text:
# Four-Manifolds of Large Negative Deficiency

## 1. Introduction

The deficiency of a finite presentation of a group $`G`$ is $`gr`$, where $`g`$ is the number of generators in the presentation and $`r`$ is the number of relations. The deficiency of $`G`$, $`\text{def}(G)`$, is the maximum value of this difference, taken over all presentations. The deficiency of a manifold, $`\text{def}(X)`$, is defined to be $`\text{def}(\pi _1(X))`$. Our goal is the proof of the following two theorems.

###### Theorem 1.1.

For all $`N>0`$ there exists a smooth 4–dimensional homology sphere $`X_{\text{}}^4`$ such that $`\text{def}(X_{\text{}}^4)<N`$.

###### Theorem 1.2.

There exists a smooth, compact, contractible 4–manifold $`Z`$ and for all $`N>0`$ an embedding $`f_{\text{}}:ZS^4`$ such that $`\text{def}(S^4f_{\text{}}(Z))<N`$. Furthermore, $`Z\times IB^5`$ so, in particular, $`Z`$ embeds in $`S^4`$ with contractible complement.

Kervaire  proved that a group $`G`$ is the fundamental group of a homology sphere of dimension greater than four if and only if $`G`$ is finitely presented and $`H_1(G)=0=H_2(G)`$. Hausmann and Weinberger  demonstrated the existence of groups satisfying these conditions that cannot occur as the fundamental group of a homology 4–sphere. These groups have arbitrarily large negative deficiency and provided the first examples of the analog of Theorem 1.1 in high dimensions. Kervaire also proved that all perfect groups with deficiency 0 occur as the fundamental groups of homology 4–spheres and Hillman  recently constructed examples of homology 4–spheres of deficiency $`1`$.

Lickorish  proved that any finitely presented perfect group $`G`$ with $`\text{def}(G)=0`$ occurs as the fundamental group of the complement of a contractible submanifold of $`S^4`$. In , Lickorish’s construction was modified to build a contractible 4–manifold with an infinite number of embeddings into $`S^4`$, distinguished by the fundamental groups of the complement. The proof of Theorem 1.2 generalizes the construction of , giving the first complements of contractible 4–manifolds with negative deficiency.

Theorem 1.1 occurs naturally in the context of Kervaire’s theorem. Theorem 1.2 can similarly be placed in the context of higher dimensional topology with the following theorem.

###### Theorem 1.3.

For any $`n5`$ and group $`G`$, there exists a smooth, compact, contractible, $`n`$–dimensional submanifold $`M_GS^n`$ with $`\pi _1(S^nM_G)=G`$ if and only if $`G`$ is finitely presented, perfect, and $`H_2(G)=0`$. In this case $`M_G\times IB^{n+1}`$, so, in particular, there exists an embedding $`\varphi :M_GS^n`$ such that $`S^n\varphi (M_G)`$ is contractible.

An extension of Hausmann and Weinberger’s work yields the following theorem.

###### Theorem 1.4.

There exist groups $`G`$ that occur as the fundamental groups of the complements of compact contractible submanifolds in $`S^n`$ for $`n5`$ but cannot occur as the fundamental groups of the complements of compact contractible manifolds in $`S^4`$.

Notation and Conventions We work in the smooth category. Homology and cohomology are taken with integer coefficients unless otherwise noted. The ring $`𝐙[t,t^1]`$ is denoted $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

## 2. Deficiency

Levine constructed knots in $`S^4`$ with complements of arbitrarily large negative deficiency . His proof was based on the example of the 2–twist spin of the trefoil knot, for which he showed the complementary group has deficiency $`1`$. The construction of 4–manifolds used here begins with a manifold $`W^4`$ which is then modified by replacing the tubular neighborhood of a collection of embedded circles with complements of the 2–twist spin of the trefoil.

Levine’s analysis of the deficiency of the groups depended on computations of the homology of the infinite cyclic cover of the corresponding spaces. This approach is not immediately available here, since the relevant spaces have trivial first homology and hence no infinite cyclic cover. The way around this difficulty is to work with manifolds that have finite covers which themselves do have infinite cyclic covers.

This section contains the necessary covering space theory, its application to the study of deficiency, and a review of Levine’s results concerning the deficiency of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$–modules. In the next section the applicable covering spaces of the 2–twist spin of the trefoil are studied. In Section 4 the general construction is described and the results of sections 2 and 3 are applied to prove theorems 1.1 and 1.2.

### 2.1. Deficiency of Finite Index Subgroups

###### Theorem 2.1.

If $`H`$ is a subgroup of index $`n`$ in a finitely presented group $`G`$, then $`\text{def}(H)n\text{def}(G)n+1`$.

###### Proof.

A purely algebraic proof of this is based on the Reidemeister–Schreier rewriting process. Details are contained in , or see  for a covering space description. Briefly, $`G`$ is the fundamental group of a 2–complex with one vertex, $`g`$ 1–cells and $`r`$ 2–cells. Hence, the $`n`$–fold cover with group $`H`$ has a $`1`$–skeleton built from $`n`$ 0–cells and $`ng`$ 1–cells, so is homotopy equivalent to a 1–complex with one vertex and $`ngn+1`$ 1–cells. This has free fundamental group with $`ngn+1`$ generators. There are $`nr`$ 2–cells, so $`H`$ has a presentation with $`ngn+1`$ generators and $`nr`$ relations, and hence deficiency $`n(gr)n+1`$. The result follows. ∎

### 2.2. Deficiency and Infinite Cyclic Covers

Suppose that there is a surjective homomorphism $`\varphi `$ from a finitely presented group $`G`$ onto $`𝐙`$ with kernel $`H`$. There is an action of $`𝐙`$ on the abelianization of $`H`$, $`H_1(H)`$, making $`H_1(H)`$ into a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$–module. In terms of covering space, if $`K_G`$ is a space with fundamental group $`G`$, then $`H_1(H)`$ is the first homology of the (connected) infinite cyclic cover of $`K_G`$ corresponding to $`H`$ and the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$–action is induced by the group of deck transformations.

Deficiency of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$–modules. For an arbitrary finitely presented $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$–module $`M`$ the deficiency is defined as for groups. The deficiency of a presentation is the difference of the number of generators and the number of relations. The deficiency of the module is the maximum value of this difference, taken over all presentations. It is bounded above by the rank of $`M`$; that is, by the dimension of the $`𝐐(t)`$–vector space $`M𝐐(t)`$.

As just described, if $`\varphi :G𝐙`$ is a surjective homomorphism, the abelianization of the kernel, $`H`$, is a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$–module, $`H_1(H)`$. In this situation there is the following bound.

###### Theorem 2.2.

$`\text{def}(H_1(H))\text{def}(G)1`$.

###### Proof.

If $`G`$ has a presentation with $`g`$ generators and $`r`$ relations, then via the Reidemeister-Schreier rewriting process, or the corresponding geometric construction, $`H_1(H)`$ has a presentation with $`g1`$ generators and $`r`$ relations as a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$–module. The deficiency of this presentation is $`g1r=(gr)1`$. The result follows. ∎

### 2.3. Iterated Covers and Deficiency

###### Theorem 2.3.

Suppose $`W`$ is a connected manifold, $`\stackrel{~}{W}`$ is a connected $`n`$–fold cover of $`W`$, and $`\varphi :\pi _1(\stackrel{~}{W})𝐙`$ is a surjection. If $`\stackrel{~}{W}_{\mathrm{}}`$ is the associated infinite cyclic cover of $`\stackrel{~}{W}`$, then

$$\text{def}(H_1(\stackrel{~}{W}_{\mathrm{}}))n(\text{def}(\pi _1(W))n.$$

###### Proof.

The result is an immediate corollary of theorems 2.1 and 2.2. ∎

### 2.4. The Deficiency of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$–Modules

For a finitely presented $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$–module the following inequality was proved by Levine. The proof is summarized below, with relevant definitions embedded in the summary. Details can be found in .

###### Theorem 2.4.

If $`M`$ a finitely presented $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$–module of rank $`r_0`$ and deficiency $`d`$, then $`\text{Ext}_\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(M,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ can be generated, as a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$–module, by $`r_0d`$ elements.

