text:
# Untitled Document

hep-th/0204168 RUNHETC-2002-11

Strings in a Time-Dependent Orbifold

Hong Liu, Gregory Moore

Department of Physics, Rutgers University

Piscataway, New Jersey, 08855-0849

and

Nathan Seiberg

School of Natural Sciences

Institute for Advanced Study

Einstein Drive,Princeton, NJ 08540

We consider string theory in a time dependent orbifold with a null singularity. The singularity separates a contracting universe from an expanding universe, thus constituting a big crunch followed by a big bang. We quantize the theory both in light-cone gauge and covariantly. We also compute some tree and one loop amplitudes which exhibit interesting behavior near the singularity. Our results are compatible with the possibility that strings can pass through the singularity from the contracting to the expanding universe, but they also indicate the need for further study of certain divergent scattering amplitudes.

Revised: June 7, 2002

1. Introduction and Motivation

Much of the work in string theory and CFT has been in the context of Euclidean signature target space, i.e. in time-independent  background geometries. Many interesting problems in physics involve time in an essential way. It is therefore of interest to extend the study of string theory to time-dependent backgrounds.

The extension of string theory from Euclidean to Lorentzian signature is nontrivial and many new issues arise. For example, in a time-dependent background there is no natural definition of the vacuum. Also, it is not always clear what the correct observables of string theory are. Another question we may ask is whether time comes to an end. If it does, how do we describe the boundary conditions or final states. If it does not, how do strings resolve or pass through the spacelike singularities predicted by general relativity. Such singularities arise behind the horizon of black holes and in the big-bang. Therefore understanding them is of great interest. We may also ask whether timelike and null closed curves are pathological, and if not, whether there are interesting string-winding effects associated with such curves. The list of questions and issues goes on, but the above questions are representative.

In this paper we begin an exploration of these questions in string theory by describing a simple model of a time-dependent geometry in which one can attempt to address some of the above issues in a controlled setting. In a companion longer paper  we will provide more details.

In section 2 we describe the model and its geometry. In section 3 we study the functions on our spacetime which are the wave functions of the first quantized particles. In sections 4 and 5 we quantize free strings in the light-cone and conformal gauges and compute the torus partition function. Section 6 is devoted to a preliminary analysis of the interactions and backreaction. Our conclusions are presented in section 7.

2. Geometry of the Orbifold

2.1. The model

Time dependent backgrounds are difficult to work with in general. As with Calabi-Yau compactification, orbifolds provide a useful approach: They are simple enough to be solvable, yet complicated enough to illustrate nontrivial effects. An interesting class of time-dependent models is based on target spaces of the form $`\left(\mathrm{IR}^{1,n}/\mathrm{\Gamma }\right)\times 𝒞^{}`$ where the orbifold group is a discrete subgroup $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of the Poincaré group, and $`𝒞^{}`$ is a “transverse” conformal field theory rendering the full string theory consistent1 One can also consider the case where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ also acts on “transverse” coordinates.. This class of models was discussed about 12 years ago by Horowitz and Steif . Recently there has been a renaissance in the subject motivated in part by the desire to use string theory to address questions of cosmology \[3--8\]. Other time dependent backgrounds were studied in \[9--14\].

The model studied in this letter is based on the target space $`\left(\mathrm{IR}^{1,2}/\mathrm{\Gamma }\right)\times 𝒞^{}`$ where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }𝐙`$ is a subgroup of the 3D Lorentz group $`\mathrm{Spin}(1,2)SL(2,R)`$. The orbifold group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is completely specified by choosing a conjugacy class of a generator $`g_0`$. $`SL(2,R)`$ has three distinct conjugacy classes, elliptic, hyperbolic, and parabolic. The elliptic classes correspond to spatial rotations, the hyperbolic classes correspond to boosts leaving one spatial dimension fixed, and the parabolic classes correspond to “null boosts.” We will choose $`g_0`$ to be a parabolic element. This leads to the “null orbifold” introduced in , briefly studied in  and more recently considered in . We will now describe the geometry of this orbifold in some detail.

We introduce coordinates $`x^\mu `$ on $`\mathrm{IR}^{1,2}`$ which are assembled into a column vector $`X`$. The Lorentz metric is $`ds^2=2dx^+dx^{}+dx^2`$. The generator $`g_0`$ acts as

$$X:=\left(\begin{array}{c}x^+\\ x^{}\\ x^{}\end{array}\right)g_0X=e^{v𝒥}X=\left(\begin{array}{c}x^+\\ x+vx^+\\ x^{}+vx+\frac{1}{2}v^2x^+\end{array}\right);𝒥=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 0\\ 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0\end{array}\right)$$

That is, $`g_0=\mathrm{exp}\left(ivJ\right)`$ where we take the Lie algebra generator

$$J=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(J^{0x}+J^{1x})$$

corresponding to a linear combination of a boost and a rotation. By a boost in the 1-direction we can set $`v=2\pi `$.

The geodesic distance between a point and its $`n`$’th image is $`|nvx^+|`$. Therefore our orbifold has no closed timelike curves. For $`x^+0`$ all closed curves are spacelike and for $`x^+=0`$ there exist closed null curves.

The orbifold by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ breaks the Poincaré symmetry, leaving only two of its Lie algebra generators unbroken. These are $`J`$ of (2.1) and $`p^+=p_{}`$ which shifts $`x^{}`$ by a constant. The null Killing vector associated with $`p^+`$ allows us to pick light-cone gauge; i.e. to treat $`x^+`$ as time. Since $`p^{}=p_+`$ is broken by the orbifold the light-cone system depends on $`x^+`$ and hence it is still nontrivial. Having a null Killing vector has an important consequence. The light-cone evolution is first order in light-cone time and hence it is simpler than standard second order time evolution. As a result of that, even though our background is time dependent, there is no particle production in the second quantized theory when described in the light-cone frame.

Equation (2.1) determines the action of the group element $`g_0`$ on spinors up to a sign. For an appropriate choice of this sign the group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ leaves one spinor invariant, and therefore the orbifold has a covariantly constant spinor. When the superstring is compactified on this orbifold it preserves half of the supercharges. These supercharges square to the Killing vector $`p^+`$.

In the light-cone frame where $`x^+`$ is taken to be the time $`x^+=\tau `$ the transformation (2.1) has the following physical interpretation. It is simply a Galilean boost by velocity $`v`$. It leaves the time $`x^+=\tau `$ invariant and shifts the coordinate $`xx+v\tau `$. The action of the parabolic generator $`g_0`$ on the translation generators $`P`$ is similar to (2.1)

$$P=\left(\begin{array}{c}p^+\\ p\\ p^{}\end{array}\right)e^{v𝒥}P=\left(\begin{array}{c}p^+\\ p+vp^+\\ p^{}+vp+\frac{1}{2}v^2p^+\end{array}\right).$$

Since $`m^2=2p^+p^{}p^2`$ is Lorentz invariant, it is invariant under the parabolic generator $`J`$. An analogy to Newtonian physics emerges when we solve for $`p^{}=\frac{p^2+m^2}{2p^+}`$. In the light-cone frame $`p^+`$ is interpreted as the mass $`\mu =p^+`$, $`V=\frac{m^2}{2p^+}`$ is the potential energy and $`p^{}=\frac{p^2}{2\mu }+V`$ is the total energy. In terms of the variables $`\mu ,p,V`$ the parabolic transformation (2.1) is simply $`pp+v\mu `$ with $`\mu `$ and $`V`$ left invariant.

Thus the parabolic orbifold obtained from (2.1) can be considered in the light-cone frame as the quotient by a Galilean boost.

2.2. A Little Model for a Big Bang

It is convenient describe the geometry of the quotient space $`𝒪=\mathrm{IR}^{1,2}/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ by introducing new coordinates

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill y^+& :=x^+\hfill \\ \hfill y& :=\frac{x}{x^+}\hfill \\ \hfill y^{}& :=\frac{2x^+x^{}x^2}{2x^+}=x^{}\frac{1}{2}\frac{x^2}{x^+}.\hfill \end{array}$$

The advantage of this change of coordinates is that the identifications are simple (henceforth we take $`v=2\pi `$):

$$(y^+,y,y^{})(y^+,y+2\pi ,y^{})$$

and so is the metric

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill ds^2& =2dx^+dx^{}+(dx)^2=2dy^+dy^{}+(y^+)^2(dy)^2.\hfill \end{array}$$

The spacetime (2.1), which we call the parabolic pinch, may be visualized as two cones (parametrized by $`y^+`$ and $`y`$) with a common tip at $`y^+=0`$, crossed with the real line (for $`y^{}`$). $`y`$ plays the role of an “angular variable” and the null coordinate $`y^+`$ plays the role of a “radial variable.” As a function of the “light-cone time” $`y^+`$ we have a big crunch of the circle at $`y^+=0`$ which is followed by a big bang. The dual role of $`y^+`$ as both a radial variable and a time variable will be the source of some interesting physics.

It is important that the model does not have closed timelike curves. The closed loop parametrized by $`y`$ is spacelike for $`y^+0`$. At the singularity where $`y^+=0`$ the circumference of the $`y`$ circle vanishes. We will discuss the singularity in more detail below.

Having in mind light-cone frame, we will refer to all the points in the orbifold with $`x^+=y^+<0`$ as the past cone, and to all the points in the orbifold with $`x^+=y^+>0`$ as the future cone. An interesting feature of the spacetime (2.1), which is intuitively what we expect from a big crunch followed by a big bang, is that every point $`𝒫=(y^+,y,y^{})`$ with $`y^+>0`$ in the future cone is in the causal future of every point $`\stackrel{~}{𝒫}=(\stackrel{~}{y}^+,\stackrel{~}{y},\stackrel{~}{y}^{})`$ with $`\stackrel{~}{y}^+<0`$ in the past cone. This follows since the Lorentzian distance square between $`𝒫`$ and the $`n^{th}`$ image $`g_0^n\stackrel{~}{𝒫}`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{𝒫}`$ can be computed from

$$Xg_0^n\stackrel{~}{X}^2=2\mathrm{\Delta }x^+\mathrm{\Delta }x^{}+(\mathrm{\Delta }x)^2+(2\pi n)^2x^+\stackrel{~}{x}^++2(2\pi n)(x^+\stackrel{~}{x}x\stackrel{~}{x}^+)$$

where $`\mathrm{\Delta }x^\mu =x^\mu \stackrel{~}{x}^\mu `$. At large $`n`$ the term $`(2\pi n)^2x^+\stackrel{~}{x}^+`$ dominates, so if $`x^+\stackrel{~}{x}^+<0`$, there are infinitely many $`g\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ such that $`𝒫I^+(g\stackrel{~}{𝒫})`$.

We may now formulate our motivating questions more precisely in this context, namely:

1. What is the nature of the singularity at $`x^+=y^+=0`$? What happens to string theory there?

2. Is the singularity an end of spacetime; i.e. does a consistent formulation of string theory on $`\mathrm{IR}^{1,2}/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ require one cone or two cones? Or is this a choice of physical model?

2.3. Nature of the singularity

In this subsection we analyze the singular subspace $`x^+=y^+=0`$. The identification on this subspace is

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}x^+=0\\ x\\ x^{}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}x^+=0\\ x\\ x^{}+2\pi nx\end{array}\right)$$

Unlike the situation for $`x^+0`$, here $`x`$ is not subject to identification and hence it is a good coordinate. Note also that there is no nontrivial identification at $`x=0`$, so all points along the $`x^{}`$ axis are distinct. On the other hand, for very small $`x`$, points with very different $`x^{}`$, with very small spacing, will be identitfied. This situation is impossible to describe using the $`y`$ coordinates.

Since the coordinate transformation (2.1) is singular at $`x^+=0`$ we need to describe the space $`C_Y`$ coordinatized by $`y`$ with some care. (2.1) implies that we begin with $`(y^+,y,y^{})\mathrm{IR}^3`$, and quotient by the equivalence relation $`(y^+,y,y^{})(y^+,y+2\pi ,y^{})`$ together with $`(y^+=0,y,y^{})(y^+=0,0,y^{})`$. This latter identification is natural since $`y`$ is an angular variable and $`y^+`$ behaves like a radial variable. More precisely, $`C_Y`$ projects to 2-dimensional Minkowski space parametrized by $`(y^+,y^{})`$ with generic fiber a circle, except at $`y^+=0`$, where the fiber degenerates to a point. $`C_Y`$ has no closed timelike or null curves and is Hausdorff. It looks like a double cone times a line.

