text:
# H𝛼 Rotation Curves of 𝑧∼1 Galaxies: Unraveling the Evolution of the Tully-Fisher RelationBased on observations collected at the European Southern Observatory, Cerro Paranal, Chile

## 1 Introduction

Like the fundamental plane for early type galaxies (Dressler et al., 1987) the Tully-Fisher relation for disc galaxies (Tully and Fisher, 1977) embodies fundamental implications for the relationship between the mass of the galaxy, its star-formation history, specific angular momentum and dark matter content and distribution.

Broadly speaking, there are two competing models to explain the Tully-Fisher relation. The first of these is that it is a consequence of self-regulated star formation in discs with different masses (e.g., Silk, 1997), i.e., the competition of disc instability (which promotes star formation) with supernovae induced porosity (which inhibits star-formation). The model is not the complete answer, however, since it does not explain the mass-to-light ratios or the scale-lengths of the discs. In the second model the Tully-Fisher relation is a direct consequence of the cosmological equivalence between mass and circular velocity (e.g., Mo et al., 1998; Steinmetz and Navarro, 1999). This formalism is part of what has become the standard model for the growth of structure - the hierarchical merging model in which the gravitational effects of dark matter drive the evolution of galaxies and large-scale structure (e.g., Kauffmann et al., 1993). Models of this type have the advantage of providing testable predictions about the sizes, surface densities, and rotation curves of galaxies as a function of redshift. However, as emphasized by Steinmetz and Navarro (1999), although the Tully-Fisher relation can naturally be explained by hierarchical merging models, the normalization and evolution of the Tully-Fisher relation depend strongly on the prescription used for the star formation and on the cosmological parameters.

It is now well established that massive disc galaxies exist out to redshifts $`z1`$ (Vogt et al., 1996, 1997; Schade et al., 1996; Lilly et al., 1998). For a given size scale, the number density of these disc galaxies is approximately the same at $`z0.8`$ as is observed locally. Overall, the results at moderate redshift ($`z0.5`$) are rather mixed. Depending on the sample selection, the technique used to estimate the rotation speed, the median redshift of the sample, and the wavelength at which comparisons are made, there are claims in the literature that the Tully-Fisher relation either brightens or dims with redshift (see e.g., Vogt et al., 1996, 1997; Simard and Pritchet, 1998; Rix et al., 1997; Ziegler et al., 2002). To help resolve this controversy and to push to higher redshift where evidence for evolution of disc galaxies will likely be stronger and more obvious, we set out to obtain spatially resolved rotation curves at the highest redshifts where large samples are available. Obtaining spatially resolved rotation curves becomes quite difficult at such high redshifts since \[OII\]$`\lambda `$3727 is redshifted into a region with many strong night sky lines and the sensitivity of CCDs declines rapidly. Instead we have chosen to observe the H$`\alpha `$ line, reshifted to the infrared J-band. H$`\alpha `$ is typically 2.5 times stronger than \[OII\] (Kennicutt, 1992) and being at longer wavelength, is less affected by dust extinction.

## 2 Sample Selection

To gauge the evolution of the Tully-Fisher relation we compare a local with a high redshift sample of highly inclined, “normal” spiral galaxies. The high redshift sample consists of objects with measured spectroscopic redshifts. To be able to measure H$`\alpha `$ in the near-infrared we required $`z>0.6`$. Targets were selected from the CFRS / LDSS redshift surveys, the clusters MS1054, AC103 and the Hawaii deep field SSA22 (Lilly et al., 1995; Glazebrook et al., 1995; van Dokkum, 1999; Couch et al., 1998; Cowie et al., 1996, respectively, and references therein). Furthermore, we included two targets from the VLT science archive. For the majority of these sources we have HST I-band111Based on observations made with the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope, obtained from the data archive at the Space Telescope Institute. STScI is operated by the association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc. under the NASA contract NAS 5-26555. or at least VLT J-band images. For all of them we have obtained H$`\alpha `$ ISAAC long-slit spectra to determine spatially resolved rotation curves. For this purpose we have selected these sources to be spatially extended on the images (diameters mainly $`>`$2”) and to have high inclination angles ($`i>30^{}`$, $`i60^{}`$). Furthermore, we chose only objects with exponential light profiles to ensure that we were observing disc galaxies. The mean redshift of our high-z sample is $`z0.92`$ (see Tab. 1).

To construct a complementary sample of local galaxies we searched the literature for objects with accessible CCD B-band images (obtained from the NASA Extragalactic Database, NED, or ESO science archive), published distances based on primary distance indicators or mean group velocities (Freedman et al., 2001; Pierce and Tully, 1992; Puche and Carignan, 1988; Tully and Pierce, 2000; Ferrarese et al., 2000; Giuricin et al., 2000; Drozdovsky and Karachentsev, 2000; Karachentsev and Sharina, 1997; Karachentsev et al., 2000; Distefano et al., 1990; Abell et al., 1989; Duval and Monnet, 1985, LEDA database222The Lyon Meudon extragalactic database (http://leda.univ-lyon1.fr)) and an estimate for the rotation speed based on either an HI or a resolved H$`\alpha `$ rotation curve (Prugniel et al., 1998, and references therein). Total magnitudes for all local sample galaxies where obtained from RC3 (de Vaucouleurs et al., 1991) or LEDA. As a consistency check, the object magnitudes, sizes, rotation speeds and the resulting Tully-Fisher relation were compared to the RC3 catalogue and the data from Tully and Pierce (2000). From this comparison, we conclude that our sample of low redshift galaxies is in good agreement with a random subsample of a magnitude limited complete sample from the RC3.

## 3 Observations

We obtained J- and H-band spectroscopy during four observing runs with the facility near-infrared spectrometer ISAAC at the VLT (Moorwood, 1997; Moorwood et al., 1998). We used the medium resolution spectroscopic mode with a slit-width resolution product of $`R30005000`$ and a spatial pixel scale of 0.1484”.

In ESO-period 65 and 66 (April - September 2000 and October 2000 - March 2001 respectively) we obtained the first set of data in service mode. With total integration times of 3 hours and a 0.6”-slit ($`R5200`$), which we rotated according to the position angle of the objects, we could successfully observe four targets. The target selection and successive estimation of position angles for this set we performed on 1” resolution images acquired in the J-band with ISAAC (20min integration time) before the spectroscopic observations. In addition to these J-band images, we obtained I-band images taken with the Canada France Hawaii Telescope (CFHT) from that telescope’s archive.

Furthermore, we conducted three other runs in visitor mode in February and September 2001 and September 2002. This time the set-up included a 1”-slit ($`R3100`$) and integration times varied, depending on the H$`\alpha `$ flux of the targets, between 1 and 3 hours. Moreover, we selected targets on the basis of HST/WFPC2 F814W images, which we also used to orient the slit along the galaxy major axis. Since most of the targets were too faint to be acquired directly we used a blind off-set from a“bright” star, calculated from the HST images. Using this prescription we observed another 17 objects successfully. The seeing during these four runs ranged from 0.4” to 0.8”.

## 4 Data Reduction and Analysis

To reduce the ISAAC spectra we used standard data reduction packages (ESO eclipse & IRAF). The data were flat fielded and dark-subtracted. After dark-subtraction and cosmic ray rejection we checked all frames individually for shifts in the wavelength direction due to flexure and applied a reverse shift if necessary. Before combining the frames we calculated a wavelength solution and distortion correction. Finally, we subtracted a background and smoothed the spectra with a Gaussian of FWHM approximately equal to the number of pixels per resolution element.

Firstly, we extracted one dimensional H$`\alpha `$-profiles across the spectral and spatial regions of the array that contained H$`\alpha `$-flux. Typically, even with the increased signal-to-noise gained in the continuum by summing up the flux in this way, we could not detect the continuum significantly. We then fitted the one dimensional H$`\alpha `$-profiles (typically assuming no galaxy continuum) by one or two (in the case of a double horned profile) Gaussians. At the level where $`20\%`$ of the total integrated flux was reached we measured the width of the profile. Applying the corrections given by Tully and Fouque (1985) we obtained a first estimate for the terminal rotation velocity of our sample galaxies.

In all cases but one, however, we could derive a terminal rotation velocity from a resolved rotation curve model. To extract the data points for the model rotation curve we developed a special adaptive curve tracing algorithm. We then fitted the resulting position-velocity diagram with a simple model of a flat rotation curve (which is appropriate for not too-late disc galaxies). This step-function we convolved with a Gaussian with a full-width at half maximum of the seeing. Moreover, the convolution included weighting with an exponential function with a scale-length as measured from our disc surface brightness fits on the HST or VLT images assuming that line and continuum have the same light distribution. Tests show that our modeling delivers robust rotation velocities, which are not very sensitive to the exact weighting scheme, the impact of nuclear bulges, the signal-to-noise ratio and in particular, how well the observationally “flat part” of the rotation curve is sampled by the data. We have measured the seeing from the J-band acquisition images taken before the observations, the acquisition images of a subsequent target, and the values from the visible seeing monitor. Given our long integration times and the limited sampling of the seeing at the observing wavelength, the seeing is somewhat uncertain. We have therefore let it be a free parameter in the fitting process. The values obtained from an unconstrained fit correlate well with the seeing values estimated from the acquisition images and seeing monitor, though. Some of the final fits to the data are shown in Fig. 1. Although only $`50\%60\%`$ of the data show a clear turn-over or extend out to 2.2 disc scale lengths (which is were the rotation curve of a self-gravitating thin disc reaches its maximum, see Binney and Tremaine, 1987) the remaining data do not exclusively consist of slow rotators only. In fact, the distributions of rotation speeds of high and low quality data can not be distinguished from each other (see Barden et al. 2003). Furthermore, the rotation speeds derived from the two dimensional data are not significantly smaller than the ones from the one dimensional spectra, which have much higher signal-to-noise (see Barden et al. 2003). Moreover, according to the parametric fits to over 2000 local disc galaxies of Giovanelli and Haynes (2002) at radii varying from $`1\mathrm{}1.5\times R_d`$ one should already measure at least $`80\%`$ of the asymptotic rotation velocity. Since the majority of our high galaxies extend further out we estimate rotation velocities within $`<20\%`$. Therefore, we are confident that we do not underestimate the rotation velocities significantly. Finally, the rotation velocities have to be corrected for the inclination of the galaxies. We have derived inclinations from surface brightness profile fits to our HST or ISAAC images.

To estimate rest-frame B-band magnitudes we compiled all available photometric information for our sources (two to five independent measurements). For each magnitude we calculated the corresponding rest-frame wavelength and corrected the magnitudes for galactic foreground extinction (Schlegel et al., 1998). Then we fitted the extinction corrected magnitudes and corresponding rest-wavelengths with spectra from the atlas of Kinney et al. (1996). We note that our final rest-frame B-band magnitudes are relatively insensitive to the models used since all of the galaxies had a photometric band available that was very near to the B-band rest wavelength. Finally, we corrected the resulting rest-frame B-band magnitudes for inclination dependent internal extinction according to the method of Tully and Fouque (1985) and determined a face-on B-magnitude (Table 1).

The parameters for the local comparison sample were determined and corrected in exactly the same manner as for the high redshift galaxies. Rotation speeds were extracted from HI or optical rotation curves. Only one object was included where a spatially-resolved rotation curve was not available. Comparison of the resolved data with the HI line width from RC3 usually agree within $`\pm 20`$ km s-1 (see Barden et al. 2003). We calculated inclination corrections based on inclinations from our own profile fits in agreement with the values from RC3 or LEDA. Total magnitudes were obtained directly from RC3 or LEDA and were corrected for galactic foreground extinction and internal extinction. Since differences in the isophotal extent between the images of the local and high redshift galaxies can be quite dramatic (up to two magnitudes), the light profiles of the local galaxy sample were fit only out to a characteristic limiting radius, which was approximately the average isophotal depth of the images of the high redshift galaxies (taking into account cosmic surface brightness dimming; see Barden et al. 2003).

