctuations near the horizon can be taken to posses only the appropriate low energy characteristics of a small disturbance of black hole causal structure, so that semiclassical methods may be applied to a good approximation. The conditions of this effective Hilbert space outside the horizon however can not be indicative of the observations made by an infalling observer crossing the horizon because the high energy effects never seem to decouple from the inside of the horizon so that the Hilbert space becomes the wrong Hilbert space for the fundamental low energy description of the physical state of an infalling observer. To avoid any physical inconsistency one requires that there is basically no way to combine the description of the outside observations with the description of observations made by infalling observers crossing the horizon, the two descriptions are complementary descriptions. In this way complementarity is claimed to reflect an important feature of black hole evaporation.

For a detailed understanding of the principle of black hole complementarity it is important to realize that the principle essentially implies two things. Firstly it implies an assertion about the impossibility of realizing the physical state of an outside static observer and the physical state of an infalling observer crossing the horizon in the same Hilbert space. In fact, the two states are related to basically different sets of boundary conditions inside the horizon. This is a statement about the complementary properties of basically different Hilbert spaces used by observers separated by mutually exclusive behavior of their coordinates on the horizon. The second implication is that for the effective description of observations outside the horizon the principle requires a systematic link between a small disturbance of black hole causal structure and the evaporation process through the choice of a physical low energy state. In order to establish such a link we shall study a model in which the stress-tensor fluctuations near the horizon, expressed in coordinates of an outside static observer, are taken to posses the appropriate low energy characteristics of random fluctuations arising from the noise of gravitational effects inside the horizon (the horizon noise). According to the principle of black hole complementarity this effective ansatz, which is studied in this paper, is correct as long as the physical state of an static observer is strictly localized outside the horizon. Inside the horizon the methods of this effective ansatz are generally felt to break down, because the correct form of the physical state of an static observer inside the horizon never seem to posses the low energy characteristics required by that effective ansatz.

This effective ansatz is very useful for posing a general question concerning the dissipative effects of quantized fields in the presence of a black hole. We would expect, namely, that the random fluctuations of the stress tensor near the horizon, expressed in coordinates of an outside static observer, to posses a dissipative character. This kind of behavior is suggested in a very general way by fluctuation-dissipation theorems which systematically link the random fluctuations of a system to a systematic effect, namely the dissipative behavior of the same system over long time intervals. In the present context the dissipation is represented by the black hole evaporation process. Therefore it is important to determine how the random fluctuations of the stress tensor near the horizon can be related by the conditions of a semiclassical theory to the evaporation rate. In this paper we shall study this relationship using a two-dimensional Schwarzschild black hole model. The significance of such a lower dimensional model lies in the fact that it may be considered as a model arising from the geometric optics approximation of a physical spherically symmetric black hole model. Such a restriction to geometric optics approximations and to the corresponding lower dimensional methods simplifies considerably the analysis, and it is generally believed that the qualitative features of the evaporation process will not alter too much by this restriction. The organization of the paper is as follows: In the subsequent two chapters we present the model and discuss heuristic arguments leading to a long range scaling law which controls the outwards stress-tensor fluctuations near the horizon, expressed in the coordinates of an outside static observer, in terms of a large correlations length. In this model we deal with the mean value of these fluctuations which is taken to be systematically determined by the outwards component of the renormalized expectation value of the stress tensor of a quantum field taken in some appropriately chosen quantum state. Therefore the scaling law should basically understood as a condition imposed on this state. In chapter 4 we present a dynamical derivation of the scaling law on the basis of the backreaction effect using a Planckian cutoff condition in the frame of an observer who uses finite coordinates at the horizon. In chapter 5 we show that the scaling law can be represented in form of a fluctuation-dissipation theorem which relates the mean value of the outwards fluctuations of the stress tensor near the horizon to the black hole evaporation rate. Some arguments for deriving corrections to the radiation temperature are then presented in chapter 6. The paper ends with some concluding remarks.

## 2 The Model

We consider a two-dimensional analog of the Schwarzschild black hole of mass $`M`$, described in coordinates which are indicative of the outside observations (Schwarzschild coordinates) by the metric

$$ds^2=\mathrm{\Omega }(r)dt^2+\mathrm{\Omega }^1(r)dr^2,\mathrm{\Omega }(r)=12M/r,$$
(1)
to which a massless scalar quantum field $`\varphi `$ is taken to be minimally coupled. Let the stress tensor of $`\varphi `$ in the (t,r) coordinates be denoted by $`T_{\mu \nu }`$. We are primarily interested in the form of the low energy fluctuations of $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ near the horizon, i.e. in the effective horizon limit $`r2M`$. In a semiclassical treatment these fluctuations must be considered as random fluctuations due to the horizon noise. Denoting their mean value by $`\delta T_{\mu \nu }`$, the first fundamental task is how to control the typical value of $`\delta T_{\mu \nu }(r2M)`$ in terms of quantities accessible to a semiclassical treatment.

In a semicalssical theory the operator $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ arises as a singular operator because it involves the product of the field operator at a single point. Therefore one can generally assume that the typical value of $`\delta T_{\mu \nu }(r2M)`$ may be related to the effective horizon limit $`r2M`$ of the renormalized expectation value $`<T_{\mu \nu }>_\omega ^{ren.}`$ taken in some appropriately chosen quantum state $`\omega `$, namely

$$\delta T_{\mu \nu }(r2M)<T_{\mu \nu }(r2M)>_\omega ^{ren.}.$$
(2)
This relation links two kinds of effects. The right hand side of (2) is the systematic value of the stress tensor near the horizon which is accessible to a semiclassical treatment through the choice of the quantum state $`\omega `$, whereas the left hand side is the random value due to random fluctuations. The relation (2) requires a systematic link between both values. The quantum state $`\omega `$ is, therefore, assumed to link the random value of the stress tensor $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ near the horizon with its systematic counterpart, namely the renormalized expectation value of $`<T_{\mu \nu }(r2M)>_\omega ^{ren.}`$. This has an essential consequence for the characterization of the state $`\omega `$.

