text:
# Classical Cepheid pulsation models. VI. The Hertzsprung progression

## 1 INTRODUCTION

More than seventy years ago Hertzsprung (1926) discovered that a subsample of Galactic classical Cepheids presents a relationship between the bump along the light curve and the pulsation period; the so-called ”Hertzsprung Progression” was subsequently discovered among Magellanic Clouds (MCs) and Andromeda Cepheids by Kukarkin & Parenago (1937), Shapley & Mckibben Nail (1940), and by Payne-Gaposchkin (1951,1954). The HP observational scenario was enriched by Joy (1937) and by Ledoux & Walraven (1958) who found a similar behavior in radial velocity curves.

The empirical finger-print of the HP is the following: classical Cepheids in the period range $`6<P<16`$ d show a bump along both the light and the velocity curves. This secondary feature appears on the descending branch of the light curve for Cepheids with periods up to 9 days, while it appears close to maximum light for $`9<P<12`$ d and moves at earlier phases for longer periods. On the basis of this observational evidence this group of variables was christened ”Bump Cepheids” for avoiding to be mixed-up with ”Beat Cepheids”. In fact, the latter group refer to mixed-mode variables -i.e. objects in which two or more modes are simultaneously excited- and therefore both the shape of the light curves and the pulsation amplitudes change from one cycle to the next, whereas Bump Cepheids are single mode variables and their pulsation properties are characterized by a strong regularity over consecutive cycles.

A more quantitative approach concerning Bump Cepheids was originally suggested by Kukarkin & Parenago (1937), Payne-Gaposchkin (1947), and more recently by Simon & Lee (1981) who investigated the shape of the light curves by means of Fourier analysis. The last authors found that both the phase difference -$`\varphi _{21}`$\- and the amplitude ratio -$`R_{21}`$\- show a sharp minimum close to the HP center. Following this approach several investigations have been already devoted to Fourier parameters of Galactic and Magellanic Cepheids. In particular, Moskalik et al. (1992, hereinafter MBM) suggested that the minimum in the Fourier parameters for Galactic Cepheids takes place at $`P_{\mathrm{HP}}=10.0\pm 0.5`$ d, while Moskalik et al. (2000) by investigating a sample of more than 100 radial velocity curves found $`P_{\mathrm{HP}}=9.95\pm 0.05`$ d. At the same time, Welch et al. (1997) by investigating a large sample of Cepheids in the LMC estimated that the minimum in the Fourier parameters is located at $`P_{\mathrm{HP}}=11.2\pm 0.8`$ d. Thus supporting the shift of the HP center toward longer periods originally suggested by Payne-Gaposchkin (1951) and strengthened by Andreasen & Petersen (1987) and by Andreasen (1988). More recently Beaulieu (1998) suggested that the HP center in LMC and in Small Magellanic Cloud (SMC) Cepheids is located at $`P_{\mathrm{HP}}=10.5\pm 0.5`$ d and $`P_{\mathrm{HP}}=11.0\pm 0.5`$ d respectively. Since these three stellar systems are characterized by different mean metallicities, namely Z=0.02 (Galaxy), Z=0.008 (LMC), and Z=0.004 (SMC), this empirical evidence seems to suggest that a decrease in metallicity moves the HP center toward longer periods.

Up to now, two distinct models have been proposed in the literature to explain the appearance of the HP among Bump Cepheids; the echo model and the resonance model. The former was suggested by Whitney (1956) and discussed by Christy (1968,1975) on the basis of Cepheid nonlinear, radiative models. According to Christy, during each cycle close to the phases of minimum radius and before the phase of maximum expansion velocity a pressure excess is generated in the first He ionization region. This pressure excess causes a rapid expansion which in turn generates two pressure waves moving outward and inward. The latter reaches the stellar core close to the phase of maximum radius, then reflects and reaches the surface one cycle later causing the appearance of the bump. The resonance model was suggested by Simon & Schmidt (1976, hereinafter SS) and is based on linear, adiabatic periods. In this theoretical framework the bump would be caused by a resonance between the second overtone and the fundamental mode and it takes place when the period ratio between these two modes is close to 0.5. In particular, they suggested that the instability of the fundamental mode drives, due to a resonance, the second overtone instability. This explanation lies on the evidence that the nonlinear, radiative models constructed by Stobie (1969) show a bump along the radial velocity curves close to the resonance line $`P_2/P_0`$$`=0.5`$.

Such an extensive observational and theoretical effort devoted to Bump Cepheids were not only aimed at understanding the HP but also at providing independent estimates of both the mass and the radius of these variables. In fact, dating back to Christy (1968, 1975), Stobie (1969) and Fricke et al. (1972, hereinafter FSS) it was suggested that these two evolutionary parameters can be constrained on the basis of period and phase of the bump. A different method to estimate the mass, based on period ratios, was suggested by Petersen (1973). Note that mass determinations based on these two methods present a compelling feature: they are based on observables such as periods and phases of the bump which are not affected by systematic empirical uncertainties and therefore they are only limited by photometric accuracy. However, pulsational masses based on these methods are, with few exceptions (Carson & Stothers 1988, hereinafter CS), systematically smaller than the evolutionary masses. This longstanding puzzle raised the so-called Bump mass discrepancy (see also Cox 1980) and at the same time supported the use of a ML relation based on evolutionary models which include a mild or a strong convective core overshooting (Simon 1995; Wood 1998). Even though, the new radiative opacities settled down this vexata questio (MBM; Kanbur & Simon 1994; Simon & Kanbur 1994, hereinafter SK), recent linear (Buchler et al. 1996; Simon & Young 1997) and nonlinear (Wood et al. 1997) predictions for Cepheids in the MCs present a small discrepancy with the ML relations predicted by current evolutionary models.

The main aim of this paper is to use up-to-date nonlinear hydrodynamical models which include the coupling between pulsation and convection as well as canonical evolutionary masses, to account for the observed properties of Bump Cepheids. In this investigation we focus our attention on the classical HP and refer to a forthcoming investigation (Bono et al. in preparation) a more detailed discussion on the physical mechanisms which trigger the appearance of the HP among Bump Cepheids and on other resonances recently proposed for both short (Antonello & Poretti 1986; Buchler et al. 1996) and long-period Cepheids (Pel 1978; Antonello 1998). In order to supply a detailed theoretical scenario we constructed a fine grid of full amplitude, nonlinear, convective models by adopting stellar masses ranging from 6.4 to 7.6 $`M_{}`$ and a fixed chemical composition, namely Y=0.25, Z=0.008. We adopted this chemical composition, because accurate observational data on LMC Cepheids are currently available in the literature. At the same time, this metal abundance can supply useful constraints on the intrinsic accuracy of our nonlinear models, and indeed recent nonlinear, Cepheid models constructed by adopting similar treatments of the coupling between pulsation and convection show at intermediate metal contents very large pulsation destabilizations and it has been suggested that a powerful dissipation mechanism was not properly included in current pulsation codes (Buchler 2000).

In §2 we briefly recall the theoretical framework adopted for constructing Cepheid models and present nonlinear observables predicted by these models as well as their light and velocity curves. The systematic behavior of both luminosity and velocity amplitudes inside the instability strip is investigated in §3. In this section we also present the skewness and the acuteness of light and velocity curves and discuss the use of these parameters to mark the position of the HP center. New analytical relations which connect the period at the HP center to the stellar mass and to the effective temperature of Bump Cepheid models at minimum amplitude are also provided in this section. In §4 we discuss the location of these models in the HR diagram, and compare the HP center predicted by nonlinear models with linear and nonlinear resonance lines. The dynamical behavior of two Bump Cepheid models located close to the HP center and to the red edge of the instability strip is investigated in detail in sect. 5. The main results of this investigation are summarized in §6 together with a brief discussion on the observables which can supply tight constraints on the accuracy of theoretical models.

## 2 Theoretical framework

The theoretical framework adopted for constructing full amplitude, nonlinear, convective Cepheid models was already described in Bono et al. (1998) and in paper I (Bono et al. 1999) and therefore it is not discussed further here. The reader interested in the physical assumptions adopted to account for the coupling between pulsation and convection is referred to Buchler (2000). In paper III (Bono et al. in preparation) we found that the sequence of models constructed by assuming $`M/M_{}`$=7.0 and Y=0.25, Z=0.008 showed a bump along both light and velocity curves which appears at earlier pulsation phases when moving toward longer periods. Accordingly, the amplitudes of these models showed a ”double-peaked” distribution with the two maxima located close to the blue (hot) and to the red (cool) edge of the instability strip and a well-defined minimum close to $`P10.7`$ d. On the basis of these features we concluded that this sequence of models undergoes the HP when moving from the blue to the red edge. A similar behavior in the distribution of radial velocity amplitudes was also found by CS in a nonlinear, radiative investigation of Bump Cepheid models. However as noted by the same authors, the velocity amplitudes were systematically larger than the observed ones and the predicted periods at the HP center were 10% longer than expected.

