\section{Introduction}
A contact manifold $(M,\xi)$ is said to satisfy the
Weinstein conjecture~\cite{wein79} if for every contact form $\alpha$
defining $\xi=\ker\alpha$ the corresponding Reeb vector field
$R_{\alpha}$ has a closed orbit, cf.~\cite{pasq12}. In a seminal paper,
Hofer~\cite{hofe93} developed a method to approach this
conjecture in dimension~$3$ via the study of holomorphic discs in the
symplectisation of $(M,\xi)$. This allowed him to prove the conjecture
for overtwisted contact $3$-manifolds and contact structures on
$3$-manifolds with non-vanishing second homotopy group.
In \cite{geze} we explored the ramifications of Hofer's method
in dimension~$3$ (including applications to symplectic $4$-manifolds).
In~\cite{geze12} we extended this approach to higher dimensions.
Using a capping construction that can be traced back to
McDuff~\cite{mcdu91} we were able to work with holomorphic spheres
rather than discs, which simplifies the holomorphic analysis.

In dimension~$3$ the Weinstein conjecture has now been answered
in the affirmative by Taubes~\cite{taub07}, cf.~\cite{hutc10},
with the help of Seiberg--Witten theory. Prior to the work of Taubes,
arguably the most important
advance on the $3$-dimensional Weinstein conjecture had been due
to Abbas--Cieliebak--Hofer~\cite{ach05}, who established the
conjecture for all contact structures supported
(in the sense of Giroux~\cite{giro02})
by a planar open book.

This paper continues the programme begun in~\cite{geze12}
and is close in spirit to the work of Abbas et al.,
in the sense that we establish the Weinstein conjecture
for contact structures (in dimension $\geq 5$) supported
by suitable open books. Specifically,
the property we require is that the binding of the open book
be realisable as a hypersurface of restricted contact type
in a subcritical Stein manifold,
see Theorem~\ref{thm:main}. (Recall that a Stein manifold
of real dimension $2n$ has the homotopy type of an $n$-dimensional complex.
It is called subcritical if its handle decomposition
only contains handles up to dimension~$n-1$.)
According to Giroux, any compact contact manifold $(M^{2n+1},\xi)$
admits a supporting open book whose pages are Stein manifolds.
Thus, the assumptions of our existence theorem for
periodic Reeb orbits will in particular be
satisfied if the pages are subcritical.
\section{The main theorem}
\label{section:main}

Let $M$ be a closed, oriented manifold of dimension $2n+1\geq 5$
admitting a (cooriented) contact structure $\xi=\ker\alpha$, i.e.\
$\alpha\wedge (d\alpha)^n>0$. The Reeb vector field $R$ of the contact
form $\alpha$ is given by $R\,\rule{2.3mm}{.2mm}\rule{.2mm}{2.3mm}\;  d\alpha\equiv 0$ and $\alpha(R)\equiv 1$.

Recall that an open book
decomposition of $M$ is a pair $(B,\theta)$ consisting
of an oriented codimension~$2$ submanifold $B\subset M$ with trivial
normal bundle and a locally trivial fibration
$\theta\colon\thinspace M\setminus B\rightarrow S^1$ given in a neighbourhood
$B\times D^2\subset M$ of $B$ by the angular coordinate in
the $D^2$-factor. The manifold $B$ is called the \emph{binding};
the closures $\Sigma$ of the fibres of $\theta$
are referred to as the \emph{pages} of the open book. The pages
are oriented consistently with the orientation of their boundary~$B$.

The contact structure $\xi$ is said to be \emph{supported}~\cite{giro02}
by the open book decomposition $(B,\theta)$ if a contact form $\alpha$
can be chosen such that
\begin{itemize}
\item[(ob-i)] the $2$-form $d\alpha$ induces a positive symplectic form on
each fibre of~$\theta$, and
\item[(ob-ii)] the $1$-form $\alpha$ induces a positive contact form on~$B$.
\end{itemize}

\begin{thm}
\label{thm:main}
Let $(M,\xi)$ be a contact manifold of dimension $\geq 5$
with a supporting open book $(B,\theta)$ whose
binding $B$ (with the induced contact structure)
embeds as a hypersurface of restricted contact type into
a subcritical Stein manifold. Then any contact form defining $\xi$ has
a contractible periodic Reeb orbit.
\end{thm}

Note that the theorem claims the existence of a closed Reeb orbit for
\emph{any} contact form defining~$\xi$, not only those
adapted to the open book in the sense of (ob-i) and (ob-ii).
\section{A neighbourhood theorem}
\label{section:nbhd-B}
Our aim in this section is to prove a neighbourhood theorem for
the binding $B$ of an open book.
So we consider contact structures on $B\times D^2$ that satisfy
the compatibility conditions (ob-i) and (ob-ii) with the open book structure
on this neighbourhood of the binding.

For the purposes of this section we call
\[ \Sigma_{\theta}:=\{ (b;r\mathrm e^{\mathrm i\theta})\in B\times D^2\colon\thinspace
b\in B,\, 0\leq r\leq 1\}\]
the `page', and we identify
$B$ with $B\times\{0\}\subset B\times D^2$.

\begin{prop}
\label{prop:normal}
Let $\alpha$ be a contact form on $B\times D^2$ with the following
properties:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] The $1$-form $\alpha_B:=\alpha|_{TB}$ is a contact form on~$B$.
\item[(ii)] For each $\theta\in [0,2\pi)$, the $2$-form
$d\alpha|_{T\Sigma_{\theta}}$ is a symplectic form on $\Sigma_{\theta}
\setminus B$.
\item[(iii)] With the orientations of $B$ and $\Sigma_{\theta}$ induced by
$\alpha_B$ and $d\alpha|_{T\Sigma_{\theta}}$, respectively, $B$ is oriented
as the boundary of $\Sigma_{\theta}$.
\end{itemize}
Then for $\varepsilon >0$ sufficiently small
there is a page-preserving embedding
\[ B\times D^2_{\varepsilon}\longrightarrow B\times D^2\]
which is the identity on $B\times\{ 0\}$ and pulls back $\alpha$ ---
after an isotopic modification of $\alpha$ near $B\times\{0\}$
via forms satisfying {\rm (i)} (up to constant scale)
to {\rm (iii)} --- to a $1$-form
\[ h_1(r)\, \alpha_B+h_2(r)\, d\theta\]
satisfying
\begin{itemize}
\item $h_1(0)>0$, $h_2(r)=r^2$ near $r=0$,
\item $h_1^{n-1}(h_1h_2'-h_1'h_2)>0$ (the contact condition),
\item $h_1'<0$ for $r>0$ (the symplectic condition on the pages).
\end{itemize}
\end{prop}

\begin{proof}
The idea of the proof (due to Giroux) is to identify a neighbourhood
of the binding with $B\times D^2_{\varepsilon}$ in such a way that the
radial direction corresponds to the (negative) characteristic direction
in the pages.

Choose volume forms $\Omega_{\theta}$ on the pages $\Sigma_{\theta}$
compatible with the orientation of the pages, e.g.\
\[ \Omega_{\theta}=-(\cos\theta\, dx+\sin\theta\, dy)\wedge
\alpha_B\wedge (d\alpha_B)^{n-1}.\]
Write $\beta_{\theta}:=\alpha|_{T\Sigma_{\theta}}$ for the
restriction of the contact form $\alpha$ to the page $\Sigma_{\theta}$.
The characteristic vector field $X_{\theta}$ is the vector
field tangent to $\Sigma_{\theta}$ defined by
\[ X_{\theta}\,\rule{2.3mm}{.2mm}\rule{.2mm}{2.3mm}\; \Omega_{\theta}=
-\beta_{\theta}\wedge (d\beta_{\theta})^{n-1},\]
see \cite{giro91} and \cite[Section~2.5.4]{geig08}.
By conditions (i) and (iii), this vector field $X_{\theta}$ is transverse
to $B\subset\Sigma_{\theta}$ and points into the page.

Along the binding we have a whole $S^1$-family of vector fields,
so it is not immediately clear that the flow of the $X_{\theta}$
defines a smooth embedding. To circumvent this problem, we
replace the time~$r$ flow of the $X_{\theta}$ by the time~$1$ flow
of a smooth $D^2$-family of `honest' vector fields on $B\times D^2$.
This was suggested to us by Fan Ding.

Write the points in the parameter space $D^2$ in polar
coordinates as $R\mathrm e^{\mathrm i\varphi}$.
Define a smooth $D^2$-family of smooth
vector fields on $B\times D^2$ by
\[ \tilde{X}_{R\mathrm e^{\mathrm i\varphi}}\,\rule{2.3mm}{.2mm}\rule{.2mm}{2.3mm}\; \bigl( dx\wedge dy\wedge
\alpha_B\wedge (d\alpha_B)^{n-1}\bigr) =
(R\sin\varphi\; dx-R\cos\varphi\; dy)\wedge\alpha\wedge (d\alpha)^{n-1}.\]
We claim that
\[ \tilde{X}_{R\mathrm e^{\mathrm i\theta}}|_{\Sigma_{\theta}}=RX_{\theta}.\]
Indeed, by taking the wedge product of the defining equation for $X_{\theta}$
with $\sin\theta\, dx-\cos\theta\, dy$ and observing that
\[ T\Sigma_{\theta}\subset\ker (\sin\theta\, dx-\cos\theta\, dy), \]
we have
\[ X_{\theta}\,\rule{2.3mm}{.2mm}\rule{.2mm}{2.3mm}\;  \bigl( dx\wedge dy
\wedge
\alpha_B\wedge (d\alpha_B)^{n-1}\bigr)=
(\sin\theta\, dx-\cos\theta\, dy)\wedge \alpha\wedge
(d\alpha)^{n-1},\]
from which the claim follows.

Write $\tilde{\psi}_t^{R,\varphi}$ for the time~$t$
flow of $\tilde{X}_{R\mathrm e^{\mathrm i\varphi}}$, and $\psi_t^{\theta}$
for the time~$t$ flow of $X_{\theta}$ (along $\Sigma_{\theta}$).
For $\varepsilon>0$ sufficiently small,
this defines an embedding
\[ \begin{array}{rccc}
\Psi\colon\thinspace & B\times D^2_{\varepsilon} & \longrightarrow &
                           B\times D^2\\
        & (b,r\mathrm e^{\mathrm i\theta})                      & \longmapsto     &
                           \tilde{\psi}_1^{r,\theta}(b,0),
\end{array}\]
where $D^2_{\varepsilon}$ denotes the $2$-disc of radius~$\varepsilon$.

We maintain that
\[ \ker\bigl(\Psi^*\alpha\bigr)=\ker (\alpha_B+h\, d\theta)\]
for some smooth function $h$ on $B\times D^2_{\varepsilon}$
that makes the $1$-form $h\, d\theta$ well defined (in particular,
$h=0$ along~$B$) and smooth.
Indeed, a straightforward computation, cf.~\cite[Lemma~2.5.20]{geig08},
gives
\[ X_{\theta}\in\ker\beta_{\theta}\;\;\;\text{and}\;\;\;
L_{X_{\theta}}\beta_{\theta}=\mu_{\theta}\beta_{\theta}\]
for some smooth function $\mu_{\theta}\colon\thinspace\Sigma_{\theta}\rightarrow\mathbb R$.
Since
\[ \tilde{\psi}_1^{r,\theta}(b,0) = \psi_r^{\theta}(b,0),\]
we have $T\Psi(\partial_r|_{\Sigma_{\theta}})=X_{\theta}$.
So the first condition on $X_{\theta}$ means that
$\Psi^*\alpha$ contains no $dr$-component; the second condition
means that $\ker\bigl(\Psi^*\alpha|_{T\Sigma_{\theta}}\bigr)$
is invariant under the flow of $\partial_r$. This proves the claim.

The standard Gray stability argument applied to the linear
interpolation of the contact forms $\alpha_B+h\, d\theta$
and $\alpha_B+r^2\, d\theta$ gives a flow fixed at $B$ and tangent to
the $\partial_r$-direction which isotopes the contact structure
$\ker (\alpha_B+h\, d\theta)$ to $\ker(\alpha_B+r^2\, d\theta)$.

In sum, we have an embedding $B\times D^2_{\varepsilon}
\rightarrow B\times D^2$ (possibly
for some smaller $\varepsilon >0$) that pulls back
$\alpha$ to a $1$-form
$f(\alpha_B+r^2\, d\theta)$ with a positive function
$f$ satisfying $f\equiv 1$ along $B\times\{0\}$. Observe that
conditions (ii) and (iii) are equivalent to $\partial f/\partial r<0$.
For ease of notation, we continue to write $\alpha$ for this
pulled-back form.