## 5 The Tully-Fisher Relation at $`z0.9`$

Comparing the isophotal-size-culled local (our comparison sample) and high redshift galaxy samples (see Barden et al. 2003) we find an offset for the high-z data from the Tully-Fisher relation of $`\mathrm{\Delta }M=1.1\pm 0.2`$ magnitudes in a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-dominated universe ($`H_0=70`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M=0.3`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$; Fig. 2). This “brightening” of the distant galaxies is significant and holds for any reasonable cosmology ($`\mathrm{\Delta }M=0.5\pm 0.2`$ for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M=1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$; $`\mathrm{\Delta }M=1.0\pm 0.2`$ for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M=0.05`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$). The limited range in isophotal size makes measuring a slope of the Tully-Fisher relation impossible.

## 6 Discussion and Conclusions

The observed offset in the Tully-Fisher relation at $`z0.9`$ for large galaxies is partially a consequence of the fact that we observe an increase of central surface brightness of 1.7 mag arcsec-2 and a slight decrease of $`30\%`$ in the disc scale lengths of the high redshift sample compared to the local control sample (see Barden et al. 2003). Using the relationship between disc magnitude, central surface brightness, and disc scale length, namely, $`M_d5\mathrm{log}R_d2.5\mathrm{log}\left(1+z\right)+\mu _0const`$, we find that the differences in average central surface brightness and average disc scale lengths imply an offset in the zero-point of the T-F relation between the two samples of about $`0.3\pm 0.4`$ magnitudes. In addition, by comparing the rotation speeds of the high redshift galaxies and the local comparison sample, we find an average offset of $`\mathrm{\Delta }v_{rot}=50\pm 15`$ km s-1 of the high redshift sample (see Barden et al. 2003). Thus, between $`z=0.9`$ and 0 the mean mass of galaxies has increased by a factor of $`2.6\pm 0.4`$ (assuming mass $`v_{rot}^2`$, and estimating the total mass out to 2.2 disc scale lengths measured from fitting the light profile). Therefore, if we use a parameterization of the Tully-Fisher relation as given by Tully and Pierce (2000), adjusting the zero-points by -0.3 mag to account for the average differences in surface brightness and disc scale length and decreasing the average rotation speed by $`25\%`$ yields an offset from the local Tully-Fisher relation consistent with that observed ($`\mathrm{\Delta }M=1.1\pm 0.5`$ mag).

Having the highest redshift sample puts us in a unique position to discuss the evolution of the Tully-Fisher relation from a new perspective. All of the studies to date have found a significantly smaller amount of evolution compared to the results presented here. The most obvious way to reconcile this difference is that the offset in the Tully-Fisher relation grows with increasing redshift. The studies with the highest median redshift currently are Ziegler et al. (2002) and Vogt et al. (1996) with a mean redshift of $`z0.40.5`$, compared with our mean redshift of $`z0.9`$. The time difference is therefore about 2-3 Gyrs for any reasonable cosmology, clearly sufficient for galaxies to undergo significant evolution.

Unfortunately, comparing these results with model predictions is not very straight-forward since the exact offset predicted depends on the assumed physics and phenomenology, such as the details of star-formation (e.g., Steinmetz and Navarro, 1999; Mo et al., 1998). Recently, within the frame work of galaxy evolution (e.g., White and Rees, 1978), a number of authors have made predictions about the general evolution of the galaxy population. For example, Nagamine et al. (2001) predict that from $`z=0`$ to 1, using the cosmological parameters we have assumed here, that the overall luminosity function of galaxies in the B-band will brighten by about 1.15 mag and that the characteristic mass of galaxies will decline by about a factor of 2.4. Assuming that the galaxies selected for study here are a subset of this population, our numbers are in reasonable agreement with the predicted values. Unfortunately, the resolution of the simulations by Nagamine et al. (2001) are too low to check whether the sizes of discs evolve self-consistently in this context.

We conclude that large disc galaxies have undergone substantial evolution from $`z=0.9`$ to the present. The offset in the Tully-Fisher relation is about $`1.1`$ mag in the rest-frame B-band, and is related to an overall increase in the central surface brightnesses of disc galaxies and a decrease in rotation speed. We also find that the slope of the Tully-Fisher relation, due to size constraints that inevitably result from needing to obtain spatially-resolved rotation curves, cannot meaningfully be estimated. In a subsequent paper (Barden et al. 2003), we will discuss in detail the change in rotation speeds, disc masses, disc scale lengths, and disc angular momenta of this sample of high redshift galaxies relative to the local comparison sample, and make quantitative comparisons with theoretical models of galaxy evolution.

We wish to thank the ESO OPC for the generous allocations of telescope time and the Paranal staff for their expert support and assistance during the observations.


format: text

text:
# Refined geometric 𝐿^𝑝 Hardy inequalities

## 1 Introduction

For a convex domain $`\mathrm{\Omega }𝐑^N`$ the Hardy inequality

$$_\mathrm{\Omega }|u|^p𝑑x\left(\frac{p1}{p}\right)^p_\mathrm{\Omega }\frac{|u|^p}{d^p}𝑑x,d(x)=\mathrm{dist}(x,\mathrm{\Omega })uW_0^{1,p}(\mathrm{\Omega })$$
(1.1)
is valid, where the constant $`\left(\frac{p1}{p}\right)^p`$ is optimal; cf \[MMP\], \[MS\]. Brezis and Marcus \[BM\] have established an improved version of (1.1) when $`p=2`$: they showed that for bounded and convex $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ there holds

$$_\mathrm{\Omega }|u|^2𝑑x\frac{1}{4}_\mathrm{\Omega }\frac{u^2}{d^2}𝑑x+\frac{1}{4\mathrm{d}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{m}^2(\mathrm{\Omega })}_\mathrm{\Omega }u^2𝑑x,uH_0^1(\mathrm{\Omega }).$$
(1.2)
The question was asked in that paper as to whether it is possible to replace $`\mathrm{diam}^2(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ by $`c|\mathrm{\Omega }|^{2/N}`$, where $`|\mathrm{\Omega }|`$ denotes the volume of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. A positive answer was given by M. and T. Hoffmann-Ostenhof and Laptev \[HHL\], who showed that

$$_\mathrm{\Omega }|u|^2𝑑x\frac{1}{4}_\mathrm{\Omega }\frac{u^2}{d^2}𝑑x+k_2\left(\frac{a_N}{|\mathrm{\Omega }|}\right)^{\frac{2}{N}}_\mathrm{\Omega }u^2𝑑x,uH_0^1(\mathrm{\Omega })$$
(1.3)
where where $`a_N`$ is the volume of the unit ball and $`k_2=N/4`$.

In connection with this let us notice that when we take as $`d(x)`$ the distance from a point of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, say the origin, the following improved Hardy inequality was established by Brezis and Vazquez \[BV\]

$$_\mathrm{\Omega }|u|^2𝑑x\left(\frac{N2}{2}\right)^2_\mathrm{\Omega }\frac{u^2}{|x|^2}𝑑x+\mu _2\left(\frac{a_N}{|\mathrm{\Omega }|}\right)^{\frac{2}{N}}_\mathrm{\Omega }u^2𝑑x,uH_0^1(\mathrm{\Omega });$$
(1.4)
here $`\mu _25.783`$ is the first eigenvalue of the Dirichlet Laplacian for the unit disk in $`𝐑^2`$. This constant is optimal when $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a ball centered at the origin, independently of the dimension $`N2`$, cf \[BV\], whereas for general $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ this constant is not optimal, cf \[FT, Proposition 5.1\].

An $`L^p`$ -version of (1.3) was recently obtained by Tidblom \[T\] who showed that for convex $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ there holds

$$_\mathrm{\Omega }|u|^p𝑑x\left(\frac{p1}{p}\right)^p_\mathrm{\Omega }\frac{|u|^p}{d^p}𝑑x+k_p\left(\frac{a_N}{|\mathrm{\Omega }|}\right)^{\frac{p}{N}}_\mathrm{\Omega }u^2𝑑x,uW_0^{1,p}(\mathrm{\Omega })$$
(1.5)
with

$$k_p=(p1)\left(\frac{p1}{p}\right)^p\frac{\sqrt{\pi }\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{N+p}{2})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{p+1}{2})\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{N}{2})}.$$
(1.6)
For $`p=2`$ this reduces to (1.3); in particular $`k_2=N/4`$.

In addition to (1.3) it was shown in \[HHL, Theorem 3.4\] that if

$$X_1(t)=(1\mathrm{log}t)^1,t(0,1),$$
(1.7)
the following more refined improvement of (1.3) is true: for any $`D\mathrm{diam}(\mathrm{\Omega })/2`$ there holds

$`{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Omega }}|u|^2𝑑x{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Omega }}{\displaystyle \frac{u^2}{d^2}}𝑑x+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Omega }}{\displaystyle \frac{u^2}{d^2}}X_1^2(d/D)𝑑x`$
$`+k_2(1X_1(\mathrm{diam}(\mathrm{\Omega })/(2D))^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{a_N}{|\mathrm{\Omega }|}}\right)^{2/N}{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Omega }}u^2dx`$ (1.8)
for all $`uH_0^1(\mathrm{\Omega })`$. Note that if we let $`D\mathrm{}`$ in (1.8) we regain (1.3).

In our main result we extend both (1.5) and (1.8). More precisely, with $`X_1(t)`$ as in (1.7) we define recursively

$$X_k(t)=X_1(X_{k1}(t)),k=2,3,\mathrm{},t(0,1).$$
(1.9)
These are iterated logarithmic functions that vanish at an increasingly low rate at $`t=0`$. Let us fix $`k1`$ and set

$$a=\{\begin{array}{cc}0\text{,}\hfill & \text{ if }1<p2\text{,}\hfill \\ \frac{(p2)k}{3(p1)}>0\text{,}\hfill & \text{ if }p>2\text{,}\hfill \end{array}$$
(1.10)
and

$$\eta (t)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}X_1(t)\mathrm{}X_i(t),$$

whereas for $`k=0`$ we set $`\eta =0`$. For $`D\mathrm{diam}(\mathrm{\Omega })/2`$ we also set

$$\eta _D=\eta (\frac{\mathrm{diam}(\mathrm{\Omega })}{2D}).$$

Then our main result reads:

Theorem A Assume that $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is convex and bounded. Let $`k0`$ be a fixed integer. Then, there exists $`D_0=D_0(k,p,\mathrm{diam}(\mathrm{\Omega }))\mathrm{diam}(\mathrm{\Omega })/2`$ such that for $`DD_0`$ there holds

$`{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Omega }}|u|^p𝑑x\left({\displaystyle \frac{p1}{p}}\right)^p{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Omega }}{\displaystyle \frac{|u|^p}{d^p}}𝑑x+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{p1}{p}}\right)^{p1}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}}{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Omega }}{\displaystyle \frac{|u|^p}{d^p}}X_1^2(d/D)\mathrm{}X_i^2(d/D)𝑑x`$
$`+k_p(1\eta _Da\eta _D^2)^{\frac{p}{p1}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{a_N}{|\mathrm{\Omega }|}}\right)^{\frac{p}{N}}{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Omega }}|u|^p𝑑x,`$ (1.11)
for all $`uW_0^{1,p}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$. When $`p=2`$ we can take as $`D_0`$ the unique solution of $`\eta _{D_0}=1`$.