## 3 Long range scaling

For the characterization of the state $`\omega `$ the determination of the outwards component of $`<T_{\mu \nu }>_\omega ^{ren.}`$ near the horizon is very important because this component is the indicative quantity of the long-time observations in the outside region. Let $`<T_{uu}>_\omega ^{ren.}`$ denotes the outwards component of $`<T_{\mu \nu }>_\omega ^{ren.}`$ defined with respect to the standard outward (retarded) time $`u`$ of the metric (1), namely

$$u=t\stackrel{}{r},\stackrel{}{r}=r+2M\mathrm{ln}|\frac{r}{2M}1|.$$
(3)
The problem is how to determine the limit $`<T_{uu}(r2M)>_\omega ^{ren.}`$. The relation (2) tells us that $`<T_{uu}(r2M)>_\omega ^{ren.}`$ is related to $`\delta T_{uu}(r2M)`$ which is the mean value of the outwards fluctuations of the stress tensor near the horizon. There is an argument, based on the black hole causal structure, which suggests that these fluctuations are correlated over all scales of lengths. The argument goes as follows: The black hole causal structure implies that null rays which are equispaced along the future null infinity over long distances crowd up near the horizon over small distances. This requires that the outwards fluctuations of the stress tensor near the horizon shall be correlated over almost all scales of lengths. In particular the typical scale of the outward component of the renormalized stress tensor near the horizon may be taken to be set by a large correlation length $`\xi `$ which could have in principle its value many orders of magnitude away from the Schwarzschid radius, giving us the the scale hierarchy

$$\xi >>2M.$$
(4)
The basic strategy is now to express the limit $`<T_{uu}(r2M)>_\omega ^{ren.}`$ in terms of the correlation length $`\xi `$ using dimensional arguments. In doing this we should take into account that, due to the scale hierarchy (4), any physical quantity may depend in principle on the dimensionless ratio $`2M/\xi `$. For the limit $`<T_{uu}(r2M)>_\omega ^{ren.}`$ we get therefore on dimensional grounds the general relation

$$<T_{uu}(r2M)>_\omega ^{ren.}=\xi ^2f(2M/\xi )$$
(5)
where $`f`$ is a scaling function. The particular choice of the scaling function $`f`$ depends on the state $`\omega `$ and the corresponding Hilbert space. For physically admissible states however we expect that the outwards component of the renormalized stress tensor near the horizon does not exhibit a significant sensitivity to a change of the dimensionless scaling variable $`2M/\xi `$ as long as this variable remains small according to (4). This means that the scaling function may be approximated by a constant function. In this way the geometric length $`2M`$ in the relation (5) drops out so that the significant scale is taken to be the correlation length $`\xi `$ only. We are therefore led to predict the long range scaling law

$$<T_{uu}(r2M)>_\omega ^{ren.}\xi ^2.$$
(6)
We should emphasize that the scaling law (6) as it stands is predicted on the basis of heuristic arguments, and a systematic framework for its justification is still missing. Regarding this point the following remark is necessary. One may study the scaling law (6) from the viewpoint of the renormalization group arguments. For this purpose the outwards fluctuations of the stress tensor expressed in the coordinates of a static observer near the horizon should properly be taken to be correlated over a static cutoff length near the horizon, i.e. a cutoff length used by a static observer properly located just outside the horizon. In this way the correlation length $`\xi `$ appears to be systematically linked with the value of such a static cutoff333Actually a static cutoff length near the horizon is significantly large because a static cutoff frequency for outgoing modes tends to zero at the horizon . The requirement that an observable quantity such as the left hand side of (6) should be cutoff-independent appears then to be in conflict with the scaling law (6). In the present case the inconsistency of (6) with the standard renormalization group arguments does not reflect a weakness of our argumentations. In fact the standard renormalization group arguments are not applicable in the present case where, due to the black hole causal structure, a strong sensitivity of the outwards fluctuations near the horizon to the cutoff mechanism can be expected. This point is of particular importance for an understanding of the scaling law (6). It indicates that a systematic framework for the justification of the scaling law (6) can not be based on the standard renormalization group arguments, so another methods must be applied. We shall deal with this issue in the next section where a dynamical derivation of (6) is given. This derivation is mainly based on two assumptions, one involving a Planckian cutoff condition in the frame of an observer who uses finite coordinates at the horizon and one involving the backreaction effect. Although this derivation may not seem to be conclusive, but it emphasizes the fact that the scaling law (6) may systematically be linked with the physical mechanism of a cutoff. In the remaining part of this section we collect some theoretical facts in connection with (6).

It is important to note that the scaling law (6) implies that the characteristic order of the magnitude of the expectation value $`<T_{uu}(r2M)>_\omega ^{ren.}`$ is set by the correlation length of the outwards fluctuations of the stress tensor near the horizon, which is distinctly separated by the scale hierarchy (4) from the characteristic macroscopic length of the system, namely $`2M`$. This feature implies that the quantity $`<T_{uu}(r2M)>_\omega ^{ren.}`$ should basically decouple from the dynamical constraint of the renormalization theory describing the effective change of the late-time configuration of the renormalized expectation value $`<T_{\mu \nu }>_\omega ^{ren.}`$, because this change can generically be expected to occur on those typical macroscopic length scales which are distinctly much smaller than $`\xi `$. That this decoupling actually happens to be the case may be seen from the following consideration:
The dynamical constraint of the renormalization theory can be expressed in form of a hydrodynamic constraint, namely the conservation law

$$^\mu <T_{\mu \nu }>_\omega ^{ren.}=0.$$
(7)
This law can be used to determine the static form of $`<T_{\mu \nu }>_\omega ^{ren.}`$. In doing this we ignore effects related to a preassigned time-dependence of the expectation value $`<T_{\mu \nu }>_\omega ^{ren.}`$. Naturally, we assume that any time-dependence of $`<T_{\mu \nu }>_\omega ^{ren.}`$ should be suppressed in the late-time limit. Therefore we look for the static configuration of the expectation value $`<T_{\mu \nu }>_\omega ^{ren.}`$ which can be found to be

$$<T_\mu ^\nu >_\omega ^{ren.}=T_\mu ^{(1)\nu }+T_\mu ^{(2)\nu }+T_\mu ^{(3)\nu }$$
(8)
where in $`(t,\stackrel{}{r})`$ coordinates

$$T_\mu ^{(1)\nu }=\left(\begin{array}{cc}<T_\alpha ^\alpha (r)>_\omega \mathrm{\Omega }^1(r)H(r)& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{\Omega }^1(r)H(r)\end{array}\right)$$
(9)
$$T_\mu ^{(2)\nu }=\mathrm{\Omega }^1(r)\frac{K}{M^2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 1\\ 1& 1\end{array}\right)$$
(10)
$$T_\mu ^{(3)\nu }=\mathrm{\Omega }^1(r)\frac{Q}{M^2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}2& 0\\ 0& 2\end{array}\right).$$
(11)
Here $`K`$ and $`Q`$ are arbitrary constants, and

