text:
# Is There a Missing Galaxy Problem at High Redshift?

## 1 Introduction

Is the evidence for high redshift galaxy formation consistent with the concordance $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model? Recent observational results include the discovery of Extremely Red Objects at $`z1`$ (e.g. Elston et al., 1988; McCarthy et al., 1992; Hu & Ridgway, 1994; Cimatti et al., 2003; Smail et al., 2002), Sub-millimeter galaxies at $`z2`$ (e.g. Smail et al., 1997; Chapman et al., 2003), Lyman-break galaxies (LBGs) at $`z3`$ (e.g. Steidel et al., 1999), and galaxies at $`z4`$ either by their Lyman-$`\alpha `$ emission (e.g. Hu et al., 1999; Rhoads & Malhotra, 2001; Taniguchi et al., 2003; Kodaira et al., 2003; Ouchi et al., 2003a) or by their optical to near infrared (IR) colors (e.g. Iwata et al., 2003; Ouchi et al., 2003b; Dickinson et al., 2003b).

Multiband photometry including the near-IR band makes it possible to estimate the stellar mass of these high redshift galaxies by fitting the observed photometric results with artificial galaxy spectra generated by a population synthesis model. Using this technique, several groups have now estimated the stellar mass density in the Universe in the redshift range of $`0z3`$ (e.g. Brinchmann & Ellis, 2000; Cole et al., 2001; Cohen, 2002; Dickinson et al., 2003a; Fontana et al., 2003; Glazebrook et al., 2004). Rudnick et al. (2003) also estimated the stellar mass density at $`z=03`$ by combining the estimates of the rest-frame optical luminosity density and the mean cosmic mass-to-light ratio. These observational estimates constrain the evolution of the stellar mass density $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{}`$ as a function of redshift or cosmic time.

The observations indicate the presence of a significant stellar population at high redshift, and, by comparing with semi-analytic models of galaxy formation, some authors claim that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM models seriously underpredict galaxy formation at $`z3`$. For example, Fontana et al. (2003) compare their estimate of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{}`$ from the Hubble Deep Field (HDF) South with the semi-analytic model of Menci et al. (2002), and argue that the high-mass tail of the galaxy stellar mass function is not adequately described by CDM models. Comparing to the same semi-analytic model, Poli et al. (2003) argue that hierarchical models lack sufficient star formation at $`z=24`$, resulting in a failure to reproduce the pronounced brightening of the luminosity function at these redshifts. Also, Dickinson et al. (2003a) find that their data from the HDF North suggest a steeper increase in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{}`$ than some semi-analytic models (Kauffmann et al., 1999; Somerville et al., 2001; Cole et al., 2000), and some of the semi-analytic models predict higher stellar mass density compared to their data points. Given these contradicting claims and the large parameter space available to the semi-analytic models as well as the limitations of the current observational samples, it is not clear at present if any of these discrepancies actually pose a serious problem to hierarchical evolution.

In this paper, we compare the observational data with the results from state-of-the-art cosmological simulations of the standard concordance $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model and the theoretical model of Hernquist & Springel (2003) (hereafter H&S model), to show that, contrary to some of the claims, theory predicts a higher $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{}`$ at $`z=3`$ than indicated by current observations and that the cosmic star formation rate (SFR) density peaks at $`z5`$, earlier than suggested by most semi-analytic models. Also, we will explicitly compare our results with those from the updated semi-analytic models by Somerville et al. (2001), Granato et al. (2000) (GALFORM), and Menci et al. (2002).

## 2 Simulations

We will show results from two different types of cosmological hydrodynamic simulations. Both approaches include “standard” physics such as radiative cooling/heating, star formation, and supernova (SN) feedback, although the details of the models and the parameter choices differ somewhat.

One set of simulations was performed using an Eulerian approach, which relies on a particle-mesh method for the gravity and the Total Variation Diminishing (TVD) method (Ryu et al., 1993) with a fixed mesh for the hydrodynamics. The treatment of the radiative cooling and heating is described in Cen (1992) in detail. The structure of the code is similar to that of Cen & Ostriker (1992, 1993), but the code has significantly improved over the years with additional input physics. It has been used for a variety of studies, including the evolution of the intergalactic medium (Cen et al., 1994; Cen & Ostriker, 1999a, b), damped Lyman-$`\alpha `$ absorbers (Cen et al., 2003), and galaxy formation (e.g. Cen & Ostriker, 2000; Nagamine, Fukugita, Cen, & Ostriker, 2001a, b; Nagamine, 2002).

Our other simulations were done using the Lagrangian Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics (SPH) technique. We use an updated version of GADGET (Springel et al., 2001), which uses an ‘entropy conserving’ formulation (Springel & Hernquist, 2002) to mitigate problems with energy/entropy conservation (e.g. Hernquist, 1993) and overcooling. This code also uses a multiphase model of the interstellar medium to describe self-regulated star formation and a phenomenological model for galactic winds (Springel & Hernquist, 2003a). This approach has been used to study the evolution of the cosmic SFR (Springel & Hernquist, 2003b), damped Lyman-$`\alpha `$ absorbers (Nagamine, Springel, & Hernquist, 2004a, b), and galaxies at high redshifts (Nagamine, Springel, Hernquist, & Machacek, 2004).

The cosmological parameters adopted in the simulations are intended to be consistent with recent observational determinations (e.g. Spergel et al., 2003), as summarized in Table 1.

## 3 Stellar Mass Density

Figure 1 shows the evolution of the global stellar mass density $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{}`$ as a function of redshift. Figure 1a compares the simulation results with the observations, and Figure 1b compares the semi-analytic models with the observations. Our results are scaled to unity at $`z=0`$ (see discussion below). Observational data points are normalized to the local estimate by Cole et al. (2001, filled circle at z=0) following Rudnick et al. (2003). The result of the H&S model shown in both panels is simply the integral of their approximate formula for the SFR which will be given in Equation (1).

For recent epochs ($`z1`$), the computed results are within the range of the observational data. However, the important result here is that at $`1z3`$, all the observational estimates (both corrected and uncorrected estimates for the incompleteness of the survey) are smaller than the simulation results by more than a factor of two. The early development of the stellar mass density is much faster in the simulations than is suggested by current observations. As we discuss in Section 4, the larger $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{}`$ at $`z3`$ originates from a higher SFR at $`z3`$ which peaks at $`z5`$ in both the TVD and SPH simulations. Such a star formation history implies that about 70% (50, 30, 15%) of the total stellar mass density today must have been in place by $`z=1`$ ($`z=2,3,5`$). The contribution to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{}(z=0)`$ from the star formation at $`z>6`$ is about 10%.

We note that the data points of Rudnick et al. (2003, magenta filled squares) should be considered as a lower limit, as they did not attempt to make any extrapolations to correct for the incompleteness of their data. On the other hand, Dickinson et al. (2003a, green square boxes) correct for the incompleteness of their data by integrating the Schechter fit with a faint-end slope of $`\alpha =1.4`$ down to a fainter magnitude. For the Fontana et al. (2003, blue crosses) data points, we have plotted the values for the SMC extinction case (which yields slightly larger $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{}`$ values compared to the Calzetti et al. (2000) extinction), and the upper error bars are extended up to their ‘maximum mass’ estimates. For the Glazebrook et al. (2004, black filled triangles) data points, we plotted the values for the mass limit of $`\mathrm{log}(M/M_{})=10.2`$ which yields largest $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{}`$ estimates from their data. We also note that dust extinction is taken into account in the analyses by Brinchmann & Ellis (2000); Dickinson et al. (2003a); Fontana et al. (2003); Glazebrook et al. (2004) by allowing the extinction parameter to vary when fitting the broadband photometric measurements of each galaxy by the spectral energy distribution generated by a population synthesis model. Rudnick et al. (2003) adopt the Calzetti extinction with $`E(BV)=0.30`$ when deriving the mean mass-to-light ratio from the rest-frame $`UV`$ color.

The scaling of the simulation results to the local estimate at $`z=0`$ leaves us with some concerns, because the relative value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{}`$ does indeed depend on this scaling. However, some kind of normalization is necessary to compare the results of different numerical models on the same basis, because every numerical model has its input parameters, and what we would like to focus in this paper is the relative speed of the development of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{}`$ from high redshift to the present time. The two TVD simulations in fact yield different values of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{}`$ owing to cosmic variance and differences in the set of cosmological parameters adopted in the simulations: $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{}=0.0077`$ and 0.0052 for N864L22 and N768L25, respectively. The normalization of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{}`$ at $`z=0`$ in Figure 1 can be partially explained by the scaling of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{}`$ with the baryon mass density in the different simulations. Hernquist & Springel (2003) have shown that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{}`$ scales as $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{}\mathrm{\Omega }_b^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1.8}}`$ from theoretical arguments, and Gardner et al. (2003) found that the amount of cold gas and stars in their SPH simulations follow $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{}\mathrm{\Omega }_b^{1.02.0}`$.

