text:
# Harmonic Hopf Constructions between spheres II

## 1. Introduction and the main result

This paper can be seen as the final remark of the previous paper written by the first author \[D\]. We consider the existence of harmonic maps between two spheres, via Hopf constructions. Given a non trivial bi-eigenmap f : $`S^p\times S^qS^n`$ with bi-eigenvalue ($`\lambda ,\mu `$) ($`\lambda ,\mu >0`$) and a continuous function $`\alpha `$ : \[ 0, $`\frac{\pi }{2}`$ \]$``$ \[ 0, $`\pi `$ \] with $`\alpha (0)=0`$ , $`\alpha (\frac{\pi }{2})`$ = $`\pi `$ , one defines a map u: $`S^{p+q+1}S^{n+1}`$ , called the $`\alpha `$-Hopf construction on f, by

$$u(\mathrm{sin}tx,\mathrm{cos}ty)=(\mathrm{sin}\alpha (t)f(x,y),\mathrm{cos}\alpha (t)),$$

where $`xS^p,yS^q`$ and $`t[0,\frac{\pi }{2}].`$ It is known \[ER\] that u is a harmonic map if and only if $`\alpha `$ is a solution of the o.d.e.

(1.1)
$$\ddot{\alpha }+(p\mathrm{cot}tq\mathrm{tan}t)\dot{\alpha }(\frac{\lambda }{\mathrm{sin}^2t}+\frac{\mu }{\mathrm{cos}^2t})\mathrm{sin}\alpha \mathrm{cos}\alpha =0$$

with the boundary value condition

(1.2)
$$\underset{t0^+}{lim}\alpha (t)=0,\underset{t\frac{\pi }{2}0}{lim}\alpha (t)=\pi $$

Ding \[D\] proves that , if p22 and q22 , then (1.1)-(1.2) has a solution .In the case that p=q=1 , Eells-Ratto \[ER\] prove that a (1.1)-(1.2) is solvable if and only if $`\lambda =\mu `$. In this paper ,we consider the remaining case , i.e. p=1 and $`q2`$. In this case , it is proved in \[ER\] that , a necessary condition for (1.1)-(1.2) to be solvable is that $`q\lambda <\mu `$. Ding(\[D\] Remark 1.2) conjectured that, it is also a sufficient condition. In this paper, we prove the conjecture.

###### Theorem 1.1.

If p=1, $`q>1,\lambda 1`$ and $`\mu >\lambda q`$, then the prob.(1.1)-(1.2) has a solution $`\alpha `$ with $`0<\alpha (t)<\pi `$ for $`t(0,\frac{\pi }{2})`$.

Some applications
An immediate consequence of Thoerem 1.1 is that it can provide non-contractible harmonic maps between spheres. For example, $`\varphi =e^{i\lambda \theta }`$ is an eigenmap with eigenvalue $`\lambda ^2`$ and if $`\psi :S^qS^{2m1}`$ is another eigenmap with eigenvalue $`\mu `$, then the map $`F=\varphi \psi :S^1\times S^qS^{2m1}^m`$ is a bi-eigenmap with bi-eigenvalue $`(\lambda ^2,\mu )`$. If $`\mu >\lambda ^2q`$, then there exists a harmonic map from $`S^{q+2}`$ to $`S^{2m}`$.
Using orthogonal multiplication and Hopf constructions in the following way, we can obtain more information about the homotopy groups of spheres, which is based on Theorem 1.1. An orthogonal multiplication is a bilinear map $`f:^k\times ^l^n`$ such that

$$|f(x,y)|=|x||y|,x^k,y^l.$$

A Hopf construction on $`f`$ is a map

$$F_f:^k\times ^l^{n+1}$$

which sends $`(x,y)`$ to $`(2f(x,y),|x|^2|y|^2)`$.
Its restriction induces a map

$$\psi :S^{k+l1}S^n$$

If $`k=l=\frac{q}{2}`$, then $`\psi `$ is an eigenmap with eigenvalue $`\mu =2q`$.
Choosing $`\varphi =e^{i\theta }`$, then it is an eigenmap from $`S^1`$ to $`S^1`$ with eigenvalue $`1`$. Let $`g:^2\times ^{n+1}^{m+1}`$ be an orthogonal multiplication. Then the composition map $`g(\varphi ,\psi ):S^1\times S^{q1}S^m`$ is a bi-eigenmap with bi-eigenvalue $`(1,\mu )`$. Then the Hopf construction $`[F_{g(\varphi ,\psi )}]`$ is an nontrivial element in $`\pi _{q+1}(S^{m+1})`$. By Theorem 1.1, we have
Corollary 1.2 If there exist orthogonal multiplications $`f`$ and $`g`$, then $`q>2`$, the homotopy class $`[F_{g(\varphi ,\psi )}]\pi _{q+1}(S^{m+1})`$ has a harmonic representative.
Now the complex multiplication gives the Hopf’s fibration $`\psi _1:S^3S^2`$, with the above $`q=4,\mu =8`$. The quaternion multiplication gives the eigenmap $`\psi _2:S^7S^4`$ with $`q=8`$ and $`\mu =16`$. Also from octonion multiplication we get the eigenmap $`\psi _3:S^{15}S^8`$ with $`q=16`$ and $`\mu =32`$. It is known (see \[ER\]) that there exist orthogonal multiplications $`g_1:^2\times ^3^4,g_2:^2\times ^5^6`$ and $`g_3:^2\times ^9^{10}`$. Therefore, according to Corollary 1.2 $`[F_{g_1(\varphi ,\psi _1)}]\pi _5(S^4),[F_{g_2(\varphi ,\psi _2)}]\pi _9(S^6)`$ and $`[F_{g_3(\varphi ,\psi _3)}]\pi _{17}(S^{10})`$ are non trivial classes and have harmonic representatives respectively.
In the following sections, we will focus on the proof of Theorm 1.1.
Recall that (\[D\]) for each $`s(0,\frac{\pi }{2})`$. There exists a unique $`\beta _s`$ which is the minimizer of the functional

$$J_s(\alpha )=_0^s(\dot{\alpha }^2+Q\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha )f𝑑t$$

over the Hilbert space

$$X_s=\{\alpha H_{\mathrm{loc}}^1(0,s):_0^s(\dot{\alpha }^2+\alpha ^2)f𝑑t<\mathrm{}\mathrm{and}\alpha (s)=\frac{\pi }{2}\}.$$

Here

$$Q(t)=\frac{\lambda }{\mathrm{sin}^2t}+\frac{\mu }{\mathrm{cos}^2t},f(t)=\mathrm{sin}t\mathrm{cos}^qt.$$

Since $`\beta _s`$ is the minimizer of $`J_s`$, it satisfies (1.1) in $`(0,s)`$. Moreover, $`\beta _s(t)0`$ as $`t0`$ if and only if $`J_s(\beta _s)<J_s(\frac{\pi }{2})`$. In the present case, we always have $`J_s(\frac{\pi }{2})=+\mathrm{}`$, it follows that

(1.3)
$$\underset{t0}{lim}\beta _s(t)=0.$$

Similarly, we may define

$$J_s^{}(\alpha )=_s^{\frac{\pi }{2}}(\dot{\alpha }^2+Q\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha )f𝑑t$$

over the Hilbert space

$$X_s^{}=\{\alpha H_{\mathrm{loc}}^1(s,\frac{\pi }{2}):_s^{\frac{\pi }{2}}(\dot{\alpha }^2+\alpha ^2)f𝑑t<\mathrm{}\mathrm{and}\alpha (s)=\frac{\pi }{2}\}.$$

¿From \[D\], we know that there exists a unique $`\beta _s^{}X_s^{}`$ which is the minimizer of $`J_s^{}`$, satisfies (1.1) in $`(s,\frac{\pi }{2})`$ and $`\beta _s^{}`$ satisfies

(1.4)
$$\underset{t\frac{\pi }{2}}{lim}\beta _s^{}(t)=\pi $$

if and only if

$$J_s^{}(\beta _s^{})=\underset{X_s^{}}{inf}J_s^{}:=c_s^{}<J_s^{}(\frac{\pi }{2}).$$

Since one can easily show that $`c_s^{}`$ is uniformly bounded (by using test functions) for $`s(0,\frac{\pi }{2})`$, while $`J_s^{}(\frac{\pi }{2})+\mathrm{}`$ as $`s0`$, we see that 1.4 holds true for $`s>0`$ small. Now we define

$$\alpha _s(t)=\{\begin{array}{cccc}\beta _s(t)& \mathrm{if}t(0,s]\hfill & & \\ \beta _s^{}(t)& \mathrm{if}t(s,\frac{\pi }{2}).\hfill & & \end{array}$$

It is known (\[D\]) that $`\alpha _s:(0,\frac{\pi }{2})X`$ is a continuous curve in the space

$$X=\{\alpha H_{\mathrm{loc}}^1(0,\frac{\pi }{2}):_0^{\frac{\pi }{2}}(\dot{\alpha }^2+\alpha ^2)f𝑑t<\mathrm{}\}.$$

Moreover, there exists a constant $`C>0`$ such that

(1.5)
$$J_s(\alpha _s)C\mathrm{for}s(0,\frac{\pi }{2}).$$

Note that $`\alpha _s(t)`$ satisfies (1.1) in $`(0,s)(s,\frac{\pi }{2})`$, hence it is smooth there. However, the first derivative $`\dot{\alpha }_s(t)`$ may have a jump at $`t=s`$, i.e. in general

$$\dot{\alpha }_s(s0)\dot{\alpha }_s(s+0).$$

By the fact that $`\alpha _s`$ is continuous in $`X`$ and it satisfies (1.1) in $`(0,s)(s,\frac{\pi }{2})`$, one can show that both $`\dot{\alpha }_s(s0)`$ and $`\dot{\alpha }_s(s+0)`$ are continuous in $`(0,\frac{\pi }{2})`$. So we may define a continuous function

$$l(s):=\dot{\alpha }_s(s+0)\dot{\alpha }_s(s0).$$

It is clear that $`\alpha _s`$ is a solution to (1.1)-(1.2) if and only if $`l(s)=0`$.

We notice that the arguments in \[G\] imply $`l(s)<0`$ for $`s(0,\frac{\pi }{2})`$ with $`\frac{\pi }{2}s`$ small enough. Therefore Theorem 1.1 is a consequence of the following Proposition.

###### Proposition 1.2.

Under the assumptions of Theorem 1.1, we have

$$l(s)<0$$

for $`s`$ sufficiently small.

The remaining part of this paper will be devoted to the proof of the Proposition.

## 2. Blow-up analysis

We set

$$\gamma _s(t):=\alpha _s(st)t(0,\frac{\pi }{s}).$$

It is clear that

$$\gamma _s(1)=\frac{\pi }{2}\dot{\gamma }_s=s\dot{\alpha }_s,\mathrm{and}\ddot{\gamma }_s=s^2\ddot{\alpha }_s.$$

By the equation (1.1), we have

(2.1)
$$\ddot{\gamma }_s+s(\mathrm{cot}(st)q\mathrm{tan}(st))\dot{\gamma }_ss^2(\frac{\lambda }{\mathrm{sin}^2(st)}+\frac{\mu }{\mathrm{cos}^2(st)})\mathrm{sin}\gamma _s\mathrm{cos}\gamma _s=0$$

in $`(0,1)(1,\frac{\pi }{s})`$. It is clear that

$$s(\mathrm{cot}(st)q\mathrm{tan}(st))\frac{1}{t},$$

$$s^2(\frac{\lambda }{\mathrm{sin}^2(st)}+\frac{\mu }{\mathrm{cos}^2(st)})\frac{\lambda }{t^2},$$

as $`s0`$.

