text:
# Families of singular rational curves

## 1. Introduction

This work is concerned with the study of algebraic families of rational curves. The main theorem yields a splitting-criterion for families of singular curves. In some cases, this effectively complements the bend-and-break argument which appears in the work of Mori. We apply this result to projective varieties $`X`$ which are covered by a family of rational curves of minimal degrees. More precisely, we fix a general point $`xX`$ and prove in theorem 3.3 that the subfamily of singular rational curves which pass through $`x`$ is at most one-dimensional. Furthermore, we describe the singularities of the curves.

This has further consequences: first, we show that the tangent map which sends a curve through $`x`$ to its tangent direction in $`(T_X^{}|_x)`$ is a finite morphism. We believe that this will be useful in the further study of Fano manifolds with Picard number one.

For the second application, recall Mori’s bend-and-break which asserts that if $`x,yX`$ are two general points, then there are at most finitely many curves in the family which contain both $`x`$ and $`y`$. In this work we shed some light on the question as to whether two sufficiently general points actually define a unique curve.

Finally, we give a characterization of the projective space which, in characteristic 0, improves on some of the known generalizations of Kobayashi-Ochiai’s theorem.

Throughout this paper, unless otherwise noted, we work over an algebraically closed field $`k`$ of arbitrary characteristic and use the standard notation of algebraic geometry. For spaces of rational curves, our principal reference is \[Kol96\].

#### Acknowledgement

The paper was written while the author enjoyed the hospitality of RIMS in Kyoto. The author is grateful to Y. Miyaoka for the invitation and to the members of that institute for creating a stimulating atmosphere. He would like to thank S. Helmke, J.-M. Hwang, S. Kovács, Y. Miyaoka and S. Mori for a number of discussions on the subject.

## 2. Families of singular curves

The subject of the present section is a splitting criterion for algebraic families of singular rational curves. Before stating the main result, however, we need to introduce notation. Without this, the formulation would be difficult.

###### Notation 2.1.

Let $`C`$ be a curve and $`\eta :\stackrel{~}{C}C`$ the normalization. We say that $`C`$ is “immersed” if $`\eta `$ has rank one at all points of $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$.

###### Notation 2.2.

Let $`C`$ be an irreducible and reduced singular rational curve and $`L\mathrm{Pic}(C)`$ a line bundle of degree $`k>0`$. Let $`(C_i)_{i\{0,1\}}`$ be the nodal and cuspidal plane cubic. We say that a smooth point $`xC`$ is “general with respect to $`L`$”, if $`\beta _i^{}(L)\cong ̸𝒪_{C_i}\left(k\beta _i^1(x)\right)`$ for all birational morphisms $`\beta _i:C_iC`$ and for all $`i\{0,1\}`$.

###### Lemma 2.3.

If $`C`$ and $`L`$ are as above, then the set of points which are general with respect to $`L`$ is Zariski-open in $`C`$.

###### Proof.

As a first step, note that if $`xC`$ is a smooth point, $`g\mathrm{Aut}(C_i)`$ an automorphism and $`\beta _i:C_iC`$ a birational morphism, then it is clear that

$$(g\beta _i)^1(L)𝒪_{C_i}\left(k(g\beta _i)^1(x)\right)$$

if and only if $`\beta _i^1(L)𝒪_{C_i}\left(k\beta _i^1(x)\right)`$.

To conclude, it suffices to note that —up to composition with automorphisms— there are only finitely many birational morphisms $`C_iC`$. Recall that for a given bundle $`L_i\mathrm{Pic}(C_i)`$, we have that $`𝒪_{C_i}(ky)\cong ̸L_i`$ for all but finitely many smooth points $`yC_i`$. ∎

The following is the main result of this section and the technical core of this paper.

###### Theorem 2.4.

Let $`\pi :XY`$ be a projective morphism between proper positive-dimensional varieties such that the general fiber is an irreducible and singular rational curve. Assume that $`\pi `$ is equi-dimensional and that there exists a section $`\sigma _{\mathrm{}}X`$ and a morphism $`\gamma :XZ`$ which maps $`\sigma _{\mathrm{}}`$ to a point and is finite on the complement of $`\sigma _{\mathrm{}}`$. Let $`L\mathrm{Pic}(X)`$ be a line bundle whose restriction to $`\pi `$-fibers is of positive degree. Assume furthermore that one of the following holds:

1. all $`\pi `$-fibers are immersed curves
2. no $`\pi `$-fiber is immersed and there exists a closed point $`yY`$ with reduced and irreducible fiber $`X_y:=\pi ^1(y)`$ such that $`\sigma _{\mathrm{}}X_y`$ is a smooth point which is general with respect to $`L|_{X_y}`$.
3. the restriction of $`L`$ to $`\pi `$-fibers is of degree 2 and there exists a closed point $`yY`$ with reduced and irreducible fiber $`X_y:=\pi ^1(y)`$ such that $`\sigma _{\mathrm{}}X_y`$ is general with respect to $`L|_{X_y}`$.

Then there exists a point $`yY`$ such that $`\pi ^1(y)`$ is not irreducible or not generically reduced.

The remaining part of section 2 is devoted to the proof of theorem 2.4. The reader who is predominantly interested in the applications may want to skip the rest of this section on first reading. We remark that statement (1) has already been considered by several authors, e.g. \[CS95, sect. 2\].

In order to prove the theorem, we argue by contradiction. More precisely, we assume the following throughout the present section 2.

###### Assumptions 2.5.

Assume that $`\pi :XY`$ is a family as described in theorem 2.4, but all fibers of $`\pi `$ are irreducible and generically reduced. In particular, the reduction of any $`\pi `$-fiber is a singular rational curve. Since the statement of theorem 2.4 is stable under finite base change and under restriction to positive-dimensional subvarieties of $`Y`$, we assume without loss of generality that $`Y`$ is a smooth curve.

### 2.1. Reduction to families of plane cubics

As a first step in the proof of theorem 2.4, we show that the family $`XY`$ can be replaced by a family where every fiber is isomorphic to a plane cubic. Although we need this only over smooth curves, we formulate more generally for arbitrary normal bases. The succeeding lemma is the key to the reduction.

###### Lemma 2.6.

Consider the following diagram of surjective projective morphisms:

where $`\pi `$ is projective, $`Y`$ is a smooth curve and the following holds

* $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$ is a $`_1`$-bundle, i.e. a smooth morphism whose fibers are isomorphic to $`_1`$
* all $`\pi `$-fibers are irreducible and generically reduced singular rational curves
* there exists a section $`NY`$ and a subscheme $`\stackrel{~}{N}\eta ^1(N)`$ so that for all closed points $`yY`$, the scheme-theoretic intersection $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }^1(y)N`$ is a zero-dimensional subscheme of length 2

Then there exists a factorization $`\eta =\beta \alpha `$ via a variety $`X^{}`$ such that all fibers of $`\pi ^{}`$ are rational curves with a single cusp or node.

###### Proof.

Set

$$𝒜:=\mathrm{Image}\left(\eta _{}(𝒥_{\stackrel{~}{N}})𝒪_X\eta _{}(𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{X}})\right)\eta _{}(𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{X}}),$$

where $`𝒥_{\stackrel{~}{N}}𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{X}}`$ is the ideal sheaf of $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$. It follows immediately that $`𝒜`$ is a coherent sheaf of $`𝒪_X`$-algebras. Define $`X^{}:=\text{Spec}(𝒜)`$. The existence of $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$ and $`\pi ^{}`$ follows by construction.

In order to see that fibers of $`\pi ^{}`$ are of the desired type, let $`yY`$ be an arbitrary closed point. We are finished if we show that the fiber $`(\pi ^{})^1(y)`$ has a single singularity which is a simple node or cusp.

After replacing the base $`Y`$ by an affine neighborhood of $`y`$ and performing a base change, if necessary, we may assume that there exists a relatively ample divisor $`DX`$ which intersects every $`\pi `$-fiber in a single smooth point. We may furthermore assume that $`\stackrel{~}{X}Y\times _1`$. Write $`U:=XD`$, write $`\stackrel{~}{U}:=\eta ^1(U)`$ and note that both $`U`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{U}`$ are affine. By choosing a bundle coordinate $`z`$ on $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$, we may write $`U\mathrm{Spec}(R)`$, $`Y\mathrm{Spec}(S)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{U}\mathrm{Spec}(S_kk[z])`$.

Because $`NH`$ we can decompose $`R=𝒥_N(U)\pi ^\mathrm{\#}(S)`$. Since $`\eta ^\mathrm{\#}\left(𝒥_N(U)\right)𝒥_{\stackrel{~}{N}}`$ by construction, we have the equation of rings

$$\begin{array}{ccc}𝒜(U)& =& \mathrm{Image}\left(𝒥_{\stackrel{~}{N}}(\stackrel{~}{U})RSk[z]\right)\\ & =& \mathrm{Image}\left(𝒥_{\stackrel{~}{N}}(\stackrel{~}{U})SSk[z]\right)\end{array}$$

If $`z`$ is chosen properly, tensoring with $`k(y)`$ yields

$$\begin{array}{ccc}𝒜(U)k(y)& =& \mathrm{Image}\left(𝒥_{\stackrel{~}{N}}(\stackrel{~}{U})k(y)k(y)k(y)[z]\right)\\ & =& (z^2c)+k(y)k(y)[z]\end{array}$$

for a number $`ck(y)`$. An elementary calculation shows that this ring is generated by the elements $`z^2c`$, $`z(z^2c)`$ and the constants $`k(y)`$. Therefore

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\beta ^1\left(\pi ^1(y)U\right)& =& \mathrm{Spec}k(y)[z^2c,z(z^2c)]\\ & =& \mathrm{Spec}k(y)[a,b]/\left(b^2a^2(a+c)\right)\end{array}$$

which defines a cusp if $`c=0`$ and a node otherwise. ∎

In the proposition above, the assumption that $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$ is a $`_1`$-bundle is automatically satisfied in characteristic zero. In positive characteristic, it can be necessary to perform a finite base change before the normalization yields a bundle. See \[Kol96, II.2\] for a detailed account of this phenomenon.

###### Proposition 2.7.

If $`\pi :XY`$ satisfies the assumptions 2.5, then there is a family $`\pi ^{}:X^{}Y^{}`$ which satisfies assumptions 2.5 as well, and all fibers are rational curves with a single node or cusp.

###### Proof.

The strategy of this proof is to find a sequence of base changes which modify $`X`$ and $`Y`$ so that lemma 2.6 can be applied.

First, after finite base change, we may assume that the normalization $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ is a $`_1`$-bundle over $`Y`$. Recall that smooth morphisms are stable under base change. Thus, even after further base changes, the normalization of the pull-back of $`X`$ will still be a $`_1`$-bundle over the base.

Now let $`X_{\mathrm{Sing},\pi }X`$ be the singular locus of $`\pi `$-fibers and let $`NX_{\mathrm{Sing},\pi }`$ be an irreducible component which maps surjectively onto $`Y`$. Since $`Y`$ is assumed to be a smooth curve, $`N`$ is actually finite over $`Y`$. If $`\pi |_N`$ is not isomorphic, perform a base change. Thus, we assume that $`NY`$.