Using the cosmological parameters of the two TVD runs, the scaling $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{}\mathrm{\Omega }_b^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1.8}}`$ gives the expected ratio $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{}(\mathrm{N864L22})/\mathrm{\Omega }_{}(\mathrm{N768L25})=1.7`$. The actual corresponding ratio from the two simulations is $`(0.0077/0.0052)=1.5`$, which is a reasonable agreement, given other uncertainties, such as cosmic variance. It is expected that the H&S model (blue long-dashed line in Figure 1) should yield the highest $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{}`$ at $`z=3`$, because it is intended to remove the effects of limited resolution and cosmic variance. Since the results of N864L22 and N768L25 are not corrected for the limited box-size and resolution, it is natural that they lack the earliest star formation at $`z>10`$, resulting in a lower $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{}`$ at $`z=3`$. This is also true of the SPH G6 run which by itself cannot resolve the entire starforming population at $`z3`$. Also, a comparison of the N864L22 and N768L25 results gives an idea of the level of cosmic variance for a volume of $`(25h^1\mathrm{Mpc})^3`$, and the deviation of the SPH G6 run from the H&S model is also a consequence of cosmic variance.

Figure 1b compares the results of H&S theoretical model, semi-analytic models of Somerville et al. (2001), Granato et al. (2000), Menci et al. (2002), and observations. The model shown for Somerville et al. (2001) is the updated ‘accelerated quiescent’ model which was also used in Somerville et al. (2004), and follows the merger tree down to halos with circular velocity $`30\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$. The result shown for Menci et al. (2002) is the original model used by Poli et al. (2003) and Fontana et al. (2003) for the comparison to their observational data. Recently Menci et al. (2003) updated their model to include a starburst mode of star formation, which gives a result close to that of GALFORM. The results of the semi-analytic models are somewhat higher than the observational estimates, but within the upper limit of Fontana et al. (2003) data point at $`z=3`$. It is also clear that the predicted $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{}`$ by the H&S model is higher than that of the two semi-analytic models by about a factor of two. The discrepancy between the models and observations increases at $`z1.5`$, and is significant at more than 1-$`\sigma `$.

## 4 Cosmic Star Formation Rate at $`0z6`$

In Figure 2, we show the cosmic SFR density as a function of redshift. Panel (a) shows the simulation results, and panel (b) shows the semi-analytic model results. The simulation results shown in this figure are extracted directly from the runs, without any further adjustments. The H&S model that is shown in both panels has an approximate form as

$$\dot{\rho }_{}=\dot{\rho }_{}(0)\frac{\chi ^2}{1+\alpha (\chi 1)^3\mathrm{exp}(\beta \chi ^{7/4})},$$
(1)
where $`\chi (z)(H(z)/H_0)^{2/3}`$. For a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM universe with the star formation and feedback algorithm described by Springel & Hernquist (2003a), the parameters defining the SFR density take the values $`\alpha =0.012`$, $`\beta =0.041`$, and $`\dot{\rho }_{}(0)=0.013\mathrm{M}_{}\mathrm{yr}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$. See Section 5 for further discussion on this formula.

The line types and data points are described in the caption. The observationally estimated ultra-violet (UV) luminosity densities $`\rho _{\mathrm{UV}}`$ have been converted into the SFR by $`\rho _{\mathrm{UV}}[\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{s}^1\mathrm{Hz}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^3]=8.0\times 10^{27}SFR[M_{}\mathrm{yr}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^3]`$ (Madau, Pozzetti, & Dickinson, 1998). The SFR data points are corrected for dust extinction according to a prescription similar to that of Steidel et al. (1999): we assume the highly uncertain extinction correction factors to be 1.3 ($`z<2`$) and 4.0 ($`z>2`$), while Steidel et al. (1999) used higher values 2.7 ($`z<2`$) and 4.7 ($`z>2`$).

It is important to note that each data point has been derived under different assumptions, because the faint-end slope of the luminosity function of galaxies at high redshift is not well constrained and adopting a steeper slope and integrating down to fainter magnitudes would certainly yield a larger UV luminosity density. Here we describe some of the high redshift data points. Steidel et al. (1999, open stars at $`z=3,4`$) derived their UV luminosity density by integrating the luminosity function with a faint-end slope of $`\alpha =1.6`$ down to $`0.1L^{}`$. For their data points, we read off the SFR from Fig.9, corrected to our flat-$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ cosmology, and applied our extinction correction. Giavalisco et al. (2004, open triangles at $`z=36`$) integrated the Schechter fit with a faint-end slope of $`\alpha =1.6`$ down to $`0.2L_3^{}`$, where $`L_3^{}`$ is the characteristic UV luminosity of LBGs at $`z3`$. Iwata et al. (2003, open pentagon at $`z=5`$) integrated their Schechter fit with $`\alpha =1.5`$ in the magnitude range of $`22.5<M_{\mathrm{UV}}5\mathrm{log}h<20.0`$. This integration range was chosen to match with the limiting magnitude of the $`z4`$ sample by Steidel et al. (1999) in terms of absolute magnitude, therefore it is expected from the shape of the luminosity function that the resultant UV luminosity density at $`z5`$ is $`0.560.69`$ times of that at $`z3`$ in the same absolute magnitude range, depending on the choice of cosmology and the integration range. For the Ouchi et al. (2003b, inverted open triangles) data points, we show their total UV luminosity density case where the luminosity function with a faint-end slope of $`\alpha =2.2`$ is integrated down to $`0.1L^{}`$.

An important theoretical result here is that all the simulation results and the H&S model peak at $`z5`$, and not at lower redshifts, as is often found in semi-analytic models of galaxy formation (e.g. Baugh et al., 1998; Kauffmann et al., 1999; Cole et al., 2000; Somerville et al., 2001, see panel (b)). Observationally, it is an unsettled problem whether the SFR levels off at high-redshift (e.g. Steidel et al., 1999) or still increases beyond $`z>3`$ (Lanzetta et al., 2002). In particular, Lanzetta et al. (2002) stress the importance of the cosmological surface dimming effect and argue that previous measurements have missed a significant fraction of the ultraviolet luminosity density of the universe at $`z2`$. The scatter in the data points at $`z>3`$ is still large, and it is not possible at this time to determine the trend in SFR at these redshifts. However, our point is a theoretical one, and does not depend on the distribution of data points as we detail in Section 5.

In passing, we note that the absolute values of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{}`$ at $`z=0`$ computed by integrating the SFR curves shown in Fig.2b are 0.0037, 0.0031, 0.0041, and 0.0090 for the models by Hernquist & Springel (2003), Somerville et al. (2001), Granato et al. (2000), and Menci et al. (2002), respectively.

The result of TVD N864L22 at $`z<1`$ is slightly higher than most of the observational data points and has two large bumps at $`z1.0`$ and 2.0. These two peaks presumably owe to major merger events taking place in the simulation, and are a consequence of cosmic variance in the relatively small box utilized. If we had utilized a larger box, then we would expect the curve to be smooth. Clearly the box-size of $`L_{\mathrm{box}}=2030h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$ is not large enough to accurately model the volume averaged quantities in the universe at $`z<1`$.

## 5 Discussion & Conclusions

We have shown that two independent different types of numerical hydrodynamic simulations both predict that the cosmic star formation rate density should peak at $`z5`$, and that this relatively early peak in the SFR leads to a more rapid development of the stellar mass density than current observational estimates. When all the results are scaled to the local value at $`z=0`$, the stellar mass density at $`z=3`$ in the simulations is larger than observed values by more than a factor of two. We also showed in Figure 1b that the semi-analytic models of Somerville et al. (2001), Granato et al. (2000), and Menci et al. (2002) predict larger $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{}`$ than current observational estimates, but within the upper error bar of the Fontana et al. (2003) data point at $`z=3`$. In particular, the H&S model predicts higher $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{}`$ than those semi-analytic models by about a factor of two at $`z=3`$. This comes from the fact that both the simulations and H&S model has a peak of SFR at $`z=57`$, whereas the semi-analytic models have a peak at $`z=24`$.

The high $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{}`$ predicted by our simulations and the model of Hernquist & Springel (2003) suggest that current observations are missing nearly half of the total stellar mass density in the universe at high redshifts. This missing stellar mass could be hidden in a population of red galaxies that have not been detected previously in the optical ground-based data. In fact, Franx et al. (2003) and Daddi et al. (2004) find such a population of red galaxies at $`z2`$ in HDF-South that has a volume density half that of LBGs at $`z=3`$ and a stellar mass density comparable to that of LBGs. However, the data points by Rudnick et al. (2003) include this red galaxy population. Therefore the cosmic variance might be a stronger cause for the underestimate of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{}`$ by the current observations. This is hinted by the absence of this red population in HDF-North. If these red populations are strongly clustered as suggested by Daddi et al. (2003), observations with small fields-of-view could easily miss them. The stellar mass density in the simulations and observations agree reasonably well at $`z<1`$ where the rate of increase is much slower than at higher redshift. In addition, the dust extinction correction may seriously underestimate the fraction of early star formation that is heavily obscured. If we only had optical UV observations of nearby starburst galaxies – rather than the full spectrum extending to the submillimeter – we would greatly underestimate star formation in these systems (e.g. Hughes et al., 1998; Meurer et al., 1999; Barger et al., 2000; Calzetti et al., 2000; Takagi et al., 2003). Future studies of starforming galaxies in the far-infrared wavelengths (e.g. Kennicutt et al., 2003) using the Spitzer Space Telescope, in the submillimeter (e.g. Tecza et al., 2004), in the millimeter (e.g. Bekki & Shioya, 2000) using the Atacama Large Millimeter Array (ALMA), and in X-rays (e.g. Norman et al., 2004) using the Chandra X-ray Observatory would enable us to constrain the nature of starburst galaxies better, and estimate the intrinsic SFR more accurately.