Now let $\lambda\colon\thinspace [0,\varepsilon]\rightarrow[0,1]$ be
a smooth function that is identically $1$ near $r=0$ and identically $0$
near $r=\varepsilon$. Replace $\alpha$ by
\[ \bigl(\lambda(r)(c-r^2)+(1-\lambda(r))f\bigr)
\, (\alpha_B+r^2\, d\theta),\]
where $c$ is a positive constant. This new $1$-form coincides
with $\alpha$ away from $B\times\{0\}$, and is of the
desired form $h_1(r)\,\alpha_B+h_2(r)\, d\theta$
near $B\times\{0\}$. For $c$ sufficiently large, the
coefficient function $\lambda(r)(c-r^2)+(1-\lambda(r))f$
has negative $r$-derivative, so condition (ii)
will be satisfied. The linear interpolation between $\alpha$ and this
modified form is via forms satisfying (i) to (iii).
\end{proof}

\begin{rem}
\label{rem:h}
For the capping construction below it is convenient to make
a specific choice of the functions $h_1,h_2$ subject to
the following conditions:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $h_1(r)=c\mathrm e^{-r^2}$ near $r=0$ for some constant~$c$,
\item[(ii)] $h_1(r)=c\mathrm e^{-r}$ and $h_2(r)$ constant for $r$ near some
$r_0>0$.
\end{itemize}
Figure~\ref{figure:interpolate} illustrates that for $c$ sufficiently
large it is possible to find such a pair $(h_1,h_2)$ that can be
interpolated to the given pair (drawn as a dashed line) via
pairs satisfying the conditions stipulated in the preceding lemma.
\end{rem}

\begin{figure}[h]
\labellist
\small\hair 2pt
\pinlabel $h_1$ [t] at 384 37
\pinlabel $h_2$ [r] at 37 276
\endlabellist
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{interpolate}
  \caption{How to choose a specific $(h_1,h_2)$.}
  \label{figure:interpolate}
\end{figure}

\begin{rem}
An open book can alternatively be described by a
compact $2n$-dimen\-sional manifold $\Sigma$ with non-empty
boundary $\partial\Sigma=:B$, and a monodromy diffeomorphism
$\phi$ of $\Sigma$, equal to the identity near~$\partial\Sigma$.
The closed manifold $M$ obtained from the mapping cylinder
of $(\Sigma,\phi)$ (which has boundary
$\partial\Sigma\times S^1$) by attaching $\partial\Sigma\times D^2$
then has an open book decomposition $(B,\theta)$.
Conversely, from $(B,\theta)$ one can recover $(\Sigma,\phi)$,
cf.~\cite[Section~4.4.2]{geig08}.

A construction of Giroux~\cite{giro02},
cf.~\cite[Section~7.3]{geig08}, produces a contact
structure adapted to an open book, provided the page is exact symplectic
with contact type boundary, and the monodromy is symplectic.
Here the contact structure has, by construction, the normal form
described in Proposition~\ref{prop:normal}.
So a consequence of the proposition is that any
contact structure supported by an open book can be obtained
via Giroux's construction.
\end{rem}
\section{From open books to symplectic fibrations}
The following theorem and its corollary are higher-dimensional analogues
of \cite[Theorem~1.1]{elia04}, which was the crucial
part in Eliashberg's construction of symplectic caps for
weak symplectic fillings. Our proof is close in spirit
to that of Eliashberg.

In the theorem and throughout this section, $(M,\xi=\ker\alpha)$
will be a closed contact manifold and $(B,\theta)$ an open book
decomposition of $M$ to which the contact form $\alpha$ is adapted.
We write $\Sigma$ for the page of the open book
decomposition, and $\alpha_B$ for the restriction of $\alpha$ to~$TB$.

\begin{thm}
\label{thm:cobordism}
Suppose there is a (not necessarily compact) symplectic manifold
$(C,\omega_C)$ with strong concave boundary that is strictly
contactomorphic to $(B,\alpha_B)$.

Then there is a (not necessarily compact) symplectic manifold $(W,\omega)$
with boundary $\partial W=-M\sqcup N$, where $(M,\alpha)$ is a
strong concave boundary component, and $N$ is a fibre
bundle over $S^1$ with fibre $F=\Sigma\cup C$ such that
$\omega$ restricts to a symplectic form on each fibre. Moreover,
the holonomy of the fibre bundle $N\rightarrow S^1$ (given by the
kernel of $\omega|_{TN}$) is the identity on the subset $C\subset F$
of the fibre.
\end{thm}

The condition on $C$ means that there is a Liouville
vector field $Y$ defined near the boundary $\partial C$ and
pointing inwards, such that $(-\partial C,i_Y\omega_C|_{T(\partial C)})$
is diffeomorphic to $(B,\alpha_B)$.

\begin{cor}
Given any closed contact manifold $(M,\xi)$, there is
a compact symplectic manifold $(W,\omega)$ with boundary
$\partial W=-M\sqcup N$ such that $(M,\xi)$ is a strong concave
boundary component and $(N,\omega|_{TN})$ is a
symplectic fibre bundle over~$S^1$.
\end{cor}

\begin{proof}
By \cite{giro02} we may assume that $(M,\xi)$ is supported
by an open book whose page $\Sigma$ is a compact Stein manifold, i.e.\
a compact sublevel set of an exhausting, strictly plurisubharmonic
function on a Stein domain. According
to \cite[Theorem~3.1]{lima97}, this Stein manifold $\Sigma$
embeds into a smooth projective variety. This means, in particular,
that we find a \emph{compact} symplectic cap $(C,\omega_C)$ for
$\Sigma$ as required by Theorem~\ref{thm:cobordism}.
\end{proof}

\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:cobordism}]
Topologically, the definition of $W$ is very simple. Let
$B\times D^2\subset M$ be a neighbourhood of the binding
as in Section~\ref{section:nbhd-B}. Then define
\[ W:= [-2,0]\times M\cup_{B\times D^2} (C\times D^2)\]
(and smooth corners),
where we think of $B\times D^2$ as, on the one hand, a subset
of $M\times\{0\}$ and, on the other, as $\partial C\times D^2$.
(We take a cylinder of height $2$ over $M$ simply to have enough
room for the construction that follows.)

Symplectically, we want to think of $[-2,0]\times M$
as a part of the symplectisation of~$M$, i.e.\ we equip it
with the symplectic form $d(\mathrm e^s\alpha)$. On $C\times D^2$
we take the symplectic form $\omega_C+f'(\rho)\,d\rho\wedge d\theta$,
where $(\rho,\theta)$ denote polar coordinates on~$D^2$, and
$f\colon\thinspace \mathbb R_0^+\rightarrow\mathbb R_0^+$ is a smooth function with the
following properties:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(f-i)] $f(\rho)=\rho^2$ near $\rho=0$ (so that the form above is smooth),
\item[(f-ii)] $f'(\rho)>0$ for $\rho>0$ (so that the form is symplectic),
\item[(f-iii)] $f(\rho)=\rho$ near $\rho=1$ (this will be relevant later,
see condition (J1) in Section~\ref{section:proof}).
\end{itemize}

For the gluing, we work in the neighbourhood
\[ U:= [-1,0]\times B\times D^2\subset [-2,0]\times M,\]
with polar coordinates $(r,\theta)$ on the $D^2$-factor.
Purely for notational convenience, we shall assume that the contact form
$\alpha$ is given on an open neighbourhood of $B\times D^2$ in $M$
by $h_1(r)\, \alpha_B+h_2(r)\, d\theta$ with
\begin{itemize}
\item[(h-i)] $h_1(r)=\mathrm e^{-r^2}$ and $h_2(r)=r^2$ near $r=0$,
\item[(h-ii)] $h_1(r)=\mathrm e^{-r}$ and $h_2(r)\equiv 1$ near $r=1$.
\end{itemize}
By Remark~\ref{rem:h}, this can always be achieved
(up to some inessential constants).

Both the gluing along parts of the boundary and the
smoothing of corners are awkward processes in the presence of
a symplectic (or any other geometric) structure. To avoid this,
the idea is to construct a model which contains a
symplectic copy both of $C\times D^2$ and $U$, and such that
the identification of $[-2,0]\times M$ and this model along~$U$
(or in fact a small open neighbourhood of it) realises the
desired topological construction.

By the assumptions of the theorem, we obtain a symplectic manifold
by gluing $(-\infty,0]\times B$ and $C$ along $B\equiv
\{0\}\times B\equiv-\partial C$. The model in question is
the product of this manifold with a $D^2$-factor:
\[ (W_0,\omega_0):=\Bigl(\bigl( (-\infty,0]\times B,d(\mathrm e^t\alpha_B)\bigr)
\cup_B
(C,\omega_C)\Bigr)\times \bigl(D^2,f'(\rho)\, d\rho\wedge d\theta\bigr),\]
see Figure~\ref{figure:model}. In that figure, the left part
of the horizontal axis represents $(-\infty,0]\times B$;
the right part, $C$. The vertical axis gives the $\rho$-coordinate
of the $D^2$-factor, so a `realistic' picture is given by
rotating the figure around the horizontal axis.

\begin{figure}[h]
\labellist
\small\hair 2pt
\pinlabel $\rho$ [r] at 352 184
\pinlabel $t=0$ [t] at 361 0
\pinlabel $t=-1$ [t] at 73 0
\pinlabel $C$ [t] at 485 0
\pinlabel ${C\times D^2}$ at 485 80
\pinlabel $\Gamma$ [bl] at 287 108
\pinlabel ${B\times D^2}$ [bl] at 402 186
\pinlabel $\Phi(U)$ [r] at 166 50
\endlabellist
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{model}
  \caption{The model $(W_0,\omega_0)$ for the symplectic gluing.}
  \label{figure:model}
\end{figure}

We claim that we can find a symplectomorphic copy $\Phi(U)$
of $U$ in this model as indicated in the figure. The dotted lines
represent flow lines of the Liouville vector field
$T\Phi(\partial_s)$. The hypersurface $\Gamma$ in the model
is then a strictly contactomorphic copy of $(B\times D^2,\alpha)$.

The trick, as it were, is to think of a neighbourhood
of $B\times D^2$ in $[-2,0]\times M$ not as
a neighbourhood to the left of the horizontal axis in the model
(in which case the gluing would produce
a corner at $\{0\}\times B\times\{\rho=1\}$),
but as a neighbourhood below the `curve'~$\Gamma$ (which
connects smoothly with the curve $\{\rho=1\}$ at $t=-1$).
We can then glue the part of the model to the right of $\Gamma$
in a smooth and symplectic fashion to $[-2,0]\times M$.

Write
\[ \lambda:=\mathrm e^t\alpha_B+f(\rho)\, d\theta\]
for the primitive of $\omega_0$ on $(-\infty,0]\times B\times D^2\subset W_0$.
The corresponding Liouville vector field is
\[ Y=\partial_t+\frac{f(\rho)}{f'(\rho)}\,\partial_{\rho}.\]
Now define
\[ \Phi\colon\thinspace U=[-1,0]\times B\times D^2\longrightarrow
(-\infty,0]\times B\times D^2\subset W_0\]
by
\[ (s,b,r,\theta)\longmapsto (s+\log(h_1(r)),b,f^{-1}(\mathrm e^s h_2(r)),\theta).\]

\begin{lem}
The map $\Phi$ is a symplectic embedding with $\Phi^*\lambda=\mathrm e^s\alpha$
(and hence $T\Phi(\partial_s)=Y$).
\end{lem}

\begin{proof}
Near $r=0$ we have $f^{-1}(\mathrm e^s h_2(r))=\mathrm e^{s/2}r$ by (f-i) and
(h-i), so $\Phi$ is smooth.

In order to see that $\Phi$ is injective, assume that we
have
\[ \Phi(s_1,b,r_1,\theta)=\Phi(s_2,b,r_2,\theta).\]
By looking at the first and third component of the image, we see that
\[ \mathrm e^{s_1}h_1(r_1)=\mathrm e^{s_2}h_1(r_2)\;\;\;\text{and}\;\;\;
\mathrm e^{s_1}h_2(r_1)=\mathrm e^{s_2}h_2(r_2),\]
whence
\[ \frac{h_2}{h_1}(r_1)=\frac{h_2}{h_1}(r_2).\]
By the contact condition, we have $(h_2/h_1)'<0$. So this
last equation forces $r_1=r_2$ and hence $s_1=s_2$.