###### Proof.

A finite presentation of $`M`$ with $`g`$ generators and $`r`$ relations ($`gr=d`$) yields an exact sequence

$$0F_2F_1\stackrel{\varphi _1}{}F_0M0,$$

with $`F_0`$ free of rank $`g`$ and $`F_1`$ free of rank $`r`$. By definition, $`F_2`$ is the kernel of $`\varphi _1`$ and homological properties of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ imply that $`F_2`$ is free. Tensoring with $`𝐐(t)`$ yields an exact sequence of $`𝐐(t)`$ vector spaces with dimensions, by definition, the ranks of each of the modules. Since the alternating sum of these dimensions is 0, rank($`F_2`$) = $`rg+r_0=r_0d`$.

By definition, $`\text{Ext}_\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(M,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ is the cokernel of the induced map $`\text{Hom}_\mathrm{\Lambda }(F_1,\mathrm{\Lambda })\text{Hom}_\mathrm{\Lambda }(F_2,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$, and hence is a quotient of a free module of rank $`r_0d`$. It follows that it can be generated by $`r_0d`$ elements, as desired. ∎

###### Example 2.5.

The $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ modules $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }/3`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }/3,t+1`$ have deficiencies $`1`$, $`0`$, and $`1`$, respectively.

The obvious presentations have these deficiencies, so it remains to see that these represent the maximum deficiencies. For $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ itself this is immediately seen by moving to the vector space setting via tensoring with $`𝐐(t)`$. For $`\mathrm{\Lambda }/3`$ the same argument applies, since $`\mathrm{\Lambda }/3𝐐(t)=0`$.

For $`\mathrm{\Lambda }/3,t+1`$, notice that its rank, $`r_0`$, is 0. Hence, by applying Theorem 2.4 the question is reduced to determining whether $`\text{Ext}_\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(\mathrm{\Lambda }/3,t+1,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ can be generated by fewer than 1 element; that is, is $`\text{Ext}_\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(\mathrm{\Lambda }/3,t+1,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ trivial? The free resolution of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }/3,t+1`$ is given by

$$0\mathrm{\Lambda }\stackrel{\varphi _2}{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\stackrel{\varphi _1}{}\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }/3,t+10,$$

where $`\varphi _1((1,0))=3`$, $`\varphi _1((0,1))=t+1`$, and $`\varphi _2(1)=(t+1,3)`$. Applying Hom gives that $`\text{Ext}_\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(\mathrm{\Lambda }/3,t+1,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ is the cokernel of the map

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\stackrel{\varphi _2^{}}{}\mathrm{\Lambda },$$

where $`\varphi _2^{}((1,0)=t+1`$ and $`\varphi _2^{}((0,1)=3`$. Hence, $`\text{Ext}_\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(\mathrm{\Lambda }/3,t+1,\mathrm{\Lambda })\mathrm{\Lambda }/t+1,3`$. As desired, this is nontrivial—as an abelian group it is isomorphic to $`𝐙_3`$.

## 3. Building blocks for high deficiency examples

Let $`K`$ denote the 2–twist spin of the trefoil knot in $`S^4`$. Let $`E`$ denote the complement of an open tubular neighborhood of $`K`$. This space is a fiber bundle over $`S^1`$ with fiber a punctured lens space, $`L(3,1)_0`$. The monodromy is an involution which acts nontrivially on $`𝐙_3=H_1(L(3,1)_0)`$ and the computation of the fundamental group follows readily:

###### Theorem 3.1.

$`\pi _1(E)=t,x|x^3=1,txt^1=x^1`$.

There is a homomorphism of $`\pi _1(E)`$ to $`𝐙`$ sending $`t`$ to $`d`$ and $`x`$ to 0. This induces an infinite cyclic cover of $`E`$, denoted $`\stackrel{~}{E}_d`$. The usual example is the case of $`d=1`$, for which $`\stackrel{~}{E}_dL(3,1)_0\times 𝐑`$. If $`d=0`$ the cover consists of an infinite family of copies $`E`$. If $`d>1`$ the cover is disconnected, consisting of $`d`$ copies of $`\stackrel{~}{E}_1`$.

Computing the first homology of this cover as a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$–module follows from standard methods in the case of $`d=1`$ and is a trivial calculation in the case of $`d=0`$. For $`d>1`$ the deck transformation $`T`$ cyclically permutes the $`d`$ copies of $`\stackrel{~}{E}_1`$, with $`T^d`$ restricting to give the generating deck transformation on each of the copies of $`\stackrel{~}{E}_1`$. The next theorem is a consequence of these observations.

###### Theorem 3.2.

For $`d>0`$, $`H_1(\stackrel{~}{E}_d)\mathrm{\Lambda }/3,t^d+1`$. For $`d=0`$, $`H_1(\stackrel{~}{E}_d)\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

In order to apply a Mayer-Vietoris argument it is also necessary to understand the homology of the boundary of covers of $`E`$. However, the boundary of $`E`$ is $`S^1\times S^2`$, and the $`d>0`$ infinite cyclic covers of the boundary have trivial first homology. In general:

###### Theorem 3.3.

For $`d>0`$, $`H_1(\stackrel{~}{E}_d)0`$. For $`d=0`$, $`H_1(\stackrel{~}{E}_d)\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

Let $`W`$ be a compact 4–manifold and $`\varphi :H_1(W)𝐙`$ be a surjection inducing an infinite cyclic cover, $`\stackrel{~}{W}`$. Suppose that $`\alpha `$ is an oriented simple closed curve in $`W`$ and $`\varphi ([\alpha ])=d`$. Let $`W^{}`$ be the manifold constructed by removing a tubular neighborhood of $`\alpha `$ and replacing it with $`E`$ via any homeomorphism of the boundaries. Removing $`\alpha `$ does not change the first homology of $`W`$ or of $`\stackrel{~}{W}`$. A Mayer-Vietoris argument gives the homology of the infinite cyclic cover $`\stackrel{~}{W}^{}`$.

###### Theorem 3.4.

If $`d>0`$, $`H_1(\stackrel{~}{W}^{})H_1(\stackrel{~}{W})\mathrm{\Lambda }/3,t^d+1`$. If $`d=0`$, $`H_1(\stackrel{~}{W}^{})H_1(\stackrel{~}{W})`$.

## 4. Building the Examples

The starting point for our construction is a perfect group with specified properties. The simplest example is now described. Let $`G`$ be the free product $`DD`$ where $`D`$ is the binary icosahedral group, the fundamental group of the Poincaré dodecahedral homology 3–sphere. The group $`D`$ has order 120, is perfect, and has deficiency 0. (One presentation is $`x,y|x^2=y^3=(xy)^5`$.) The homomorphism of $`DD`$ to $`D`$ given by isomorphisms on each factor has an index 120 kernel isomorphic to the free product of 119 copies of $`𝐙`$. (To see this, let $`M`$ be the dodecahedral space with the interior of a 3–ball removed and consider the restriction to $`(M\times I)`$ of the (120–fold) universal cover of $`M\times I`$. It is clear that this cover corresponds to the kernel of the map on fundamental groups induced by the inclusion of $`(M\times I)`$ into $`M\times I`$. Since the universal cover of $`M`$ is a 120 times punctured 3–sphere, the boundary of the cover of $`M\times I`$ consists of two copies of $`S^3`$ each with 120 balls removed and with boundaries identified. The resulting space is $`\mathrm{\#}_{119}S^1\times S^2`$.)

For the proof of Theorem 1.1, let $`W`$ be a homology 4–sphere with fundamental group $`G`$. It exists by . For the proof of Theorem 1.2, let $`W`$ be the complement of a contractible manifold $`Z`$ embedded in $`S^4`$ with $`\pi _1(W)=G`$. By  such a $`Z`$ exists, with the additional property that $`Z\times I=B^5`$.

Let $`\stackrel{~}{W}`$ be the associated 120–fold cover of $`W`$ and let $`\varphi :\pi _1(\stackrel{~}{W})𝐙`$ be an arbitrarily chosen surjective homomorphism. Let $`\stackrel{~}{W}_{\mathrm{}}`$ be the corresponding infinite cyclic cover.

Select an oriented simple closed curve $`x`$ in $`\stackrel{~}{W}`$ such that $`\varphi ([x])=1`$. It can be assumed via general position that the projection of $`x`$, $`\overline{x}`$, in $`W`$ is an embedding.