In order to supply a more detailed mapping of the HP inside the instability strip we implemented the sequence at $`M/M_{}`$=7.0 with new series of models constructed by adopting a mass step of 0.15 $`M_{}`$. Linear and nonlinear calculations were performed by adopting the same input physics (opacity, equation of state) and the same ML relation adopted in our previous investigations and based on evolutionary models which neglect the convective core overshooting (see paper I and III for more details). The new sequences were extended in mass until we found a well-defined minimum in the pulsation amplitudes inside the instability strip. For providing a robust relationship between the bump progression and the pulsation period we adopted a temperature step of 100 K throughout the instability strip and of only 50 K where the bump crosses the luminosity maximum and moves from the descending to the rising branch. We end up with six new series of models ranging in mass from 6.55 to 7.45 $`M_{}`$ which show the typical behavior of the HP. After the initial perturbation of the static model (see paper I) the approach to the nonlinear limit cycle required a direct time integration ranging from 1500 to 5000 cycles.

The input parameters of each sequence are listed in Table 1. This table gives the nonlinear pulsation properties of the models which present a stable limit cycle. We typically adopted a temperature step of 100 K, therefore the edges of the instability region can be estimated by increasing/decreasing the effective temperature of the hottest/coolest model by 50 K. The first three columns list for each model the stellar mass (solar units), the logarithmic luminosity (solar units), and the static effective temperature (K). Columns 4) and 5) give the nonlinear, fundamental period (d) and the logarithmic mean radius (solar units). The observables listed in the other columns are the following: 6) fractional radius oscillation, i.e. $`\mathrm{\Delta }R/R_{\mathrm{ph}}=(R^{\mathrm{max}}R^{\mathrm{min}})/R_{\mathrm{ph}}`$ where $`R_{\mathrm{ph}}`$ is the photospheric radius; 7) radial velocity amplitude (km $`s^1`$), i.e. $`\mathrm{\Delta }u=u^{\mathrm{max}}u^{\mathrm{min}}`$; 8) bolometric amplitude (mag), i.e. $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_{\mathrm{bol}}=M_{\mathrm{bol}}^{\mathrm{max}}M_{\mathrm{bol}}^{\mathrm{min}}`$; 9) logarithmic amplitude of static gravity, i.e. $`\mathrm{\Delta }logg_\mathrm{s}=logg_\mathrm{s}^{\mathrm{max}}logg_\mathrm{s}^{\mathrm{min}}`$; 10) logarithmic amplitude of effective gravity, i.e. $`\mathrm{\Delta }logg_{\mathrm{eff}}=logg_{\mathrm{eff}}^{\mathrm{max}}logg_{\mathrm{eff}}^{\mathrm{min}}`$ where $`g_{\mathrm{eff}}=GM/R^2+du/dt`$; 11) temperature amplitude (K), i.e. $`\mathrm{\Delta }T=T^{\mathrm{max}}T^{\mathrm{min}}`$ where $`T`$ is the temperature of the outer boundary; 12) effective temperature amplitude (K), i.e. $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_\mathrm{e}=T_\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{max}}T_\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{min}}`$ where $`T_\mathrm{e}`$ is derived from the surface luminosity, 13) total Kinetic energy (erg). The quantities listed in columns 4) to 11) refer, with the exception of the effective gravity, to the surface zone.

Figs. 1-6, show the light and the velocity curves of the six new sequences for the labeled values of both mass and luminosities. Light and velocity curves of the sequence for $`M/M_{}`$=7.0 were already published in the ApJ on-line edition of paper III (Fig. 11f). Note that light and velocity curves plotted in these figures show neither spurious secondary features (bumps or dips) along the pulsation cycle nor sudden jumps close to the phases of maximum compression. As already noted in paper I and III, this feature is a significative improvement in comparison with light and velocity curves predicted by nonlinear, radiative models (Christy 1975), and indeed theoretical curves were plotted without applying any running average or filtering process for smoothing the surface variations (Karp 1975). This finding is even more relevant for investigating the HP. In fact, up to now nonlinear, radiative predictions were mainly based on radial velocity curves, since the light curves presented several spurious secondary features (CS; MBM). As a consequence, even though the bulk of observational data on the HP comes from light curves, theoretical insights were focused on the shape of radial velocity curves.

Curves displayed in Figs. 1-6 show quite clearly that when moving from hotter to cooler effective temperatures the bump moves from the descending branch to the rising branch, i.e. an increase in the period moves the bump along the transition: descending branch $``$ luminosity maximum $``$ rising branch. Theoretical predictions in Figs. 1-6 disclose two key features:

a) the bump along the light curves crosses the luminosity maximum at shorter periods when compared with the velocity curves. This means that at fixed mass and for decreasing effective temperatures the Cepheid light curves start to show a flat-topped shape when the velocity curves still present the bump along the descending branch. This finding suggests that the lasting of the flat-topped phase in the luminosity curve is mainly governed by radius rather than by temperature variations.

b) Along each sequence the model which attains the smallest velocity amplitude presents a flat-topped shape and the minimum in the luminosity amplitude coincides, within current temperature resolution, with the minimum in the velocity amplitude. On the basis of this evidence we will assume as period of the HP center -$`P_{\mathrm{HP}}`$\- the period of the model which attains, along each sequence, the minimum amplitude in both luminosity and velocity changes.

## 3 HP Systematic behavior

In order to provide a quantitative estimate of the change in the pulsation properties we take into account three different parameters, namely the amplitude, the acuteness, and the skewness of both light and velocity curves. Although the Fourier parameters supply more detailed information on the dynamical behavior along the pulsation cycle, we adopted these three parameters because we are mainly interested in the HP center and also because they can be safely estimated even if the light and the velocity curves are not perfectly sampled.

According to Stellingwerf & Donohoe (1987) we define the acuteness as the ratio of the phase duration during which the magnitude is fainter than the median magnitude -$`m_{\mathrm{med}}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.5}(m_{\mathrm{max}}+m_{\mathrm{min}})`$\- to the phase duration during which it is brighter -$`\varphi _\mathrm{b}`$\- than $`m_{\mathrm{med}}`$, i.e. $`Ac=(1/\varphi _\mathrm{b})1`$. This quantity is a measure of the top-down asymmetry of the light curve and it decreases when the shape changes from sawtooth to flat-topped. At the same time, we define the skewness as the ratio of the phase duration of the descending branch to the phase duration of the rising branch -$`\varphi _\mathrm{r}`$-, i.e. $`Sk=(1/\varphi _\mathrm{r})1`$. This quantity is a measure of the asymmetry between rising and decreasing branch and it decreases when the slope of the rising branch becomes flatter. For symmetrical curves -not necessarily sinusoidal- both $`Sk`$ and $`Ac`$ attain values close to 1.

Table 2 gives in the first two columns the mass and the effective temperature of each model, and in column 3) the ratio of second overtone to fundamental period. Since the second overtones are pulsationally stable in this region of the instability strip, we adopted for this mode the linear, nonadiabatic period. Columns 4) to 6) list the amplitude, the acuteness and the skewness of visual light curves. Bolometric magnitudes were transformed into V magnitudes by adopting bolometric corrections by Castelli et al. (1997). Columns 7) and 8) give the acuteness and the skewness of radial velocity curves.

Fig. 7 shows the luminosity amplitude in the V band -$`A_\mathrm{V}`$\- (top panel), the skewness (middle panel), and the acuteness (bottom panel) as a function of the logarithmic period. Sequences characterized by different stellar masses (see labeled values) are plotted using different symbols. Data plotted in Fig. 7 show that these three parameters typically present well-defined minima. We find that an increase in the stellar mass moves these minima toward longer periods and that the periods of these minima are located at $`P_{\mathrm{HP}}(A_\mathrm{V})=11.24\pm 0.46`$ d, $`P_{\mathrm{HP}}(Ac)=11.17\pm 0.48`$ d, and $`P_{\mathrm{HP}}(Sk)=10.73\pm 0.97`$ d, where the errors give the standard deviations. The period of the HP center based on $`Sk`$ minima is shorter than $`P_{\mathrm{HP}}(A_\mathrm{V})`$, and $`P_{\mathrm{HP}}(Ac)`$ because the sequence for $`M/M_{}`$=6.55 does not show a sharp minimum.

These theoretical minima appear in very good agreement with the empirical determination based on the Fourier parameters $`\varphi _{21}`$ and $`R_{21}`$ of a large sample of LMC Cepheids provided by Welch et al. (1997) i.e. $`P_{\mathrm{HP}}=11.2\pm 0.8`$ d and in reasonable agreement with the estimate, based on the same approach, provided by Beaulieu (1998) i.e. $`P_{\mathrm{HP}}=10.5\pm 0.5`$ d. Here we note that the observed $`P_{\mathrm{HP}}`$ value was estimated as the period at which the Fourier parameters $`\varphi _{21}`$ and $`R_{21}`$ of the light curves present a sudden jump, while the predicted $`P_{\mathrm{HP}}`$ values are the periods at which Bump Cepheid models attain the minimum value in $`A_\mathrm{V}`$, $`Sk`$, and $`Ac`$ respectively. However, Stellingwerf & Donohoe (1986) using adiabatic, one-zone pulsation models showed that the jump in the $`\varphi _{21}`$ parameter is correlated with a local minimum in the $`Sk`$ parameter. At the same time, Andreasen & Petersen (1987) in a detailed analysis of both amplitudes and Fourier parameters found that the jump in $`\varphi _{21}`$ and in $`R_{21}`$ of LMC Bump Cepheids takes place at the same period, within observational uncertainties, at which the B photographic amplitudes, the skewness, and the acuteness attain their minimum value. As a consequence, we conclude that not only $`P_{\mathrm{HP}}(A_\mathrm{V})`$ but also $`P_{\mathrm{HP}}(Sk)`$ and $`P_{\mathrm{HP}}(Ac)`$ are robust indicators of the HP center.