It is reassuring that the two different sets of simulations, which use very different hydrodynamic methods (i.e. Eulerian TVD and SPH), both give a star formation history that peaks at $`z5`$. As argued by Hernquist & Springel (2003) this is to be expected, because the evolution of the cosmic SFR is driven mainly by a competition between gravity and the expansion of the Universe, with a weaker dependence on the details of star formation and feedback. The form of equation (1) given in Section 4 can be understood as follows. At high redshifts, when the cooling time is short, star formation is limited primarily by the gravitational growth of halos, which is independent of the dissipative gas dynamics. Thus, the parameter $`\beta `$ and the factor $`\chi ^{7/4}`$ in the exponential of equation (1) are determined by the form of the matter power spectrum, and the description of star formation and feedback enter into $`\dot{\rho }_{}(z)`$ only logarithmically. At low redshifts, the supply of star forming gas is limited by the expansion rate of the Universe, fixing the dependence of $`\dot{\rho }_{}(z)`$ on $`\chi `$ as $`z0`$. The explicit influence of the prescription for star formation and feedback is again subdominant and mainly affects the values of the normalization parameters $`\alpha `$ and $`\dot{\rho }_{}(0)`$.

For these reasons, equation (1) can be generalized straightforwardly to other cosmologies and to include other physics (e.g. Yoshida et al., 2003). Moreover, as shown in e.g. figure 6 of Hernquist & Springel (2003), the fact that the SFR density is regulated mainly by the competition between gravity and the expansion of the Universe means that the peak in $`\dot{\rho }_{}(z)`$ should lie at $`z5`$, unless an implausible value is adopted for the parameters governing star formation. Hence, it is not surprising that the various sets of simulations should be consistent, with residual differences owing to details in the cosmology and, most important, cosmic variance and resolution limitations. We plan to investigate these issues in the future using the algorithms described here, as well as adaptive mesh refinement codes.

For now, the agreement between our different numerical approaches supports the general arguments made by Hernquist & Springel (2003), that the SFR density should peak at $`z5`$, mostly independent of the details of star formation and feedback. As we have demonstrated here, such an early peak in the cosmic star formation history yields $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{}`$ that clearly exceeds current observational estimates and the results of semi-analytic models, suggesting that most of the stars in the universe at $`z3`$ are “missing.”

We thank Rachel Somerville, Carlton Baugh, Shaun Cole, and Nicola Menci for providing the result of their semi-analytic model. This work was supported in part by NSF grants ACI 96-19019, AST 98-02568, AST 99-00877, AST 00-71019, and AST-0206299, and NASA ATP grant NAG5-12140 and NAG5-13292, NAG5-13381. The SPH simulations were performed at the Center for Parallel Astrophysical Computing at Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. The TVD simulations were performed at the National Center for Supercomputing Applications (NCSA).


format: text

text:
# The Curve of Compactified 6D Gauge Theories and Integrable Systems

## 1 Introduction

The Coulomb branch of four-dimensional gauge theories with $`𝒩=2`$ supersymmetry is described at low energy by Seiberg-Witten theory . In essence, there is a complex curve, or Riemann surface, whose moduli vary across the Coulomb branch, and whose period matrix determines the couplings of the low energy effective action. Theories with eight supercharges can be defined in higher dimensions, specifically in five and six dimensions. When compactified on a circle and torus, respectively, where we keep the scale of the compactification space finite, this gives rise to a four-dimensional gauge theory with $`𝒩=2`$ symmetry. Hence, we expect that there is a Seiberg-Witten curve which controls the couplings in the low energy effective action which now depends on the details of the compactification space. In particular, we will consider the $`U(N)`$ gauge theory with a massive adjoint hypermultiplet, sometimes called the $`𝒩=2^{}`$ theory.

The $`𝒩=2^{}`$ theory can be lifted to six dimensions where it is has $`𝒩=(1,1)`$ supersymmetry, although strictly in six dimensions the hypermultiplet is massless. Note that the six-dimensional gauge theory is non-renormalizable, but it may be given an ultra-violet completion as a little string theory: the theory describing five branes in Type II string theory. Once compactified on a torus the resulting theory is an $`𝒩=2`$ $`U(N)`$ gauge theory in four dimensions with a complexified coupling $`\tau `$ given by $`g_6^2`$ times the complexified Kähler class of the torus. The effective four-dimensional theory will also depend on the complex structure of the torus $`\rho `$ and, in addition, one can include a certain twist in the R-symmetry group which gives a mass $`m`$ to the hypermultiplet in four dimensions. By a twist, we mean that there are non-trivial holonomies in a $`U(1)\text{spin}(4)`$ of the R-symmetry group . So the effective four-dimensional theory will include the fields of the $`𝒩=2^{}`$ theory ($`𝒩=2`$ plus massive adjoint hypermultiplet) plus all the higher Kaluza-Klein modes on the torus.

The low-energy effective action of the four-dimensional theory will be described by Seiberg-Witten theory and in particular we focus on the Seiberg-Witten curve. We show how it may be obtained by using a generalization of Witten’s brane configuration in Type IIA/M-theory . The resulting curve is identical, as is expected, to that proposed in  related to the moduli space of instantons on a non-commutative 4-torus. The curve has also been determined in  via a number of different methods: a Dijkgraaf-Vafa matrix model, geometric engineering and the instanton calculus.

Once we have established the form of the curve, we turn to the question of whether there is a related integrable system. The motivation is as follows. If we consider the $`𝒩=2^{}`$ theory strictly in four dimensions then the Seiberg-Witten curve is the spectral curve of the complexified $`N`$-body elliptic Calogero-Moser system, where the position coordinates take values on an auxiliary torus whose complex structure is $`\tau `$, the complexified coupling of the four-dimensional theory, and whose momenta are valued in $`𝐂`$. If we then lift this theory to five dimensions compactified on a circle, then the Seiberg-Witten curve becomes the spectral curve of the $`N`$-body elliptic Ruijsenaars-Schneider integrable system . This is sometimes described as the “relativistic” Calogero-Moser model since the momenta are now periodic in one direction on $`𝐂`$—as one would expect for a rapidity. The “speed of light” is proportional to the inverse of size of the circle so that when the radius goes to zero the Calogero-Moser system is recovered. Now imagine lifting the five-dimensional theory to six dimensions compactified on a torus. The question then is: what is the next object in the chain?

Calogero-Moser $``$ Ruijsenaars-Schneider $``$ ?
$`q𝐓^2,p𝐂`$ $`q𝐓^2,p𝐑\times 𝐒^1`$ $`q𝐓^2,p\stackrel{\text{?}}{}𝐓^2`$
One naturally expects that the momenta now take values on a torus, as indicated above. In fact the natural guess is the torus dual to the compactification torus. Hence, with both the positions and the momenta being doubly-periodic the hypothetical integrable system is sometimes called the “doubly-elliptic”, or Dell, system. Such a Dell system, in the case of 2 particles, has been defined and investigated in . It is one of main aims of this paper to find the hypothetical integrable system for any number of particles. Our approach makes prominent a polarized abelian surface with moduli $`\tau `$, $`\rho `$ and $`m`$, and the system we uncover provides a concrete realization of a Beauville-Mukai system based on the abelian surface, rather than the more often discussed K3 surface. We will compare our system with Dell system in due course. We also note that the curve of the 6D theory with $`𝒩=(1,0)`$ supersymmetry having $`N_F=2N`$ fundamental hypermultiplets compactified on a torus was constructed some time ago .

## 2 The Curve from M Theory

There are several ways to find the form of the Seiberg-Witten curve that describes compactified six-dimensional gauge theories. In the first place, the form of the curve follows from the work of . In this work, it was shown how the curve, which we denote $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, plays a rôle in the description of the moduli space of $`N`$ instantons in a $`U(1)`$ gauge theory on a non-commutative torus.111The case of $`N`$ instantons in a $`U(k)`$ gauge theory is relevant to a quiver generalization of the $`𝒩=2^{}`$ theory where the gauge group becomes $`U(N)^k`$; this will be described elsewhere. Another way to engineer the curve is via a Dijkgraaf-Vafa matrix model, although in this case, the model is actually a two-dimensional matrix field theory defined on the compactification torus . The matrix model describes a deformation of the four-dimensional theory from $`𝒩=2`$ to $`𝒩=1`$. If the deformation is suitably generic then varying it allows the vacuum to track across the Coulomb branch of the $`𝒩=2`$ theory. In this way, the Seiberg-Witten curve itself can be extracted. Yet another way to engineer the curve is to use equivariant localization techniques, pioneered in , to calculate the instanton partition function from which the Seiberg-Witten curve can be extracted from a saddle-point analysis. Going from the four-dimensional theory to the compactified six dimensional one involves replacing the integral over instanton moduli space by the partition function of a two-dimensional sigma model whose target is the same space. The details are described in .