Note that if we let $`D+\mathrm{}`$ in (1.11) we recover (1.5). Also, for $`p=2`$ and $`k=1`$ we recover (1.8). Moreover, the terms in the series are sharp: it was shown in \[BFT, Theorem A\] that for each $`k1`$ the relation

$`{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Omega }}|u|^p𝑑x\left({\displaystyle \frac{p1}{p}}\right)^p{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Omega }}{\displaystyle \frac{|u|^p}{d^p}}𝑑x+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{p1}{p}}\right)^{p1}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{k1}{}}}{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Omega }}{\displaystyle \frac{|u|^p}{d^p}}X_1^2\mathrm{}X_i^2𝑑x`$ (1.12)
$``$ $`c{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Omega }}{\displaystyle \frac{|u|^p}{d^p}}X_1^2\mathrm{}X_k^\gamma 𝑑x`$
is not valid for $`\gamma <2`$; In addition, the best constant $`c`$ in (1.12) when $`\gamma =2`$ is equal to $`\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{p1}{p}\right)^{p1}`$, for any $`k=1,2,\mathrm{}`$.

A natural question is whether the constants appearing in (1.5) or (1.11) are optimal. Working towards this we consider the simplest case (1.3) (corresponding to $`p=2`$, $`k=0`$). Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }=B`$, be the unit ball in $`𝐑^N`$, and denote by $`C_N`$ the best constant of (1.3), that is

$$C_N=\underset{uH_0^1(B)}{inf}\frac{_B|u|^2𝑑x\frac{1}{4}_B\frac{u^2}{d^2}𝑑x}{_Bu^2𝑑x}.$$
(1.13)
We then show that in this case the constant $`k_2=\frac{N}{4}`$ appearing in (1.3) is far from being optimal. In particular we have:

Theorem B For $`N=3`$, $`C_3=\mu _2`$, whereas for any $`N2`$ there holds:

$$C_N\mu _2+\frac{(N1)(N3)}{4},$$
(1.14)
where $`\mu _25.783`$ is the best constant of inequality (1.4).

It is remarkable that when $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a ball and $`N=3`$ inequalities (1.3) and (1.4) have the same best constant. For any $`N2`$ the lower bound (1.14) on $`C_N`$ improves the estimate $`C_Nk_2=\frac{N}{4}`$.

To prove Theorem A we combine a vector field approach (cf \[BFT\]) along with ideas of \[HHL\] or \[T\]. It is worth noting that the “mean distance” method of Davies (cf \[D1\], \[D2\]) plays an essential role. For Theorem B after restricting to radial functions we use suitable change of variables.

## 2 Preliminary inequalities

In this section we will prove some auxiliary one-dimensional inequalities. Throughout this section $`b\frac{\mathrm{diam}(\mathrm{\Omega })}{2}`$ is a fixed positive constant. We have the following

###### Lemma 2.1

Let $`\rho (t)=\mathrm{min}\{t,2bt\}`$. For any function $`gC^1((0,b])`$ there holds

$`(\mathrm{i})`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{2b}}|u^{}(t)|^p𝑑t{\displaystyle _0^{2b}}\{g^{}(\rho (t))(p1)|g(\rho (t))|^{\frac{p}{p1}}\}|u(t)|^p𝑑t2g(b)|u(b)|^p,`$
$`(\mathrm{ii})`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{2b}}|u^{}(t)|^p𝑑t{\displaystyle _0^{2b}}\{g^{}(\rho (t))(p1)|g(\rho (t))g(b)|^{\frac{p}{p1}}\}|u(t)|^p𝑑t`$ (2.1)
for all $`uC_c^{\mathrm{}}(0,2b)`$.

Proof.  We first prove $`(\mathrm{i})`$. For $`uC_c^{\mathrm{}}(0,2b)`$ we have

$`{\displaystyle _0^b}g^{}(t)|u(t)|^p𝑑t`$ $`=`$ $`g(b)|u(b)|^pp{\displaystyle _0^p}g(t)|u|^pu^{}g𝑑t`$
$``$ $`g(b)|u(b)|^p+p\left({\displaystyle _0^D}|u^{}|^p𝑑t\right)^{\frac{1}{p}}\left({\displaystyle _0^b}|g|^{\frac{p}{p1}}|u|^p𝑑t\right)^{\frac{p1}{p}}`$
$``$ $`g(b)|u(b)|^p+{\displaystyle _0^b}|u^{}|^p𝑑t+(p1){\displaystyle _0^b}|g|^{\frac{p}{p1}}|u|^p𝑑t,`$
hence

$$_0^b|u^{}(t)|^p𝑑t_0^b\{g^{}(t)(p1)|g(t)|^{\frac{p}{p1}}\}|u(t)|^p𝑑tg(b)|u(b)|^p.$$

A similar argument on $`(b,2b)`$ gives

$$_b^{2b}|u^{}(t)|^p𝑑t_b^{2b}\{g^{}(2bt)(p1)|g(2bt)|^{\frac{p}{p1}}\}|u|^p𝑑tg(b)|u(b)|^p$$

and (i) follows by adding up the last two inequalities.

Part (ii) follows immediately from (i) by using the function $`g(x)g(b)`$ in the place of $`g(x)`$. $`//`$

In order to apply the above lemma we fix a positive integer $`k`$ and define the functions

$`\eta (t)={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}}X_1(t)\mathrm{}X_i(t),`$
$`B(t)={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}}X_1^2(t)\mathrm{}X_i^2(t),t(0,1),`$
where the $`X_i`$’s are given by (1.9). It is easy to check that both $`\eta `$ and $`B`$ are increasing functions of $`t`$ with $`\eta (0^+)=B(0^+)=0`$ and $`\eta (1^{})=B(1^{})=k`$. We also note that

$$\frac{1}{k}\eta ^2(t)B(t)\eta ^2(t),t(0,1).$$
(2.2)
For $`0<b\frac{\mathrm{diam}(\mathrm{\Omega })}{2}D`$ we define the following functions of $`s(0,b)`$:

$`g(s)=\left({\displaystyle \frac{p1}{p}}\right)^{p1}s^{(p1)}\left(1\eta (s/D)a\eta ^2(s/D)\right)`$ (2.3)
$`A(s)=g^{}(s)(p1)\left|g(s)g(b)\right|^{\frac{p}{p1}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{p1}{p}}\right)^ps^p{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{p1}{p}}\right)^{p1}s^pB(s/D).`$
Recall that $`a`$ is defined in (1.10). We then have the following

###### Lemma 2.2

There exists $`D_0=D_0(k,p,\mathrm{diam}(\mathrm{\Omega }))\frac{\mathrm{diam}(\mathrm{\Omega })}{2}`$, such that for all $`DD_0`$ there holds:

$`(\mathrm{i})`$ $`1\eta ({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{diam}(\mathrm{\Omega })}{2D}})a\eta ^2({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{diam}(\mathrm{\Omega })}{2D}})0,`$
$`(\mathrm{ii})`$ $`g^{}(s)\left({\displaystyle \frac{p1}{p}}\right)^ps^p{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{p1}{p}}\right)^{p1}s^pB(s/D)(p1)|g(s)|^{\frac{p}{p1}},`$
$`(\mathrm{iii})`$ $`A(s)`$ is a decreasing function of $`s(0,b)`$.
For $`p=2`$, (ii) becomes equality. Also, for $`p=2`$, we can take as $`D_0`$ the unique solution of $`1=\eta (\frac{\mathrm{diam}(\mathrm{\Omega })}{2D_0})`$.

Proof. A straightforward calculation shows that

$$\frac{d}{ds}\eta (s/D)=\frac{1}{s}\left[\frac{B(s/D)}{2}+\frac{\eta ^2(s/D)}{2}\right].$$
(2.4)
Setting $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(t)=tB^{}(t)`$ we also have

$$\frac{d}{ds}B(s/D)=\frac{1}{s}\mathrm{\Gamma }(s/D)>0;$$
(2.5)
the positivity follows from the fact that $`B(t)`$ is an increasing function of $`t`$.

Since $`\eta (t)`$ is an increasing function of $`t`$ with $`\eta (0)=0`$, $`(\mathrm{i})`$ is immediate.

We shall henceforth omit the argument $`s/D`$ from $`\eta ,B,\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in the subsequent formulas. We next prove $`(\mathrm{ii})`$. For $`p=2`$ an easy calculation shows that (ii) becomes equality. For $`p2`$ the left hand side of $`(\mathrm{ii})`$ is equal to

$`g^{}(s)\left({\displaystyle \frac{p1}{p}}\right)^ps^p{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{p1}{p}}\right)^{p1}s^pB(s/D)=\left({\displaystyle \frac{p1}{p}}\right)^p(p1)s^p\times `$
$`\times \left[1{\displaystyle \frac{p\eta }{p1}}+({\displaystyle \frac{p}{2(p1)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{ap}{p1}})\eta ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{ap}{(p1)^2}}\eta ^3+{\displaystyle \frac{ap}{(p1)^2}}\eta B\right].`$ (2.6)
On the other hand, taking the Taylor expansion of $`(1t)^{\frac{p}{p1}}`$ about $`t=0`$, we see that the right hand side of (ii) is written as (for $`\eta `$ small)

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{p1}{p}}\right)^p(p1)s^p(1\eta a\eta ^2)^{\frac{p}{p1}}=\left({\displaystyle \frac{p1}{p}}\right)^p(p1)s^p\times `$ (2.7)
$`\times \left[1{\displaystyle \frac{p\eta }{p1}}{\displaystyle \frac{ap}{p1}}\eta ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{p\eta ^2}{2(p1)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{pa\eta ^3}{(p1)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{p(p2)\eta ^3}{6(p1)^3}}+O(\eta ^4)\right].`$
Comparing (2.6) and (2.7) we see that the corresponding right-hand sides agree to order $`O(\eta ^2)`$. Recalling (2.2) and the choice of $`a`$ (cf (1.10)) we see that the cubic term in (2.6) is larger than the cubic term of (2.7). Hence (ii) is true provided $`\eta `$ is small enough, which amounts to $`D_0`$ being large enough.

We now prove $`(\mathrm{iii})`$. Note that $`(\mathrm{ii})`$ implies that $`g^{}`$ is positive in $`(0,b)`$ if $`D_0`$ is large enough. Hence for $`s(0,b)`$ we have

$`A^{}(s)`$ $`=`$ $`g^{\prime \prime }(s)+p[g(b)g(s)]^{\frac{1}{p1}}g^{}(s)+\left({\displaystyle \frac{p1}{p}}\right)^{p1}(p1)s^{p1}`$ (2.8)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{p1}{p}}\right)^{p1}ps^{p1}B{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{p1}{p}}\right)s^{p1}\mathrm{\Gamma }`$
$``$ $`g^{\prime \prime }(s)+p|g(s)|^{\frac{1}{p1}}g^{}(s)+\left({\displaystyle \frac{p1}{p}}\right)^{p1}(p1)s^{p1}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{p1}{p}}\right)^{p1}ps^{p1}B{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{p1}{p}}\right)s^{p1}\mathrm{\Gamma }.`$
Using Taylor’s expansion we have

$`|g(s)|^{\frac{1}{p1}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{p1}{p}}s^1(1\eta a\eta ^2)^{\frac{1}{p1}}`$ (2.9)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{p1}{p}}s^1\{1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p1}}\eta [{\displaystyle \frac{a}{p1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{p2}{2(p1)^2}}]\eta ^2`$
$`[{\displaystyle \frac{(p2)a}{(p1)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(p2)(32p)}{6(p1)^3}}]\eta ^3+O(\eta ^4)\}.`$
From (2.4), (2.5), (2.8) and (2.9) we obtain

$$A^{}(s)(p1)^2\left(\frac{p1}{p}\right)^{p1}s^{p1}\left\{\frac{p(p2)}{6(p1)^3}\eta ^3\frac{ap}{(p1)^2}\eta B+O(\eta ^4)\right\}$$
(2.10)
From this and the fact that

$$\frac{1}{k}\eta ^2B\eta ^2,s(0,b)$$

we end up with

$$A^{}(s)p\left(\frac{p1}{p}\right)^{p1}s^{p1}\eta ^3\left\{\frac{p2}{6(p1)}\frac{a}{k}+O(\eta )\right\}.$$
(2.11)
To conclude the proof we distinguish various cases:
(a) $`1<p<2`$. Then $`a=0`$ and it follows from (2.11) that $`A^{}(s)<0`$ in $`(0,b)`$, provided $`D_0`$ is chosen large enough.
(b) $`p=2`$. Again $`a=0`$. A straightforward calculation shows that the right hand side of (2.8) is identically equal to zero. The only restriction here comes from (i), whence the choice of $`D_0`$.
(c) $`p>2`$. Now $`a=\frac{(p2)k}{3(p1)}`$ and the result follows again from (2.11).
This completes the proof.$`//`$

## 3 The Hardy inequality

Throughout the rest of the paper we assume that $`\mathrm{\Omega }𝐑^N`$ is convex and set $`d(x)=\mathrm{dist}(x,\mathrm{\Omega })`$.