Data plotted in the top panel show that when moving from the blue to the red edge the luminosity amplitudes do not show a monotonic behavior with stellar mass. In fact, close to the blue edge an increase in the stellar mass causes a decrease in the pulsation amplitudes, whereas close to the red edge the amplitudes present an opposite behavior. Moreover, the luminosity amplitudes present a ”double-peaked” distribution throughout the strip with two maxima located close to the blue and to the red edge respectively. This behavior, as already noted in paper III, supports the local minimum in the upper envelope of LMC Cepheid amplitudes found by van Genderen (1978). Unfortunately, we cannot compare our predictions with more recent CCD data on LMC Cepheids since the pulsation amplitudes of these objects are not available in the literature yet. The distribution of $`Sk`$ and $`Ac`$ parameters across the HP plotted in the middle and the bottom panel of Fig. 7 appears in good qualitative agreement with the empirical estimates provided by Andreasen & Petersen (1987) for LMC Cepheids (see their Figs. 3 and 4).

The top panel of Fig. 7 shows that the minima in the luminosity amplitudes cover a narrow period range. We derived two analytical relations connecting both the stellar mass and the effective temperature to $`P_{\mathrm{HP}}`$. In particular we find:

$`\mathrm{log}M^{HP}=0.25(\pm 0.07)+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1.04}(\pm 0.07)\mathrm{log}P_{\mathrm{HP}}`$

$`\mathrm{log}T_\mathrm{e}^{HP}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3.23}(\pm 0.05)+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.47}(\pm 0.05)\mathrm{log}P_{\mathrm{HP}}`$

where $`M^{HP}`$ is the stellar mass in solar units and the other symbols have their usual meaning. The correlation coefficient for these two relations are 0.99 and 0.98 respectively. The use of these relations and of the pulsation relation for classical Cepheids provided in paper III supplies an independent estimate of the luminosity, and in turn of the radius. As a consequence, plausible assumptions on the bolometric corrections and on the color-temperature relation can provide firm evaluations of both stellar distances and reddening for cluster Cepheids located at the HP center. The same approach can also be adopted for field Cepheids located at the HP center. However, these objects are characterized by a spread in the pulsation period and therefore the masses and the effective temperatures derived using the previous relations can be affected by larger uncertainties. In fact, by adopting the empirical value -$`P_{\mathrm{HP}}=11.2\pm 0.8`$ d- provided by Welch et al. (1997) we find $`M^{HP}=7.0\pm 1.0M_{}`$, and $`T_\mathrm{e}^{HP}=5300\pm 600`$ K.

Fig. 8 shows the same parameters of Fig. 7 but for the radial velocity curves. The behavior of $`\mathrm{\Delta }V`$, $`Sk`$, and $`Ac`$ versus period are quite similar to the behaviors of the same parameters of the light curves. We find that the periods of the minima are now located at $`P_{\mathrm{HP}}(\mathrm{\Delta }V)=11.24\pm 0.46`$ d, $`P_{\mathrm{HP}}(Ac)=11.29\pm 0.53`$ d, and $`P_{\mathrm{HP}}(Sk)=11.27\pm 0.49`$ d respectively, and are once again in good agreement with empirical estimates. Although light and velocity curves show quite similar $`Sk`$ values over the whole period range, the velocity curves present larger $`Sk`$ values just before the HP center. This effect is due to the fact that the shape of the velocity curves becomes flat-topped at minimum amplitude whereas the light curves show the same shape at shorter periods (see §2). The comparison of predicted radial velocity amplitudes with observational data is difficult since spectroscopic measurement of LMC Cepheids are very scanty or do not cover the HP (Antonello 1998). However, radial velocity amplitudes for Galactic Cepheids (see Fig. 9 of paper III) collected by Cogan (1980) and by Bersier et al. (1994) show that the upper envelope presents a well-defined minimum across the HP center. The same outcome applies to the skewness, and indeed recent spectroscopic measurements of Galactic Cepheids (Gorynya 1998) show a sharp decrease close to $`logP1`$. This provides a qualitative support to the predicted minima and to the ”double-peaked” distributions shown in Fig. 8.

Finally, we note that the $`P_2/P_0`$ratios (see Table 2) of the models located at the HP center range from 0.517 for the $`M/M_{}`$=6.55 model to 0.512 for the $`M/M_{}`$=7.45 model. These period ratios were estimated by adopting the linear second overtone periods, therefore we can safely assume that the $`P_2/P_0`$ratio at the HP center is roughly equal to $`0.51÷0.52`$. Even though, these models do not fall on the 2:1 resonance line ($`P_2/P_0`$$`=0.5`$) they still lie inside the resonance region. In fact, Simon & Schmidt (1976) originally suggested that this region can be reasonably located between $`P_2/P_0`$=0.47 and $`P_2/P_0`$=0.53. As a consequence, the values of current $`P_2/P_0`$ratios do not run against the plausibility of the resonance model.

## 4 Hertzsprung progression in the HR diagram

We are now interested in discussing the location of the HP in the HR diagram and in providing a detailed comparison with previous results already available in the literature. Fig. 9 shows the HR diagram with the whole sample of Cepheid models we constructed. Triangles and squares refer to models which show the bump along the descending and the rising branch of the radial velocity curve respectively, while filled circles mark the models which attain the minimum amplitude in both light and velocity variations. The same figure also displays the two resonance lines $`P_2/P_0`$=0.5 for $`P_0=10.5`$ d (dotted line) and for $`P_0=11.0`$ d (dashed line) as estimated by SK assuming a mildly different chemical composition (Y=0.29, Z=0.01 against Y=0.25, Z=0.008). In this figure are also plotted our linear (long-dashed) and nonlinear (solid line) $`P_2/P_0`$=0.50 resonance lines. The former is based on linear periods, while the latter on linear second overtone periods and nonlinear fundamental periods. These two resonance lines were estimated by searching within the instability strip the models which attain a period ratio $`P_2/P_0`$roughly equal to 0.50. The nonlinear resonance line is mildly shifted toward cooler effective temperatures because the nonlinear fundamental periods are slightly shorter than the linear ones and therefore the resonance line moves toward the red edge.

The SK resonance lines were evaluated by adopting a Newton-Raphson algorithm which for each given value of the effective temperature constructs a sequence of linear, nonadiabatic, radiative models by iterating on the values of mass and luminosity until both the resonance condition -$`P_2/P_0`$=0.5- and the resonance center -$`P_0=10.5,11.0`$ d- are matched. A slightly different approach for estimating the resonance lines in a linear regime was suggested by Buchler et al. (1996) but their predictions were not included in Fig. 9, because the effective temperature values were not provided.

Fig. 9 shows that the SK resonance lines are located at hotter effective temperatures when compared with the nonlinear HP centers and this discrepancy increases toward higher luminosities. On the other hand, our linear and nonlinear resonance lines are located at effective temperatures systematically cooler that the nonlinear HP centers. The difference between our and SK resonance lines is not surprising, since our pulsation models are constructed by adopting different physical assumptions and chemical composition. However, we note that for each given luminosity the stellar masses adopted by SK are systematically smaller than our mass values and this difference typically increases when moving from lower to higher luminosities.

The same difference appears in mass estimates, based on a similar approach, provided by Beaulieu & Sasselov (1997, and references therein), and indeed for LMC Bump Cepheids at the resonance center $`P_0=10.5`$ d they give a mass value of 4.57 $`M_{}`$. In order to test how the dynamical behavior depends on stellar mass, we constructed a new full amplitude, fundamental model by adopting the input parameters ($`M/M_{}`$=5.35, $`logL/L_{}`$=3.65, $`T_\mathrm{e}`$=5700 K) and chemical composition (Y=0.29, Z=0.01) used by SK. We selected this model since its location in the HR diagram is coincident with a model of our sequence for $`M/M_{}`$=7.0 ($`logL/L_{}`$=3.65, $`T_\mathrm{e}`$=5700 K). Fig. 10 shows light (top) and velocity (bottom) curves as a function of phase for our model (solid lines) and the model constructed by adopting the SK parameters (dashed lines). Although, the two models attain similar pulsation amplitudes (see Table 3) the shape of the curves is quite different. In fact, the bump in the less-massive model is located along the rising branch, while in the more-massive model along the descending branch.