In the above we gave a precise definition of the space $`C_Y`$ following from (2.1). This space is in fact not precisely the orbifold $`𝒪=\mathrm{IR}^{1,2}/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of section 2, but is closely related to it. Our change of coordinates is a continuous map

$$\pi :C_Y𝒪=\mathrm{IR}^{1,2}/\mathrm{\Gamma }$$

given explicitly by

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill x^+& =y^+\hfill \\ \hfill x& =yy^+\hfill \\ \hfill x^{}& =y^{}+\frac{1}{2}y^+y^2\hfill \end{array}$$

This is an isomorphism for $`x^+=y^+0`$, but is not even surjective for $`y^+=0`$. In fact, the space $`𝒪`$ is not Hausdorff. Recall that the Hausdorff separation axiom states that open sets separate distinct points. That is, $`PQ,`$ $``$ open sets $`U_P,U_Q`$ containing $`P,Q`$, respectively, such that $`U_PU_Q=\mathrm{}`$. To illustrate the non-Hausdorff nature of the orbifold consider the simplified problem of the quotient of the plane $`x^+=0`$ by the identification (2.1). As we have have mentioned, all points along the $`x^{}`$ axis ($`x^+=x=0`$) are distinct. On the other hand, for small $`x`$ the open sets which resolve different values of $`x^{}`$ must also get small, and this leads to a non-Hausdorff topology. Specifically, one finds that points on the lines $`L_A=\{(0,A,x^{}):x^{}\mathrm{IR}\}`$ and $`L_A=\{(0,A,x^{}):x^{}\mathrm{IR}\}`$ cannot be separated by open sets in $`𝒪`$. Of course, by adding an equivalence relation to $`𝒪`$: $`(x^+=0,x,x^{})(x^+=0,x=0,x^{})`$ or by considering its subspace which is the image of (2.1) we produce a new space $`𝒪^{}`$ topologically isomorphic to $`C_Y`$.

To summarize: in studying our time-dependent string background we are lead to consider two distinct spaces, the group quotient $`𝒪`$, which is non-Hausdorff, and the parabolic pinch $`𝒪^{}`$, which is Hausdorff. They are identical away from the singularity but the nature of the singularity in the two spaces is different. One useful way of thinking about the distinction is in terms of the foliation by equal-time slices. $`𝒪`$ is foliated by slices $`_{x^+}`$, where $`_0`$ is not Hausdorff, while $`𝒪^{}`$ is foliated by slices $`_{y^+}^{}`$, where $`_0^{}=\{(0,0,y^{})\}`$ is a real line. For $`x^+=y^+0`$ the map (2.1) defines an isomorphism of the foliated spaces.

The advantage of the $`y`$ coordinate system is that it gives us a clear picture of the topology both of $`𝒪`$ and of $`𝒪^{}`$ for $`x^+=y^+0`$. On $`𝒪^{}`$, $`y^\mu `$ is a good global coordinate system including the singularity on the double cone times a line. On the group quotient $`𝒪`$ the $`y`$ coordinate system is singular at $`_0`$. This is clear from the identification (2.1). Therefore, for questions associated with the singularity of $`𝒪`$ we will prefer to use the $`x`$ coordinate system.

The standard string orbifold procedure constructs string theory on the quotient by a group action. In formulating strings in light-cone gauge it might be possible to construct strings propagating on $`𝒪^{}`$, as well as on $`𝒪`$. Unfortunately, the consistency of string theory on $`𝒪^{}`$ is not self-evident since $`𝒪^{}`$ is not geodesically complete at $`y^+=0`$; some geodesics reach $`y^{}\pm \mathrm{}`$ in finite proper time. In the covariant formulation described below, we are describing strings propagating on $`𝒪`$.

2.4. Relation to other models

The parabolic orbifold is closely related to two other models, which, at first sight, appear to require that physics only makes sense on one cone, and not two. We believe that in each of these examples there is a subtlety which invalidates the argument for a single cone.

Our first example is the elliptic orbifold: $`(C/𝐙_N)\times \mathrm{IR}`$, boosted in the $`(r,t)`$ plane by a boost $`1/N`$, in the limit as $`N\mathrm{}`$. Locally, the metric degenerates to that of $`C_Y`$. However, one must carefully consider the range  of the coordinates. There are regions of spacetime mutually inaccessible in the initial and final systems: It is not even true that the one-cone theory is the limit of the elliptic orbifold.

Our second example is the $`J=M=0`$ BTZ black hole \[16,,17\]. Let us identify $`\mathrm{IR}^{1,2}`$ with the Lie algebra of $`SL(2,R)`$. Then (2.1) is simply the adjoint action by $`g_0`$. Now, the BTZ black hole is simply obtained by replacing the Lie algebra by the Lie group $`\stackrel{~}{SL(2,R)}`$, 2 $`\stackrel{~}{SL(2,R)}`$ is the universal cover of $`SL(2,R)`$ and by promoting the adjoint action of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ on the Lie algebra to the adjoint action on the group, and restricting to a single fundamental domain. The Lie algebra is the infinitesimal region of the identity and indeed a scaling limit of the BTZ metric near the singularity produces (2.1). (In this context the fact that the singularity is not Hausdorff was noted in .) One might think that the AdS/CFT correspondence demands that we do not continue beyond the singularity. But careful consideration suggests that there is no immediate contradiction between the AdS/CFT correspondence and the existence of a possible continuation beyond the singularity.

3. First Quantized Theory

In this section, as a warmup for string theory on the orbifold, we consider first quantized particles. The first quantized wave equation for a spinless particle of mass $`m`$ is:

$$\left[2\frac{}{x^+}\frac{}{x^{}}+(\frac{}{x})^2\right]\psi =m^2\psi .$$

To define the orbifold Hilbert space we project onto wavefunctions invariant under

$$𝒰(g_0):=\mathrm{exp}(2\pi i\widehat{J}),\widehat{J}=\widehat{x}^+\widehat{p}\widehat{x}\widehat{p}^+=i\left(x^+\frac{}{x}+x\frac{}{x^{}}\right).$$

The generators of the Poincare algebra which are invariant under $`𝒰(g_0)`$ are $`\widehat{p}^+`$ and $`\widehat{J}`$. Thus on the orbifold it is convenient to diagonalize these operators. Explicitly3 We will take $`p^+0`$. Some further comments on the $`p^+=0`$ case will be found in .,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \psi _{p^+,J}=& \sqrt{\frac{p^+}{ix^+}}\mathrm{exp}\left[ip^+x^{}i\frac{m^2}{2p^+}x^++i\frac{p^+}{2x^+}(x\xi )^2\right]\hfill \\ & =_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dp}{\sqrt{2\pi }}e^{ip\xi }\varphi _{p^+,p}(x^+,x^{},x)\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`\xi :=J/p^+`$ and hence the eigenvalue $`J`$ enters as a “position” $`\xi `$. In the second line above we have expanded the wave function in terms of standard on-shell plane wave basis

$$\varphi _{p^+,p}(x^+,x,x^{})=\mathrm{exp}\left(ip^+x^{}ip^{}x^++ipx\right),p^{}=\frac{p^2+m^2}{2p^+}$$

The plane waves are not invariant under the orbifold action (2.1), and the invariant functions obtained by summing over the images are not a convenient basis on the orbifold. It is easy to check that in terms of $`\psi _{p^+,J}`$ (3.1) the orbifold projection is simply $`J𝐙`$.

Since $`\psi _{p^+,J}`$ is a Fourier transformation in $`p`$ it can be interpreted as an $`x`$-eigenfunction. Indeed

$$\underset{x^+0}{lim}\psi _{p^+,J}(x^+,x,x^{})=\sqrt{2\pi }e^{ip^+x^{}}\delta (x\xi ),\xi =J/p^+$$

This result can be derived more directly by considering an eigenvector of $`_x^{}`$ which is well defined on the surface $`_0`$ under the identification (2.1).4 Note that the limit (3.1) is not well defined on the Hausdorff space $`_0^{}𝒪^{}`$ since the distribution (3.1) separates points which are identified in $`𝒪^{}`$. Equation (3.1) can also be understood from the fact that $`\widehat{J}=\widehat{x}^+\widehat{p}\widehat{x}\widehat{p}^+\widehat{x}\widehat{p}^+`$ at $`x^+=0`$. Thus the eigenfunction of $`\widehat{J}`$ and $`\widehat{p}^+`$ must be a coordinate eigenfunction with eigenvalue $`\xi =J/p^+.`$ Since $`J`$ is quantized on the orbifold, we see that with fixed $`p^+`$ the wavefunctions are supported on the lattice $`x\frac{1}{p^+}𝐙`$ at $`x^+=0`$.

Equation (3.1) should be interpreted with care. The limit of $`\psi `$ is a distribution and should only be convoluted with smooth functions. For example, it is clear that $`lim_{x^+0}|\psi _{p^+,J}|^2=\left|\frac{p^+}{x^+}\right|`$ which is not localized at $`\xi `$.

4. Strings on the orbifold: Light-Cone Gauge

In this section we analyze the system in the light-cone gauge $`x^+=y^+=\tau `$. The light-cone gauge Lagrangian is

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill L=& p^+_\tau x_0^{}+\frac{1}{4\pi \alpha ^{}}_0^{2\pi }𝑑\sigma \left(\alpha ^{}p^+_\tau x_\tau x\frac{1}{\alpha ^{}p^+}_\sigma x_\sigma x\right)\hfill \\ & =p^+_\tau y_0^{}+\frac{1}{4\pi \alpha ^{}}_0^{2\pi }𝑑\sigma \tau ^2\left(\alpha ^{}p^+_\tau y_\tau y\frac{1}{\alpha ^{}p^+}_\sigma y_\sigma y\right)\hfill \end{array}$$

where

$$\begin{array}{cc}& x(\sigma ,\tau )=\tau y(\sigma ,\tau )\hfill \\ & y_0^{}(\tau )=x_0^{}(\tau )\frac{1}{2\tau }_0^{2\pi }\frac{d\sigma }{2\pi }(x(\sigma ,\tau ))^2\hfill \end{array}$$

Invariance under constant shifts of $`\sigma `$ is implemented by imposing

$$𝑑\sigma \left(_\sigma x_\tau x\frac{1}{2\tau }_\sigma x^2\right)=𝑑\sigma \tau ^2_\sigma y_\tau y=0$$

It is important that the two expressions for the Lagrangian (4.1) and the expressions for the constraint (4.1) are invariant under the orbifold identification

$$\begin{array}{cc}& x(\sigma ,\tau )x(\sigma ,\tau )+2\pi n\tau \hfill \\ & x_0^{}(\tau )x_0^{}(\tau )+2\pi n_0^{2\pi }\frac{d\sigma }{2\pi }x(\sigma ,\tau )+\frac{(2\pi n)^2}{2}\tau \hfill \\ & y(\sigma ,\tau )y(\sigma ,\tau )+2\pi n\hfill \end{array}$$

The equations of motions for $`x_0^{}`$ and $`y_0^{}`$ set $`p^+`$ to a constant. The equations of motion for $`p^+`$ leads to

$$\begin{array}{cc}& P_x^{}=p^+_\tau x_0^{}=\frac{1}{4\pi \alpha ^{}}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\sigma \left(_\tau x_\tau x+_\sigma x_\sigma x\right)\hfill \\ & P_y^{}=p^+_\tau y_0^{}=\frac{1}{4\pi \alpha ^{}}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\sigma \tau ^2\left(_\tau y_\tau y+_\sigma y_\sigma y\right)\hfill \end{array}$$

where we have rescaled $`\sigma `$ to range in $`[0,\mathrm{}=2\pi \alpha ^{}p^+)`$ (we will continue to use this rescaled value). The Hamiltonian $`P_x^{}`$ is not invariant under the orbifold identification (4.1) but $`P_y^{}`$ is invariant. Either expression can be used in the quantization .

A complete set of solutions to the equations of motion in the $`w`$-twisted sector, can be expressed in terms of harmonic oscillators:

$$\begin{array}{cc}& x(\sigma ,\tau )=\xi +\frac{p}{p^+}\tau +\frac{2\pi w\sigma \tau }{\mathrm{}}+\hfill \\ & i\left(\frac{\alpha ^{}}{2}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\underset{n0}{}\left\{\frac{\alpha _n}{n}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{2\pi in(\sigma +\tau )}{\mathrm{}}\right]+\frac{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_n}{n}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{2\pi in(\sigma \tau )}{\mathrm{}}\right]\right\}\hfill \end{array}$$

The solution of $`x_0^{}`$ is obtained from (4.1). The solution for $`y`$ is simply found from (4.1). Upon quantization these oscillators obey the standard canonical commutation relations.