$$H(r)=\frac{1}{2}_{2M}^r\left(\frac{d}{dr^{}}\mathrm{\Omega }(r^{})\right)<T_\alpha ^\alpha (r^{})>_\omega 𝑑r^{}.$$
(12)
We can now determine the outwards component of this solution. We find

$$<T_{uu}>_\omega ^{ren.}=\frac{1}{2}(H(r)+2Q/M^2)\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{\Omega }(r)<T_\alpha ^\alpha (r)>_\omega $$
(13)
which near the horizon yields the scaling law

$$<T_{uu}(r2M)>_\omega ^{ren.}Q/M^2.$$
(14)
Thus, if the conservation law is applied, it is possible to describe the outwards component of $`<T_{\mu \nu }>_\omega ^{ren.}`$ near the horizon in terms of an integration constant which is not dependent upon the particular dynamical coupling of $`\varphi `$ to the metric (1). This implies that the specification of that component must reflect a model independent general characteristic of the vacuum state as observed by those observers which are strictly localized outside the black hole. This observation establishes the decoupling of $`<T_{uu}(r2M)>_\omega ^{ren.}`$ from the dynamical constraint of the renormalization theory.

## 4 The dynamical derivation of the scaling law

The heuristic arguments that led to the scaling law (6) can find a dynamical justification by combining a cutoff condition near the horizon with the backreaction effect of black hole thermal radiation. To this aim we first note that the unrenormalized expectation value $`<T_{uu}(r2M)>_\omega `$ is mathematically a singular quantity. The corresponding renormalized value can be obtained firstly by introducing a Planckian cutoff length $`l_c1`$, and secondly by specifying the reference frame to which the cutoff is applied. The most natural reference frame for the imposition of a Planckian cutoff is a reference frame of an infalling observer crossing the horizon. The coordinate system which is indicative of such an observer is a coordinate system which is finite at the horizon, such as the inwards and the outwards Kruskal time-coordinates, defined respectively as

$$V=4Mexp(v/4M),U=4Mexp(u/4M)$$
(15)
where $`v=t+\stackrel{}{r}`$ is the advanced time and $`u`$ is the retarded time as given by (3). In this coordinate system the imposition of a Planckian cutoff on the expectation value $`<T_{uu}(r2M)>_\omega `$ is taken to correspond to the requirement that the stress-tensor fluctuations near the horizon shall be correlated over a cutoff length of Planckian size. The correlation length of these fluctuations may therefore be taken to be $`l_c1`$. This length sets the typical scale of length for the determination of $`<T_{UU}(r2M)>_\omega ^{ren.}`$. Therefore on dimensional grounds we arrive at the relation

$$<T_{UU}(r2M)>_\omega ^{ren.}(l_c)^21$$
(16)
which indicates that the state $`\omega `$ exhibits large stress-tensor fluctuations in the frame of an infalling observer crossing the horizon. It is important to note that this feature which arises from the cutoff condition reflects the characteristic feature of the black hole complementarity principle because it indicates that strong gravitational effects may not decouple from the inside of the horizon, so that the Hilbert space of the state $`\omega `$ becomes the wrong Hilbert space for the low energy description of the physical state of an infalling observer.

To derive the scaling law (6) from the relation (16) we first relate the expectation value $`<T_{UU}>_\omega ^{ren.}`$ to $`<T_{uu}>_\omega ^{ren.}`$ using the coordinate transformation (15) to find

$$<T_{UU}>_\omega ^{ren.}=\frac{1}{4}exp(r/M)V^2(r2M)^2<T_{uu}>_\omega ^{ren.}.$$
(17)
We then try to use this relation for the derivation of the scaling behavior of $`<T_{uu}>_\omega ^{ren.}`$ in the limit $`r2M`$. The first observation is that (17) together with (16) implies that $`<T_{uu}>_\omega ^{ren.}`$ vanishes in the limit $`r2M`$. However this feature is an idealization of neglecting the backreaction due the Hawking effect. The consideration of the backreaction implies that the effective horizon limit $`r2M`$ should be carried out with respect to a mass scale which is slightly smaller than the mass $`M`$, namely

$$r2(M\delta M)$$
(18)
where $`\delta M`$ is of the order of the mass evaporated away during the times just prior to the formation of the horizon. For a sufficiently large black hole one can generally expect that

$$\delta M<<M$$
(19)
holds. But it can be shown that $`\delta M`$ is even much smaller than the Planck mass, namely $`\delta M<<1`$. To show this we consider $`M`$ as a function of the advanced time $`M(v)`$, and let $`v_0`$ be the value of the advanced time at which the horizon would form if we neglect the backreaction effect. The mass $`\delta M`$ can be estimated by

$$\delta M|\frac{dM}{dv}(\stackrel{~}{v})|(v_0\stackrel{~}{v})$$
(20)
where the time $`\stackrel{~}{v}`$ is taken to characterize the onset of the evaporation process, so it must be very close to the horizon formation time $`v_0`$. In general the time difference $`\delta v=v_0\stackrel{~}{v}`$ must be taken as much smaller than the characteristic time-scale of the system which is set by the black hole mass. Therefore one should have

$$\delta v<<2M.$$
(21)
Although the validity of this relation seems to be apparent from the context, but it can be justified also by noting that, for a value $`\stackrel{~}{v}`$ of the advanced time characterized by (21), a null-geodesic after its propagation through a collapsing objects will be characterized by a retarded time $`\stackrel{~}{u}4M\mathrm{ln}(v_0\stackrel{~}{v})/2M`$; which is characteristic to the onset of the evaporation process . The correct order of magnitude of $`\delta M`$ can now be determined if we estimate $`\frac{dM}{dv}(\stackrel{~}{v})`$ by the Hawking law

$$\frac{dM}{dv}\frac{1}{M^2}.$$
(22)
Using this law in (20) we obtain

$$\delta M\frac{1}{M}\frac{\delta v}{M}$$
(23)
which in conjunction with (21) yields

$$\delta M<<1.$$
(24)
This relation can be used to estimate the renormalized expectation value $`<T_{uu}>_\omega ^{ren.}`$ near the horizon using the effective horizon limit $`r2M\delta M`$ of the relation (17) together with (16). We obtain

$$<T_{uu}(r2M)>_\omega ^{ren}\xi ^2$$
(25)
where

$$\xi \frac{2M}{\delta M}>>2M.$$
(26)
We arrive therefore at the scaling law (6).