Following \[HHL\], for $`\omega S^{N1}`$ and $`x\mathrm{\Omega }`$ we define the following functions with values in $`(0,+\mathrm{}]`$:

$`\tau _\omega (x)`$ $`=`$ $`inf\{s>0|x+s\omega \mathrm{\Omega }\}`$
$`\rho _\omega (x)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{min}\{\tau _\omega (x),\tau _\omega (x)\}`$
$`b_\omega (x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\tau _\omega (x)+\tau _\omega (x)).`$
We denote by $`dS(\omega )`$ the standard measure on $`S^{N1}`$ normalized so that the total measure is one. Let $`K_p>0`$ be defined by

$$_{S^{N1}}|v\omega |^p𝑑S(\omega )=K_p|v|^p,v𝐑^N.$$
(3.1)
The constant $`K_p`$ is computable and with $`k_p`$ as in (1.6) we have

$$k_p=(p1)\left(\frac{p1}{p}\right)^pK_p^1.$$
(3.2)
We have the following

###### Lemma 3.1

Assume that $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is convex. Then for all $`x\mathrm{\Omega }`$ there holds

$$_{S^{N1}}\rho _\omega ^p(x)𝑑S(\omega )K_pd(x)^p.$$
(3.3)
Proof. Let $`y\mathrm{\Omega }`$ be such that $`|yx|=d(x)`$ and let $`P_y`$ be the supporting hyper-plane through $`y`$ which is orthogonal to $`yx`$. We define the half-sphere

$$S^+=\{\omega S^{N1}|\omega (yx)>0\}$$

and for $`\omega S^+`$ define $`\sigma _\omega (x)>0`$ by requiring that $`x+\sigma _\omega (x)\omega P_y`$, so that

$$\omega \frac{yx}{|yx|}=\frac{|yx|}{\sigma _\omega (x)}.$$

The convexity of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ implies that $`\tau _\omega (x)\sigma _\omega (x)`$ and hence

$`{\displaystyle _{S^{N1}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\rho _\omega (x)^p}}𝑑S(\omega )`$ $``$ $`2{\displaystyle _{S^+}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\tau _\omega (x)^p}}𝑑S(\omega )`$
$``$ $`2{\displaystyle _{S^+}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sigma _\omega (x)^p}}𝑑S(\omega )`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{d(x)^{2p}}}{\displaystyle _{S^+}}|(yx)\omega |^p𝑑S(\omega )`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{K_p}{d(x)^p}},`$
as required.$`//`$

We now give the proof of Theorem A.

Proof of Theorem A. Following \[HHL\] let us fix a direction $`\omega S^{N1}`$ and let $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\omega `$ be the orthogonal projection of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ on the hyper-plane perpendicular to $`\omega `$. For each $`z\mathrm{\Omega }_\omega `$ we apply Lemma 2.1 on the segment defined by $`z`$ and $`\omega `$ and we then integrate over $`z\mathrm{\Omega }_\omega `$. We conclude that for any $`uC_c^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ there holds

$$_\mathrm{\Omega }|u\omega |^p𝑑x_\mathrm{\Omega }\left\{g^{}(\rho _\omega (x))(p1)\left|g(\rho _\omega (x))g(b_\omega (x))\right|^{\frac{p}{p1}}\right\}|u|^p𝑑x,$$

Integrating over $`\omega S^{N1}`$ and recalling definition (3.1) we obtain

$`{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Omega }}|u|^pdxK_p^1{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Omega }}{\displaystyle _{S^{N1}}}\{g^{}(\rho _\omega (x))`$
$`(p1)|g(\rho _\omega (x))g(b_\omega (x))|^{\frac{p}{p1}}\}dS(\omega )|u|^pdx.`$ (3.4)
Now, let us choose $`g`$ as in (2.3). Since $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is bounded Lemma 2.2 implies the existence of a $`D_0>0`$ such that for $`DD_0`$, each of the functions

$`A_{\omega ,x}(s)`$ $`:=`$ $`g^{}(s)(p1)\left|g(s)g(b_\omega (x))\right|^{\frac{p}{p1}}`$
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{p1}{p}}\right)^ps^p{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{p1}{p}}\right)^{p1}s^pB(s/D)`$
– defined for $`s(0,b_\omega (x))`$ – is a decreasing function of $`s(0,b_\omega (x))`$. In particular $`A_{\omega ,x}(\rho _\omega (x))A_{\omega ,x}(b_\omega (x))`$, i.e.

$`g^{}(\rho _\omega (x))(p1)\left|g(\rho _\omega (x))g(b_\omega (x))\right|^{\frac{p}{p1}}`$
$``$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{p1}{p}}\right)^p\rho _\omega (x)^p+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{p1}{p}}\right)^{p1}\rho _\omega (x)^pB(\rho _\omega (x)/D)+A_{\omega ,x}(b_\omega (x)).`$
Hence (3.4) yields

$`{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Omega }}|u|^p𝑑x`$ $``$ $`K_p^1{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Omega }}{\displaystyle _{S^{N1}}}\{\left({\displaystyle \frac{p1}{p}}\right)^p\rho _\omega (x)^p+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{p1}{p}}\right)^{p1}\rho _\omega (x)^pB(\rho _\omega (x)/D)`$ (3.5)
$`+g^{}(b_\omega (x))\left({\displaystyle \frac{p1}{p}}\right)^pb_\omega (x)^p`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{p1}{p}}\right)^{p1}b_\omega (x)^pB(b_\omega (x)/D)\}dS(\omega )|u|^pdx.`$
We first estimate the first two terms of (3.5). For each $`x\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`\omega S^{N1}`$ there holds $`B(\rho _\omega (x)/D)B(d(x)/D)`$, and Lemma 3.3 yields

$`K_p^1{\displaystyle _{S^{N1}}}\left\{\left({\displaystyle \frac{p1}{p}}\right)^p\rho _\omega (x)^p+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{p1}{p}}\right)^{p1}\rho _\omega (x)^pB(\rho _\omega (x)/D)\right\}𝑑S(\omega )`$
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{p1}{p}}\right)^pd(x)^p+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{p1}{p}}\right)^{p1}d(x)^pB(d(x)/D),`$ (3.6)
for all $`x\mathrm{\Omega }`$. The remaining three terms in the right-hand side of (3.5) are estimated using Lemma 2.2(ii)

$`g^{}(b_\omega (x))\left({\displaystyle \frac{p1}{p}}\right)^pb_\omega (x)^p{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{p1}{p}}\right)^{p1}b_\omega (x)^pB(b_\omega (x)/D)`$
$``$ $`(p1)|g(b_\omega (x))|^{\frac{p}{p1}}`$
$`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{p1}{p}}\right)^p(p1)(1\eta _Da\eta _D^2)^{\frac{p}{p1}}b_\omega (x)^p.`$
Combining this with (3.5) and (3.6) and recalling (3.2) we obtain

$`{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Omega }}|u|^p𝑑x`$ $``$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{p1}{p}}\right)^p{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Omega }}{\displaystyle \frac{|u|^p}{d^p}}𝑑x+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{p1}{p}}\right)^{p1}{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Omega }}{\displaystyle \frac{|u|^p}{d^p}}B(d/D)+`$
$`+`$ $`k_p^1(1\eta _Da\eta _D^2)^{\frac{p}{p1}}{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Omega }}{\displaystyle _{S^{N1}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{b_\omega (x)^p}}𝑑S(\omega )|u|^p𝑑x.`$
We estimate the last integral using a variation of an argument of \[HHL\]. Elementary analysis shows that $`\mathrm{min}_{t>0}(1+t^N)/(1+t)^N=2^{(N1)}`$ and therefore for $`x\mathrm{\Omega }`$

$`2^{\frac{(N1)p}{N+p}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle _{S^{N1}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\tau _\omega (x)^N+\tau _\omega (x)^N)^{p/(N+p)}}{(\tau _\omega (x)+\tau _\omega (x))^{Np/(N+p)}}}𝑑S(\omega )`$
$``$ $`\left({\displaystyle _{S^{N1}}}(\tau _\omega ^N+\tau _\omega ^N)𝑑S(\omega )\right)^{\frac{p}{N+p}}\left({\displaystyle _{S^{N1}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\tau _\omega +\tau _\omega )^p}}𝑑S(\omega )\right)^{\frac{N}{N+p}}`$
$`=`$ $`2^{\frac{ppN}{N+p}}\left({\displaystyle _{S^{N1}}}\tau _\omega ^N𝑑S(\omega )\right)^{\frac{p}{N+p}}\left({\displaystyle _{S^{N1}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{b_\omega ^p}}𝑑S(\omega )\right)^{\frac{N}{N+p}},`$
that is

$$_{S^{N1}}\frac{1}{b_\omega (x)^p}𝑑S(\omega )\left(_{S^{N1}}\tau _\omega (x)^N𝑑S(\omega )\right)^{p/N}.$$
(3.8)
The convexity of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ implies $`a_N_{S^{N1}}\tau _\omega (x)^N𝑑S(\omega )=|\mathrm{\Omega }|`$. Hence the proof is concluded by combining (3) and (3.8).$`//`$

Remark We note that inequality (3.4) can be used to obtain Hardy type inequalities for non convex domains as in \[HHL\], \[T\].

## 4 On the best constant for $`p=2`$

In this section we will prove Theorem B. We recall that $`C_N`$ is the best constant of inequality (1.3), in case $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a ball, defined by:

$$C_N=\underset{uH_0^1(B)}{inf}\frac{_B|u|^2𝑑x\frac{1}{4}_B\frac{u^2}{d^2}𝑑x}{_Bu^2𝑑x}.$$
(4.1)
We first establish

###### Lemma 4.1

The infimum in (4.1) remains the same if it is taken over all radially symmetric functions $`u=u(r)H_0^1(B)`$.