As a next step, let $`\eta :\stackrel{~}{X}X`$ be the normalization and consider the relative Hilbert-scheme $`\pi _H:\mathrm{Hilb}_2(\eta ^1(N)/Y)Y`$ of zero-dimensional subschemes of length 2 in $`\eta ^1(N)`$ over $`Y`$. Recall the fact that taking the Hilbert-scheme commutes with base change (see e.g. \[Kol96, I.1.4.1.5\]). In our setup this means that if $`Y^{}Y`$ is a morphism, then

$$\mathrm{Hilb}_2(\eta ^1(N)\times _YY^{}/Y^{})\mathrm{Hilb}_2(\eta ^1(N)/Y)\times _YY^{}.$$

This has two important consequences.

First, by choice of $`N`$, if $`yY`$ is a general point, then $`\eta ^1(N)\stackrel{~}{\pi }^1(y)`$ is zero-dimensional of length at least two, so that $`\pi _H^1(y)`$ is not empty. It follows that $`\pi _H`$ is surjective.

Second, let $`V(\mathrm{Hilb}_2(\eta ^1(N)/Y))_{\mathrm{red}}`$ be a subvariety which is finite over $`Y`$. Let $`Y^{}`$ be the normalization of $`V`$ and perform another base change. Since taking $`\mathrm{Hilb}`$ commutes with base change, $`Y^{}`$ can be seen as a subscheme of $`\mathrm{Hilb}_2(\eta ^1(N)\times _YY^{}/Y^{})`$ and therefore defines a subscheme $`\stackrel{~}{N}\stackrel{~}{X\times _YY^{}}=\stackrel{~}{X}\times _YY^{}`$. Thus, all the prerequisites of lemma 2.6 are fulfilled, and we can apply that lemma in order to obtain $`X^{}`$. Because our construction involves only finite base change, it is clear that $`X^{}`$ satisfies the requirements of theorem 2.4 if and only if $`X`$ does. ∎

###### Remark 2.8.

Under the assumptions 2.5, let $`X_y`$ be a general $`\pi `$-fiber. If $`X_y`$ is not immersed, then it is clear from the construction that one can choose $`\pi ^{}:X^{}Y^{}`$ so that any $`\pi ^{}`$-fiber is isomorphic to a cuspidal plane cubic. Analogously, if all $`\pi `$-fibers are immersed, the construction automatically yields a family of curves where each fiber is isomorphic to a nodal plane cubic.

### 2.2. Proof of theorem 2.4

We will now employ the line bundle $`L`$ in order to find two disjoint sections $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_0,\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_1X`$ which cannot be contracted. The following elementary lemma says that this is not possible.

###### Lemma 2.9.

Let $`\pi :\stackrel{~}{X}Y`$ be a smooth minimal ruled surface. Assume that there are three distinct sections $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_0`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{\mathrm{}}`$ where $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{\mathrm{}}^2<0`$. Then $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_1`$ are not disjoint.

###### Proof.

Write $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_0\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{\mathrm{}}+a_0C`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_1\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{\mathrm{}}+a_1C`$ where $``$ denotes numerical equivalence and $`C`$ is a general fiber of $`\pi `$. Since $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_1`$ are effective, $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{0,1}.\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{\mathrm{}}0`$ and thus $`a_0,a_1\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{\mathrm{}}^2>0`$. Therefore $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_0.\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_1=\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{\mathrm{}}^2+a_0+a_1>0`$. ∎

With this preparation we can now finish the proof of theorem 2.4. We stick to the assumptions 2.5 and let $`\pi :XY`$ be the family of curves with a single cusp or node whose existence is guaranteed by proposition 2.7. Let $`\eta :\stackrel{~}{X}X`$ be the normalization and recall that the natural map $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }:\stackrel{~}{X}Y`$ gives $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ the structure of a $`_1`$-bundle.

#### 2.2.1. Proof of case (1) of theorem 2.4

In this setting, we may assume that all $`\pi `$-fibers are nodal plane cubics. After base change, we may assume that the preimage $`\eta ^1(X_{\mathrm{Sing}})`$ contains two disjoint sections $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_1`$. If $`\sigma _{\mathrm{}}X_{\mathrm{Sing}}`$, then we can choose $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_0,\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_1\eta ^1(\sigma _{\mathrm{}})`$ and both $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_1`$ can be contracted. This is clearly impossible. On the other hand, if $`\sigma _{\mathrm{}}X_{\mathrm{Sing}}`$, then $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ contains the section $`\eta ^1(\sigma _{\mathrm{}})`$, which can be contracted, and the sections $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_0,\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_1\eta ^1(X_{\mathrm{Sing}})`$ which are disjoint. Since $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_1`$ are both different from $`\eta ^1(\sigma _{\mathrm{}})`$, this contradicts lemma 2.9.$`\mathit{}`$

#### 2.2.2. Proof of case (2) of theorem 2.4

Let $`yY`$ be any closed point and set $`X_y:=\pi ^1(y)`$ and $`k:=\mathrm{deg}L|_{X_y}`$. By remark 2.8, we may assume that $`X_y`$ is a rational curve with a single cusp. But then there exists a unique smooth point $`x_yX_y`$ such that $`𝒪_{X_y}(kx_y)L|_{X_y}`$. A calculation of the deformation space of the cuspidal plane cubic yields that $`\pi `$ is a locally trivial fiber bundle. In particular, by taking the union of the $`x_y`$ we obtain a section $`\sigma _0X_{\mathrm{Reg}}`$ which does not meet the singular locus of $`X`$. Set $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_0:=\eta ^1(\sigma _0)`$, set $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_1:=\eta ^1(X_{\mathrm{Sing}})`$ and note that $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_1`$ are disjoint. By the assumption that $`\sigma _{\mathrm{}}X_y`$ is a smooth point which is general with respect to $`L|_{X_y}`$, it follows that $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_0`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_1`$ and $`\eta ^1(\sigma _{\mathrm{}})`$ are distinct. Again, this contradicts lemma 2.9.$`\mathit{}`$

#### 2.2.3. Proof of case (3) of theorem 2.4

We may assume without loss of generality that there exist points $`yY`$ such that $`\pi ^1(y)`$ is a nodal curve. Otherwise, we are in case (2) of the theorem.

Let $`yY`$ be any closed point and set $`X_y:=\pi ^1(y)`$. Since $`X_y`$ is a rational curve with a single node or cusp, and $`L|_{X_y}`$ is a line bundle of degree two, $`L|_{X_y}`$ is basepoint-free and induces a 2:1 cover

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_y:X_y(H^0(L|_{X_y})^{})_1.$$

If $`X_y`$ is a nodal curve, and $`\eta :_1X_y`$ the normalization, we know that the branch locus of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_y\eta `$ consists of two distinct points $`x_0,x_1`$ which are not contained in the preimage of the singularity: $`x_i\eta ^1((X_y)_{\mathrm{Sing}})`$. We extend $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_y`$ to a global map $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$:

Note that $`\pi _{}(L)`$ is locally free of rank 2. Recall that $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ is a minimal smooth ruled surface over $`Y`$ and let $`D\stackrel{~}{X}`$ be the (reduced) branch locus of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\eta `$. Then $`D`$ intersects every $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$-fiber in exactly 2 distinct points.

After performing another base change, if necessary, we may assume without loss of generality that $`D`$ is reducible. Write $`D=\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_0\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_1`$ and note that $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_0\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_1=\mathrm{}`$, i.e. that $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_1`$ are disjoint sections. But $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ contains also a contractible section $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{\mathrm{}}`$, which is a component of the preimage of $`xX`$. By assumption (3) of theorem 2.4, these three sections are distinct, contradiction. This ends the proof of theorem 2.4.$`\mathit{}`$

## 3. Applications

### 3.1. Families of singular curves on projective varieties

The purpose of this section is to give an estimate of the dimension of the space of singular curves through a general point and the describe the singularities.

For the reader’s convenience, we recall some facts about parameter spaces for rational curves. See \[Kol96, II.2\] for a detailed account of these matters. Let $`X`$ be a projective variety and $`\mathrm{Chow}(X)`$ its Chow-variety with universal family

$$\mathrm{Univ}^{\mathrm{Chow}}(X)X\times \mathrm{Chow}(X).$$

It can be shown that $`\mathrm{Chow}(X)`$ contains a quasi-projective subvariety $`V\mathrm{Chow}(X)`$ parameterizing irreducible and generically reduced rational curves.

In characteristic 0, define $`\mathrm{RatCurves}^n(X)`$ to be the normalization of $`V`$, and note that the normalization of the universal family over $`\mathrm{RatCurves}^n(X)`$ becomes a $`_1`$-bundle. In order to achieve the same in positive characteristic, let $`\mathrm{RatCurves}^n(X)`$ be the normalization of a canonically given finite cover of $`V`$.

Throughout the rest of this work we consider the following setup.

###### Notation-Assumptions 3.1.

Let $`X`$ is a projective variety (not necessarily normal) over $`k`$ and $`H\mathrm{RatCurves}^n(X)`$ an irreducible family (not necessarily proper) of rational curves with universal family $`UX\times H`$ as follows

Assume that $`\iota `$ is dominant. If $`xX`$ is any point, then define $`H_xH`$ to be the subfamily of curves through $`x`$: $`H_X:=\pi (\iota ^1(x))_{\mathrm{red}}`$. Write $`U_x`$ for the restriction of the universal family and $`\iota _x`$, $`\pi _x`$ for the restrictions of the canonical morphisms.

We assume throughout the present section that $`H_x`$ is proper for general choice of $`xX`$. We define $`\mathrm{locus}(H_x):=\iota (U_x)`$ with its reduced structure.

###### Remark 3.2.

It is a main result of Mori theory that a family $`H`$ (“minimal rational curves”) satisfying the assumptions always exists if $`X`$ is a Fano manifold.

###### Theorem 3.3.

Let $`H^{\mathrm{Sing}}H`$ be the subfamily parametrizing singular curves and let $`L\mathrm{Pic}(X)`$ be a line bundle whose restriction to the curves is of positive degree. If $`xX`$ is a general point, then the following holds

1. The subfamily $`H_x^{\mathrm{Sing}}`$ of singular curves through $`x`$ has dimension at most one. The subfamily $`H_x^{\mathrm{Sing},x}H_x^{\mathrm{Sing}}`$ of curves which are singular at $`x`$ is at most finite. If $`H_x^{\mathrm{Sing},x}`$ is not empty, then the associated curves are immersed.
2. If $`L`$ intersects the curves with multiplicity two, then $`H_x^{\mathrm{Sing}}`$ is at most finite and $`H_x^{\mathrm{Sing},x}`$ is empty.

For the applications it is important to keep in mind that the notion of a general point depends on the choice of the line bundle $`L`$.

###### Proof.

As a first step, we need to find an estimate for the dimension of the subfamily of non-immersed curves. We let $`H^{\mathrm{Sing},\mathrm{ni}}H^{\mathrm{Sing}}`$ be the closed subfamily of non-immersed curves and claim that

(3.1)
$$dimH_x^{\mathrm{Sing},\mathrm{ni}}<1.$$

Indeed, if $`dimH_x^{\mathrm{Sing},\mathrm{ni}}1`$, then let $`CX`$ be a singular curve which corresponds to a general point of a component of $`H^{\mathrm{Sing},\mathrm{ni}}`$ which is of maximal dimension. By lemma 2.3, we find a smooth point $`yC`$ which is general with respect to $`L|_C`$. We remark that $`C`$ is not an isolated point point of $`H_y^{\mathrm{Sing},\mathrm{ni}}`$ and conclude by theorem 2.4.(2) that $`H_y^{\mathrm{Sing},\mathrm{ni}}`$ cannot be proper. But then $`H_y`$ cannot be proper, contrary to our assumption. This shows the inequality (3.1).