Given $`ϵ>0`$ small, there is $`\delta =\delta (ϵ)>0`$ such that, if $`s<\delta `$ the equation (2.1) is well defined in $`(ϵ,ϵ^1)`$ with uniformly bounded coefficients and uniformly bounded nonlinearity. Therefore, by elliptic estimates up to boundary (Noting that $`\gamma _s`$ satisfies the boundary conditions $`\gamma _s(ϵ)(0,\frac{\pi }{2})`$, $`\gamma _s(1)=\frac{\pi }{2}`$, and $`\gamma _s(\frac{1}{ϵ})(\frac{\pi }{2},\pi )`$.), we may get the estimates

$$\gamma _s_{C^k([ϵ,1])}C(k,ϵ),$$

and

$$\gamma _s_{C^k([1,ϵ^1])}C(k,ϵ).$$

It follows that there exists a sequence $`s_i0`$ such that $`\gamma _{s_i}\varphi `$ in $`C^2([ϵ,1])`$ and $`C^2([1,ϵ^1])`$, where $`\varphi `$ is $`C^2`$ on $`[ϵ,1]`$ and $`[1,ϵ^1]`$, continuous on $`[ϵ,ϵ^1]`$, and satisfies the limit equation

(2.2)
$$\ddot{\varphi }+\frac{1}{t}\dot{\varphi }\frac{\lambda }{t^2}\mathrm{sin}\varphi \mathrm{cos}\varphi =0$$

in $`(ϵ,1)(1,ϵ^1)`$ with $`\varphi (1)=\frac{\pi }{2}`$.

Using a diagonal subsequence argument, we may deduce the existence of a sequence $`s_i0`$ such that $`\gamma _{s_i}\varphi `$ in $`C^2([ϵ,1])`$ and $`C^2([1,ϵ^1])`$ for any $`ϵ>0`$, where $`\varphi `$ satisfies (2.2) in $`(0,1)(1,\mathrm{})`$ with $`\varphi (1)=\frac{\pi }{2}`$.

Consider the function $`\varphi `$ on $`[0,1]`$, we have

$$C_0^sfQ\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha _sdt=_0^1sf(st)Q(st)\mathrm{sin}^2\gamma _sdt.$$

Since the integrand of the last integral converges point wise to $`\frac{\lambda }{t}\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi `$, by Fatou’s lemma we have

$$_0^1\frac{\lambda }{t}\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi dtC.$$

It follows that $`\varphi \frac{\pi }{2}`$. The analysis in \[D\] then shows that $`\varphi `$ is the unique solution of the problem

$$\{\begin{array}{cccc}\ddot{\varphi }+\frac{1}{t}\dot{\varphi }\frac{\lambda }{t^2}\mathrm{sin}\varphi \mathrm{cos}\varphi =0& & & \\ \varphi (0+)=0,\varphi (1)=\frac{\pi }{2}.& & & \end{array}$$

This problem is explicitly solvable, and we get

(2.3)
$$\varphi (t)=\mathrm{arccos}(\frac{1t^a}{1+t^a})$$

where $`a=2\sqrt{\lambda }`$. One can similarly show that on $`[1,\mathrm{})`$, (2.3) is also the right expression for $`\varphi `$.

It is useful to note that $`\varphi `$ is a special solution of the problem

(2.4)
$$\{\begin{array}{cccc}\ddot{\varphi }+\frac{1}{t}\dot{\varphi }\frac{\lambda }{t^2}\mathrm{sin}\varphi \mathrm{cos}\varphi =0t(0,\mathrm{})& & & \\ \varphi (0+)=0,\varphi (\mathrm{})=\pi .& & & \end{array}$$

All solutions of (2.4) are given by

$$\varphi _s(t)=\mathrm{arccos}(\frac{s^at^a}{s^a+t^a}),s(0,\mathrm{}).$$

## 3. Comparison

For comparison purposes we need to introduce a family of functions which are solutions to the equation

(3.1)
$$\{\begin{array}{cccc}& \ddot{\psi }+\mathrm{cot}t\dot{\psi }\frac{\lambda }{\mathrm{sin}^2t\mathrm{cos}^2t}\mathrm{sin}\psi \mathrm{cos}\psi =0\mathrm{in}(0,\frac{\pi }{2})\hfill & & \\ & \psi (0)=0,\psi (\frac{\pi }{2})=\pi .\hfill & & \end{array}$$

The solution can be explicitly given by

(3.2)
$$\psi _s(t)=2\mathrm{arctan}(\mathrm{cot}^{\frac{a}{2}}s\mathrm{tan}^{\frac{a}{2}t}),s(0,\frac{\pi }{2})$$

where, as before, $`a=2\sqrt{\lambda }`$.

###### Lemma 3.1.

Let $`s(0,\frac{\pi }{2})`$ and $`\psi `$ be the solution of (3.1). Assume that for some $`t_0>s`$, $`\alpha _s(t_0)>\psi (t_0)>\mathrm{max}\{\theta ,\frac{3\pi }{4}\}`$. Then $`\alpha _s(t)\psi (t)`$, for all $`t(t_0,\frac{\pi }{2})`$. Here

$$\theta =\mathrm{arccos}(\frac{\lambda (q1)}{\mu \lambda })(\frac{\pi }{2},\pi ).$$

Proof. It will be convenient to write the equation (1.1) as

(3.3)
$$(f\dot{\alpha })\dot{}fQ\mathrm{sin}\alpha \mathrm{cos}\alpha =0.$$

We first show that, under the assumptions of the lemma, $`\psi `$ satisfies

(3.4)
$$(f\dot{\psi })\dot{}fQ\mathrm{sin}\psi \mathrm{cos}\psi >0\mathrm{in}(t_0,\frac{\pi }{2}).$$

Note that $`\psi `$ as given in (3.2) satisfies

(3.5)
$$\dot{\psi }=\frac{\sqrt{\lambda }\mathrm{sin}\psi }{\mathrm{sin}t\mathrm{cos}t}.$$

Using this we have

$`(f\dot{\psi })\dot{}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{\lambda }(\mathrm{cos}^{q1}t\mathrm{sin}\psi )\dot{}`$
$`=`$ $`\lambda \mathrm{sin}^1t\mathrm{cos}^{q2}t\mathrm{sin}\psi \mathrm{cos}\psi \lambda (q1)\mathrm{sin}t\mathrm{cos}^{q2}t\mathrm{sin}\psi .`$
Then it is easy to derive that

$$(f\dot{\psi })\dot{}fQ\mathrm{sin}\psi \mathrm{cos}\psi =\mathrm{sin}t\mathrm{cos}^{q2}t((\lambda \mu )\mathrm{cos}\psi \lambda (q1))\mathrm{sin}\psi .$$

¿From (3.5) we see that

$$\psi (t)>\psi (t_0)>\theta \mathrm{for}t(t_0,\frac{\pi }{2}).$$

Hence

$$\mathrm{cos}\psi >\frac{\lambda (q1)}{\mu \lambda }.$$

It is then clear that (3.4) holds true.

Then, we consider the function $`u=\alpha _s\psi `$. We have

$$u(t_0)>0\mathrm{and}\underset{t\frac{\pi }{2}}{lim}u(t)=0.$$

If the lemma is false, we can find $`t_1(t_0,\frac{\pi }{2})`$ where $`u`$ achieves a negative local minimum, i.e.

$$u(t_1)<0,\dot{u}(t_1)=0,\mathrm{and}\ddot{u}(t_1)0.$$

However, using (3.3) and (3.4), we get, at $`t=t_1`$,

$`f(t_1)\ddot{u}(t_1)`$ $`<`$ $`f(t_1)Q(t_1)\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}2\alpha _s\mathrm{sin}2\psi }{2\alpha _s2\psi }}\right)u(t_1)`$
$`=`$ $`f(t_1)Q(t_1)\mathrm{cos}\xi u(t_1)`$
where $`\xi =2(r\alpha _s(t_1)+(1r)\psi (t_1))`$ for some $`r(0,1)`$. Since $`\alpha _s(t_1),\psi (t_1)(\frac{3\pi }{4},\pi )`$, we see that $`\xi (\frac{3\pi }{2},2\pi )`$. So, $`\mathrm{cos}\xi >0`$ and we arrive at $`\ddot{u}(t_1)<0`$, a contradiction! This proves the lemma. Q.E.D.

## 4. Proof of the proposition

Consider the function $`\alpha _s`$ which satisfies (3.3) in $`(0,s)(s,\frac{\pi }{2})`$. Multiplying the equation (3.3) by $`f\dot{\alpha }_s`$ and integrating over $`(0,s)`$ and $`(s,\frac{\pi }{2})`$ respectively we get

$$f^2(s)\dot{\alpha }_s^2(s0)=_0^sf^2Q\frac{}{t}(\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha _s)𝑑t$$

$$f^2(s)\dot{\alpha }_s^2(s+0)=_s^{\frac{\pi }{2}}f^2Q\frac{}{t}(\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha _s)𝑑t.$$

By integration by parts, we obtain

$$f(s)(\dot{\alpha }_s^2(s+0)\dot{\alpha }_s^2(s0))=_0^{\frac{\pi }{2}}(f^2Q)^{}\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha _sdt.$$

Since we \[D\] have $`\dot{\alpha }_s(s+0)>0`$ and $`\dot{\alpha }_s(s0)>0`$, we can see that $`l(s)=\dot{\alpha }_s(s+0)\dot{\alpha }_s(s0)>0`$, if and only if the integral on the right hand side of the last identity is positive. Denote this integral by $`I_s`$, then we have

$`I_s`$ $`=`$ $`2(\mu \lambda q){\displaystyle _0^{\frac{\pi }{2}}}\mathrm{sin}t\mathrm{cos}^{2q1}t\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha _sdt2\mu (q1){\displaystyle _0^{\frac{\pi }{2}}}\mathrm{sin}^3t\mathrm{cos}^{2q3}t\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha _sdt`$
$`:=`$ $`2(\mu \lambda q)I_s^12\mu (q1)I_s^2.`$
To estimate $`I_s^1`$, we let $`\gamma _s(t)=\alpha _s(st)`$ and have

$`I_s^1`$ $`=`$ $`s{\displaystyle _0^{\frac{\pi }{2s}}}\mathrm{sin}st\mathrm{cos}^{2q1}st\mathrm{sin}^2\gamma _sdt`$
$`=`$ $`s^2{\displaystyle _0^{\frac{\pi }{2s}}}(s^1\mathrm{sin}st)\mathrm{cos}^{2q1}st\mathrm{sin}^2\gamma _sdt`$
Note that the integrand of the last integral converges point wise to the function $`t\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi (t)`$ as $`s0`$, where $`\varphi `$ is given by (2.3). By Fatou’s lemma, we have

$$\underset{s0}{lim\; inf}s^2I_s^1_0^{\mathrm{}}t\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi (t)𝑑t=_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{4t^{a+1}}{(1+t^a)^2}𝑑t,$$

where $`a=2\sqrt{\lambda }1`$. It follows that if $`\lambda >1`$,

(4.1)
$$I_s^1A(\lambda )s^2\mathrm{for}s\mathrm{sufficiently}\mathrm{small}\mathrm{where}A(\lambda )>0,$$

and if $`\lambda =1`$,

(4.2)
$$I_s^1B(s)s^2\mathrm{where}B(s)\mathrm{}\mathrm{as}s0.$$

To estimate $`I_s^2`$, we need use the comparison lemma. First, fix an arbitrary large number $`R>0`$, we have

$$\alpha _s(sR)=\gamma _s(R)\varphi (R)=\mathrm{arccos}(\frac{1R^a}{1+R^a})\mathrm{as}s0,$$

i.e.