Proof: We may assume that $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the unit ball. Let us denote by $`\stackrel{~}{C}_N`$ the infimum over radial functions. Clearly $`\stackrel{~}{C}_NC_N`$. Suppose now that $`uH_0^1(B)`$ and let

$$u(x)=u_0(r)+\underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}f_m(\sigma )u_m(r),r=|x|,$$

be its decomposition into spherical harmonics; here $`u_m`$ are radially symmetric functions in $`H_0^1(B)`$ and $`f_m`$ are orthonormal in $`L^2(S^{N1})`$ eigenfunctions of the Laplace-Beltrami operator on $`\{|x|=1\}`$, with corresponding eigenvalues $`c_m=m(N2+m)`$, $`m1`$. It is easily seen that

$$_B|u|^2dx=_B(|u_0|^2dx+\underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}_B(|u_m|^2+\frac{c_m}{|x|^2}u_m^2)dx,$$
(4.2)
and hence

$`{\displaystyle _B}(|u|^2{\displaystyle \frac{u^2}{d^2}})𝑑x`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _B}\{|u_0|^2{\displaystyle \frac{u_0^2}{4(1|x|)^2}}\}𝑑x+`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle _B}\{(|u_m|^2+({\displaystyle \frac{c_m}{|x|^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4(1|x|)^2}})u_m^2\}dx`$
$``$ $`\stackrel{~}{C}_N{\displaystyle _B}u_0^2+\stackrel{~}{C}_N{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle _B}u_m^2𝑑x`$
$`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{C}_N{\displaystyle _B}u^2𝑑x.`$
This implies $`C_N\stackrel{~}{C}_N`$ and the Lemma is proved. $`//`$

Proof of Theorem B: By the previous Lemma we restrict attention to radially symmetric functions. Let $`u=u(r)C_c^{\mathrm{}}(B)`$ be a radial function and define $`v`$ by

$$u(r)=r^{\frac{N1}{2}}(1r)^{1/2}v(r),r(0,1).$$

Then $`v(0)=v(1)=0`$. We compute

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{Na_N}}{\displaystyle _B}|u|^2𝑑x`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^1}(u^{})^2r^{N1}𝑑r`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^1}(1r)\left({\displaystyle \frac{(N1)v}{2r}}{\displaystyle \frac{v}{2(1r)}}+v^{}\right)^2𝑑r`$
Using integration by parts for the terms involving $`vv^{}=(v^2)^{}/2`$ we conclude after some simple calculations that

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{Na_N}}\left({\displaystyle _B}|u|^2𝑑x{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle _B}{\displaystyle \frac{u^2}{d^2}}𝑑x\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^1}(1r)(v^{})^2𝑑r+{\displaystyle \frac{(N1)(N3)}{4}}{\displaystyle _0^1}{\displaystyle \frac{1r}{r^2}}v^2𝑑r`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle _0^1}(1r)(v^{})^2𝑑r+{\displaystyle \frac{(N1)(N3)}{4}}{\displaystyle _0^1}(1r)v^2𝑑r.`$
But (cf \[BV, Section 4\])

$$\underset{v(0)=v(1)=0}{inf}\frac{_0^1(1r)(v^{})^2𝑑r}{_0^1(1r)v^2𝑑r}=\underset{v(0)=v(1)=0}{inf}\frac{_0^1r(v^{})^2𝑑r}{_0^1rv^2𝑑r}=\mu _2,$$

and estimate (1.14) of Theorem B follows.

To prove that $`C_3=\mu _2`$, let us define

$$u_ϵ(r)=r^1(1r)^{\frac{1}{2}+ϵ}w(1r),r(0,1),$$

where $`ϵ>0`$ and $`w(|x|)`$ is the first eigenfunction of the Dirichlet Laplacian for the unit disk in $`𝐑^2`$. Then

$$u_ϵ^{}(r)=r^1(1r)^{\frac{1}{2}+ϵ}\left\{\frac{w}{r}+(\frac{1}{2}+ϵ)\frac{w}{1r}+w^{}\right\}$$

and hence $`u_ϵH_0^1(B)`$ and

$`{\displaystyle _0^1}(u_ϵ^{})^2r^{N1}dr={\displaystyle _0^1}(1r)^{1+2ϵ}\{{\displaystyle \frac{w^2}{r^2}}+({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+ϵ)^2{\displaystyle \frac{w^2}{(1r)^2}}+(w^{})^2`$
$`+(1+2ϵ){\displaystyle \frac{w^2}{r(1r)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2ww^{}}{r}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(1+2ϵ)ww^{}}{1r}}\}dr\text{ (where }w=w(1r)\text{)}`$
To handle the terms containing $`ww^{}`$ we integrate by parts: the boundary terms are equal to zero and making the change of variables $`s=1r`$ we eventually obtain

$$_0^1\left((u_ϵ^{}(r))^2\frac{1}{4}\frac{u_ϵ^2(r)}{(1r)^2}\right)r^2𝑑r=_0^1s^{1+2ϵ}\left((w^{}(s))^2ϵ^2\frac{w^2(s)}{s^2}\right)𝑑s.$$

Now, there holds

$$ϵ^2_0^1s^{1+2ϵ}w^2𝑑s0,\text{ as }ϵ0,$$

hence

$`\underset{ϵ0}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{_B\left(|u_ϵ|^2\frac{u_ϵ^2}{4d^2}\right)𝑑x}{_Bu_ϵ^2𝑑x}}`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{ϵ0}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{_0^1(w^{})^2s^{1+2ϵ}𝑑s}{_0^1w^2s^{1+2ϵ}𝑑s}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{_0^1(w^{})^2s𝑑s}{_0^1w^2s𝑑s}}`$
$`=`$ $`\mu _2.`$
It follows that $`\stackrel{~}{C}_3\mu _2`$; in view of (1.14) and Lemma 4.1 we conclude that $`C_3=\mu _2`$.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Over the past five years a clear and consistent picture of the cause of Gamma-Ray Burst (GRB) afterglows has emerged. The afterglow is thought to originate in a decelerating relativistic fireball and is generally believed to be synchrotron emission (see e.g.  for a review). Synchrotron emission can, under favorable conditions, be up to $`6070\%`$ polarized (e.g. ). It is therefore natural to expect that the GRB afterglow emission might show some degree of polarization. The amount of polarization may depend on the magnetic field structure and its regularity, the geometry of the collimated outflow and on the properties of the local burst environment. It is important for our understanding of the GRB phenomenon, to be able to account properly for all polarization from these sources. It may, in particular, provide important information on the geometry and magnetic field properties of the bursts.

## 2 Models

Several models have been suggested in order to quantify the polarization that might potentially be observed from bursts. In addition to the intrinsic afterglow polarization, it is also very important to account for the polarization that might originate in our Galaxy as well as in the host galaxy of a given burst. We will briefly discuss these possibilities in turn.
i) Coherent magnetic patches: The relativistic shock is composed of several causally disconnected patches or domains, each patch having a regular magnetic field structure and exhibiting a polarization level up to $`P_{\mathrm{max}}6070\%`$. An observable collection of $`N`$ patches would result in a net polarization of $`PP_{\mathrm{max}}/\sqrt{N}`$, with the size of the patches growing at the speed of light .
ii) Microlensing: If a burst is microlensed a particular magnetic patch might get briefly magnified resulting in a relatively short episode of variable polarized emission . The degree of polarization at maximum depends on the number of magnified patches.
iii) Interstellar scintillation: is also able to produce polarization in the radio of the order of $`1020\%`$, about a week after the burst .
iv) Collimated fireballs: Recent evidence suggests that the relativistic outflow associated with a GRB is collimated. If the observer’s line of sight happens to coincide with the outflow symmetry axis, no net polarization is expected. If the line of sight, on the other hand, makes an angle with the collimation axis, the symmetry is broken, and a net polarization may arise. It can be shown  that there will be at least two peaks in the polarization light curve, the first one arising when the observer only receives radiation from that part of the relativistic beam that is inside the outflow geometry. The missing part therefore does not contribute to the total emission and a net polarization arises . The second peak occurs around the break time in the optical light curve and reflects the maximum asymmetry between the emitting areas contribution to the different polarization directions (). A third peak may arise if the jet is spreading laterally , but this occurs typically a week after the burst, at which time the flux level may already be too low to allow a reliable polarization measurement. An interesting and testable prediction of the models is that the polarization will decrease to zero in between the first two peaks, accompanied by a $`90^{}`$ change in the polarization angle as the degree of polarization starts increasing again. The collimated outflow model has also been considered in the case of an observer with a line of sight outside the initial opening angle of the jet . A variant of the model, with a bright emission core near the outflow axis surrounded by dimmer wings, results in only one polarization maximum and no change of polarization angle . It is interesting to note that this variant of the model predicts maximum polarization at the light curve break time, whereas the original models with a homogeneous outflow predicts a minimum polarization level at that time.
v) Other: In the case of weakly polarized sources it is important to properly account for the Galactic interstellar polarization. In addition, some degree of polarization may similarly be induced in the host galaxy. In the Galactic case, correcting for this ideally requires observing stars of low intrinsic polarization that are sufficiently distant to ensure an essentially full probe of the interstellar medium, but also sufficiently near the burst location on the sky to allow a meaningful subtraction of the polarization due to the interstellar medium. Alternatively, the interstellar polarization may be estimated from the color excess, $`E(BV)`$, that contributes a maximum of $`P(\%)=9E(BV)`$ , depending on the line of sight through the Galaxy. Hence, a color excess of at least $`E(BV)0.3`$ is needed to produce interstellar polarization levels of the order of $`3\%`$. For most cases to date extinction maps towards bursts imply an interstellar contribution to the polarization up to about 1% at most. Similar correction may be necessary in the host galaxy of the burst, but this is at present much more difficult to estimate. Employing Galactic analogies, one may try to use similar approach as in our own Galaxy and estimate the host polarization contribution from the host extinction, if this can be inferred.

Available host extinction estimates (e.g. ) indicate that a range of polarization levels of this origin may be expected. The contribution to the polarization in the host and the interstellar Galactic medium is however expected not to vary with time. Therefore, observing variable polarization may be taken as an indication of an origin intrinsic to the afterglow.

## 3 Observations

Measuring the polarization in a GRB afterglow was first attempted in the case of GRB 990123  and resulted in an upper limit of $`2.3\%`$. The first positive detection was for GRB 990510 , and since then polarized emission has been measured in about 5 other afterglows. The observations are summarized in Table 1. Positive detections have been published in 5 cases and upper limits in 2 cases. Polarization was also measured for SN1998bw/GRB 980425, but these data were obtained at least a week or more from the burst at levels that are a factor of few lower than in other bursts. The polarization level in this case is similar to that observed in other supernovae and is more likely to originate in the non-symmetric expansion of the supernova ejecta.

In addition to the bursts listed in Table 1, there are indications of polarized emission from GRB 021004, that occurred after the NBSI, but the details of most of these measurements are still unpublished (e.g. ).

## 4 Discussion

Existing afterglow models predict a modest to strong polarization level of $`P1020`$%. In addition, some models based on collimated outflows predict a $`90^{}`$ change in polarization angle between two adjacent maxima in the polarization light curve.

Most measurements to date, however, indicate a low polarization level. In all cases but one is the polarization $`<3`$% at all times. In addition, the variation in polarization angle within an individual burst is small and never close to the 90 change predicted by the collimated outflow models. In most cases is the angle in fact consistent with being constant. If conditions in the host galaxies are similar to the conditions in our Galaxy, we may expect low polarization levels within the host. It has also been argued that scattering within the host would not be able to produce a few percent polarization within a day of the burst as commonly observed. The path length difference between the scattered (polarized) light and the direct light required to produce a few percent polarization would cause a delay in the polarized light by weeks to months .

One measurement of GRB 020405 shows an exceptionally high polarization of almost $`10`$%. This value is obtained a couple of hours following a measurement at the 1.5% level. The strong variation indicates an origin intrinsic to the afterglow rather in the interstellar medium, but it also makes it very difficult to account for using the collimated outflow models , in particular as no break was observed in the light curve for the first few days. Alternative explanations may be invoked , that do not require a break in the light curve .

We conclude that the polarization at the few percent level observed in a number of optical afterglows is most likely intrinsic to the source. Our theoretical understanding of it is, however, still fragmentary and far from complete.

Polarization is becoming routinely measured in optical afterglows and it is of crucial importance to sample the polarization light curve as densely as possible within the first 2-3 days following a burst as this may provide very strong constraints on the afterglow models. It may also provide detailed information on the properties of the local burst environment. Spectropolarimetry is also proving to be an invaluable tool that is already indicating that the polarization may be both wavelength and time dependent . We do, however, need better theoretical modeling to advance our understanding of the polarization properties of the afterglows.