The fact that $\Phi^*\lambda=\mathrm e^s\alpha$ follows from a quick calculation.
In particular, this makes $\Phi$ symplectic, and hence an immersion.
\end{proof}

The submanifold $\Gamma$ in Figure~\ref{figure:model} is defined to be
\[ \Gamma:= \Phi (\{0\}\times B\times D^2).\]
By construction, this is a hypersurface of contact type (transverse
to the Liouville vector field~$Y$), and the induced contact
form $\lambda|_{T\Gamma}$ pulls back to~$\alpha$ under the
embedding~$\Phi$.

\begin{lem}
The hypersurface $\Gamma\subset (-\infty,0]\times B\times D^2$
can be described as a graph
\[ \Gamma=\{ (t,b,\rho,\theta)\in
(-\infty,0]\times B\times D^2\colon\thinspace t\in [-1,0],\; \rho=g(t)\},\]
where
\[ g(t):= f^{-1}(h_2(h_1^{-1}(\mathrm e^t))).\]
\end{lem}

\begin{proof}
The hypersurface $\Gamma$ is given by the $(t,b,\rho,\theta)$ with
\[ t=\log h_1(r)\;\;\;\text{and}\;\;\; \rho=f^{-1}(h_2(r)).\]
This clearly translates into the form in the lemma.
\end{proof}

Note that $g'(t)\leq 0$. Near $t=0$ we have
$g(t)=\sqrt{-t}$ by (f-i) and (h-i). This shows that $\Gamma$
looks like a `paraboloid' near $t=0$. In particular, this
verifies again the smoothness of~$\Gamma$.

Near $t=-1$ we have $g\equiv 1$ by
(h-ii) and (f-iii). This means that $\Gamma$ coincides with
$(-\infty,0]\times B\times\partial D^2$ near $t=-1$. Therefore,
the part of $W_0$ to the right of $\Gamma$, which is
diffeomorphic to $C\times D^2$, can be glued to
$[-2,0]\times M$ along $\{0\}\times B\times D^2$, resulting
in a symplectic manifold $(W,\omega)$
with (smooth) boundary the disjoint union of
$\{-2\}\times M$ and
\[ N:= \Bigl( M\setminus (B\times \Int(D^2))\Bigr) \cup_{B\times S^1}
\Bigl( \bigl( ([-1,0]\times B)\cup_B C\bigr)\times S^1\Bigr).\]
This manifold $N$ fibres in an obvious way over $S^1$, with fibre
given by
\[ (\Sigma\setminus\{r<1\}) \cup ([-1,0]\times B) \cup C,\]
which topologically is just $\Sigma\cup C$. The restriction of $\omega$
to this fibre is given by $d\alpha$ on the first part,
by $d(\mathrm e^t\alpha_B)$ on the second, and by $\omega_C$ on the third.
So the fibre is indeed symplectic. Finally, the symplectic monodromy
of the $S^1$-fibration
\[ (C\times S^1,\omega_C)\longrightarrow S^1\]
is obviously the identity. This completes the proof
of Theorem~\ref{thm:cobordism}.
\end{proof}

\begin{rem}
After this result was presented by one of us (M.~D.)\ in our local
\emph{Arbeitsgemeinschaft}, an alternative proof was found
by M.~Klukas~\cite{kluk12}.
\end{rem}

The open book fibration $\theta\colon\thinspace M\setminus B\rightarrow S^1$
and the projection onto the angular coordinate $\theta$
in the $D^2$-factor of the model $W_0$ (outside $0\in D^2$)
induce a fibration over $S^1$ of a whole collar neighbourhood
of $N$ in $W$. We continue to write $\theta$ for this
fibration and $d\theta$ for the induced $1$-form on this collar.

Recall that a \emph{stable Hamiltonian structure} on a
manifold $N$ of dimension $2n+1$ is a pair $(\Omega,\gamma)$
consisting of a $2$-form $\Omega$ and a $1$-form
$\gamma$ such that $\gamma\wedge\Omega^n\neq 0$ and
$\ker\Omega\subset\ker d\gamma$, see~\cite{cimo05}.
The \emph{Reeb vector field} $R$ of such a stable Hamiltonian structure
is defined by $R\in\ker\Omega$ and $\gamma(R)=1$.
The \emph{symplectisation} of $(\Omega,\gamma)$ is the symplectic manifold
$\bigl((-\varepsilon,\varepsilon)\times N,\Omega+d(\rho\gamma)\bigr)$
with $\varepsilon >0$ sufficiently small.

With $N$ the manifold we just constructed, and
$\omega_N:=\omega|_{TN}$, the pair $(\omega_N,d\theta)$
is an example of such a stable Hamiltonian structure, as
is clear from the symplectic fibration property of~$N$.
The following lemma says that the symplectic form $\omega$
looks like the symplectisation of $(\omega_N,d\theta)$
in a collar neighbourhood of $N$ in~$W$.

\begin{lem}
\label{lem:collar}
There is a collar neighbourhood $(-\varepsilon,0]\times N$
of $N$ in $W$ on which the symplectic form $\omega$ can be written as
\[ \omega = \omega_N+d\rho\wedge d\theta,\]
where, by slight abuse of notation, $\rho$ denotes the collar
parameter.
\end{lem}

\begin{proof}
By condition (f-iii), the symplectic form looks as claimed
near the part of $N$ made up of $[-1,0]\times B\times S^1$ and
$C\times S^1$, with $\rho$ the radial parameter
in the $D^2$-factor. Up to an additive constant, we may take
this $\rho$ as the collar parameter. In that region
$\omega_N$ equals $d(e^t\alpha_B)$ and $\omega_C$, respectively.

Define a non-vanishing vector field $X$ on a neighbourhood
of $N\subset W$ by
\[ X\,\rule{2.3mm}{.2mm}\rule{.2mm}{2.3mm}\; \omega=d\theta.\]
Then $L_X\omega=0$,
so the flow of $X$ leaves $\omega$ invariant. Near the part
of $N$ considered previously we have $X=\partial_{\rho}$.

We claim that $X$ is transverse to $N$ everywhere. By what we have
just observed, this is only an issue near the part
$M\setminus(B\times D^2)$ of~$N$, where $\omega_N=d\alpha$.
By condition (ob-i),
together with the orientation conditions, the Reeb vector field
$R_{\alpha}$ of $\alpha$ (which coincides up to scale
with the Reeb vector field $R$ of the stable Hamiltonian structure)
is positively transverse to the fibres of the
open book, hence
\[ \omega (X,R)=d\theta(R)>0.\]
On the other hand, if $X$ were tangent to $N\subset\partial W$
at some point of $M\setminus(B\times D^2)\subset N$, then at that point
we would have
\[ \omega (X,R)=\omega_N(X,R)=d\alpha(X,R)=0,\]
so that cannot happen.

Now define the collar parameter $\rho$ by the flow of $X$.
Then, by the defining equation for $X$ and the invariance of $\omega$,
the description of $\omega$ is as claimed in the lemma.
\end{proof}

\section{Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:main}}
\label{section:proof}
The proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:main} is based on the study of
holomorphic curves in a symplectic cobordism having
$(M,\xi)$ as its concave end. For the construction of this cobordism
we rely on Theorem~\ref{thm:cobordism}, where we made a specific choice
of contact form~$\alpha$. Nonetheless, our main theorem
holds for \emph{any} contact form defining~$\xi$, since up to
a constant factor any such form can be realised on the concave end
of a suitable symplectic cobordism by adding a negative
half-symplectisation to the cobordism we are about to construct
and choosing a suitable graph-like hypersurface in that
cylindrical end, cf.~\cite[Remark~3.10]{geze} or \cite[p.~265]{geze12}.

At some point in the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:main} we appeal
to a compactness theorem from symplectic field theory, which
presupposes the contact form defining $\xi$ to be non-degenerate.
Again, this is not a restriction on the allowable contact forms,
since the degenerate case follows from the non-degenerate one
by an Arzel\`a--Ascoli type argument as in~\cite{ach05},
cf.~\cite[Remark~6.4]{geze} or \cite[Section~6.4]{geze12}.
\subsection{Construction of the cobordism}
\label{section:cobordism}
By assumption, the binding $(B,\xi\cap TB)$ embeds into a subcritical Stein
manifold as a hypersurface of restricted contact type. According to a
result of Cieliebak~\cite{ciel02}, cf.~\cite[Theorem~14.16]{ciel12}, any such
subcritical Stein manifold is symplectomorphic to a split one
$(V\times\mathbb C,J_V\oplus i)$, so we may think of $B$ as a hypersurface in
$V\times\mathbb C$. On that split Stein manifold we have a strictly
plurisubharmonic function $\psi=\psi_V+|z|^2/4$, with $\psi_V$
strictly plurisubharmonic on the Stein manifold~$V$. Choose a regular
level set $S:=\psi^{-1}(c)$ of $\psi$ such that $B$ is contained in the
interior of the corresponding sublevel set. Write $A_{BS}$ for the
resulting cobordism between $B$ and~$S$.

The condition on $B$ being of \emph{restricted} contact type tells us that
there is a global Liouville vector field on the symplectic manifold
$V\times\mathbb C$ transverse to $B$ and inducing a contact form
for $\xi\cap TB$ there.
(The Liouville vector field necessarily points into $A_{BS}$
along~$B$, see the proof of \cite[Corollary~4.2]{geze12},
but it need not be transverse to~$S$.)
By adding a half-symplectisation along $B$ and taking
a graph in that half-symplectisation --- analogous
to what we said at the beginning of this section ---
we obtain a cobordism (which we continue to call $A_{BS}$)
with an exact symplectic form $d\mu$ such that $\mu =\mathrm e^t\alpha_B$
near $B$, up to constant scale, with $t\in [0,\varepsilon)$, say.
This $d\mu$ is the symplectic form coming from the Stein
structure away from the collar we added to~$B$, but $\mu$ need
not induce a contact structure on~$S$.

In \cite{geze12} we constructed a (compact, but non-closed!) symplectic
cap $(C_{\infty},\omega_{\infty})$ for a hypersurface $S$ of the
type described above. We adapt this construction to the present setting.
Here we shall even work with a non-compact cap. Since
the behaviour of holomorphic spheres near the boundary resp.\ in the
non-compact end is well controlled, this issue is inessential.

Thus, we form the symplectic manifold $(C_{\infty},\omega_{\infty})$ by
compactifying the $\mathbb C$-factor in $\psi^{-1}([c,\infty))$ to
a $\mathbb{C}\mathrm{P}^1$ with a scaled Fubini--Study form. Note that $C_{\infty}$
contains the complex hypersurface $V_{\infty}:=V\times\{\infty\}$.
We then glue this with the described cobordism to obtain the
symplectic manifold
\[ (C,\omega_C):=(A_{BS},d\mu)\cup_S(C_{\infty},\omega_{\infty})\]
with $(B,\alpha_B)$ as the strong concave boundary. This places
us in the setting of Theorem~\ref{thm:cobordism}.

Moreover, the primitive $\lambda$ of $\omega_0$ on $(-\infty,0]\times
B\times D^2$, introduced in the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:cobordism},
extends to a primitive on $A_{BS}\times D^2$, which will be
relevant for the subsequent analysis of holomorphic curves
(specifically, the proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:plane}).

Now construct $(W,\omega)$ as in Theorem~\ref{thm:cobordism}, and complete
this symplectic manifold at the negative end, i.e.\ form the
manifold
\[ \widetilde{W}:=(-\infty,-2]\times M\cup_M W\]
with symplectic form
\[ \tilde{\omega}:=\begin{cases}
                   d(\mathrm e^s\alpha) & \text{on $(-\infty,-2]\times M$},\\
                   \omega          & \text{on $W$}.
                  \end{cases}
\]

\subsection{The almost complex structure on~$\widetilde{W}$}
On the symplectic manifold $(\widetilde{W},\tilde{\omega})$ we choose an almost
complex structure $J$ tamed by~$\tilde{\omega}$. Outside the
collar $[-\varepsilon/2,0]\times N$ and $C_{\infty}\times D^2$, the
almost complex structure may be chosen generically. Inside these
regions, we impose the following conditions. Recall that we write
$R$ for the Reeb vector field of the stable Hamiltonian structure
$(\omega_N,d\theta)$ on the collar $(-\varepsilon,0]\times N$,
i.e.\ $R\,\rule{2.3mm}{.2mm}\rule{.2mm}{2.3mm}\; \omega_N=0$ and $d\theta(R)=1$, see Lemma~\ref{lem:collar}.
Also recall that on $C\times S^1\subset N$ the $S^1$-fibration
of $N$ is the obvious one, and the restriction of $\omega_N$
to the fibres $C$ equals~$\omega_C$.