The Lagrangian (4.1) in terms of $`x`$ is similar to the standard Lagrangian and is expanded in terms of the normal modes in a way similar to the standard expansion. The differences in the zero modes are that $`J=\xi p^+`$ must be quantized and the winding term $`\frac{2\pi w\sigma \tau }{\mathrm{}}`$ has an unusual form.

The evolution away from $`\tau =0`$ can be analyzed using either the $`x`$ or the $`y`$ variables. The quantization in terms of $`x`$ is standard. The coordinate $`\xi `$, which is not subject to identification on the singular surface $`\tau =0`$ in $`𝒪`$ is constrained to be on the lattice $`\xi =J/p^+`$. The evolution of the nonzero modes is as in standard free string theory. The constraint (4.1) leads to $`Jw+N\stackrel{~}{N}=0`$ where $`N`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$ are the standard number operators.

In terms of $`y`$ variables we have a single-valued, but time dependent Hamiltonian

$$P_y^{}=\frac{1}{4\pi \alpha ^{}}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\sigma \left[\frac{(2\pi \alpha ^{}\mathrm{\Pi }_y)^2}{\tau ^2}+\tau ^2(_\sigma y)^2\right]=\frac{1}{2p^+}\left[\frac{J^2}{\tau ^2}+\frac{w^2\tau ^2}{\alpha ^2}\right]+\frac{\pi }{\mathrm{}}\underset{n>0}{}H_n(\tau )$$

where $`\mathrm{\Pi }_y=\frac{1}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}\tau ^2_\tau y`$ is the canonical momentum and

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill H_n(\tau )& =\left[\lambda _n(\alpha _n^{}\alpha _n+\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_n^{}\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_n)+\rho _n\alpha _n\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_n+\rho _n^{}\alpha _n^{}\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_n^{}+\omega _n\right]\hfill \\ & \lambda _n=2+\left(\frac{\mathrm{}}{2\pi n\tau }\right)^2\hfill \\ & \rho _n=\left(\frac{\mathrm{}}{2\pi n\tau }\right)^2\left[1+\frac{4\pi in\tau }{\mathrm{}}\right]\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{4\pi in\tau }{\mathrm{}}\right)\hfill \\ & \omega _n=n\lambda _n\hfill \end{array}$$

The first term on the right hand of (4.1) has the interpretation of the “rotational kinetic energy” of the zeromode. The second term is the winding energy and the rest is the oscillator contribution.

Equation (4.1) has an interpretation in terms of the Newtonian expression for the energy a particle with mass $`\mu =p^+`$ rotating around an origin at distance $`r=\tau `$ with angular momentum $`J`$:

$$H=\frac{J^2}{2\mu r^2}+V$$

Note once more the dual role of $`x^+`$ as both a radial and time coordinate. The Schrodinger problem with the Hamiltonian (4.1) can be solved explicitly .

The term $`\frac{\pi }{\mathrm{}}_{n>0}n\lambda _n(t)`$ in the Hamiltonian (4.1) leads to a logarithmically divergent time dependent subtraction. It can be interpreted as a logarithmic subtraction in the definition of $`y_0^{}`$ in terms of $`x_0^{}`$ and the composite operator $`x^2`$ (4.1). Therefore, it is absorbed by a redefinition of the first term $`p^+_\tau y_0^{}`$ in the Lagrangian (4.1).

Since $`_y`$ is a Killing vector of (2.1) we can also consider the T-dual background with $`g_{yy}1/g_{yy}`$ (see also \[15,,18\]). Define $`\stackrel{~}{y}`$ by the T-duality transformation

$$\begin{array}{cc}& 2\pi \mathrm{\Pi }_y=\frac{\tau ^2_\tau y}{\alpha ^{}}=_\sigma \stackrel{~}{y}\hfill \\ & 2\pi \mathrm{\Pi }_{\stackrel{~}{y}}=\frac{\alpha ^{}_\tau \stackrel{~}{y}}{\tau ^2}=_\sigma y\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`\stackrel{~}{y}\stackrel{~}{y}+2\pi `$. The dual action is

$$S^{}=\frac{1}{4\pi \alpha ^{}}𝑑\sigma 𝑑\tau \frac{(\alpha ^{})^2}{\tau ^2}\left[(_\tau \stackrel{~}{y})^2(_\sigma \stackrel{~}{y})^2\right]+\frac{1}{8\pi }𝑑\sigma 𝑑\tau \sqrt{\gamma }R^{(2)}\mathrm{log}\frac{\alpha ^{}}{(y^+)^2}$$

and the classical solution is

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \stackrel{~}{y}=& \stackrel{~}{y}_0\frac{\xi \sigma }{\alpha ^{}}+\frac{2\pi w\tau ^3}{3\alpha ^{}\mathrm{}}+\hfill \\ & p^+\left(\frac{\alpha ^{}}{2}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\underset{n0}{}\left(1+\frac{2\pi in\tau }{\mathrm{}}\right)\left(\frac{\alpha _n}{n^2}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{2\pi in(\sigma +\tau )}{\mathrm{}}\right]\frac{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_n}{n^2}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{2\pi in(\sigma \tau )}{\mathrm{}}\right]\right)\hfill \end{array}$$

As expected, the winding number of $`\stackrel{~}{y}`$, namely $`\frac{\mathrm{}\xi }{2\pi \alpha ^{}}=\xi p^+=J`$, is the eigenvalue of the parabolic generator $`J`$, while its momentum is $`w=𝑑\sigma \mathrm{\Pi }_{\stackrel{~}{y}}`$, which was the winding number of $`y`$.

Let us now comment briefly on the evolution of the system when we include the singular subspace $`_{x^+=0}`$ or the singular subspace $`_{y^+=0}^{}`$. We have analyzed in detail the light-cone quantization of strings moving on both $`𝒪`$ and $`𝒪^{}`$. Depending on subtle points regarding the interpretation of singular gauge transformations and the geometry of $`𝒪^{}`$ it appears that string propagation on $`𝒪`$ differs from that on $`𝒪^{}`$. Moreover, a branelike object, which we call the “instabrane” might appear in the theory on $`𝒪^{}`$. The physical relevance of the instabrane is a subtle question which will be addressed in detail in .5 If instabranes are indeed not gauge equivalent to Fock space states then a number of interesting questions arise. For examples: Can they probe the geometry near the singularity? Are they associated with K-theory of the crossed-product $`C(\mathrm{IR}^{1,2})\text{ }\text{ }\times \mathrm{\Gamma }`$?

We remarked above that for an appropriate choice of spin structure on $`𝒪_0𝒪^{}_0^{}`$ the orbifold preserves some spacetime supersymmetries. It is straightforward to extend the worldsheet Lagrangian (4.1) to the Green-Schwarz formalism. For concreteness consider the model on $`𝒪\times \mathrm{IR}^7`$. Before taking the quotient by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ we should add to (4.1) seven free worldsheet bosons $`x^i`$ and eight rightmoving fermions $`S^a`$ (in the type II theory we also need eight leftmoving fermions and in the heterotic string also leftmoving degrees of freedom for the internal degrees of freedom). It is easy to see using the symmetries of the problem that after the action by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ the added fields $`x^i`$ and $`S^a`$ remain free and periodic around the string .6 The same conclusion was also reached by A. Tseytlin.

5. Covariant Formulation

5.1. Quantization and exchange algebra

The covariant action is

$$S=\frac{1}{4\pi \alpha ^{}}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\tau _0^{2\pi }𝑑\sigma \eta _{\mu \nu }\left(_\tau x^\mu _\tau x^\nu _\sigma x^\mu _\sigma x^\nu \right)$$

In the twisted sector the boundary conditions are, $`X(\sigma +2\pi ,\tau )=e^{2\pi w𝒥}X(\sigma ,\tau )`$ where $`w𝐙`$ ($`𝒥`$ was defined in (2.1)). The general solution to the equations of motion in the twisted sector may be expressed in terms of oscillators

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \widehat{x}_L^\mu :=i\underset{n0}{}\frac{\alpha _n^\mu }{n}e^{inu^+}& \widehat{x}_R^\mu :=i\underset{n0}{}\frac{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_n^\mu }{n}e^{inu^{}}\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`u^\pm :=\sigma \pm \tau `$, and the zeromodes,

$$X_z(\tau ):=\left(\begin{array}{c}x_0^++\alpha ^{}p^+\tau \\ x_0+\alpha ^{}p\tau \\ x_0^{}+\alpha ^{}p^{}\tau +w^2\left(\alpha ^{}p^+\frac{\tau ^3}{6}+x_0^+\frac{\tau ^2}{2}\right)\end{array}\right)$$

by introducing a “spectral flow” operator:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill X(\sigma ,\tau )=\mathrm{exp}(w\sigma 𝒥)X_z(\tau )& +\mathrm{exp}(wu^+𝒥)\widehat{X}_L(u^+)+\mathrm{exp}(wu^{}𝒥)\widehat{X}_R(u^{}).\hfill \end{array}$$

The unusual nature of the solution (5.1) leads to novel commutation relations on the oscillators. The symplectic form is standard, $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\frac{1}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}𝑑\sigma \delta x^\mu \eta _{\mu \nu }_\tau \delta x^\nu `$, but the canonical commutation relations of the oscillators become:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill [\alpha _n^\mu ,\alpha _m^\nu ]& =n\delta _{n+m,0}\left[\frac{1}{\eta +i\frac{w}{n}\eta 𝒥}\right]^{\mu \nu }\hfill \\ \hfill [\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_n^\mu ,\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_m^\nu ]& =n\delta _{n+m,0}\left[\frac{1}{\eta i\frac{w}{n}\eta 𝒥}\right]^{\mu \nu }\hfill \end{array}$$

while $`[\alpha ,\stackrel{~}{\alpha }]=0`$.

Equations (5.1) lead to a curious exchange algebra. One way to express this is to introduce single-valued fields $`J_\pm (u^\pm ):=e^{wu^\pm 𝒥}_\pm X`$ which satisfy commutation relations

$$\begin{array}{cc}& [j_+^\mu (u^+),j_+^\nu (u^+^{})]=\pi i\alpha ^{}\eta ^{\mu \nu }_+\delta ^{(p)}(u^+u^+^{})+\pi i\alpha ^{}\delta ^{(p)}(u^+u^+^{})F^{\mu \nu }\hfill \\ & [j_{}^\mu (u^{}),j_{}^\nu (u^{^{}})]=\pi i\alpha ^{}\eta ^{\mu \nu }_{}\delta ^{(p)}(u^{}u^{^{}})\pi i\alpha ^{}\delta ^{(p)}(u^+u^+^{})F^{\mu \nu }\hfill \\ & F:=w𝒥\eta ^1=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& w\\ 0& w& 0\end{array}\right)\hfill \end{array}$$

Unlike $`_\pm X`$, the $`J_\pm `$ are not conformal fields. If we rotate to Euclidean signature and consider radial evolution in the complex plane, then (5.1) is equivalent to an exchange algebra in the $`w`$-twisted sector. For $`|z_1|>|z_2|`$ we have

$$x^{\mu _1}(z_1)x^{\mu _2}(z_2)=x^{\mu _2}(z_2)x^{\mu _1}(z_1)+i\frac{w}{z_1z_2}\left(e^{iw\mathrm{log}z_1𝒥}𝒥e^{iw\mathrm{log}z_2𝒥}\eta ^1\right)^{\mu _1\mu _2}.$$

The exchange algebra (5.1) is very similar to the exchange algebras of chiral vertex operators of RCFT, and indeed the above analysis applies to any orbifold by a linear action on the spacetime coordinates. Note that the exchange algebra has the flavor of an Heisenberg algebra, suggestive of non-commuting coordinates and hence of non-commutative geometry. Since it is present only in the twisted sectors with $`w0`$, and the wound strings are light only near $`x^+=0`$, it is reasonable to think that it reflects a property of the region near $`_{x^+=0}`$. In the context of another time-dependent orbifold, Nekrasov  has advocated a role of quantum groups. He discusses a two-dimensional model, and considers D0 branes, while we are working in the chiral sector of the closed string. The two results are different, but they are similar in spirit. Possible noncommutativity in light-cone coordinates was also discussed in .