This work was supported in part by the University of Iceland Research Fund and a Special grant from the Icelandic Research Council.

Discussion

J. Trier Frederiksen: Are there any models involving polarization by interaction with interstellar medium?

G. Björnsson: The basic model is that of scattering of dust grains. The models I have discussed that are related to $`E(BV)`$, account for interstellar polarization in our Galaxy and can in principle be applied to the host galaxy contribution too. In most cases, however, is the host extinction rather small, too small in fact to fully explain the observed polarization level. Polarization variability is also an indication of a different origin.

S. Kulkarni: I believe that polarization of the order of $`13\%`$ towards stars is not uncommon. Likewise one may expect some degree of polarization induced by the interstellar medium within the host galaxy. Thus the modeling should include a (unknown) foreground polarization (i.e. due to reddening of the afterglow). This may severely limit the conclusions drawn for the few (1-3) data points. Indeed, as you noted the polarization for several afterglows was found to be constant and a few per cent (except 020405).

G. Björnsson: Yes, I agree. The only way I see to distinguish between these polarization sources is to sample the polarization light curve sufficiently densely in addition to spectropolarimetry. This would allow us to monitor variability in the polarization levels as well as changes in the polarization angle that has until now appeared basically constant. It would in particular allow us to follow rapid changes in polarization as was observed in 020405. This however, requires a dedicated effort and given the faintness and rapid fading of the afterglows, will most likely require a combination of a bright burst and favorable observational circumstances.


text:
# Quantum Mechanics on Manifolds Embedded in Euclidean Space

## 1 Introduction

In quantum mechanics the problem of constraining particle motion to a spatial manifold embedded in a Euclidean space $`R^n`$ is conventionally treated in one of two ways. In the intrinsic quantization approach, the motion is constrained to the manifold a priori. A classical Hamiltonian is constructed from coordinates and momentum intrinsic to the surface and the system is quantized canonically. In this case, the embedding space $`R^n`$ is irrelevant and the quantum system depends only on the geometry intrinsic to the manifold. In the confining potential approach, the particle is confined by a strong force that acts normal to the manifold. An effective Hamiltonian for propagation on the hypersurface is obtained by freezing the motion normal to the surface in a low state of excitation of the confining potential. This effective Hamiltonian depends on the intrinsic geometry *and* on the way that the hypersurface is embedded in $`R^n`$. The intrinsic quantization scheme suffers from ordering ambiguities that allow for multiple consistent quantization procedures that differ by a term proportional to the scalar curvature of the hypersurface . On the other hand, the confining potential approach yields a unique effective Hamiltonian that depends on the physical mechanism of the constraint. In any real physical system we know of, constrained motion is the result of a strong confining force, and so one can argue that the confining potential formalism offers a physically more realistic model of constraints. Although intrinsic quantization has been studied since the earliest days of quantum theory, the confining potential approach has only received serious attention in the last decade or two .

The confining potential approach has now been studied for a variety of systems using a variety of different confining forces. It has been applied to the study of both spinless and spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ particles confined to thin tubes and especially under the assumption that the curvature of the tube is small and slowly varying . Spinless particles confined to surfaces in three dimensional space have also been studied by da Costa , and the generalization to an arbitrary $`m`$-dimensional manifold $`M^m`$ embedded in a $`n`$-dimensional Euclidean space has been carried out by subsequent authors . Extensions of the confining potential approach have been applied to solitons with confined collective degrees of freedom  and to systems for which the effective Hamiltonian on the hypersurface admits supersymmetric states . Notable applications of the confining potential formalism include the study of rotational spectra of molecules  and the study of electrons in Quantum Hall devices . In this paper, we review and develop the confining potential formalism in the spirit of Refs.  and . We devote special attention to the group-theoretic structure of the torsion-dependent terms that appear in the effective Hamiltonian, as well as the role played by symmetries of the confining potential. We also recast the mathematical form of the curvature-dependent potentials found by previous authors in terms of “principal curvatures” so that the effects of the embedding structure on the effective dynamics can be more easily understood.

Our paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we briefly discuss the physical motivation behind the confining potential approach. In Section 3, we introduce an adapted coordinate system that allows one to separate normal from tangential degrees of freedom on $`M^m`$. In Section 4, we derive the effective Hamiltonian governing motion on $`M^m`$ by rescaling the collective normal coordinates and developing a perturbative expansion in small parameters of the complete Hamiltonian as found in . In Section 5, we discuss in detail the gauge structure of the effective theory with special attention devoted to the representation content of the gauge fields. In Section 6, we discuss the intrinsic versus extrinsic geometrical contributions to the effective theory on $`M^m`$ and give examples that illustrate the possible physics for $`M^3`$ embedded in $`R^{n4}`$. Section 7 concludes with final thoughts and discussion.

## 2 The Confining Potential Approach

We limit ourselves to the case of a scalar confining potential, although magnetic-like vector potentials and gravitational-like tensor potentials are physically relevant in some instances and have received attention in the literature . A strong confining potential is introduced in all directions normal to the hypersurface. The effect of this potential is to constrain the particle to the manifold by raising the energy of normal excitations far beyond the energy scale associated with motion tangent to the hypersurface. The Hamiltonian then separates into a term governing high energy confined motion in the directions normal to $`M^m`$, a term governing low energy motion tangent to $`M^m`$, and interaction terms that couple the normal and the tangential degrees of freedom. To obtain an effective Hamiltonian on $`M^m`$, the total Hamiltonian is projected onto a low-lying multiplet of normal states, typically the ground state. The effective Hamiltonian governing dynamics on $`M^m`$ is found to be the Laplacian on $`M^m`$ coupled minimally to a background gauge field plus a scalar quantum effective potential that depends on the principal curvatures of $`M^m`$. The gauge group is whatever subgroup of SO($`nm=p`$) is preserved by the confining potential. The strength and representation content of the gauge terms appearing in the effective theory depend not only on the properties of the embedding of $`M^m`$, but also crucially on the symmetries of the space of normal states. When the normal space is trivial, the gauge interaction in the effective Hamiltonian vanishes identically. Only in cases where the normal space is nontrivial (i.e., possesses degeneracies) will the gauge interaction be nonzero. Thus static external SO($`p`$) gauge fields can be geometrically induced by confining particles to manifolds that are embedded nontrivially in a higher dimensional Euclidean space using confining potentials that admit a degenerate space of normal states.

## 3 Geometry

To study the quantum mechanics of a spinless particle confined to an $`m`$-dimensional manifold $`M^m`$ embedded in $`n`$-dimensional Euclidean space $`R^n`$, we first define a coordinate system that facilitates the separation of the degrees of freedom normal to $`M^m`$ from those that are tangential. With $`𝐑:M^mR^n`$ denoting an embedding of $`M^m`$ in $`R^n`$, and $`x^\mu ,\mu =1,\mathrm{},m`$ a local coordinate system on $`M^m`$, we introduce an adapted coordinate frame $``$ defined by a smooth assignment of $`m`$ linearly independent tangent vectors $`𝐭_\mu =_\mu 𝐑`$, and $`nm=p`$ orthogonal normal vectors $`\widehat{𝐧}^i(x),i=m+1,\mathrm{},n`$. In a sufficiently small neighborhood of $`M^m`$, the Cartesian coordinates, $`𝐫`$, for a point in $`R^n`$ can be reexpressed as

$$𝐫(x,y)=𝐑(x)+y^i\widehat{𝐧}^i(x)$$
(1)
where $`x`$ denotes an appropriate set of the $`x^\mu `$ and $`y`$ a set of distances $`y^i`$ from $`M^m`$ in the directions $`\widehat{𝐧}^i(x)`$. The metric in the frame $``$ is defined by

$$G_{AB}_A𝐫_B𝐫$$
(2)
where $`A,B=1,\mathrm{},n`$, and derivatives are taken with respect to adapted frame coordinates, $`x^\mu `$ and $`y^i`$. To calculate $`G_{AB}`$, we need expressions for $`_\mu \widehat{𝐧}^i`$ and $`_\mu 𝐭_\nu `$. Applying a generalized form of the Frenet-Serret equations , we may write

$`_\mu \widehat{𝐧}^i`$ $`=\alpha _\mu ^{i\nu }𝐭_\nu A_\mu ^{ij}\widehat{𝐧}^j`$
$`_\mu 𝐭_\nu `$ $`=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }^\rho 𝐭_\rho +\alpha _{\mu \nu }^i\widehat{𝐧}^i`$ (3)
where

$`g_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=𝐭_\mu 𝐭_\nu `$
$`\alpha _{\mu \nu }^i`$ $`=𝐭_\mu _\nu \widehat{𝐧}^i`$
$`A_\mu ^{ij}`$ $`=\widehat{𝐧}^i_\mu \widehat{𝐧}^j`$ (4)
and “$``$” is the standard inner product on $`R^n`$. In the language of differential geometry, $`g_{\mu \nu }`$, $`\alpha _{\mu \nu }^i`$, and $`A_\mu ^{ij}`$ are the first fundamental form (the metric on $`M^m`$), the second fundamental form, and the normal fundamental form, respectively. The $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }^\rho `$ are the usual Christoffel symbols, but they will play little role in the discussion that follows. We follow conventional notation in that lower indices on tensors are obtained from upper indices by contraction with $`g_{\mu \nu }`$.

Note that the choice of an adapted coordinate frame is not unique. In particular, one adapted coordinate frame is carried into another by a point-dependent rotation of the $`\widehat{𝐧}^i`$. Under the action of a rotation, $`R^{ij}(x)`$, on the normal vectors $`\widehat{𝐧}^i`$, $`\alpha _{\mu \nu }^i`$ transforms as an $`SO(p)`$ vector, and $`A_\mu ^{ij}`$ as an $`SO(p)`$ gauge connection

$$A_\mu ^{ij}R^{ik}A_\mu ^{kl}R^{jl}+R^{ik}_\mu R^{jk}.$$
(5)
The metric can be determined from eqs. (2) and (3), and is given by

$$G_{AB}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\gamma _{\mu \nu }+y^ky^lA_\mu ^{kh}A_\nu ^{lh}& y^kA_\mu ^{jk}\\ y^kA_\nu ^{ik}& \delta ^{ij}\end{array}\right),$$
(6)
where $`\gamma _{\mu \nu }`$ is given by

$$\gamma _{\mu \nu }=g_{\mu \nu }2y^k\alpha _{\mu \nu }^k+y^ky^l\alpha _{\mu \rho }^kg^{\rho \sigma }\alpha _{\sigma \nu }^l.$$
(7)
Calculating the determinant of $`G_{AB}`$, we find $`|G|=|\gamma |`$, where $`|\gamma |`$ is the determinant of $`\gamma _{\mu \nu }`$. Moreover, a calculation of the inverse of the metric tensor yields the exact expression,

$$G^{AB}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\lambda ^{\mu \nu }& \lambda ^{\mu \sigma }y^kA_\sigma ^{kj}\\ \lambda ^{\nu \sigma }y^kA_\sigma ^{ki}& \delta ^{ij}+y^ky^lA_\sigma ^{ik}A_\rho ^{jl}\lambda ^{\sigma \rho }\end{array}\right)$$
(8)
where $`\lambda ^{\mu \nu }(\gamma ^1)_{\mu \nu }`$ is the inverse of $`\gamma _{\mu \nu }`$.333It should be noted that in the literature $`\lambda ^{\mu \nu }`$ is sometimes confused with $`\gamma ^{\mu \nu }`$.