## 5 A fluctuation-dissipation theorem

The scaling law (6) links the scaling behavior of the renormalized expectation value $`<T_{uu}>_\omega ^{ren.}`$ near the horizon with the large correlations length $`\xi `$ of the stress-tensor fluctuations near the horizon through the choice of the quantum state $`\omega `$ in the outside region of the black hole. One can therefore expect this state $`\omega `$ to posses a dissipative character related to these fluctuations. To see this we first write (6) in the form

$$<T_{uu}(r2M)>_\omega ^{ren.}\gamma M^2$$
(27)
where $`\gamma (2M/\xi )^2<<1`$. Now combining (27) with the the Hawking law (22) we get

$$<T_{uu}(r2M)>_\omega ^{ren.}\gamma \frac{dM}{dv}.$$
(28)
This formulation of the scaling law (6) is instructive because it shows that the quantum state $`\omega `$ links the outwards fluctuations of the stress tensor near the horizon to a long-time dissipative behavior, namely the evaporation rate of the black hole. Therefore, the scaling law if combined with the Hawking law may be brought into a form suggesting a fluctuation-dissipation theorem. One can alternatively consider the arguments presented in the previous chapter as demonstrating as to how such a theorem can be derived on dynamical basis from a cutoff condition near the horizon.

It is important to add the following remarks concerning the correct physical interpretation of (28). The fluctuations that contribute to the left hand side of (28) cause a small disturbance of the black hole metric and the corresponding causal structure. The relation (28) describes how this disturbance is related to the evaporation rate via the choice of the quantum state $`\omega `$ for the undisturbed system, i.e, the black hole thermal state. This is is very much in the spirit of the general framework of the response theory which relates the response of a system to a small disturbance to the equilibrium characteristics of the undisturbed system.

## 6 Corrections to the Hawking effect

It may be of interest to examine the effect of the scale-separation $`\xi >>2M`$ on the Hawking effect. Generally, one expects to find a deviation of the black hole temperature from the Hawking temperature by a term of the relative order $`(2M/\xi )^\alpha `$ where $`\alpha `$ is a characteristic exponent. To determine this exponent we proceed as follows: In two dimensions an outwards flux of thermal radiation can be characterized at large $`r`$ by the energy momentum tensor

$$\frac{\pi }{12}T^2\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 1\\ 1& 1\end{array}\right)$$
(29)
in which $`T`$ is the temperature. From (29) one infers that a static, spherically symmetric configuration of matter which describes the Hawking radiation at large $`r`$ must have a stress tensor satisfying the condition

$$T_t^t(r)T_t^r(r),asr\mathrm{}$$
(30)
which means that the energy density and the flux are asymptotically equal. If this condition is applied to the general solution (8) one gets

$$K\frac{1}{2}M^2[H(\mathrm{})<T_\alpha ^\alpha (\mathrm{})>_\omega +2Q]=0.$$
(31)
To derive the Hawking radiation from such a relation one usually assumes two additional requirements. The first one corresponds to the consistency of the trace anomaly with respect to the two dimensional metric (1), namely

$$<T_\alpha ^\alpha (r)>_\omega ^{ren.}=\frac{M}{6\pi r^3}.$$
(32)
The second requirement concerns the finiteness of the energy momentum tensor at the horizon with respect to a coordinate system which is finite there. In order to implement the second assumption the standard derivation takes the value $`Q=0`$ which arises as a pure effect of the transformation law (17) in the limit $`r2M`$. There is however some objections for considering the value $`Q=0`$ as the correct one, because the finiteness condition of a quantum stress tensor at the horizon requires us to investigate a cutoff condition in the frame of an observer who uses finite coordinates at the horizon, and we have seen that this leads to the scaling law (6) which together with (14) predicts a non-vanishing value $`(2M/\xi )^2`$ for $`Q`$. Thus for the derivation of the Hawking radiation we may take the consistency of the trace anomaly together with this value of $`Q`$. At large $`r`$ the latter condition predicts via the last term in (8), namely the tensor $`T_\mu ^{(3)\nu }`$, a deviation of the thermal radiation from the Hawking temperature of the relative order $`(2M/\xi )^2`$, leading to the characteristic exponent $`\alpha =2`$ which coincides in the present case with the dimensionality of space-time.

We should also remark that the non-vanishing value $`Q(2M/\xi )^2`$ predicts that the expectation value $`<T_{\mu \nu }>_\omega ^{ren.}`$ has at large $`r`$ a term corresponding to a background heat bath with the temperature $`1/\xi `$. This follows if one compares the tensor $`T_\mu ^{(3)\nu }`$ at large $`r`$ with the stress tensor of an equilibrium gas, namely

$$\frac{\pi }{12}(kT)^2\left(\begin{array}{cc}2& 0\\ 0& 2\end{array}\right).$$
(33)
Such a model may have some power at the cosmological level, in that the background heat bath may act as a model for the thermal equilibrium gas of an associated cosmological horizon. In this way the cutoff condition on the horizon may be linked with a small cosmological constant.

## 7 Concluding remarks

The paper has examined a new method for introducing a quantum state $`\omega `$ for the outside region of a black hole. The distinct feature of this method as compared with the standard methods for introducing black hole states, such as those discussed in  , is that it links via the scaling law (6) the choice of the quantum state $`\omega `$ outside the horizon with the noise of gravitational effects inside the horizon, and in this respect it emphasizes a general relationship between a small disturbance of the black hole causal structure and the choice of an external quantum state in the absence of this disturbance. One may expect that the implications that arise from this viewpoint may improve our uderstanding about the nature of black hole evaporation.

Acknowledgement
The author thanks the office of scientific research of Sh.Beheshti University for financial support.


text:
# On some properties of the manifolds with skew-symmetric torsion and holonomy SU(n) and Sp(n)

## 1. Introduction

Let $`(M,J,g)`$ be a Hermitian manifold. Then there is a unique Hermitian connection $``$ with torsion $`T`$ such that $`g(X,T(Y,Z))`$ is totally skew-symmetric. This connection was used by Bismut to prove a local index formula for the Dolbeault operator when the manifold is not Kähler. Metric connections with such torsion have also applications in type II string theory, supersymmetric $`\sigma `$-models and the geometry of black hole moduli spaces - see e.g.  for more references. For some applications the holonomy of the connection is restricted to a proper subgroup of $`U(n)`$. We concentrate here on $`SU(n)`$ and $`Sp(n)`$ as a possible (restricted) holonomy groups.