5.2. The Physical state conditions

Although the worldsheet energy-momentum tensor has a standard form in $`X`$-coordinates:

$$T_{++}=\frac{1}{\alpha ^{}}_+X^{tr}\eta _+X=\underset{nZ}{}L_ne^{in(\tau +\sigma )}$$

we have a nonstandard realization of Virasoro operators since $`𝒥`$ is not diagonalizable, making the solution of the physical state conditions nontrivial. Nevertheless, a DDF-operator construction shows the BRST cohomology is nontrivial in the twisted sectors. More explicitly, it is easy to construct physical states in the winiding sector with zero modes only

$$\sqrt{\frac{p^+}{ix_0^+}}\mathrm{exp}\left[ip^+x_0^{}i\frac{\mathrm{m}^2}{2p^+}x_0^++i\frac{p^+}{2x_0^+}(x_0+\frac{J}{p^+})^2i\frac{w^2(x_0^+)^3}{6(\alpha ^{})^2p^+}\right]$$

where $`\mathrm{m}^2:=m^2+\stackrel{}{p}_{}^2`$, while $`\stackrel{}{p}_{}`$ is the momentum in the transverse directions and $`m^2=\frac{4}{\alpha ^{}}`$. One then can show that DDF-like operators

$$A_n=\frac{dz}{2\pi }\left(\frac{2}{\alpha ^{}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\left[_zx+iw\mathrm{log}z_zx^++\frac{w}{znk_0}\right]e^{ink_0x^+}(z),n=\pm 1,\pm 2\mathrm{}$$

with $`k_0=\frac{2}{\alpha ^{}p^+}`$, are well-defined and survive the orbifold projection. Together with their rightmoving counterparts $`\stackrel{~}{A}_n`$, they act on (5.1) to generate physical states with a full tower of positive signature Fock space states, even in the twisted sectors. This will be confirmed by the computation of the trace in covariant quantization.

5.3. Torus partition function

Let us now consider the path integral on a torus with worldsheet metric

$$g=dz_+dz_{}=(d\sigma ^1+\tau _+d\sigma ^2)(d\sigma ^1+\tau _{}d\sigma ^2)$$

where $`\sigma ^1,\sigma ^2`$ have period 1, while $`\tau _\pm \mathrm{IR}`$ for Lorentzian signature, and $`\tau _+=(\tau _{})^{}`$ for Euclidean signature tori. Until further notice we will use a Lorentzian torus.

In the orbifold theory we sum over winding sectors $`(w_a,w_b)`$ around the $`a,b`$-cycles. In these sectors we write the field as

$$X(\sigma ^1,\sigma ^2)=\mathrm{exp}\left[2\pi (\sigma ^1w_a+\sigma ^2w_b)𝒥\right]\underset{n_a,n_b𝐙}{}X_{n_a,n_b}e^{2\pi i(n_a\sigma ^1+n_b\sigma ^2)}.$$

Because the matrix $`𝒥`$ is strictly lower triangular the contribution of the quantum fluctuations is independent of $`w_a,w_b`$, and one finds that the one-loop partition function for the string theory is:

$$\begin{array}{cc}& Z=_𝒪\frac{d^3x}{(2\pi \sqrt{\alpha ^{}})^3}\underset{w_a,w_b𝐙}{}\mathrm{exp}\left[i\pi \frac{(x^+)^2}{\alpha ^{}}\frac{(w_b+w_a\tau _+)(w_b+w_a\tau _{})}{\tau _2}\right]\frac{iZ^{\mathrm{ghost}}Z^{}(w_a,w_b)}{(i\tau _2)^{3/2}(\eta (\tau _+)\eta (\tau _{}))^3}\hfill \end{array}$$

with $`\tau _2=(\tau _+\tau _{})/2`$. This formula can also be derived by explicit evaluation of the trace

$$Z^{\mathrm{matter}}=\mathrm{Tr}_{}e^{2\pi i\tau _+(L_0c/24)}e^{2\pi i\tau _{}(\stackrel{~}{L}_0c/24)}$$

where $``$ is the CFT state space of the orbifold. In this second derivation it is important to take $`\tau _\pm `$ real since $`L_0`$ is not bounded below.

Of course, (5.1) bears a striking resemblance to the partition function for the partition function for a Gaussian field with target space a circle of radius $`x^+`$. Once again, the dual role of $`x^+`$ as both a radial and a time variable leads to some interesting physics.

Note that we have left the integration over the zeromode $`x^\mu =X_{00}^\mu `$ of the field $`X`$ undone in (5.1).7 Of course, we could perform the $`x^+`$ integral. In this case we obtain a nonholomorphic Eisenstein series. This is important for the correct conceptual interpretation of the amplitude: We have a spacetime-dependent contribution to the cosmological constant

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \mathrm{\Lambda }(x^\mu )=\frac{i}{(2\pi \sqrt{\alpha ^{}})^3}\underset{w_a,w_b𝐙}{}_{}\frac{d\tau _+d\tau _{}}{(\tau _2)^2}\mathrm{exp}\left[i\pi \frac{(x^+)^2}{\alpha ^{}}\frac{(w_b+w_a\tau _+)(w_b+w_a\tau _{})}{\tau _2}\right]\hfill \\ & \times \frac{Z^{}(w_a,w_b)}{(i\tau _2)^{1/2}(\eta (\tau _+)\eta (\tau _{}))}.\hfill \end{array}$$

At this point, we will take the torus to have Euclidean signature. Some of the issues that arise when attempting to make sense of the Lorentzian signature formulae were discussed in  and will be further addressed in .

The expression (5.1) exhibits a curious divergence as $`x^+0`$. Suppose, for simplicity, that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ does not act on $`𝒞^{}`$. Then we may also write:

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }(x^+)=\frac{1}{(2\pi )^3\alpha ^{}|x^+|}_{}\frac{d^2\tau }{(\tau _2)^2}\frac{Z^{}}{|\eta (\tau )|^2}\underset{w_a,\widehat{w}_b𝐙}{}q^{\frac{1}{2}\alpha ^{}p_L^2}\overline{q}^{\frac{1}{2}\alpha ^{}p_R^2}$$

with $`p_L=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\frac{\widehat{w}_b}{x^+}+w_a\frac{x^+}{\alpha ^{}})`$ and $`p_R=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\frac{\widehat{w}_b}{x^+}w_a\frac{x^+}{\alpha ^{}})`$. The modes with $`\widehat{w}_b=0,w_a0`$ are light winding modes for $`x^+0`$. This shows there is a divergence as $`x^+0`$:

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }(x^+)\frac{1}{(x^+)^2}\times _{}\frac{d^2\tau }{(\tau _2)^2}\frac{Z^{\mathrm{tr}}}{|\eta (\tau )|^2}$$

This divergence has a simple interpretation as a volume divergence in the $`T`$-dual coordinate $`\stackrel{~}{y}`$ of radius $`1/x^+`$. This suggests that the light winding strings “open up” the singularity from a cone to a trumpet. Of course, we cannot conclude this is the correct qualitative physics until we have carefully considered one-loop interactions and issues of backreaction.

The above formulae apply to the superstring in the NSR formalism. In this case $`Z^{}`$ includes the contributions of the NSR fermions. When we choose the supersymmetric spin structure on the space time fermions the phases in the sum over the spin structures and the partition functions themselves are independent of $`(w_a,w_b)`$, and hence (5.1) multiplies zero. If we choose the other spin structure in spacetime, the situation is similar to that in . Then there are tachyons for $`|x^+|`$ smaller than the string scale and a negative cosmological constant is generated.

6. Interactions

6.1. Tree level interactions

We have studied tree level interactions in $`\varphi ^3`$ field theory on the orbifold, in string theory in light-cone gauge, and in the covariant formulation. Here we briefly summarize some results about tree level amplitudes deferring more details to . The main result is that for generic momenta the amplitudes are finite, but when the intermediate particles have $`p^+=0`$ the amplitudes can diverge. These divergences are associated with the singularity at $`x^+=0`$.

At large $`|x^+|`$, the geodesic distances between the image points go to infinity; i.e. the space effectively opens up. Thus we expect to be able to prepare our “in” and “out” states in the far past and far future, and to consider the S-matrix elements similar to those in $`\mathrm{IR}^{1,2}`$. The standard S-matrix elements in $`\mathrm{IR}^{1,2}`$ are expressed in the plane wave basis (3.1). However, the plane waves are not invariant under the orbifold action and the invariant functions constructed from them by summing over the images are not convenient to work with. A better basis is the $`J`$ basis $`\psi _{p^+,J}`$ of (3.1), in terms of which the orbifold projection simply corresponds to taking $`J`$ to be integral. This motivates us to consider the S-matrix elements in flat $`\mathrm{IR}^{1,2}`$ in the $`J`$ basis. This is somewhat unusual since going to the $`J`$-basis introduces time dependence which arises because $`J`$ and $`p^{}`$ do not commute. More explicitly, the wave function $`\psi _{p^+,J}`$ of a free particle is forced to be localized at $`\xi =J/p^+`$ at $`x^+=0`$, which breaks the translational invariance of $`x^+`$. In other words, the on-shell “in” and “out” states are prepared in a way that they are aimed at points $`\xi _i=J_i/p^+`$ ($`i`$ labels particles) so that at $`x^+=0`$, their wavepackets are completely localized at the respective points. In flat $`\mathrm{IR}^{1,2}`$, this corresponds to asking time-dependent questions in a time independent background. S-matrix elements in the $`J`$-basis are observables in $`\mathrm{IR}^{1,2}`$ which exhibit some features of time dependent amplitudes.

Since $`\psi _{p^+,J}`$ is obtained from the plane waves by a Fourier transform (3.1), the amplitudes in the $`J`$ basis can be obtained from those in the standard momentum basis by a Fourier transform. Once these tree level S-matrix elements are computed in flat space, it is straightforward to compute them for the orbifold simply by restricting $`J_i`$ to be integers.

In the following we give the results for the three-point and four-point tree-level amplitudes for untwisted tachyons on the orbifold. More details will appear in .

From (3.1) the vertex operator for the tachyon in the $`J`$-basis can be written as

$$V_{p_i^+,J_i}(\sigma ,\tau )=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi p_i^+}}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑pe^{ip\xi _i}e^{i\stackrel{}{p_i}\stackrel{}{X}(\sigma ,\tau )},\xi _i=\frac{J_i}{p_i^+}$$

where $`i`$ labels external particles, the factor of $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{p_i^+}}`$ is introduced for the natural normalization of states in the light-cone frame, and

$$e^{i\stackrel{}{p}_i\stackrel{}{X}(\sigma ,\tau )}=\mathrm{exp}\left[ip_i^+x^{}ip_i^{}x^++ip_ix+i\stackrel{}{p}_i\stackrel{}{x}_{}(\sigma ,\tau )\right]$$

($`\stackrel{}{p}_i`$ and $`\stackrel{}{x}_i`$ denote vectors in the transverse dimensions) is the standard on-shell tachyon vertex operator with

$$p_i^{}=\frac{p_i^2+\mathrm{m}_i^2}{2p_i^+},\mathrm{m}_i^2=m^2+\stackrel{}{p}_i^2,m^2=\frac{4}{\alpha ^{}}.$$

Three point function

The $`12+3`$ tachyon amplitude in the $`J`$-basis in the covering space is

$$A_3=\frac{8\pi ig_s}{\alpha ^{}}(2\pi )^{25}\delta (p_1^+p_2^+p_3^+)\delta (\stackrel{}{p}_1\stackrel{}{p}_2\stackrel{}{p}_3)\delta (J_1J_2J_3)w_3(J_i,p_i^+)$$

with

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill w_3(p_i^+;J_i)=& _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑x^+\frac{1}{(ix^+)^{\frac{1}{2}}}e^{\frac{i}{2}\alpha (p_i^+,\mathrm{m}_i)x^+\frac{i}{2x^+}\mu _{23}(\xi _2\xi _3)^2}\hfill \\ \hfill =& \{\begin{array}{cc}2\sqrt{\frac{2\pi }{\alpha }}\mathrm{cos}\left(\sqrt{\alpha \mu _{23}}(\xi _2\xi _3)\right),\hfill & \alpha >0\hfill \\ & \\ 0,\hfill & \alpha <0\text{ .}\hfill \end{array}\hfill \end{array}$$

In (6.1) we have defined

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \alpha (p_i^+,\mathrm{m}_i)& =\frac{\mathrm{m}_1^2}{p_1^+}\frac{\mathrm{m}_2^2}{p_2^+}\frac{\mathrm{m}_3^2}{p_3^+}\hfill \\ \hfill \mu _{23}& =\frac{p_2^+p_3^+}{p_2^++p_3^+}\hfill \end{array}$$

Going to the orbifold, we take $`J_i`$ to be integers and replace the Dirac delta function for $`J_i`$ by $`\delta _{J_1,J_2+J_3}`$ as a result of dividing the amplitude by the volume of the orbifold group.