Next, we show that $`dimH_x^{\mathrm{Sing}}1`$. We will argue by contradiction and assume that $`dimH_x^{\mathrm{Sing}}2`$. Now, if $`H^{}H_x^{\mathrm{Sing}}`$ is any curve which parameterizes nodal curves in $`X`$, we can apply theorem 2.4.(1) to the family $`H^{}`$ to see that $`H^{}`$ is not proper. It follows that the closure $`\overline{H^{}}`$ intersects $`H_x^{\mathrm{Sing},\mathrm{ni}}`$ and therefore

$$\mathrm{codim}_{H_x^{\mathrm{Sing}}}H_x^{\mathrm{Sing},\mathrm{ni}}1.$$

Hence our claim follows from the inequality (3.1).

In order to show that $`H_x^{\mathrm{Sing},x}`$ is at most finite, perform a dimension count. It is clear that

$$dimU^{\mathrm{Sing}}=dimH^{\mathrm{Sing}}+1dimH_x^{\mathrm{Sing},x}+dimX+1,$$

which in turn implies that general fibers $`F`$ of the natural projection $`U^{\mathrm{Sing}}X`$ are of dimension $`dimFdimH_x^{\mathrm{Sing},x}+1`$. Now it suffices to note that the natural map $`FH_x^{\mathrm{Sing}}`$ is finite, i.e. that $`dimF=dimH_x^{\mathrm{Sing}}`$ to obtain that

$$1dimH_x^{\mathrm{Sing}}dimH_x^{\mathrm{Sing},x}+1$$

which yields the finiteness result.

With the inequality (3.1), the same dimension count, using the family $`H^{\mathrm{Sing},\mathrm{ni}}`$, immediately shows that

$$1>dimH_x^{\mathrm{Sing},\mathrm{ni}}dimH_x^{\mathrm{Sing},\mathrm{ni},x}+1$$

which means that all curves associated with $`H_x^{\mathrm{Sing},x}`$ are immersed. This ends the proof of statement (1).

To prove statement (2), we argue as above. Let $`CX`$ be a singular curve corresponding to a general point of $`H^{\mathrm{Sing}}`$ and $`yC`$ general with respect to $`L|_C`$. By theorem 2.4.(3), the family $`H_y^{\mathrm{Sing}}`$ cannot be proper, contradiction.

### 3.2. Existence of a finite tangent morphism

If $`dimH_x>1`$, then theorem 3.3.(1) asserts that the general curve associated with $`H_x`$ is smooth at $`x`$. If $`\stackrel{~}{H}_x`$ is the normalization of $`H_x`$, we may therefore define the “tangent map”

$$\tau _x:\stackrel{~}{H}_x(T_X^{}|_x)$$

which associates a curve through $`x`$ which is smooth at $`x`$ with its tangent direction at $`x`$. Here we show that $`\tau _x`$ is always a morphism.

The image of the tangent map has been studied extensively in a series of papers by J.-M. Hwang and N. Mok. The authors informed us that theorem 3.4 can be used to give a different, simpler proof of the deformation rigidity of hermitian symmetric spaces.

###### Theorem 3.4.

Under the assumptions 3.1, if $`xX`$ is a general point, then the tangent map $`\tau _x`$ is a finite morphism.

###### Proof.

If $`f:_1X`$ is a morphism which is birational onto its image, if $`f(0)=x`$ and the image $`\mathrm{Image}(f)`$ is a curve which is associated with $`\stackrel{~}{H}_x`$, then it follows from theorem 3.3.(1) that $`f`$ is smooth in a neighborhood of $`0_1`$. Now, to conclude that $`\tau _x`$ is a morphism, it suffices to realize that $`\tau _x`$ can be written as a composition

where $`\mathrm{Hom}_{bir}(_1,X,0x)`$ is the parameter space of morphisms, and $`\beta `$ sends a morphism $`f`$ to the image of its tangent map: $`\beta :fTf(T__1|_0)`$. The existence of $`\alpha `$ and the existence of the quotient space follows from universal properties —see \[Kol96, II.3\].

To show that $`\tau _x`$ is finite, we argue by contradiction. If $`\tau _x`$ was not finite, we could find a curve $`H^{}\stackrel{~}{H}_x`$ such that $`\tau _x(H^{})`$ is a single point $`v(T_X^{}|_x)`$. After changing base, we can assume that $`H^{}`$ is smooth, and consider the diagram:

where $`U^{}`$ is the normalization of the universal family and hence a $`_1`$-bundle over $`H^{}`$. There exists a section $`\sigma _{\mathrm{}}U^{}`$ which contracts to the point $`x`$, and the restriction of the tangent morphism $`T\iota ^{}`$ yields a morphism:

$$T\iota ^{}:N_{\sigma _{\mathrm{}},U^{}}vk$$

where $`N_{\sigma _{\mathrm{}},U^{}}`$ is the normal bundle of $`\sigma _{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`v`$ a line in $`T_X|_x`$. But since the normal bundle is not trivial, this map has to have a zero! Thus, there exist curves associated with $`H^{}`$ which have non-immersed singularities at $`x`$. This contradicts theorem 3.3.(1), and we are done. ∎

### 3.3. Uniqueness of rational curves through 2 points

In the setup given in 3.1, the author conjectures that the map $`\iota _x`$ is always generically one-to-one onto its image. It is a direct consequence of theorem 3.3.(2) that this holds in the presence of a line bundle of low degree.

###### Theorem 3.5.

If there exists a line bundle $`L\mathrm{Pic}(X)`$ intersecting the curves with multiplicity 2, then $`\iota _x`$ is generically one-to-one onto its image. In particular, if $`y\mathrm{locus}(H_x)`$ is a general point, then there exists a unique curve in $`H`$ containing both $`x`$ and $`y`$.

###### Proof.

Following an argument of Miyaoka, $`\iota _x`$ is generically one-to-one if $`H_x^{\mathrm{Sing},x}=\mathrm{}`$, and the latter follows from theorem 3.3.(2). See \[Kol96, V.3.7.5\] for a proof of Miyaoka’s result. ∎

Remark that if $`k`$ is a field of characteristic zero, then “generically one-to-one” implies “birational”. In finite characteristic this is of course not necessarily so, and $`\iota _x`$ will certainly not be birational in general.

### 3.4. Characterization of $`_n`$

In \[KO73\], Kobayashi and Ochiai characterized the projective space as the only Fano-manifold $`X`$ whose canonical bundle is divisible by $`dimX+1`$. This result was generalized by several authors, e.g. in \[KS99\]. We employ theorem 3.5 to give a characterization of the projective space in terms of families of rational curves which improves on the known results.

###### Theorem 3.6.

Let $`X`$ be a normal projective variety defined over $``$, $`L\mathrm{Pic}(X)`$ and $`H\mathrm{RatCurves}^n(X)`$ an irreducible component. Let $`x\mathrm{locus}(H)`$ be a general closed point. Assume that $`H_x`$ is proper and that $`\mathrm{locus}(H_x)=X`$. If $`L.C=2`$ for a curve $`CH`$, then $`X_n`$.

By the classic argumentation of Mori, when $`X`$ is a Fano-manifold and $`K_X.C>dimX`$ for all rational curves $`CX`$, then a family $`H`$ exists where $`H_x`$ is proper and $`\mathrm{locus}(H_x)=X`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`\stackrel{~}{U}_x`$ be the normalization of the universal family $`U_x`$ and consider the diagram

It follows directly from theorem 3.5 that $`\stackrel{~}{\iota }_x`$ is birational and it follows immediately that $`\tau _x`$ is birational as well. But then $`\tau _x`$ is a finite birational morphism between normal spaces, and therefore isomorphic. In particular, $`\stackrel{~}{H}_x`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{U}_x`$ are smooth.

The induced map $`\stackrel{~}{\iota }_x:\stackrel{~}{U}_xX`$ is an isomorphism away from the section $`D:=\stackrel{~}{\iota }_x^1(x)`$, which is contracted: otherwise, Zariski’s main theorem asserts that there exists a point $`x^{}X`$ and a positive dimensional subfamily of curves passing through both $`x`$ and $`x^{}`$. But Mori’s bend-and-break argument says that this cannot happen if $`H_x`$ is unsplit. In particular, since $`\stackrel{~}{U}_x`$ is smooth it follows that $`X`$ is smooth.

In this setting, an elementary theorem of Mori yields the claim. See \[Kol96, V.3.7.8\]. ∎


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Newtonian dynamics is usually taught in high school physics courses and in college level freshman physics class . Lagrangian and Hamiltonian dynamics  is usually reserved for an upper division undergraduate physics course on classical dynamics. This is all as it should be, particularly since one needs the technique of calculus of variations for the Lagrangian formulation.

However it is always nice to be able to whet the appetite of the advanced high school student for a taste of things to come. For those students who have successfully mastered the contents of the typical high school physics course, one can give an extra lesson on Lagrangian and Hamiltonian dynamics without having to use calculus of variations. The idea is simply to present some new formulations of dynamics that an advanced high school student will find enjoyable and intellectually interesting. (The students can be told that a rigorous formulation will be presented in college courses.)

For simplicity, consider only the one-dimensional problem. Write Newton’s equation

$$F=ma$$
(1)
and define the potential energy $`U(x)`$, which is a function only of position, as

$$F\frac{dU}{dx}$$
(2)
where $`\frac{dU}{dx}`$ is the spatial derivative of the potential energy. Thus re-write Newton’s equation as

$$\frac{dU}{dx}=m\ddot{x}$$
(3)
where $`\dot{x}\frac{dx}{dt}=v`$ for the speed and $`\ddot{x}\frac{d^2x}{dt^2}=a`$ for the acceleration.

## 2 Lagrangian Dynamics

To introduce Lagrangian dynamics define a Lagrangian as a function of the two variables of position $`x`$ and speed $`\dot{x}`$

$$L(x,\dot{x})T(\dot{x})U(x)=\frac{1}{2}m\dot{x}^2U(x)$$
(4)
where the kinetic energy $`T(\dot{x})\frac{1}{2}m\dot{x}^2`$ is a function only of the speed variable and the potential energy again is only a function of position $`U(x)`$.

Now introduce the idea of a partial derivative. This is very easy. For a function of a single variable $`f(y)`$ the notation $`\frac{df}{dy}`$ is used for the derivative. For a function of two variables $`g(y,z)`$ there are two possible derivatives for each variable $`y`$ or $`z`$. In this case one simply introduces a different notation for derivative, namely $`\frac{g}{y}`$ for the $`y`$ derivative (where $`y`$ is changing but $`z`$ is constant) and $`\frac{g}{z}`$ for the $`z`$ derivative (where $`z`$ is changing but $`y`$ is constant). Even though high school students won’t see partial derivatives until they are in college, nevertheless the idea is very simple and can easily be explained to the advanced student who is taking a course in calculus.

From (4) one can easily see that

$$\frac{L}{x}=\frac{dU}{dx}$$
(5)
and

$$\frac{L}{\dot{x}}=m\dot{x}p$$
(6)
which is called the momentum $`p`$. Obviously then

$$\frac{d}{dt}\left(\frac{L}{\dot{x}}\right)=m\ddot{x}$$
(7)
Combining (5), (7) and (3), Newton’s equation (3) becomes

$$\frac{L}{x}=\frac{d}{dt}\left(\frac{L}{\dot{x}}\right)$$
(8)
which is the Euler-Lagrange equation in one dimension. It can be explained to the students that it is this equation in Lagrangian dynamics which replaces $`F=ma`$ in Newtonian dynamics.