In (4,0) supersymmetric $`\sigma `$-models with Wess-Zumino term the target manifold has a metric connection with skew-symmetric torsion with holonomy in $`Sp(n)`$. Such manifolds carry a triple of anticommuting complex structures called hypercomplex structure compatible with the metric and are known in the physics literature as HKT manifolds . A lot of information about their geometry is known (from a mathematical viewpoint see ). In particular it is known that there is a local existence result, reduction theory, non-trivial Dolbeault cohomology properties and many examples. So a natural question is (see ) Do all hypercomplex manifolds admit HKT structure? Moreover for some basic examples as $`SU(3)`$ and $`S^1\times S^{4n1}`$ there is also a local deformation rigidity - any small deformation of the invariant hypercomplex structure there admits HKT structure . This was generalized by M. Verbitsky  to all manifolds for which $``$-closed (2,0)-forms are (2,0)-components of a closed forms. It rises also the question Whether every small hypercomplex deformation of HKT structure is HKT? One of the purposes of this paper is to provide negative answer to both questions.

When the holonomy group of connection with skew-symmetric torsion on Hermitian manifold is contained in $`SU(n)`$ then the manifold has vanishing first Chern class. Such models in string theory has been considered first by A. Strominger  and C. Hull . On a large class of manifolds however, the models suggested in  are degenerate (with vanishing torsion) . More recently $`SU(3)`$-structures on non-Kähler manifolds have attracted attention as a more general models for string compactifications and many examples have been found: . It was conjectured in  that any compact complex manifold with vanishing first Chern class admits a Hermitian metric and connection with totally skew-symmetric torsion and (restricted) holonomy in $`SU(n)`$. The other aim of this paper is to provide counter-example of this conjecture. Moreover we show that, as in the hypercomplex case, there is no stability under small deformations.

The examples we provide are all compact quotients of nilpotent Lie groups. To show non-existence, we use the ”symmetrization” process and reduce the problem to non-existence of invariant structures with the given property. Then previous works by Dotti, Fino, Salamon and Parton  lead to the results.

The paper is organized as follows: In Section 2 we provide the material about the symmetrization of geometric structures on compact quotients of Lie groups. In Section 3 we provide a 2-step nilmanifold example of hypercomplex manifolds which do not admit HKT structure and a one parameter family of hypercomplex structures, such that for one value of the parameter it admits HKT structure, while for the other values it does not. Finally, in Section 4, we first prove that a compact Hermitian manifold with holomorphically trivial canonical bundle and vanishing Ricci tensor of its Bismut connection is (globally) conformally balanced. Then, we use the results from Section 2 to show that in a particular 2-parameter family of complex structures on the Iwasawa manifold for all values of the parameter except one it does not admit balanced metrics.

## 2. Invariant structures on compact quotients of Lie groups

In this section we prove some general facts about ”symmetrizing” geometric structures on compact quotients of a Lie group. We start with the following theorem, which is a consequence of \[25, Lemma 6.2\] where it is shown that any simply-connected Lie group which admits a discrete subgroup with compact quotient is unimodular and in particular admits a bi-invariant volume form $`d\mu `$. For such manifolds we have:

###### Theorem 2.1.

Suppose that $`M=\mathrm{\Gamma }\backslash G`$ is a compact quotient of a simply-connected Lie group with a Riemannian metric $`g`$. Denote by $`d\mu `$ a bi-invariant volume form and define a new (left-invariant) metric by

$$\overline{g}(A,B)=_Mg_m(A_m,B_m)𝑑\mu .$$

Then we have the following:

(a) $`\overline{g}(\overline{}_AB,C)=_{mM}g_m(_AB|_m,C_m)𝑑\mu ,`$ where $`A,B,C`$ are projections of left-invariant vector fields from $`G`$ to $`M`$.

Similarly if $`B_1,\mathrm{},B_k`$ are projections of left-invariant vector fields from $`G`$ to $`M`$ and

$$\overline{\omega }(B_1,\mathrm{},B_k)=_{mM}\omega _m(B_1|_m,\mathrm{},B_k|_m)𝑑\mu $$

where $`\omega `$ is a k-form on $`M`$, then we have

(b) $`d\overline{\omega }(B_1,\mathrm{},B_{k+1})=_{mM}𝑑\omega |_m(B_1|_m,\mathrm{}B_{k+1}|_m)d\mu .`$

###### Proof.

We follow the lines of . First note that

$$_MXf𝑑\mu =_M_X(fd\mu )=_Md(i_X\mathrm{𝑓𝑑}\mu )=\mathit{0},$$

for any function $`f`$ and left-invariant vector field $`X`$. Next, we remind the formula for the Levi-Civita connection:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}g(_XY,Z)\hfill & =\hfill & 1/2(Yg(X,Z)Zg(X,Y)+Xg(Y,Z)+\hfill \\ & & g([X,Y],Z+g([Z,X],Y)g([Y,Z],X)).\hfill \end{array}$$

Now, using the above identity for left-invariant fields $`A,B,C`$, we have:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}_Mg_m(_AB|_m,C_m)𝑑\mu & =& _Mg([A,B]_m,C_m)+g([C,A]_m,B_m)g([B,C]_m,A_m))d\mu \hfill \\ & =& \overline{g}([A,B],C)+\overline{g}([C,A],B)\overline{g}([B,C],A)\hfill \\ & =& \overline{g}(\overline{}_AB,C)\hfill \end{array}$$

which proves (a). Using the definition for the exterior differential on k-forms, we obtain (b) in a similar fashion.∎

As a consequence, we have the following:

###### Theorem 2.2.

Suppose that $`M`$ is as in Theorem 2.1 and admits a left-invariant complex structure $`J`$. Suppose moreover that $`F`$ is a Kähler form of a non-invariant Hermitian metric $`g`$. Then the left-invariant form defined as:

$$\alpha (A_1,\mathrm{},A_{2n2})=_MF^{n1}|_m(A_1|_m,\mathrm{}A_{2n2}|_m)d\mu ,$$

for left-invariant vector fields, is equal to $`\overline{F}^{n1}`$ for some Kähler form of a left-invariant Hermitian metric. Moreover if $`dF^{n1}=0`$ then $`d\overline{F}^{n1}=0`$.

###### Proof.

Since $`\alpha `$ is a strictly positive $`(n1,n1)`$-form, by a linear algebra argument (see , p.279) it can be written as $`\overline{F}^{n1}`$, where $`\overline{F}`$ is a strictly positive $`(1,1)`$-form. Then it is a Kähler form of an invariant metric and the last assertion follows from Theorem 2.1. ∎

## 3. Examples of hypercomplex manifolds which do not admit HKT metric

A hypercomplex structure on a manifold $`M`$ is a triple of complex structures $`\{J_i\}_{i=1,2,3}`$ satisfying the quaternions relations $`J_i^2=I`$, $`i=1,2,3`$, $`J_1J_2=J_2J_1=J_3`$. Let $`g`$ be a Riemannian metric on $`M`$. Then $`M`$ is said to be hyper-Hermitian if it is Hermitian with respect to every $`J_i`$, $`i=1,2,3`$.