By $J_{\infty}$ we denote the complex structure on $C_{\infty}$
coming from the inclusion $C_{\infty}\subset V\times\mathbb{C}\mathrm{P}^1$.

\begin{itemize}
\item[(J1)] Over $C_{\infty}\times D^2$ we take $J$ to be a split structure
$J_{\infty}\oplus j$, where $j$ is given by
$j(\partial_{\rho})=\partial_{\theta}$
for $\rho\in [1-\varepsilon/2,1]$. (Here we rely on condition~(f-iii).)
\item[(J2)] Over $[-\varepsilon/2,0]\times N$ we take
$J$ to respect the splitting $\ker d\theta\oplus
\bigl\langle\partial_{\rho},R\bigr\rangle$ (so that in particular
the fibres of each $\{\rho\}\times N$ are holomorphic);
on $\bigl\langle\partial_{\rho},R\bigr\rangle$ we require
$J(\partial_{\rho})=R$; on $\ker d\theta$ we choose $J$
compatible with $\omega_N|_{\ker d\theta}$.
\item[(J3)] On the cylindrical end $(-\infty,0]\times M$,
the almost complex structure $J$ is cylindrical
and symmetric in the sense of \cite{behwz03}, i.e.\ it
preserves $\xi=\ker\alpha$ and satisfies $J\partial_s=R_{\alpha}$.
\end{itemize}

Note that on the overlap of the two regions specified in (J1)
and (J2) we have $R=\partial_{\theta}$, so an almost complex structure
satisfying (J1) automatically satisfies (J2). By Lemma~\ref{lem:collar},
an almost complex structure satisfying (J2) is compatible with
$\omega$ on the collar $[-\varepsilon/2,0]\times N$.
\subsection{Holomorphic spheres in $(\widetilde{W},J)$}
We now recall from \cite{geze12} the essential information about
holomorphic spheres in~$C_{\infty}$. As in that paper, we consider a
closed neighbourhood $U_{\partial}$ of the positive end of~$\widetilde{W}$,
defined by
\[ U_{\partial}:=\{ x\in V\colon\thinspace\psi_V(x)\geq c\}\times
\mathbb{C}\mathrm{P}^1\times D^2\subset C_{\infty}\times D^2\subset\widetilde{W},\]
where $c$ is the level used in the definition of $S=\psi^{-1}(c)$.
Observe that $U_{\partial}$ is foliated by holomorphic spheres
$\{ p\}\times \mathbb{C}\mathrm{P}^1\times\{ w\}$.

\begin{lem}
\label{lem:spheres}
Let $u\colon\thinspace \mathbb{C}\mathrm{P}^1\rightarrow\widetilde{W}$ be a smooth non-constant $J$-holomorphic
sphere.
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] If $u(\mathbb{C}\mathrm{P}^1)\cap (C_{\infty}\times D^2)\neq\emptyset$,
then $u(\mathbb{C}\mathrm{P}^1)\cap(V_{\infty}\times D^2)\neq\emptyset$.
\item[(ii)] If $u(\mathbb{C}\mathrm{P}^1)\cap U_{\partial}\neq\emptyset$, then
$u(\mathbb{C}\mathrm{P}^1)\subset U_{\partial}$, and $u$ is of the form $z\mapsto
(p,v(z),w)$, where $v$ is some holomorphic covering of $\mathbb{C}\mathrm{P}^1$ by
itself.
\item[(iii)] If $u(\mathbb{C}\mathrm{P}^1)\subset C_{\infty}\times D^2$, then $u$
is one of the spheres in~{\rm (ii)}.
\end{itemize}
\end{lem}

The proof is completely analogous to that of~\cite[Lemma~5.2]{geze12}.
\subsection{The moduli space of holomorphic spheres}
Fix a holomorphic sphere
\[ F:=\{p_0\}\times\mathbb{C}\mathrm{P}^1\times\{w_0\}\subset U_{\partial},\]
where the choice is made such that $F$ is not contained in the collar
neighbourhood $[-\varepsilon/2,0]\times N$. Write $\widetilde{\mathcal M}$ for the moduli
space of smooth $J$-holomorphic spheres $u\colon\thinspace\mathbb{C}\mathrm{P}^1\rightarrow\widetilde{W}$
representing the class $[F]\in H_2(\widetilde{W})$ and not contained
in $[-\varepsilon/2,0]\times N$. This last condition we impose
to avoid problems with transversality caused by the non-generic
almost complex structure on the collar. The homological
intersection number of $[F]$ with the class in $H_{2n}(\widetilde{W},U_{\partial}\cup
C_{\infty}\times\partial D^2)$ represented by the complex hypersurface
$V_{\infty}\times D^2$ equals~$1$.

In conjunction with Lemma~\ref{lem:spheres} we see that any holomorphic
sphere that touches $U_{\partial}$ or is contained in $C_{\infty}\times D^2$
is of the form $z\mapsto (p,v(z),w)$ for some $v\in\Aut(\mathbb{C}\mathrm{P}^1)$.
This tells us that all holomorphic spheres corresponding to
points in $\widetilde{\mathcal M}$ near its ends are standard.

As in \cite[Proposition~6.1]{geze12}, we have the following statement.

\begin{prop}
The moduli space $\widetilde{\mathcal M}$ is a smooth manifold of dimension $2n+6$,
and all elements of $\widetilde{\mathcal M}$ are simple holomorphic spheres.
\end{prop}

The spheres in $\widetilde{\mathcal M}$ being simple implies that the
quotient space
\[ \mathcal M:=\widetilde{\mathcal M}\times_{\Aut(\mathbb{C}\mathrm{P}^1)} \mathbb{C}\mathrm{P}^1\]
is a smooth manifold of dimension $2n+2$.
\subsection{Spheres intersecting an arc}
Let $\gamma$ be a proper embedding of the interval $[0,1)$
into $\widetilde{W}$ with $\gamma (0)\in F$ and $\gamma(t)\in
(-\infty,-2]\times M$ for $t$ near~$1$. In addition, we require that
the image of $\gamma$ lie in the complement of the collar
neighbourhood $[-\varepsilon/2,0]\times N$. This ensures that the
space
\[ \mathcal M_{\gamma}:=\ev^{-1}(\gamma),\]
where $\ev$ is the evaluation map
\[ \begin{array}{rccc}
\ev\colon\thinspace & \mathcal M   & \longrightarrow        & \widetilde{W}\\
       & [u,z] & \longmapsto &  u(z),
\end{array}\]
is a smooth $1$-dimensional manifold (with boundary).

Any sphere in $\mathcal M$ represents the class $[F]$, which has
homological intersection number zero with any fibre of~$N$. Thus,
by positivity of intersection~\cite[Proposition~7.1]{cimo07},
any sphere in $\mathcal M$ is either disjoint from the collar
$[-\varepsilon/2,0]\times N$ or contained in a single fibre
of some $\{\rho\}\times N$. Therefore, our choice of $\gamma$
ensures that no sphere in $\mathcal M_{\gamma}$ can touch the collar.

Near the preimage of $\gamma(0)$, the manifold $\mathcal M_{\gamma}$ looks
like a half-open interval, but there are no other boundary points.
In particular, $\mathcal M_{\gamma}$ is non-compact.
\subsection{The conclusion of the argument}
By the non-compactness of $\mathcal M_{\gamma}$ we find a sequence of
points in $\mathcal M_{\gamma}$ without any convergent subsequence.
The compactness theorem from symplectic field
theory~\cite[Theorem~10.2]{behwz03}, however, implies the existence
of a subsequence convergent in the Gromov-Hofer sense to
a holomorphic building of height $k_-|1$. We want to show
that $k_->0$, which is equivalent to saying that the subsequence
is \emph{not} Gromov-convergent to a bubble tree in~$\widetilde{W}$.

By construction, the symplectic form $\tilde{\omega}$ is exact on
$\widetilde{W}\setminus(C_{\infty}\times D^2)$. Hence, any non-constant sphere
in a purported bubble tree must intersect $C_{\infty}\times D^2$,
and further, by Lemma~\ref{lem:spheres}~(i), each sphere
intersects the complex hypersurface $V_{\infty}\times D^2$.
By positivity of intersection~\cite{cimo07} and the homological
intersection of $F$ with $V_{\infty}\times D^2$ being~$1$, there
can be no non-trivial bubble trees. So, indeed, a non-convergent
sequence in $\mathcal M_{\gamma}$ has to break into a building with
$k_->0$.

The proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:main} is completed with the
following lemma.

\begin{lem}
\label{lem:plane}
The described building contains a finite energy plane with
a positive puncture, corresponding to a contractible
Reeb orbit.
\end{lem}

\begin{proof}
In any holomorphic building of height $k_-|1$ with $k_->0$
there must be at least two finite energy planes. By our intersection
argument, at most one of these can intersect $V_{\infty}\times D^2$.
Any other finite energy plane in the top level $W$
of the building would have to stay outside $C_{\infty}\times D^2$. This,
however, is impossible, because there the symplectic
form $\tilde{\omega}$ is exact (see the comment
in Section~\ref{section:cobordism},
right before the construction of~$\widetilde{W}$), so by Stokes's theorem
the Hofer energy of a finite energy plane with a negative end
would be negative, cf.~\cite[Lemma~5.16]{behwz03}.
Likewise, there can be no finite energy plane with a negative
puncture in any of the lower levels of the building,
all of which are copies of the symplectisation of $M$
(and hence exact). We conclude that there must be a
finite energy plane with a
positive puncture in one of the lower levels
$(\mathbb R\times M,d(\mathrm e^s\alpha))$ of the building.
\end{proof}
\section{Examples}
In this section we discuss some applications and mild extensions
of our main theorem. The following list is meant to be illustrative rather
than exhaustive.

\vspace{1mm}

(1) The contrapositive of our theorem allows us to draw topological
conclusions. Given a contact manifold $(M,\xi=\ker\alpha)$ with
$R_{\alpha}$ not having any contractible periodic Reeb orbit,
one can deduce that $\xi$ is not supported by an open book
with subcritical pages. Examples are provided by the unit
cotangent bundle of any $n$-torus $\mathbb R^n/\Lambda$ obtained as a
quotient of $\mathbb R^n$ with the euclidean metric, since the
Reeb flow on the unit cotangent bundle of any Riemannian manifold
coincides with the cogeodesic flow, cf.~\cite[Theorem~1.5.2]{geig08}.

\vspace{1mm}

(2) In our construction, $A_{BS}$ was a symplectic cobordism with
an exact symplectic form. Under the weaker assumption that $A_{BS}$
is any semi-positive symplectic cobordism, one can still infer the
existence of at least a nullhomologous Reeb link as follows.

As in the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:main}, we need only
exclude Gromov-convergent sequences. Any potential bubble tree
arising as a Gromov limit of a sequence in $\mathcal M_{\gamma}$ has to
stay outside the collar $[-\varepsilon/2,0]\times N$ by an intersection
argument. Indeed, at least one sphere in the bubble intersects $\gamma$
and hence is not contained entirely in the collar. If the bubble
tree were to intersect the collar, there would be at least one
sphere having positive intersection with a fibre of (a copy of)~$N$.
On the other hand, we can obviously find a different fibre
(in a different copy of~$N$) having empty intersection with the
bubble tree.

Provided we can show that the cobordism $\widetilde{W}\setminus (C_{\infty}
\times D^2)$ is semi-positive, we may then appeal to
\cite[Section~6.3]{geze12} to rule out non-trivial bubble trees.

For $n=2$, semi-positivity of this $6$-dimensional cobordism is
automatic. For $n\geq 3$, we argue as follows. Recall that
\[ \widetilde{W}\setminus (C_{\infty}\times D^2)=(-\infty,0]\times M
\cup_{B\times D^2}(A_{BS}\times D^2),\]
which is homotopy equivalent to $M\cup_{B\times D^2}(A_{BS}\times D^2)$.
We have
\[ H_2(M\setminus B\times \Int(D^2),B\times S^1)\cong
H^{2n-1}(M\setminus B\times \Int(D^2))=0\;\;\text{for $n\geq 3$},\]
since $M\setminus B$ fibres over $S^1$ with fibres having the homotopy type
of an $n$-dimensional complex. This implies that any class in
$H_2(\widetilde{W}\setminus (C_{\infty}\times D^2))$ is homologous to
one in $A_{BS}\times D^2\simeq A_{BS}$. Moreover, $A_{BS}$ is
a complex hypersurface in $A_{BS}\times D^2$, so the values
of $[\tilde{\omega}]$ and $c_1(\widetilde{W},J)$, respectively, on any
homology class in $H_2(\widetilde{W}\setminus (C_{\infty}\times D^2))$
can be computed inside $A_{BS}$, where semi-positivity holds.