### 2.1 Lagrangian example

Students will obviously want to see some examples of how the Lagrangian formulation works. A simple example is the one-dimensional harmonic oscillator with

$$F\frac{dU}{dx}=kx.$$
(9)
Newton’s equation is

$$kx=m\ddot{x}.$$
(10)
The potential $`U(x)`$ is obtained by integrating (9) to give

$$U(x)=\frac{1}{2}kx^2.$$
(11)
Thus the Lagrangian is

$$L(x,\dot{x})=\frac{1}{2}m\dot{x}^2\frac{1}{2}kx^2$$
(12)
giving

$$\frac{L}{x}=kx$$
(13)
and substituting into (8) and (7) gives exactly back the same equation of motion (10) as in the Newtonian case.

Many teachers will have had the students work out the equation of motion from Newtonian dynamics for other types of forces, such as a particle in a uniform gravitational field. Students can be encouraged to prove that the same equations of motion result from the Lagrangian formulation. Students can also be encouraged to think about three-dimensional problems and to derive, on their own, the three Euler-Lagrange equations (corresponding to the three component equations $`F_x=m\ddot{x}`$, $`F_y=m\ddot{y}`$, $`F_z=m\ddot{z}`$) which result from the three dimensional Lagrangian

$$L(x,y,z,\dot{x},\dot{y},\dot{z})=\frac{1}{2}m(\dot{x}^2+\dot{y}^2+\dot{z}^2)U(x,y,z).$$
(14)
## 3 Hamiltonian Dynamics

Now consider the Hamiltonian formulation of dynamics. Define a Hamiltonian as a function of the two variables, momentum $`p`$ and position $`x`$,

$$H(p,x)p\dot{x}L(x,\dot{x})$$
(15)
which can be seen to be just the total energy $`T+U`$ as $`H=p\dot{x}L=m\dot{x}^2\frac{1}{2}m\dot{x}^2+U=\frac{1}{2}m\dot{x}^2+U=T+U`$. Hamilton’s equations follow immediately. $`L`$ is not a function of $`p`$ and therefore

$$\frac{H}{p}=\dot{x}.$$
(16)
But $`L`$ is a function of $`x`$ and thus

$$\frac{H}{x}=\frac{L}{x}.$$
(17)
However (6) and (8) give $`\frac{L}{x}=\dot{p}`$ so that

$$\frac{H}{x}=\dot{p}.$$
(18)
Equation (16) and (18) are Hamilton’s equations which replace $`F=ma`$ in Newtonian dynamics.

### 3.1 Hamiltonian example

For the harmonic oscillator example, the Hamiltonian is

$$H(p,x)=p\dot{x}\frac{1}{2}m\dot{x}^2+\frac{1}{2}kx^2=\frac{p^2}{2m}+\frac{1}{2}kx^2$$
(19)
where we have had to replace $`\dot{x}`$ by $`\frac{p}{m}`$ because $`H(p,x)`$ is supposed to be a function of $`p`$ and $`x`$ only. Thus Hamilton’s equations (16) and (18) give

$$\frac{p}{m}=\dot{x}$$
(20)
and

$$kx=\dot{p}.$$
(21)
These are shown to give the equation of motion (10) by differentiating (20) as

$$\frac{\dot{p}}{m}=\ddot{x}$$
(22)
and substituting (21) for $`\dot{p}`$ gives back equation (10).

Once again students can be encouraged to use other examples that they have already studied in Newtonian dynamics and to show that Hamilton’s equations result in the same equation of motion. Again students can work out the three-dimensional generalization of Hamilton’s equations using

$$H(p_x,p_y,p_z,x,y,z)=p_x\dot{x}+p_y\dot{y}+p_z\dot{z}L(x,y,z,\dot{x},\dot{y},\dot{z}).$$
(23)
Finally teachers can emphasize to students that Newtonian mechanics is based on forces, whereas Lagrangian and Hamiltonian dynamics is based on energy.

In summary, a discussion of Lagrangian and Hamiltonian dynamics has been presented which should be suitable for advanced high school students, who are interested in exploring some topics not normally presented in the high school physics curriculum. It is also hoped that this article can be given to students to read on their own.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The long suspected correspondence  between string theory and the limit in which the number of colors of a gauge field theory is taken to infinity was first explicitly constructed by Maldacena , between a four dimensional $`N=4`$ supersymmetric gauge theory, and type IIB string theory compactified on $`AdS_5\times S^5`$. According to the more precise statements of the conjecture elaborated in  and , correlation functions of gauge theory operators can be explicitly calculated from type IIB string theory on $`AdS_5\times S^5`$. From the arguments in , type IIB string theory on $`AdS_5\times X_5`$, with $`X_5`$ a five dimensional Einstein manifold bearing five-form flux, is supposed to be dual to a four dimensional conformal field theory. Generalizations of the original idea have been constructed considering the sphere of the maximally supersymmetric case, $`S^5`$, divided by the action of some finite group -. The field theory thus obtained corresponds to the infrared limit of the worldvolume theory on D-3branes at an orbifold singularity (the case of 7-branes at an orientifold singularity has also been considered in -). Another proposal of duality arises from the study of D-3branes at Calabi-Yau singularities -. The connection between compactification on Einstein manifolds and the metric of D-3branes placed at a Calabi-Yau singularity pointed out in , was enlightened by Klebanov and Witten, who constructed the field theory side for a smooth Einstein manifold with local geometry different from the sphere, $`X_5=T^{11}`$ ; their proposal is that the type IIB string theory compactified on $`AdS_5\times T^{11}`$ should be dual to a certain large $`N`$ superconformal field theory with $`N=1`$ supersymmetry in four dimensions, which turns out to be a non trivial infrared fixed point, with gauge group $`SU(N)\times SU(N)`$. The field theory is constructed locating a collection of $`N`$ coincident D-3branes at a conical singularity of a non compact Calabi-Yau manifold (see also  for an exhaustive study of non-spherical horizons, and the corresponding field theories). In a subsequent paper , these authors also considered the posibility that the branes are extracted from the conifold point. Assuming that the branes are all at the same point, the low energy effective field theory will be the $`N=4`$ supersymmetric $`SU(N)`$ gauge theory, which is again an infrared fixed point.

In this paper, we will consider an intermediate situation in between these two theories, in order to clarify the symmetry breaking, corresponding to a two center configuration, where some of the branes are still located at the conifold point, while the rest have been moved to some smooth point. We will study some details of this configuration describing the Higgs phase of the field theory of D-3branes at the conifold. Applying the construction for the Wilson loops introduced by Maldacena in  to an $`AdS_5\times T^{11}`$ background, we will explicitly calculate the energy for a quark-antiquark pair, separated by a distance $`L`$. As we will see, the form of the calculation we present also reduces naturally to the possibility that all branes are located at the conifold point, originally considered in , where we can also reproduce the expected conformal behaviour for the energy of the quark-antiquark pair. The expression for the energy, obtained minimizing the area of a string worldsheet in the $`AdS_5\times T^{11}`$ background, allows also the possibility to understand configurations of vanishing energy.

In section 2, after a small review on the conifold and its properties, we will, following , study the $`SU(N)\times SU(N)`$ gauge theory broken to the Higgs phase $`SU(N)\times SU(N)\times SU_D(N)`$. The Higgs phase is explored in section 3 through the calculation of the Wilson loop in $`AdS_5\times T^{11}`$, for a configuration of $`N`$ branes at the conifold point, and $`N`$ branes located at a smooth point. The general solution we construct allows the possibility to consider the unbroken phase, with all branes located at the conifold. In section 4 we present some concluding remarks and possible implications of the present work, as well as some immediate steps further.

## 2 Large $`N`$ Field Theories and Conifolds

In this section we will review some basic properties of a six dimensional Calabi-Yau manifold $`Y_6`$ with a conical singularity and study the Higgs branch for a particular configuration of D-3branes on $`M_4\times Y_6`$. According to  and  keeping some of the branes at the conifold point implies $`N=1`$ supersymmetry. The configuration we will consider breaks the gauge group to $`SU(N)\times SU(N)\times SU_D(N)`$ and has $`N=1`$ supersymmetry.

### 2.1 Conifold Spaces

Let $`Y_6`$ be a six dimensional manifold smooth apart from an isolated conical singularity, and of vanishing first Chern class. $`Y_6`$ can be described by a quadric in $`𝐂^4𝐑^8`$,

$$𝒞\underset{A=1}{\overset{4}{}}(w^A)^2=0.$$
(2.1)
The singularity is located at $`w^A=0`$ for which $`𝒞=0`$ and $`d𝒞=0`$. Let $``$ be the base of the cone. $``$ is given by the intersection of (2.1) and a sphere of radius $`\rho `$ in $`𝐂^4`$,

$$\underset{A=1}{\overset{4}{}}|w^A|^2=\rho ^2.$$
(2.2)
In order to examine the topology of $``$ we rewrite equations (2.1) and (2.2) in terms of the real and imaginary parts of $`w^A`$, $`w^A=x^A+iy^A`$, with $`x^A,y^A𝐑`$,

$`xx`$ $`=`$ $`1/2\rho ^2,`$
$`yy`$ $`=`$ $`1/2\rho ^2,`$
$`xy`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (2.3)
The first equation describes an $`S^3`$. The other two define a trivial $`S^2`$ fiber over $`S^3`$. Thus, the base $``$ is topologically $`S^2\times S^3`$ .

We want $`Y_6`$ to have vanishing first Chern class; however, the metric on a cone is Ricci flat if and only if the metric on its base is Einstein; thus, $``$ must be a 5 dimensional Einstein space, $`_{\mu \nu }=4g_{\mu \nu }`$ , with the topology of $`S^2\times S^3`$.

Let us now consider metrics on manifolds $`T^{p,q}`$ 111The notation differs slightly from that in , where these spaces are denoted by $`N_{p,q}`$. which are fiber bundles over $`S^2\times S^2`$, with $`(p,q)`$ U(1) fiber, whose metric is

$$d\mathrm{\Sigma }_{pq}^2=\lambda ^2(d\psi +p\mathrm{cos}\theta _1d\varphi _1+q\mathrm{cos}\theta _2d\varphi _2)^2+\mathrm{\Lambda }_1^1(d\theta _1^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _1d\varphi _1^2)$$

$$+\mathrm{\Lambda }_2^1(d\theta _2^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta ^2d\varphi _2^2),$$
(2.4)
where $`0\theta _i<\pi `$ and $`0\varphi _i<2\pi `$ are spherical coordinates and $`0\psi <4\pi `$ is the coordinate on the U(1) fiber. For some choices of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1,\mathrm{\Lambda }_2,\lambda `$ these metrics are Einstein. For two choices of $`(p,q)`$, namely $`(1,1)`$ and $`(1,0)`$, the fiber bundles are $`S^2\times S^3`$. It was shown in  that only $`T^{1,1}`$ is compatible with a Kähler structure on the cone. In other words, these two Einstein metrics on the base give rise to two Ricci flat metrics on the cone, but only taking $`T^{1,1}`$ as the base we get a cone which is a limit of a Calabi-Yau metric. In this case $`Y_6`$ will admit Killing spinors and thus, preserve supersymmetry. More precisely, $`Y_6`$ is a manifold of $`SU(3)`$ holonomy, therefore it preserves a quarter of the supersymmetries of the original theory. This implies that the four dimensional theory will have 8 supercharges and the theory will be $`N=1`$ supersymmetric.