It is worth noting that the amplitude is not an analytic function of $`\alpha `$. Such lack of analyticity in the “momenta” is common in problems with a noncompact inhomogeneous target space such as the $`c=1`$ system \[21--25\]. The novelty here is that the inhomogeneous direction is not spacelike but lightlike.

These amplitudes have a simple physical interpretation in the light-cone description of the theory. We have already mentioned that in the light-cone description we interpret the system as nonrelativistic particles with time, mass and potential energy

$$\tau =x^+,\mu _i=p_i^+,V_i=\mathrm{m}_i^2/2\mu _i$$

In this notation the functions $`\psi _{p^+,J}=\sqrt{\frac{\mu }{i\tau }}e^{i\mu x^{}iV\tau +i\frac{\mu }{2\tau }(x\xi )^2}`$ are the nonrelativistic propagator from a position $`x`$ at time $`\tau `$ to the position $`\xi =\frac{J}{p^+}`$ at time $`\tau =0`$ times the trivial factor $`e^{i\mu x^{}iV\tau }`$. This is another way to understand the focusing at $`x=\xi `$ at $`x^+=0`$.

In terms of the notation (6.1) the decay process is described as a particle with mass $`\mu _1`$ decaying to two particles with with masses $`\mu _2`$ and $`\mu _3`$. $`p^+`$ conservation, which arises from translational invariance of $`x^{}`$, is being interpreted as conservation of mass

$$\mu _1=\mu _2+\mu _3.$$

The center of mass coordinate of the decay products is $`\frac{\mu _2x_2+\mu _3x_3}{\mu _2+\mu _3}`$. $`J`$ conservation guarantees that its value at $`x^+=0`$ is the same as the value of $`x_1`$ at $`x^+=0`$

$$\xi _1=\frac{\mu _2\xi _2+\mu _3\xi _3}{\mu _2+\mu _3}$$

The remaining dynamics is best described in terms of the relative coordinate and the reduced mass

$$x_{23}=x_2x_3,\mu _{23}=\frac{\mu _2\mu _3}{\mu _2+\mu _3}$$

The parameter $`\alpha `$ defined in (6.1) takes the form

$$\alpha =2(V_1V_2V_3)$$

and is interpreted as the difference in potential energy between particle $`1`$ and particles $`2`$ and $`3`$. An obvious necessary kinematical condition for the decay is $`\alpha =2(V_1V_2V_3)>0`$, as is the case in (6.1). This also explains why the amplitude is nonanalytic as a function of $`\alpha `$.

The decay amplitude (6.1), can be rewritten as

$$w_3(\mu _i,\xi _i)=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑x^+\frac{1}{\sqrt{ix^+}}\mathrm{exp}\left[i(V_2+V_3V_1)x^+i\frac{\mu _{23}(\xi _2\xi _3)^2}{2x^+}\right].$$

We see an integral over the time of the interaction $`x^+`$. The integrand has two phases. The first term, as discussed above, is associated with the difference in potential energy. The second term, is the free propagation of the relative coordinate of the decay products from its value $`x_{23}=\xi _2\xi _3`$ at $`x^+=0`$ to its value $`x_{23}=0`$ at the time of the interaction $`x^+`$.

Four point function

The four point function probes the structure of the interacting theory in more detail than the three point function. As a particle approaches the singularity it is blue shifted, its energy becomes large, and its coupling to the graviton becomes large. Therefore, one expects large back reaction of the geometry which could appear as a divergence in the four point function. The same argument can be used for the correlation functions of (6.1) in the covering space because the focusing at $`\xi _i`$ leads to large energy density and potentially large back reaction. A signal of such a problem would be the failure of the convergence of the Fourier transform of the Virasoro-Shapiro amplitude. We therefore study this transform in some detail.

The Fourier transform of the Virasoro-Shapiro amplitude can be written as

$$A_4=\frac{8(2\pi )^3ig_s^2}{\alpha ^{}}\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}\frac{dp_i}{\sqrt{2\pi p_i^+}}\right)\delta (p_1+p_2p_3p_4)e^{iF}\delta (E)A(s,t)$$

where we suppressed a factor of $`(2\pi )^{24}\delta (p_1^++p_2^+p_3^+p_4^+)\delta (\stackrel{}{p}_1+\stackrel{}{p}_2\stackrel{}{p}_3\stackrel{}{p}_4)`$ and

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill A(L_s,L_t,L_u)=& \pi \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{\alpha ^{}}{4}L_s\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{\alpha ^{}}{4}L_t\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{\alpha ^{}}{4}L_u\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(1+\frac{\alpha ^{}}{4}L_s\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(1+\frac{\alpha ^{}}{4}L_t\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(1+\frac{\alpha ^{}}{4}L_u\right)}\hfill \\ \hfill =& \left(\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{\alpha ^{}}{4}L_t\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{\alpha ^{}}{4}L_u\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(1+\frac{\alpha ^{}}{4}L_s\right)}\right)^2\frac{\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{\alpha ^{}\pi }{4}L_t\right)\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{\alpha ^{}\pi }{4}L_u\right)}{\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{\alpha ^{}\pi }{4}L_s\right)}\hfill \end{array}$$

and

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill E& =p_1^{}+p_2^{}p_3^{}p_4^{}=\frac{p_1^2+\mathrm{m}_1^2}{2p_1^+}+\frac{p_2^2+\mathrm{m}_2^2}{2p_2^+}\frac{p_3^2+\mathrm{m}_3^2}{2p_3^+}\frac{p_4^2+\mathrm{m}_4^2}{2p_4^+}\hfill \\ \hfill F& =p_1\xi _1+p_2\xi _2p_3\xi _3p_4\xi _4\hfill \\ \hfill L_s& =sm^2+iϵ=2(p_1^++p_2^+)(p_1^{}+p_2^{})(p_1+p_2)^2\mathrm{m}_s^2+iϵ\hfill \\ \hfill L_t& =tm^2+iϵ=2(p_1^+p_3^+)(p_1^{}p_3^{})(p_1p_3)^2\mathrm{m}_t^2+iϵ\hfill \\ \hfill L_u& =um^2+iϵ=2(p_1^+p_4^+)(p_1^{}p_4^{})(p_1p_4)^2\mathrm{m}_u^2+iϵ\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{m}_s^2& =m^2+(\stackrel{}{p}_1+\stackrel{}{p}_2)^2,\mathrm{m}_t^2=m^2+(\stackrel{}{p}_1\stackrel{}{p}_3)^2,\mathrm{m}_u^2=m^2+(\stackrel{}{p}_2\stackrel{}{p}_3)^2\hfill \end{array}$$

The momentum integrals can be reduced to a single integral expression

$$A_4=\frac{8(2\pi )^2ig_s^2}{\alpha ^{}}\delta (J_1+J_2J_3J_4)_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dq}{|q|}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{i}{2}\left(q\xi _{}+\frac{\alpha \xi _+}{q}\right)\right]A(L_s,L_t,L_u)$$

with

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill L_s& =(p_1^++p_2^+)\left(q_+^2+\frac{\mathrm{m}_1^2}{p_1^+}+\frac{\mathrm{m}_2^2}{p_2^+}\right)\mathrm{m}_s^2+iϵ\hfill \\ \hfill L_t& =(p_3^+p_1^+)\left(\frac{\mathrm{m}_3^2}{p_3^+}\frac{\mathrm{m}_1^2}{p_1^+}\right)\mathrm{m}_t^2\mu _{12}\left(\sqrt{\frac{p_3^+}{p_1^+}}q_+\sqrt{\frac{p_4^+}{p_2^+}}q_{}\right)^2+iϵ\hfill \\ \hfill L_u& =(p_4^+p_1^+)\left(\frac{\mathrm{m}_4^2}{p_4^+}\frac{\mathrm{m}_1^2}{p_1^+}\right)\mathrm{m}_u^2\mu _{12}\left(\sqrt{\frac{p_4^+}{p_1^+}}q_++\sqrt{\frac{p_3^+}{p_2^+}}q_{}\right)^2+iϵ\hfill \\ \hfill \xi _\pm & =\sqrt{\mu _{12}}(\xi _1\xi _2)\pm \sqrt{\mu _{34}}(\xi _3\xi _4)\hfill \\ \hfill q_\pm & =\frac{1}{2}\left(q\pm \frac{\alpha }{q}\right)\hfill \\ \hfill \mu _{12}& =\frac{p_1^+p_2^+}{p_1^++p_2^+},\mu _{34}=\frac{p_3^+p_4^+}{p_3^++p_4^+}\hfill \\ \hfill \alpha & =\frac{\mathrm{m}_3^2}{p_3^+}+\frac{\mathrm{m}_4^2}{p_4^+}\frac{\mathrm{m}_1^2}{p_1^+}\frac{\mathrm{m}_2^2}{p_2^+}\hfill \end{array}$$

This is an integral over various values of $`s`$ with corresponding values of $`t`$ and $`u`$. The integral passes through the poles in the s-channel. These do not lead to divergences because of the $`iϵ`$. Instead, these poles make the amplitude nonanalytic as a function of the external momenta $`\stackrel{}{p}_i`$. This nonanalyticity is similar to the nonanalyticity we have already observed as a function of $`\alpha `$ in the three point function and its origin is similar. It is associated with large $`|x^+|`$.

Let us analyze the amplitude in more detail and consider first the situation of generic $`p_i^+`$. Possible divergences and nonanalyticity in $`\xi _i`$ can arise only from the behavior of the integral (6.1) at $`q=0,\pm \mathrm{}`$, which correspond to the interesting region $`x^+0`$. For generic $`p_i^+`$ each of these limits corresponds to the hard scattering limit of large $`s,t,u`$ with fixed ratios. In this limit $`A(L_s,L_t,L_u)`$ decays rapidly and the integral (6.1) converges for all $`\xi _i`$. The dependence on $`\xi _i`$ is analytic.

We would like to contrast this result with the corresponding behavior in field theory. Because the large momentum dependence of the field theory amplitude is power like, the Fourier transforms do not share the nice analytic structure in $`\xi `$ that the string amplitudes enjoy. We conclude that the better UV behavior of string theory improves the analytic structure of the amplitudes as a function of $`\xi _i`$.

For nongenric $`p_i^+`$ the situation is different. Consider the kinematical configuration with vanishing $`p_t^+=p_3^+p_1^+=p_2^+p_4^+`$. Then the large $`q`$ behavior of (6.1) is in the Regge region and $`A(L_s,L_t,L_u)q^{\alpha ^{}\mathrm{m}_t^2}=q^{4\alpha ^{}\stackrel{}{p}_t^2}`$ with $`\stackrel{}{p}_t=\stackrel{}{p}_3\stackrel{}{p}_1`$. When the exchanged particle has vanishing $`J_t=J_3J_1=0`$, i.e. $`\xi _1=\xi _3`$, and $`\xi _2=\xi _4`$, the integral over $`q`$ diverges8 When $`\xi _1\xi _3`$, the integral converges. Physically, the convergence for $`\xi _1\xi _3`$ arises since the external particles are not focused at the same point. for $`\alpha ^{}\stackrel{}{p}_t^2<4`$. To see the divergence in more detail consider the scattering with $`J_t=0`$ and $`p_t^+=p_3^+p_1^+0`$. Then the amplitude behaves as $`A_4(p_t^+)^{4+\alpha ^{}\stackrel{}{p}_t^2}`$, up to logarithmic corrections. We interpret this behavior which arises from the Regge region as due to the exchange in the t-channel of particles with “spin” $`\alpha (t)=2\frac{1}{2}\alpha ^{}\stackrel{}{p}_t^2`$. For $`\stackrel{}{p}_t=0`$ they include the graviton. By exchanging $`34`$ we find a similar situation in the u-channel.

We conclude that even though the amplitude for fixed generic momenta is finite, the total cross section diverges due to singularities associated with particles with $`p^+=0`$ in the t and the u channel. A more detailed analysis of the amplitude shows that these particles are exchanged at $`x^+0`$, and therefore can be interpreted as associated with the singularity and the large energy density there. We do not fully understand the implication of this phenomenon and it might be a signal of the breakdown of perturbation theory.