\vspace{1mm}

(3) A Lagrangian embedding of the $2$-sphere into $\mathbb C^2$ blown up in
two points can be defined as follows, cf.~\cite[Example~2.14]{seid08}.
Start with the Lagrangian cylinder
\[ \{ (r,\mathrm e^{\mathrm i\varphi})\in\mathbb C^2\colon\thinspace r\in [0,3],\; \varphi\in[0,2\pi)\}.\]
Now form a symplectic blow-up by cutting out
the open unit ball in $\mathbb C^2$ centred at $(0,0)$ and collapsing
the fibres of the Hopf fibration on the boundary sphere.
We maintain that the cylinder descends to a Lagrangian disc
in the blown-up manifold. A similar blow-up centred at $(3,0)$
then produces a Lagrangian $2$-sphere in $\mathbb C^2\#\overline{\mathbb{C}\mathrm{P}}^2
\#\overline{\mathbb{C}\mathrm{P}}^2$.

The most convenient way to see that the cylinder descends to a smooth disc
in the blown-up manifold is Lerman's description of a blow-up as a
symplectic cut~\cite{lerm95}. That is, on $\mathbb C^2\times \mathbb C$ with coordinates
$(z_1,z_2,w)$ and standard symplectic form we consider the
$S^1$-action given by
\[ \mathrm e^{\mathrm i\theta}(z_1,z_2,w)=(\mathrm e^{\mathrm i\theta}z_1,\mathrm e^{\mathrm i\theta}z_2,
\mathrm e^{-\mathrm i\theta}w).\]
The function $\psi\colon\thinspace\mathbb C^2\times\mathbb C\rightarrow\mathbb R$ given by
$\psi(z_1,z_2,w)=|z_1|^2+|z_2|^2-|w|^2$ is $S^1$-invariant,
and so is the symplectic form.
The blown-up manifold is the smooth symplectic quotient of the level set
$\psi^{-1}(1)$ under the free $S^1$-action.

The isotropic cylinder
\[ \{ (r,\mathrm e^{\mathrm i\varphi},r)\in\mathbb C^2\times\mathbb C
\colon\thinspace r\in [0,3],\; \varphi\in[0,2\pi)\}\subset\psi^{-1}(1) \]
descends to a disc in the blown-up manifold which is Lagrangian
outside its centre. Provided the disc is smooth at the centre,
it will be Lagrangian by continuity. We claim that
\[ (r,\varphi)\longmapsto [r:\mathrm e^{\mathrm i\varphi}:r]\]
defines a smooth parametrisation of the disc.
Beware that the `homogeneous' coordinates here refer to the quotient
under the $S^1$-action only. Indeed, we have
\[ [r:\mathrm e^{\mathrm i\varphi}:r]=[r\mathrm e^{-\mathrm i\varphi}:1:r\mathrm e^{\mathrm i\varphi}],\]
so the parametrisation can be rewritten as $z\mapsto [\overline{z}:1:z]$.

Now, by Weinstein's neighbourhood theorem for Lagrangian
submanifolds~\cite{wein71},
a small cotangent disc bundle of $S^2$ embeds symplectically into
$\mathbb C^2\#\overline{\mathbb{C}\mathrm{P}}^2\#\overline{\mathbb{C}\mathrm{P}}^2$. This gives us
a symplectic cobordism from $\mathbb{R}\mathrm{P}^3$ to $S^3$ (with their standard contact
structures), which is semi-positive for dimensional reasons.

Then Example~(2) applies to show that the contact manifold
obtained from an open book whose page is the cotangent disc bundle of $S^2$,
and whose monodromy is a $k$-fold Dehn twist $\tau^k$, $k\in\mathbb Z$,
carries a nullhomologous Reeb link. For $k\geq 0$ the resulting manifolds
are the $5$-dimensional Brieskorn manifolds $\Sigma(k,2,2,2)$
with their natural contact structure,
see~\cite{koni05}; for $k<0$ we obtain a contact structure
on a diffeomorphic copy of $\Sigma(|k|,2,2,2)$.
Since these manifolds are simply connected, see~\cite{hima68},
we obviously get a contractible periodic Reeb orbit.
The reader may wish to compare this with the results
of van Koert~\cite{koer08}.

It was shown by Seidel~\cite[Proposition~2.4]{seid08} that
the Dehn twists $\tau^k$ for different $k\in\mathbb Z$ are not
symplectically isotopic (with compact support), although
$\tau^2$ is topologically isotopic to the identity.

\vspace{1mm}

(4) A Lagrangian embedding of the $3$-sphere into $\mathbb{C}\mathrm{P}^1\times\mathbb C^2$
can be defined by
\[ \mathbb C^2\supset S^3\ni(z_1,z_2)\longmapsto\bigl([z_1:z_2],(\overline{z}_1,\overline{z}_2)\bigr)
\in\mathbb{C}\mathrm{P}^1\times\mathbb C^2,\]
see~\cite[Example~2.2.8]{alp94}.
Analogous to Example~(3), and with $DT^*S^3$ denoting a small
cotangent disc bundle of~$S^3$ and $B\subset\mathbb C^2$ a large ball,
we can build the symplectic cap
\[ C:=\bigl((\mathbb{C}\mathrm{P}^1\times B)\setminus DT^*S^3\bigr)\cup
\bigl((\mathbb{C}\mathrm{P}^1\times\mathbb C^2)\setminus(\mathbb{C}\mathrm{P}^1\times B)\bigr).\]
Over the first part of $C$ (crossed with~$D^2$)
we allow ourselves a generic choice of
almost complex structure, on the second part we choose the obvious
complex structure, which gives us the holomorphic spheres in
the cap.

The intersection argument that we used in the proof of our main theorem
in order to show that the spheres in our moduli space are simple
no longer applies, since the hypersurface $\{\infty\}\times\mathbb C^2$
is not contained in~$C$. Instead however, we may reason
as in Example~(2) that a class $H_2(\widetilde{W})$ can
be regarded as a class in $H_2(C)$. From
$\tilde{\omega}([F])=\omega_{\FS}([F])=\pi$ (with $F=\mathbb{C}\mathrm{P}^1\times *$),
and the observation that $\tilde{\omega}$ takes values in $\pi\mathbb Z$ on
spherical classes, we conclude that spheres in the class $[F]$ are simple.
Also as in Example~(2) we see that semi-positivity (which is automatic on
$C$ for dimensional reasons) carries over to the relevant $8$-dimensional
cobordism.

Thus, as in Example~(3) we see that the open book with page the cotangent
disc bundle of $S^3$ and monodromy a $k$-fold Dehn twist $\tau^k$
supports a contact structure with a contractible periodic Reeb orbit.
The resulting manifolds, analogous to~(3), are the Brieskorn manifolds
$\Sigma (|k|,2,2,2,2)$. These have homology $H_3\cong\mathbb Z_{|k|}$,
cf.~\cite[p.~37]{koer05}. Hence,
in this dimension the Dehn twists $\tau^k$ for different $k\in\mathbb Z$
are not even topologically isotopic.
\begin{ack}
We are grateful to Sam Lisi for questions and suggestions that
prompted the present paper.
We thank Emmanuel Giroux for indicating to us how to prove
Proposition~\ref{prop:normal}, and Fan Ding for help with
a technical point in that proof.
We thank Janko Latschev for
useful discussions. Some parts of this research
were done during the workshop
`From Conservative Dynamics to Symplectic and Contact Topology'
at the Lorentz Center, Universiteit Leiden, in August 2012.
We thank the Lorentz Center and its efficient staff for providing an
excellent research environment.
\end{ack}


\section{Introduction}

The possibility that in extreme conditions QCD breaks parity has been in the past years actively investigated.
Indeed invariance under parity is one of the characteristic footprints of strong interactions. Yet there are reasons to
believe that this symmetry may be broken in Nature
at least in two different settings.\bigskip

The first possibility is likely to occur in environments with a large baryonic chemical potential. In this case the
fermionic determinant in the QCD partition function is not anymore positive definite and the studies that indicate that
parity cannot be spontaneously broken \cite{vw} for $\mu_B=0$ simply do not apply at $\mu_B\neq 0$. In fact analytical
studies with effective meson lagrangians realizing all the QCD properties at low energies suggest that there is a definite
window of baryonic chemical potentials leading to a vacuum where parity is spontaneously broken \cite{anesp}. Unfortunately
it is difficult to verify these results numerically using lattice field techniques due to the notorious problems
that finite density numerical simulations present \cite{latt}.\bigskip

A second possibility has been abundantly discussed in recent times in connection with the so-called Chiral
Magnetic Effect \cite{kharzeev}. It is believed that thermal fluctuations may induce topological charge fluctuations
in the gauge configuration \cite{polya,zhitn} $\Delta T_5$ and they are detected on lattices \cite{polikarpov}. This leads to an effective '$\theta$- term' in the effective
action that in turn induces a coupling between
the electric and the magnetic fields, leading to the production of positively and negatively charged particles in opposite
directions. It has been claimed that this signal is observed in the STAR experiment at RHIC \cite{star}, although the issue
still remains controversial. In addition the precise mechanism of creation of a sufficiently intense topological
fluctuation is also unclear at present.
\bigskip

This fluctuation, if extended over the whole fireball,  may live for a
sufficiently long time to generate in practice a metastable state characterized by a topological chemical
potential $\mu_\theta$.  If this is the case, in a finite volume and only for light quarks, the topological
chemical potential can be transformed into a chiral chemical potential $\mu_5$ thanks to the anomalous PCAC equation
\begin{equation}
\partial^\mu J_{5,\mu} -2 i \bar q \hat m_q \gamma_5 q = \frac{N_f}{2\pi^2} \partial^\mu K_\mu \label{pcac},
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
K_\mu =  \frac12 \epsilon_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}\text{Tr}\left(G^\nu\partial^\rho G^\sigma -i\frac23 G^\nu G^\rho G^\sigma\right),
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\Delta T_5 = T_5(t_f) - T_5(0) = \frac{1}{4\pi^2}\int^{t_f}_0 dt\int_{\text{vol.}}d^3x \, \partial^\mu K_\mu.
\end{equation}
If $m_q\simeq 0$ and  no zero modes are present due to the finiteness of the volume then one gets,
\begin{equation}
\frac{d}{dt}  (Q_5^q - 2 N_f T_5)  \simeq  0,
\qquad  Q_5^q =\int_{\text{\small vol.}}d^3x\, \bar q\gamma_0\gamma_5q \label{axcons}.
\end{equation}
This is the physical situation we will consider
in the present work. In any case, it seems interesting to investigate how hadronic physics is modified by
the presence of $\mu_5$.\\

This paper is organized as follows. In Sec. 2 a generalized $\Sigma$ model is presented.
Mass-gap equations for three v.e.v. of neutral scalar fields are derived and solved analytically.
Then we determine the best fit of parameters of the model comparing with the experimental inputs for
scalar and pseudoscalar meson spectral data \cite{PDG}.
In Sec. 3 the axial chemical potential
is introduced and treated as a constant time component of an
isosinglet axial-vector field in the non-strange sector. We obtain the modification of the
 mass-gap equations and find the distortion of $a_0$- and  $\pi$- meson spectra caused by the parity
breaking. In Sec. 4 a more complicated mixing of three meson states, $\sigma$, $\eta$, $\eta'$, is investigated
when the medium has an axial charge. At certain energies some particle states become tachyons (recall
we are in-medium so this actually does not represent a fundamental problem).
In Sec. 5 all decay widths are calculated for both the rest frame and for moving particles
(we note that when axial charge fills the medium, the Lorentz invariance is broken).
In Sec. 6 the problem of isosinglet axial-vector meson condensation and its interference
with the axial chemical potential is examined. Sec. 7 is devoted to our conclusions and outlook.