Replace each tubular neighborhood of $`k`$ parallel copies of $`\overline{x}`$ with $`E`$, the complement of the 2–twist spin of the trefoil. Call the resulting manifold $`Y_k`$. In the case that $`W`$ is a homology 4–sphere, $`Y_k`$ will also be a homology 4–sphere. In the case that $`W`$ is the complement of a contractible manifold $`Z`$ in $`S^4`$, since the operation of replacing the neighborhood of a circle in $`S^4`$ with a knot complement gives $`S^4`$ back again if the correct glueing homeomorphism is used, it follows that $`Y_k`$ embeds in $`S^4`$ with complement diffeomorphic to $`Z`$.

Let $`\stackrel{~}{Y}_k`$ denote the 120–fold cover of $`Y_k`$ and let $`\stackrel{~}{Y}_{k,\mathrm{}}`$ denote the infinite cyclic cover of $`\stackrel{~}{Y}_k`$.

Suppose that $`\pi _1(Y_k)`$ has deficiency $`d`$. Then according Theorem 2.3 the deficiency of $`H_1(\stackrel{~}{Y}_{k,\mathrm{}})`$ satisfies

$$\text{def}(H_1(\stackrel{~}{Y}_{k,\mathrm{}}))120(d1).$$

The space $`\stackrel{~}{Y_k}`$ is built from $`\stackrel{~}{W}`$ by removing parallel copies of neighborhoods of $`x`$ and replacing them with copies of $`E`$. (On each of these lifts $`\varphi `$ takes value 1.) In addition, the other lifts of $`\overline{x}`$ are removed and replaced by $`E`$ also. (Notice that since $`\stackrel{~}{W}`$ is a regular cover, the projection is a homeomorphism when restricted to each lift.) On each of these lifts the representation $`\varphi `$ takes various values.

From this we see that as a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$–module there is the following decomposition:

$$H_1(\stackrel{~}{Y}_{k,\mathrm{}})=H_1(\stackrel{~}{W}_{\mathrm{}})\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3,t+1}\right)^k\left(_i\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3,t^{d_i}+1}\right)^k\left(_j\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}\right)^k.$$

(The range of the indices $`i`$ and $`j`$ have not been computed explicitly and may be empty. They will soon drop out of the calculations.)

Suppose now that $`H_1(\stackrel{~}{Y}_{k,\mathrm{}})`$ has deficiency $`D`$ and that $`H_1(\stackrel{~}{W}_{\mathrm{}})`$ is generated by $`N`$ elements. Then, using the deficiency $`D`$ presentation of $`H_1(\stackrel{~}{Y}_{k,\mathrm{}})`$ and adding $`N`$ relations gives a deficiency $`DN`$ presentation of the direct sum

$$M=\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3,t+1}\right)^k\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3,t^{d_i}+1}\right)^k\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}\right)^k.$$

Hence, the deficiency of $`M`$ satisfies def$`(M)DN`$.

The $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$–module $`M`$ is of rank 0 by definition; it is $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$–torsion. According to Theorem 2.4, in this case Ext$`{}_{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}^{2}(M,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ can be generated by $`\text{def}(M)`$ elements. In particular, its quotient,

$$\text{Ext}_\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\left(\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3,t+1}\right)^k\right)\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3,t+1}\right)^k$$

could be generated by $`\text{def}(M)`$ elements. Hence, $`\text{def}(M)k`$, or $`\text{def}(M)k`$. We now have that $`DNk`$, or $`DNk`$.

Applying Theorem 2.3 to this situation now gives that $`\text{def}(\pi _1(Y_k))`$ satisfies

$$120\text{def}(\pi _1(Y_k))120\text{def}(H_1(\stackrel{~}{Y}_{k,\mathrm{}}))Nk.$$

We have

$$\text{def}(\pi _1(Y_k))\frac{N+120k}{120}.$$

Since this goes to $`\mathrm{}`$ as $`k`$ goes to infinity, the manifolds $`Y_k`$ have the desired negative deficiencies and theorems 1.1 and 1.2 are proved.

## 5. Higher Dimensional Complements

In this section we prove Theorem 1.3.

Theorem 1.3. For any $`n5`$ and group $`G`$ there exists a smooth, compact, contractible, $`n`$–dimensional submanifold $`M_GS^n`$ with $`\pi _1(S^nM_G)=G`$ if and only if $`G`$ is finitely presented, perfect, and $`H_2(G)=0`$. In this case $`M_G\times IB^{n+1}`$, and in particular there exists an embedding $`\varphi :M_GS^n`$ such that $`S^n\varphi (M_G)`$ is contractible.

###### Proof.

The second statement is automatic: if $`M_G`$ is contractible then $`M_G\times I`$ is a smooth contractible manifold with boundary a homotopy sphere. By the $`h`$–cobordism theorem the boundary is diffeomorphic to $`S^n`$ and contains $`M_G`$.

One direction of the first statement is immediate. Given the existence of such an $`M_G`$, the complement has finitely generated fundamental group and is a homology ball. Hence $`G`$ is perfect. Since a $`K(G,1)`$ can be built from $`S^nM_G`$ by adding cells of dimension 3 and higher, $`H_2(G)`$ is a quotient of $`H_2(S^nM_G)=0`$.

For the proof of the reverse implication, let $`N`$ be an $`n`$–dimensional homology sphere with $`\pi _1(N)=G`$, the existence of which is given by . Fix a handlebody structure on $`N`$ and let $`N_k`$ be the union of all handles of dimension $`k`$ and less.

The homology group $`H_2(N_2)`$ is free, say on $`a`$ generators, and hence there are $`b`$ 3–handles, with $`ba`$. The corresponding presentation matrix of $`H_2(N_3)`$ is given by a matrix $`A`$ with $`b`$ rows and $`a`$ columns. Repeated row operations, corresponding to handle slides on the 3–handles, yields a matrix $`A^{}`$ in upper triangular form; that is, $`A^{}(i,j)=0`$ if $`i>j`$. Since $`H_2(N_3)=0`$, the diagonal entries of this matrix must all be $`\pm 1`$.

Let $`N_3^{}`$ denote the union of $`N_2`$ with the first $`a`$ of the 3–handles in this new handlebody decomposition. From the construction, $`\pi _1(N_3^{})=G`$ and $`N_3^{}`$ is a homology ball.

In the argument that follows it is necessary that $`N_3^{}`$ be stably parallelizable; in fact, $`N_3^{}`$ has trivial tangent bundle, as seen as follows. Since $`N`$ is orientable, the tangent bundle of $`N_1`$ is trivial. The obstruction to trivializing the tangent bundle over the 2–skeleton of $`N`$, or over $`N_2`$, is the second Stiefel-Whitney class, $`w_2H^2(N,𝐙_2)=0`$. The obstruction to extending this trivialization over the 3–skeleton is in $`H^3(N,\pi _2(SO(n)))`$. But $`\pi _2`$ of any Lie group is trivial, so this obstruction vanishes also.

Since $`N_3^{}`$ is a stably parallelizable homology ball of dimension 5 or higher, basic surgery theory  implies that surgery can be performed on $`N_3^{}`$ to yield a contractible manifold $`M_G`$ without changing the boundary. The boundary union $`N_3^{}_{}M_G`$ is a homotopy sphere, since the map $`\pi _1(N_3^{})\pi _1(N_3^{})`$ is surjective. (To see this surjectivity, note that $`N_3^{}`$ is built with handles of dimension 3 and less; hence there is a dual handlebody structure building $`N_3^{}`$ from $`N_3^{}\times I`$ using handles of dimension $`n3`$ and higher. The surjectivity now follows from the assumption that $`n32`$.) Denote this homotopy sphere, $`N_3^{}_{}M_G`$, by $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^n`$. The $`h`$–cobordism theorem implies that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{\Sigma }S^n`$.

Let $`N_G=N_3^{}\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Then $`N_G_{}M_GS^n`$. That is, $`M_G`$ is a contractible manifold embedded in $`S^n`$ with complement $`N_G`$ having fundamental group $`G`$. This completes the proof.

## 6. Groups that Cannot Occur in Dimension 4

The goal of this section is to demonstrate the existence of a finitely presented group $`G`$ satisfying $`H_1(G)=0=H_2(G)`$ but such that $`G`$ does not occur as the fundamental group of a compact homology 4–ball. The construction is a simple modification of the work of , to which the reader is referred for background.

Fix a prime $`p`$ and for a group or space $`X`$ let $`\beta _i^p(X)`$ denote the dimension of $`H_i(X,𝐙_p)`$.