A hyper-Hermitian manifold $`(M,\{J_i\}_{i=1,2,3})`$ is an HKT manifold if there is a connection $``$ such that

$$g=0,J_i=0,i=1,2,3,c(X,Y,Z)=g(X,T(Y,Z))\text{a 3-form}.$$

If such connection exists it is unique. A hyper-Hermitian manifold $`M`$ will admit a HKT connection if and only if $`J_1dF_1=J_2dF_2=J_3dF_3`$, where $`F_i`$ is the Kähler form associated to $`(J_i,g)`$, .

A hypercomplex structure on a Lie algebra $`𝔤`$ is a triple of complex structures $`\{J_i\}_{i=1,2,3}`$ satisfying the quaternions relations $`J_i^2=I`$, $`i=1,2,3`$, $`J_1J_2=J_2J_1=J_3`$.

The hypercomplex structure will be called abelian if

$$[J_iX,J_iY]=[X,Y],X,Y𝔤.$$

Let $`g`$ a inner product compatible with the hypercomplex structure.

By  $`(\{J_i\}_{i=1,2,3},g)`$ is an HKT structure on $`𝔤`$ if and only if $`g`$ satisfy the extra condition

$$\begin{array}{c}g([J_1X,J_1Y],Z)+g([J_1Y,J_1Z],X)+g([J_1Z,J_1X],Y)=\hfill \\ g([J_2X,J_2Y],Z)+g([J_2Y,J_2Z],X)+g([J_2Z,J_2X],Y)=\hfill \\ g([J_3X,J_3Y],Z)+g([J_3Y,J_3Z],X)+g([J_3Z,J_3X],Y),\hfill \end{array}$$

for any $`X,Y,Z𝔤`$.

When the hypercomplex structure is abelian the previous condition is always satisfied for any inner product $`g`$ compatible with the hypercomplex structure.

We say that a Lie group $`G`$ has a invariant HKT structure $`(\{J_i\}_{i=1,2,3},g)`$ if the hypercomplex structure $`\{J_i\}_{i=1,2,3}`$ and the metric $`g`$ arise from corresponding left-invariant tensors. In  it is shown that, if $`G`$ is a 2-step nilpotent Lie group, the hypercomplex structure of an invariant HKT structure is abelian. Then one has the following:

###### Lemma 3.1.

A 2-step nilpotent Lie group $`G`$ with a non abelian hypercomplex structure admits no invariant HKT metric compatible with such hypercomplex structure.

If we restrict to the 8-dimensional case all simply connected nilpotent Lie groups which carry invariant abelian hypercomplex structures are described in . There are three such groups and they are central extensions of the real, complex or quaternionic Heisenberg group respectively:

$$N_1=^3\times H_5,N_2=^2\times H_3^{},N_3=\times H_7.$$

As remarked in  $`N_1`$ and $`N_2`$ can only carry abelian hypercomplex structures, but $`N_3`$ has a non abelian hypercomplex structure so it admits no invariant HKT metric.

The Lie algebra $`𝔫_3`$ of $`N_3`$ has structure equations

$$\begin{array}{c}[e_1,e_2]=[e_3,e_4]=e_6,\hfill \\ [e_1,e_3]=[e_2,e_4]=e_7,\hfill \\ [e_1,e_4]=[e_2,e_3]=e_8\hfill \end{array}$$

and a non abelian hypercomplex structure is given by

$$\begin{array}{c}J_1(e_1)=e_2,J_1(e_3)=e_4,J_1(e_5)=e_6,J_1(e_7)=e_8,\hfill \\ J_2(e_1)=e_3,J_2(e_2)=e_4,J_2(e_5)=e_7,J_2(e_6)=e_8.\hfill \end{array}$$

In  it is shown that a 8-dimensional nilpotent Lie algebra $`𝔤`$ which admit a hypercomplex structure is 2-step, its first Betti number satisfies $`b_1(𝔤)4`$ and there exists a decomposition $`𝔤=𝔤_1𝔤_2`$ such that
i) $`dim𝔤_i=4`$;
ii) $`𝔤_i`$ is invariant with respect to the hypercomplex structure;
iii) $`[𝔤,𝔤]𝔤_2𝔷`$, ($`𝔷`$: center of $`𝔤`$).

If $`b_1(𝔤)=4,5`$ the full description of all 8-dimensional nilpotent Lie algebras with a hypercomplex structure is given in . If $`b_1(𝔤)=6,7`$ the hypercomplex structure is abelian.

If $`G`$ is a simply-connected nilpotent Lie group and, if the structure equations of its Lie algebra are rational, then there exists a discrete subgroup $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of $`G`$ for which $`M=\mathrm{\Gamma }\backslash G`$ is compact . Any invariant HKT structure on $`G`$ will pass to a HKT structure on $`M`$.

###### Theorem 3.1.

Any compact quotient $`M=\mathrm{\Gamma }\backslash G`$ of a 2-step nilpotent Lie group $`G`$ with a non abelian left-invariant hypercomplex structure $`\{J_i\}_{i=1,2,3}`$ admits no HKT metric compatible with such hypercomplex structure.

###### Proof.

Suppose that $`M`$ admits a (non invariant) HKT metric $`g`$ compatible with the non abelian left-invariant hypercomplex structure $`\{J_i\}_{i=1,2,3}`$. We will construct now, by integration, a HKT metric on $`G`$ which is left-invariant and so obtain a contradiction with the previous Lemma.

$`G`$ admits a bi-invariant volume element $`d\mu `$, which induces one on the compact quotient $`M`$ and possibly after rescaling, we can suppose that the volume of $`M`$ is equal to 1.

Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i`$ the Kähler form associated to $`(J_i,g)`$, then the condition that $`g`$ is a HKT metric is equivalent to

$$J_1d\mathrm{\Omega }_1=J_2d\mathrm{\Omega }_2=J_3d\mathrm{\Omega }_3.$$

Define

$$F_i(A,B):=_{mM}(\mathrm{\Omega }_i)_m(A_m,B_m)𝑑\mu ,i=1,2,3,$$

where $`A,B`$ are projections on $`M`$ of left-invariant vectors fields on $`G`$. Then, since $`J_i`$ is left-invariant it is easy to check that $`F_i`$ is $`J_i`$-invariant, i.e. the Kähler form of a positive definite metric $`g_0`$ and that it is left-invariant and defined as in Theorem 2.1.