## 4 Derivation of the Effective Hamiltonian

Having developed a convenient characterization of the geometry of $`M^m`$ embedded in $`R^n`$, we can construct the Hamiltonian $`H`$ on $`M^m`$. The quantum description of dynamics on $`M^m`$ is unambiguously defined by the free Hamiltonian $`H_E`$ on $`R^n`$ together with the potential that confines the particle to $`M^m`$. To obtain the effective Hamiltonian on $`M^m`$, we rewrite $`H_E`$ in terms of our adapted frame coordinates, and then project it onto the space of states describing the confined normal degrees of freedom. In Cartesian coordinates $`𝐫^A`$, and working in units where $`\mathrm{}`$ and the mass of our particle is equal to unity, we have

$$H_E=\frac{1}{2}_A^E_A^E+V$$
(9)
where $`^E`$ denotes derivatives taken with respect to Euclidean coordinates, and $`VV(y)`$ is the confining potential that depends only on the normal coordinates. Following convention, we normalize the wave function $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ of the system according to the condition

$$|\mathrm{\Phi }|^2d^nr=1.$$
(10)
Changing coordinates to $`x`$ and $`y`$, the Hamiltonian given in eq. (9) becomes

$$H_E=\frac{1}{2|G|^{1/2}}_AG^{AB}|G|^{1/2}_B+V$$
(11)
and the normalization condition of eq. (10) becomes

$$|\mathrm{\Phi }|^2|G|^{1/2}d^mxd^py=1.$$
(12)
Since we want to obtain a wave function describing a quantum mechanical probability density for a particle moving on $`M^m`$, we rescale the wave function $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ by $`|G|^{1/4}/|g|^{1/4}`$, where $`|g|`$ is the determinant of $`g_{\mu \nu }`$, $`\mathrm{\Psi }(|G|^{1/4}/|g|^{1/4})\mathrm{\Phi }`$. Likewise, we rescale the Hamiltonian $`H_E`$, $`H(|G|^{1/4}/|g|^{1/4})H_E(|g|^{1/4}/|G|^{1/4})`$. $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is then normalized on $`M^m`$ as

$$d^mx|g|^{1/2}d^py|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2=1$$
(13)
and so $`d^py|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2`$ can be interpreted as a probability density for a particle moving on $`M^m`$ defined with respect to the conventional manifold measure $`d^mx|g|^{1/2}`$. Returning to $`H`$, we may use the explicit form for $`G^{AB}`$ in eq. (8) to obtain

$`H`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2|\gamma |^{1/4}}}_i|\gamma |^{1/2}_i{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|\gamma |^{1/4}}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2|g|^{1/4}|\gamma |^{1/4}}}(_\mu \lambda ^{\mu \nu }|\gamma |^{1/2}_\nu +y^ky^lA_\mu ^{ik}A_\nu ^{jl}_i\lambda ^{\mu \nu }|\gamma |^{1/2}_j`$ (14)
$`+_\mu \lambda ^{\mu \rho }y^kA_\rho ^{kj}|\gamma |^{1/2}_j+_i\lambda ^{\nu \rho }y^kA_\rho ^{ki}|\gamma |^{1/2}_\nu ){\displaystyle \frac{|g|^{1/4}}{|\gamma |^{1/4}}}+V(y).`$
Introducing $`\widehat{}_\mu _\mu +\frac{1}{2}iA_\mu ^{ij}L_{ij}`$, where the $`L_{ij}=i(y^j_iy^i_j)`$ are the angular momentum operators in the space normal to $`M^m`$, we may compactly rewrite eq. (14) as

$$H=\frac{1}{2|\gamma |^{1/4}}_i|\gamma |^{1/2}_i\frac{1}{|\gamma |^{1/4}}\frac{1}{2|g|^{1/4}|\gamma |^{1/4}}\widehat{}_\mu \lambda ^{\mu \nu }|\gamma |^{1/2}\widehat{}_\nu \frac{|g|^{1/4}}{|\gamma |^{1/4}}+V(y).$$
(15)
Next we implement the constraint imposed by the confining potential $`V`$. To do this, we exploit the fact that $`V`$ is a function of the normal coordinates $`y^i`$ alone and $`V`$ has a deep minimum at $`y^i=0`$. Thus, we may expand $`V`$ as a power series in the $`y^i`$ about its minimum,

$$V(y^i)=\frac{1}{2}\omega ^2y^{i2}+O(y^3)$$
(16)
where we have assumed that $`V`$ is symmetric in the $`y^i`$ up to quadratic order.444Asymmetric scalar confining potentials are considered in Ref.  Since $`V`$ has a deep minimum, we can neglect terms of order $`y^3`$ and higher. In neglecting these terms, we are assuming that $`\omega `$ is much larger than the scale of curvatures on $`M^m`$, denoted by $`\kappa `$. More specifically, $`\omega \kappa ^2`$. Following the approach of Refs.  and , we adsorb the scale of the frequency $`\omega `$ in eq. (16) into a small dimensionless parameter $`ϵ`$, $`\omega \omega /ϵ`$, so that the rescaled $`\omega `$ is of order $`\kappa ^2`$. We then use $`ϵ`$ as a natural perturbative parameter in the theory. Thus, the dominant pieces of the Hamiltonian in eq. (15) that act on the transverse space are

$$H_0=\frac{1}{2}_i_i+\frac{1}{2ϵ^2}\omega ^2y^{i2}.$$
(17)
Formally, we want to consider the limit $`ϵ0`$. However, the divergence in the potential $`(1/2ϵ^2)\omega ^{i2}y^{i2}`$ in the $`ϵ0`$ limit complicates the analysis. To avoid this problem, we rescale the coordinates $`y^i`$, as $`y^iϵ^{1/2}y^i`$, which allows us to rewrite eq. (17) as

$$H_0=\frac{1}{ϵ}(\frac{1}{2}_i_i+\frac{1}{2}\omega ^2y^{i2}).$$
(18)
Thus, we can study the $`ϵ0`$ limit unambiguously by considering $`ϵH`$. We apply this approach to the complete Hamiltonian to develop an expansion of $`ϵH`$ in powers of $`ϵ`$,

$$ϵH=\widehat{H}_0+ϵ\widehat{H}+O(ϵ^{3/2})$$
(19)
where

$$\widehat{H}_0=\frac{1}{2}\left(_i_i+\omega ^{i2}y^{i2}\right)$$
(20)
and555To obtain eq. (21) for $`\widehat{H}`$, we have used $`\lambda ^{\mu \nu }=g^{\mu \nu }+2ϵ^{1/2}y^k\alpha ^{k\mu \nu }+3ϵy^ky^l\alpha ^{l\rho \nu }\alpha _\rho ^{k\mu }+O(ϵ^{3/2})`$.

$$\widehat{H}=\frac{1}{2g^{1/2}}\left(_\mu +\frac{i}{2}A_\mu ^{ij}L_{ij}\right)g^{\mu \nu }g^{1/2}\left(_\nu +\frac{i}{2}A_\nu ^{kl}L_{kl}\right)+\frac{1}{8}g^{\mu \nu }g^{\rho \sigma }\left(\alpha _{\mu \nu }^i\alpha _{\rho \sigma }^i2\alpha _{\mu \rho }^i\alpha _{\nu \sigma }^i\right).$$
(21)
Equation (21), which forms the basis of the subsequent analysis, was first obtained in full generality by Maraner and Destri . Given that we are interested in the $`ϵ0`$ limit, the only term beyond $`\widehat{H}_0`$ relevant in the perturbative expansion in eq. (19) is $`\widehat{H}`$. From here on we keep only $`\widehat{H}`$ which survives as $`ϵ0`$.

To obtain an effective Hamiltonian on $`M^m`$, we need to “freeze” the normal degrees of freedom. We separate the wave function $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ into a function depending on the normal coordinates $`y^i`$, and a function depending on the manifold coordinates $`x^\mu `$

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(x,y)=\underset{\beta }{}\psi _\beta (x)\chi _\beta (y)$$
(22)
where the index $`\beta =1,\mathrm{},d`$ labels any degeneracy that exists in the spectrum of the $`O(1/ϵ)`$ Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}_0/ϵ`$ governing the normal degrees of freedom. $`\widehat{H}_0`$ is degenerate because of the SO($`p`$) symmetry of $`V(y)`$, and so the eigenstates of $`\widehat{H}_0`$ can be decomposed into irreducible SO($`p`$) multiplets. For the case of a $`p`$-dimensional symmetric harmonic oscillator, the ground state of $`\widehat{H}_0`$ belongs to the trivial representation of SO($`p`$), while the first excited state belongs to the $`p`$-dimensional “fundamental” representation of SO($`p`$). The $`\chi _\beta (y)`$ satisfy to $`O(1/ϵ)`$

$$\frac{1}{ϵ}\widehat{H}_0\chi _\beta (y)=E_0\chi _\beta (y)$$
(23)
where $`E_0`$ gives the largest $`O(1/ϵ)`$ contribution to the total energy $`E`$ of the system. Upon projection onto the space of states spanned by $`\chi _1(y),\mathrm{},\chi _d(y)`$, $`\widehat{H}`$ becomes a $`d\times d`$ matrix $`\widehat{}`$ with components

$$\widehat{}_{\alpha \beta }=d^py\chi _\alpha ^{}(y)\widehat{H}\chi _\beta (y).$$
(24)
$`\widehat{}`$ acts on the wave function $`\stackrel{}{\psi }(x)`$ (with components $`\psi _\beta (x)`$), and the dynamics on $`M^m`$ is determined by

$$\widehat{}\stackrel{}{\psi }(x)=\widehat{E}\stackrel{}{\psi }(x)$$
(25)
where $`\widehat{E}`$ is the $`O(ϵ^0)`$ correction to the total energy $`E`$ of the system.

## 5 Gauge Structure

To better understand the structure of the effective Hamiltonian $`\widehat{}`$, we return to expression (21). Defining $`d\times d`$ matrices $`_{ij}`$ and $`_{ij,kl}^2`$ by

$`(_{ij})_{mn}`$ $`{\displaystyle d^py\chi _m^{}(y)L_{ij}\chi _n(y)}`$
$`(_{ij,kl}^2)_{mn}`$ $`{\displaystyle d^py\chi _m^{}(y)L_{ij}L_{kl}\chi _n(y)}`$ (26)
and using eq. (24), the effective Hamiltonian on $`M^m`$ can be rewritten as

$$\widehat{}=\frac{1}{2g^{1/2}}(_\mu i𝒜_\mu )g^{\mu \nu }g^{1/2}(_\nu i𝒜_\nu )+𝒫$$
(27)
where $`𝒫`$ and $`𝒜_\mu `$ are the $`d\times d`$ matrices

$`𝒫`$ $`=\frac{1}{8}g^{\mu \nu }g^{\rho \sigma }\left(\alpha _{\mu \nu }^i\alpha _{\rho \sigma }^i2\alpha _{\mu \rho }^i\alpha _{\nu \sigma }^i\right)`$
$`𝒜_\mu `$ $`=\frac{1}{2}A_\mu ^{rs}_{sr}`$ (28)
and $``$ is the $`d\times d`$ identity matrix.

The algebra leading to eq. (27) generates a term $`𝒲=\frac{1}{8}g^{\mu \nu }A_\mu ^{ij}A_\nu ^{kl}(_{ij,kl}^2_{ij}_{kl})`$ which is kept explicitly by other workers. Since the confining potential $`V(y)`$ possesses a SO($`p`$) symmetry, all of the $`_{ij}`$’s commute with $`\widehat{}`$ and $`\{\chi _\beta (y)\}`$ forms a complete set of states for the subspace spanned by $`L_{ij}\chi _1(y),\mathrm{},L_{ij}\chi _d(y)`$ for all $`i,j`$. Consequently, $`𝒲`$ is zero.