###### Lemma 6.1.

If $`G`$ is the fundamental group of compact 4–manifold $`M`$ with nonempty connected boundary and $`\chi (M)=1`$ (eg. a rational homology 4–ball) and $`HG`$ is index $`k`$, then

$$2+\beta _2^p(H)2\beta _1^p(H)2k.$$

###### Proof.

Let $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ be the $`k`$–fold cover of $`M`$ corresponding to $`H`$. Then

$$\chi (\stackrel{~}{M})=1\beta _1^p(\stackrel{~}{M})+\beta _2^p(\stackrel{~}{M})\beta _3^p(\stackrel{~}{M})=k.$$

By duality, $`\beta _3^p(\stackrel{~}{M})=\beta _1^p(\stackrel{~}{M},\stackrel{~}{M})`$. From the exact sequence,

$$H_1(\stackrel{~}{M},𝐙_p)H_1(\stackrel{~}{M},𝐙_p)\stackrel{\mathit{\varphi }}{}H_1(\stackrel{~}{M},\stackrel{~}{M},𝐙_p)H_0(\stackrel{~}{M},𝐙_p)H_0(\stackrel{~}{M},𝐙_p),$$

it follows that

$$\beta _1^p(\stackrel{~}{M},\stackrel{~}{M})=(\beta _0^p(\stackrel{~}{M})1)+\text{rank}(\text{Im}(\varphi )).$$

This in turn implies that

$$\beta _1^p(\stackrel{~}{M},\stackrel{~}{M}))(k1)+\beta ^p_1(\stackrel{~}{M}).$$

Combining these shows that

$$\beta _3^p(\stackrel{~}{M})(k1)+\beta _1^p(H).$$

Hence,

$$1\beta _1^p(H)+\beta _2^p(H)((k1)+\beta _1^p(H))k.$$

Simplifying gives the desired inequality.

In  there is constructed, for each positive integer $`k`$, a group $`G`$ satisfying the conditions of Theorem 1.3 that contains a subgroup $`A`$ of finite index, where that index is independent of $`k`$. These groups have the property that $`\beta _1^p(A)`$ is bounded above by a linear function of $`k`$ and $`\beta _2^p(A)`$ is bounded below by a quadratic function of $`k`$. The inequality of Lemma 6.1 cannot hold for all $`k`$, and hence these examples yield the proof of Theorem 1.4.

## 7. Open problems

There remains no characterization of the fundamental groups of homology 4–spheres. In addition, it is unknown whether such a characterization must depend on the category, smooth or topological.

Since in higher dimensions the set of fundamental groups of homology spheres is the same as the set of fundamental groups of complements of contractible manifolds, one can wonder if the same holds in dimension 4. We can state this as a conjecture.

###### Conjecture 7.1.

A group is the fundamental group of a homology 4–sphere if and only if it is the fundamental group of the complement of a contractible submanifold of the 4–sphere.

Neither direction of the conjecture is known to be true.


format: text

text:
# Scalar 𝜎 meson effects in radiative 𝜌⁰-meson decays

## Abstract

We study the radiative $`\rho ^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}\gamma `$ and $`\rho ^0\pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma `$ decays and we calculate their branching ratios using a phenomenological approach by adding to the amplitude calculated within the framework of chiral perturbation theory and vector meson dominance the amplitude of $`\sigma `$-meson intermediate state. Our results for the branching ratios are in good agreement with the experimental values.

The radiative decays of neutral vector mesons into a single photon and a pair of neutral pseudoscalar mesons have been a subject of continuous interest. The studies of such decays may serve as tests for the theoretical ideas about the nature of the intermediate states and the interesting mechanisms of these decays, and they may thus provide information about the complicated dynamics of meson physics in the low energy region.

The very recent measurement of the branching ratio for the decay $`\rho ^0\pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma `$ by the SND Collaboration obtained the value $`BR(\rho ^0\pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma )=(4.1_{0.9}^{+1.0}\pm 0.3)\times 10^5`$ , thus improving their previous preliminary report of $`BR(\rho ^0\pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma )=(4.8_{1.8}^{+3.4}\pm 0.3)\times 10^5`$ . On the other hand, the branching ratio for the decay $`\rho ^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}\gamma `$ was reported earlier by Novosibirsk group as $`BR(\rho ^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}\gamma )=(9.9\pm 1.6)\times 10^3`$ , and it was observed that the pion bremsstrahlung is the main mechanism for this decay with the structural radiation proceeding through the intermediate scalar resonance making less than one-order of magnitude smaller contribution to the branching ratio .

The theoretical studies of radiative $`\rho `$-meson decays was initiated by Singer  who calculated the amplitude for the decay $`\rho ^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}\gamma `$ by considering only the bremsstrahlung mechanism, and he assumed that the decay $`\rho ^0\pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma `$ proceeds through an ($`\omega \pi `$) intermediate state as $`\rho ^0(\omega )\pi ^0(\pi ^0\gamma )\pi ^0`$. The vector meson dominance (VMD) calculation of Bramon et al.  with this intermediate state using standard Lagrangians obeying SU(3)-symmetry gave the value B($`\rho ^0\pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma `$)=$`1.1\times 10^5`$ for the branching ratio. However, they also noted that final state interactions could lead to a larger value for the branching ratio B($`\rho ^0\pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma `$) through the mechanism $`\rho ^0(\pi ^+\pi ^{})\gamma (\pi ^0\pi ^0)\gamma `$. Bramon et al.  later considered the radiative vector meson decays within the framework of chiral effective Lagrangians enlarged to include on-shell vector mesons using chiral perturbation theory, and they calculated the branching ratios for various decays at the one-loop level, including both $`\pi \pi `$ and $`K\overline{K}`$ intermediate loops. In this approach, the decay $`\rho ^0\pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma `$ proceeds mainly through the charged pion $`(\pi ^+\pi ^{})`$loops, contribution of kaon-loops being three orders of magnitude smaller, resulting in the decay rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\rho ^0\pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma )_\chi `$=$`1.42`$ KeV which is of the same order of magnitude as the VMD contribution. The interference between the pion-loop contribution and the VMD-amplitude turns out to be constructive leading to BR$`(\rho ^0\pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma )_{VMD+\chi }`$=$`2.6\times 10^5`$. However, this value is still substantially smaller than the latest experimental result quoted above.

Since the experimental result for the branching ratio B$`(\rho ^0\pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma `$) is almost nearly twice the theoretical value calculated using VMD and chiral-loop amplitudes, the mechanism of the decay $`\rho ^0\pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma `$ should reexamined and additional contributions should be investigated. One additional contribution to the decay may be provided by the amplitude involving scalar-isoscalar $`\sigma `$-meson as an intermediate state. Although the existence of $`\sigma `$-meson has long been controversial, an increasing number of theoretical and experimental analyzes find a $`\sigma `$-pole position near $`(500i250)`$ MeV . Furthermore, the $`D^+\sigma \pi ^03\pi `$ decay channel observed by the Fermilab (E791) Collaboration is interpreted to provide direct experimental evidence for $`\sigma `$-meson where it is seen as a clear dominant peak with $`M_\sigma =(478_{23}^{+24}\pm 17)`$ MeV, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma =(324_{40}^{+42}\pm 21)`$ MeV . Since $`\sigma `$-meson is assumed to couple strongly to low mass pion pairs, the $`\rho ^0\pi \pi \gamma `$ decays thus provide an opportunity to investigate the theoretical ideas about the role $`\sigma `$-meson plays in the dynamics of low energy meson physics.