\section{Generalized $\Sigma$ model}

Our starting point will be the following Lagrangian, invariant under $SU(3)_F$
\begin{align}
\nonumber \mathcal L=&\frac 14 \text{Tr}\left (D_\mu HD^\mu H^\dagger\right )+
\frac b2 \text{Tr}\left [M(H+H^\dagger)\right ]+
\frac{M^2}2 \text{Tr}\left (H H^\dagger\right ) -
\frac{\lambda_1}2 \text{Tr}\left [(HH^\dagger)^2\right ]-\frac{\lambda_2}4 \left [\text{Tr}\left (H H^\dagger\right )\right ]^2\\
&+\frac c2 (\text{det}H + \text{det}H^\dagger) +
\frac{d_1}2 \text{Tr}\left [M(H H^\dagger H+H^\dagger H H^\dagger)\right ]+
\frac{d_2}2 \text{Tr}\left [M(H+H^\dagger)\right ] \text{Tr}\left (H H^\dagger\right )\label{lageff}
\end{align}
where $H=\xi \Sigma\xi$, $\xi=\exp\left(i\frac{\Phi}{2f}\right )$, $\Phi=\lambda^a\phi^a$
and $\Sigma=\lambda^b\sigma^b$. This model can be confronted to similar models in \cite{boguta,shechter,rischke} with the important difference (see below) in the trilinear vertices with couplings $d_1, d_2$. The neutral v.e.v. of the scalars are defined as $v_i=\langle\Sigma_{ii}\rangle$
where $i=u,d,s$, and satisfy the following gap equations:
\begin{equation}
M^2v_i-2\lambda_1 v_i^3-\lambda_2\vec v^2v_i+c\frac{v_uv_dv_s}{v_i}=0.
\end{equation}
For further purposes we need the non-strange meson sector and $\eta_s$.
In terms of v.e.v. and physical scalar and pseudoscalar states, the parametrization used here is
\begin{equation}
\Phi=\begin{pmatrix}
\eta_q+\pi^0 & \sqrt{2}\pi^+ & 0\\
\sqrt 2 \pi^- & \eta_q-\pi^0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & \sqrt 2\eta_s
\end{pmatrix}, \qquad \Sigma=\begin{pmatrix}
v_u+\sigma+a_0^0 & \sqrt 2 a_0^+ & 0\\
\sqrt 2 a_0^- & v_d+\sigma-a_0^0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & v_s
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{equation}
The mixing among $\eta$'s is defined via the $\psi$ angle
\begin{equation}
\begin{pmatrix}
\eta_q\\
\eta_s
\end{pmatrix}=\begin{pmatrix}
\cos\psi & \sin\psi\\
-\sin\psi & \cos\psi
\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}
\eta\\
\eta'
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{equation}

As stated in the introduction, an axial charge can only be effectively generated for nearly massless quarks. Therefore
we exclude kaons and their scalar partners $\kappa$ from the analysis.
Let us take for the time being
$\mu_5=0$ and  assume $v_u=v_d=v_s=v_0\equiv f_\pi\approx 92$ MeV because we only consider the effect of masses
perturbatively.
As a function of the Lagrangian parameters, the main physical magnitudes derived from this model are
\begin{align}
\nonumber v_0&=\frac{c\pm\sqrt{c^2+4M^2(2\lambda_1+3\lambda_2)}}{2(2\lambda_1+3\lambda_2)},
\qquad m^2_\pi= \frac 2{v_0}(b+(d_1+3d_2)v_0^2)m,\\
\nonumber m^2_a&=2(-M^2+ 3(2\lambda_1+\lambda_2)v_0^2+cv_0-2(3d_1+2d_2)mv_0-2d_2m_sv_0),\\
\nonumber m^2_\sigma&= 2(-M^2+(6\lambda_1+7\lambda_2)v_0^2-cv_0-6(d_1+2d_2)mv_0-2d_2 m_sv_0),\\
\nonumber m^2_{\eta,\eta'}&=\frac{m^2_\pi}{2m}(m+m_s)+3cv_0\mp\sqrt{8c^2 v_0^2+\left [\frac{m^2_\pi}{2m}(m-m_s)+cv_0\right ]^2},\\
\nonumber \Gamma^2_a&=\frac{(-4m^2_\eta m^2_\pi+(-m^2_a+m^2_\eta+m^2_\pi)^2)(m^2_a-m^2_\eta +4d_1mv_0)^4}{(48 m^3_a \pi v_0^2)^2},\\
\nonumber \Gamma^2_\sigma&=\frac{9(m^2_\sigma-4 m^2_\pi)(m^2_\sigma-m^2_\pi+4(d_1+2d_2)mv_0)^4}{(32m^2_\sigma \pi v_0^2)^2},\\
\sin(2\psi)&=\frac{4\sqrt{2}cv_0}{m_{\eta'}^2-m_\eta^2},
\end{align}
with $m/m_s=(m_u+m_d)/(2m_s)\simeq 1/25$. The angle $\psi$ is not really necessary for our subsequent discussion
 but it will be eventually useful in the computation of Dalitz decays and we can use it as a test of the model.
$v_0$ is found via gap equations. These equations are inserted in MINUIT in order to
find the minimum of the $\chi^2$ estimator using the following experimental numbers (in MeV):
\begin{gather}
\nonumber v_0^{\text{exp}}=92\pm 5, \quad m_\pi^{\text{exp}}=137\pm 5, \quad m_a^{\text{exp}}=980\pm 50,\\
\nonumber m_\sigma^{\text{exp}}=600\pm 120, \quad m_\eta^{\text{exp}}=548\pm 50, \quad m_{\eta'}^{\text{exp}}=958\pm 100,\\
\Gamma_a^{\text{exp}}=60\pm 30, \quad \Gamma_\sigma^{\text{exp}}=600\pm 120.
\end{gather}
The $\sigma$ mass is assumed to be relatively large as we are not considering any glueballs, so this $\sigma$
is a sort of average of the real $\sigma$ and other $0^+$ light states. We have assigned generous error bars to include the uncertainties in the model itself. In the minimization process
there are several control variables:
\begin{itemize}
\item The value of the potential in the minimum has to be $V(v_0)<0$ since $v=0$ is an extremal point with $V(v=0)=0$
but in the case the latter is a minimum, the true vacuum has to have a lower energy.
Also, there is a control of the third extremal, which has to be higher than the true minimum.
\begin{equation}
V(v_0)=\frac 14v_0^2(-6M^2+3(2\lambda_1+3\lambda_2)v_0^2-4cv_0)\nonumber
\end{equation}

\item The Hessian matrix has  degenerate eigenvalues and there are  only two different eigenvalues whose positivity
should be provided
\begin{equation}
(V'')_1(v_0)=-M^2+3(2\lambda_1+\lambda_2)v_0^2+cv_0,\nonumber
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
(V'')_2(v_0)=-M^2+3(2\lambda_1+3\lambda_2)v_0^2 -2cv_0\nonumber.
\end{equation}
\end{itemize}
The final result of the minimization process is given in the following table:
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{||c|c|c|c||}
\hline\hline
Magnitude & \texttt{MINUIT} value (MeV) & Experimental value (MeV) & Error\\\hline
$v_0$ & 92.00 & 92 & $-3.52\times 10^{-7}$\\
$m_\pi$ & 137.84 & 137 & $6.10\times 10^{-3}$\\
$m_a$  & 980.00 & 980 & $-1.26\times 10^{-6}$\\
$m_\sigma$ & 599.99 & 600 & $-1.66\times 10^{-5}$\\
$m_\eta$ & 497.78 & 548 & $-9.16\times 10^{-2}$\\
$m_{\eta'}$ & 968.20 & 958 & $1.06\times 10^{-2}$\\
$\Gamma_a$ & 60.00 & 60 & $2.04\times 10^{-5}$\\
$\Gamma_\sigma$ & 600.00 & 600 & $6.81\times 10^{-6}$ \\\hline\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
All the requirements concerning the control parameters are satisfied at this global solution. The fit makes
the cubic (in $H$) terms in (\ref{lageff}) actually more relevant than the linear one.
As a last point, the $\psi$ angle is treated as a prediction. Experimentally \cite{PDG},
$\psi\simeq -18^{\circ}+\arctan\sqrt 2\simeq -18^{\circ}+54.7^{\circ}\approx 36.7^{\circ}$,
 while our result is $\psi_{\texttt{MINUIT}}\approx 35.46^{\circ}$, in excellent agreement.

\section{Introducing the axial chemical potential}

In order to introduce the axial chemical potential we have to recall that, just as the ordinary baryonic potential
is introduced as the zero-th component of a vector field, the axial chemical potential $\mu_5$ can be implemented
as the time component of an axial-vector field.
We follow the arguments for strange quark suppression \cite{aaep} of parity breaking
effects in fireballs created in heavy ion collisions. These arguments are based on Eq. \eqref{pcac}
where due to the unavoidable left-right oscillations the mean value
of strange quark axial charge is washed out as the strange quark mass is comparable with
decay width of fireballs. Accordingly we will use
axial chemical potential in the non-strange sector only.\\

At the level of the meson Lagrangian (\ref{lageff}) it will appear
through the action of the covariant derivative
\begin{equation}\label{covderiv}
\partial_\mu \to
D_\mu=\partial_\mu -i\{\textbf{I}_q\mu_5\delta_{\mu 0},\cdot\}=\partial_\mu -2i\textbf{I}_q \mu_5\delta_{\mu 0}.
\end{equation}
An extra piece which is proportional to $\mu_5$ appears in the $P$-even Lagrangian
\begin{equation}
\Delta \mathcal L=\frac i2\mu_5 \text{Tr}\left [\textbf{I}_q\left (\partial_0 HH^\dagger-H\partial_0 H^\dagger\right )\right ]+\mu_5^2\text{Tr}\left (\textbf{I}_q HH^\dagger\right ). \label{chempot}
\end{equation}
For non-vanishing $\mu_5$, we will assume isospin symmetry and thus, we impose to our solutions
to have $v_u=v_d=v_q\neq v_s$. The corresponding gap equations are
\begin{equation}
M^2-2(\lambda_1+\lambda_2)v_q^2-\lambda_2 v_s^2+cv_s +2\mu_5^2 =0,
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
v_s(M^2 -2\lambda_2v_q^2-(2\lambda_1+\lambda_2)v_s^2)+cv_q^2=0.
\end{equation}
The correct solution is taken imposing the correct limit $v_q,v_s\to v_0$ when $\mu_5\to 0$ (see Figure \ref{vqvs} for the
$\mu_5$ evolution of the solution).\\

\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{vq-vs.png}
\vspace{-0.5em}
\caption{$v_q$ and $v_s$ dependence on $\mu_5$.}\label{vqvs}
\vspace{-1em}
\end{figure}

It should be clear that the inclusion of $\mu_5$ leads automatically to a source of parity violation in the
low-energy effective theory. The consequences are far reaching; parity ceases to be a guidance for allowing/forbidding
strong interaction processes, and states that have opposite parities, but otherwise equal quantum numbers, mix.

\bigskip

As an example of such a mixing let us consider the two isotriplets of opposite parity  $\pi$ and $a_0$. After
normalization of the states, let us consider
the piece of the effective Lagrangian that is bilinear in the  $\pi$ and $a_0$ fields
\begin{equation}
\mathcal L=\frac 12 (\partial a_0)^2+\frac 12 (\partial \pi)^2-\frac12 m_1^2 a_0^2-\frac12 m_2^2 \pi^2-4\mu_5 a_0 \dot{\pi},
\end{equation}
where
\begin{align}
\nonumber m_1^2&=-2(M^2-2(3\lambda_1+\lambda_2)v_q^2-\lambda_2 v_s^2-cv_s+2(3d_1+2d_2)mv_q+2d_2m_sv_s+2\mu_5^2),\\
m_2^2&=\frac{2m}{v_q}\left [b+(d_1+2d_2)v_q^2+d_2v_s^2\right ].
\end{align}
Notice that the resulting Lagrangian is not Lorentz invariant, which is obvious from \eqref{covderiv}. We will perform
a diagonalization in momentum space, so the Lagrangian operator is written as
\begin{equation}
\mathcal L=-\frac 12 \begin{pmatrix}
a_0^*(k) & \pi^*(k)
\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}
-k^2+m_1^2 & 4i\mu_5 k_0\\
-4i\mu_5 k_0 & -k^2+m_2^2
\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}
a_0(k)\\
\pi(k)
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{equation}
Recall that fields in the momentum representation satisfy $A^*(k)=A(-k)$. Note also the fact that
the mixing term has been rewritten as $-4\mu_5 a_0 \dot{\pi}=-2\mu_5(a_0 \dot{\pi}-\dot{a}_0 \pi)$
in order the matrix to be hermitian. The eigenvalues are $\frac 12(k^2-m_{\text{eff}}^2)$,
where the (energy dependent) effective masses are
\begin{equation}\label{m2effpi}
m^2_{\text{eff}\ \pm}(k_0)=\frac12 \left [m_1^2+m_2^2 \pm \sqrt{(m_1^2-m_2^2)^2+(8\mu_5 k_0)^2}\right ].
\end{equation}
The eigenstates are defined as
\begin{gather}
a_0=\sum_j C_{aj}X_j,\quad \pi=\sum_j C_{\pi j}X_j, \qquad C_{a1}=iC_{\pi 2}=C_+, \quad C_{a2}=-iC_{\pi 1}=-C_-,
\end{gather}
with
\begin{equation}
C_\pm=\frac 1{\sqrt 2}\sqrt{1\pm\frac{m_1^2-m_2^2}{\sqrt{(m_1^2-m_2^2)^2+(8\mu_5 k_0)^2}}}.
\end{equation}
We can also use the notation $X_1,X_2\equiv \tilde a,\tilde\pi$, indicating that $X_1$ (resp. $X_2$) is the state that when
$\mu_5=0$ goes over to $a_0$ (resp. $\pi$).\\