In this section, we take a different approach by proposing a form for the curve based on Witten’s M-theory construction of $`𝒩=2`$ theories . The answer agrees with other methods. We start with the Type IIA configuration which describes the four-dimensional $`𝒩=2^{}`$ theory. There is one NS5-brane whose world-volume spans $`\{x^0,x^1,x^2,x^3,x^4,x^5\}`$ and $`N`$ D4-branes spanning $`\{x^0,x^1,x^2,x^3,x^6\}`$. The direction $`x^6`$ is periodic. The position of each D4-brane in $`x^{4,5}`$ may be described by the complex variable $`x=x^4+ix^5`$. In order to incorporate the mass $`m`$ the spacetime must be modified: as one goes around the $`x^6`$ circle $`x`$ shifts by $`m`$.

As explained in , after lifting to M-theory the configuration is described by a single M5-brane whose world-volume fills $`\{x^0,x^1,x^2,x^3\}`$ while the remaining directions are described by a Riemann surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ embedded in the four-dimensional space $`𝔔`$ whose coordinates are $`\{x^4,x^5,x^6,x^{10}\}`$. The M-theory direction $`x^{10}`$ together with $`x^6`$ are valued on a torus of complex structure $`\tau `$, the coupling constant of the four-dimensional theory. We will introduce the holomorphic coordinate

$$z=\frac{1}{2\pi R_{10}}\left(x^{10}+ix^6\right),$$
(1)
where $`2\pi R_{10}`$ is the circumference of the M-theory circle, and define

$$𝐓_z^2=\left\{z𝐂\right|zz+p+\tau q,p,q𝐙\}.$$
(2)
In order to incorporate the mass $`m`$, the complex $`x`$-plane is then fibred over this base torus so that as one goes around the $`B`$-cycle of $`𝐓_z^2`$ there is a shift $`xx+m`$. This means that, although $`𝔔`$ is equal to $`𝐑^2\times 𝐓_z^2`$ locally, this is not true globally.

The curve $`\mathrm{\Sigma }𝔔`$ describing the geometry of the M5-brane is the Seiberg-Witten curve of the four-dimensional theory. The curve can be described algebraically via

$$F(z,x)=x^N+f_1(z)x^{N1}+f_2(z)x^{N2}+\mathrm{}+f_N(z)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}(xx_i(z))=0.$$
(3)
The coefficients are fixed by the following conditions. First, in order to incorporate the mass $`m`$, we need

$$F(z+1,x)=F(z,x),F(z+\tau ,x)=F(z,x+m).$$
(4)
The eigenvalues $`x_i(z)`$ define a branched $`N`$-fold cover of the base torus $`𝐓_z^2`$. There is a distinguished point, which we choose at $`z=0`$, that corresponds to the position of the NS5-brane. At $`z=0`$ on exactly one of the sheets, say $`i`$, a point on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ which we denote as $`P_0`$, the associated function $`x_i(z)`$ has a simple pole with residue $`m`$. Note that we can define the meromorphic function $`v`$ on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ which takes the form222In the following $`\zeta (z)`$ is the Weierstrass $`\zeta `$-function with half periods $`\frac{1}{2}`$ and $`\frac{\tau }{2}`$.

$$v_j(z)=Nx_j(z)m\left(\zeta (z)2z\zeta (\frac{1}{2})\right)$$
(5)
on the $`j^{\mathrm{th}}`$ sheet. Although $`v`$ is single-valued on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ it now has simple poles on each sheet at $`z=0`$, with residues $`m`$, on sheets $`ji`$, and with residue $`(N1)m`$ on the $`i^{\mathrm{th}}`$ sheet. The genus of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ follows from the Riemann-Hurwitz Theorem and is found to be $`N`$. In addition, the number of moduli of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ can be computed using the Riemann-Roch Theorem; one finds $`N`$.

We can view the curve $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ as $`N`$ copies of the base torus $`𝐓_z^2`$ plumbed together by $`N1`$ branch cuts. The $`A`$ and $`B`$ cycles on the base torus $`𝐓_z^2`$ lift to a basis of 1-cycles $`A_i`$ and $`B_i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},N`$, on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Let $`\omega _i`$ be the associated abelian differentials of the first kind. We can then identify $`z`$ as a multi-valued function on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ in the following way. First of all, $`z`$ must shift by 1 around each of the $`A_i`$ cycles; this means

$$z(P)=_{P_0}^P\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}\omega _j$$
(6)
where $`P\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`P_0`$ is some fixed origin. Around each $`B_i`$ cycle $`z`$ must shift by $`\tau `$, the coupling. Hence, we have the following constraint on the period matrix $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$:

$$\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}\mathrm{\Pi }_{ij}=\tau i.$$
(7)
Another way to view the surface is in terms of the multi-valued function $`x`$. This is continuous around the $`A_j`$ cycles but jumps by $`m`$ around the $`B_j`$ cycles. The function $`x`$ covers the complex plane with the point at infinity corresponding to the distinguished point $`P_0`$, the position of the NS5-brane. There are $`N`$ pairs of cuts $`𝒞_j^\pm `$ with (complex) end-points $`(a_j,b_j)`$ and $`(a_j+m,b_j+m)`$, $`j=1,\mathrm{},N`$. The cuts in a given pair are glued together so that the top/bottom of the upper cut is glued to the bottom/top of the lower cut. Thus each pair generates a handle as illustrated in Fig. 1.

The moduli correspond to positions of the ends of the lower cuts, so number $`2N`$; however, there are $`N`$ conditions (7) on the period matrix so, all-in-all, there are $`N`$ (complex) moduli.

Now we consider the six-dimensional theory compactified on the torus $`𝐓^2`$ defined as follows,

$$𝐓^2=\left\{y𝐂\right|yy+\frac{\beta }{\rho \overline{\rho }}(p+\rho q),p,q𝐙\}.$$
(8)
In order to describe the compactified six-dimensional gauge theory in the M-theory set-up we have to compactify $`\{x^4,x^5\}`$ on the dual to the compactification torus defined as

$$\stackrel{~}{𝐓}^2=\left\{y𝐂\right|yy+\frac{2\pi i}{\beta }(p+\rho q),p,q𝐙\}.$$
(9)
So the space $`𝔔`$ in which $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is embedded becomes a 4-torus. In order to incorporate the mass $`m`$, it cannot be simply the product $`\stackrel{~}{𝐓}^2\times 𝐓_z^2`$. Rather as one goes around the $`B`$-cycle of the $`𝐓_z^2`$, $`x`$ must shift by $`m`$, as in the four-dimensional theory. This shift must be mirrored in the opposite direction. This means that $`𝔔`$ must be a “slanted” product of the two tori. We now argue that the form of $`𝔔`$ is determined by the condition that there exists a curve $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ embedded in it with the appropriate properties. As a real manifold we can think of $`𝔔`$ as $`𝐑^4/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a rank 4 lattice. If a set of basis vectors for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are $`\lambda _\alpha `$, $`\alpha =1,\mathrm{},4`$, then we can think of $`𝔔`$ as the region

$$\underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{4}{}}y_\alpha \lambda _\alpha 𝐑^4$$
(10)
parameterized by four real variables $`0y_\alpha 1`$ whose faces $`y_\alpha =0`$ and $`y_\alpha =1`$ are identified. We propose that a curve $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ of the right form exists when $`𝔔`$ is an abelian surface (a 2-dimensional abelian variety) . To start, we view $`𝐑^4`$ as a complex manifold $`𝐂^2`$ and introduce holomorphic coordinates $`(z_1,z_2)`$. These are related to the real coordinates $`y_\alpha `$ via the $`2\times 4`$ period matrix

$$z_i=\underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{4}{}}\mathrm{\Omega }_{i\alpha }y_\alpha .$$
(11)
In order to be an abelian variety, the condition that it can be embedded in projective space, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ must satisfy certain conditions (the Riemann conditions). With a suitable choice of basis for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ it can be shown that $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ may be put in the form