One way to include the effect of $`\sigma `$-meson in the decay mechanisms of $`\rho ^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}\gamma `$ and $`\rho ^0\pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma `$ decays is to consider its contribution as resulting from a $`\sigma `$-pole intermediate state, that is to assume that the contributions of $`\sigma `$-meson to the decay mechanisms of these decays result from the corresponding amplitudes of $`\rho ^0(\sigma \gamma )(\pi ^+\pi ^{})\gamma `$ and $`\rho ^0(\sigma \gamma )(\pi ^0\pi ^0)\gamma `$ reactions. In a previous work , two of the present authors calculated the branching ratio B$`(\rho ^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}\gamma `$)in a phenomenological framework using pion bremsstrahlung amplitude and $`\sigma `$-meson pole amplitude. The experimental value of this branching ratio was then used to calculate the coupling constant $`g_{\rho \sigma \gamma }`$ as a function of $`\sigma `$-meson parameters $`M_\sigma `$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma `$. These authors in a following work  calculated the branching ratio B$`(\rho ^0\pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma `$) using the values of the coupling constant $`g_{\rho \sigma \gamma }`$ thus obtained in a phenomenological approach where the contributions of $`\sigma `$-meson, $`w`$-meson intermediate states and of the pion-loops are considered. The branching ratio B$`(\rho ^0\pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma `$) obtained this way for $`M_\sigma =478`$ MeV and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma =324`$ MeV was more than an order of magnitude larger than the experimental value. This unrealistic value was the result of the constant $`\rho \sigma \gamma `$ amplitude used and consequently the large coupling constant $`g_{\rho \sigma \gamma }`$ extracted from the experimental value of the branching ratio of the $`\rho ^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}\gamma `$ decay. Therefore, it may be concluded that it is not realistic to include the $`\sigma `$-meson in the mechanisms of the radiative $`\rho ^0`$-meson decays as an intermediate pole state.

On the other hand, $`\rho ^0\pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma `$ decay was also considered by Marco et al.  in the framework of unitarized chiral perturbation theory. They noted that the energies of two pion system are quite large so that the decay cannot be treated with standard chiral perturbation theory. They used the techniques of chiral unitary theory developed earlier, a review is given by Oller et al. , to include the final state interactions of two pions by summing the pion-loops through the Bethe-Salpeter equation. The branching ratio for $`\rho ^0\pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma `$ they obtained was B$`(\rho ^0\pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma `$)=$`1.4\times 10^5`$ and they furthermore noted that this result could be interpreted as the result of the mechanism $`\rho ^0(\sigma )\gamma (\pi ^0\pi ^0)\gamma `$ since $`\pi ^0\pi ^0`$ interaction is dominated by $`\sigma `$-pole in the relevant energy regime of this decay.

Thus, it seems that a natural way to include the effects of $`\sigma `$-meson in the mechanisms of radiative $`\rho ^0`$-meson decays is to assume that the $`\sigma `$-meson couples to $`\rho ^0`$-meson through the pion-loop. In this work, we reconsider the approach used in the references  and , and we study the contribution of the $`\sigma `$-meson intermediate state amplitude to $`\rho ^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}\gamma `$ and $`\rho ^0\pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma `$ decays. We follow a phenomenological approach and assume that the $`\sigma `$-meson couples to the $`\rho ^0`$-meson through a pion-loop, in other words we assume that the amplitude $`\rho ^0\sigma \gamma `$ results from the sequential $`\rho ^0(\pi ^+\pi ^{})\gamma \sigma \gamma `$ mechanism as suggested by the unitarized chiral perturbation theory in which $`\sigma `$-meson is generated dynamically by unitarizing the one-loop pion amplitudes. We use the coupling constants that are determined from the experimental values of the relevant quantities that we calculate employing the effective Lagrangians of our approach. Although the decay $`\rho ^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}\gamma `$ is dominated by the pion-bremsstrahlung amplitude, for the consistency of our formalism we study both of $`\rho ^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}\gamma `$ and $`\rho ^0\pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma `$ decays and calculate their branching ratios.

Our calculation is based on the Feynman diagrams shown in Fig. 1 for $`\rho ^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}\gamma `$ decay and in Fig. 2 for $`\rho ^0\pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma `$ decay. The last diagrams in Fig. 1 a, b, c and in Fig. 2 b, c are the direct terms required to establish the gauge invariance. We describe the $`\omega \rho \pi `$-vertex by the effective Lagrangian

$`_{\rho \omega \pi }^{eff}=g_{\omega \rho \pi }ϵ^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }_\mu \omega _\nu _\alpha \stackrel{}{\rho }_\beta \stackrel{}{\pi },`$ (1)
which also conventionally defines the coupling constant $`g_{\omega \rho \pi }`$. Achasov et al.  assumed that $`\omega 3\pi `$ decay proceeds with the intermediate $`\rho \pi `$ state as $`\omega (\rho )\pi \pi \pi \pi `$ and using experimental value of the $`\omega 3\pi `$ width they determined this coupling constant as $`g_{\rho \omega \pi }=(14.3\pm 0.2)GeV^1`$. The $`\rho \pi \pi `$-vertex is described by the effective Lagrangian

$`_{\rho \pi \pi }^{eff}=g_{\rho \pi \pi }\stackrel{}{\rho }_\mu (^\mu \stackrel{}{\pi }\times \stackrel{}{\pi }).`$ (2)
The experimental decay width of the decay $`\rho \pi \pi `$  then yields the value $`g_{\rho \pi \pi }=(6.03\pm 0.02)`$ for the coupling constant $`g_{\rho \pi \pi }`$. For the $`\sigma \pi \pi `$-vertex we use the effective Lagrangian

$`_{\sigma \pi \pi }^{eff}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_{\sigma \pi \pi }M_\sigma \stackrel{}{\pi }\stackrel{}{\pi }\sigma .`$ (3)
Using the experimental values for $`M_\sigma `$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma `$  as $`M_\sigma =(483\pm 31)`$ MeV and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma =(338\pm 48)`$ MeV, where statistical and systematic errors are added in quadrature , we obtain the strong coupling constant $`g_{\sigma \pi \pi }`$ as $`g_{\sigma \pi \pi }=(5.34\pm 0.55)`$. We note that our effective Lagrangians $`_{\sigma \pi \pi }^{eff}`$ and $`_{\rho \pi \pi }^{eff}`$ are the ones that result from an extension of the $`\sigma `$-model to include the isovector $`\rho `$ through a Yang-Mills local gauge theory based on isospin with the vector meson mass generated through the Higgs mechanism . The $`\omega \pi \gamma `$-vertex is described by the effective Lagrangian

$`_{\omega \pi \gamma }^{eff}=g_{\omega \pi \gamma }ϵ^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }_\mu \omega _\nu _\alpha A_\beta \pi .`$ (4)
We then obtain the coupling constant $`g_{\omega \pi \gamma }`$ from the experimental partial width  of the radiative decay $`\omega \pi ^0\gamma `$ as $`g_{\omega \pi \gamma }=(0.706\pm 0.021)GeV^1`$.

Meson-meson interactions were studied by Oller and Oset  using the standard Chiral Lagrangian in lowest order of chiral perturbation theory that contains the most general low energy interactions of the pseudoscalar meson octet in this order. We use their results for the four pseudoscalar amplitudes $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0\pi ^0`$ and $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ that we need in the loop diagrams in Fig. 1 b and in Fig. 2 b. We note that as shown by Oller  due to gauge invariance the off-shell parts of the amplitudes, that should be kept inside the loop integration, do not contribute, and as a result the amplitudes $`_\chi (\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0\pi ^0)`$ and $`_\chi (\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^+\pi ^{})`$ factorize in the expressions for the loop diagrams.

In our calculation of the invariant amplitude, in the $`\sigma `$-meson propagator we make the replacement $`q^2M^2q^2M^2+iM\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and we use the energy dependent width for $`\sigma `$-meson which is given as

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma (q^2)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma {\displaystyle \frac{M_\sigma ^2}{q^2}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{q^24M_\pi ^2}{M_\sigma ^24M_\pi ^2}}}\theta (q^24M_\pi ^2).`$ (5)
For the loop integrals appearing in Figs. 1 and 2 we use the results of Lucio and Pestiau  who evaluated similar integrals using dimensional regularization. In our case the contribution of the pion-loop amplitude corresponding to $`\rho ^0(\pi ^+\pi ^{})\gamma \pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma `$ reaction can be written as

$`_\pi ={\displaystyle \frac{eg_{\rho \pi \pi }_\chi (\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0\pi ^0)}{2\pi ^2M_\pi ^2}}I(a,b)\left[(pk)(ϵu)(pϵ)(ku)\right],`$ (6)
where $`a=M_\rho ^2/M_\pi ^2`$$`b=(pk)^2/M_\pi ^2`$$`_\chi (\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0\pi ^0)=(sM_\pi ^2)/f_\pi ^2`$$`s=M_{\pi ^0\pi ^0}^2`$$`f_\pi =92.4`$ MeV, $`p(u)`$ and $`k(ϵ)`$ being the momentum (polarization vector) of $`\rho `$-meson and photon, respectively. The amplitudes corresponding to $`\rho ^0(\pi ^+\pi ^{})\gamma \pi ^+\pi ^{}\gamma `$, $`\rho ^0(\pi ^+\pi ^{})\gamma \sigma \gamma \pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ and $`\rho ^0(\pi ^+\pi ^{})\gamma \sigma \gamma \pi ^0\pi ^0`$ reactions can similarly be written. The function I(a,b) is given as