It is important to point out that the amplitude we have just derived cannot be obtained by a straightforward application of the formalism based on Euclidean worldsheets. Since the target space has Lorentzian signature, we expect the worldsheet to have Lorentzian signature. Furthermore, a Fourier transform similar to (6.1) of the standard density on the Euclidean signature moduli space need not converge. On the other hand, an expression for the amplitude with a Lorentzian worldsheet appears to exist, and to have a nonrelativistic interpretation similar to that of the three point function.

6.2. Tadpoles and backreaction

We have remarked above on the question of backreaction of the geometry to incoming particles. Another important question is whether our background is stable against quantum fluctuations. Since it does not have closed timelike curves, we do not expect Hawking’s chronology conjecture  to demand the existence of new singularities. However, the presence of closed null curves at $`x^+=0`$ is potentially dangerous. In standard orbifolds the expectation values of composite operators like the stress tensor diverge at fixed points. In Lorentzian orbifolds such divergences occur along closed null curves (see e.g. \[27,,28\], and references therein). For example, the expectation value of the stress tensor of a free scalar field in the similar problem of a BTZ black hole was calculated in \[29--31\], and for fermions in  (for a review see ). Such an expectation value acts as a source for the gravitational field and destabilizes the background.

We have already seen that in the background with the nonsupersymmetric spin structure a cosmological constant is being generated. It is therefore clear that this background is unstable. A cosmological constant is not generated at one loop in the supersymmetric model, and therefore it makes sense to examine this background in more detail. More specifically we consider $`\mathrm{IR}^7\times 𝒪`$. Using the symmetries of our problem (supersymmetry and the two Killing vectors $`_y`$ and $`_y^{}`$) and the results of  it is straightforward to show that the most general metric and dilaton field are

$$\begin{array}{cc}& (ds)^2=2dy^+dy^{}+(f(y^+))^2(dy)^2+(dx^i)^2\hfill \\ & D=D(y^+)\hfill \end{array}$$

At tree level $`f(y^+)=y^+`$ and $`D`$ is a constant. This raises the question of whether they have radiative corrections. We have examined the one-loop tadpoles for on shell physical particles, and found them to vanish. The only possible tadpoles come from the graviton with polarization along the orbifold or the dilaton. In the tadpole computation we examined the torus expectation values of these vertex operators with arbitrary $`p^{}`$, since the background depends on $`x^+`$. In the covariant formulation the expectation values turn out to vanish because of the sum over the spin structures. In the light-cone Green-Schwarz formalism they vanish because of the presence of fermion zero modes. Details (and subtleties) of these computations will be discussed in .

We conclude that up to one loop order the zero and one point functions vanish and our background is stable. However, the subtleties with intermediate particles with $`p^+=0`$ we encountered in the tree level four point function prevent us from concluding that the background is absolutely stable. Such particles can appear in the two point function at one loop or the zero point function at two loops and could potentially destabilize our orbifold.

7. Conclusions and Future Directions

We have studied the parabolic orbifold following the standard rules of perturbative string theory. We have found that the parabolic orbifold makes suprisingly good sense, despite the preponderance of potentially pathological pitfalls. One cloud on the horizon is the divergence of the 4 point function in special kinematic configurations. This needs to be understood much more thoroughly.

The issue of backreaction is currently under study, and might prove to be a serious problem with future development of this example. One way backreaction could ruin the orbifold is through the coupling of gravity to the large energy momentum of particles which are blue shifted near the singularity. Indeed, we found that although the tree level four point function is finite for generic momenta, it diverges when the exchanged particle in the t or u channel has vanishing $`p^+`$. This could signal the breakdown of perturbation theory. An interesting possibility, which has been suggested by numerous physicists, is that every scattering process might create a black hole.

In the spirit of black hole complementarity  it might be that the system admits two complementary descriptions. One of them, for an observer at $`x^+<0`$ is in terms of a Universe which ends at the singularity. The other description includes both sides of the space on the two sides of the singularity.

We have found that there are tantalizing hints of a role of noncommutative geometry in resolving the $`x^+=0`$ singularity, and in making sense of string theory on the non-Hausdorff quotient space. Perhaps related to this is the nontrivial exchange algebra for the coordinate currents $`x^\mu `$ in the twisted sectors, a result which is possibly related in turn to that of .

We believe there are many other interesting examples of noncompact orbifolds associated with noncompact discrete groups. The flavor of these models is rather different from that of the compact orbifolds by finite groups which have been much studied in the context of Calabi-Yau compactification. This new territory might hold some exciting new surprises.

Note added: After this paper was submitted it was suggested by several people and was shown more decisively in \[36--38\] that the singularity in the four point function indeed reflects a large backreaction of the geometry to incoming particles. This backreaction renders perturbation theory invalid. However, the techniques presented here are useful in analyzing closely related models which are not singular.

Acknowledgements

We thank B. Acharya and A. Tseytlin for participating in the early stages of this project and discussions. We also thank T. Banks, S. Frolov, J. Harvey, G. Horowitz, D. Kutasov, J. Maldacena, E. Martinec, A. Strominger, C. Thorn and E. Witten for very helpful discussions. HL and GM were supported in part by DOE grant #DE-FG02-96ER40949 to Rutgers. NS was supported in part by DOE grant #DE-FG02-90ER40542 to IAS. GM would like to thank the Isaac Newton Institute for hospitality during the completion of this manuscript.

References

relax H. Liu, G. Moore, and N. Seiberg, To appear. relax G. T. Horowitz and A. R. Steif, “Singular String Solutions With Nonsingular Initial Data,” Phys. Lett. B 258, 91 (1991). relax J. Khoury, B. A. Ovrut, N. Seiberg, P. J. Steinhardt and N. Turok, “From big crunch to big bang,” arXiv:hep-th/0108187; N. Seiberg, “From big crunch to big bang - is it possible?,” arXiv:hep-th/0201039. relax V. Balasubramanian, S. F. Hassan, E. Keski-Vakkuri and A. Naqvi, “A space-time orbifold: A toy model for a cosmological singularity,” arXiv:hep-th/0202187. relax L. Cornalba and M. S. Costa, “A New Cosmological Scenario in String Theory,” arXiv:hep-th/0203031. relax N. A. Nekrasov, “Milne universe, tachyons, and quantum group,” hep-th/0203112. relax J. Simon, “The geometry of null rotation identifications,” arXiv:hep-th/0203201. relax A. J. Tolley and N. Turok, “Quantum fields in a big crunch / big bang spacetime,” arXiv:hep-th/0204091. relax I. I. Kogan and N. B. Reis, “H-branes and chiral strings,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 16, 4567 (2001) \[arXiv:hep-th/0107163\]. relax M. Gutperle and A. Strominger, “Spacelike branes,” arXiv:hep-th/0202210. relax A. Sen, “Rolling Tachyon,” arXiv:hep-th/0203211. relax O. Aharony, M. Fabinger, G. Horowitz, and E. Silverstein, “Clean Time-Dependent String Backgrounds from Bubble Baths,” arXiv:hep-th/0204158. relax E. Kiritsis and B. Pioline, “Strings in homogeneous gravitational waves and null holography,” arXiv:hep-th/0204004. relax S. Elitzur, A. Giveon, D. Kutasov and E. Rabinovici, to appear relax A. A. Tseytlin, “Exact string solutions and duality,” arXiv:hep-th/9407099; C. Klimcik and A. A. Tseytlin, unpublished (1994); A. A. Tseytlin, unpublished (2001). relax M. Banados, C. Teitelboim and J. Zanelli, “The Black Hole In Three-Dimensional Space-Time,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, 1849 (1992) \[arXiv:hep-th/9204099\]. relax M. Banados, M. Henneaux, C. Teitelboim and J. Zanelli, “Geometry of the (2+1) black hole,” Phys. Rev. D 48, 1506 (1993) \[arXiv:gr-qc/9302012\]. relax E. Smith and J. Polchinski, “Duality survives time dependence,” Phys. Lett. B 263 59 (1991). relax G. W. Moore, “Finite In All Directions,” arXiv:hep-th/9305139. relax R. Rohm, “Spontaneous supersymmetry breaking in supersymmetric string theories,” Nucl. Phys. B 237, 553 (1984). relax J. Polchinski, “Critical Behavior Of Random Surfaces In One-Dimension,” Nucl. Phys. B 346, 253 (1990). relax J. Polchinski, “Classical Limit Of (1+1)-Dimensional String Theory,” Nucl. Phys. B 362, 125 (1991). relax P. Di Francesco and D. Kutasov, “Correlation functions in 2-D string theory,” Phys. Lett. B 261, 385 (1991). relax P. Di Francesco and D. Kutasov, “World sheet and space-time physics in two-dimensional (Super)string theory,” Nucl. Phys. B 375, 119 (1992) \[arXiv:hep-th/9109005\]. relax G. W. Moore and R. Plesser, “Classical scattering in (1+1)-dimensional string theory,” Phys. Rev. D 46, 1730 (1992) \[arXiv:hep-th/9203060\]. relax S. W. Hawking, “The Chronology protection conjecture,” Phys. Rev. D 46, 603 (1992). relax J. M. Maldacena, “Eternal black holes in Anti-de-Sitter,” arXiv:hep-th/0106112. relax W. A. Hiscock, “Quantized fields and chronology protection,” arXiv:gr-qc/0009061. relax K. Shiraishi and T. Maki, “Quantum fluctuation of stress tensor and black holes in three-dimensions,” Phys. Rev. D 49, 5286 (1994). relax A. R. Steif, “The Quantum Stress Tensor In The Three-Dimensional Black Hole,” Phys. Rev. D 49, 585 (1994) \[arXiv:gr-qc/9308032\]. relax G. Lifschytz and M. Ortiz, “Scalar Field Quantization On The (2+1)-Dimensional Black Hole Background,” Phys. Rev. D 49, 1929 (1994) \[arXiv:gr-qc/9310008\]. relax H. Kim, J. S. Oh and C. R. Ahn, “Quantisation of conformal fields in AdS(3) black hole spacetime,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 14, 2431 (1999) \[arXiv:hep-th/9708072\]. relax S. Carlip, “The (2+1)-Dimensional black hole,” Class. Quant. Grav. 12, 2853 (1995) \[arXiv:gr-qc/9506079\]. relax JM. Figueroa-O’Farrill, “Breaking the M-waves,” Class. Quant. Grav. 17, 2925 (2000) \[arXiv:hep-th/9904124\]. relax L. Susskind, L. Thorlacius and J. Uglum, “The Stretched horizon and black hole complementarity,” Phys. Rev. D 48, 3743 (1993) \[arXiv:hep-th/9306069\]. relax A. Lawrence, “On the instability of 3d null singularities”, hep-th/0205288. relax G.T. Horowitz and J. Polchinski, to appear. relax H. Liu, G. Moore and N. Seiberg, to appear.


format: text

text:
# Search for Lepton-Flavor-Violating Decays of 𝐵 Mesons

## Abstract

We have searched a sample of 9.6 million $`B\overline{B}`$ events for the lepton-flavor-violating decays $`Bhe^\pm \mu ^{}`$, $`B^+h^{}e^+e^+`$, $`B^+h^{}e^+\mu ^+`$, and $`B^+h^{}\mu ^+\mu ^+`$, where $`h`$ is $`\pi `$, $`K`$, $`\rho `$, and $`K^{}(892)`$, a total of sixteen modes. We find no evidence for these decays, and place 90% confidence level upper limits on their branching fractions that range from 1.0 to $`8.3\times 10^6`$.

preprint:   CLNS 02/1781 CLEO 02-4 Phys. Rev. D Rapid Communications to be published