(4.3)
$$\mathrm{cos}\alpha _s(sR)1+\frac{2}{1+R^a}.$$

Next, let $`d>1`$, we consider a solution of (3.1) as in (3.2),

$$\psi _{ds}(t)=2\mathrm{arctan}(\mathrm{cot}^{\frac{a}{2}}ds\mathrm{tan}^{\frac{a}{2}}t).$$

By a straightforward computation, we get

$$\mathrm{cos}\psi _{ds}(Rs)=1+\frac{2\mathrm{tan}^a(ds)}{\mathrm{tan}^a(ds)+\mathrm{tan}^a(Rs)}.$$

Using the fact that

$$\mathrm{tan}t=t+O(t^2)\mathrm{near}t=0,$$

we get

(4.4)
$$\mathrm{cos}\psi _{ds}(Rs)=1+\frac{2}{1+(R/d)^a}+O(R^2s^2).$$

¿From (4.3 and (4.4), we can see that, if we choose $`R`$ large enough, $`s`$ small enough,

$$\alpha _s(Rs)>\psi _{ds}(Rs)\pi ϵ,$$

where $`ϵ>0`$ can be chosen as small as we need. By the comparison lemma, for $`t(Rs,\frac{\pi }{2})`$,

$$\alpha _s(Rs)\psi _{ds}(t),$$

and consequently,

$$\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha _s(t)\mathrm{sin}^2\psi _{ds}(t).$$

For simplicity, set $`ϵ=\mathrm{tan}(ds)`$. We have

$$\mathrm{sin}^2\psi _{ds}=\frac{4ϵ^a\mathrm{tan}^at}{ϵ^a+\mathrm{tan}^a}.$$

Then,

$`A_s`$ $`:=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{Rs}^{\frac{\pi }{2}}}\mathrm{sin}^3t\mathrm{cos}^{2q3}t\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha _sdt`$
$``$ $`4ϵ^a{\displaystyle _{Rs}^{\frac{\pi }{2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{tan}t}{ϵ^a+\mathrm{tan}^at}}\mathrm{sin}^3t\mathrm{cos}^{2q3}tdt`$
$`:=`$ $`4ϵ^aJ.`$
Making the transformation $`u=\mathrm{tan}t`$, we get

$$J=_{\mathrm{tan}(Rs)}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{u^{a+3}du}{(ϵ^a+u^a)^2(1+u^2)^{\frac{b+5}{2}}},$$

where $`b=2q3>1`$.

$`J`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{tan}(Rs)}^1}{\displaystyle \frac{u^{a+3}du}{(ϵ^a+u^a)^2}}+{\displaystyle _1^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{du}{u^{a+b+2}}}`$
$`:=J_1+J_2.`$
Since $`a+b+2>3`$, we have $`J_2<\mathrm{}`$. Letting $`u=ϵx`$ in $`J_1`$, we get

$$J_1=_{\mathrm{tan}(Rs)/ϵ}^{1/ϵ}\frac{ϵ^{4a}x^{a+3}dx}{(1+x^a)^2}ϵ^{4a}_{\mathrm{tan}(Rs)/ϵ}^{1/ϵ}x^{3a}𝑑x.$$

Noting that $`ϵ=\mathrm{tan}(ds)`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}(Rs)/ϵ=R/d+O(R^2s^2)`$, we see that

$`J_1`$ $``$ $`Cϵ^{4a}/R^{a2}\mathrm{if}a>2,`$
$`J_1`$ $``$ $`Cϵ^{4a}|\mathrm{log}\mathrm{tan}(Rs)|\mathrm{if}a=2.`$
Thus,

$$A_s=_{Rs}^{\frac{\pi }{2}}\mathrm{sin}^3t\mathrm{cos}^{2q3}t\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha _sdtC_1ϵ^a+C_2ϵ^{4\delta },$$

where $`\delta >0`$ can be arbitrarily small. Since $`ϵ=\mathrm{tan}(ds)`$, we can rewrite the estimate as

$$A_s=O(s^a)+O(s^{4\delta }).$$

Finally, we consider

$$B_s=_0^{Rs}\mathrm{sin}^3t\mathrm{cos}^{2q3}t\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha _sdt.$$

It is obvious that, with $`Rs`$ sufficiently small,

$$B_s=\mathrm{tan}^2(Rs)_0^{Rs}\mathrm{sin}t\mathrm{cos}^{2q1}t\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha _sdt=o(1)I_s^1.$$

Therefore,

(4.5)
$$I_s^2=o(1)I_s^1+O(s^{2\sqrt{\lambda }})+O(s^{4\delta }).$$

Combining (4.5) with (4.1) and (4.2), we obtain,

$$I_s=2(\mu \lambda q)I_s^12\mu (q1)I_s^2>0$$

for $`s>0`$ sufficiently small. This proves the proposition. Q.E.D.

REFERENCES

W.-Y. Ding, Harmonic Hopf Constructions between spheres, Intern. J. of Math., 5 (1994), 849-860.

J. Eells and A. Ratto, Harmonic maps and minimal immersions with symmetries, Annals of Math. Studies 130, Princeton Univ. Press, 1993.

A. Gastel, Singularities of first kind in the harmonic map and Yang-Mills heat flows, Preprint, 2000


format: text

text:
# Fluctuations in viscous fingering

## Abstract

Our experiments on viscous (Saffman-Taylor) fingering in Hele-Shaw channels reveal finger width fluctuations that were not observed in previous experiments, which had lower aspect ratios and higher capillary numbers Ca. These fluctuations intermittently narrow the finger from its expected width. The magnitude of these fluctuations is described by a power law, $`\mathrm{Ca}^{0.64}`$, which holds for all aspect ratios studied up to the onset of tip instabilities. Further, for large aspect ratios, the mean finger width exhibits a maximum as Ca is decreased instead of the predicted monotonic increase.

When a less viscous fluid displaces a more viscous fluid in a Hele-Shaw channel (a quasi-2D geometry in which the width $`w`$ is much greater than the channel thickness $`b`$), the interface between the fluids forms a pattern of growing “fingers”. A single finger forms at low flow rates; more complex branched patterns evolve at high flow rates. This phenomenon is the prototypical example of moving interface problems, such as dendritic growth and flame propagation, and thus continues to receive attention for the insight it provides into these important problems . The problem was studied first by Saffman and Taylor (1958) , who injected air into oil in a Hele-Shaw cell and observed the formation of a single, steadily moving finger whose width decreased monotonically to $`1/2`$ of the channel width as the finger speed was increased. In subsequent experimental , numerical , and theoretical  work, the ratio of finger width to channel width, $`\lambda `$, was found to depend on a modified capillary number, $`1/B=12(w/b)^2\mathrm{Ca}`$, which combines the aspect ratio, $`w/b`$, and the capillary number, Ca $`=\mu V/\sigma `$, where $`\mu `$ is the dynamic viscosity of the liquid, $`V`$ is the velocity of the tip of the finger, and $`\sigma `$ is the surface tension. For large $`1/B`$ values, a transition to complex patterns of tip-splitting occurs .

Our experiments reveal fluctuations in the width of the evolving viscous fingers that have not been reported in previous experiments  nor predicted theoretically. The fluctuations intermittently narrow the fingers from their expected width and are largest at low Ca, falling off as a power law with increasing Ca. Further, at large aspect ratios, the fluctuations are accompanied by substantial departures from the monotonic dependence of the finger width on $`1/B`$ found previously : for aspect ratios $`w/b250`$, which were not examined in previous work, we find that the mean finger width no longer scales monotonically with $`1/B`$; for smaller aspect ratios, our finger width measurements are in accord with previous results. Because large aspect ratios should more closely approach the ideal of two-dimensional flow, our observations pose a challenge to the assumptions underlying theoretical analyses of viscous fingering.

Experimental Methods. We conducted experiments in a 254 cm long channel formed of 1.9 cm thick glass plates. The spacers between the glass plates were stainless steel strips with thicknesses $`b=0.051`$ cm, 0.064 cm, 0.102 cm or 0.127 cm; the channel width $`w`$ between the spacers was varied between 19.9 cm and 25.1 cm. Both glass plates were supported at the sides so that they sagged similarly under their own weight (though by less than 0.1% of the gap depth). For aspect ratios under 150, we used a smaller channel of length 102 cm and width 7.4 cm. Interferometric measurements revealed that the root-mean-square variations in gap thickness were typically 0.6% or less in the large channel and 0.8% in the small channel. Mechanical measurements of the bending of the glass due to the imposed pressure gradient revealed that such deflections were typically 0.2% or less; the maximum deflection (2.2%) was measured in the widest channel close to the oil reservoir at the highest flow rates. Experiments were conducted with air penetrating a Dow Corning silicone oil whose surface tension and dynamic viscosity was either $`\sigma =19.6`$ dyne/cm, $`\mu =9.21`$ cP or $`\sigma =20.6`$ dyne/cm, $`\mu =50.8`$ cP at laboratory temperature ($`22^{}`$C). The oils wet the glass completely. A uniform flow rate was imposed by withdrawing oil with a syringe pump from a reservoir at one end of the channel; an air reservoir at atmospheric pressure was attached to the other end.

The channel was illuminated from below and images were obtained using a camera and rotating mirror that captured 11 overlapping frames to produce concatenated images of up to $`1200\times 10,000`$ pixels at a resolution of 0.25 mm/pixel. The interfaces were then digitally traced, yielding finger width values accurate to 0.1% in the larger channel and 0.3% in the smaller channel. For each flow rate, up to four time sequences of 20-30 digital interfaces were recorded. Finger widths determined in consecutive sequences agreed within the measurement accuracy. Mean width values agreed within 0.5% for data sets repeated after channel disassembly, cleaning, and reassembly.

For each interface image with a single, well developed

finger, we found the instantaneous finger width by averaging measurements taken in a narrow window that was 5% of the channel width beginning 1.2 channel widths behind the tip. This measurement window was chosen to be small compared to the length scale of the fluctuations (approximately a third of a channel width); the results were not sensitive to the window’s exact location. From each time series of instantaneous widths, we determined the time average $`\lambda `$ and the root-mean-square (rms) fluctuation from the mean $`\delta _\lambda `$. Each data set was analyzed for flow rates up to the point of tip splitting, beyond which the finger width $`\lambda `$ was no longer well defined .

Results. Typical interface image sequences are shown for $`w/b=158`$ and 490 in Fig. 1. For both aspect ratios the finger width $`\lambda `$ fluctuates visibly at low flow velocities (Fig. 1 (a),(c)). In the smaller aspect ratio system the width appears to become steady as the finger velocity is increased (Fig. 1(b)), appearing exactly like the classic “half-width finger” of Saffman and Taylor. However, with sufficient resolution, fluctuations can still be measured for all velocities up to the onset of tip instabilities. In the higher aspect ratio system the width fluctuates visibly for all flow rates (Fig. 1(d)). The onset of tip instabilities in both cases occurs at $`1/B4000`$, similar to values seen in previous experiments .

For all the aspect ratios studied, we find that the rms fluctuation of the finger widths is described by $`\delta _\lambda =A(\mathrm{Ca})`$β with $`A=(1.1\pm 0.3)\times 10^4`$ and $`\beta =0.64\pm 0.04`$, as Fig. 2 illustrates. We also observe that the instantaneous velocity of the finger tip fluctuates from the average velocity; within the experimental uncertainty these velocity fluctuations scale with Ca in the same manner as the width fluctuations. Interestingly, a dependence of the form $`\mathrm{Ca}^{2/3}`$ appears frequently in theories of viscous fingering .

The fluctuations in finger width are accompanied by a substantial deviation from the expected relation between finger width and velocity. Our results for the width of the viscous fingers for high $`w/b`$ are not described by a single curve as a function of $`1/B`$ as predicted , and the differences between data for different aspect ratios are far greater than those reported previously for low $`w/b`$ . Figure 3(a) illustrates this, showing the dependence of the mean finger width $`\lambda `$ on $`1/B`$ for values of $`w/b`$ between 58.4 and 490.

In particular, the mean finger width exhibits a surprising maximum as the tip velocity is decreased for large aspect ratios (Fig. 3(a,b)). The value of $`\lambda `$ at the peak, $`\lambda _{\mathrm{peak}}`$, is plotted vs. $`w/b`$ in the inset of Fig. 3(a).