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\delta _1& 0& \mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}& \mathrm{\Gamma }_{12}\\ 0& \delta _2& \mathrm{\Gamma }_{21}& \mathrm{\Gamma }_{22}\end{array}\right),$$
(12)
where $`\delta _{1,2}`$ are integers and $`\delta _1|\delta _2`$. Then the conditions that $`𝔔`$ be an abelian variety are that the $`2\times 2`$ matrix $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is symmetric and $`\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is positive definite. In this basis, $`(\delta _1,\delta _2)`$ defines the polarization of $`𝔔`$. The conditions on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ ensures that

$$\omega =\delta _1dy_1dy_3+\delta _2dy_2dy_4,$$
(13)
is a $`(1,1)`$-form. The fact that $`𝔔`$ is an abelian surface will ensure that there exists a holomorphic curve $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ with the right properties. This curve arises in the following way. A polarized abelian variety has an associated line bundle $``$ whose $`1^{\mathrm{st}}`$ Chern class $`c_1()=[\omega ]`$. This line bundle admits $`\delta _1\delta _2`$ holomorphic sections which are constructed in terms of generalized theta functions. Our conventions for these latter functions are

$$\mathrm{\Theta }\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\delta }{ϵ}\right](Z|\mathrm{\Pi })=\underset{m𝐙^g}{}\mathrm{exp}\left(\pi i(m+\delta )\mathrm{\Pi }(m+\delta )+2\pi i(Z+ϵ)(m+\delta )\right).$$
(14)
Here $`Z`$, $`\delta `$, $`ϵ`$ and $`m`$ are $`g`$-vectors and $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ is a $`g\times g`$ matrix (with $`\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }`$ positive definite). The basis for the holomorphic sections of $``$ are then given by the $`\delta _1\delta _2`$ theta functions ($`g=2`$ in the case of an abelian surface)

$$\mathrm{\Theta }\left[\begin{array}{cc}\frac{i}{\delta _1}& \frac{j}{\delta _2}\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right](z_1z_2|\mathrm{\Gamma })0i<\delta _1,0j<\delta _2.$$
(15)
A general section is then a linear combination of the above. The divisor of a given section naturally defines a curve $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ in the homology class dual to $`c_1()=[\omega ]`$. In other words, for some coefficients $`A_{ij}`$, the curve $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is defined by

$$\underset{i=0}{\overset{\delta _11}{}}\underset{j=0}{\overset{\delta _21}{}}A_{ij}\mathrm{\Theta }\left[\begin{array}{cc}\frac{i}{\delta _1}& \frac{j}{\delta _2}\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right]\left(z_1z_2|\mathrm{\Gamma }\right)=0.$$
(16)
In order to realize the structure above in the M-theory scenario we must relate the coordinates $`(z_1,z_2)`$ to the physical coordinates $`(z,x)`$. Notice that if $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{21}=0`$ then $`𝔔`$ is the product of two elliptic curves. This will describe the degenerate limit when the mass $`m=0`$ and in this limit the two elliptic curves are identified with $`𝐓_z^2`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{𝐓}^2`$. In other words, in this limit, we identify the fundamental domain of $`𝐓_z^2`$ with $`z=y_1+y_3\tau `$ and that of $`\stackrel{~}{𝐓}^2`$ with $`x=(2\pi i/\beta )(y_2+y_4\rho )`$. The next fact we need is that the curve $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ we are after must be wrapped $`N`$ times around the $`z`$-torus but only once around the $`x`$-torus. This requires some explanation. Suppose $`\beta `$ is small so that the dual torus $`\stackrel{~}{𝐓}^2`$ is very large. In this limit it makes sense to think of the curve as approximately equal to the four-dimensional one. The four-dimensional curve goes off to infinity in the $`x`$-plane in the neighbourhood of the distinguished point $`P_0`$. In the compactified theory this region must wrap the torus once. The multiple wrapping situation will occur in the quiver theory generalization of our set-up and will be described elsewhere.

So more precisely, the homology class of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ should be Poincaré dual to the form $`\omega `$ in (13) with $`\delta _1=1`$ and $`\delta _2=N`$. In the limit $`m=0`$, this fixes

$$\mathrm{\Omega }|_{m=0}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& \tau & 0\\ 0& N& 0& N\rho \end{array}\right).$$
(17)
A non-zero mass $`m`$ corresponds to a non-vanishing off-diagonal component $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12}`$. Given that $`x`$ must shift by $`m`$ as one goes around the $`B`$ cycle of the $`z`$-torus, determines the period matrix $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ for non-vanishing mass:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\tau & \frac{N\beta m}{2\pi i}\\ \frac{N\beta m}{2\pi i}& N\rho \end{array}\right)$$
(18)
and in addition we discover

$$z_1=z,z_2=\frac{N\beta x}{2\pi i}.$$
(19)
With this period matrix, the curve $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ in (16) has genus $`N+1`$. The coefficients $`A_{0j}`$, along with a choice of origin for $`Z`$, are the moduli of the curve. Since the $`A_{0j}`$ are defined up to an overall complex re-scaling they parameterize a copy of $`𝐏^{N1}`$. Hence the moduli space of the curve is $`𝔐=𝔔\times 𝐏^{N1}`$, which is $`N+1`$ complex dimensional.

We can picture the curve in two ways. First, as in the four-dimensional case, as the $`x`$-plane, which is now a torus with periods $`(2\pi i/\beta )(1,\rho )`$, together with $`N`$ pairs of cuts across which $`x`$ jumps by $`m`$ and whose edges are identified to create a handle, as in Fig. 1. This is illustrated in Fig. 2.

The second representation consists of $`N`$ copies of a torus in the $`z`$-plane, with periods $`(1,\tau )`$, and which are joined by $`N1`$ branch cuts. On the face of it, such a surface would have genus $`N`$ but on one of the sheets there is a pair of cuts across which $`z`$ jumps by $`N\beta m/(2\pi i)`$ whose edges are identified to create an extra handle. This is illustrated in Fig. 3.

Using the explicit expression for the theta-function, the form of the curve (16) can be re-cast in the following way which makes the reduction to five and four dimensions more immediate:

$$\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{n!}\left(\frac{m}{2\pi i}\right)^n_z^n\theta _1(\pi z|\tau )_x^nH(x)=0.$$
(20)
where $`\theta _1`$ is the usual Jacobi theta function related to $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ for $`g=1`$ via

$$\theta _1(\pi z|\tau )=\mathrm{\Theta }\left[\begin{array}{c}\frac{1}{2}\\ \frac{1}{2}\end{array}\right](z|\tau ).$$
(21)
In the above,

$$H(x)=\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}\theta _1(\frac{\beta }{2i}(x\zeta _j)|\rho ).$$
(22)
Here, $`\zeta _j`$ are $`N`$ of the moduli and the remaining one corresponds to shifting $`z`$ by a constant. By equating (20) and (16), up to some constant shifts in $`x`$ and $`z`$, we deduce that

$$A_{0j}(\zeta _i)=\underset{\{i_k\}}{}\mathrm{\Theta }\left[\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{i_1}{N}& \mathrm{}& \frac{i_{N1}}{N}\\ 0& \mathrm{}& 0\end{array}\right]\left(\frac{N\beta }{2\pi i}(\zeta _2\overline{\zeta })\mathrm{}\frac{N\beta }{2\pi i}(\zeta _N\overline{\zeta })|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}\right),$$
(23)
where the $`j`$-dependence arises through the definition of the sum which is over $`i_k=0,\mathrm{},N1`$ subject to

$$j+\underset{k=1}{\overset{N1}{}}i_kN𝐙$$
(24)
and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}`$ is an $`(N1)\times (N1)`$-dimensional matrix with elements

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{ij}=\rho N(N\delta _{ij}1).$$
(25)
Finally

$$\overline{\zeta }=\frac{1}{N}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\zeta _i.$$
(26)
To go from the curve of the six-dimensional theory that of the five-dimensional theory, one takes $`\rho i\mathrm{}`$ in which case

$$H(x)\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}\mathrm{sinh}(\frac{\beta }{2}(x\zeta _i)),$$
(27)
and from the five to the four-dimensional theory one takes $`\beta 0`$ giving rise to

$$H(x)\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}(x\zeta _i).$$
(28)
The curve of the four-dimension theory is identical to the curve described by Donagi and Witten . It is well-known that this is the spectral curve of the $`N`$-body elliptic Calogero-Moser integrable system . The curve of the five-dimensional theory can be shown to be the spectral curve of the Ruijsenaars-Schneider integrable system  as predicted by Nekrasov . The weak and strong coupling limits of these theories have been investigated in .

Both $`x`$ and $`z`$ are multi-valued functions on the curve while $`dx`$ and $`dz`$ are holomorphic differentials (abelian differentials of the $`1^{\mathrm{st}}`$ kind) which we can identify, in terms of the basis $`\{\omega _i\}`$, as

$$dx=\frac{2\pi i}{\beta }\omega _{N+1},dz=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\omega _i,$$
(29)
with respect to a homology basis $`\{A_i,B_i\}`$. Here, the $`A_i`$ cycles, $`i=1,\mathrm{},N`$, encircle the cuts $`[a_i+m,b_i+m]`$ on the $`x`$-torus and where $`B_i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},N`$, join the bottom cut to the top cut in each pair (and hence because of the gluing condition are cycles). This leaves $`A_{N+1}`$ and $`B_{N+1}`$ which are the usual $`A`$ and $`B`$ cycles on the $`x`$-torus $`\stackrel{~}{T}^2`$. The cycles are shown in Fig. 4.