However, the key result disclosed by Fig. 10 is that the the less-massive model, which is located very close to the 2:1 resonance line ($`P_2/P_0`$$`0.494`$, $`P_0=11.0398`$ d), presents almost symmetrical curves and a small bump on the rising branch, whereas the curves of the canonical model are more asymmetric around the maximum and show a well-defined bump along the decreasing branch. This means that the previous models should present quite different Fourier parameters. On the basis of these findings we can draw the following conclusion: theoretical light and velocity curves of Bump Cepheid models depend on the adopted ML relation, therefore the comparison between theory and observations can supply independent constraints on this relation (Wood et al. 1997; paper I). Bump Cepheid models located at the HP center can provide tight constraints on theory, since the shape of light and velocity curves shows a stronger dependence on input parameters.

In this context it is noteworthy that stellar masses based on linear period ratios are, as already noted by MBM, SK, and by Buchler et al. (1996), systematically smaller than the observed ones. On the other hand, our nonlinear, convective models based on a canonical ML relation agree with empirical Galactic Cepheid masses estimated by Gieren (1989) using the Baade-Wesselink method. In fact, by using the Gieren’s Period-Mass relation (his relation 2) for $`P_{\mathrm{HP}}=11.2`$ d we obtain an empirical Cepheid mass of $`M/M_{}`$$`=6.9\pm 0.9`$. This mass value is in satisfactory agreement, within the observational uncertainties, with nonlinear predictions, and indeed at the same period the theoretical masses range from 6.55 to 7.45 $`M_{}`$. We know that we are comparing theoretical predictions for LMC Cepheids with observational data for Galactic Cepheids. However, current uncertainties on mass determinations are probably larger than the metallicity effect on Cepheid masses. In fact, preliminary theoretical results support the evidence that the Bump Cepheid masses at solar chemical composition are of the order of $`6.5\pm 0.25M_{}`$ (Ricci 1999).

As a result, predictions based on nonlinear, convective models and on canonical evolutionary tracks settle down the long-standing conundrum of the Bump mass discrepancy. However a firm conclusion on this problem can be reached as soon as pulsation calculations constructed by adopting a noncanonical ML relation (i.e. based on evolutionary models which account for convective core overshooting) will become available. Note that accurate and homogeneous mass determinations based on the near-infrared surface brightness technique (Gieren et al. 1997) and on the infrared flux method (Fernley at al. 1989) can supply tight constraints on the Cepheid ML relation. Independent mass estimates can also be derived from orbits of Cepheids in binary systems. Interestingly enough, Evans et al. (1998) have recently observed with HST the hot binary companion of U Aql, a Galactic Bump Cepheid, and obtained for this variable a mass value of $`5.1\pm 0.7M_{}`$. Taken at face value this mass estimate is roughly 20% smaller than the predicted mass range of Galactic Bump Cepheids previously mentioned. Unfortunately, up to now this is the only measurement of a Bump mass in a binary system and we still lack a firm evaluation of the error budget involved in these measurements (see their Table 2). In this context it is worth mentioning the direct measurements of Cepheid diameters through optical interferometry recently provided by Nordgren et al. (2000). As soon as new and more accurate interferometric data will become available, this approach can certainly supply an independent constraint on Bump Cepheid masses and in particular on the systematic uncertainties affecting empirical mass determinations.

## 5 Dynamical behavior of Bump Cepheid models

The appearance of the bump on the light curve is governed by temperature and radius variations. However, we focus our attention on radial velocity changes, since this is the observable generally adopted to investigate the intimate nature of the HP. In particular, we discuss the dynamical behavior of two models located at the HP center and close to red edge, the systematics of the thermal structure will be addressed in a forthcoming paper (Bono et al. in preparation).

Fig. 11 shows in a 3D plot the velocity variations as a function of mean radius and phase for a fundamental model located close to the HP center ($`P_2/P_0`$=0.516, $`T_\mathrm{e}=5400`$ K) of the sequence at $`M/M_{}`$=7.0. Regions in which the radial velocity attains positive/negative values are plotted as solid/dotted lines. For avoiding misleading interpretations of the amplitude variations the radial velocities were plotted, according to Aikawa & Whitney (1985), without applying any artificial shift or enhancement.

Data plotted in Fig. 11 show that the outermost layers contract on a shorter time scale than the regions located just below them. In fact, the external layers reach the minimum contraction velocity at $`\varphi =0.23`$ and then at $`\varphi =0.40`$ -the phase of minimum radius- start to expand, whereas the underlying regions are still contracting. We measure phases with respect to the beginning of the surface contraction at maximum radius i.e. $`\varphi (R=R_{\mathrm{max}})=0`$. Soon after this phase the outermost layers undergo at first a rapid expansion reaching the maximum expansion velocity at $`\varphi =0.54`$ and then a decrease in the radial velocity due to gravity. During this slow down phase -$`\varphi 0.65`$\- the outermost layers interact with deeper layers (see the arrow) that are rapidly moving outward and reach their maximum expansion velocity at $`\varphi 0.74`$. The interaction between these two different dynamical behaviors causes an increase in the acceleration both toward the surface and toward the center. As a consequence in the outermost layers the radial velocity increases once again and then slows down showing a secondary maximum -the bump- at $`\varphi =0.85`$.

The innermost layers start to expand around $`\varphi =0.45`$ but their expansion is not in phase with the outermost layers. In fact, the latter ones reach the maximum expansion velocity at phases during which the bulk of the envelope is still accelerating. This phase difference causes the formation of a shock between the slowing down motion of outermost layers and the outgoing expansion of deeper layers. As a consequence, the shocked region undergoes a strong compression which in turn generates pressure waves that propagate both toward the surface and toward the center of the stellar model. It is the outgoing pressure wave that causes, as already noted, the appearance of the bump, whereas the incoming pressure wave -the Christy wave\- causes a short contraction phase in the innermost regions lasting from $`\varphi =0.7`$ to $`\varphi =0.85`$. Soon after the bounce at the stellar core at $`\varphi =0.95`$, the Christy wave at first moves rapidly outward and shortly delays the beginning of the contraction phase in the innermost regions and then limits the inward excursion of the layers crossed during its propagation out to the surface. This effect causes close to the phases of minimum radius a bounce between the overlying layers -that are rapidly contracting- and these layers that are contracting more slowly. The shock formed by this bounce generates two pressure waves: the outgoing wave delays the outward excursion of the region located just below the outermost layers, while the incoming wave triggers the Christy wave. As a consequence, it is the propagation out to surface of the Christy wave generated in the previous cycle that eventually causes the phase shift between the outermost layers and of the underlying regions, and in turn the appearance of the bump.

A phase shift between the outermost layers and the bulk of the envelope was also noted by Karp (1975). However, he found that the Christy wave approaches the surface close to velocity maximum and not close to the bump phase, and therefore the echo model could not completely explain the HP. Our results support the timing suggested by Karp but it seems that it is the Christy wave which causes the phase shift, and in turn the bump. However, before a firm conclusion on the plausibility of this mechanism can be reached a detailed comparison between theoretical predictions and empirical data has to be provided.

We now briefly discuss the dynamical behavior of a model located close to the red edge ($`P_2/P_0`$=0.502, $`T_\mathrm{e}=5100`$ K) of the sequence at $`M/M_{}`$=7.0, since it presents an interesting feature worth being investigated. Fig. 12 shows the radial velocity as viewed from the stellar surface. The overall behavior is similar to the model located close to the HP center, but in this red model the formation and the incoming propagation of the Christy wave can be more easily identified. In fact, close to $`\varphi 0.5`$ and $`\mathrm{log}<R>/10^{12}3.5`$ its appearance is marked by a narrow region in which the velocity attains negative values and then moves inward reaching the base of the envelope at $`\varphi 0.8`$ (see the arrows). In this model the contraction of the overlying layers is more rapid than for the model close to the HP center, and indeed the Christy wave stops the expansion of the underlying layers. This fact and the evidence that the outermost layers start to expand at later phases causes the appearance along the surface velocity curve of a shoulder close to $`\varphi =0.5÷0.55`$ (see the arrow at the top of the envelope). Soon after these layers experience a rapid outgoing acceleration and this motion is almost in phase with the motion of the envelope and therefore the outermost layers do not interfere with the underlying regions since they are almost co-moving. It turns out that in this model the bump, i.e. what we defined as the secondary maximum, is the main maximum while the true maximum is the bump which appears on the rising branch.

This finding provides a straightforward explanation to what has been defined by FSS as a happy but also ill-understood circumstance. In fact, these authors in order to derive a linear relationship between period, phase of the bump and Bump Cepheid radii noted that from an observational point of view it could not be firmly stated whether the primary or the secondary maximum was generated by the Christy wave. To overcome this thorny problem they suggested to measure the phase of the secondary maximum if the bump is located along the descending branch and the phase of the primary maximum if the bump appears along the rising branch. The dynamical behavior of the Bump Cepheid model located close to the red edge supplies a plain theoretical support to this far-sighted observational choice. At the same time, current models also explain why light and velocity amplitudes show a ”double-peaked” distribution when moving from the blue to the red edge of the instability strip. The maximum located close to the blue edge is typical of relatively short-period Cepheids (see paper III), whereas the second one is caused by the HP.