To further compare our work with past results, we must account for the effects of the film of oil left behind on the plates as the finger advances. To do so, we use a correction to the modified capillary number introduced by Tabeling and Libchaber, $`1/B^{}=(1/B)/\left[\pi /4+1.7\lambda (w/b)(\mathrm{Ca})^{2/3}\right]`$ . Using this correction, they obtained agreement between their experimental measurements of $`\lambda `$ and the theoretical predictions of McLean and Saffman  for $`1/B^{}<100`$ ($`1/B<250`$); we obtain similar agreement for $`w/b=58.4`$, as the inset of Fig. 3(b) illustrates. Fig. 3(b) shows the dependence of the mean finger width $`\lambda `$ on $`1/B^{}`$ for all aspect ratios. At high $`1/B^{}`$, the film wetting correction also collapses the data to a common curve for all $`w/b>58.4`$, though a slight displacement downward of the large $`w/b`$ data remains.

While our $`\lambda `$ results do not exhibit the classical scaling with $`1/B^{}`$, the maximum value of the fluctuating finger width observed during finger evolution, $`\lambda _{\mathrm{max}}`$, does, as shown in Fig. 3(c). ($`\lambda _{\mathrm{max}}`$ is the largest width value observed over time in a region behind the tip; observing only near the tip excludes widening due to relaxation effects.) $`\lambda _{\mathrm{max}}`$ does not exhibit a peak with decreasing $`1/B`$, and while $`\lambda _{\mathrm{max}}`$ has more statistical noise than $`\lambda `$, the $`\lambda _{\mathrm{max}}`$ data collapse onto similar, monotonically decreasing curves that agree with the McLean-Saffman prediction at low $`1/B^{}`$. The $`\lambda _{\mathrm{max}}`$ data fall below the McLean-Saffman curve at high $`1/B^{}`$, but not as much as the data for $`\lambda `$.

These $`\lambda _{\mathrm{max}}`$ data suggest that the fluctuations represent an intermittent narrowing of the fingers from their “ideal” width.

The finger width fluctuations and the peak in $`\lambda `$ versus $`1/B`$ have proven robust under variations of experimental conditions. Both high and low viscosity oils gave the same results for the same geometric configuration. By treating the stainless steel spacers with an anti-wetting agent, we changed the contact angle where the interface is pinned at the back of the channel; this difference can be seen between Fig. 1(b) and(c); we again found the same results for the same geometric configuration. To ensure that the syringe pump was not imposing the observed velocity fluctuations, we pumped one data set by gravity siphoning, again with identical results. The effect of variations in the gap between the plates was examined for several aspect ratios by over-clamping the channel along the sides, which increases the intrinsic gap variations by a factor of 2.5 (measured interferometrically); both the finger width fluctuations and the location of $`\lambda _{\mathrm{peak}}`$ with respect to $`1/B^{}`$ were unchanged, although $`\lambda `$ values decreased by about 4% near the peak.

Though the fluctuation power law we observed remained unchanged for all experimental variations, we did discover that measurements on two channels with $`w/b=394`$ but different values of $`w`$ and $`b`$ yielded different results. The $`\lambda `$ values for both set-ups departed the common curve at approximately the same point with decreasing $`1/B^{}`$, but at lower $`1/B^{}`$ the behavior was different – compare 394W (394-wide) with 394N (394-narrow) in Fig. 3(b). This difference suggests that either the width for a given $`w/b`$ and Ca is not unique, or perhaps a third parameter, as yet unknown, is necessary to describe the problem for high $`w/b`$ and/or low Ca. Consistent with this are the $`\lambda `$ data for $`w/b=247`$ and 314, which superpose closely even though they have no geometric parameters in common.

It is unlikely that the fluctuations are caused by an instability of the film wetting layer because the film is very thin at low capillary numbers, where the fluctuations are largest. Film wetting fluctuations would also cause deviations in the growth rate of the area of the fingers, which we do not observe. We speculate that the fluctuations in finger width may be a consequence of long-time relaxations of the interface at the back of the channel, observable particularly in Fig. 1(c). We also speculate that the peak in $`\lambda `$ observed for decreasing $`1/B`$ at large aspect ratios may also occur at small aspect ratios, but at values of $`1/B`$ too small to be reached.

In conclusion, we have discovered fluctuations that intermittently narrow evolving single fingers; the magnitude of these fluctuations follows a power law with the capillary number for all aspect ratios studied. We also have found a departure from the classic scaling of finger width versus $`1/B`$ for large aspect ratios ($`w/b250`$); the average finger width narrows at low $`1/B`$, while the maximum finger width increases. These phenomena are not predicted by existing viscous fingering theories even though the phenomena are most pronounced for parameters that more closely match the theoretical assumptions.

We thank A. Shaji for preliminary investigations, M. P. Brenner, M. Mineev and S. Tanveer for useful discussions, and J. B. Swift for frequent guidance and advice. This work was funded by the Office of Naval Research, the NASA Microgravity Program, and the State of Texas Advanced Technology Program (G. Carey, P. I.).


text:
# 1 The relevant 𝐵→𝑉𝑉 modes originating from each kind of 𝐵 meson are shown. In the “𝛼-mode” column are tree-penguin interference modes which are sensitive to 𝛼; likewise the “𝛾-modes” are sensitive to 𝛾. The “pure penguin” modes proceed through 𝑏→𝑠 penguin processes only. The underlined modes have a color suppressed EWP contribution; the modes enclosed in parentheses have color allowed tree contributions while the modes enclosed in square brackets have 𝜋⁰ free final states.

BNL-HET-01/17

Fermilab-Pub-01/104-T

Determining the Phases $`\alpha `$ and $`\gamma `$ from Direct CP Violation in $`B_u`$, $`B_d`$ and $`B_s`$ Decays to Two Vectors

David Atwood1

Dept. of Physics and Astronomy, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011

Amarjit Soni2

Theory Group, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY 11973
11footnotetext: email: atwood@iastate.edu 22footnotetext: email: soni@bnl.gov

> Abstract: A method for clean determination of the unitarity angles $`\alpha `$ and $`\gamma `$ is proposed that uses only direct CP violation and does not require any time dependent measurements. The method takes advantage of helicity amplitudes for $`B_u`$, $`B_d`$ and $`B_s`$ decay to two vector mesons and can be used, at any B-facility, in conjunction with a large number of modes. It also allows for experimental tests of theoretical approximations involved.

Considerable progress has recently been made in experimental determination of the angle $`\beta `$ of the unitarity triangle and improved measurements are expected in the near future . However, even with increased precision in the extraction of $`\beta `$, the ability to test the CKM  description of CP violation in the Standard Model (SM) will be limited as the existing tests rely on theoretical calculation of hadronic matrix elements which still have considerable uncertainties . Therefore clean determinations of all three angles ($`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$, $`\gamma `$) of the unitarity triangle is important to facilitate precision tests of the SM and search for new CP-odd phase(s) due to physics beyond the SM. Currently the asymmetric B-factories are performing remarkably well and in the future hadronic B-machines may produce 1-3 orders of magnitude more B-mesons. Thus, it is very important to devise methods for clean extraction of the angles that can be used at all B-facilities. Furthermore, since time dependent measurements involving $`B_s`$ mesons are extremely challenging due to the high frequency of $`B_s\overline{B}_s`$ oscillations, it would also be helpful if methods could be devised that do not require such time dependent information.

Motivated by these considerations we propose a method with the novelty that it uses only direct CP-violation and does not involve any use of time dependent measurements. Potentially all types of B-mesons ($`B_u`$, $`B_d`$, $`B_s`$) can be used at all B-facilities. The method also allows for experimental tests of the key theoretical approximations that are involved. Specifically, we propose determination of the angles $`\alpha `$ and $`\gamma `$ through a study of the interference of tree and penguin amplitudes in decays of B-mesons to two vector particles.

There have been several methods proposed to extract these angles. For $`\alpha `$ one can consider oscillation effects in $`B^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ although one must account for the penguin through isospin analysis  by observing $`B^0\pi ^0\pi ^0`$. Since the branching ratio to $`\pi ^0\pi ^0`$ is expected to be small and hard to observe, it may be preferable to consider $`B^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^0`$ where one can also take advantage of resonance effects in the Dalitz plot ; however there may be problems in precise modeling of the resonance structure. Another method for extracting $`\alpha `$ from the interference of $`u`$-penguins with $`t`$-penguins in $`B^0K^{()}K^{()}`$ may overcome the disadvantages of the $`2\pi `$ and $`3\pi `$ final states  although the analogous $`B_s`$ decays are required for the analysis. All three of these methods use time dependent CP violation measurements of $`B^0(\overline{B}^0)`$ decays driven by the mixing in that system while our method relies on direct (time independent) CP violation only.

The angle $`\gamma `$ may be extracted at the $`B`$-factories through the interference of $`bu\overline{c}s`$ and $`bc\overline{u}s`$ . In the method we discuss here, we will obtain $`\gamma `$ through the interference of the $`bs`$ penguin and the $`bsu\overline{u}`$ tree and $`\alpha `$ from the interference of the $`bd`$ penguin and the $`bdu\overline{u}`$ tree.

Our method requires measurements made in two separate decay modes. One mode of the form $`BV_1V_2`$, together with $`\overline{B}\overline{V}_1\overline{V}_2`$, ($`B=B_u`$, $`B_d`$ or $`B_s`$) which receives both tree and penguin contributions and another mode $`BV_3V_4`$ which is a pure penguin. The procedure uses helicity amplitudes of $`BV_1V_2`$, which can be inferred from decay distributions of the vectors . By analyzing this data together with the helicity amplitudes for $`BV_3V_4`$ one can extract the tree-penguin weak phase difference. From a $`bd`$ penguin transition contributing to $`BV_1V_2`$, we deduce $`|\frac{V_{td}}{V_{ts}}\mathrm{sin}\alpha |`$ from which $`|\mathrm{sin}\alpha |`$ may be obtained once $`|V_{td}/V_{ts}|`$ is known ; from a $`bs`$ penguin we can obtain $`|\mathrm{sin}\gamma |`$. A list of such modes is shown in Table 1. Thus to implement this method to obtain $`\alpha `$ one needs to study one mode from the $`\alpha `$-mode column and one mode from the “pure penguin” column. Likewise to obtain $`\gamma `$ one $`\gamma `$-mode and one pure penguin mode is required. Using more than one mode from each column will, of course, increase the analyzing power of the method.

Let us first discuss some of the tree penguin interference modes that are suitable in our method for extracting $`\alpha `$. In charged $`B`$ decays, the relevant mode is $`B^\pm \rho ^\pm \omega `$. In this case the tree graph is color allowed which we find is advantageous in terms of statistical power. Since the charge of the $`\rho `$ indicates the flavor of the initial state, no other tagging is required. However, this mode has two $`\pi ^0`$, in the final state originating from decays of $`\rho ^\pm `$ and $`\omega `$ perhaps making it difficult for hadronic machines.

From Table 1 we see see that for an analogous extraction of $`\alpha `$ via decays of $`B^0`$ we may use any one of the modes $`B^0\rho ^0\rho ^0`$, $`\rho ^+\rho ^{}`$, $`\omega \rho ^0`$ or $`\omega \omega `$. These modes require tagging at production and C-odd interference terms are degraded somewhat by time integration. Also the tree is color suppressed; however, in the case of $`\rho ^0\rho ^0`$ it leads to a final state that does not contain any $`\pi ^0`$ and so may be easier to implement at hadronic $`B`$ machines. The mode $`B^0\rho ^+\rho ^{}`$ has the advantage that any electro-weak penguin (EWP) contribution is color suppressed.

Decays of $`B_s`$ usable for $`\alpha `$ are $`B_sK^0\rho ^0`$ or $`B_sK^+\rho ^{}`$. Both are self tagging, though in the first case only if $`K^0K^+\pi ^{}`$. The first mode also has the advantage that the final state contains no $`\pi ^0`$. The final state $`K^+\rho ^{}`$, while suffering from at least one $`\pi ^0`$ in the final state, has the advantage that possible contamination from the EWP is color suppressed.