The abelian differentials of the $`1^{\mathrm{st}}`$ kind are then normalized by $`_{A_i}\omega _j=\delta _{ij}`$ and given this $`_{B_i}\omega _j=\mathrm{\Pi }_{ij}`$. The fact that $`z`$ is valued on the torus $`𝐓_z^2`$ means that, as in (7), there is a condition on the period matrix of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$:

$$\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}\mathrm{\Pi }_{ij}=\tau i.$$
(30)
In addition, since $`x`$ jumps by $`m`$ around the cycles $`B_i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},N`$, and by $`2\pi i\rho /\beta `$ around the remaining cycle $`B_{N+1}`$, the full period matrix of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ has the form

$$\mathrm{\Pi }=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\mathrm{\Pi }_{11}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{\Pi }_{1N}& \frac{\beta m}{2\pi i}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ \mathrm{\Pi }_{N1}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{\Pi }_{NN}& \frac{\beta m}{2\pi i}\\ \frac{\beta m}{2\pi i}& \mathrm{}& \frac{\beta m}{2\pi i}& \rho \end{array}\right),\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}\mathrm{\Pi }_{ij}=\tau .$$
(31)
Notice that $`z`$ jumps by

$$_{B_{N+1}}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\omega _i=\frac{N\beta m}{2\pi i},$$
(32)
around $`B_{N+1}`$ a fact that is consistent with the period matrix of $`𝔔`$ in (18).

There is yet another way to write the curve. First of all, one introduces another genus $`N+1`$ curve $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ with a period matrix

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}=\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}\tau & \frac{\beta m}{2\pi i}& \frac{\beta m}{2\pi i}& \mathrm{}& \frac{\beta m}{2\pi i}\\ \frac{\beta m}{2\pi i}& \rho & 0& \mathrm{}& 0\\ \frac{\beta m}{2\pi i}& 0& \rho & \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& 0\\ \frac{\beta m}{2\pi i}& 0& \mathrm{}& 0& \rho \end{array}\right).$$
(33)
This curve is an $`N`$-fold unbranched cover of a genus 2 curve. It is then not too difficult to show that (20) is equivalent to

$$\mathrm{\Theta }\left[\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{1}{2}& \mathrm{}& \frac{1}{2}\\ \frac{1}{2}& \mathrm{}& \frac{1}{2}\end{array}\right](z,\frac{N\beta }{2\pi i}(x\zeta _1),\mathrm{},\frac{N\beta }{2\pi i}(x\zeta _N)|\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }})=0$$
(34)
up to constants shifts in $`x`$ and $`z`$. The expression (16) arises when reducing the theta function of $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ in terms of the genus two curve and the associated Prym variety. We see that the curve $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ lies in the theta divisor of $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$. This means that there are $`N`$ points $`\widehat{P}_i`$ on $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ such that

$$z=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}_{\widehat{P}_0}^{\widehat{P}_i}\widehat{\omega }_0+\widehat{𝒦}_0,\frac{N\beta }{2\pi i}(x\zeta _j)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}_{\widehat{P}_0}^{\widehat{P}_i}\widehat{\omega }_j+\widehat{𝒦}_jj=1,\mathrm{},N,$$
(35)
where we have absorbed constant shifts in $`z`$ and $`x`$ and $`𝒦_j`$ is the vector of Riemann constants. So given $`x\zeta _i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},N`$, the last $`N`$ equations determine the $`\widehat{P}_i`$ which then determines $`z`$ via the first equation.

## 3 An Integrable System

It is well-known that Seiberg-Witten curves are the spectral curves of integrable systems. For example, the curve of the four-dimensional theory is the spectral curve of the $`N`$-body elliptic Calogero-Moser system. This is more than a happy coincidence. In order to see this, it is helpful to take the theory in four dimensions, in this case the $`𝒩=2^{}`$ theory, and compactify it to three dimensions on a circle of finite radius . If the radius is very large compared with the scale of symmetry breaking, then it is appropriate first of all to consider the low-energy effective theory in four dimensions, in this case a $`U(1)^N`$ gauge theory with gauge couplings given by the period matrix of the Seiberg-Witten curve,

$$_{\text{eff}}=\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{N}{}}\left[\mathrm{Im}(\mathrm{\Pi }_{ij})F_i{}_{}{}^{}F_{j}^{}+i\mathrm{Re}(\mathrm{\Pi }_{ij})F_iF_j\right]\mathrm{},$$
(36)
compactified on a circle to three dimensions. The degrees-of-freedom in three dimensions consist of the Wilson lines of the $`U(1)^N`$ gauge field around the circle along with the three-dimensional gauge fields which may be dualized into scalars. The Wilson lines and dual photons naturally combine into $`N`$ scalar fields which take values on a complex torus with period matrix determined by the couplings $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{ij}`$; in other words the effective degrees-of-freedom are described by a point in the Jacobian $`𝒥(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. In addition to this, we also have the moduli of the curve itself. So, all-in-all, the moduli space of vacua of the three-dimensional theory consists of a fibration of $`𝒥(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ over $`𝔐(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$. This is actually the phase space of a complexified integrable system, where the fibre corresponds to the angle variables $`\{\theta _i\}`$ and base space is parameterized by the conjugate action variables $`\{a_i\}`$. As yet we don’t have an explicit expression for the action variables but this will emerge. In this context $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, which is fixed under evolution in the integrable system, is called the spectral curve. The reason why the compactification to three dimensions is useful is because the symplectic form (which in the holomorphic context is a $`(2,0)`$-form) is independent of the compactification radius and this independence means that various holomorphic quantities that can be calculated in the three-dimensional theory are actually valid in the four-dimensional theory. In particular, we have in mind the vacuum structure after breaking to $`𝒩=1`$ . The above connection with integrable systems is part of a more general setting. The moduli space of the Seiberg-Witten curve, parameterized by the action variables of the integrable system, is a special Kähler manifold. Indeed, special Kähler geometries arise as moduli spaces in many examples of interest (for example, the scalars of $`𝒩=2`$ four-dimensional Einstein-Maxwell super-gravities , or appropriate CFT’s , or $`CY_3`$’s ). Freed  has argued that the cotangent bundle to such, with appropriate restrictions, is the phase space of (an algebraically) completely integrable system.

In the above discussion the integrable system appears directly in terms of action/angle variables and one can ask the question as to whether there is a representation in terms of more familiar dynamical variables such as the positions and momenta of particles. It is at this point that the realization of the curve in the physical problem to hand becomes important. The point is that in the four-dimensional theory the curve naturally appears as holomorphically embedded in a four-dimensional space $`𝔔`$ which we recall for our four-dimensional theory is (in terms of real geometry) locally of the form $`𝐓_z^2\times 𝐑^2`$. We shall soon see that this embedding provides the position and momentum basis. The curve (3) (or equivalently (20) with $`H(x)`$ as in (28)) has $`N+1`$ moduli corresponding to the $`\zeta _i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},N`$, along with the choice of origin for $`z`$. The origin for $`z`$ is fixed by choosing the position of the NS5-brane to be $`z=0`$ as in Section 2. Note that the choice of origin for $`x`$ is incorporated in the average $`_{i=1}^N\zeta _i/N`$; we choose $`_{i=1}^N\zeta _i=0`$. This leaves $`N1`$ of the moduli to vary giving a subspace $`𝔐_0𝔐(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$. These moduli are parameterized by $`N1`$ action variables which are the canonically conjugate variables to an $`N1`$ dimensional subspace of the Jacobian $`𝒥_0𝒥(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ defined by the condition $`_{i=1}^N\theta _i=0`$. (Recall that in the four-dimensional case the curve $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ has genus $`N`$.)

We now show that the remaining non-trivial part of the phase space consisting of $`N1`$ action and $`N1`$ angle variables are bi-rationally equivalent to the degrees-of-freedom of $`N1`$ points in the ambient space $`𝔔`$ with local coordinates $`Z_i=(q_i,p_i)`$ in $`𝐓_z^2\times 𝐑^2`$. The equivalence is straightforward to describe. Generically at least, there is a unique curve $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ in the reduced moduli space (of dimension $`N1`$) which goes through $`N1`$ points in $`𝔔`$. This curve naturally has $`N1`$ marked points on it $`P_j`$, $`j=1,\mathrm{},N1`$. These points map to a point in the reduced Jacobian $`𝒥_0`$ by first mapping into the Jacobian $`𝒥(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ via the Abel map:

$$\theta _i=\underset{j=1}{\overset{N1}{}}_{P_0}^{P_j}\omega _i,$$
(37)
where $`P_0`$ is a fixed base point, and then by using the projection $`𝒥(\mathrm{\Sigma })𝒥_0`$. It is straightforward to follow the map in the other direction. The fact that the equivalence is only bi-rational refers to the fact that the map may break down at certain non-generic points and in particular when some of the points $`(q_i,p_i)`$ coincide.

One can go on to show that the bi-rational equivalence between the positions and momenta and the angle and action variables (where the latter are as yet unspecified) is a canonical transformation. We will do this for the six-dimensional case later. The resulting description of the integrable system in terms of $`N1`$ points in $`𝔔`$ is exactly what one expects for the $`N`$-body elliptic Calogero-Moser system. In this case, the $`N1`$ quantities $`q_i`$ and $`p_i`$ represent the relative positions of the $`N`$ particles. So the projection onto $`𝔐_0`$ and $`𝒥_0`$ simply removes the trivial centre-of-mass motion.