## 6 Summary and conclusions

This paper presents the results of an extensive theoretical investigation on Bump Cepheids. In order to provide a detailed analysis of the pulsation behavior of these objects we computed several sequences of full amplitude, nonlinear, convective models at fixed chemical composition (Y=0.25, Z=0.008). The models were constructed by adopting a mass step of 0.15$`M_{}`$ and a temperature step of 100 K close to the instability edges and of 50 K close to the HP center. The main outcomes of this analysis are the following:

1) theoretical light and velocity curves account for the HP, and indeed close to the blue edge the bump is located along the descending branch, at longer periods it crosses at first the luminosity/velocity maximum and then appears along the rising branch.

2) In a very narrow period range both light and velocity curves show a flat-topped shape and their amplitudes attain a well-defined minimum. The predicted period of the minima -$`P_{\mathrm{HP}}=11.24\pm 0.46`$ d- is in very good agreement with the empirical value found by Welch et al. (1997) for LMC Cepheids i.e. $`P_{\mathrm{HP}}=11.2\pm 0.8`$ d. Moreover, light and velocity amplitudes present a ”double-peaked” distribution which agrees with observational data.

3) Both the skewness and the acuteness of light and velocity curves show a well-defined minimum at the HP center and their distributions are in good qualitative agreement with empirical estimates provided by Andreasen & Petersen (1987). The periods of the HP center are, within the uncertainties, in good agreement with observational values.

4) The models at the HP center are located within the resonance region but not on the 2:1 resonance line ($`P_2/P_0`$=0.5), and indeed the $`P_2/P_0`$ratios range from 0.51 to 0.52.

5) Predicted Bump Cepheid masses, based on a ML relation which neglects the convective core overshooting, are in good agreement with the empirical masses of Galactic Cepheids estimated by adopting the Baade-Wesselink method (Gieren 1989). In fact, the observed mass range at the HP center -$`P=11.2`$ d- is $`6.9\pm 0.9M_{}`$, while the theoretical one is $`7.0\pm 0.45M_{}`$. Even if Galactic Cepheids are more metal-rich than LMC Cepheids, this result seems to settle down the long-standing problem of the Bump mass discrepancy.

The results presented in this paper were mainly aimed at testing whether current hydrodynamical models which include the coupling between pulsation and convection together with a ML relation based on canonical evolutionary models account for the HP in LMC Cepheids. It is clear that the theoretical scenario we developed seems to provide a reliable description of several empirical facts. Moreover, we confirm that Bump Cepheid models can supply fundamental constraints on stellar masses, and in turn on the ML relation of intermediate-mass stars. We also note that current Cepheid metal-intermediate, convective models do show plausible pulsation properties.

Two crucial topics need to be properly addressed before firm conclusions on the HP can be reached. To validate present nonlinear Cepheid models a thorough theoretical analysis of the Fourier parameters should be provided together with a detailed comparison with observational data available in the literature (Bono et al. in preparation). At the same time, the dependence of the HP behavior both on the chemical composition should be investigated as well. New and accurate CCD data on light and velocity amplitudes as well as on the skewness and the acuteness of these curves can certainly improve the location of the HP center and feed the future investigations with robust observational constraints.

###### Acknowledgements.

It is a pleasure to thank V. Castellani and F. Caputo for a detailed reading of an early draft of this paper and for many interesting and enlightening discussions on Cepheids. We wish also to acknowledge N. Remage Evans and T. Nordgren for insightful discussions on current empirical estimates of Cepheid masses. We also acknowledge an anonymous referee for some useful suggestions that improved the readability of the paper.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The result that this paper presents is about gravitational couplings for generalized orientifold planes. The usual orientifold planes do not have gauge fields on their worldvolumes. The generalized orientifold planes that this paper consider have SO(2k) Yang-Mills gauge fields-bundles over their corresponding worldvolumes. The aim of the present paper is to display the Wess-Zumino part of the effective action for such generalized orientifold planes.

For the usual orientifold planes the Wess-Zumino action has the following form,which can be derived both from anomaly cancellation arguments and from direct computation on string scattering amplitudes:

$`𝑺_{𝑾𝒁}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}^{𝒑\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟒}}\frac{𝐓_𝐩}{\mathrm{𝐤𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐚}}\mathbf{}_{𝒑\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟏}}𝑪\sqrt{\frac{𝐋\mathbf{(}\frac{𝐑_𝐓}{\mathrm{𝟒}}\mathbf{)}}{𝐋\mathbf{(}\frac{𝐑_𝐍}{\mathrm{𝟒}}\mathbf{)}}}`$

Where the Mukai vector of RR charges for the usual orientifold p-plane is given by:

$`𝑸\mathbf{(}\frac{𝐑_𝐓}{\mathrm{𝟒}}\mathbf{,}\frac{𝐑_𝐍}{\mathrm{𝟒}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\sqrt{\frac{𝐋\mathbf{(}\frac{𝐑_𝐓}{\mathrm{𝟒}}\mathbf{)}}{𝐋\mathbf{(}\frac{𝐑_𝐍}{\mathrm{𝟒}}\mathbf{)}}}`$

In this formula C is the vector of the RR potential forms. L is the Hirzebruch genus that generates the Hirzebruch polynomials which are given in terms of Pontryaguin classes for real bundles. The Pontryaguin classes are given in terms of the 2-form curvature of the corresponding real bundle. The formula for Q involves two real bundles over the worldvolume of the usual orientifold plane. These two bundles are the tangent bundle for the worldvolume and the normal bundle by respect to space-time for such worldvolume. Q is given then in terms of the curvatures for the tangent and normal bundles and does not have contributions from the others real bundles such as SO(2k) Yang-Mills gauge bundles.

In this paper is presented the Mukay vector of RR charges for a generalized orientifold planes which have two SO(2k) Yang-Mills gauge bundles on their worldvolumes. Such vector of RR charges is given by the following formula:

$`𝑸\mathbf{(}\frac{𝐑_𝐓}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{,}\frac{𝐑_𝐍}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{,}\frac{𝐑_𝐄}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{,}\frac{𝐑_𝐅}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\sqrt{\frac{𝐀\mathbf{(}\frac{𝐑_𝐓}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{)}\mathrm{𝐌𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫}\mathbf{(}\frac{𝐑_𝐄}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{)}}{𝐀\mathbf{(}\frac{𝐑_𝐍}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{)}\mathrm{𝐌𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫}\mathbf{(}\frac{𝐑_𝐅}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{)}}}`$

For the generalized orientifold planes the Wess-Zumino action has the following form:

$`𝑺_{𝑾𝒁}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}^{𝒑\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟒}}\frac{𝐓_𝐩}{\mathrm{𝐤𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐚}}\mathbf{}_{𝒑\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟏}}𝑪\sqrt{\frac{𝐀\mathbf{(}\frac{𝐑_𝐓}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{)}\mathrm{𝐌𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫}\mathbf{(}\frac{𝐑_𝐄}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{)}}{𝐀\mathbf{(}\frac{𝐑_𝐍}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{)}\mathrm{𝐌𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫}\mathbf{(}\frac{𝐑_𝐅}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{)}}}`$

The formula for the vector of RR charges corresponding to a generalized orientifold plane involves now four real bundles over the worldvolume: the tangent bundle, the normal bundle and two new SO(2k) YM gauge bundles. When one of these new SO(2k) bundles is the tangent bundle and the other is the normal bundle, one obtain the usual formula for Q corresponding to the usual orientifold planes using the following identity:

$`𝑨\mathbf{(}\frac{𝐑}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{)}𝑴𝒂𝒚𝒆𝒓\mathbf{(}\frac{𝐑}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}𝑳\mathbf{(}\frac{𝐑}{\mathrm{𝟒}}\mathbf{)}`$

Then, one has:

$`𝑸\mathbf{(}\frac{𝐑_𝐓}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{,}\frac{𝐑_𝐍}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{,}\frac{𝐑_𝐓}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{,}\frac{𝐑_𝐍}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\sqrt{\frac{𝐀\mathbf{(}\frac{𝐑_𝐓}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{)}\mathrm{𝐌𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫}\mathbf{(}\frac{𝐑_𝐓}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{)}}{𝐀\mathbf{(}\frac{𝐑_𝐍}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{)}\mathrm{𝐌𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫}\mathbf{(}\frac{𝐑_𝐍}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{)}}}`$

$`𝑸\mathbf{(}\frac{𝐑_𝐓}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{,}\frac{𝐑_𝐍}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{,}\frac{𝐑_𝐓}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{,}\frac{𝐑_𝐍}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\sqrt{\frac{𝐋\mathbf{(}\frac{𝐑_𝐓}{\mathrm{𝟒}}\mathbf{)}}{𝐋\mathbf{(}\frac{𝐑_𝐍}{\mathrm{𝟒}}\mathbf{)}}}\mathbf{=}𝑸\mathbf{(}\frac{𝐑_𝐓}{\mathrm{𝟒}}\mathbf{,}\frac{𝐑_𝐍}{\mathrm{𝟒}}\mathbf{)}`$

In these formulas, A denotes the roof-Dirac genus and Mayer denotes the Mayer class for one SO(2k) YM gauge bundle.