Redefining the radial coordinate as $`r\sqrt{3/2}\rho ^{2/3}`$ we can write the $`Y_6`$ metric in the conical form,

$$ds_6^2=dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Sigma }_{11}^2,$$
(2.5)
where the metric of the base is

$$d\mathrm{\Sigma }_{11}^2=\frac{1}{9}(d\psi +\mathrm{cos}\theta _1d\varphi _1+\mathrm{cos}\theta _2d\varphi _2)^2+\frac{1}{6}(d\theta _1^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _1d\varphi _1^2)$$

$$+\frac{1}{6}(d\theta _2^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta ^2d\varphi _2^2).$$
(2.6)
The Kähler potential, $`K`$, for the conifold metric (2.5) should be invariant under the $`SU(2)\times SU(2)`$ that acts on the base. In  the authors found $`K=(_{A=1}^4|w^A|^2)^{2/3}`$.

For $`T^{11}`$ the $`U(1)`$ fiber is symmetrically embedded in the two $`SU(2)`$’s. The $`U(1)`$ generator is the sum $`\frac{1}{2}\sigma _3+\frac{1}{2}\tau _3`$ of the $`SU(2)`$’s generators and $`T^{11}`$ is the coset space

$$T^{11}=\frac{SU(2)\times SU(2)}{U(1)}=\frac{S^3\times S^3}{U(1)}.$$
(2.7)
This space can also be thought of as a smooth deformation of a blown-up $`S^5/Z_2`$ orbifold. The isometry group of the orbifold is $`SO(4)\times SO(2)`$, which is the same as for $`T^{11}`$, and an appropiate blow up of the orbifold singularities leads to a manifold with the same topology as $`T^{11}`$.

### 2.2 The Field Theory on D-3branes at the Conifold

In  the authors studied the theory obtained when N D3-branes are placed on a conifold singularity. They considered a decomposition of ten dimensional space given by $`M_4\times Y_6`$, where $`M_4`$ is four dimensional Minkowski space, and $`Y_6`$ is a Calabi-Yau manifold with a conical singularity, of the form considered in section 2.1. Let the singularity be at a point $`P`$ on the conifold. If we place $`N`$ parallel D3 branes on $`M_4\times P`$, the resulting ten dimensional metric will be

$$ds^2=H(r)^{1/2}[dt^2+dx^2]+H(r)^{1/2}[dr^2+r^2g_{ij}dx^idx^j].$$
(2.8)
where the harmonic function is $`H(r)=1+\frac{L^4}{r^4}`$, with $`L^4=4\pi g_sN(\alpha ^{})^2`$.

In the near horizon limit this metric becomes $`AdS_5\times T^{11}`$, where $`T^{11}`$ has been defined in (2.7), with the metric (2.6). The infrared limit of the gauge theory on the D3 branes is $`N=1`$ supersymmetric with gauge group $`SU(N)\times SU(N)`$ and chiral superfields $`A_i,B_ji,j=1,2`$ . $`A_i`$ transforms as $`(𝐍,\overline{𝐍})`$ and $`B_i`$ as $`(\overline{𝐍},𝐍)`$ under $`SU(N)\times SU(N)`$. The theory has a non-renormalizable superpotential,

$$W=\frac{\lambda }{2}ϵ^{ij}ϵ^{kl}A_iB_kA_jB_l.$$
(2.9)
The moduli space of vacua of the theory is the conifold $`𝒞`$ defined in (2.1). The eigenvalues of $`A_i,B_j`$ are related to the the positions of the branes.

The Higgs Phase

Symmetry breaking arises when the branes are moved away from the conifold singularity, away from each other or when the singularity is resolved or deformed . In the present paper we are interested in symmetry breaking obtained by moving the branes away from the conifold singularity. The case when all the branes are moved to a smooth point has been thoroughly studied. If the gauge symmetry is broken to the diagonal group , $`SU(N)\times SU(N)SU_D(N)`$, the fields will transform in the adjoint representation of the group. One of them can be Higgsed away, leaving three adjoints with the superpotential

$$W=\text{Tr}(\mathrm{\Phi }_1[\mathrm{\Phi }_2,\mathrm{\Phi }_3]).$$
(2.10)
This theory flows in the infrared to $`N=4`$ supersymmetric Yang Mills, as expected since now the D3-branes are located on a smooth point of the manifold.

But we want to investigate a different pattern of symmetry breaking. We start with 2N branes at the conifold singularity, i.e., with a $`SU(2N)\times SU(2N)`$ theory with two copies of matter in the $`(\mathrm{𝟐}𝐍,\overline{\mathrm{𝟐}𝐍})`$ and $`(\overline{\mathrm{𝟐}𝐍},\mathrm{𝟐}𝐍)`$ and a superpotential as described in equation (2.9). We will consider the theory obtained when we move half of the branes, $`N`$ from each group, to a smooth point $`\stackrel{}{r}=\stackrel{}{r}_0`$ away from the singularity and leave the other half at the singularity $`r=0`$. The gauge group is then broken to $`SU(N)\times SU(N)\times SU_D(N)`$. The states charged under the $`SU_D(N)`$ and either of the $`SU(N)`$’s correspond to strings stretching from the branes in the singularity to the branes at $`r=r_0`$, away from the conifold point. These are the W bosons responsible for the symmetry breaking. The fields left will transform as $`(𝐍,\overline{𝐍},\mathrm{𝟏})`$, $`(\overline{𝐍},𝐍,\mathrm{𝟏})`$ and $`(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏},𝐍^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathrm{𝟏})`$ under the Higgsed gauge group. Note that this pattern of symmetry breaking, as opposed to the one considered in , does not alter the amount of supersymmetry since the harmonic function is still singular at the conifold point $`r=0`$.

The process of moving branes out of the conifold could be done in steps, i.e., successively moving groups of $`M_i`$ branes. In this case the gauge group at the smooth point will not be $`SU_D(2N)`$ but a collection of independant $`SU_D(M_i)`$’s. This can be understood as a consequence of the different pattern of symmetry breaking, since the intermediate steps imply the Higgsing of more states.

## 3 Wilson Loops in Non Spherical Horizons

The conjectured equivalence proposed by Maldacena between the large $`N`$ limit of four dimensional Yang-Mills with $`N=4`$ supersymmetry, and ten dimensional supergravity, allows the possibility to predict a number of interesting phenomena of field theories in the large $`N`$ limit. In  and , a method to calculate the expectation value of the Wilson loop operator in the large $`N`$ limit of field theories was proposed (see  for a recent review, and a collection of references on the subsequent cases studied in the literature). In this work, we will apply the technique introduced in  to calculate the area of a fundamental string worldsheet in the $`AdS_5\times T^{11}`$ background, and understand the energy, of a quark-antiquark pair, in the Higgs phase of the theory of branes at the conifold described in the previous section. The calculation we present also reproduces naturally the unbroken Higgs phase, where all branes are located at the conifold singularity.

### 3.1 Multicenter Configurations

The original configuration first studied by Maldacena in  was a collection of $`N`$ parallel D-$`3`$branes, located at some point in their transverse space. The possibility to consider separated groups of D-3branes, that for large $`N`$ would also reproduce some Anti-de Sitter geometry, was also first mentioned in . Multicenter D-3brane solutions were originally considered in , and studied in the background of a Calabi-Yau threefold with a conical singularity in . The multicenter configuration corresponds to the harmonic function

$$H(\stackrel{}{r})=1+\underset{a}{}\frac{4\pi g_sN_a\alpha _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{|\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{\widehat{r}}_a|^4},$$
(3.1)
where $`\stackrel{}{r}`$ denotes the coordinates transverse to the worldvolume of the D-3branes, $`\stackrel{}{r}=\{y^1,\mathrm{},y^6\}`$, on the Calabi-Yau manifold, and $`\stackrel{}{\widehat{r}}_a`$ are the positions of the D-3branes. We will measure distances, with respect to the conifold point, in terms of $`r=\sqrt{y^iy^i}`$. As in , the limit where $`\alpha ^{}0`$, keeping $`r/\alpha ^{}`$ finite and all $`N_a`$ large, will correspond to the Higgs phase of an $`SU(N)`$ gauge theory, with $`N=_aN_a`$, where the gauge group has been broken to $`_aSU(N_a)`$. However, at large values of $`r`$ compared to the distances between the groups of D-3branes, which represent the Higgs vacuum expectation values, the multicenter configuration reproduces the Anti-de Sitter solution corresponding to $`SU(N)`$. As long as we keep some branes at the conifold point, as in section 2, the theory will be $`N=1`$ supersymmetric.

Following the construction in section 2, we will study the Wilson loop for a Higgs phase of the $`N=1`$ supersymmetric field theory of D-3branes at the conifold. The multicenter configuration will correspond to a set of N D-3branes located at some smooth point $`\stackrel{}{r}=\stackrel{}{\widehat{r}}_0`$, and a collection of $`N`$ of them at the conifold point, so that the final gauge group is $`SU(N)\times SU(N)\times SU_D(N)`$, as in section 2. In the near horizon limit ($`\alpha ^{}0`$ but $`r/\alpha ^{}`$ finite), the harmonic function becomes

$$H(\stackrel{}{y})=\frac{4\pi g_sN\alpha _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{r^4}+\frac{4\pi g_sN\alpha _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{|\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{\widehat{r}}_0|^4}.$$
(3.2)
For the harmonic function (3.2), there is a clear limit, corresponding to $`r\widehat{r}_0`$, where the expression for $`H`$ simplifies to that of a single collection of $`2N`$ D-3branes located at the conifold point, $`H=\frac{\mathrm{2\hspace{0.33em}.\hspace{0.33em}4}\pi g_sN\alpha _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{r^4}`$. We will also address this limit for our calculation at the end of this section. From a field theory point of view, it implies that the mass scale of the symmetry breaking of $`SU(2N)\times SU(2N)`$ to $`SU(N)\times SU(N)\times SU_D(N)`$, proportional to the distance in between the two sets of branes, $`r_0`$, is much smaller than the energy scale of the quark-antiquark potential, so that the interaction will correspond to the unbroken $`SU(N)\times SU(N)`$ phase.

We are interested in the harmonic function (3.2) describing the configuration with two centers. However, from a calculational point of view, this function is extremely involved. In fact, a similar calculation for a Higgs phase of branes at two different positions, but for the $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ background, was considered in . The authors of  used a symmetric configuration in order to simplify the form of the harmonic function. Our work requires a similar choice of symmetric configuration222Another possibility to describe the harmonic function of a multicenter configuration in an $`AdS_5\times T^{11}`$ background is to use an expansion for $`H`$ in terms of spherical harmonics, as in . However, again from a calculational point of view, the harmonic function leads to extremely complicated expansions for the solutions, which can only be calculated as a power series.. The main difficulty arises due to the fact that $`H`$ contains two terms for a two center configuration, and that it is $`H^1`$ that enters the Nambu-Goto action in the calculation of the Wilson loop. Hence, the most convenient possibility is to restrict the calculation to the region where

$$|\stackrel{}{r}|=|\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{\widehat{r}}_0|.$$
(3.3)
This constraint corresponds to a symmetric configuration where the minimum of the Wilson loop is located at the vertex of the distinct angle of an isosceles triangle. The two sets of branes (those located at the conifold, and those at the smooth point) are then at the two other vertices, so that the two equal sides of the triangle will correspond to the distance to the loop.

As we will see next, the Wilson loop can be calculated exactly for this symmetric configuration.