Likewise, our method can also be used to extract $`\gamma `$ through the use of $`bs`$ penguins. In $`B^0`$ the candidate modes are $`B^0K^+\rho ^{}`$, $`B^0K^0\rho ^0`$ and $`B^0K^0\omega `$; note that $`B^0K^0\rho ^0`$ has the advantage of no $`\pi ^0`$ in the final state. For charged $`B`$’s again there are two such modes: $`B^+K^+\rho ^0`$ and $`B^+K^+\omega `$, either one of which could be used to obtain $`\gamma `$; $`B^+K^+\rho ^0`$ is free of $`\pi ^0`$.

Our method also needs input from one pure penguin mode; this should be a $`bs`$ penguin since we need the component with an intermediate $`u`$ quark to be small. For pure penguin modes we can use: $`B^+\varphi K^+`$, $`B^0\varphi K^0`$, $`B^+K^0\rho ^+`$, $`B_s\varphi \varphi `$ or $`B_sK^0K^0`$. Likewise the decays $`B^0\rho ^0K^0`$ and $`B^0\omega K^0`$ can also be used since the tree contribution is color and CKM suppressed. In Table 1 as well as listing all the modes mentioned, we indicate which have color suppressed EWP (underlined); which have color allowed tree contributions (parentheses) and which have $`\pi ^0`$-free final states \[square brackets\].

In our analysis we will use the approximations that: (1) SU(3) is a valid symmetry for penguin processes, (2) the effects of the EWP are small, (3) the $`q\overline{q}`$ pair which arises in a strong penguin does not form a single vector meson of the final state. Recall that the EWP are assumed to be small for other proposed methods  as well for extracting $`\alpha `$. Note also that for some of the modes in Table 1 the EWP is color suppressed. Later we will discuss ways to test each of these three approximations.

To illustrate our method, we now focus on $`B^\pm \rho ^\pm \omega `$ (i.e. $`V_1V_2=\rho ^+\omega `$) where the discussion easily generalizes to the other modes mentioned above. The SM amplitude $`𝒜`$ for this process can be written:

$`𝒜=Tv_u+P_uv_u+P_cv_c+P_tv_t\widehat{T}v_u+\widehat{P}v_t`$ (1)
where $`T`$ is the tree contribution to the amplitude, $`P_i`$ is the penguin contribution due to the diagram with an internal quark of type $`u_i`$ and $`v_i=V_{ib}^{}V_{id}`$. Unitarity of the CKM matrix allows us to express the amplitudes in terms of $`\widehat{T}=T+P_uP_c`$ which we will refer to as the corrected tree and $`\widehat{P}=P_tP_c`$, the corrected penguin.

For this mode it is useful to follow a (non-standard) convention for the weak phase where the corrected tree is zero. The amplitudes for $`B^+\rho ^+\omega `$ may then be written as:

$`𝐀=𝐚+𝐛e^{i\alpha }\mathrm{where}𝐚=\widehat{T}|v_u|\mathrm{and}𝐛=\widehat{P}|v_t|`$ (2)
and each of the bold face terms represent a set of helicity amplitudes.

The amplitude for the charge conjugate process in this convention is $`\overline{𝐀}=𝐚+\mathrm{\Pi }𝐛e^{i\alpha }`$ where $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ indicates parity.

Even knowing the full amplitudes in these decays we cannot hope to determine $`\alpha `$. This is evident writing the amplitude:

$`𝐀=𝐜+i𝐛\mathrm{sin}\alpha ,\overline{𝐀}=𝐜i\mathrm{\Pi }𝐛\mathrm{sin}\alpha 𝐛\mathrm{sin}\alpha =(𝐀\mathrm{\Pi }\overline{𝐀})/(2i)`$ (3)
where $`𝐜=𝐚+𝐛\mathrm{cos}\alpha `$. While we may extract $`𝐜`$ and $`𝐛\mathrm{sin}\alpha `$, we clearly can not separately obtain $`\mathrm{sin}\alpha `$ without more information . To solve for $`\alpha `$ then, we need two more pieces of information: (1) A means to fix the relative weak phase between $`𝐀`$ and $`\overline{𝐀}`$. (2) A separate normalization of the penguin contribution $`𝐛`$.

The measurement of pure penguin amplitudes will provide these remaining two inputs. The normalization of such a mode will clearly allow the determination of $`\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha `$ while the ratios and phase differences between the components of $`𝐛`$ can be matched with those determined from eqn. (3) providing the condition needed to fix the relative phase of $`𝐀`$ and $`\overline{𝐀}`$.

Let us now consider how the necessary information about the components of the amplitude may be extracted from the experimental data. For both the $`\omega `$ and $`\rho `$ the polarization vector can be completely determined in their rest frame by their decays. For $`\rho ^\pm \pi ^\pm \pi ^0`$ we can define the polarization vector as $`\stackrel{}{E}_\rho =\stackrel{}{P}_{\pi ^0}/|\stackrel{}{P}_{\pi ^0}|`$ while for the $`\omega `$ we define $`\stackrel{}{E}_\omega =\stackrel{}{P}_{\pi ^+}\times \stackrel{}{P}_\pi ^{}/|\stackrel{}{P}_{\pi ^+}\times \stackrel{}{P}_\pi ^{}|`$. Let us introduce $`\theta _1`$ to be the polar angle between $`\stackrel{}{E}_\rho `$ and the boost axis in the $`\rho `$ frame and likewise $`\theta _2`$ the polar angle between $`\stackrel{}{E}_\omega `$ and its boost axis. In addition we introduce the azimuthal angle $`\psi `$ between $`\stackrel{}{E}_\rho `$ and $`\stackrel{}{E}_\omega `$ with respect to the $`\rho `$ boost axis. It is convenient to describe the final state in a helicity bases which contains the following states: $`|R=|+1_\rho |+1_\omega `$$`|L=|1_\rho |1_\omega `$ and $`|0=|0_\rho |0_\omega `$. In the following we will rewrite the transverse modes as parity eigenstates: $`|S=(|R+|L)/\sqrt{2}`$ and $`|P=(|R|L)/\sqrt{2}`$ where the action of parity is $`\mathrm{\Pi }:|0`$, $`|S+|0`$, $`|S`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }:|P|P`$.

The amplitudes for production of the $`|0`$, $`|S`$ and $`|P`$ states respectively may be expressed in the three component notation: $`𝐀=[A_0,A_S,A_P]`$. The angular distribution (see e.g. ) for the two vector decay is $`d\mathrm{\Gamma }/d\mathrm{\Phi }=_{i=1}^6X_if_i(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ where $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ represents the phase space, $`d\mathrm{\Phi }=dz_1dz_2d\psi /(8\pi )`$ and the basic distributions are given by:

$`f_1=9z_1^2z_2^2;f_2=(9/2)u_1^2u_2^2\mathrm{cos}^2\psi ;f_3=(9/2)u_1^2u_2^2\mathrm{sin}^2\psi ;`$
$`f_4=9\sqrt{2}z_1z_2u_1u_2\mathrm{cos}\psi ;f_5=9\sqrt{2}z_1z_2u_1u_2\mathrm{sin}\psi ;`$
$`f_6=9u_1^2u_2^2\mathrm{sin}\psi \mathrm{cos}\psi `$ (4)
with $`z_i=\mathrm{cos}\theta _i`$ and $`u_i=\mathrm{sin}\theta _i`$ ($`i=1,2`$). In terms of the helicity amplitudes, the coefficients are thus:

$`\begin{array}{ccc}X_1=|A_0|^2;\hfill & X_2=|A_S|^2;\hfill & X_3=|A_P|^2;\hfill \\ X_4=Re(A_0A_S^{});\hfill & X_5=Im(A_0A_P^{});\hfill & X_6=Im(A_sA_P^{});\hfill \end{array}`$ (7)
we have normalized the coefficients so that $`Br=X_1+X_2+X_3`$.

A convenient method to determine $`X_i`$ from the angular distribution is to introduce a set of operators  $`g_i`$ such that $`<g_i>=X_i/(X_1+X_2+X_3)`$. We will use the following set of operators with this property:

$`g_1=(40f_15f_25f_3)/126,g_2=(265f_220f_185f_3)/504,`$
$`g_3=(265f_320f_185f_2)/504,g_{4,5}=25f_{4,5}/36,g_6=25f_6/72.`$ (8)
Once an experimental determination of the observables $`\{X_i\}`$ has been made, it is possible to determine the amplitudes up to the following ambiguities: (1) An overall phase, (2) the transformation $`𝐀\mathrm{\Pi }𝐀^{}`$. Thus we have six observables determining three complex (amplitudes), or equivalently six real parameters. The overall phase ambiguity means that the remaining five amplitude parameters are over determined by the six observables. An unobservable phase may be applied to both $`𝐀`$ and $`\overline{𝐀}`$ leaving one only the relative phase between the $`B^+`$ and $`B^{}`$ decays undetermined. To be specific, we will take this weak phase to be $`\lambda =\mathrm{arg}(A_0(B^{})A_0^{}(B^+))`$. Once $`\lambda `$ is determined, the experimental observables in $`B^+`$ and $`B^{}`$ decay will allow us to obtain $`𝐛\mathrm{sin}\alpha `$ from eqn. (3). To obtain $`\mathrm{sin}\alpha `$ we therefore need a means to fix $`\lambda `$ as well as information about $`𝐛`$.

Consider now what may be learned from $`B^0\varphi K^{}`$. In the SM we expect negligible CP violation in this mode (e.g. in  the CP violation is estimated to be $`O(1\%)`$); thus $`X_{14}(\varphi K^0)=X_{14}(\varphi \overline{K}^0)`$ and $`X_{5,6}(\varphi K^0)=X_{5,6}(\varphi \overline{K}^0)`$. Within the SM and using our assumption that the gluon does not fragment to a single vector meson, the amplitude $`𝐀(\varphi K^0)=\sqrt{2}𝐛(V_{ts}/V_{td})`$ hence the observables will be related to $`𝐛`$ by:

$`|b_0|^2=qX_1(),|b_S|^2=qX_2(),|b_P|^2=qX_3(),Re(b_0b_S^{})=qX_4(),`$
$`Im(b_0b_P^{})=qX_5(),Im(b_Sb_P^{})=qX_6(),`$ (9)
where $`=\varphi K^{}`$ and $`q=|V_{td}/V_{ts}|^2/2`$. We are now in a position to determine $`\lambda `$ and $`\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha `$ since eqn. (9) gives six equations in only two unknowns (i.e. $`\lambda `$ and $`\alpha `$) when combined with eqn. (3).

We now estimate the precision with which one may extract $`\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha `$ using this method. The statistical errors will, of course, depend on the number of $`B`$ mesons which are available. To quantify this for a given decay mode $`BX`$, let us define $`\widehat{N}_B=(numberofB)(acceptanceforX)`$ for each type of $`B`$-meson. For concreteness, we consider $`\widehat{N}_B=10^8`$ and $`5\times 10^8`$ in our calculations.

The pure penguin modes $`B^+\varphi K^+`$ and $`B^0\varphi K^0`$ have in fact recently been observed at BaBar  with $`Br(B^+\varphi K^+)`$ = $`(9.7_{3.4}^{+4.2}\pm 1.7)\times 10^6`$ and $`Br(B^0\varphi K^0)`$ = $`(8.6_{2.4}^{+2.8}\pm 1.1)\times 10^6`$. In our sample calculation we will take this branching ratio to be $`10^5`$. Estimating the corrected $`bd`$ penguin contributions, we get $`Br_{penguin}(B^{}\rho ^{}\omega )`$ $``$ $`2|V_{td}/V_{ts}|^2Br(B\varphi K^{})8\times 10^7`$ where  $`|V_{td}/V_{ts}|0.2`$. The tree graph for this final state has a similar topology to the observed  $`B^+\pi ^+\pi ^0`$ decay modes with branching ratios of $`5\pm 2\times 10^6`$. The branching ratio to a two vector final state should be somewhat larger because of the additional helicity states. Here we will assume that this will increase the branching ratio by roughly a factor of 3 as is the case for $`Br(B^+\rho ^+D^0)/Br(B^+\pi ^+D^0)`$ so that $`Br_{tree}(B^+\rho ^+\omega )15\times 10^6`$ .