$`I(a,b)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(ab)}}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{(ab)^2}}\left[f\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{b}}\right)f\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{a}}\right)\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{a}{(ab)^2}}\left[g\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{b}}\right)g\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{a}}\right)\right]`$ (7)
where

$`f(x)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \left[\mathrm{arcsin}(\frac{1}{2\sqrt{x}})\right]^2,& \hfill x>\frac{1}{4}\\ \hfill \frac{1}{4}\left[\mathrm{ln}(\frac{\eta _+}{\eta _{}})i\pi \right]^2,& \hfill x<\frac{1}{4}\end{array}`$ (16)
$`g(x)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill (4x1)^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{arcsin}(\frac{1}{2\sqrt{x}}),& \hfill x>\frac{1}{4}\\ \hfill \frac{1}{2}(14x)^{\frac{1}{2}}\left[\mathrm{ln}(\frac{\eta _+}{\eta _{}})i\pi \right],& \hfill x<\frac{1}{4}\end{array}`$
$`\eta _\pm ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2x}}\left[1\pm (14x)^{\frac{1}{2}}\right].`$
We then calculate the invariant amplitude $``$(Eγ, E1) from the corresponding Feynman diagrams shown in Fig. 1 and 2 for the decays $`\rho ^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}\gamma `$ and $`\rho ^0\pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma `$, respectively.The differential decay probability for an unpolarized $`\rho ^0`$-meson at rest is then given as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }}{dE_\gamma dE_1}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8M_\rho }}^2,`$ (17)
where Eγ and E1 are the photon and pion energies respectively. We perform an average over the spin states of $`\rho ^0`$-meson and a sum over the polarization states of the photon. The decay width is then obtained by integration

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right){\displaystyle _{E_{\gamma ,min.}}^{E_{\gamma ,max.}}}𝑑E_\gamma {\displaystyle _{E_{1,min.}}^{E_{1,max.}}}𝑑E_1{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }}{dE_\gamma dE_1}}`$ (18)
where the factor ($`\frac{1}{2}`$) is included for the calculation of the decay rate for $`\rho ^0\pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma `$ because of the $`\pi ^0\pi ^0`$ in the final state. The minimum photon energy is E$`{}_{\gamma ,min.}{}^{}=0`$ and the maximum photon energy is given as $`E_{\gamma ,max.}=(M_\rho ^24M_\pi ^2)/2M_\rho `$=338 MeV. The maximum and minimum values for pion energy E1 are given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(2E_\gamma M_\rho M_\rho ^2)}}[2E_\gamma ^2M_\rho +3E_\gamma M_\rho ^2M_\rho ^3`$ (19)
$`\pm E_\gamma \sqrt{(2E_\gamma M_\rho +M_\rho ^2)(2E_\gamma M_\rho +M_\rho ^24M_\pi ^2)}].`$ (20)
The photon spectra for the branching ratio of the decay $`\rho ^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}\gamma `$ are plotted in Fig. 3 as a function of photon energy $`E_\gamma `$. The contributions of bremsstrahlung and structural radiation amplitudes calculated with pion-loop and with $`\sigma `$-meson intermediate state as well as the contribution of the interference term are shown as a function of the photon energy, where the minimum photon energy is taken as $`E_{\gamma ,min}=50`$ MeV since the experimental value of the branching ratio is determined for this range of photon energies . On the same figure we also show the experimental data points taken from Ref. which are normalized to our results. As it can be seen in Fig. 3, the shape of the photon energy distribution is reproduced well. As expected, the main contribution to the branching ratio comes from the pion-bremsstrahlung amplitude, the contributions of pion-loop and $`\sigma `$-meson intermediate states becoming noticeable only in the region of high photon energies. On the other hand, if a $`\sigma `$-meson pole model or equivalently a constant $`\rho \sigma \gamma `$ amplitude is used as in Ref.  the contribution of the $`\sigma `$-term becomes increasingly important in the region of high photon energies dominating the contribution of the bremsstrahlung amplitude, and although its contribution is somewhat reduced by the interference term the $`\sigma `$-meson amplitude makes the main contribution to the branching ratio in the region of high photon energies conflicting with the experimental spectrum. For the contribution of different amplitudes to the branching ratio, we obtain B$`(\rho ^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}\gamma )_\gamma =(1.14\pm 0.01)\times 10^2`$ from the bremsstrahlung amplitude, B$`(\rho ^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}\gamma )_\pi =(0.45\pm 0.08)\times 10^5`$ from the pion-loop amplitude and B$`(\rho ^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}\gamma )_\sigma =(0.83\pm 0.16)\times 10^4`$ from the $`\sigma `$-meson intermediate state. If we consider also the interference between the $`\pi `$-loop and $`\sigma `$-meson amplitudes, we then obtain the contribution coming from the structural radiation as B$`(\rho ^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}\gamma )=(0.83\pm 0.14)\times 10^4`$ which is reasonable agreement with the experimental limit B$`(\rho ^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}\gamma )<5\times 10^3`$ deduced by Dolinsky et al.  for the structural radiation. Dolinsky et al.  also extracted the experimental limit B$`(\rho ^0ϵ(700)\gamma \pi ^+\pi ^{}\gamma )<4\times 10^4`$ where the transition proceeds through the intermediate scalar resonance which is considerably lower. Our result for the contribution of the $`\sigma `$-meson intermediate state B$`(\rho ^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}\gamma )_\sigma =(0.83\pm 0.16)\times 10^4`$ is also in good agreement with this experimental limit. For the total contribution, we obtain the branching ratio of the decay $`\rho ^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}\gamma `$ as B$`(\rho ^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}\gamma )=(1.22\pm 0.02)\times 10^2`$ for $`E_\gamma >50`$ MeV. Our result is in reasonably good agreement with the experimental number B$`(\rho ^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}\gamma )=(0.99\pm 0.16)\times 10^2`$ .

The photon spectra resulting from our calculation for the branching ratio of the $`\rho ^0\pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma `$ decay is shown in Fig. 4. The contributions of VMD-amplitude, pion-loop amplitude and $`\sigma `$-meson intermediate state amplitude as well as the total interference term are indicated. The contributions of VMD amplitude, pion-loop amplitude and $`\sigma `$-meson intermediate state amplitude to the branching ratio of the decay are B$`(\rho ^0\pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma )_{VMD}=(1.03\pm 0.02)\times 10^5`$, B$`(\rho ^0\pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma )_\pi =(1.07\pm 0.02)\times 10^5`$ and B$`(\rho ^0\pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma )_\sigma =(4.96\pm 0.18)\times 10^5`$ respectively. We see that $`\sigma `$-meson intermediate state makes an important contribution to the branching ratio comparable to the contributions of VMD- and pion-loop amplitudes. The values we obtain for B$`(\rho ^0\pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma )_{VMD}`$ and for B$`(\rho ^0\pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma )_\pi `$ are in agreement with previous calculations . For the total branching ratio, including interference terms, we obtain the result B$`(\rho ^0\pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma )=(4.95\pm 0.82)\times 10^5`$ which is in a better agreement with the experimental result B$`(\rho ^0\pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma )=(4.1_{0.9}^{+1.0}\pm 0.3)\times 10^5`$  than the theoretical value obtained by using only VMD- and chiral pion-loop amplitudes .

In our work, we follow a phenomenological approach and in a model for the decay mechanism of $`\rho ^0`$-meson radiative decays including the contribution coming from the $`\sigma `$-meson intermediate state as well as VMD- and chiral pion-loop contributions we calculate the branching ratios for the $`\rho ^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}\gamma `$ and $`\rho ^0\pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma `$ decays. In our calculations of the branching ratios, the coupling constants that we use in our model are determined from the relevant experimental quantities. Our results for the branching ratios are in good agreement with the experimental values, and we believe that our study demonstrates that the contribution coming from the $`\sigma `$-meson intermediate state amplitude should be included in the analysis of radiative $`\rho ^0`$-meson decays, and moreover $`\sigma `$-meson should be considered to couple to the $`\rho ^0`$ meson through a pion-loop.