In the following section the Mukay vector of RR charges for a such generalized orientifold p-plane (GOp-plane), will be given in terms of the powers of the curvatures for the four real bunldes involved over the worldvolume. In the third section are presented the elementary processes corresponding to the power expansion for Q. In the final four section some conclutions are presented about other GOp-planes and non-BPS GOp-planes.

## 2 The Power Expantion for Q

Let E be a SO(2k)-bundle over the worldvolume of a generalized orientifold plane and consider a formal factorisation for the total Pontryaguin classs of the real bundle E, which has the following form:

$`𝒑\mathbf{(}𝑬\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}_{𝒊\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}}^𝒌\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}𝒚_𝒊^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$

The total Pontryaguin classs of the real bundle E,has the following formal sumarisation in terms of the corresponding Pontryaguin classes:

$`𝒑\mathbf{(}𝑬\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}_{𝒋\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}}^{\mathbf{}}𝒑_𝒋\mathbf{(}𝑬\mathbf{)}`$

The total Mayer class for the real bundle E has the following formal factorisation:

$`𝑴𝒂𝒚𝒆𝒓\mathbf{(}𝑬\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}_{𝒊\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}}^𝒌𝒄𝒐𝒔𝒉\mathbf{(}\frac{𝐲_𝐢}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{)}`$

The total Mayer class for the real bundle E has the following formal sumarisation in terms of the Mayer polynomials which are formed from the corresponding Pontryaguin classes :

$`𝑴𝒂𝒚𝒆𝒓\mathbf{(}𝑬\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}_{𝒋\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟎}}^{\mathbf{}}𝑴𝒂𝒚𝒆𝒓_𝒋\mathbf{(}𝒑_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{(}𝑬\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}\mathbf{}\mathbf{,}𝒑_𝒋\mathbf{(}𝑬\mathbf{)}\mathbf{)}`$

The Mayer polynomials are given by:

$`𝑴𝒂𝒚𝒆𝒓_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{(}𝒑_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{(}𝑬\mathbf{)}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}𝑴𝒂𝒚𝒆𝒓_\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}`$

$`𝑴𝒂𝒚𝒆𝒓_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{(}𝒑_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{(}𝑬\mathbf{)}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\frac{𝐩_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{(}𝐄\mathbf{)}}{\mathrm{𝟖}}`$

$`𝑴𝒂𝒚𝒆𝒓_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝒑_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{(}𝑬\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}𝒑_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝑬\mathbf{)}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\frac{𝐩_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{(}𝐄\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟒}𝐩_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝐄\mathbf{)}}{\mathrm{𝟑𝟖𝟒}}`$

$`𝑴𝒂𝒚𝒆𝒓_\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{(}𝒑_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{(}𝑬\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}𝒑_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝑬\mathbf{)}\mathbf{,}𝒑_\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{(}𝑬\mathbf{)}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\frac{𝐩_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{(}𝐄\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟏𝟐}𝐩_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{(}𝐄\mathbf{)}𝐩_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝐄\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟒𝟖}𝐩_\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{(}𝐄\mathbf{)}}{\mathrm{𝟒𝟔𝟎𝟖𝟎}}`$

The pontryaguin classes of the real bundle E have the following realizations in terms of the powers of the 2-form curvature for such bundle. For this curvature the y’s are the eigenvalues:

$`𝒑_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{(}𝑬\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}𝒑_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{(}𝑹_𝑬\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟖}𝐩𝐢^\mathrm{𝟐}}𝒕𝒓𝑹_𝑬^\mathrm{𝟐}`$

$`𝒑_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝑬\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}𝒑_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝑹_𝑬\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}𝐩𝐢^\mathrm{𝟒}}\mathbf{[}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟖}}\mathbf{(}𝒕𝒓𝑹_𝑬^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟒}}𝒕𝒓𝑹_𝑬^\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{]}`$

$`𝒑_\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{(}𝑬\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}𝒑_\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{(}𝑹_𝑬\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟔𝟒}𝐩𝐢^\mathrm{𝟔}}\mathbf{[}\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟒𝟖}}\mathbf{(}𝒕𝒓𝑹_𝑬^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟔}}𝒕𝒓𝑹_𝑬^\mathrm{𝟔}\mathbf{+}\frac{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟖}}𝒕𝒓𝑹_𝑬^\mathrm{𝟐}𝒕𝒓𝑹_𝑬^\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{]}`$

Using all these expretions one can to obtain the following expantion:

$`𝑴𝒂𝒚𝒆𝒓\mathbf{(}\frac{𝐑_𝐄}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\frac{𝐩_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{(}𝐑_𝐄\mathbf{)}}{\mathrm{𝟑𝟐}}\mathbf{+}\frac{𝐩_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{(}𝐑_𝐄\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟒}𝐩_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝐑_𝐄\mathbf{)}}{\mathrm{𝟔𝟏𝟒𝟒}}\mathbf{+}\frac{𝐩_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{(}𝐑_𝐄\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟏𝟐}𝐩_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{(}𝐑_𝐄\mathbf{)}𝐩_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝐑_𝐄\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟒𝟖}𝐩_\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{(}𝐑_𝐄\mathbf{)}}{\mathrm{𝟐𝟗𝟒𝟗𝟏𝟐𝟎}}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}`$

Now one has the following expantions:

$`𝑨\mathbf{(}\frac{𝐑}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\frac{𝐩_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{(}𝐑\mathbf{)}}{\mathrm{𝟗𝟔}}\mathbf{+}\frac{\mathrm{𝟕}𝐩_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{(}𝐑\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟒}𝐩_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝐑\mathbf{)}}{\mathrm{𝟗𝟐𝟏𝟔𝟎}}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}`$

$`𝑳\mathbf{(}\frac{𝐑}{\mathrm{𝟒}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\frac{𝐩_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{(}𝐑\mathbf{)}}{\mathrm{𝟒𝟖}}\mathbf{+}\frac{\mathbf{}𝐩_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{(}𝐑\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟕}𝐩_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝐑\mathbf{)}}{\mathrm{𝟏𝟏𝟓𝟐𝟎}}\mathbf{+}\mathbf{}`$

Using these three expantions it is easy to obtain the following identities:

$`𝑨\mathbf{(}\frac{𝐑}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{)}𝑴𝒂𝒚𝒆𝒓\mathbf{(}\frac{𝐑}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}𝑳\mathbf{(}\frac{𝐑}{\mathrm{𝟒}}\mathbf{)}`$

$`𝑨\mathbf{(}𝑹\mathbf{)}𝑴𝒂𝒚𝒆𝒓\mathbf{(}𝑹\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}𝑳\mathbf{(}\frac{𝐑}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{)}`$

$`𝑨\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}𝑹\mathbf{)}𝑴𝒂𝒚𝒆𝒓\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}𝑹\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}𝑳\mathbf{(}𝑹\mathbf{)}`$

$`𝑨\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}^𝒒𝑹\mathbf{)}𝑴𝒂𝒚𝒆𝒓\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}^𝒒𝑹\mathbf{)}\mathbf{=}𝑳\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}^{𝒒\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟏}}𝑹\mathbf{)}`$

$`\mathbf{[}𝑨\mathbf{(}𝑹\mathbf{)}\mathrm{𝟐}^𝒌𝑴𝒂𝒚𝒆𝒓\mathbf{(}𝑹\mathbf{)}\mathbf{]}_{𝒕𝒐𝒑𝒇𝒐𝒓𝒎}\mathbf{=}𝑳\mathbf{(}𝑹\mathbf{)}_{𝒕𝒐𝒑𝒇𝒐𝒓𝒎}`$

With the help from these identities one has that:

$`\sqrt{\frac{𝐀\mathbf{(}\frac{𝐑_𝐓}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{)}\mathrm{𝐌𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫}\mathbf{(}\frac{𝐑_𝐓}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{)}}{𝐀\mathbf{(}\frac{𝐑_𝐍}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{)}\mathrm{𝐌𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫}\mathbf{(}\frac{𝐑_𝐍}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{)}}}\mathbf{=}\sqrt{\frac{𝐋\mathbf{(}\frac{𝐑_𝐓}{\mathrm{𝟒}}\mathbf{)}}{𝐋\mathbf{(}\frac{𝐑_𝐍}{\mathrm{𝟒}}\mathbf{)}}}`$

Using all these equations it is easy to obtain the following power expantion for Q:

$`\sqrt{\frac{𝐀\mathbf{(}\frac{𝐑_𝐓}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{)}\mathrm{𝐌𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫}\mathbf{(}\frac{𝐑_𝐄}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{)}}{𝐀\mathbf{(}\frac{𝐑_𝐍}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{)}\mathrm{𝐌𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫}\mathbf{(}\frac{𝐑_𝐅}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{)}}}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\frac{\mathrm{𝟒}𝐀𝐁}{\mathrm{𝟏𝟓𝟑𝟔}𝐂}\mathbf{(}𝒕𝒓𝑹_𝑻^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}𝒕𝒓𝑹_𝑵^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝐭𝐨𝐩}}{\mathrm{𝟓𝟏𝟐}}\mathbf{(}𝒕𝒓𝑹_𝑬^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}𝒕𝒓𝑹_𝑭^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}\frac{\mathrm{𝐭𝐨𝐩}}{\mathrm{𝟒𝟕𝟏𝟖𝟓𝟗𝟐}}\mathbf{(}𝒕𝒓𝑹_𝑻^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}𝒕𝒓𝑹_𝑵^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}\frac{\mathrm{𝐭𝐨𝐩}}{\mathrm{𝟐𝟗𝟒𝟗𝟏𝟐𝟎}}\mathbf{(}𝒕𝒓𝑹_𝑻^\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{}𝒕𝒓𝑹_𝑵^\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}\frac{\mathrm{𝐭𝐨𝐩}}{\mathrm{𝟓𝟐𝟒𝟐𝟖𝟖}}\mathbf{(}𝒕𝒓𝑹_𝑬^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}𝒕𝒓𝑹_𝑭^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝐭𝐨𝐩}}{\mathrm{𝟏𝟗𝟔𝟔𝟎𝟖}}\mathbf{(}𝒕𝒓𝑹_𝑬^\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{}𝒕𝒓𝑹_𝑭^\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝐭𝐨𝐩}}{\mathrm{𝟕𝟖𝟔𝟒𝟑𝟐}}\mathbf{(}𝒕𝒓𝑹_𝑻^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}𝒕𝒓𝑹_𝑵^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{(}𝒕𝒓𝑹_𝑬^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}𝒕𝒓𝑹_𝑭^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$

When the bundle E is the tangent bundle and the bundle F is the normal bundle one obtain the usual power expantion for Q corresponding to the usual orientifold plane:

$`\sqrt{\frac{𝐀\mathbf{(}\frac{𝐑_𝐓}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{)}\mathrm{𝐌𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫}\mathbf{(}\frac{𝐑_𝐓}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{)}}{𝐀\mathbf{(}\frac{𝐑_𝐍}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{)}\mathrm{𝐌𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫}\mathbf{(}\frac{𝐑_𝐍}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{)}}}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{+}\frac{\mathrm{𝟒}𝐀𝐁}{\mathrm{𝟏𝟓𝟑𝟔}𝐂}\mathbf{(}𝒕𝒓𝑹_𝑻^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}𝒕𝒓𝑹_𝑵^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝐭𝐨𝐩}}{\mathrm{𝟓𝟏𝟐}}\mathbf{(}𝒕𝒓𝑹_𝑻^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}𝒕𝒓𝑹_𝑵^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}\frac{\mathrm{𝐭𝐨𝐩}}{\mathrm{𝟒𝟕𝟏𝟖𝟓𝟗𝟐}}\mathbf{(}𝒕𝒓𝑹_𝑻^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}𝒕𝒓𝑹_𝑵^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}\frac{\mathrm{𝐭𝐨𝐩}}{\mathrm{𝟐𝟗𝟒𝟗𝟏𝟐𝟎}}\mathbf{(}𝒕𝒓𝑹_𝑻^\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{}𝒕𝒓𝑹_𝑵^\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}\frac{\mathrm{𝐭𝐨𝐩}}{\mathrm{𝟓𝟐𝟒𝟐𝟖𝟖}}\mathbf{(}𝒕𝒓𝑹_𝑻^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}𝒕𝒓𝑹_𝑵^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝐭𝐨𝐩}}{\mathrm{𝟏𝟗𝟔𝟔𝟎𝟖}}\mathbf{(}𝒕𝒓𝑹_𝑻^\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{}𝒕𝒓𝑹_𝑵^\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝐭𝐨𝐩}}{\mathrm{𝟕𝟖𝟔𝟒𝟑𝟐}}\mathbf{(}𝒕𝒓𝑹_𝑻^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}𝒕𝒓𝑹_𝑵^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{(}𝒕𝒓𝑹_𝑻^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}𝒕𝒓𝑹_𝑵^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$

$`\sqrt{\frac{𝐀\mathbf{(}\frac{𝐑_𝐓}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{)}\mathrm{𝐌𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫}\mathbf{(}\frac{𝐑_𝐓}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{)}}{𝐀\mathbf{(}\frac{𝐑_𝐍}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{)}\mathrm{𝐌𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫}\mathbf{(}\frac{𝐑_𝐍}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{)}}}\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝟒}𝐀𝐁}{\mathrm{𝟕𝟔𝟖}𝐂}\mathbf{(}𝒕𝒓𝑹_𝑻^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}𝒕𝒓𝑹_𝑵^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}\frac{\mathrm{𝐭𝐨𝐩}}{\mathrm{𝟏𝟏𝟕𝟗𝟔𝟒𝟖}}\mathbf{(}𝒕𝒓𝑹_𝑻^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}𝒕𝒓𝑹_𝑵^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝐭𝐨𝐩}}{\mathrm{𝟏𝟒𝟕𝟒𝟓𝟔𝟎}}\mathbf{(}𝒕𝒓𝑹_𝑻^\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{}𝒕𝒓𝑹_𝑵^\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{)}`$

$`\sqrt{\frac{𝐀\mathbf{(}\frac{𝐑_𝐓}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{)}\mathrm{𝐌𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫}\mathbf{(}\frac{𝐑_𝐓}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{)}}{𝐀\mathbf{(}\frac{𝐑_𝐍}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{)}\mathrm{𝐌𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫}\mathbf{(}\frac{𝐑_𝐍}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{)}}}\mathbf{=}\sqrt{\frac{𝐋\mathbf{(}\frac{𝐑_𝐓}{\mathrm{𝟒}}\mathbf{)}}{𝐋\mathbf{(}\frac{𝐑_𝐍}{\mathrm{𝟒}}\mathbf{)}}}`$

## 3 The Elementary Processes

The WZ action for the usual orientifold p-plane can be writen as a sum of the WZ actions for three elementary processes:

$`𝑺_{𝑾𝒁}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}_{𝒋\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}}^\mathrm{𝟑}𝑺_{𝑾𝒁\mathbf{,}𝒋}`$

The WZ actions for the three elementary processes are given by the following expretions:

$`𝑺_{𝑾𝒁\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟏}}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}^{𝒑\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟒}}\frac{𝐓_𝐩}{\mathrm{𝐤𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐚}}\mathbf{}_{𝒑\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟏}}𝑪_{𝒑\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟏}}`$

$`𝑺_{𝑾𝒁\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}^{𝒑\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟒}}\frac{𝐓_𝐩}{\mathrm{𝐤𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐚}}\mathbf{}_{𝒑\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟏}}𝑪_{𝒑\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟑}}\mathbf{[}\mathbf{}\mathbf{(}\frac{\mathrm{𝟒}𝐀𝐁}{\mathrm{𝟕𝟔𝟖}𝐂}\mathbf{(}𝒕𝒓𝑹_𝑻^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}𝒕𝒓𝑹_𝑵^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{]}`$

$`𝑺_{𝑾𝒁\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟑}}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}^{𝒑\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟒}}\frac{𝐓_𝐩}{\mathrm{𝐤𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐚}}\mathbf{}_{𝒑\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟏}}𝑪_{𝒑\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟕}}\mathbf{(}\frac{\mathrm{𝐭𝐨𝐩}}{\mathrm{𝟏𝟏𝟕𝟗𝟔𝟒𝟖}}\mathbf{(}𝒕𝒓𝑹_𝑻^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}𝒕𝒓𝑹_𝑵^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝐭𝐨𝐩}}{\mathrm{𝟏𝟒𝟕𝟒𝟓𝟔𝟎}}\mathbf{(}𝒕𝒓𝑹_𝑻^\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{}𝒕𝒓𝑹_𝑵^\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{)}`$

The first WZ action describes an elementary process for which the usual orientifold p-plane emites one (p+1)-form RR potential. The second WZ action describes an elementary process for which the usual Op-plane absorbs two gravitons and emits one (p-3)-form RR potential. The third WZ action describes an elementary process for which the Op-plane absorbs four gravitons and emits one (p-7)-form RR potential.