The precision for extracting $`\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha `$ will depend on the distribution of the amplitudes between the various helicity states. As an example, which we will call Case 1, we will take the toy model for the amplitudes given by:

$`𝐚[1,1,1]𝐛[0.23,0.23,0.23]`$ (10)
which has the correct ratio of total rates. In this toy model the amplitudes have no relative phase from final state interactions. Case 2 will be the corresponding results averaged over helicity distributions and phases subject only to the condition that $`|𝐚|`$ and $`|𝐛|`$ are fixed.

To simulate the reconstruction of $`\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha `$ from experimental data we will calculate the observables $`X_i`$ for each mode and estimate the correlated errors assuming that these are measured using the operators $`g_i`$. The tree-penguin mode give us $`A`$ and $`\overline{A}`$ up to a relative phase. We can thus use eqn. (3) to get $`𝐛\mathrm{sin}\alpha `$ so that eqn. (9) further constrains the fit and a minimum value of $`\chi ^2`$ can be obtained for each value of $`\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha `$. The dependence of $`\chi ^2`$ on $`\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha `$ thus allows us to obtain the statistical error $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha `$ given in Table 2 where we take $`\alpha =30^{}`$ and $`60^{}`$. In the last line of this Table, we consider a similar exercise for a mode sensitive to $`\gamma `$.

Table 2 gives results for the tree penguin modes: $`B^+\rho ^+\omega `$ where the tree is color allowed, $`B^0\rho ^0\omega `$ where the tree is color suppressed and a combined fit with both modes taken together. We also consider the $`B_s`$ mode, $`B_sK^+\rho ^{}`$. In each case we take $`\widehat{N}_B=10^8`$ and $`5\times 10^8`$ and give results for Cases 1 and 2.

Let us now consider how the validity of the approximations used in this method may be experimentally verified. The validity of SU(3) for penguins may be tested by comparing the various pure penguin modes considered. If this symmetry is exact, the magnitude and relative phases of all the $`bs`$ pure penguin modes should be the same.

The assumption that EWPs do not play a large role is required in most isospin analysis  since the EWPs have the isospin properties of the tree but the weak phase of the penguin so it cannot be cleanly separated from the tree without additional information. Its presence may be specifically checked in the decay $`B^\pm \rho ^\pm \rho ^0`$. The final state must have total isospin $`I=2`$ so in the SM only the tree and EWP can contribute. A significant EWP contribution which has a relative weak phase of $`\alpha `$ with respect to the tree would thus lead to CP violation. There are six possible CP violating observables that can be obtained from the distributions: $`X_{14}(\rho ^+\rho ^0)X_{14}(\rho ^{}\rho ^0)`$ and $`X_{5,6}(\rho ^+\rho ^0)+X_{5,6}(\rho ^{}\rho ^0)`$. Note that the first four are even under naive time reversal , $`T_N`$, thus require a rescattering phase while the last two are $`T_N`$ odd and do not. The analogous test for the EWP can also be performed in the decay $`B^\pm \pi ^\pm \pi ^0`$ where an EWP could generate a partial rate asymmetry. The possible advantage of using the $`\rho ^\pm \rho ^0`$ final state is that there are six CP odd signals rather than one in $`\pi ^\pm \pi ^0`$.

In the $`K\pi `$, $`K^{}\pi `$, $`K\rho `$ and $`K^{}\rho `$ systems one can also check for EWP effects by looking for CP violation with isospin properties inconsistent with tree penguin interference . In the $`K\pi `$ system the absence of EWP implies:

$`2\mathrm{\Delta }(B^{}K^{}\pi ^0)\mathrm{\Delta }(B^{}\overline{K}^0\pi ^{})\mathrm{\Delta }(\overline{B}\overline{K}^{}\pi ^+)+2\mathrm{\Delta }(\overline{B}\overline{K}^0\rho ^0)=0`$ (11)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }(X)`$ is the partial rate asymmetry for the reaction $`X`$. Eqn. (11) also applies to $`K\rho `$ and $`K^{}\pi `$ while for $`K^{}\rho `$ it applies separately to $`X_1`$, $`X_2`$ and $`X_3`$.

It is also possible to reduce the potential impact of the EWP by choosing modes in which their contribution will be color suppressed. In particular, the tree penguin interference processes $`B_sK^+\rho ^{}`$ and $`B_0\rho ^+\rho ^{}`$ will color suppress the EWP as will the pure penguin process $`B_sK^0K^0`$.

The assumption that the gluon does not fragment into a single vector meson is true at lowest order in perturbation theory by color conservation. We can estimate how well it holds when QCD corrections are introduced, through renormalization group improved perturbation theory. If we define $`𝐛^{}`$ to be the penguin contribution where the quarks from the gluon form a single meson, the ratios of the contributions should be:

$`|𝐛^{}|/|𝐛|(3C_3+C_4+3C_5+C_6)/(C_3+C_4+C_5+C_6)`$ (12)
where we have used the notation of . With the numerical results from that paper we find that this ratio is about 0.04 for various values of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$ both in naive dimensional regularization and in the ’t-Hooft—Veltman schemes at next to leading order.

To summarize, we have shown that unitarity angles $`\alpha `$ and $`\gamma `$ can be extracted by a method that is rather unique in that it only uses direct CP violation and does not need any time dependent measurements. We gave several examples of modes which can be used and also discussed how experimentally the underlying theoretical approximations can be tested. Since these angles are fundamental parameters of the SM, and their precise determinations could lead to its crucial tests, the importance of measuring them in several different ways can hardly be over emphasized.

This research was supported in part by US DOE Contract Nos. DE-FG02-94ER40817 (ISU); DE-AC02-98CH10886 (BNL).


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The studies of tachyon condensation in open string theory  have revealed important aspects of D-branes222For earlier work on tachyon condensation see .. One of these is the classification of D-brane charges as $`K`$-theory . Brane-antibrane systems can be considered topologically as the difference of two bundles and this fact just corresponds to the mathematical definition of $`K`$-theory. As a next step it is natural to ask whether we can go beyond this topological argument by assuming more refined structures such as world-sheet extended supersymmetries. Recently the interpretation of a D-brane on complex manifolds as a complex of coherent sheaves has been discussed (for example see ). A coherent sheaf $``$ is a more general and refined notion than a vector bundle (locally free sheaf). For example, it admits ‘almost rank=0’ or point-like instanton configurations. It includes its cokernel $`^{\prime \prime }`$ defined by the exact sequence $`0^{}^{\prime \prime }0`$ and this can be regarded as tachyon condensation on a brane $``$ and an antibrane $`^{}`$ into the smaller brane $`^{\prime \prime }`$. These considerations eventually lead to the interpretation of D-branes as derived category .

In this paper we would like to discuss such an interpretation for tachyon condensation on brane-antibrane systems in orbifold theories. In particular we describe the tachyon condensation in the framework of boundary string field theory (BSFT) . This theory is very useful because it is believed that infinitely many massive fields are not relevant for tachyon condensation. Furthermore we require the boundary $`𝒩=2`$ (B-type) supersymmetry  so as to study the algebra geometric aspects of D-branes. The general strategy of applying BSFT to orbifold theories has already been discussed in the previous paper . Here we investigate especially brane-antibrane systems on three dimensional orbifolds in detail. From this analysis we will find that the tachyon condensation can be analyzed in a group theoretical way and the essential decay processes are described by the complexes which describe the McKay correspondence  proved by Ito and Nakajima (see  for the original paper and also  for a review). We will also discuss the $`𝒩=4`$ boundary supersymmetry as a more refined structure and see that this symmetry leads to a certain quaternionic constraint on tachyon fields.

## 2 Tachyon Condensation on Orbifolds as McKay Correspondence

Here we discuss the interpretation of tachyon condensation on orbifolds as the McKay correspondence . Though our arguments below can be easily generalized into arbitrary dimensional abelian orbifolds, we describe the results for D6-$`\overline{\text{D6}}`$ systems in three dimensional abelian orbifolds $`𝐂^\mathrm{𝟑}/𝚪`$. This is not only because these are the most physically interesting but because the corresponding mathematical results on the resolution of orbifold singularities have not been obtained in higher dimensions.

Let us first review the outline of the analysis in . Since the physics of tachyon condensation involves off-shell string theory, one should consider within the framework of string field theory. We apply the boundary string field theory (BSFT)  for brane-antibrane systems  to tachyon condensation on orbifolds.

We begin with the disk world-sheet action in flat background with boundary interactions which preserve $`𝒩=2`$ (B-type) boundary supersymmetry . We denote the ten dimensional complex coordinates of the target space as $`(Z_1,\overline{Z_1}),\mathrm{},(Z_5,\overline{Z_5})`$. The explicit expression of the boundary interactions is given as follows:

$`I_B`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Sigma }}𝑑\tau 𝑑\theta 𝑑\overline{\theta }{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}𝚪_i\overline{𝚪_i}+{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Sigma }}𝑑\tau 𝑑\theta {\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}𝚪_iT_i(𝐙)+(\text{h.c.}),`$ (2.1)
where we have employed $`𝒩=2`$ boundary superspace $`(\tau ,\theta ,\overline{\theta })`$; the boundary fermionic chiral and antichiral superfields $`𝚪_i,\overline{𝚪}_i`$ are defined in our conventions as

$`𝚪_i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}}\eta _i+\theta F_i{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}}\theta \overline{\theta }_\tau \eta _i,`$
$`\overline{𝚪}_i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}}\overline{\eta }_i+\theta \overline{F_i}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}}\theta \overline{\theta }_\tau \overline{\eta }_i.`$ (2.2)
The fermions $`\eta _i,\overline{\eta }_i`$ are called boundary fermions and the scalar fields $`F_i,\overline{F_i}`$ are auxiliary fields. Since we are interested in the decay of a D6-$`\overline{\text{D6}}`$ system into D0-branes below, we need $`2^3/2=4`$ pairs of D6-$`\overline{\text{D6}}`$. We can express this brane-antibrane system by using three fermi superfields $`𝚪_i(i=1,2,3)`$.

Note that the world-sheet $`𝒩=2`$ supersymmetry requires the form of tachyon fields $`T_i(𝐙)`$ to be holomorphic and this means that we consider a certain subspace of the field space of BSFT. This restriction is essential in our arguments not only because one can apply non-renomalization theorem but because it matches with complex geometry.

The spacetime action $`S`$ of BSFT for brane-antibrane system is defined to be equal to the disk partition function $`Z`$ . For example, if one considers the following tachyon fields333 If one considers more general holomorphic configurations than eq.(2.3), then some brane-antibrane systems will be generated after the tachyon condensation as observed in . on the D6-$`\overline{\text{D6}}`$ system

$`T_1=(Z_1)^p,T_2=(Z_2)^q,T_3=(Z_3)^r,`$ (2.3)
then we obtain $`pqr`$ D0-branes after the tachyon condensation. This can be shown by computing spacetime action $`S`$ employing the non-renomalization theorem  or calculating the RR-couplings  expressed by Quillen’s superconnection . In particular the tachyon field $`p=q=r=1`$ is known as Atiyah-Bott-Shapiro configuration , which carries the unit $`K`$-theory charge. This configuration will also play an very important role in the orbifold theories discussed below.

The above arguments of tachyon condensation on flat spaces can be generalized to orbifold theories. In the previous paper , we defined the BSFT for brane-antibrane systems on (abelian) orbifolds following the general framework of  and analyzed the examples in two dimensional orbifolds $`𝐂^\mathrm{𝟐}/𝐙_N`$ in detail. From the results in BSFT one can determine how many fractional D0-branes  are generated after the tachyon condensation, but it is difficult to see what kinds of fractional D0-branes they are. Therefore we were also needed to apply the conservation law of twisted RR-charges.