In a recent paper, Palomar et al.  also evaluated the branching ratios of the radiative $`\rho ^0`$ and $`\omega `$ decays into $`\pi ^0\pi ^0`$ and $`\pi ^0\eta `$. They used the sequential vector decay mechanisms in addition to chiral loops and $`\rho \omega `$ mixing. For the $`\rho ^0\pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma `$ decay $`\rho \omega `$ mixing was negligible, but the branching ratio obtained with the sum of the sequential and loop mechanisms was about three times larger than with either mechanism alone, leading to a result $`B(\rho ^0\pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma )=4.2\times 10^5`$ comparable with the present experimental value.

Therefore, in order to understand the mechanism of the $`\rho ^0\pi ^0\pi ^0\gamma `$ decay and to obtain insight into the nature and the properties of the $`\sigma `$-meson, and the role it plays in the dynamics of low energy meson physics, further experimental tests such as the measurements of invariant mass distributions will be very valuable.


text:
# A Recurrence Formula for Solutions of Burgers Equations Supported by the Special Funds for Major State Basic Research Projects , G 1999, 032800

## 1 Introduction

The HB method is used to find solitary wave solutions and other kinds of exact solutions of nonlinear partial differential equations (PDEs), in this paper, the HB method is used first time with the help of the Fourier transformation method to solve some initial problems of Burgers equations which have been widely used in physical system.

This paper falls into 3 parts. In section 2, by the HB method we obtain a general BT3,4 which shows both the connection between solutions of Burgers equations itself and connection between solutions of Burgers and heat equations, its special case is Cole–Hopf transformation and especially through the BT a recurrence formula is generated for solutions of Burgers equations as

$`u_{N+1}={\displaystyle \frac{u_{Nx}+v_{Nx}}{u_N+v_N}}+u_N,`$
$`v_{N+1}={\displaystyle \frac{u_{Ny}+v_{Ny}}{u_N+v_N}}+v_N.`$
A reasonable initial problem of the Burgers equations is put out and reduced to a initial problem of the heat equation which is solved by Fourier transformation method in Sec.3. The solution of the initial problem of the heat equation with the aid of the Burgers yields the solution of the initial problem of the Burgers.

## 2 Burgers Equations

$`\begin{array}{cc}& u_t=u_{xx}+u_{yy}+2uu_x+2vu_y,\hfill \\ & v_t=v_{xx}+v_{yy}+2uv_x+2vv_y.\hfill \end{array}`$ (1)
This is the famous Burgers equations which have got much attention in recent years. In Ref., high dimensional and high degree Burgers equations are studied, and a pair of exact solution of Burgers equations(1) is obtained in Ref.. In this section we will present some BTs of Burgers equations(1) through the HB method.

According to the idea of HB method, we seek for its solution of the form:

$`\begin{array}{cc}& u={\displaystyle \frac{f(\phi )}{x}}+u_0=f^{}(\phi )\phi _x+u_0,\hfill \\ & v={\displaystyle \frac{g(\phi )}{y}}+v_0=g^{}(\phi )\phi _y+v_0,\hfill \end{array}`$ (2)
here $`f=f(\phi )`$ and $`g=g(\phi )`$ which are functions of single variable, and $`\phi =\phi (x,y,t)`$ are all to be determined later. $`(u_0,v_0)`$ are a pair of solutions of $`(1)`$. By (2), it is easy to deduce that

$`\begin{array}{cc}& u_t=f^{\prime \prime }\phi _x\phi _t+f^{}\phi _{xt}+u_{0t},\hfill \\ & u_{xx}=f^{\prime \prime \prime }\phi _x^3+3f^{\prime \prime }\phi _x\phi _{xx}+f^{}\phi _{xxx}+u_{0xx},\hfill \\ & u_{yy}=f^{\prime \prime \prime }\phi _x\phi _y^2+2f^{\prime \prime }\phi _{xy}\phi _y+f^{\prime \prime }\phi _x\phi _{yy}+f^{}\phi _{xyy}+u_{0yy},\hfill \\ & 2uu_x=2f^{}f^{\prime \prime }\phi _x^3+2f^2\phi _x\phi _{xx}+2f^{\prime \prime }\phi _x^2u_0+2f^{}\phi _{xx}u_0+2f^{}\phi _xu_{0x}+2u_0u_{0x},\hfill \\ & 2vu_y=2g^{}f^{\prime \prime }\phi _x\phi _y^2+2g^{}f^{}\phi _y\phi _{xy}+2f^{\prime \prime }\phi _x\phi _yv_0+2f^{}\phi _{xy}v_0+2g^{}\phi _yu_{0y}+2vu_{0y},\hfill \end{array}`$ (3)
$`\begin{array}{cc}& v_t=g^{\prime \prime }\phi _y\phi _t+g^{}\phi _{yt}+v_{0t},\hfill \\ & v_{xx}=g^{\prime \prime \prime }\phi _y\phi _x^2+2g^{\prime \prime }\phi _x\phi _{xy}+g^{\prime \prime }\phi _y\phi _{xx}+g^{}\phi _{yxx}+v_{0xx},\hfill \\ & v_{yy}=g^{\prime \prime \prime }\phi _y^3+3g^{\prime \prime }\phi _y\phi _{yy}+g^{}\phi _{yyy}+v_{0yy},\hfill \\ & 2uv_y=2f^{}g^{\prime \prime }\phi _x^2\phi _y+2f^{}g^{}\phi _x\phi _{xy}+2g^{\prime \prime }\phi _x\phi _yu_0+2g^{}\phi _{xy}u_0+2f^{}\phi _xv_{0x}+2u_0v_{0x},\hfill \\ & 2vv_y=2g^{}g^{\prime \prime }\phi _y^3+2g^2\phi _y\phi _{yy}+2g^{\prime \prime }\phi _y^2v_0+2g^{}\phi _{yy}v_0+2g^{}\phi _yv_{0y}+2v_0v_{0y},\hfill \end{array}`$ (4)
substituting (3) and (4) into (1), first setting the coefficients of $`\phi _x^3`$ and $`\phi _y^3`$ to zero, we obtain ODEs

$`\begin{array}{cc}& f^{\prime \prime \prime }+2f^{}f^{\prime \prime }=0,\hfill \\ & g^{\prime \prime \prime }+2g^{}g^{\prime \prime }=0,\hfill \end{array}`$ (5)
which have solutions $`f=g=\mathrm{ln}\phi `$, thereby it holds that

$`\begin{array}{cc}& f^{\prime \prime \prime }+2g^{}f^{\prime \prime }=0,g^{\prime \prime \prime }+2f^{}g^{\prime \prime }=0,\hfill \\ & f^{\prime \prime }+f^2=0,g^{\prime \prime }+g^2=0,\hfill \end{array}`$ (6)
by using (3)–(6), we obtain the expressions:

$`\begin{array}{cc}& u_tu_{xx}u_{yy}2uu_x2vu_y\hfill \\ & =f^{\prime \prime }(\phi _x\phi _t\phi _x\phi _{xx}\phi _x\phi _{yy}2\phi _x\phi _yv_02\phi _x^2u_0)\hfill \\ & +f^{}(\phi _{xt}\phi _{xxx}\phi _{xyy}2\phi _{xx}u_02\phi _xu_{0x}2\phi _{xy}v_02\phi _yu_{0y}),\hfill \end{array}`$ (7)
$`\begin{array}{cc}& v_tv_{xx}v_{yy}2uv_x2vv_y\hfill \\ & =f^{\prime \prime }(\phi _y\phi _t\phi _y\phi _{yy}\phi _y\phi _{xx}2\phi _x\phi _yu_02\phi _y^2v_0)\hfill \\ & +f^{}(\phi _{yt}\phi _{yxx}\phi _{yyy}2\phi _{xy}u_02\phi _xv_{0x}2\phi _yv_{0y}2\phi _{yy}v_0),\hfill \end{array}`$ (8)
It is easy to see that (2) are solutions of (1), provide that the right hand sides of (7) and (8) to be zero, hence set