K. W. Edwards,1 R. Ammar,2 D. Besson,2 X. Zhao,2 S. Anderson,3 V. V. Frolov,3 Y. Kubota,3 S. J. Lee,3 S. Z. Li,3 R. Poling,3 A. Smith,3 C. J. Stepaniak,3 J. Urheim,3 Z. Metreveli,4 K.K. Seth,4 A. Tomaradze,4 P. Zweber,4 S. Ahmed,5 M. S. Alam,5 L. Jian,5 M. Saleem,5 F. Wappler,5 E. Eckhart,6 K. K. Gan,6 C. Gwon,6 T. Hart,6 K. Honscheid,6 D. Hufnagel,6 H. Kagan,6 R. Kass,6 T. K. Pedlar,6 J. B. Thayer,6 E. von Toerne,6 T. Wilksen,6 M. M. Zoeller,6 H. Muramatsu,7 S. J. Richichi,7 H. Severini,7 P. Skubic,7 S.A. Dytman,8 J.A. Mueller,8 S. Nam,8 V. Savinov,8 S. Chen,9 J. W. Hinson,9 J. Lee,9 D. H. Miller,9 V. Pavlunin,9 E. I. Shibata,9 I. P. J. Shipsey,9 D. Cronin-Hennessy,10 A.L. Lyon,10 C. S. Park,10 W. Park,10 E. H. Thorndike,10 T. E. Coan,11 Y. S. Gao,11 F. Liu,11 Y. Maravin,11 I. Narsky,11 R. Stroynowski,11 M. Artuso,12 C. Boulahouache,12 K. Bukin,12 E. Dambasuren,12 K. Khroustalev,12 R. Mountain,12 R. Nandakumar,12 T. Skwarnicki,12 S. Stone,12 J.C. Wang,12 A. H. Mahmood,13 S. E. Csorna,14 I. Danko,14 Z. Xu,14 G. Bonvicini,15 D. Cinabro,15 M. Dubrovin,15 S. McGee,15 A. Bornheim,16 E. Lipeles,16 S. P. Pappas,16 A. Shapiro,16 W. M. Sun,16 A. J. Weinstein,16 G. Masek,17 H. P. Paar,17 R. Mahapatra,18 R. A. Briere,19 G. P. Chen,19 T. Ferguson,19 G. Tatishvili,19 H. Vogel,19 N. E. Adam,20 J. P. Alexander,20 K. Berkelman,20 F. Blanc,20 V. Boisvert,20 D. G. Cassel,20 P. S. Drell,20 J. E. Duboscq,20 K. M. Ecklund,20 R. Ehrlich,20 L. Gibbons,20 B. Gittelman,20 S. W. Gray,20 D. L. Hartill,20 B. K. Heltsley,20 L. Hsu,20 C. D. Jones,20 J. Kandaswamy,20 D. L. Kreinick,20 A. Magerkurth,20 H. Mahlke-Krüger,20 T. O. Meyer,20 N. B. Mistry,20 E. Nordberg,20 J. R. Patterson,20 D. Peterson,20 J. Pivarski,20 D. Riley,20 A. J. Sadoff,20 H. Schwarthoff,20 M. R. Shepherd,20 J. G. Thayer,20 D. Urner,20 B. Valant-Spaight,20 G. Viehhauser,20 A. Warburton,20 M. Weinberger,20 S. B. Athar,21 P. Avery,21 L. Breva-Newell,21 V. Potlia,21 H. Stoeck,21 J. Yelton,21 G. Brandenburg,22 A. Ershov,22 D. Y.-J. Kim,22 R. Wilson,22 K. Benslama,23 B. I. Eisenstein,23 J. Ernst,23 G. D. Gollin,23 R. M. Hans,23 I. Karliner,23 N. Lowrey,23 M. A. Marsh,23 C. Plager,23 C. Sedlack,23 M. Selen,23 J. J. Thaler,23 and J. Williams23

1Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1S 5B6

and the Institute of Particle Physics, Canada M5S 1A7

2University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas 66045

3University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455

4Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois 60208

5State University of New York at Albany, Albany, New York 12222

6Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210

7University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma 73019

8University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15260

9Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana 47907

10University of Rochester, Rochester, New York 14627

11Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas 75275

12Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York 13244

13University of Texas - Pan American, Edinburg, Texas 78539

14Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee 37235

15Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan 48202

16California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California 91125

17University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California 92093

18University of California, Santa Barbara, California 93106

19Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213

20Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14853

21University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611

22Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138

23University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Illinois 61801

The Standard Model predicts that the branching fractions for the decays $`bse^+e^{}`$ and $`bs\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ will be small but non-zero, of order $`10^5`$. We have previously conducted searches for those inclusive decays and also for the exclusive decays $`BK\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ and $`BK^{}(892)\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$  that would result from the quark-level processes. Others have also searched for the exclusive decays. Upper limits are now close to the Standard Model predictions, and there is evidence for $`BK\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$.

In contrast, the Standard Model predicts that the topologically similar, but lepton-flavor-violating decays $`bse^\pm \mu ^{}`$ and $`bde^\pm \mu ^{}`$ vanish identically, as do the decays $`B^+X_s^{}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^+`$ and $`B^+X_d^{}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^+`$. These decays are predicted to occur in many theories “beyond the Standard Model”, for example multi-Higgs extensions, theories with leptoquarks, and theories with Majorana neutrinos. The recent evidence that neutrinos mix, and therefore have mass, while not leading to predictions of observable rates for lepton-flavor-violating decays involving charged leptons, nonetheless heightens interest in them, as does the recent claim of neutrinoless double beta decay.

While the underlying physics of lepton-flavor-violating decays is very different from that of those decays mentioned in the first paragraph, the experimental approach in searching for them is quite similar. We have therefore used the techniques described in Ref.  to search for***Throughout this article, the symbol $`K^{}`$ means $`K^{}(892)`$. $`BKe^\pm \mu ^{}`$, $`BK^{}e^\pm \mu ^{}`$, $`B\pi e^\pm \mu ^{}`$, and $`B\rho e^\pm \mu ^{}`$, and also for $`B^+h^{}e^+e^+`$, $`h^{}e^+\mu ^+`$, and $`h^{}\mu ^+\mu ^+`$, where $`h^{}`$ is $`K^{}`$, $`K^{}`$, $`\pi ^{}`$, and $`\rho ^{}`$. We have previously searched for the inclusive decay $`bse^\pm \mu ^{}`$, obtaining a 90% confidence level upper limit $`(bse^+\mu ^{})+(bse^{}\mu ^+)<2.2\times 10^5`$. The BaBar collaboration has also searched for, and reported limits on, the related exclusive decays, $`(B^+K^+e^\pm \mu ^{})<0.8\times 10^6`$, $`(B^0K^0e^\pm \mu ^{})<4.1\times 10^6`$, $`(B^+K^+e^\pm \mu ^{})<8.0\times 10^6`$, and $`(B^0K^0e^\pm \mu ^{})<3.3\times 10^6`$.

The data used in this analysis were taken with the CLEO detector at the Cornell Electron Storage Ring (CESR), a symmetric $`e^+e^{}`$ collider operating in the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4\mathrm{S})`$ resonance region. The data sample consists of 9.2 $`\mathrm{fb}^1`$ at the resonance, corresponding to 9.6 million $`B\overline{B}`$ events, and 4.5 $`\mathrm{fb}^1`$ at a center-of-mass energy 60 MeV below the resonance. The sample below the resonance provides information on the background from continuum processes $`e^+e^{}q\overline{q},q=u,d,s,c`$, and was used as a check on our Monte Carlo simulation of this background.

Summing over $`e^+\mu ^{}`$ and $`e^{}\mu ^+`$, we search for $`BKe^\pm \mu ^{}`$ in both the $`K^\pm `$ and $`\overline{K}^0`$ modes, and for $`BK^{}e^\pm \mu ^{}`$ in the $`K^0K^+\pi ^{}`$ and $`K^0\pi ^0`$ modes and in the $`K^\pm K^\pm \pi ^0`$ and $`K^0\pi ^\pm `$ modes, a total of 6 experimentally distinct final states. (Throughout this article, charge conjugate modes are implied.) Similarly, we search for $`B\pi e^\pm \mu ^{}`$ in both the $`\pi ^\pm `$ and $`\pi ^0`$ modes, and for $`B\rho e^\pm \mu ^{}`$ in both the $`\rho ^\pm \pi ^\pm \pi ^0`$ and $`\rho ^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ modes, 4 distinct final states. In the like-sign search $`B^+h^{}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^+`$, we search for five hadronic final states ($`h^{}=K^{}`$; $`\pi ^{}`$; $`K^{}K^{}\pi ^0,K^0\pi ^{}`$; and $`\rho ^{}\pi ^{}\pi ^0`$) for each of $`e^+e^+`$, $`e^+\mu ^+`$, and $`\mu ^+\mu ^+`$, 15 distinct modes. The $`K^0`$ candidates are detected via the $`K^0K_S^0\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ decay chain; $`\pi ^0`$ candidates via $`\pi ^0\gamma \gamma `$.

For those decay modes involving a charged kaon, we use specific ionization ($`dE/dx`$) and time-of-flight information to identify the kaon, cutting loosely (3 standard deviations) if those variables deviate from the mean for kaons in the direction away from the mean for pions, and cutting harder (1.5 to 2.2 standard deviations, depending on mode) if they deviate on the side towards the pions.

There are three main sources of background:Throughout this article, the symbols $`\psi `$ and $`\psi ^{}`$ mean $`J/\psi `$(1S) and $`\psi `$(2S), respectively. $`BK^{()}\psi ^{()},\psi ^{()}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$, and other $`B\psi ^{()}X`$ decays; $`B\overline{B}`$ decays other than $`B\psi ^{()}X`$, with two apparent leptons (either real leptons or hadrons misidentified as leptons); and continuum processes with two apparent leptons.

In our previous search, for $`BK^{()}e^+e^{}`$ and $`BK^{()}\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$, the backgrounds from $`\psi `$ and $`\psi ^{}`$ were severe. In the searches reported here they are much less of a problem, appearing only when particles are misidentified. Examples are $`B^{}K^{}\psi ,\psi e^+e^{}`$, with the $`K^{}`$ misidentified as a $`\mu ^{}`$, and the $`e^{}`$ misidentified as a $`K^{}`$; $`B^{}K^{}\psi ,\psi \mu ^+\mu ^{}`$, with the $`K^{}`$ misidentified as $`\mu ^{}`$, and the $`\mu ^+`$ misidentified as $`\pi ^+`$; $`B^{}K^{}\psi ,\psi e^+e^{}`$, with one of the $`e^\pm `$ identified as $`\mu ^\pm `$. To reduce these backgrounds, we required that a lepton candidate that passes identification criteria both for $`e^\pm `$ and $`\mu ^\pm `$ only be considered as an electron candidate. Also, we discarded a candidate reconstruction if any oppositely-charged hadron-lepton pair, if interpreted as a lepton-lepton pair, had a pair mass within 30 MeV of $`\psi `$ or $`\psi ^{}`$ mass, or if the $`e^\pm \mu ^{}`$ pair, if interpreted either as $`e^+e^{}`$ or $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$, had a pair mass within 50 MeV of $`\psi `$ or 40 MeV of $`\psi ^{}`$. With these requirements, backgrounds from $`\psi `$ and $`\psi ^{}`$ were rendered negligible, less than 0.1 event per decay mode.

We discriminate between signal events and the remaining two background sources using an unbinned maximum likelihood method, including four variables in the likelihood function. (We select events for consideration by first applying loose cuts in those variables.) To help distinguish between signal and the background from $`B\overline{B}`$ semileptonic decays, we use the event missing energy, $`E_{\mathrm{miss}}`$, since events with leptons from semileptonic $`B`$ or $`D`$ decay contain neutrinos, and thus will have missing energy. We apply loose cuts, $`2.0<E_{\mathrm{miss}}<+2.0`$ GeV. To help distinguish between signal and continuum events, we use a Fisher discriminant, a linear combination of $`R_2`$ (the ratio of second and zeroth Fox-Wolfram moments of the event), $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _{tt}`$ (the cosine of the angle between the thrust axis of the candidate $`B`$ and the thrust axis of the rest of the event), $`S`$ (the sphericity), and $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _B`$ (the cosine of the production angle of the candidate $`B`$, relative to the beam direction). In particular, $`=R_2+0.117|\mathrm{cos}\theta _{tt}|+0.779(1S)+0.104|\mathrm{cos}\theta _B|`$, with values ranging from 0.0 to +2.0. The coefficients of all terms but $`R_2`$ were determined by the standard Fisher discriminant procedure. The relative weight given to $`R_2`$ was determined visually, from a scatter plot of $`R_2`$ vs. the Fisher discriminant from the other three variables. This Fisher discriminant is identical to the one we used in Ref. . We apply loose cuts, $`0.0<<1.08`$. Our third and fourth variables used in the likelihood function are the signal-candidate $`B`$ reconstruction variables conventionally used for decays from the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(4S)`$: beam-constrained mass $`M_{\mathrm{cand}}\sqrt{E_{\mathrm{beam}}^2P_{\mathrm{cand}}^2}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }EE_{\mathrm{cand}}E_{\mathrm{beam}}`$. Our resolution in $`M_{\mathrm{cand}}`$ is 2.5 MeV, and in $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$, 20 MeV. We apply loose cuts, $`5.20<M_{\mathrm{cand}}<5.30`$ GeV and $`0.25<\mathrm{\Delta }E<+0.25`$ GeV.