From Theorem 2.1 we conclude that

$$dF_i(A,B,C)=_M𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_i(A,B,C)𝑑\mu .$$

Then one has

$$\begin{array}{c}J_1dF_1(A,B,C)=dF_1(J_1A,J_1B,J_1C)=_M𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_1(J_1A,J_1B,J_1C)𝑑\mu \\ =_MJ_1𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_1(A,B,C)𝑑\mu =_MJ_2𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_2(A,B,C)𝑑\mu =_M𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_2(J_2A,J_2B,J_2C)𝑑\mu \\ =dF_2(J_2A,J_2B,J_2C)=J_2dF_2(A,B,C),\end{array}$$

so $`g_0`$ is a left-invariant HKT metric on $`G`$, which is impossible. ∎

Isomorphism classes of hypercomplex structures on 8-dimensional nilpotent Lie groups are studied in . We show that there exists on a 2-step nilpotent Lie group a one parameter family of hypercomplex structures which is abelian for one value of the parameter and non-abelian for the others. Consider the family of Lie algebras $`𝔤_t`$ with structure equations:

$$\begin{array}{c}[e_1,e_2]=te_6,[e_3,e_4]=(1t)e_6,\hfill \\ [e_1,e_3]=te_7,[e_2,e_4]=(t1)e_7,\hfill \\ [e_1,e_4]=te_8,[e_2,e_3]=(1t)e_8\hfill \end{array}$$

and the hypercomplex structure

$$\begin{array}{c}J_1e_1=e_2,J_1e_3=e_4,J_1e_5=e_6,J_1e_7=e_8,\hfill \\ J_2e_1=e_3,J_2e_2=e_4,J_2e_5=e_7,J_2e_6=e_8.\hfill \end{array}$$

For any $`t0,1`$, $`𝔤_t`$ is isomorphic to the Lie algebra $`𝔫_3`$ of $`N_3`$. Indeed, one has that $`𝔤_t=𝔤_1𝔤_2`$, with $`𝔤_2=𝔷=\text{span}\{e_5,e_6,e_7,e_8\}`$ the center of $`𝔤`$. Then if one considers the endomorphism $`J_Z`$ ($`Z𝔤_2`$) of $`𝔤_1`$, defined by

(1)
$$g(J_ZX,Y)=g([X,Y],Z),$$

where $`g`$ is the inner product on $`𝔤_t`$ such that the basis $`\{e_1,\mathrm{},e_8\}`$ is orthonormal, one can check that $`J_Z`$ is invertible for any non zero $`Z𝔤_2`$ (compare also \[22, Example 7.4\]).

The hypercomplex structure is abelian for $`t=1/2`$ and non-abelian otherwise. Since the Lie algebras are isomorphic for all $`t0,1`$, we obtain a one-parameter family of invariant hypercomplex structures on the compact quotient $`M`$ of $`N_3`$. Moreover they are not equivalent since one is abelian and the others are non-abelian. This proves the following:

###### Theorem 3.2.

The HKT structure is not stable under deformations, i.e. there exists a small hypercomplex deformation of HKT structure which is not HKT.

###### Remark 3.1.

M. Verbitsky  informed us that stability of HKT structures under deformations holds for a large class of hypercomplex manifolds which include $`S^1\times S^{4n1}`$ and $`SU(3)`$. He showed that any compact HKT manifold for which $`\mathrm{\Omega }=F_2+iF_3`$ is (2,0)-part (with respect to $`J_1`$) of a closed 2-form is HKT stable under small deformations. This follows from his characterization of HKT manifolds as hypercomplex manifolds with strictly q-positive $``$-closed (2,0)-form . In fact strictly q-positivity is an open condition and if $`\mathrm{\Omega }=P^{(2,0)}\alpha `$ where $`P^{(2,0)}`$ is the projection onto (2,0)-forms and $`d\alpha =0`$, then $`\mathrm{\Omega }_t=P_t^{(2,0)}\alpha `$ provides strictly q-positive $`_t`$-closed form for deformed hypercomplex structure $`J_1^t,J_2^t,J_3^t`$ for small $`t`$.

## 4. Compact complex nilmanifolds which do not admit a metric with vanishing Ricci tensor of the Bismut connection

Let $`(M,g,J)`$ be a Hermitian manifold with Kähler form $`F`$. Then the Bismut connection is the only connection with torsion $`T^B`$ given by:

$$g(X,T^B(Y,Z))=JdF(X,Y,Z)=dF(JX,JY,JZ).$$

There is also a Chern connection with torsion $`T^C`$ uniquely determined by

$$g(X,T^C(Y,Z))=dF(JX,Y,Z).$$

Both connections have Ricci forms, representing up to a constant the first Chern class of the complex structure. Then, as a consequence of formula (2.7.6) in , the relation between the two Ricci forms is:

(2)
$$Ric^B=Ric^C+d\delta F,$$

where $`\delta F`$ is the co-differential (the adjoint of the differential) of $`F`$. Moreover from (24) in  we have the formula for the conformal change $`\stackrel{~}{g}=e^fg`$:

$$d\stackrel{~}{\delta }\stackrel{~}{F}=d\delta F+dJdf,$$

where by definition $`Jdf(X)=df(JX)`$. For $`d\delta F`$ we also have:

###### Lemma 4.1.

For a compact Hermitian manifold $`(M,J,g)`$ with Kähler form $`F`$ with co-differential $`\delta F`$ , $`d\delta F=0`$ iff M is balanced (i.e. $`\delta F=0`$ or equivalently $`dF^{n1}=0`$).

###### Proof.

If $`<,>`$ is the extension of the metric $`g`$ on 2-forms, then

$$0=_M<d\delta F,F>vol=_M<\delta F,\delta F>vol$$

and the result follows.

From here there is the following:

###### Theorem 4.1.

Suppose that a compact complex manifold $`(M,J)`$ admits a holomorphic non-vanishing $`(n,0)`$-form. Then, if the Ricci tensor of the Bismut connection of some Hermitian metric $`g`$ vanishes, $`(M,J,g)`$ is conformally balanced and in particular admits a balanced metric.