The above picture works in the same way for the five-dimensional theory. In this case, $`𝔔`$ is locally $`𝐒^1\times 𝐑\times 𝐓_z^2`$ and, in particular, the “momenta” are now valued on $`𝐒^1\times 𝐑`$, as a real manifold. This is appropriate for a relativistic system where the $`\beta p_i`$ play the rôle of the rapidities. It is indeed one way of describing the Ruijsenaars-Schneider system, as the relativistic generalization of Calogero-Moser. Once again, the reduced system describes the relative motion of an $`N`$-body system.

We now turn to the six-dimensional theory. One’s first thought is that the six-dimensional theory will require the momenta to take values on a torus, in fact the dual torus $`\stackrel{~}{𝐓}^2`$. So with the positions taking values on the torus $`𝐓_z^2`$, this leads one to expect the existence of the so-called “doubly elliptic”, or Dell, integrable system . However, we note that the mass parameter $`m`$ evident in our description of the ambient space $`𝔔`$ means that in general we are not dealing simply with a global product of two tori.333We note that for suitable rational values of $`\beta m/2\pi i`$ we note that $`𝔔`$ does however take on this product structure. Thus the system we construct is more than “doubly elliptic”. We shall compare our construction with that of Dell system shortly.

The main proposition of this paper is that even in the six-dimensional theory, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is the spectral curve of a completely integrable mechanical system, albeit of a rather unusual kind. In particular, the phase space of the system can be viewed, as in the four-dimensional case, as the moduli space of the curve $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, with the Jacobian $`𝒥(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ fibered over it. In this section, we show that the integrable system can be thought of as describing the interactions of a set of “particles” whose whose positions and momenta $`(q,p)`$, as a 2-vector, take values that are the local coordinates of a point on the abelian surface $`𝔔`$. The fact that the momenta take values in a compact space means that the analogy with a set of particles is not to be taken too literally. However, once the $`x`$-torus decompactifies in one, or both, directions, so the curve reduces to the five and four-dimensional one, respectively, then the system really can be interpreted in terms of a system of particles.

Much of following is identical to the four-dimensional case, but there are some differences. Loosely speaking the phase space of the integrable system is identified with the fibre bundle whose base is the moduli space of the curve $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and whose fibre is the Jacobian of the curve $`𝒥(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$. However, in the six-dimensional case the separation of the “centre-of-mass” factors is more involved. Recall that the moduli space of the curve, $`𝔐(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$, and hence the base of the fibration, can be identified as the product

$$𝔐(\mathrm{\Sigma })𝔔\times 𝐏^{N1}$$
(38)
which has (complex) dimension $`N+1`$. The total space of the bundle consequently has the form $`𝔔\times 𝐗`$, where $`𝐗`$ is a fibering of $`𝒥(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ over $`𝐏^{N1}`$. From the embedding of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }𝔔`$ we may pull back the differentials $`dz`$ and $`dx`$ on $`𝔔`$ to abelian differentials of the $`1^{\mathrm{st}}`$ kind on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ (29). This gives us a natural embedding of the abelian surface $`\iota :𝔔𝒥(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$. This embedding means that there is an abelian subvariety $`𝒥_0`$ of $`𝒥(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ such that $`𝔔𝒥_0`$ is isogenous to $`𝒥(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$. Hence, $`𝐗`$ can be viewed as a fibered product of the fixed $`𝔔`$ and $`𝐘`$, where $`𝐘`$ is a complex $`2N2`$ dimensional space. The space $`𝐘`$ itself a non-trivial fibering of the abelian subvariety $`𝒥_0𝒥(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ over the reduced moduli space $`𝔐_0=𝐏^{N1}`$.

Before delving into the technicalities, the idea that will emerge is that the space $`𝐗`$ is bi-rationally equivalent to the symmetric product $`\text{Sym}^N(𝔔)`$  (see also ). We can equivalently think of this as the Hilbert scheme $`\text{Hilb}^{[N]}𝔔`$. If we take local coodinates $`(q,p)=(z,x)`$ on $`𝔔`$, then the $`N`$ points $`(q_i,p_i)`$ define the positions and “momenta” of $`N`$ particles. Separating out the centre-of-mass motion, leaves us with the $`N1`$ relative positions and momenta and this corresponds to the reduced phase space that we denoted $`𝐘`$ above.

Now we will identify more explicitly the reduced phase $`𝐘`$ and show that it is bi-rationally equivalent to the centred motion of $`N`$ points in $`𝔔`$. Let us denoted the coordinates in $`𝒥(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ by $`\theta _i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},N+1`$. We may describe the embedding of the abelian surface $`\iota (𝔔)𝒥(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ concretely as follows:

$$\iota (z,x)=(z,z,\mathrm{},z,\frac{N\beta }{2\pi i}x).$$
(39)
From our discussion above, the subspace $`𝒥_0`$ consists of the orthogonal subspace to this embedding $`𝒥(\mathrm{\Sigma })=𝔔𝒥_0`$. The phase space of the reduced system $`𝐘`$, the fibration of $`𝒥_0`$ over $`𝐏^{N1}`$, is then bi-rationally equivalent to the space of $`N1`$ points in $`𝔔`$ (the relative coordinates of $`N`$ particles) with local coordinates $`Z_i=(q_i,p_i)`$. The relation between the action/angle variables of the reduced system $`\{a_i\}`$ and $`\{\theta _i\}`$ and the $`N1`$ points in $`𝔔`$ mirrors the discussion above for the four-dimensional case. First of all, we fix the overall position of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ in $`𝔔`$. Then, at least generically, given $`N1`$ points in $`𝔔`$ there exists a unique curve $`\mathrm{\Sigma }𝔔`$ containing these points. If $`P_j`$, $`j=1,\mathrm{},N1`$, are these points on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ then we may obtain a point in the reduced Jacobian $`𝒥_0`$ by first mapping into the Jacobian $`𝒥(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ via the Abel map:

$$\theta _i=\underset{j=1}{\overset{N1}{}}_{P_0}^{P_j}\omega _i,$$
(40)
where $`P_0`$ is a fixed base point, and then by using the projection $`𝒥(\mathrm{\Sigma })𝒥_0`$. Under this equivalence, the symplectic form is preserved so that444Using $`\delta `$ rather than $`d`$ for differential forms on the phase space, avoids confusion with differential forms on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$.

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{N+1}{}}\delta a_i\delta \theta _i=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N1}{}}\delta p_i\delta q_i.$$
(41)
Here, the one-forms $`\{\delta \theta _i\}`$ are constrained to lie in the reduced Jacobian $`𝒥_0`$ so that the number of independent degrees-of-freedom match on both sides. The right-hand side of (41) just corresponds to $`N1`$ copies of the standard symplectic form on $`𝔔`$.

We now prove (41). Suppose we choose $`z`$ to be a local coordinate on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. The curve would be described by the holomorphic function $`x=x(z)`$. Consider the abelian differentials of the first kind on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, $`\omega _i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},N+1`$. Explicitly in this coordinate system $`\omega _i=f_i(z)dz`$ and (40) becomes

$$\theta _i=\underset{j=1}{\overset{N1}{}}_{q_0}^{q_j}f_i(z)𝑑z.$$
(42)
Now suppose we vary the $`Z_i`$. The point in the Jacobian will vary as

$$\delta \theta _i=\underset{j=1}{\overset{N1}{}}f_i(q_j)\delta q_j.$$
(43)
Now we turn to the action variables. How do we describe these? As we vary the actions we change our curve $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and this will be described by the normal bundle $`N_\mathrm{\Sigma }=T𝔔|_\mathrm{\Sigma }/T\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ in $`𝔔`$. Then, using the holomorphic symplectic form, $`T𝔔T^{}𝔔`$ and consequently $`N_\mathrm{\Sigma }T^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Thus we may identify our actions with holomorphic sections of $`T^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }`$,

$$x(z)dz=\underset{j=1}{\overset{N+1}{}}a_j\omega _j(z).$$
(44)
Using the contour integrals around the 1-cycles $`A_j`$ associated to the basis $`\omega _j`$:

$$a_j=_{A_j}x𝑑z,$$
(45)
where on the right-hand side a pull-back from $`𝔔`$ to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is implied. Then $`xdz`$ plays the role of the Seiberg-Witten differential. Hence under a variation at the point with coordinate $`z`$

$$\underset{j=1}{\overset{N+1}{}}\delta a_j\omega _j(z)=\delta x(z)dz.$$
(46)
Now we evaluate this at $`z=q_i`$ where $`\delta x(q_i)=\delta p_i`$, giving

$$\delta p_i=\underset{j=1}{\overset{N+1}{}}\delta a_jf_j(q_i).$$
(47)
Using first (47) and then (43), the result (41) follows:

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{N1}{}}\delta p_i\delta q_i=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N1}{}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{N+1}{}}\left(f_j(q_i)\delta a_j\right)\delta q_i=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N1}{}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{N+1}{}}\delta a_j\left(f_j(q_i)\delta q_i\right)=\underset{j=1}{\overset{N+1}{}}\delta a_j\delta \theta _j.$$
(48)
Note that the right-hand side only depends on $`N1`$ independent variations $`\{\delta \theta _j\}`$.