We thus have a likelihood function that depends on four variables: $`M_{\mathrm{cand}}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$, $`E_{\mathrm{miss}}`$, and $``$. We vary the branching fraction for the signal and the yields for the two backgrounds, to maximize the likelihood. Probability density functions (PDFs) are obtained from Monte Carlo samples of continuum events, $`B\overline{B}`$ events, and signal events. For signal events, lacking a compelling theoretical model, we use 3-body phase space, with final-state radiation as given by the CERNlib subroutine Photos.

Correlations among the four variables are weak, both for signal and backgrounds, and we ignore them. Distributions in the four variables, for signal and the two backgrounds, are shown for $`BK^{()}e^\pm \mu ^{}`$ in Fig. 1. Distributions for $`B^+h^{}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^+`$ are similar.

For the decays whose quark-level process is $`bse^\pm \mu ^{}`$, we assume the branching fraction relations $`(B^{}K^{}e^\pm \mu ^{})=(\overline{B}^0\overline{K}^0e^\pm \mu ^{})`$ and $`(B^{}K^{}e^\pm \mu ^{})=(\overline{B}^0\overline{K}^0e^\pm \mu ^{})`$, imposing the equalities as constraints in the maximum likelihood procedure. Thus our results here are for the average branching fraction $`(BKe^\pm \mu ^{})0.5((B^{}K^{}e^\pm \mu ^{})+(\overline{B}^0\overline{K}^0e^\pm \mu ^{}))`$, and similarly with $`K^{}`$ replacing $`K`$. For the decays whose quark-level process is $`bde^\pm \mu ^{}`$, we assume $`(\overline{B}^0\pi ^0e^\pm \mu ^{})=0.5(B^{}\pi ^{}e^\pm \mu ^{})`$, and similarly for the $`\rho ^0`$, $`\rho ^{}`$ pair. Again, we impose those constraints in the maximum likelihood procedure, using information from both $`\pi ^{}`$ and $`\pi ^0`$ modes but quoting the “average” branching fraction $`(B\pi e^\pm \mu ^{})0.5((B^{}\pi ^{}e^\pm \mu ^{})+2(\overline{B}^0\pi ^0e^\pm \mu ^{}))`$, and similarly with the $`\rho ^0`$, $`\rho ^{}`$ pair. In all cases, by $`(Bhe^\pm \mu ^{})`$ we mean the sum $`(Bhe^+\mu ^{})+(Bhe^{}\mu ^+)`$.

Our search is thus for four different lepton-flavor-violating final states: $`e^\pm \mu ^{}`$, $`e^+e^+`$, $`e^+\mu ^+`$, and $`\mu ^+\mu ^+`$; with four different hadronic final states: $`K`$, $`K^{}`$, $`\pi `$, $`\rho `$; a total of 16 decays. For each of the 16 decays, we maximize the likelihood $``$, as a function of signal branching fraction, by varying the yields of the two backgrounds. (In so doing, we constrain both backgrounds to be non-negative.) The central value obtained for signal is that giving the largest likelihood. The statistical significance of the signal is the square root of the difference in $`2\mathrm{ln}`$ between the maximum $``$ and the $``$ with signal branching fraction set to zero. If the largest likelihood corresponds to a negative signal, we assign a significance of zero. We find no compelling evidence for any of the decays. All but $`BK^{}e^\pm \mu ^{}`$ have a statistical significance of less than 1.2 standard deviations, while $`BK^{}e^\pm \mu ^{}`$ has a statistical significance of 2.0 standard deviations. In 16 searches, the probability that one of the 16 will fluctuate up by at least 2 standard deviations is $``$1/3, so our result is consistent with all branching fractions being zero, and no claim for a signal is being made.

We obtain 90% confidence level upper limits on the 16 branching fractions by integrating the likelihoods, as a function of the assumed branching fraction, from zero to that value which gives 90% of the integral from zero to infinity. We increase the upper limit so found by 1.28 times the estimated systematic error, which includes contributions from uncertainty in efficiency for detecting the signal and uncertainty in the PDFs. The upper limits are increased by typically 12% from these systematic error considerations. Results are given in Table I. The limits on decays to $`\pi `$, $`K`$ range from 1.0 to $`2.0\times 10^6`$, while those on decays to $`\rho `$, $`K^{}`$ range from 2.6 to $`8.3\times 10^6`$.

As a check on the correctness of our continuum background PDFs, obtained from Monte Carlo, we have analyzed the off-resonance data, both alone and with 4 randomly chosen signal Monte Carlo events added. We found no evidence of ‘signal’ in the off-resonance data, and the correct amount of signal (average of 4.25, in 100 ‘toy experiments’ for each of the 16 modes) when Monte Carlo signal events were added.

We have performed two checks on the correctness of our $`B\overline{B}`$ background PDFs. In the first, we added 4 randomly chosen signal Monte Carlo events to the on-resonance data, and reanalyzed the data, performing 100 such ‘toy experiments’ on each of the 16 decay modes. We found an average of 4.0 signal events, in agreement with the number added. This check shows that whatever bias is present in our analysis approximately cancels whatever real signal is present, an unlikely coincidence unless both are small. In the second check, we summed the on-resonance data sample for the 16 decay modes, and fitted it, with no signal allowed in the fit and with the continuum background constrained to the scaled off-resonance yield. In Fig. 2 we show the results of the fit for the distributions in $`M_{\mathrm{cand}}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$, $``$, and $`E_{\mathrm{miss}}`$. Agreement is good. If instead we allowed signal in the fit and left the continuum background unconstrained (as in our actual analysis), we found 4.0$`{}_{4.0}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+5.3}`$ signal events for the sum over 16 modes. From these checks we conclude that any bias is small, $`\frac{1}{2}`$ event per mode, and is covered by our systematic error.

In summary, we have searched for sixteen different lepton-flavor-violating decays of the form $`Bh\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$. We find no evidence for any such decay, and place 90% confidence level upper limits on the branching fractions that range from 1.0 to $`8.3\times 10^6`$. BaBar has limits on two of these decays, a factor of two more restrictive than ours.

We gratefully acknowledge the effort of the CESR staff in providing us with excellent luminosity and running conditions. This work was supported by the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Energy, the Research Corporation, and the Texas Advanced Research Program.


text:
# Nonequilibrium superconductivity in Y1-xPrxBa2Cu3O7 thin films

## Abstract

We have measured the picosecond conductivity dynamics in Y1-xPrxBa2Cu3O7 thin films from 0.3-2.0 terahertz. Our experimental technique measures the complex conductivity $`\sigma _{re}\left(\omega \right)`$ \+ i$`\sigma _{im}\left(\omega \right)`$ permitting the simultaneous observation of superconducting pair and quasiparticle dynamics. We emphasize aspects of the conductivity dynamics which extend our previous results averitt01PRB . In particular, the recovery of $`\sigma _{re}`$ is faster than $`\sigma _{im}`$, and the recovery of $`\sigma _{im}`$ decreases with increasing frequency. This suggests another carrier relaxation pathway, in addition to superconducting pair recovery, following optical excitation.

Terahertz time-domain spectroscopy (THz-TDS) is an ultrafast optical technique that has found wide application in the study of many systems having far-infrared excitations. In the context of correlated electron materials, THz-TDS has been successfully applied to study high-Tc superconductors and, more recently, materials such as the ferromagnetic metal SrRuO3 corson00PRL ; dodgeetal00PRL . We can expect an increase in the use of THz-TDS to study a variety of other correlated electron materials given its unique ability to directly and easily measure $`\sigma _{re}`$($`\omega `$) + i$`\sigma _{im}`$($`\omega `$) from $``$50 GHz to several THz.

Importantly, the freely propagating THz pulses generated in THz-TDS are temporally coherent with the generating optical pulses - this permits measurement of the THz conductivity with picosecond resolution following optical excitation of the sample. Several groups have been developing this technique, termed time-resolved THz spectroscopy (TRTS), to study various systems including photogenerated electrons in liquids such as hexane, or semiconductors such as GaAs knoesel01PRL ; beard00PRB . Our work has focused on using TRTS to study high-Tc superconductors and colossal magnetoresistance manganites averitt01PRB ; averittetal00JOSAB ; averittetal01PRL . Here we present our most recent measurements on Y1-xPrxBa2Cu3O7 thin films.

Figure 1(a) and (b) show the conductivity at 60K and 95K respectively (Tc = 89K) for the near optimally doped film. The phenomenological two-fluid model fits the data quite well (shown as a dashed line in Fig. 1(a)) below Tc where the imaginary conductivity is dominated by the 1/$`\omega `$ dependence of the superfluid averitt01PRB ; brorson96JOSAB . Above Tc, a standard Drude model fits the data (dashed line, Fig. 1(b)). Upon optical excitation, there is a decrease in the imaginary conductivity due to superconducting pair breaking with a corresponding increase in the real component (not shown). The induced change in $`\sigma _{im}(\omega )`$ is shown at 60K in figure 1(c). There is a decrease that rapidly recovers on a ps timescale that is due in large part to superconducting pair reformation. Figure 1(d) shows the induced change in $`\sigma _{im}(\omega )`$ at 95 K (above Tc) which is due quasiparticle relaxation.

The dynamics can be followed by plotting the induced change in the conductivity as a function of time at a specified frequency. The induced change in the imaginary conductivity (60K) is shown in Figure 2. With increasing frequency, the lifetime decreases (see inset). In the limit of zero quasiparticle fraction, this induced change would be solely due to superconducting pair recovery. However, there are quasiparticles present (at 60K the initial quasiparticle fraction is $``$ 40 $`\%`$) so the quasiparticle fraction makes a nonnegligible contribution to $`\sigma _{im}(\omega )`$. At higher frequencies this fraction becomes increasingly important since the superconducting pair fraction response goes as 1/$`\omega `$. This offers a potential explanation for the decrease in the lifetime of $`\sigma _{im}(\omega )`$ with increasing frequency: at low frequencies $`\sigma _{im}(\omega )`$ is dominated by the superconducting pair recovery, but at higher frequencies the relaxation is increasingly influenced by an additional relaxation pathway associated with the quasiparticles. This is further supported in that the lifetime of $`\sigma (\omega )_{re}`$ is quite short ($``$ 1.5 ps independent of frequency). Speculating on the origin of this additional relaxation pathway, it could be due to the relaxation of the excited quasiparticles into the nodes of the superconducting gap along kx = ky. Since this process is faster than the superconducting pair recovery, this suggests that the excited quasiparticles relax into the nodes of the gap followed by pair recovery.

Finally, the results of the superconducting pair recovery time as a function of temperature are consistent with our previous results averitt01PRB . For optimal doping, the lifetime at 20 K is about 1.5 ps (at 1.0 THz) increasing to 3.0 ps near Tc. Above Tc, the lifetime of $`\sigma _{im}(\omega )`$ (which is no longer a measure of the superconducting recovery time, but rather the initial quasiparticle cooling) drops to 1.5 ps (this is also consistent with the discussion in the previous paragraph). In contrast, in the x=0.3 films the lifetime is $``$3.5 ps independent of temperature even above Tc. This lifetime is the same as that measured in our YBa2Cu3O6.5 films. These results suggest that for the optimally doped films, the dynamics are influenced by the closing of the superconducting gap, and that for the underdoped films, the pseudogap plays a role in determining a observed dynamics.

Research supported by the Los Alamos Laboratory Directed Research and Development Program, Department of Energy.

Figure 1: (a)-(b) Conductivity at 60K and 95K, respectively for YBa2Cu3O7. The imaginary conductivity is plotted with the real conductivity in the insets. The data is fit using a two-fluid model which reduces to the Drude model above Tc averitt01PRB ; brorson96JOSAB . The thick solid line is the experimental data. The dashed lines are the overall fit to the data. In (a), the dotted line is the superconducting pair component and the thin solid line is the quasiparticle component. (c)-(d) Optically induced changes in the imaginary conductivity at 60 and 95 K at an excitation fluence of 12 $`\mu J/cm^2.`$

Figure 2: Normalized induced change in the imaginary conductivity (60 K) as a function of time at various frequencies. The curves are displaced vertically for clarity. The solid lines are fits to the function y = a$`\times `$exp(-t/$`\tau _\sigma `$) + b. The inset shows the measured lifetime as a function of frequency.