$`\widehat{}`$ is the Hamiltonian for a spinless particle in a curved space in the presence of background SO($`p`$) gauge fields and a geometrically induced potential. We emphasize that the gauge potentials are only present if the normal wavefunction lies in a degenerate, nontrivial representation of SO($`p`$). The effective physics on $`M^m`$ governed by $`\widehat{}`$ remains invariant under local SO($`p`$) gauge transformations of the normal coordinates. Under SO($`p`$) rotations of the $`\widehat{𝐧}^i`$, $`𝒜_\mu `$ transforms as a gauge field in the adjoint representation of SO($`p`$), while $`\stackrel{}{\psi }(x)`$ transforms in some $`d`$-dimensional representation $`D_d`$ of SO($`p`$). In particular, under the transformation

$$\widehat{𝐧}^i()_{ij}\widehat{𝐧}^j$$
(29)
where $`=e^{i\theta _{ij}\stackrel{~}{}_{ij}}`$ is an element of the vector representation of SO($`p`$), $`\stackrel{}{\psi }(x)`$, $`𝒜_\mu `$, and $`𝒫`$ transform as

$`\stackrel{}{\psi }(x)`$ $`𝒱\stackrel{}{\psi }(x)`$
$`𝒜_\mu `$ $`𝒱𝒜_\mu 𝒱^T+𝒱_\mu 𝒱^T`$
$`𝒫`$ $`𝒫`$ (30)
where $`𝒱=e^{i\theta _{ij}_{ij}}`$ is in the $`D_d`$ matrix representation of SO($`p`$). As promised, the invariance of $`V`$ under SO($`p`$)-rotations is realized as an SO($`p`$) gauge invariance of the effective theory on $`M^m`$.

The field strength tensor, $`𝒢_{\mu \nu }`$, associated with the gauge potential $`𝒜_\mu `$ is given by

$$𝒢_{\mu \nu }=_\mu 𝒜_\nu _\nu 𝒜_\mu +[𝒜_\mu ,𝒜_\nu ].$$
(31)
Although a nonvanishing field strength is a sufficient condition for the gauge potential $`𝒜_\mu `$ to have a physical effect, it is not necessary. As Takagi and Tanzawa have noted, even in cases with vanishing field strength, global Aharonov-Bohm effects can exist when the constraint hypersurface has nonvanishing torsion . Subsequent authors have further explored the connection between Aharonov-Bohm effects and the geometry of the constraint hypersurface for the case of $`M^1`$ embedded in $`R^n`$ .

## 6 Intrinsic and Extrinsic Geometry Contributions

In this section, we consider two questions: First, what features of $`\widehat{}`$ *cannot* be purely attributed to the intrinsic geometry of $`M^m`$? Second, what type of embedding structure is needed to generate nontrivial geometrically induced physics effects for the case of $`M^3`$ embedded in $`R^{n4}`$?

Upon examining eqs. (27) and (28), we see that the *intrinsic* contributions to $`\widehat{}`$ are from the Laplacian on $`M^m`$ involving the adapted frame metric $`g_{\mu \nu }`$. *Extrinsic* contributions to $`\widehat{}`$ occur through the momentum independent potential $`𝒫`$ and through the minimally coupled gauge field $`𝒜_\mu `$. $`𝒫`$ depends on the extrinsic geometry of the embedding of $`M^m`$ in $`R^n`$ and is purely quantum mechanical (i.e., does not survive in the classical limit). $`𝒫`$ was generated by rescaling the Hamiltonian to adaptive coordinates, so it represents a quantum “fictitious” force associated with the adapted frame $``$. In order to understand better how the embedding generates the effective potential, we rewrite $`𝒫`$ in terms of the geometrically invariant principal curvatures of $`M^m`$. There are $`m`$ principal curvatures for each normal vector $`\widehat{𝐧}^i`$ given by the eigenvalues of the matrix

$$(\widehat{\alpha }_i)_{\mu \nu }=\alpha _\mu ^{i\nu }.$$
(32)
Denoting the $`\mu ^{th}`$ principal curvature corresponding to the $`i^{th}`$ normal $`\widehat{𝐧}^i`$ as $`\kappa _{\mu ,i}`$, we introduce the linear and quadratic polynomials symmetric in the $`\kappa _{\mu ,i}`$ for each $`i`$ independently,

$$s_{1,i}=\underset{\mu }{}\kappa _{\mu ,i}s_{2,i}=\underset{\mu <\nu }{}\kappa _{\mu ,i}\kappa _{\nu ,i}.$$
(33)
In terms of the $`s_{1,i}`$ and $`s_{2,i}`$, we have

$`𝒫`$ $`=\frac{1}{8}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\left(\mathrm{𝚝𝚛}(\widehat{\alpha }_i)^22\mathrm{𝚝𝚛}(\widehat{\alpha }_i^2)\right)`$
$`=\frac{1}{8}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\left(s_{1,i}^24s_{2,i}\right).`$ (34)
As first pointed out in Refs.  and , the effective potential for the cases of $`M^{1,2}`$ embedded in $`R^3`$ is given by,

$`𝒫`$ $`=\frac{1}{8}\kappa ^2(M^1),`$
$`𝒫`$ $`=\frac{1}{8}(\kappa _1\kappa _2)^2(M^2),`$ (35)
where $`\kappa `$ is the curvature of the curve $`M^1`$, and $`\kappa _1,\kappa _2`$ are the principal curvatures of $`M^2`$. For both of these cases, the effective potential is strictly negative. For the more general case of $`M^{m3}`$ embedded in $`R^{nm+1}`$, the effective potential can locally equal any real valued smooth function defined on $`M^m`$. For example, with $`\kappa _{1,2,3}`$ denoting principle curvatures

$$𝒫=\frac{1}{8}\left(\kappa _3\left(\kappa _32(\kappa _1+\kappa _2)\right)+(\kappa _1\kappa _2)^2\right)$$
(36)
for the case of $`M^3`$ embedded in $`R^4`$.

The “fictitious force” potential $`𝒫`$ is nonzero for a general embedding of $`M^3`$ in $`R^n`$. The other geometry-dependent interaction that can appear in $`\widehat{}`$ is the gauge term $`𝒜_\mu `$. For the simplest 3-dimensional case of $`M^3`$ embedded in $`R^4`$, $`V`$ is a 1-dimensional potential with nondegenerate energy eigenstates, and so $`𝒜_\mu `$ vanishes. For $`M^3`$ embedded in $`R^{n5}`$, $`𝒜_\mu `$ can be nonzero when the $`\chi _\beta (y)`$ are locked into a degenerate subspace of $`V`$. In the degenerate cases, the gauge interaction has U($`1`$) symmetry for $`m=3`$ and $`n=5`$, and SO($`3`$) symmetry for $`m=3`$ and $`n=6`$.

To further illustrate the physics for a 3-dimensional manifold, consider the embedding of a hypersurface $`M^3`$ in $`R^5`$ given by

$$𝐑(x,y,z)=(x\mathrm{cos}\rho z,x\mathrm{sin}\rho z,x,y,z).$$
(37)
In this example, the $`x`$ and $`z`$ coordinates have been mapped onto a helical surface in a 3-dimensional subspace of $`R^5`$ and the remaining $`y`$ coordinate mapping is flat. Using an adapted frame field

$`𝐭_x`$ $`=(\mathrm{cos}\rho z,\mathrm{sin}\rho z,1,0,0)`$
$`𝐭_y`$ $`=(0,0,0,1,0)`$
$`𝐭_z`$ $`=(\rho x\mathrm{sin}\rho z,\rho x\mathrm{cos}\rho z,0,0,1)`$
$`\widehat{𝐧}^1`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(\mathrm{cos}\rho z,\mathrm{sin}\rho z,1,0,0)`$
$`\widehat{𝐧}^2`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{1+\rho ^2x^2}}}(\mathrm{sin}\rho z,\mathrm{cos}\rho z,0,0,\rho x)`$ (38)
we may calculate the nonvanishing components of the fundamental forms and obtain $`g_{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{diag}(1,1,1+\rho ^2x^2)`$, $`\alpha _{\mu \nu }^1=\mathrm{diag}(0,0,\rho ^2x/\sqrt{2})`$,

$$\alpha _{\mu \nu }^2=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& \frac{\rho }{\sqrt{1+\rho ^2x^2}}\\ 0& 0& 0\\ \frac{\rho }{\sqrt{1+\rho ^2x^2}}& 0& 0\end{array}\right)$$
(39)
and $`A_z^{12}=\rho /\sqrt{2+2\rho ^2x^2}`$. Moreover, the field strength tensor $`𝒢_{\mu \nu }`$ has nonvanishing components

$$𝒢_{\mu \nu }=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& \frac{l\rho ^3x}{\sqrt{2}(1+\rho ^2x^2)^{3/2}}\\ 0& 0& 0\\ \frac{l\rho ^3x}{\sqrt{2}(1+\rho ^2x^2)^{3/2}}& 0& 0\end{array}\right)$$
(40)
where $`l`$ is the expectation value of the normal state angular momentum operator $`_{12}`$. The induced potential $`𝒫`$ can be obtained from $`\widehat{\alpha }_1=\mathrm{diag}(0,0,\rho ^2x/\sqrt{2}(1+\rho ^2x^2))`$,

$$\widehat{\alpha }_2=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& \frac{\rho }{(1+\rho ^2x^2)\sqrt{1+\rho ^2x^2}}\\ 0& 0& 0\\ \frac{\rho }{\sqrt{1+\rho ^2x^2}}& 0& 0\end{array}\right)$$
(41)
and is given by

$$𝒫=\frac{\rho ^2}{8(1+\rho ^2x^2)^2}\left(4+\frac{1}{2}\rho ^2x^2\right).$$
(42)
Given a confining potential with Abelian SO($`2`$) $``$ U($`1`$) invariance, a nonvanishing field strength tensor implies that the U($`1`$) induced gauge potential $`𝒜_\mu `$ cannot be transformed away. Assuming that the normal states are locked into a subspace with nonvanishing angular momentum $`l`$, the gauge potential is given by

$$𝒜_\mu =(0,0,\frac{\rho l}{\sqrt{2+2\rho ^2x^2}})$$
(43)
and the corresponding background magnetic-like field is

$$_\mu =\times 𝒜_\mu =(0,\frac{\rho ^3xl}{\sqrt{2}(1+\rho ^2x^2)^{3/2}},0).$$
(44)
For fixed $`x`$, an observer on $`M^3`$ would feel the presence of a magnetic field along the $`y`$-direction and an attractive $`x`$-dependent scalar potential centered at $`x=0`$, both of which tend to zero as $`x`$ goes to infinity.

In addition to curves and surfaces embedded in $`R^3`$, other examples that have received attention in the literature include SO($`3`$) embedded in $`R^{3n}`$ , as well as generalized curves $`M^1`$ and Sm embedded in $`R^n`$ .

## 7 Conclusion

Confinement of particle motion to a curved manifold generates gauge fields as well as fictitious forces in the effective theory on the manifold. We have applied the confining potential formalism to the study of systems with confined degrees of freedom, and demonstrated that in the adiabatic limit of slowly varying curvature, the strength and representation content of the gauge terms appearing in the effective theory depends crucially on the space of normal states. The gauge terms vanish when the normal state is nondegenerate.

In addition to gauge terms, fictitious forces that depend on the extrinsic geometry of the constraint manifold also appear in the effective theory. The extrinsic geometric contributions to the theory highlight a fundamental difference between confinement in classical versus quantum physics. In classical mechanics, dynamics on the constraint manifold is independent of the directions normal to the manifold and therefore depends only on intrinsic geometry. In quantum mechanics, the Schrödinger wave function of the system is always nonzero in some neighborhood of the constraint manifold and is therefore sensitive to both intrinsic and extrinsic geometry.

### Acknowledgments

This work is supported in part by funds provided by the U.S. Department of Energy (D.O.E.) under cooperative research agreement #DF-FC02-94ER40818.