### 3.1 Example: the $`N=2`$ system

We will describe how this picture arises in the case of $`N=2`$. This case is rather simple because the integrable system describing the relative motion is only one-dimensional. Here our curve $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ has genus 3 and we have that $`𝒥(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ is isogenous to $`𝔔𝒥_0`$ where now $`𝒥_0`$ corresponds to an elliptic curve. Thus our reduced phase space $`𝐘`$ consists of an elliptic curve fibred over $`𝔐_0𝐏^1`$. This is in fact a Kummer K3 surface, which alternately appears as the fibre $`\pi ^1(0)`$ of the projection $`\pi :\text{Hilb}^{[2]}𝔔\text{Sym}^2(𝔔)𝔔`$ which comes from using the group structure on $`𝔔`$.

Thus for the $`N=2`$ theory, $`𝔐_0`$ is described by a single modulus which we parameterize by $`H=A_{00}/A_{01}`$. In this case, we can map the reduced system to a single point in $`𝔔`$ with local coordinate $`(q,p)`$. According to the discussion in the last section the curve whose overall position in $`𝔔`$ is determined by requiring that it goes through the point $`(q,p)`$. It follows trivially that

$$H(q,p)=\frac{\mathrm{\Theta }\left[\begin{array}{cc}0& \frac{1}{2}\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right]\left(q\frac{\beta }{\pi i}p|\begin{array}{cc}\tau & \frac{\beta m}{\pi i}\\ \frac{\beta m}{\pi i}& 2\rho \end{array}\right)}{\mathrm{\Theta }\left[\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right]\left(q\frac{\beta }{\pi i}p|\begin{array}{cc}\tau & \frac{\beta m}{\pi i}\\ \frac{\beta m}{\pi i}& 2\rho \end{array}\right)}.$$
(49)
We now show that this Hamiltonian reduces to the Hamiltonian of the centre-of-mass motion of the 2-body elliptic Ruijsenaars-Schneider system and then the elliptic Calogero-Moser system on decompactification of $`\stackrel{~}{𝐓}^2`$ in one and then two directions, respectively.

Let us take the five-dimensional limit by taking the limit $`\rho i\mathrm{}`$. In this limit, up to a simple re-scaling, we have

$$H_{\text{5d}}(q,p)=e^{\beta p}\frac{\mathrm{\Theta }\left[\begin{array}{c}0\\ 0\end{array}\right]\left(q+\frac{\beta m}{2\pi i}|\tau \right)}{\mathrm{\Theta }\left[\begin{array}{c}0\\ 0\end{array}\right]\left(q|\tau \right)}+e^{\beta p}\frac{\mathrm{\Theta }\left[\begin{array}{c}0\\ 0\end{array}\right]\left(q\frac{\beta m}{2\pi i}|\tau \right)}{\mathrm{\Theta }\left[\begin{array}{c}0\\ 0\end{array}\right]\left(q|\tau \right)}.$$
(50)
In order to reproduce the conventional Hamiltonian of the centre-of-mass motion of the 2-body elliptic Ruijsenaars-Schneider system, we must shift

$$pp\frac{1}{2\beta }\mathrm{log}\frac{\mathrm{\Theta }\left[\begin{array}{c}0\\ 0\end{array}\right]\left(q+\frac{\beta m}{2\pi i}|\tau \right)}{\mathrm{\Theta }\left[\begin{array}{c}0\\ 0\end{array}\right]\left(q\frac{\beta m}{2\pi i}|\tau \right)},qq+\frac{1}{2}(1+\tau ).$$
(51)
In which case, up to another simple re-scaling,

$$H_{\text{5d}}(q,p)=\mathrm{cosh}(\beta p)\sqrt{\mathrm{}(\frac{\beta m}{2\pi i})\mathrm{}(q)},$$
(52)
where $`\mathrm{}(q)`$ is the Weierstrass function with periods 1 and $`\tau `$.

The Hamiltonian appropriate to the four-dimensional theory is obtained by taking $`\beta 0`$ which yields, again up to a simple re-scaling,

$$H_{\text{4d}}(q,p)=p^2+\frac{m^2}{2\pi ^2}\mathrm{}(q),$$
(53)
which is the well-known Hamiltonian of the two-particle elliptic Calogero-Moser system.

It remains to discuss the connection between the integrable system of this paper and that of the Dell system . (We shall use the notation of the latter paper when making comparison.) Both approaches involve a genus three curve in a $`(1,2)`$ polarized abelian variety: here we had $`\mathrm{\Sigma }𝔔`$, while for the Dell system this was $`\overline{𝒞}_zS`$. Also, in both approaches, after removing the center of mass coordinates from $`𝒥(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ (respectively $`𝒥(\overline{𝒞}_z)`$) we are left with (for the $`N=2`$ case) a one-dimensional abelian variety, or elliptic curve, here $`𝒥_0`$ and there $`\pi ^{}(E_z)`$. (Further, both works give a construction involving Prym varieties.) The Hamiltonians constructed in these different approaches look rather different and it remains to connect them more directly. This will be left for a later work . The advantage of the approach adopted in the present paper is that it immediately generalizes to $`N>2`$, a generalization that was previously unknown.

## 4 Discussion

The present paper has shown how to construct the Seiberg-Witten curve of the six-dimensional $`𝒩=(1,1)`$ gauge theory compactified on a torus to four dimensions. The argument given was based on Witten’s M-theory construction of $`𝒩=2`$ theories but the curve we arrive may be naturally constructed from various approaches . Central to our discussion was the appearance of a $`(1,N)`$ polarized abelian variety $`𝔔`$ specified by the complex structures $`\tau `$, $`\rho `$ and mass $`m`$. In addition to the four-dimensional coordinates of the M5-brane, this was specified by a holomorphic curve $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ embedded in $`𝔔`$, of genus $`N+1`$: the Seiberg-Witten curve. We presented this curve explicitly in various forms via theta functions showing agreement with the curve of  describing $`N`$ instantons in a $`U(1)`$ theory on a non-commutative torus. The quiver generalization to a $`U(N)^k`$ gauge theory, associated to $`N`$ instantons in $`U(k)`$, will simply change the polarization of the abelian variety under consideration.

We also have demonstrated how the curve $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ may be viewed as the spectral curve of an integrable system which generalizes the $`N`$-body elliptic Calogero-Moser and Ruijsenaars-Schneider systems associated to four and five-dimensional gauge theories. The resulting system is not simply doubly elliptic as the positions and momenta, as two-vectors, take values in the ambient space $`𝔔`$. The integrable system we have constructed is rather natural: the curve $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ in $`𝔔`$ is described by the linear system $`𝐏(H^0(𝔔,𝒪())^{})𝐏^{N1}`$, our space of reduced actions, together with a translation in $`𝔔`$, our “centre-of-mass” coordinates. Together with our actions $`𝒥(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ these form a $`2(N+1)`$ dimensional phase space which may be understood as a particular example of a class of integrable systems discovered by Mukai  who constructed the symplectic structure on the moduli space of stable sheaves on a symplectic surface (a particular example being our abelian surface $`𝔔`$). If one considers the moduli space $`_𝔔(0,c_1,c_2)`$ of sheaves on $`𝔔`$ of rank $`0`$, $`c_1=c_1()`$ and some $`c_2`$ then one gets a symplectic moduli space, which is a relative Jacobian (i.e., union of Jacobians). The fact that the rank is zero here means these are torsion sheaves and $`c_1=c_1()`$ says that the support of the sheaves is a curve, which is cohomologous to our curve $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Our phase space is bi-rational to this moduli space which itself is bi-rational to the product of the Hilbert scheme $`\text{Hilb}^{[N]}𝔔`$ with $`𝔔`$. We exhibited the canonical transformation between the action-angle variables and the set of $`N1`$ points in $`𝔔`$ corresponding to the reduced phase space. Finally, although we showed that our construction has many features in common with the known Dell system for two particles, we have yet to relate the two rather different descriptions of the Hamiltonians. We shall return to this and other features of our integrable system in .

Another interesting issue regarding the new integrable system is whether it admits a Lax-type representation. One would expect that such a representation should follow from an associated Hitchin system. The Hitchin system should follow from a D-brane construction involving the four torus $`𝔔`$, as in . This will be investigated elsewhere.

To conclude, the construction of our paper has been premised on a fixed polarized Abelian variety $`𝔔`$ specified by the complex structures $`\tau `$, $`\rho `$ and mass $`m`$. In general we could consider each such theory over the moduli space of such polarized Abelian varieties. The moduli space of polarized Abelian varieties is itself well studied  and we observe that there is a natural $`sl(2,𝐙)\times sl(2,𝐙)`$ acting on this. It is interesting to ask how string theory sweeps out this moduli space.

TJH would like to thank the organizers of the Simons Workshop on Mathematics and Physics for providing an excellent environment for developing some of these ideas. HWB would like to thank Eyal Markman and Tom Bridgeland for helpful remarks.