### 3.2 Geodesics of the Symmetric Configuration

In order to calculate Wilson loops according to the prescription in , the Nambu-Goto action of a fundamental string should be minimized in a relevant supergravity background. We should then consider the action for the string worldsheet,

$$S=\frac{1}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}𝑑\sigma 𝑑\tau \sqrt{\text{det }G_{MN}_\alpha X^M_\beta X^N},$$
(3.4)
in the $`AdS_5\times T^{11}`$ background, where the $`G_{MN}`$ metric is

$$ds_{10}^2=H^{1/2}(r)(dt^2+dx_idx^i)+H^{1/2}(r)(dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Sigma }_{11}^2).$$
(3.5)
Defining $`U=r/\alpha ^{}`$, this metric becomes

$$ds_{10}^2=\alpha ^{}[H^{1/2}(U)(dt^2+dx_idx^i)+H^{1/2}(U)(dU^2+U^2d\mathrm{\Sigma }_{11}^2)],$$
(3.6)
so that now the harmonic function describing the multicentered configuration is

$$H(U)=\frac{R^4}{U^4}+\frac{R^4}{|\stackrel{}{U}\stackrel{}{r}_0|^4},$$
(3.7)
where we have introduced $`R^44\pi g_sN`$, and the rescaling $`\stackrel{}{r}_0\stackrel{}{\widehat{r}}_0/\alpha ^{}`$ has also been employed, so that $`\stackrel{}{r}_0`$ is kept constant.

Now, following , we can introduce a relative angle between the quarks, by giving expectation values $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_1`$ and $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_2`$ to two $`U(1)`$ factors in the global gauge group. If the angles are defined as $`\stackrel{}{\theta }_i=\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_i/|\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Phi }}|`$, the string worldsheet will be located, at the end of the Wilson loop corresponding to the position of the massive quark, at $`U=\mathrm{}`$ and a point $`\stackrel{}{\theta }_1`$ on the $`T^{11}`$ space, and at $`U=\mathrm{}`$ but a point $`\stackrel{}{\theta }_2`$ on $`T^{11}`$ for the other end of the loop, corresponding to the position of the other massive quark. However, as seen in section 2.1, the topology of $`T^{11}`$ is quite different from that of $`S^5`$. The $`SO(6)`$ isometry group of $`S^5`$ was responsible that the string joining $`\stackrel{}{\theta }_1`$ and $`\stackrel{}{\theta }_2`$ in , would simply lie on a great circle of the sphere. The $`SO(4)\times SO(2)`$ isometry group of $`T^{11}`$ also allows this possibility: the Wilson loop can be taken to extend along a great circle in $`S^2`$, or in $`S^3`$; this simply corresponds to setting all angles, but one, to constants, in the metric describing $`T^{11}`$. The loop constructed this way clearly reproduces that studied in  for strings located at different points in $`S^5`$, up to a numerical coefficient related to the constraints defining the $`T^{11}`$ metric. However, $`SO(4)\times SO(2)`$ does not exclude other possibilities. The Wilson loop can be taken to lie on a path parametrized by two, or even three, different coordinates on $`T^{11}`$, and which cannot be described in terms of a single angle through a rotation. For definiteness, we will choose the path joining $`\stackrel{}{\theta }_1`$ and $`\stackrel{}{\theta }_2`$ to be parametrized by $`\psi `$ and $`\varphi _1`$ (the two other cases with two angles, $`(\psi ,\varphi _2)`$ and $`(\varphi _1,\varphi _2)`$, or the slightly more involved of a trajectory requiring the set $`(\psi ,\varphi _1,\varphi _2)`$, can be similarly treated). Then, setting $`\varphi _2=\text{constant}`$, and choosing the convenient values $`\theta _1=\theta _2=0`$, the action for a static configuration becomes

$$S=\frac{T}{2\pi }𝑑x\sqrt{H^1(U)+(_xU)^2+U^2/9(_x\psi )^2+U^2/9(_x\psi )(_x\varphi _1)+U^2/6(_x\varphi _1)^2},$$
(3.8)
where we have identified the space worldsheet coordinate $`\sigma `$ with one of the spatial coordinates on the worldvolume of the D-3branes.

The Euler-Lagrange equations for this action are, in general, quite hard to solve for the two center configuration we are interested in, unless a symmetric constraint as the one described in 3.1 is chosen. We will work in such a configuration, so that our solutions will represent the geodesics satisfying condition (3.3).

As the action does not depend on $`x`$ explicitly, the associated energy

$$\frac{U^4/2}{\sqrt{H^1(U)+(_xU)^2+U^2/9(_x\psi )^2+U^2/9(_x\psi )(_x\varphi _1)+U^2/6(_x\varphi _1)^2}}$$
(3.9)
will be a conserved quantity. Besides, the action is also cyclic in $`\psi `$ and $`\varphi _1`$, so that the associated angular momenta, $`L/(_x\psi )`$ and $`L/(_x\varphi _1)`$ (where the lagrangian $`L`$ is the square root in (3.8)), will also be constants. The value of these constants can be fixed in terms of the minimum of the Wilson loop. If $`U_0`$ is the distance along the slice transversal to the direction defined by the position of the conifold point, and the $`N`$ D-3branes at $`\stackrel{}{r}_0`$, outside the singularity333More geometrically, $`U_0`$ will correspond to the symmetric height of the triangle., then, in the symmetric configuration of section 3.1, the minimum will correspond to a radial coordinate $`U_{\text{min}}=\sqrt{U_0^2+\left(\frac{r_0}{2}\right)^2}`$, measured with respect to any of the two sets of D-3branes. Then, solving for $`_x\psi |_{U_{\text{min}}}`$ and $`_x\varphi _1|_{U_{\text{min}}}`$, the constants can be fixed to

$`{\displaystyle \frac{L}{(_x\psi )}}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{U_0^2+\left({\displaystyle \frac{r_0}{2}}\right)^2}l_\psi ,`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{L}{(_x\varphi _1)}}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{U_0^2+\left({\displaystyle \frac{r_0}{2}}\right)^2}l_{\varphi _1},`$ (3.10)
while

$$(U_0^2+\left(\frac{r_0}{2}\right)^2)R^2\sqrt{1f^2(l_\psi ,l_{\varphi _1})}$$
(3.11)
for the energy associated to $`x`$, where we have defined

$$f^2(l_\psi ,l_{\varphi _1})=\frac{18}{5}(3l_\psi ^22l_\psi l_{\varphi _1}+2l_{\varphi _1}^2).$$
(3.12)
With the value of the angular momenta fixed through (3.10) and (3.11), and (3.9) for the energy, and using the fact that the minimum is located at $`\sqrt{U_0^2+\left(\frac{r_0}{2}\right)^2}`$, the solution of these equations for $`x`$, $`\psi `$ and $`\varphi _1`$, in terms of $`U`$ is

$`x`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{R^2\sqrt{1f^2(l_\psi ,l_{\varphi _1})}}{\sqrt{U_0^2+\left(\frac{r_0}{2}\right)^2}}}{\displaystyle _1^{U/\sqrt{U_0^2+\left(\frac{r_0}{2}\right)^2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dy}{y^2\sqrt{(y^21)(y^2+1f^2(l_\psi ,l_{\varphi _1}))}}},`$
$`\psi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{9(3l_\psi l_{\varphi _1})}{10}}{\displaystyle _1^{U/\sqrt{U_0^2+\left(\frac{r_0}{2}\right)^2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dy}{y^2\sqrt{(y^21)(y^2+1f^2(l_\psi ,l_{\varphi _1}))}}}`$
$`\varphi _1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{9(l_\psi 2l_{\varphi _1})}{5}}{\displaystyle _1^{U/\sqrt{U_0^2+\left(\frac{r_0}{2}\right)^2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dy}{y^2\sqrt{(y^21)(y^2+1f^2(l_\psi ,l_{\varphi _1}))}}}.`$ (3.13)
The value of the parameter $`U_0`$ can be determined through the condition

$$\frac{L}{2}=x(U=\mathrm{})=\frac{R^2\sqrt{1f^2(l_\psi ,l_{\varphi _1})}}{\sqrt{U_0^2+\left(\frac{r_0}{2}\right)^2}}I_1(l_\psi ,l_{\varphi _1})$$
(3.14)
where, as in , $`I_1(l_\psi ,l_{\varphi _1})`$ represents an expression that can be calculated in terms of elliptic integrals,

$$I_1(l_\psi ,l_{\varphi _1})=\frac{1}{(1f^2)\sqrt{2f^2}}\left[(2f^2)E(\frac{\pi }{2},\sqrt{\frac{1f^2}{2f^2}})F(\frac{\pi }{2},\sqrt{\frac{1f^2}{2f^2}})\right].$$
(3.15)
Similarly, $`l_\psi `$ and $`l_{\varphi _1}`$ can be obtained from the conditions

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\psi }{2}}`$ $`=`$ $`\psi (U=\mathrm{})={\displaystyle \frac{9(3l_\psi l_{\varphi _1})}{10}}I_2(l_\psi ,l_{\varphi _1}),`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _1}{2}}`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi _1(U=\mathrm{})={\displaystyle \frac{9(l_\psi 2l_{\varphi _1})}{5}}I_2(l_\psi ,l_{\varphi _1}),`$ (3.16)
where $`I_2(l_\psi ,l_{\varphi _1})`$ is the integral

$$I_2(l_\psi ,l_{\varphi _1})=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2f^2}}F(\frac{\pi }{2},\sqrt{\frac{1f^2}{2f^2}}),$$
(3.17)
again as in , but now with $`f`$ defined in (3.12).

Equation (3.14) exhibits the dependence of the radial position of the minimum, $`U_{\text{min}}`$, in the quark distance, but also of this $`L`$ in the scale $`r_0`$ introduced through Higgs mechanism when splitting the set of branes in the bulk. As the distance $`r_0`$ to the smooth point decreases, $`r_0U_0`$, from (3.14) we recover an inverse law for the relation between $`L`$ and $`U_0`$, as in the $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ Wilson loop constructed in . The only difference with that case, as a consequence of the different background, is the $`f^2`$ function (3.12). Note also that the large separation limit, $`r_0U_0`$, leads to small values of $`L`$, as in the Higgs phase studied in .

The energy can be calculated if the solutions (3.13) are introduced in the expression (3.8) for the action. The infinite result, arising from the mass of the W boson corresponding to a string stretching to $`U=\mathrm{}`$, can be regularized introducing some cut-off, so that the energy is simply integrated up to some $`U_{\text{max}}`$ . When the regularized mass $`U_{\text{max}}/2\pi `$ of the W boson is substracted, the energy

$$E=\frac{\sqrt{U_0^2+\left(\frac{r_0}{2}\right)^2}}{2\pi }\left[_1^{\mathrm{}}𝑑y\left(\frac{y^2}{\sqrt{(y^21)(y^2+1f^2)}}1\right)1\right]$$
(3.18)
leads, once (3.14) is taken into account to introduce the distance $`L`$ separating the two quarks, to the result

$$E=\frac{1}{\pi }\frac{(4g_{YM}^2N)^{1/2}}{L}(1f^2)^{3/2}I_1^2(l_\psi ,l_{\varphi _1}).$$
(3.19)
Thus, we see that for any value of the distance $`L`$, as compared to the scale $`r_0`$ measuring the W mass, we obtain a coulombic behaviour for the quark potential. The Coulomb dependence is the same as that obtained in  for the unbroken Higgs phase of $`N=4`$ theories in the large $`N`$ limit. This dependence was also obtained for small values of $`L`$ in  for the Higgs phase of $`N=4`$ supersymmetric Yang-Mills, where the breaking to $`SU(N/2)\times SU(N/2)`$ was considered. Note that the potential (3.19) is coulombic even in the large $`L`$ region, where the energy scale is much smaller than the mass of the $`W`$ particles, which therefore become irrelevant; in this region, we should then still expect a coulombic dependence444Large values of $`L`$ modified the coulombic dependence of the energy in ; however, the authors argued the existence of other geodesics, beyond their symmetric choice, where the $`L^1`$ behaviour should be restored..