\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{mass_api.png}\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{mass_api_tachyon.png}
\vspace{-2em}
\caption{Effective mass dependence on $\mu_5$ for $\tilde\pi$ and $\tilde{a}_0$. Left panel: comparison of masses at rest and at low momentum $q=100$ MeV. Right panel: masses at $q=200$ MeV, where the $\tilde\pi$ mass goes tachyonic, as discussed in the text. For such momenta, the variations in $\tilde a_0$ are almost invisible and only slightly visible for large values of $\mu_5$ for $\tilde \pi$.}\label{meffpi}
\vspace{-1em}
\end{figure}

In Fig. \ref{meffpi}, we present the results for the evolution of $\tilde \pi$ and $\tilde{a}_0$
effective masses with respect to the axial chemical potential $\mu_5$. As stressed, both states
tend to the known physical ones in the limit $\mu_5\to0$. A remarkable feature of this model
is the appearance of tachyonic states at high energies (or momenta). It is evident from Eq. \eqref{m2effpi}
that for energies higher than a critical value $k_0,|\vec k|>m_1m_2/(4\mu_5)\equiv k^c_{\tilde\pi}$,
the square root term dominates, thus leading to a negative squared mass for pions, as shown in the
right panel of Fig. \ref{meffpi}. Such a behaviour does not represent a serious physical obstacle
since it can be checked that the energies are always positive and no vacuum instabilities appear.
On the other hand, the $\tilde{a}_0$ mass shows an important enhancement, but in this model $\mu_5$
has to be understood as a perturbatively small parameter, and very high values are beyond the domain of applicability
of the effective Lagrangian. A better treatment of $\tilde a_0$ would require the inclusion of heavier degrees
of freedom such as $\pi(1300)$ for instance.

\section{Mixing $\eta-\sigma-\eta'$}

A similar analysis applies to the isosinglet case. We shall consider three states here: $\eta$, $\eta^\prime$ and $\sigma$.
As before, the starting point will be the piece of the effective Lagrangian (\ref{lageff}) that after the inclusion
of $\mu_5$ is bilinear in the fields, i.e. the properly normalized kinetic part
\begin{equation}
\mathcal L=\frac 12[(\partial\sigma)^2+(\partial \eta_q)^2+(\partial \eta_s)^2]-\frac 12m_3^2 \sigma^2-\frac 12m_4^2\eta_q^2-\frac 12m_5^2\eta_s^2-4\mu_5\sigma\dot{\eta}_q-2 \sqrt{2}cv_q\eta_q\eta_s.
\end{equation}
The constants appearing in the previous equation are given by
\begin{align}
\nonumber m_3^2&=-2(M^2-6(\lambda_1+\lambda_2)v_q^2-\lambda_2 v_s^2+cv_s+6(d_1+2d_2)mv_q+2d_2m_sv_s +2\mu_5^2),\\
\nonumber m_4^2&=\frac {2m}{v_q}\left [b+(d_1+2d_2)v_q^2+d_2v_s^2\right ]+2cv_s,\\
m_5^2&=\frac{2m_s}{v_s}[b+2d_2v_q^2+(d_1+d_2)v_s^2]+\frac{cv_q^2}{v_s}.
\end{align}
In matrix form
\begin{equation}
\mathcal L=-\frac 12\begin{pmatrix}
\sigma^*(k) & \eta_q^*(k) & \eta_s^*(k)
\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}
-k^2+m_3^2 & 4i\mu_5 k_0 & 0\\
-4i\mu_5 k_0 & -k^2+m_4^2 & 2 \sqrt{2}cv_q\\
0 & 2 \sqrt{2}cv_q & -k^2+m_5^2
\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}
\sigma(k) \\
\eta_q(k) \\
\eta_s(k)
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{equation}

The equation for the eigenvalues (effective masses) is now a cubic one and the solution is determined
numerically
\begin{equation}
-8c^2v_q^2(m_{\text{eff}}^2-m_3^2)+(m_{\text{eff}}^2-m_5^2)\left [\left (m_{\text{eff}}^2-\frac 12(m_3^2+m_4^2)\right )^2-\frac 14 (m_3^2-m_4^2)^2-(4\mu_5 k_0)^2\right ]=0.
\end{equation}

As before the eigenstates are defined via
\begin{align}\label{eigens}
\sigma=\sum_j C_{\sigma j}X_j, \qquad \eta_q=\sum_j C_{\eta_q j}X_j, \qquad \eta_s=\sum_j C_{\eta_s j}X_j ,
\end{align}
where
\begin{gather}
\nonumber C_{\sigma j}=\frac{4i\mu_5 k_0 (m_5^2-m_j^2)}{N_j\prod_{k\neq j}(m_j^2-m_k^2)}, \quad C_{\eta_q j}=\frac{(m_5^2-m_j^2)(m_3^2-m_j^2)}{N_j\prod_{k\neq j}(m_j^2-m_k^2)}, \quad C_{\eta_s j}=\frac{-2\sqrt{2}cv_q(m_3^2-m_j^2)}{N_j\prod_{k\neq j}(m_j^2-m_k^2)}\\
\frac 1{N_j}=\sqrt{1+\frac{(4\mu_5 k_0)^2}{(m_j^2-m_3^2)^2}+\frac{8c^2v_q^2}{(m_j^2-m_5^2)^2}}.
\end{gather}
$N_j$ is the proper (eigen)field normalization factor.

\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{mass_totes_comparison.png}\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{mass_totes_tachyon_vdef.png}
\vspace{-2em}
\caption{Effective mass dependence on $\mu_5$ for $\tilde\eta$, $\tilde\sigma$ and $\tilde\eta'$. Left panel: comparison of masses at rest and at low momentum $q=300$ MeV. Right panel: masses at $q=550$ MeV, where the $\tilde\eta$ mass goes tachyonic, as discussed in the text. As in the previous example, for this range of momenta, the variations in the heavier degrees of freedom $\tilde \sigma$ and $\tilde\eta'$ are almost invisible and only slightly visible for large values of $\mu_5$ for $\tilde \eta$.}\label{meffeta}
\end{figure}

The $\mu_5$-dependence of the effective masses is plotted in Fig. \ref{meffeta}. As in the previous example,
the lightest degree of freedom becomes tachyonic for big energies or
momenta $k_0,|\vec k|>k^c_{\tilde\eta}$ with $k^c_{\tilde\eta}\equiv m_3/(4\mu_5m_5)\sqrt{m_4^2m_5^2-8c^2v_q^2}$,
as shown in the right panel of Fig. \ref{meffeta}.
The tachyon critical energy presents a similar behaviour as the one in the triplet case.
In Fig. \ref{kcrit}, both isotriplet $k^c_{\tilde\pi}$ and isosinglet critical energies $k^c_{\tilde\eta}$ are plotted together.

\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{qcrit.png}
\vspace{-0.5em}
\caption{$\mu_5$-dependence of the tachyon critical energy for isotriplet $k^c_{\tilde\pi}$ and isosinglet case $k^c_{\tilde\eta}$.}\label{kcrit}
\vspace{-1em}
\end{figure}

\section{New interactions and decay widths}
After the inclusion of $\mu_5$ the cubic couplings present in the effective Lagrangian \eqref{lageff} are
\begin{align}
\nonumber \mathcal L_{\sigma aa}&=2[(3d_1+2d_2)m-2(3\lambda_1+\lambda_2)v_q]\sigma \vec a^2,\\
\nonumber \mathcal L_{\sigma\pi\pi}&=\frac 1{v_q^2}\left [(\partial\vec\pi)^2v_q-(b+3(d_1+2d_2)v_q^2+d_2v_s^2)m\vec\pi^2\right ]\sigma,\\
\nonumber \mathcal L_{\eta a\pi}&=\frac 2{v_q^2}[\partial \eta_q \vec a\partial \vec\pi v_q-(b+
(3d_1+2d_2)v_q^2+d_2v_s^2)m\eta_q\vec a\vec\pi],\\
\mathcal L_{\sigma a\pi}&=-\frac{4\mu_5}{v_q}\sigma\vec a\dot{\vec{\pi}}, \quad \mathcal L_{\eta aa}=-\frac{2 \mu_5}{v_q}\dot \eta_q \vec a^2,\quad \mathcal L_{\eta\pi\pi} = 0.
\end{align}

As seen in the previous expressions, decays that are normally forbidden on parity conservation grounds are now possible
with a strength proportional to the parity breaking parameter $\mu_5$. However, the
previous interaction terms are not physical because the properly diagonalized states are now $X_i$ rather than the original
fields $\pi$, $a_0$, etc. Going to the physical
basis requires using the diagonalization matrices defined in the previous section.\\

Our ultimate purpose is to check the relevance of dynamically generated parity breaking through topological
charge fluctuations in heavy ion collisions. It is natural then to ask how the previously derived masses and
vertices may influence the physics in the hadronic fireball.\\

It should be clear that the influence may be very important if $\mu_5$ is such that the induced parity
breaking effects are significant. After the initial collision of two heavy ions in a central or quasi-central process
a fireball is formed. This fireball could be described in rather simplistic terms as a hot and dense pion gas.
Pion-pion interaction is dominated by $\sigma$ and $\rho$ -particle exchanges and processes
such as $\eta\to \pi\pi$ or $\eta^\prime \to \pi\pi$ are forbidden. If parity is no longer a restriction, these two
processes, or rather processes such as $X_i \to \tilde\pi \tilde\pi$ ($i=3,4,5$) are for sure relevant and the new
eigenstates produced due to parity breaking could thermalize inside the fireball.\\

Let us now try to be more quantitative. It should be clear from the mass evolution as a function of $\mu_5$ (Figure \ref{meffpi})
that $\tilde\pi$ is the lightest state and it dominates the
partition function in the fireball. As a consequence, to get an estimate of the relevance of these new states
let us compute their width in order to see whether its inverse is comparable to the fireball lifetime. To do so
we need the following $S$-matrix element corresponding to $X_i(q) \to \tilde\pi^+(p) \tilde\pi^-(p')$
\begin{align}
\nonumber i\mathcal M=&4i[(3d_1+2d_2)m-2(3\lambda_1+\lambda_2)v_q]C_{\sigma i} C_{a2}^+C_{a2}^- +\frac{4\mu_5}{v_q}C_{\sigma i}(E_{p'} C_{a2}^+ C_{\pi 2}^- +E_p C_{a2}^- C_{\pi 2}^+) \\
\nonumber &-\frac i{v_q^2}\left [(m_{X_i}^2-m_{\tilde\pi^+}^2-m_{\tilde\pi^-}^2) v_q+2(b+3(d_1+2d_2)v_q^2+d_2v_s^2)m\right ]C_{\sigma i}C_{\pi 2}^+ C_{\pi 2}^-\\
\nonumber &-\frac{4 \mu_5 E_q}{v_q}C_{\eta_q i} C_{a2}^+C_{a2}^- +\frac {i}{v_q}(m_{\tilde\pi^+}^2-m_{\tilde\pi^-}^2)C_{\eta_q i}(C_{a2}^-C_{\pi 2}^+ -C_{a2}^+C_{\pi 2}^-) \\
&-\frac {i}{v_q^2}[2(b+(3d_1+2d_2)v_q^2+d_2v_s^2)m-m_{X_i}^2v_q]C_{\eta_q i}(C_{a2}^+C_{\pi 2}^- +C_{a2}^-C_{\pi 2}^+)
\end{align}
We are dealing with a relativistic non-invariant theory and therefore the widths do not a priori transform
as one would naively think. We shall compute them first at rest, then for different values of the 3-momentum
of the decaying particle.