Now let us discuss the tachyon condensation on a three dimensional orbifold $`𝐂^\mathrm{𝟑}/𝚪`$. We assume that the discrete group $`𝚪`$ is abelian because it is difficult to describe non-abelian orbifold actions in the boundary interaction (2.1). For example, if $`𝚪=𝐙_N`$, then the action on the coordinate $`(z^1,z^2,z^3)`$ of $`𝐂^3`$ is defined as follows.

$`g:(z^1,z^2,z^3)(e^{\frac{2\pi ia_1}{N}}z^1,e^{\frac{2\pi ia_2}{N}}z^2,e^{\frac{2\pi ia_3}{N}}z^3),`$ (2.4)
where $`(a_1,a_2,a_3)`$ are integers which satisfy $`a_1+a_2+a_3=0(\text{mod}N)`$. We define such a three dimensional fundamental representation as $`Q`$. Generally, D-branes in orbifold theories are classified by the representations of the group $`𝚪`$. Here we are interested in fractional D-branes and these correspond to the irreducible representations. For the orbifold $`𝚪=𝐙_N`$, they are given by one dimensional representations $`\{\rho _\alpha \}(\alpha =0,1\mathrm{},N1)`$, which are defined by the multiplication of the phase factor $`e^{\frac{2\pi i\alpha }{N}}`$. Therefore we will express each type of these fractional D-branes by $`\rho _\alpha `$ below . Though the following discussion can be applied to any abelian orbifold action, we mainly consider $`𝚪=𝐙_N`$ case.

Then let us examine the orbifold action on boundary fields. For this purpose it is useful to rewrite the interaction (2.1) into non-abelian tachyon fields $`T`$ by employing the interpretation of $`𝚪_i,\overline{𝚪}_i`$ as $`\gamma `$-matrices444We have defined the matrices $`\gamma _i^+,\gamma _i^{}`$ such that $`\{\gamma _i^+,\gamma _j^{}\}=\delta _{ij},\{\gamma _i^+,\gamma _j^+\}=\{\gamma _i^{},\gamma _j^{}\}=0`$. $`\gamma _i^+,\gamma _i^{}`$:

$`T`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}(\gamma _i^+T_i+\gamma _i^{}\overline{T_i})=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}T_3& 0& T_2& T_1\\ 0& T_3& \overline{T_1}& \overline{T_2}\\ \overline{T_2}& T_1& \overline{T_3}& 0\\ \overline{T_1}& T_2& 0& \overline{T_3}\end{array}\right]`$ (2.9)
$`=`$ $`\left[\begin{array}{cccc}(Z_3)^r& 0& (Z_2)^q& (Z_1)^p\\ 0& (Z_3)^r& (\overline{Z_1})^p& (\overline{Z_2})^q\\ (\overline{Z_2})^q& (Z_1)^p& (\overline{Z_3})^r& 0\\ (\overline{Z_1})^p& (Z_2)^q& 0& (\overline{Z_3})^r\end{array}\right].`$ (2.14)
From this we can consider the orbifold action on the Chan-Paton factors  for the tachyon fields (2.3). The invariance under this action requires us that the original D6-$`\overline{\text{D6}}`$ system should consist of four D6-branes $`\rho _\alpha ,\rho _{\alpha +pa_1+qa_2},\rho _{\alpha +qa_2+ra_3},\rho _{\alpha +ra_3+pa_1}`$ (corresponding to each row of the matrix (2.14)) and four anti D6-branes $`\rho _{\alpha +ra_3},\rho _\alpha ,\rho _{\alpha +qa_2},\rho _{\alpha +pa_1}`$ (corresponding to each column of the matrix (2.14)). In this way the requirement of boundary $`𝒩=2`$ supersymmetry determines the types of 6-branes before tachyon condensation up to an arbitrary integer $`\alpha `$.

The orbifold action on the boundary fields is given by

$`g:𝚪_i𝚪_ie^{\frac{2\pi ia_i}{N}},`$ (2.15)
and by this action we define the BSFT for orbifolded brane-antibrane systems . Then we obtain $`pqr`$ fractional D0-branes after the tachyon condensation. In order to determine the types of fractional D0-branes one needs to examine the twisted RR-charges.

Here let us discuss twisted RR-charges in a group theoretical way. The value of these can be read  from the explicit forms of boundary states in twisted sectors as shown in . Then the RR-charges $`Q_\alpha ^{Dp}(g)`$ in $`g𝚪`$ twisted sector for a D$`p`$-brane $`\rho _\alpha `$ are given by (with an appropriate normalization)

$`Q_{\alpha ,k}^{D6}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{|𝚪|}}\chi _\alpha (g)\sqrt{\text{Tr}(g)},`$
$`Q_{\alpha ,k}^{D0}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{|𝚪|}}\chi _\alpha (g),`$ (2.16)
where $`\chi _\alpha (g)`$ denotes the character for the irreducible representation $`\rho _\alpha `$ of $`𝚪`$. The factor $`\text{Tr}(g)`$ comes from the trace of the bosonic zeromodes in open string sector555 Here we have normalized the bosonic zeromodes as $`z|z^{}=\delta ^2(zz^{})`$. and is given by

$`\text{Tr}(g)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle (dz)^3(d\overline{z})^3z_i|g|z_i}`$ (2.17)
$`=`$ $`\left(det(1g)\right)^2`$
$`=`$ $`(1\chi _Q(g)+\chi _{QQ}(g)\chi _{QQQ}(g))^2,`$
where $`\chi _Q`$ denotes the character for the fundametal represetation $`Q`$ and the symbol $``$ means wedge product of representations. Thus we obtain the following result using the formula $`\chi _Q(g)\chi _\alpha (g)=\chi _{Q\rho _\alpha }(g)`$

$`Q_\alpha ^{D0}(g)`$ $`=`$ $`(1\chi _Q(g)+\chi _{QQ}(g)\chi _{QQQ}(g))Q_\alpha ^{D6}(g)`$ (2.18)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\beta }{}}(a_{\beta \alpha }^{(0)}a_{\beta \alpha }^{(1)}+a_{\beta \alpha }^{(2)}a_{\beta \alpha }^{(3)})Q_\beta ^{D6}(g),`$
where the integers $`a_{\beta \alpha }^{(i)}`$ are defined by the following decomposition of representations

$`^iQ\rho _\alpha ={\displaystyle \underset{\beta }{}}a_{\beta \alpha }^{(i)}\rho _\beta .`$ (2.19)
This result (2.18) shows that the twisted RR charges (or $`K`$-theory charges) of the fractional D0-brane $`\rho _\alpha `$ are equal to that of the brane-antibrane system which consists of $`_\beta (a_{\beta \alpha }^{(0)}+a_{\beta \alpha }^{(2)})\rho _\beta `$ D6-branes and $`_\beta (a_{\beta \alpha }^{(1)}+a_{\beta \alpha }^{(3)})\rho _\beta `$ antiD6-branes. Note that the above results hold for any (generally non-abelian) discrete group $`𝚪\text{SL}(3,𝐂)`$.

If we return the case $`𝚪=𝐙_N`$ again, it is easy to see

$`a_{\beta \alpha }^{(0)}=a_{\beta \alpha }^{(3)}=1,{\displaystyle \underset{\beta }{}}a_{\beta \alpha }^{(1)}\rho _\beta =\rho _{\alpha +a_1}\rho _{\alpha +a_2}\rho _{\alpha +a_3},`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\beta }{}}a_{\beta \alpha }^{(2)}\rho _\beta =\rho _{\alpha +a_1+a_2}\rho _{\alpha +a_2+a_3}\rho _{\alpha +a_3+a_1}.`$ (2.20)
In particular if we consider the specific tachyon fields $`p=q=r=1`$ in eq.(2.14), then the above results (2.18) and (2.20) show that a fractional D0-brane $`\rho _\alpha `$ will be generated and this result is consistent with the previous result from BSFT. Even though the calculation of twisted RR-charges seems very powerful to determine the decay product at first sight, it should be noted that this cannot distinguish ‘$`0`$’ from ‘$`Q_\alpha ^{D6}(g)Q_\alpha ^{D6}(g)`$’. As we have seen, this ambiguity is fixed by the consideration of BSFT. For general $`p=p_1,q=p_2,r=p_3`$ one can show the following identity:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\beta _i=0}{\overset{p_i1}{}}}Q_{\alpha +a_1\beta _1+a_2\beta _2+a_3\beta _3}^{D0}(g)=Q_\alpha ^{D6}(g)\left(Q_{\alpha +pa_1}^{D6}(g)+Q_{\alpha +qa_2}^{D6}(g)+Q_{\alpha +ra_3}^{D6}(g)\right)`$
$`+\left(Q_{\alpha +pa_1+qa_2}^{D6}(g)+Q_{\alpha +qa_2+ra_3}^{D6}(g)+Q_{\alpha +ra_3+pa_1}^{D6}(g)\right)Q_\alpha ^{D6}(g).`$ (2.21)
Thus we can conclude the $`pqr=p_1p_2p_3`$ fractional D0-branes which are represented by left-handed side of eq.(2.21) are generated after tachyon condensation on the D6-$`\overline{\text{D6}}`$ system defined by the right-handed side.

In this way we have determined the decay processes of brane-antibrane systems on orbifolds. We have also found that the tachyon condensation with boundary $`𝒩=2`$ supersymmetry sees ‘holomorphy’ beyond the familiar $`K`$-theory charges. As argued in  the tachyon condensation on brane-antibrane systems in complex manifolds such as Calabi-Yau manifolds can be represented by a complex of coherent sheaves. More precisely, one should identify two complexes which have the same cohomology complex (quasi-isomorphic) and we eventually obtain the notion of the derived category  as discussed in . Let us briefly review this idea. For a given (bounded) complex,

$`_n\stackrel{d_{n1}}{}_{n1}\stackrel{d_{n2}}{}_{n2}\stackrel{d_{n3}}{}\mathrm{}\stackrel{d_1}{}_1,`$ (2.22)
it has been proposed to interpret the coherent sheaves $`_{even}`$ as branes and $`_{odd}`$ as antibranes because their cohomologies, which have essential information for any complex, roughly mean the ‘subtraction’ of adjacent modules. The tachyon fields between the brane-antibrane system correspond to the arrows of the complex. This can also be seen from the $`K`$-theory charge of the complex, which is given by $`[_nH^{2n}][_nH^{2n+1}]`$. The simplest example of this will be the Koszul complex which describes tachyon condensation on flat space . Below we would like to relate our BSFT description of tachyon condensation on orbifolds to the complex which defines McKay correspondence  as a more non-trivial example. If we blow up the orbifold singularities, we can consider brane-antibrane systems in such a space as an object of the derived category of coherent sheaves. For earlier discussions of this complex in physical context see for example . See also  for descriptions of some other complexes.