###### Proof.

First notice that, for the Ricci curvature of the Chern connection on $`M`$, we have the well known formula

$$Ric^C=dJd\mathrm{log}det(g_{\alpha \overline{\beta }}).$$

Let $`\sigma `$ denotes the holomorphic (n,0)-form. It is locally represented as

$$\sigma =fdz^1\mathrm{}dz^n,$$

for a holomorphic function $`f`$. Then $`|\sigma |^2=|f|^2det(g_{\alpha \overline{\beta }})`$ and

$$dJd\mathrm{log}|f|^2det(g_{\alpha \overline{\beta }})=dJd\mathrm{log}det(g_{\alpha \overline{\beta }})$$

so

$$Ric^C=dJd\mathrm{log}|\sigma |^2.$$

Now from (2) above it follows that $`d\delta F=dJdlog|\sigma |^2`$ and after a conformal change $`F|\sigma |^2F`$ we can make $`d\delta F`$ equal to 0.

Then from the Lemma above the new metric is balanced. ∎

Note that on any $`2n`$-dimensional compact quotient of a nilpotent Lie group with an invariant complex structure there exists an invariant closed $`(n,0)`$-form. For the next examples we need to use the definition of Lie algebra in terms of structure equations for the differentials of invariant 1-forms. It is equivalent to the standard one giving the commutators of vector fields. Similarly we can define complex structures as endomorphisms of the space of invariant 1-forms. Consider now the family of Lie algebras $`𝔤_{s,t}`$ defined by:

$$\begin{array}{c}de^i=0,i=1,\mathrm{},4\hfill \\ de^5=se^1e^2+2se^3e^4+te^1e^3te^2e^4,\hfill \\ de^6=te^1e^4+te^2e^3\hfill \end{array}$$

and the complex structure $`J`$

$$Je^1=e^2,Je^3=e^4,Je^5=e^6.$$

For the corresponding $`(1,0)`$-forms

$$\omega _1=e^1+ie^2,\omega _2=e^3+ie^4,\omega _3=e^5+ie^6$$

one has that

$$\begin{array}{c}d\omega _i=0,i=1,2,\hfill \\ d\omega _3=\frac{1}{2}is\omega _1\overline{\omega }_1+is\omega _2\overline{\omega }_2+t\omega _1\omega _2\hfill \end{array}$$

and thus $`d(\omega _1\omega _2\omega _3)=0`$, so there is a holomorphic (3,0)-form on the corresponding simply connected Lie group.

For any $`t0`$, the Lie algebras $`𝔤_{s,t}`$ are isomorphic to the real Lie algebra underlying the complex Heisenberg group

$$G=\{\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& z^1& z^3\\ 0& 1& z^2\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right):z^i\}$$

with structure equations

$$\begin{array}{c}de^i=0,i=1,\mathrm{},4,\hfill \\ de^5=e^1e^3e^2e^4,\hfill \\ de^6=e^1e^4+e^2e^3,\hfill \end{array}$$

since $`𝔤_{s,t}=𝔤_1𝔤_2`$ with

$$\begin{array}{c}𝔤_1^4=\text{span}\{e_1,e_2,e_3,e_4\},\hfill \\ 𝔤_2^2=\text{span}\{e_5,e_6\}\hfill \end{array}$$

and the endomorphism $`J_Z`$ defined by (1) of $`𝔤_1`$ is non-singular, for any non zero $`Z𝔤_2`$ (compare also \[22, Example 6.1 and 6.5\]).

Now for any invariant Hermitian metric its Kähler form is of the form:

$$\begin{array}{cc}F=\hfill & x_1i\omega _1\overline{\omega }_1+(x_2+ix_3)\omega _1\overline{\omega }_2+(x_2ix_3)\overline{\omega }_1\omega _2\hfill \\ & +(x_4+ix_5)\omega _1\overline{\omega }_3+(x_4ix_5)\overline{\omega }_1\omega _3+x_6i\omega _2\overline{\omega }_2\hfill \\ & +(x_7+ix_8)\omega _2\overline{\omega }_3+(x_7ix_8)\overline{\omega }_2\omega _3+x_9i\omega _3\overline{\omega }_3,\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`x_i,i=1,\mathrm{},9`$, are real numbers such that the restriction of $`F`$ to any complex line is non zero. In particular one has that $`x_1,x_6,x_9>0`$. The invariant Hermitian metric is balanced if and only if $`F`$ is orthogonal to the image of $`d`$ in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2𝔤^{}`$ (see ). The condition that $`F`$ is orthogonal to $`d\omega _3`$ becomes $`s(x_1+\frac{1}{2}x_6)=0`$. Then, if $`s0`$, there is no invariant balanced Hermitian metric on $`𝔤_{s,t}`$. If $`s=0`$ the complex structure is the bi-invariant complex structure $`J_0`$ on the complex Heisenberg group. In this way the Iwasawa manifold $`M=\mathrm{\Gamma }\backslash G`$ (compact quotient of the complex Heisenberg group by the discrete subgroup $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ for which $`z^i`$ are Gaussian integers) comes equipped with a family $`J_{s,t}`$ of invariant complex structures, for $`t0`$, $`s,t`$ real and we have:

###### Theorem 4.2.

The Iwasawa manifold $`(M,J_{s,t})`$ admits a metric with vanishing Ricci tensor of the Bismut connection if and only if $`s=0`$.

###### Proof.

Suppose that $`s0`$. If there exists a metric with vanishing Ricci tensor of the Bismut connection, then by Theorem 4.1 there exists a balanced metric, since there is a holomorphic (3,0)-form. Now, by Theorem 2.2, there exists an invariant balanced metric. However this is impossible as we showed earlier. Now when $`s=0`$, there is an invariant balanced metric $`g`$. For any such metric $`Ric^C=Ric^B=dd^clog|\sigma |^2`$ as in the proof of Theorem 4.1. Then the conformal change $`\stackrel{~}{g}=e^{|\sigma |}g`$ (up to a constant) provides a metric with vanishing Ricci tensor of the Bismut connection. The result also follows from Proposition 6.1 in . ∎

###### Remark 4.1.

With the above result we provide a counter-example of the Conjecture 1.1 in . Moreover it shows that the property ”vanishing Ricci tensor of the Bismut connection” is not stable under small deformations.

###### Remark 4.2.

Similar deformation appears in  where the authors prove that the existence of balanced metric is not stable under small deformations. The arguments presented here however are different.

Acknowledgements We are grateful to G.Papadopoulos and M.Verbitsky for their remarks. G.G. wishes to thank ”Abdus Salam” ICTP, Trieste, where the work on this paper started in the Summer of 2002.

References

Authors address: G. Grantcharov, Department of Mathematics, Florida International University, U.S.A. E-mail: grantchg@fiu.edu.

A. Fino: Dipartimento di Matematica, Università di Torino, Via Carlo Alberto 10, Torino, Italy. E-mail: annamaria.fino@unito.it.