We thus capture the expected Coulomb behaviour of the interaction energy in the limit of very large and very small quark-antiquark distance $`L`$. However, deviation from a Coulomb dependence is expected at intermediate distances. The energy scale is then comparable to the W boson mass which becomes relevant and corrects the interaction of the quarks. This behaviour cannot be obtained from geodesics obeying the symmetric constraint because once (3.3) is imposed in the harmonic function the metric becomes exactly AdS. In order to study deviations from the conformally invariant behaviour indirectly imposed by the symmetric choice (3.3), we should consider more general geodesics. The authors of , when studying the Higgs phase of a two center configuration in $`N=4`$ supersymetric Yang-Mills, exhibited the validity of their symmetric choice of geodesics by studying small perturbations of their solution. Their approach turns however estremely involved in our case since we are trying to capture the features associated with a non spherical manifold, the $`T^{11}`$. However, most of their arguments should still be valid in our case.

In order to exhibit deviations from the Coulomb behaviour arising from non conformality at intermediate energies (or distances), we will calculate the expression for $`x=x(U)`$ in a configuration different from the symmetric one (the explicit form of this expression, as well as those for $`\psi (U)`$ and $`\varphi _1(U)`$, can be obtained along the same lines as (3.13)). As the calculation is rather involved, and requires a series expansion, we will chose to concentrate, for simplicity, in geodesics satisfying the radial requirement that both $`\stackrel{}{U}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{r}_0`$ are along the same direction, so that the harmonic function can be written as $`H(U)=\frac{R^4(U^4+(Ur_0)^4)}{U^4(Ur_0)^4}`$. Solving (3.9) and (3.10) for $`_xU`$, we find that now the value of $`U_{\text{min}}`$ should be determined through the series

$$\frac{L}{2}=\frac{R^2}{U_{\text{min}}}\left[F_0(l_\psi ,l_{\varphi _1})+\left(\frac{r_0}{U_{\text{min}}}\right)F_1(l_\psi ,l_{\varphi _1})+𝒪\left(\left(\frac{r_0}{U_{\text{min}}}\right)^2\right)\right],$$
(3.20)
where $`F_0(l_\psi ,l_{\varphi _1})`$ and $`F_1(l_\psi ,l_{\varphi _1})`$ are integrals that can be calculated in terms of elliptic functions. When $`r_0U_{\text{min}}`$, we can drop terms of order $`\frac{r_0}{U_{\text{min}}}`$ to recover a Coulomb dependence for the interaction energy of the quark-antiquark pair555Note that we simply present as argument for the deviation from conformality the relation between $`L`$ and $`U_{\text{min}}`$. The explicit form of $`E=E(L)`$ should be obtained graphically, but expression (3.20) is enough to apreciate the origin of the non coulombic dependence.. Besides, from an expansion in $`\frac{U_{\text{min}}}{r_0}`$ it can be shown that the Coulomb law dependence is also obtained in the opposite limit, where $`r_0U_{\text{min}}`$, as expected. However, higher order terms will correct the conformal behaviour, as in . We thus see that the exact conformal behaviour exhibited by the symmetric configuration is corrected at intermediate distances by other geodesics, as this calculation along the radial direction shows.

Finallly, to conclude the analysis of the solution for the Higgs phase of branes at the conifold in the a symmetric configuration, we note that the value of the energy does not depend on the distance $`r_0`$ explicitly, so that expression (3.19) also represents the dependence of the energy in the un-Higgsed theory, when $`r_0=0`$ and all D-3branes are at the conifold point. This is also the result obtained in the $`Ur_0`$ limit.

### 3.3 Analysis of the Trajectories

The regularized value for the total energy of the configuration, (3.19), is formally the same as that found in  for the case of two quarks at a non constant angle. The missing factor of $`2`$ is a consequence of the two center distribution of branes, constrained to the symmetric condition of section 3.2 666We have kept this factor explicitly in the definition of the energy in (3.9). Note also the factor $`4`$ in the square root in (3.19), instead of the usual $`2`$, as a consequence of the collection of $`2N`$ D-3branes that we are considering.. However, the requirement of more than one angle to parametrize the Wilson loop on $`T^{11}`$ is responsible that $`f^2`$, entering the energy, becomes now a function of the angular momenta, as defined in (3.12). The vanishing energy of a BPS configuration is shown in  to correspond to the limit $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta \pi `$, so that the orientation of the two strings is reversed. Now, the $`f^2=1`$ condition on the angular momenta, associated to the zero values of the energy, becomes the curve

$$\frac{18}{5}(3l_\psi ^22l_\psi l_{\varphi _1}+2l_{\varphi _1}^2)=1.$$
(3.21)
If we imposse $`f^2=1`$ in (3.16), condition (3.21) can be written in terms of the angles $`\psi `$ and $`\varphi _1`$, parametrizing the loop, as

$$\frac{2}{3}\frac{(\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _1)^2}{\pi ^2}\frac{8}{9}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi _1\mathrm{\Delta }\psi }{\pi ^2}+\frac{16}{9}\frac{(\mathrm{\Delta }\psi )^2}{\pi ^2}=1,$$
(3.22)
which is the equation of a rotated ellipse in the $`(\psi ,\varphi _1)`$ plane. This curve generalizes the condition found in , where trajectories associated to a variation $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta =\pi `$ of the angle measuring the relative orientation of the two strings representing the quarks were shown to correspond to a BPS configuration. Now, all trajectories such that the path where the loop is contained corresponds to a set of values of $`\psi `$ and $`\varphi _1`$ in the ellipse (3.22), are trajectories with vanishing energy. Besides, all trajectories whose variation along the $`\psi `$ and $`\varphi _1`$ directions correspond to points inside the ellipse (points such that $`f^21`$), including the origin $`\psi =\varphi _1=0`$, where no relative angle has been introduced, will lead to real values for the energy.

We thus see how the topology of the non spherical horizon $`T^{11}`$ does not require reversed orientation of the strings, corresponding to $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta =\pi `$ in the $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ background .

## 4 Conclusions

Previous work in the Higgs  and Coulomb branches  of $`N=4`$ $`SU(N)`$ Yang-Mills dual to $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ has proven very fruitful. In particular, continuous distributions of branes - provide examples of renormalization group flow in an AdS/CFT setting -. In the present work we began a program to study similar examples of continuous brane distributions for theories with non spherical horizons . As a first step we have calculated the energy for a quark-antiquark pair in an $`SU(N)\times SU(N)\times SU_D(N)`$ theory with N=1 supersymmetry using the richer topology of $`T^{11}`$ background. This Higgs branch corresponds to the flow of the original $`SU(2N)\times SU(2N)`$ field theory under symmetry breaking. We found the expected coulombic behaviour for the quark-antiquark potential, because the harmonic function in the symmetric configuration that we are using still has a quartic dependence on the radial coordinate; thus, we see that the general results obtained in  also hold for backgrounds with non spherical horizons. As a by product we also obtain the energy of a quark-antiquark pair for the un-Higgsed theory. The energy for the configuration with all branes at the smooth point cannot be obtained from our result, and requires a series expansion. Besides, the relative angle in between the two strings allows the possibility to study states with vanishing energy. For both Higgsed and un-Higgsed cases we find that unlike the $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ background, there exists a two dimensional curve of BPS states, obtained from different orientation of the quarks, whose existence seems to be a characteristic of non spherical horizons theories. However, the interpretation in the field theory side of these states, obtained from strings with relative orientation different from $`0`$ or $`\pi `$, deserves further study.

Acknowledgements

It is a pleasure to thank E. Gava, K. Narain and K. Ray for useful discussions, and J. Maldacena for comments. This research is partly supported by the EC contract no. ERBFMRX-CT96-0090.


text:
# References

UCRHEP-T274

April 2000

Three Inequivalent Mass-Degenerate Majorana Neutrinos
and a Model of Their Splitting for Neutrino Oscillations
Rathin Adhikari1, Ernest Ma2, G. Rajasekaran1
1 Institute of Mathematical Sciences, Chennai (Madras) 600113, India
2 Physics Department, Univeristy of California, Riverside, CA 92521, USA

## Abstract

The mass matrix of three Majorana neutrinos of equal mass is not necessarily proportional to the identity matrix, but expressible in terms of two angles and one phase. We discuss how such a mass matrix may be stable or unstable against radiative corrections. We then propose a model with additional explicit breaking of the threefold degeneracy to account for the atmospheric neutrino data, while the radiative breaking explains the solar neutrino data, using the large-angle Mikheyev-Smirnov-Wolfenstein solution. Our model requires a nonzero effective $`\nu _e`$ mass for neutrinoless double beta decay close to the present experimental upper limit of 0.2 eV.

There are now several experimental results favoring neutrino oscillations as their explanation. Since only the differences of the squares of neutrino masses are involved, there has always been a lot of theoretical interest in considering nearly degenerate neutrino masses. The origin of their splitting may in fact be radiative and some simple specific models have been proposed. In the case of 3 Majorana neutrinos, it has been shown that all may be identical in mass and yet are inequivalent to one another because their mass matrix may contain 2 angles and 1 phase which cannot be redefined away. In the following we will discuss the stability of this construction under radiative corrections.

We will then propose a model with additional explicit breaking of the threefold degeneracy to account for the atmospheric neutrino data, while the radiative breaking explains the solar neutrino data, using the large-angle Mikheyev-Smirnov-Wolfenstein (MSW) solution. Our model assumes all 3 neutrino masses to be of order 0.5 eV, to be consistent with their possible role in cosmic structure formation, in the light of recent astrophysical evidence favoring a nonzero cosmological constant. An effective $`\nu _e`$ mass for neutrinoless double beta decay close to the present experimental upper limit of 0.2 eV is also required.

We start out with the most general $`3\times 3`$ unitary matrix linking $`(\nu _e,\nu _\mu ,\nu _\tau )`$ with their mass eigenstates $`(\nu _1,\nu _2,\nu _3)`$, i.e.

$$U=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}c_1c_3& s_1c_3e^{i\delta _1}& s_3e^{i\delta _2}\\ s_1c_2e^{i\delta _1}c_1s_2s_3e^{i(\delta _2+\delta _3)}& c_1c_2s_1s_2s_3e^{i(\delta _3+\delta _2\delta _1)}& s_2c_3e^{i\delta _3}\\ s_1s_2e^{i(\delta _1\delta _3)}c_1c_2s_3e^{i\delta _2}& c_1s_2e^{i\delta _3}s_1c_2s_3e^{i(\delta _2\delta _1)}& c_2c_3\end{array}\right],$$
(1)
which has 3 angles and 3 phases. Let us set $`s_3=0`$ ($`c_3=1`$), $`\delta _1=\pi /2`$, $`\delta _2\delta `$, and $`\delta _3=\pi /2\delta `$, and multiply on the left by the diagonal matrix $`(1,i,e^{i\delta })`$, then

$$U=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}c_1& is_1& 0\\ s_1c_2& ic_1c_2& s_2e^{i\delta }\\ s_1s_2& ic_1s_2& c_2e^{i\delta }\end{array}\right].$$
(2)
Since all neutrino masses are assumed equal, the mass matrix in the $`(\nu _1,\nu _2,\nu _3)`$ basis is just $`m`$ times the identity matrix. However, in the $`(\nu _e,\nu _\mu ,\nu _\tau )`$ basis, it is given by

$$=mU^{}U^{}=m\left[\begin{array}{ccc}c_0& s_0c_2& s_0s_2\\ s_0c_2& c_0c_2^2+s_2^2e^{2i\delta }& s_2c_2(c_0+e^{2i\delta })\\ s_0s_2& s_2c_2(c_0+e^{2i\delta })& c_0s_2^2+c_2^2e^{2i\delta }\end{array}\right],$$
(3)
where $`c_0c_1^2s_1^2`$ and $`s_02s_1c_1`$. As shown in Ref., this mass matrix (which has 2 angles and 1 phase) cannot be reduced further and there is $`CP`$ violation if $`e^{2i\delta }\pm 1`$. Another way to see this is to realize that $`U`$ of Eq. (2) cannot be written in the form $`U=DO`$, where $`D`$ is a diagonal matrix containing phases and $`O`$ is an orthogonal matrix.