From the result of the section two, the WZ action for a generalized orientifold p-plane can be writen as a sum of the WZ actions for some elementary processes:

$`𝑺_{𝑾𝒁}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}_{𝒋\mathbf{=}\mathrm{𝟏}}^\mathrm{𝟔}𝑺_{𝑾𝒁\mathbf{,}𝒋}`$

The WZ actions for the six elementary processes are given by the following expretions:

$`𝑺_{𝑾𝒁\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟏}}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}^{𝒑\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟒}}\frac{𝐓_𝐩}{\mathrm{𝐤𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐚}}\mathbf{}_{𝒑\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟏}}𝑪_{𝒑\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟏}}`$

$`𝑺_{𝑾𝒁\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}^{𝒑\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟒}}\frac{𝐓_𝐩}{\mathrm{𝐤𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐚}}\mathbf{}_{𝒑\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟏}}𝑪_{𝒑\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟑}}\frac{\mathrm{𝟒}𝐀𝐁}{\mathrm{𝟏𝟓𝟑𝟔}𝐂}\mathbf{(}𝒕𝒓𝑹_𝑻^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}𝒕𝒓𝑹_𝑵^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}`$

$`𝑺_{𝑾𝒁\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟑}}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}^{𝒑\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟒}}\frac{𝐓_𝐩}{\mathrm{𝐤𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐚}}\mathbf{}_{𝒑\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟏}}𝑪_{𝒑\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟑}}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝐭𝐨𝐩}}{\mathrm{𝟓𝟏𝟐}}\mathbf{(}𝒕𝒓𝑹_𝑬^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}𝒕𝒓𝑹_𝑭^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{)}`$

$`𝑺_{𝑾𝒁\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟒}}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}^{𝒑\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟒}}\frac{𝐓_𝐩}{\mathrm{𝐤𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐚}}\mathbf{}_{𝒑\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟏}}𝑪_{𝒑\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟕}}\mathbf{(}\frac{\mathrm{𝐭𝐨𝐩}}{\mathrm{𝟒𝟕𝟏𝟖𝟓𝟗𝟐}}\mathbf{(}𝒕𝒓𝑹_𝑻^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}𝒕𝒓𝑹_𝑵^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{+}\frac{\mathrm{𝐭𝐨𝐩}}{\mathrm{𝟐𝟗𝟒𝟗𝟏𝟐𝟎}}\mathbf{(}𝒕𝒓𝑹_𝑻^\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{}𝒕𝒓𝑹_𝑵^\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{)}`$

$`𝑺_{𝑾𝒁\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟓}}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}^{𝒑\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟒}}\frac{𝐓_𝐩}{\mathrm{𝐤𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐚}}\mathbf{}_{𝒑\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟏}}𝑪_{𝒑\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟕}}\mathbf{(}\frac{\mathrm{𝐭𝐨𝐩}}{\mathrm{𝟓𝟐𝟒𝟐𝟖𝟖}}\mathbf{(}𝒕𝒓𝑹_𝑬^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}𝒕𝒓𝑹_𝑭^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝐭𝐨𝐩}}{\mathrm{𝟏𝟗𝟔𝟔𝟎𝟖}}\mathbf{(}𝒕𝒓𝑹_𝑬^\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{}𝒕𝒓𝑹_𝑭^\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{)}`$

$`𝑺_{𝑾𝒁\mathbf{,}\mathrm{𝟔}}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}^{𝒑\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟒}}\frac{𝐓_𝐩}{\mathrm{𝐤𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐚}}\mathbf{}_{𝒑\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟏}}𝑪_{𝒑\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟕}}\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\frac{\mathrm{𝐭𝐨𝐩}}{\mathrm{𝟕𝟖𝟔𝟒𝟑𝟐}}\mathbf{(}𝒕𝒓𝑹_𝑻^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}𝒕𝒓𝑹_𝑵^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{(}𝒕𝒓𝑹_𝑬^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{}𝒕𝒓𝑹_𝑭^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{)}\mathbf{)}`$

The first WZ action describes an elementary process for which the generalized orientifold p-plane emites one (p+1)-form RR potential. The second WZ action describes an elementary process for which the generalized Op-plane absorbs two gravitons and emits one (p-3)-form RR potential. The third WZ actuib describes an elementary process for which the generalized Op-plane absorbs two gaugeons and emits one (p-3)-form RR potential. The fourth WZ action describes an elementary process for which the GOp-plane absorbs four gravitons and emits one (p-7)-form RR potential. The fifth WZ action describes an elementary process for which the GOp-plane absorbs four gaugeons and emits one (p-7)-form RR potential. The sixth WZ action describes an elementary process for which the GOp-planes absorbs two gravitons and two gaugeons and emits one (p-7)-form RR potential.

When the gaugeons corresponding to the bundles E and F are the same gravitons corresponding to the bundles T and N respectively, then the six elementary process for the GOp-plane are reduced to the usuals three elementary process for the usual Op-plane: Op-plane emites one (p+1)-form RR potential,Op-plane absorbs two gravitons and emits one (p-3)-form RR potential; and, Op-plane absorbs four gravitons and emits one (p-7)-form RR potential.

## 4 Conclutions

The WZ action for the GOp-planes can be modified or extended by various ways. When the bundles haven non-trivial second Stiefel-Whitney classes one can to write the following WZ action which incorporates an effect of the magnetic monopoles:

$`𝑺_{𝑾𝒁}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}^{𝒑\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟒}}\frac{𝐓_𝐩}{\mathrm{𝐤𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐚}}\mathbf{}_{𝒑\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟏}}𝑪\sqrt{\frac{𝐀\mathbf{(}\frac{𝐑_𝐓}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{)}\mathrm{𝐌𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫}\mathbf{(}\frac{𝐑_𝐄}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{)}𝐞^{\frac{𝐝_\mathrm{𝟏}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}}}{𝐀\mathbf{(}\frac{𝐑_𝐍}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{)}\mathrm{𝐌𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫}\mathbf{(}\frac{𝐑_𝐅}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{)}𝐞^{\frac{𝐝_\mathrm{𝟐}}{\mathrm{𝟐}}}}}`$

where:

$`𝒅_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{=}𝒓𝒆𝒅𝒖𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏\mathbf{.}𝒎𝒐𝒅\mathbf{.2}\mathbf{(}𝒘_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝑻\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}𝒘_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝑬\mathbf{)}\mathbf{)}`$

$`𝒅_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{=}𝒓𝒆𝒅𝒖𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏\mathbf{.}𝒎𝒐𝒅\mathbf{.2}\mathbf{(}𝒘_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝑵\mathbf{)}\mathbf{+}𝒘_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}𝑭\mathbf{)}\mathbf{)}`$

This action describes processes on which the GOp-plane emites RR-forms and absorbs gravitons, gaugeons and magnetic monopoles.

From the other side one can to write the following actions for GOp-planes non standard:

$`𝑺_{𝑾𝒁}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}^{𝒑\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟒}}\frac{𝐓_𝐩}{\mathrm{𝐤𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐚}}\mathbf{}_{𝒑\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟏}}𝑪\mathbf{(}\mathrm{𝟐}\sqrt{\frac{𝐀\mathbf{(}𝐑_𝐓\mathbf{)}}{𝐀\mathbf{(}𝐑_𝐍\mathbf{)}}}\mathbf{}\sqrt{\frac{𝐀\mathbf{(}\frac{𝐑_𝐓}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{)}\mathrm{𝐌𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫}\mathbf{(}\frac{𝐑_𝐄}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{)}}{𝐀\mathbf{(}\frac{𝐑_𝐍}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{)}\mathrm{𝐌𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫}\mathbf{(}\frac{𝐑_𝐅}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{)}}}\mathbf{)}`$

$`𝑺_{𝑾𝒁}\mathbf{=}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}^{𝒑\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟓}}\frac{𝐓_𝐩}{\mathrm{𝐤𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐚}}\mathbf{}_{𝒑\mathbf{+}\mathrm{𝟏}}𝑪\mathbf{(}\sqrt{\frac{𝐀\mathbf{(}𝐑_𝐓\mathbf{)}}{𝐀\mathbf{(}𝐑_𝐍\mathbf{)}}}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟐}^{𝒑\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟒}}\sqrt{\frac{𝐀\mathbf{(}\frac{𝐑_𝐓}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{)}\mathrm{𝐌𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫}\mathbf{(}\frac{𝐑_𝐄}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{)}}{𝐀\mathbf{(}\frac{𝐑_𝐍}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{)}\mathrm{𝐌𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫}\mathbf{(}\frac{𝐑_𝐅}{\mathrm{𝟐}}\mathbf{)}}}\mathbf{)}`$

These actions correspond respectively to the Sp-type GOp-planes and the GOp-planes that give rise to gauge symmetries of type SO(2n+1). Such non-standard GOp-planes are building from combinations of the D-p-branes and standard GOp-planes.

Finally one can to think about non-BPS GOp-planes with the tachyon effect.

In conclution gauge theories with symmetries SO-even,Sp and SO-odd can be obtained from the GOp-planes of the string theory.

## 5 References

About WZ action for usual orientifold planes:

K. Dasgupta, D. Jatkar and S. Mukhi, Gravitational couplings and Z2 orientifolds, Nucl. Phys. B523 (1998) 465, hep-th/9707224.

K. Dasgupta and S. Mukhi, Anomaly inflow on orientifold planes, J. High Energy Phys. 3 (1998) 4, hep-th/9709219.

J. Morales, C. Scrucca and M. Serone, Anomalous couplings for D-branes and O-planes, hep-th/9812071.

Ben Craps and Frederik Roose, (Non-)Anomalous D-brane and O-plane couplings:the normal bundle, hep-th/9812149.

About WZ action for non-standard orientifold planes:

Sunil Mukhi and Nemani V. Suryanarayana, Gravitational Couplings, Orientifolds and M-Planes, hep-th/9907215

About Mayer class and Mayer integrality theorem:

F. Hirzebruch, Topological Methods in Algebraic Geometry, 1978

Christian Bar, Elliptic Symbols, december 1995, Math. Nachr. 201, 7-35 (1999)