The fundamental complex of McKay correspondence in three dimension is given by

$`\stackrel{d_3}{}Q\stackrel{d_2}{}^2Q\stackrel{d_1}{}^3Q=.`$ (2.23)
The bundle $``$ denotes $`|𝚪|`$ dimensional bundle on the (resolved) orbifold space $`X𝐂^\mathrm{𝟑}/𝚪`$ (tautological bundle) and is defined by $`=P\times _{GL_G(R)}𝐂^{|𝚪|}`$. The fiber $`𝐂^{|𝚪|}`$ is charged under the (complex) quiver gauge group $`GL_G(R)`$ so as to belong to the regular representation. The fibration $`P`$ over $`X`$ is equivalent to the quiver theory for a bulk D0-brane (regular representation)  such that $`P/GL_G(R)=X`$. The action $`Q`$ denotes the three dimensional representation given by the inclusion $`𝚪\text{SL}(3,𝐂)`$. The boundary operator $`d_i`$ is defined by $`d_i=B`$, where $`B`$ denotes the multiplication of the coordinate functions $`(z_1,z_2,z_3)`$. Note that it is easy to see the nilpotency $`d_id_{i+1}=0`$. Then the bundle $``$ can be decomposed into $`|𝚪|`$ line bundles corresponding to each irreducible representations :

$`=_\alpha _\alpha \rho _\alpha ,`$ (2.24)
and each of them can be naturally interpreted as a fractional D6-brane $`\rho _\alpha `$. Then we can divide the complex (2.23) into $`|𝚪|`$ parts:

$`𝒮_\alpha :\left[_\alpha \stackrel{d_3}{}_\beta a_{\alpha \beta }^{(1)}_\beta \stackrel{d_2}{}_\beta a_{\alpha \beta }^{(2)}_\beta \stackrel{d_1}{}_\beta a_{\alpha \beta }^{(3)}_\beta =_\alpha \right].`$ (2.25)
One of the results shown in  is that the $`K`$-group (Grothendick group) of bounded complex $`𝒮_\alpha `$ has a support on the exceptional locus and defines a basis of $`K^c(X)`$, where $`K^c(X)`$ is the $`K`$-group for complexes on the exceptional locus. Furthermore the intersection between $`_\alpha `$ and $`𝒮_\beta `$ is shown to be $`_\alpha ,𝒮_\beta =\delta _{\alpha \beta }`$. From this and the complex (2.25) one obtains the intersection between $`𝒮_\alpha `$ as follows

$`𝒮_\alpha ,𝒮_\beta =a_{\alpha \beta }^{(2)}a_{\alpha \beta }^{(1)}=a_{\beta \alpha }^{(1)}a_{\alpha \beta }^{(1)}.`$ (2.26)
Then in string theory one can identify $`𝒮_\alpha `$ as a fractional D0-brane $`\rho _\alpha `$.

We argue that this complex (2.25) just represents the tachyon condensation of D6-branes $`_\alpha _\beta a_{\alpha \beta }^{(2)}_\beta `$ and anti D6-branes $`_\alpha _\beta a_{\alpha \beta }^{(1)}_\beta `$. Indeed for the orbifold $`𝚪=𝐙_N`$ this is the same as the previous result for the tachyon field $`p=q=r=1`$ in BSFT with $`𝒩=2`$ boundary supersymmetry. One can understand the interpretation of the arrows in the complex as tachyon fields in detail. Let us remember the explicit form of non-abelian tachyon field (2.14). Then it is easy to see that the multiplication of the tachyon fields $`T_1=Z_1,T_2=Z_2,T_3=Z_3`$ transform a D6-brane $`\rho _\alpha `$ into three anti D6-branes $`\rho _{\alpha +a_1}\rho _{\alpha +a_2}\rho _{\alpha +a_3}`$ and so on. This is equivalent to the arrows (the boundary operator $`\stackrel{d_i}{}`$) defined before666When the elements of the non-abelian tachyon field are anti-holomorphic, we interpret these as arrows in the opposite direction.. In other words, the wedge product of $`B`$ corresponds to the multiplication of the operator $`_i𝚪_iT_i`$. This explicitly shows its nilpotency. We can also consider more general tachyon fields for any $`p,q,r`$. From the previous analysis we obtain the following complex:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\beta _i=0}{\overset{p_i1}{}}}𝒮_{\alpha +a_1\beta _1+a_2\beta _2+a_3\beta _2}:_\alpha _i_{\alpha +p_ia_i}_{ki,j}_{\alpha +p_ia_i+p_ja_j}_{\alpha +p_1a_1+p_2a_2+p_3a_3}.`$ (2.27)
Note that this complex can be obtained from the linear combination of (2.25) with appropriate ‘brane-antibrane annihilation’ (or more precisely up to quasi-isomorphism).

For non-abelian orbifolds we cannot show this correspondence explicitly since it is difficult to construct the appropriate boundary interaction. However it is natural from the above results to believe that any tachyon condensation which corresponds to the complex (2.25) preserves $`𝒩=2`$ boundary supersymmetry. In this way the tachyon condensation in orbifold theory gives an interesting example which relates the string field theory restricted by $`𝒩=2`$ boundary supersymmetry to mathematics on complex manifolds.

## 3 Comment on $`𝒩=4`$ Boundary Supersymmetry

As we have seen, $`𝒩=2`$ supersymmetry in tachyonic boundary interactions enables a refined mathematical viewpoint. Thus it will also be interesting to consider $`𝒩=4`$ supersymmetry further. The world-sheet $`𝒩=4`$ supersymmetry constrains the target space $``$ to be hyperkahler as is well-known  and thus we assume that the dimension of $``$ is a multiple of four. Here we would like to discuss world-sheet with a boundary which preserves $`𝒩=4`$ boundary supersymmetry. In particular we discuss the Neumann boundary condition $`_1\mathrm{\Phi }^i|_\mathrm{\Sigma }=0,(\psi _L^i\psi _R^i)|_\mathrm{\Sigma }=0`$ since we are interested in brane-antibrane systems wrapping on the whole manifold $``$ with no flux. The generalization of our results to other boundary conditions is obtained by the $`SO(3)`$ rotation (see ) directly. Since the appropriate $`𝒩=4`$ off-shell superspace is not known, we work within $`𝒩=1`$ superspace or by using its component expressions.

The $`𝒩=4`$ non-linear sigma model is defined by the following action :

$`I_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4i}}{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Sigma }}(d\sigma )^2(d\theta )^2g_{ij}(𝚽)\overline{D}𝚽^iD𝚽^j,`$ (3.1)
where $`𝚽^i(\sigma )=\mathrm{\Phi }^i(\sigma )+\theta \psi ^i(\sigma )+\mathrm{}`$ denote the $`𝒩=1`$ superfields on the world-sheet $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Then this bulk action is invariant under the $`𝒩=4`$ supersymmetry. Its restriction on the boundary (along $`x^0`$) of the world-sheet is given by

$`\delta \varphi ^i`$ $`=`$ $`iϵ\psi ^jf_j^{(a)i},`$
$`\delta \psi ^i`$ $`=`$ $`h_j^{(a)i}ϵ(_0\varphi ^j)i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{kl}^if_j^{(a)l}ϵ\psi ^j\psi ^k,`$ (3.2)
where $`f_j^{(a)l}=(h^{(a)1})_j^i,(a=1,2,3)`$ denotes three independent complex structures and this defines a hyperkahler structure. In other words these satisfy

$`f_j^{(a)i}f_k^{(b)j}+f_j^{(b)i}f_k^{(a)j}=2\delta ^{ab}\delta _k^i,g_{ij}f_k^{(a)i}f_l^{(a)j}=g_{kl},_if_k^{(a)j}=0.`$ (3.3)
The first equation shows the correct algebra of 2D $`𝒩=4`$ supersymmetry. The second and third are required by the invariance of the action (3.1) by the transformations (3.2).

The boundary interaction for tachyon fields is given by

$`I_B={\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Sigma }}(d\tau )(d\theta )(𝚪^AD𝚪^A+T^A(𝚽)𝚪^A).`$ (3.4)
Note that here we have employed $`𝒩=1`$ boundary superspace and thus the boundary fermionic superfields $`𝚪^A=\eta ^A+\theta F^A`$ are real. We would like for the combined action $`I_0+I_B`$ to be invariant under the $`𝒩=4`$ boundary supersymmetry (3.2) and

$`\delta \eta ^A`$ $`=`$ $`ϵF^B𝖿_B^{(a)A},`$
$`\delta F^A`$ $`=`$ $`iϵ_\tau \eta ^B𝗁_B^{(a)A}.`$ (3.5)
This is possible if the following conditions are satisfied

$`𝖿_B^{(a)A}𝗁_C^{(a)B}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _C^A,`$ (3.6)
$`𝖿_B^{(a)A}𝖿_C^{(b)B}+𝖿_B^{(b)A}𝖿_C^{(a)B}`$ $`=`$ $`2\delta ^{ab}\delta _C^A,`$ (3.7)
$`𝖿_B^{(a)A}`$ $`=`$ $`𝗁_A^{(a)B},`$ (3.8)
$`_i𝖿_B^{(a)A}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (3.9)
$`f_j^{(a)i}(_iT^A)(_jT^B)𝖿_B^{(a)A}`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (3.10)
The equations (3.6) and (3.7) ensure the correct algebra of the boundary $`𝒩=4`$ supersymmetry. The others are needed for the invariance of the action $`I_0+I_B`$ under this supersymmetry. As can be seen from these requirements the three matrices $`𝖿_B^{(a)A}O(4)(a=1,2,3)`$ , which is constant due to eq.(3.9), define a hyperkahler structure on the vector space $`V`$ along the boundary superfields $`𝚪^A`$. Thus the dimension of this vector space should be a multiple of four again. Finally, the last equation (3.10) constrains the tachyon fields so as to preserve the extended supersymmetry. If one requires only $`𝒩=2`$ supersymmetry ($`a=1`$), then this means that the tachyon fields are holomorphic and reproduce the result in . In the $`𝒩=4`$ case now considered, this gives a more strong restriction. For simplicity let us assume $`dim(V)=dim()=4`$ and $``$ is flat. By using $`O(4)`$ rotation we can set $`𝖿^{(a)}=f^{(a)}`$ and the explicit form can be given using the Pauli matrices as follows:

$`𝖿^{(1)}=(i\sigma _2)1,𝖿^{(2)}=\sigma _1(i\sigma _2),𝖿^{(3)}=\sigma _3(i\sigma _2).`$ (3.11)
Then it is easy to find the following linear solutions to eq.(3.10):

$`T^A(\mathrm{\Phi })={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}}M_i^A\mathrm{\Phi }_i,`$ (3.12)
where the matrix $`M`$ is any linear combination of both the identity and the following three matrices, which represent the quaternionic algebra:

$`𝖨=1(i\sigma _2),𝖩=(i\sigma _2)\sigma _3,𝖪=(i\sigma _2)\sigma _1.`$ (3.13)
If we apply this result to the previous arguments on tachyon condensation on two dimensional orbifolds, we find that these allowed configurations include the decay of $`\text{D}4\overline{\text{D}4}`$ into a fractional D0-brane which corresponds to the following complex similar to (2.25):

$`𝒮_\alpha :_\alpha \stackrel{d_2}{}_\beta a_{\alpha \beta }^{(1)}_\beta \stackrel{d_1}{}_\alpha .`$ (3.14)
For more general configurations of tachyon fields we have not obtained any definite solutions of eq.(3.10).

If gauge fields on D-branes have a non-trivial configuration, then this space $`V`$ is twisted and the boundary superfields $`𝚪^A`$ should be viewed as a special kind of section (satisfying a restriction like eq.(3.10)) of a vector bundle on the hyperkahler manifold $``$. It would also be interesting to construct $`𝒩=4`$ boundary interactions including gauge fields and clarify the meaning of the ‘quaternionic’ constraint (3.10).

## 4 Conclusions

In this paper we have studied a mathematical aspect of tachyon condensation on brane-antibrane systems in the (three dimensional) orbifold theories. We have applied to this system the boundary string field theory with boundary $`𝒩=2`$ supersymmetry. As a result we have observed that the essential part of the tachyon condensation can be understood as the McKay correspondence. This example shows that the $`𝒩=2`$ supersymmetry enables us to employ the language of homological algebra in algebraic geometry. One can regard this as an example of the recent interpretation of D-branes as derived category. We have also discussed the boundary $`𝒩=4`$ supersymmetry and observed this symmetry leads to a certain quaternionic constraint on tachyon fields.

Acknowledgments

I am very grateful to T. Eguchi and Y. Matsuo for valuable discussions and encouragements. I also thank T. Muto for explaining useful facts on orbifolds and thank S. Terashima, M. Hamanaka and H. Kajiura for helpful discussions. This work is supported by JSPS Research Fellowships for Young Scientists.