$`\phi _t\phi _{xx}\phi _{yy}2\phi _xu_02\phi _yv_0=0,`$ (9)
$`\phi _{xt}\phi _{xxx}\phi _{xyy}2\phi _{xx}u_02\phi _xu_{0x}2\phi _{xy}v_02\phi _yu_{0y}=0,`$ (10)
$`\phi _{yt}\phi _{yxx}\phi _{yyy}2\phi _{yy}v_02\phi _yv_{0y}2\phi _{xy}u_02\phi _xv_{0x}=0,`$ (11)
then the right hand sides of (7) and (8) respectively vanish. In fact (10) and (11) can be reduced into

$`(\phi _t\phi _{xx}\phi _{yy}2\phi _xu_02\phi _yv_0)_x+2\phi _yv_{0x}2\phi _yu_{0y}=0,`$ (12)
$`(\phi _t\phi _{xx}\phi _{yy}2\phi _xu_02\phi _yv_0)_y+2\phi _xu_{0y}2\phi _xv_{0x}=0,`$ (13)
thereby, (9)–(11) equal that

$`\begin{array}{cc}& \phi _t\phi _{xx}\phi _{yy}2\phi _xu_02\phi _yv_0=0,\hfill \\ & u_{0y}v_{0x}=0,\hfill \end{array}`$ (14)
here $`\phi _x^2+\phi _y^20`$. Substituting $`f=g=\mathrm{ln}\phi `$ into(2), we obtain BT of Burgers equations (1)

$`u={\displaystyle \frac{\phi _x}{\phi }}+u_0,`$ (15)
$`v={\displaystyle \frac{\phi _y}{\phi }}+v_0,`$ (16)
$`\phi _t\phi _{xx}\phi _{yy}2\phi _xu_02\phi _yv_0,`$ (17)
$`u_{0y}v_{0x}=0,`$ (18)
namely, $`(u_0,v_0)`$ is a pair of solutions of Burgers equations(1), and $`u_{0y}=v_{0x}`$ therefore (2) is another pair of solutions of (1) only if $`\phi =\phi (x,y,t)`$ satisfies linear equation(9). Now set $`\phi =u_0+v_0`$, (9) is automatically satisfied, additionally, if $`u_{0y}=v_{0x}`$ exists in the first pair of solutions $`(u_0,v_0)`$, the new solutions $`(u,v)`$ according to the BT have to satisfy $`u_y=v_x`$, the circular use of this $`BT`$ yields the recurrence formula of Burgers equations (1) as

$`\begin{array}{cc}& u_{N+1}={\displaystyle \frac{u_{Nx}+v_{Nx}}{u_N+v_N}}+u_N,\hfill \\ & v_{N+1}={\displaystyle \frac{u_{Ny}+v_{Ny}}{u_N+v_N}}+v_N.\hfill \end{array}`$ (19)
Here $`N=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$, with $`v_{0x}=u_{0y}`$.

In addition, if we take initial solution of Burgers equations (1) as $`u_0=v_0=0`$ (the trivial solutions of Burgers equations (1)), BT (15)–(18) respectively reduce to

$`\begin{array}{cc}& u={\displaystyle \frac{\phi _x}{\phi }},v={\displaystyle \frac{\phi _y}{\phi }},\hfill \\ & \phi _t\phi _{xx}\phi _{yy}=0,\hfill \end{array}`$ (20)
which is usually called Cole–Hopf transformation.

## 3  Fourier Transformation

Provided the initial value problem of Burgers equations in what follows

$`u_t=u_{xx}+u_{yy}+2uu_x+2vu_y,`$ (21)
$`v_t=v_{xx}+v_{yy}+2uv_x+2vv_y,`$ (22)
$`u|{}_{t=t_0}{}^{}=s(x,y),v|{}_{t=t_0}{}^{}=k(x,y)`$ (23)
where $`s(x,y),k(x,y)0`$ when $`|x|,|y|0`$.

By using the former result, we can take its solution to be as

$`u={\displaystyle \frac{\phi _x}{\phi }}+u_0,v={\displaystyle \frac{\phi _y}{\phi }}+v_0,`$ (24)
here $`(u_0,v_0)`$ are constant solutions of(21)–(22) and $`\phi `$ satisfies

$`\phi _t\phi _{xx}\phi _{yy}2u_0\phi _x2v_0\phi _y=0`$ (25)
then (21)–(23) can be rewritten into the initial value problem of the following form

$`\begin{array}{cc}& \phi _t\phi _{xx}\phi _{yy}2u_0\phi _x2v_0\phi _y=0,\hfill \\ & \phi |{}_{t=t_0}{}^{}=f(x,y),\hfill \end{array}`$ (26)
which

$`f(x,y)=\text{e}^{_{x_0}^xs_1(x,y_0)\text{d}x+_{y_0}^yk_1(x,y)\text{d}y}`$ (27)
$`(x_0,y_0)`$ are arbitrary constants, $`s_1(x,y)=s(x,y)u_0,k_1(x,y)=k(x,y)v_0`$. Then if $`u_0,v_0`$ are arbitrary constant solutions of equations (1), by using of Fourier transformation, we obtain solutions of (26)–(27).

Now introduce the Fourier transformation simply. If $`f(x,y,t)`$ is a function, $`\widehat{f}(c_1,c_2,t)`$ is used to denote its Fourier transformation as follow:

$$\widehat{f}(c_1,c_2,t)=F[f(x,y,t)]=\frac{1}{2\pi }_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}f(x,y,t)\text{e}^{\text{i}c_1x\text{i}c_2y}\text{d}x\text{d}y$$
(28)
and

$$f(x,y,t)=F^1[\widehat{f}(c_1,c_2,t)]=\frac{1}{2\pi }_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\widehat{f}(c_1,c_2,t)\text{e}^{\text{i}c_1x+\text{i}c_2y}\text{d}c_1\text{d}c_2$$
(29)
we’d like show its several properties which are used here:
I $`F[af+by]=aF[f]+bF[g]`$
II $`F[\frac{^m^nf}{x^my^n}]=(\text{i}c_1)^m(\text{i}c_2)^nF[f]`$
III $`F[f(xa,yb,t)]=\text{e}^{\text{i}c_1a\text{i}c_2b}F[f(x,y,t)]`$
IV $`F[f(ax,by,t)]=\frac{1}{\left|ab\right|}\widehat{f}(\frac{c_1}{a},\frac{c_2}{b},t)`$
V if $`(fg)(x,y,t)=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}f(xz_1,yz_2,t)g(z_1,z_2,t)\text{d}z_1\text{d}z_2`$, then

$`F^1[\widehat{f}\widehat{g}]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}fg`$
here, $`a`$ and $`b`$ are arbitrary constants, m and n are arbitrary integers. In order to deal with the problem (26), the Fourier transformation is done for them, it is reduced to a order differential problem as following:

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \frac{\text{d}\widehat{\phi }}{\text{d}t}+c_1^2\widehat{\phi }+c_2^2\widehat{\phi }2iu_0c_1\widehat{\phi }2v_0c_2\widehat{\phi }=0,\hfill \\ & \widehat{\phi }|{}_{t=t_0}{}^{}=\widehat{f}(x,y),\hfill \end{array}$$
(30)
which admits solutions as

$`\widehat{\phi }(c_1,c_2,t)=\widehat{f}(c_1,c_2,t)\text{e}^{(c_1^2+c_2^22\text{i}u_0c_12\text{i}v_0c_2)(tt_0)}`$ (31)
set $`\widehat{g}=\text{e}^{(c_1^2+c_2^22\text{i}u_0c_12\text{i}v_0c_2)(tt_0)}`$ such that

$`g(x,y,t)=F^1[\widehat{g}(c_1,c_2,t)]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(tt_0)}}\text{e}^{\frac{(x2u_0)^2+(y2v_0)^2}{4(tt_0)}}`$ (32)
so the solution of (26) is gained

$$\phi (x,y,t)=F^1[\widehat{f}\widehat{g}]=\frac{1}{4\pi (tt_0)}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\text{e}^{_{x_0}^{xz_1}s_1(\tau _1,y_0)\text{d}\tau _1+_{y_0}^{yz_2}k_1(xz_1,\tau _2)\text{d}\tau _2}.$$

$`\text{e}^{\frac{(z_12iu_0)^2+(z_22iv_0)^2}{4(tt_0)}}\text{d}z_1\text{d}z_2,`$ (33)
hence $`u=\frac{\phi _x}{\phi }+u_0,v=\frac{\phi _y}{\phi }+v_0`$ which are solutions of (21)–(23) also can be got, detail discussion does not present here.