Even though $`U`$ of Eq. (2) is nontrivial, the absence of any mass differences among the 3 neutrinos will not result in oscillations. However, in the presence of radiative corrections from the charged leptons, neutrino mass differences will occur. It is easiest to do this in the $`(\nu _1,\nu _2,\nu _3)`$ basis. Without radiative corrections, this mass matrix is just $`m`$ times the identity matrix. With radiative corrections coming from the wavefunction renormalization of $`\nu _\tau `$ due to $`m_\tau `$, we find

$`^{}`$ $`=`$ $`mU^T\left[\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 1+ϵ\end{array}\right]U^{}U^{}\left[\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 1+ϵ\end{array}\right]U`$ (10)
$`=`$ $`m\left[\begin{array}{ccc}1+2s_1^2s_2^2ϵ& 0& 2c_\delta s_1s_2c_2ϵ\\ 0& 1+2c_1^2s_2^2ϵ& 2s_\delta c_1s_2c_2ϵ\\ 2c_\delta s_1s_2c_2ϵ& 2s_\delta c_1s_2c_2ϵ& 1+2c_2^2ϵ\end{array}\right],`$ (14)
where

$$ϵ=\frac{G_Fm_\tau ^2}{16\pi ^2\sqrt{2}}\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{m_W^2},$$
(15)
with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ equal to the scale at which the degenerate mass matrix is defined.

The characteristic polynomial equation of $`^{}/m`$ is given by

$$x^3x^2+x[s_2^2c_2^2(1c_\delta ^2s_1^2s_\delta ^2c_1^2)+s_1^2c_1^2s_2^4]=0,$$
(16)
where $`x=(\lambda 1)/2ϵ`$. Hence one eigenvalue $`\lambda `$ is 1 and it corresponds to the eigenstate

$$\nu ^{}=N^{1/2}[c_\delta c_1c_2\nu _1s_\delta s_1c_2\nu _2s_1c_1s_2\nu _3]=N^{1/2}[c_2(c_\delta c_1^2is_\delta s_1^2)\nu _es_1c_1e^{i\delta }\nu _\mu ],$$
(17)
where $`N=c_\delta ^2c_1^2c_2^2+s_\delta ^2s_1^2c_2^2+s_1^2c_1^2s_2^2`$. This shows that the original pattern of 2 mixing angles and 1 phase is generally unstable and no matter what values they take, a mass eigenstate exists without $`\nu _\tau `$ as given above. For $`^{}`$ to be stable, the off-diagonal elements must go to zero, but since they depend on the original 2 angles and 1 phase, the condition of stability imposes severe constraints on their values.

To understand the atmospheric neutrino data in terms of oscillations, we need $`s_2^2c_2^20.5`$, hence the requirement of stability forces $`s_1`$ (as well as $`s_\delta `$) to be small, which implies $`\nu ^{}\nu _1\nu _e`$. This means that we must take the small-angle MSW solution for the solar neutrino data. However from Eq. (6), it can be shown that the mass eigenvalues of the other 2 states are both smaller than 1 because $`ϵ`$ of Eq. (5) is negative. Thus there cannot be any resonance enhancement of oscillations from $`\nu _e`$ interactions in the sun and this scheme does not work.

We now propose to break the threefold degeneracy also explicitly by a mass term

$$m^{}(s^{}\nu _2+c^{}\nu _3)^2,$$
(18)
where $`m^{}`$ is chosen such that $`(m+m^{})^2m^2`$ is of order $`10^3`$ eV2 to be suitable for atmospheric neutrino oscillations. Then the $`2\times 2`$ mass submatrix spanning $`\nu _1`$ and $`c^{}\nu _2s^{}\nu _3`$ is given by

$$^{\prime \prime }=m\left[\begin{array}{cc}1+2s_1^2s_2^2ϵ& 2s^{}c_\delta s_1s_2c_2ϵ\\ 2s^{}c_\delta s_1s_2c_2ϵ& 1+2(c^2c_1^2s_2^2+s^2c_2^2+2s_\delta s^{}c^{}c_1s_2c_2)ϵ\end{array}\right].$$
(19)
Consider the simplified case of $`s_\delta =1`$ ($`c_\delta =0`$), then $`^{\prime \prime }`$ is diagonal. Hence $`\nu _1`$ and $`c^{}\nu _2s^{}\nu _3`$ are eigenstates with eigenvalues

$$m_1=m(1+2s_1^2s_2^2ϵ),m_2=m[1+2(c^2s_2^2c_1^2+s^2c_2^22s^{}c^{}s_2c_2c_1)ϵ]$$
(20)
respectively. We choose the convention that $`c_1^2>1/2`$, so that $`\nu _1`$ is mostly $`\nu _e`$. Therefore, the requirement $`m_1<m_2`$ means

$$s_1^2s_2^2>c^2s_2^2c_1^2+s^2c_2^22s^{}c^{}s_2c_2c_1=(c^{}s_2c_1s^{}c_2)^2,$$
(21)
resulting in the following condition on $`c_1`$:

$$\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}<c_1<\frac{s^{}c^{}c_2+\sqrt{2s_2^2s^2}}{s_2(1+c^2)}.$$
(22)
Note that $`s^{}=0`$ is not a solution.

With the new set of mass eigenstates, the transformation matrix $`U`$ of Eq. (2) becomes

$$U_{\alpha i}=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}c_1& ic^{}s_1& is^{}s_1\\ s_1c_2& i(c^{}c_1c_2+s^{}s_2)& i(s^{}c_1c_2c^{}s_2)\\ s_1s_2& i(c^{}c_1s_2s^{}c_2)& i(s^{}c_1s_2+c^{}c_2)\end{array}\right].$$
(23)
Using the well-known expressions for the probabilities of neutrino oscillations, we find in the atmospheric case,

$`P_{\mu \mu }`$ $`=`$ $`12|U_{\mu 3}|^2(1|U_{\mu 3}|^2)(1\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Delta }m^2L/2E))`$ (24)
$`P_{ee}`$ $`=`$ $`12|U_{e3}|^2(1|U_{e3}|^2)(1\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Delta }m^2L/2E))`$ (25)
$`P_{\mu e}`$ $`=`$ $`P_{e\mu }=2|U_{e3}|^2|U_{\mu 3}|^2(1\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Delta }m^2L/2E)),`$ (26)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2=(m+m^{})^2m^2`$. In the solar case,

$$P_{ee}=12|U_{e3}|^2(1|U_{e3}|^2)2|U_{e1}|^2|U_{e2}|^2(1\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Delta }^{}m^2L/2E)),$$
(27)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}m^2=m_2^2m_1^2`$. Consider again the small-angle MSW solution of the solar neutrino data. This requires $`c_11`$, but then Eq. (11) implies that $`(c^{}s_2s^{}c_2)^2|U_{\mu 3}|^2`$ has to be very small, which is disallowed by the atmospheric neutrino data. Note especially that this restriction is independent of the value of $`m`$. Hence only the large-angle MSW solution will be considered from now on.

We allow $`ϵ`$ of Eq. (5) to be divided by $`\mathrm{cos}^2\beta `$, where $`\mathrm{tan}\beta v_2/v_1`$ in a two-Higgs doublet model. We then fix

$`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}m^2=m_2^2m_1^2{\displaystyle \frac{4m^2G_Fm_\tau ^2}{16\pi ^2\sqrt{2}\mathrm{cos}^2\beta }}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{m_W^2}}\left[s_1^2s_2^2(c^{}s_2c_1s^{}c_2)^2\right]`$ (28)
to be equal to $`10^5`$ eV2 to fit the solar data. This is necessary because we will set $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=10^{14}`$ GeV and choose $`m`$ to be 0.5 eV or less which then require $`\mathrm{cos}^2\beta <1`$ to obtain the desired value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}m^2`$. From the CHOOZ reactor data, we require

$$|U_{e3}|^2<0.025.$$
(29)
From the atmospheric neutrino data, we require

$$0.84<4|U_{\mu 3}|^2(1|U_{\mu 3}|^2)=\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{atm}<1.$$
(30)
From the large-angle MSW solution to the solar neutrino data, we require

$$0.7<4|U_{e1}|^2|U_{e2}|^2=\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{sol}<0.9.$$
(31)
From neutrinoless double beta decay, we require

$$m_{ee}=mc_0=m(c_1^2s_1^2)<0.2\mathrm{eV}.$$
(32)
We then choose $`m`$ = 0.5 eV, and scan the parameter space of $`s^{}`$, $`s_1`$, and $`s_2`$ for solutions. We find the following allowed ranges of values (each obtained with the others free):

$$0.16<s^{}<0.29,0.55<s_1<0.64,0.66<s_2<0.84.$$
(33)
In Table 1 we show some typical solutions. It is clear that the effective neutrino mass $`m_{ee}`$ for neutrinoless double beta decay is not far below its current experimental upper limit of 0.2 eV and is accessible to the next generation of such experiments. We note also that Eq. (18) depends only on the ratio $`m/\mathrm{cos}\beta `$. Hence if we decrease $`m`$, then the same set of values for $`s^{}`$, $`s_1`$, and $`s_2`$ is a solution if we also decrease $`\mathrm{cos}\beta `$ by the same factor. Of course, $`m_{ee}`$ is also reduced, but if $`m`$ plays a role in cosmic structure formation, then $`m_{ee}`$ cannot be an order of magnitude smaller than 0.1 eV.

In the above, we have chosen $`s_\delta =1`$ in Eq. (9). This allows Eq. (11) to be satisfied with the widest range of parameter values. For a general $`s_\delta `$, Eq. (11) is replaced by

$$s_1^2s_2^2>c^2s_2^2c_1^2+s^2c_2^2+2s_\delta s^{}c^{}s_2c_2c_1=(c^{}s_2c_1s^{}c_2)^2+2(1+s_\delta )s^{}c^{}s_2c_2c_1,$$
(34)
which is clearly more restrictive.

In conclusion, we have shown in this paper how three inequivalent mass-degenerate Majorana neutrinos are unstable against radiative corrections due to $`m_\tau `$. However, if we add an explicit mass term which breaks this threefold degeneracy to account for the atmospheric neutrino data, the remaining radiative splitting is able to account for the solar data, but only with the large-angle MSW solution, resulting in an effective neutrino mass for neutrinoless double beta decay close to the present experimental upper limit of 0.2 eV.

The research of E.M. was supported in part by the U. S. Department of Energy under Grant No. DE-FG03-94ER40837.