\subsection{Widths at rest}

The width of $X_i$ is calculated from the amplitude shown before since we don't include further
decaying processes. Recall that all
masses are energy dependent. At the $X_i$ rest frame, $\vec q=\vec 0$ and $E_p=E_{p'}=m_{X_i}(\vec q=\vec 0)/2\equiv m^{X_i}_0/2$.
Here, a momentum-dependent effective mass is taken instead of an energy-dependent one since we assume
the decaying particle to be on-shell so both $m(\vec k)$ and $m(k_0)$ coincide. Thus, the rest width is given by
\begin{equation}
\Gamma_{X_i\to \tilde\pi\tilde\pi}=\frac 32\frac 1{2m^{X_i}_0}|\mathcal M|^2\frac{1}{4\pi}\frac{p_{\tilde\pi}}{m^{X_i}_0\frac{dp_{\tilde\pi}^2}{dE_p^2}}, \qquad \frac{dp_{\tilde\pi}^2}{dE_p^2}=1+\frac{(4\mu_5)^2}{\sqrt{(m_1^2-m_2^2)^2+(8\mu_5 E_p)^2}}
\end{equation}
where $p_{\tilde\pi}(E_p)=\sqrt{E_p^2-m_{\tilde\pi}^2(E_p)}$ and the factor 3/2 accounts for
the decay both to neutral and charged $\tilde\pi$. The results of the widths are shown in Figure \ref{width0}.\\

The new state $\tilde\eta$ exhibits a smooth behaviour with an average value $\sim 60$ MeV,
corresponding to a mean free path $\sim 3$ fm, which is smaller than the typical fireball
size $L_\text{fireball}\sim 5\div 10$ fm. Hence, the thermalization of this channel via
regeneration of $\tilde\pi$ within the gas seems to be possible.\\

Another striking point concerning $\tilde\sigma$ takes place down to $\mu_5\sim 100$ MeV, when
the decay width decreases dramatically leading to scenarios where this state becomes stable.
The visible bumps in these two latter channels seem to reflect the tachyonic nature of the decaying $\tilde\pi$.\\
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{gamma_rest.png}
\vspace{-0.5em}
\caption{$\tilde\eta$, $\tilde\sigma$ and $\tilde\eta'$ widths at rest depending on $\mu_5$. Down to $\mu_5=50$ MeV, $\tilde\eta$ acquires a width of order 60 MeV, with a characteristic mean free path smaller than the typical fireball size of $5\div 10$ fm and hence implying that thermalization may occur in this channel. Nevertheless, $\tilde \sigma$ shows a pronounced fall and beyond $\mu_5=100$ MeV, it becomes a stable channel. Inset: Detail of $\tilde\eta'$ width reaching the GeV scale, a clear violation of unitarity since we don't include heavier degrees of freedom in our model.}\label{width0}
\vspace{-1em}
\end{figure}

Finally, we present in the inset of Fig. \ref{width0} the detail of the $\tilde\eta'$ width, that grows
up to the GeV scale, showing clear violations of unitarity. As in the case of $\tilde a_0$, more
hadronic degrees of freedom are needed to obtain a reliable result, such as $f_0(980)$, etc.

\subsection{Decay widths of moving particles}

Next, let us compute the width when the decaying particle is not at rest. As explained before in a non-relativistic
theory this cannot be obtained from the one at rest by simply taking into account the time dilatation effect. Then
\begin{equation}
\Gamma_{X\to \tilde\pi\tilde\pi}=\frac 32\frac 1{2E_q}\frac{1}{8\pi q}\int \frac{|\mathcal M|^2pdp }{E_p\frac{dp_{\tilde\pi}^2}{dE_p^2}}\Theta(1-|\cos\theta|)\Theta(E_{p'})
\end{equation}
where the Heaviside step functions are introduced to make sure that both $\cos\theta$ and $E_{p'}$
take physical values in the numerical calculation. Of course, the limit $q\to 0$ coincides with the
calculation at rest performed before

In the $\tilde\eta$ channel (see the left section of Fig. \ref{widthq}), one may observe small
variations at low 3-momenta with respect to the width at rest, namely, two initial bumps at $\mu_5\sim 80$ MeV
and 550 MeV (the latter being beyond the plot range) slowly separate
as one increases $q$. However, the two-dimensional representation $\Gamma_{\tilde\eta}(\mu_5,q)$ exhibits a
saddle point around $\mu_5^*\sim 240$ MeV and $q^*\sim 500$ MeV, and in consequence, for large 3-momenta,
a third intermediate bump appears opening the possibility of creating two different tachyons at the same time.
The latter maximum grows fast as one increases $q$ and becomes the global one when the 3-momentum goes
beyond $q\gtrsim 700$ MeV.

\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{gamma_eta_q.png}\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{gamma_sigma_q.png}
\vspace{-2em}
\caption{$\tilde\eta$ (left) and $\tilde\sigma$ (right) widths depending on $\mu_5$ for different values of the incoming 3-momentum: $q=0,500,700$ MeV. The first plot shows a non-trivial dependence on $q$ (see text) while the second one shows a fall that is mainly due to the Lorentz factor.}\label{widthq}
\end{figure}

On the other hand, in the $\tilde\sigma$ and $\tilde\eta'$ channels no huge differences arise when
boosting the decaying particle. In the right panel of Fig. \ref{widthq}, we show the $\tilde\sigma$ width for
different values of $q$ and the most salient behaviour is, as in the previous case, the separation of the
two minima as one increases $q$.

\section{Axial-vector meson condensation}
The introduction of axial chemical potential into the quark-meson model interferes with
the flavor-singlet axial-vector channel as this potential is just a time component of axial-vector field,
$\Delta {\cal L}_{\mu_5} = \mu_5 \bar q \gamma_0 \gamma_5 \textbf{I}_q q$. Therefore if one includes
the coupling of the singlet axial-vector quark current with the corresponding meson field $h_\mu$ one expects mixing and
renormalization of the bare axial chemical potential due to condensation of the time components of the axial-vector
fields $h^\mu \simeq \langle h^0\rangle \delta^{0\mu}$. This phenomenon is in full analogy to the condensation of
the time component of the $\omega$ meson field when a baryon chemical potential enters the Lagrangian \cite{walec}
which is quite important to understand the repulsive nuclear forces in this channel.\\

Let us elucidate this phenomenon in more details. The relevant Lagrangian for axial-vector mesons reads
\begin{equation}
\Delta\mathcal L=-\frac 14 h_{\mu\nu}h^{\mu\nu}+\frac 12m_h^2h_\mu h^\mu+ \bar q\gamma_\mu\gamma_5 (g_hh^\mu+\delta^{\mu0}\mu_5)\textbf{I}_q q,
\end{equation}
where $h$ stands for the axial-vector meson $h_1(1170)$ \cite{PDG} singlet in flavor and $g_h$ denotes
its coupling to the quark current. We assume the condensation of $h^\mu \simeq \langle h^0\rangle \delta^{0\mu}$
\begin{equation}
 \frac{\delta\Delta\mathcal L}{\delta h_0} = m^2_h \langle h_0\rangle + g_h \langle \bar q\gamma_0\gamma_5\textbf{I}_q q\rangle = 0,
\end{equation}
 so that the effective chemical potential $\bar\mu_5\equiv\mu_5+g_h\langle h_0\rangle$ arises and
determines the effective non-strange axial-charge density $\rho_5 = \langle \bar q\gamma_0\gamma_5 \textbf{I}_q q\rangle$
\begin{equation}\label{deltav}
\rho_5(\bar\mu_5)=\frac{\mu_5-\bar\mu_5}{G_h} = \frac{\delta\Delta\mathcal L}{\delta\bar\mu_5},\quad \Delta V=-\frac 12m_h^2\langle h_0\rangle^2=-\frac 12\frac{(\bar\mu_5-\mu_5)^2}{G_h},\qquad
\end{equation}
where $G_h=g_h^2/m_h^2$. Therefrom we can see that the axial charge density is directly related
to the axial-vector condensate.  After including $\Delta V$ (Eq. \eqref{deltav}) in Eq. \eqref{chempot}
the stationary point equation can be derived
\begin{equation}
\frac{\delta \mathcal L}{\delta \bar\mu_5}=\frac{\delta}{\delta \bar\mu_5}\left [2\bar\mu_5^2 v_q^2+\frac 12\frac{(\bar\mu_5-\mu_5)^2}{G_h}\right ]=0
\end{equation}
that allows to relate the bare and effective axial chemical potentials
\begin{equation}
\bar\mu_5\left [1+4G_h v_q^2(\bar\mu_5)\right ]=\mu_5. \label{renchem}
\end{equation}
We stress that in the mass-gap equations for $v_q, v_s$ the effective axial chemical potential
 $\bar\mu_5$ must be used. The relation \eqref{renchem} is smooth against the decoupling of axial-vector mesons $g_h \to 0$.
It determines unambiguously the axial charge density,
$\rho_5(\bar\mu_5)=4\bar\mu_5 v_q^2(\bar\mu_5)$, which exhibits, in general, lower values when affected
 by axial meson forces, $|\bar\mu_5| < |\mu_5|$.

\section{Conclusions and outlook}

Perhaps the main conclusion of the study of meson physics in an environment endowed with a net axial charge is that
is full of surprises. The axial chemical potential provides a source of parity violation. This makes states of different
intrinsic parities mix and allows for `exotic' processes in hadronic physics. The presence of the axial charge also leads unavoidably to a breaking of Lorentz invariance. The effective in-medium masses are
energy dependent and meson physics is frame-dependent, with the natural consequence that widths or decay rates
do depend non-trivially on the momentum of the decaying particle.
\bigskip

We have assumed that the parity breaking parameter -the axial chemical potential- is an $SU(2)$ singlet. This is natural if the
mechanism to generate $\mu_5$ is via topological charge fluctuations as advocated by some \cite{kharzeev,zhitn}. Note, however, that it is not
an $SU(3)$ singlet, as the topological charge fluctuations are not transmitted to the strange sector (and even less to the
eventual charm sector).\\

It is natural to ask whether such a mixing of states of different parities occurs in the vector/axial-vector sector. There
 are many models dealing with vector particles phenomenologically. If we assume that the vector mesons appear as part of a
covariant derivative (as postulated e.g. in hidden symmetry models \cite{bando}), no mixing term can be generated by operators of
dimension 4 if $\mu_5$ is an isosinglet. However, such a mixing is not forbidden on (global) symmetry grounds if $\mu_5$ is present, appearing as the time component of an axial-vector field (see e.g. \cite{rischke}). This means that this coupling is very much model dependent and, unfortunately, not much phenomenological information is present. It is however an interesting point we plan to analyze in the future.\\

However parity breaking via a topological charge or axial chemical potential influences vector mesons (and eventually
photons too) in a different way discussed in detail in  \cite{aaep}. Their polarizations are severely distorted and the breaking
of Lorentz invariance, together with parity, reflects itself in different polarizations acquiring different effective masses, which could hopefully be experimentally measured. This
issue has not been discussed here.\\

As argued in the introduction, many authors support the idea that topological charge fluctuations may lead to visible effects
via the Chiral Magnetic Effect. If this is so, not only peripheral collisions (where the Chiral Magnetic Effect is present) will
show traces of parity breaking. We have argued elsewhere \cite{aaep, avep} that parity breaking induced from
topological charge fluctuation will lead to possibly measurable effects in central collisions, in the dilepton spectrum from $\rho$ and $\omega$ decays.\\

What we have seen in the work presented here is that the physics of spin zero resonances is also strongly affected by the presence
of an axial chemical potential. We have given convincing arguments that, if $\mu_5\neq 0$ the pion gas in the fireball forming after
a central heavy ion collision may actually not be made of the usual pions, but instead of some states of non-defined parity and
energy-dependent effective mass. In addition all the lightest spin zero states have the same properties and perhaps more
importantly, they are all in thermal equilibrium with the `pion' gas, as indicated by the characteristic large widths, completely
different from the ones in vacuum. These particles have Dalitz decays that are therefore completely distorted with respect to the
$\mu_5=0$ case usually considered. This phenomenon may help in explaining the anomalous dilepton yield enhancement
observed \cite{reviews} for low dilepton invariant masses in heavy ion collisions.

\section*{Acknowledgements}

We acknowledge the financial support from projects FPA2010-20807, 2009SGR502, CPAN (Consolider CSD2007-00042).
A. A. Andrianov is also supported by Grant RFBR 10-02-00881-a.
X. Planells acknowledges the support from Grant FPU AP2009-1855.