text:
# Regimes of quantum degeneracy in trapped 1D gases

## Abstract

We discuss the regimes of quantum degeneracy in a trapped 1D gas and obtain the diagram of states. Three regimes have been identified: the BEC regimes of a true condensate and quasicondensate, and the regime of a trapped gas of Tonks (gas of impenetrable bosons). The presence of a sharp cross-over to the BEC regime requires extremely small interaction between particles. We discuss how to distinguish between true and quasicondensates in phase coherence experiments.

Low-temperature 1D Bose systems attract a great deal of interest as they show a remarkable physics not encountered in 2D and 3D. In particular, the 1D Bose gas with repulsive interparticle interaction (the coupling constant $`g>0`$) becomes more non-ideal with decreasing 1D density $`n`$ . The regime of a weakly interacting gas requires the correlation length $`l_c=\mathrm{}/\sqrt{mng}`$ ($`m`$ is the atom mass) to be much larger than the mean interparticle separation $`1/n`$. For small $`n`$ or large interaction, where this condition is violated, the gas acquires Fermi properties as the wavefunction strongly decreases at short interparticle distances . In this case it is called a gas of impenetrable bosons or gas of Tonks (cf. ).

Spatially homogeneous 1D Bose gases with repulsive interparticle interaction have been extensively studied in the last decades. For the delta-functional interaction, Lieb and Liniger  have calculated the ground state energy and the spectrum of elementary excitations which at low momenta turns out to be phonon-like. Generalizing the Lieb-Liniger approach, Yang and Yang  have proved the analyticity of thermodynamical functions at any finite temperature, which indicates the absence of a phase transition. However, at sufficiently low $`T`$ the correlation properties of a 1D Bose gas are qualitatively different from classical high-$`T`$ properties. In the regime of a weakly interacting gas ($`nl_c1`$) the density fluctuations are suppressed , whereas at finite $`T`$ the long-wave fluctuations of the phase lead to exponential decay of the one-particle density matrix at large distances . A similar picture, with a power-law decay of the density matrix, was found at $`T=0`$ . Therefore, the Bose-Einstein condensate is absent at any $`T`$, including $`T=0`$. Earlier studies of 1D Bose systems are reviewed in . They allow us to conclude that in 1D gases the decrease of temperature leads to a continuous transformation of correlation properties from ideal-gas classical to interaction/statistics dominated. A 1D classical field model for calculating correlation functions in the conditions, where both the density and phase fluctuations are important, was developed in  and with respect to Bose gases in . Interestingly, 1D gases can posses the property of superfluidity at $`T=0`$ . Moreover, at finite $`T`$ one can have metastable supercurrent states which decay on a time scale independent of the size of the system .

The earlier discussion of 1D Bose gases was mostly academic as there was no possible realization of such a system. Fast progress in evaporative and optical cooling of trapped atoms and the observation of Bose-Einstein condensation (BEC) in trapped clouds of alkali atoms  stimulated a search for non-trivial trapping geometries. At present, there are significant efforts to create (quasi)1D trapped gases , where the radial motion of atoms in a cylindrical trap is tightly confined and they only undergo zero point radial oscillations. Then, kinematically the gas is 1D, and the difference from purely 1D gases will only be related to the value of the interparticle interaction which now depends on the radial confinement. The presence of the axial confinement allows one to speak of a trapped 1D gas.

Ketterle and van Druten  considered a trapped 1D ideal gas and have revealed an essential role of the discrete structure of the trap levels. They have established that at temperatures $`T<N\mathrm{}\omega /\mathrm{ln}2N`$, where $`N`$ is the number of particles and $`\omega `$ the trap frequency, the population of the ground state rapidly grows with decreasing $`T`$ and becomes macroscopic. Thus, one has a clear BEC-like behavior of the ideal trapped 1D cloud.

A fundamental question concerns the influence of interparticle interaction on the presence and nature of a Bose-condensed state and on the character of a cross-over to the BEC regime. In this Letter we discuss the regimes of quantum degeneracy in a trapped 1D gas with repulsive interparticle interaction. We find that the presence of a sharp cross-over to the BEC regime, predicted in , requires extremely small interaction between particles. Otherwise, the decrease of temperature leads to a continuous transformation of a classical gas to quantum degenerate. We identify 3 regimes at $`TT_d`$, where $`T_dN\mathrm{}\omega `$ is the degeneracy temperature. For a sufficiently large interparticle interaction and the number of particles much smaller than a characteristic value $`N_{}`$, at any $`TT_d`$ one has a trapped gas of Tonks, with the density profile characteristic for an ideal Fermi gas. For $`NN_{}`$ we have a weakly interacting gas. The presence of the trapping potential introduces a finite size of the sample and drastically changes the picture of long-wave fluctuations of the phase compared to the earlier discussed uniform case. We calculate the density and phase fluctuations and find that well below $`T_d`$ there is a quasicondensate, i.e. the Bose-condensed state where the density fluctuations are suppressed but the phase still fluctuates. At very low $`T`$ the long-wave fluctuations of the phase are suppressed due to a finite size of the system, and we have a true condensate. The true condensate and the quasicondensate have the same Thomas-Fermi density profile and local correlation properties, and we analyze how to distinguish between these Bose-condensed states in phase coherence experiments.

We first discuss the coupling constant $`g`$ for possible realizations of 1D gases. These realizations imply particles in a cylindrical trap, which are tightly confined in the radial ($`\rho `$) direction, with the confinement frequency $`\omega _0`$ greatly exceeding the mean-field interaction. Then, at sufficiently low $`T`$ the radial motion of particles is essentially “frozen” and is governed by the ground-state wavefunction of the radial harmonic oscillator. If the radial extension of the wavefunction, $`l_0=(\mathrm{}/m\omega _0)^{1/2}R_e`$, where $`R_e`$ is the characteristic radius of the interatomic potential, the interaction between particles acquires a 3D character and will be characterized by the 3D scattering length $`a`$. In this case, assuming $`l_0|a|`$, we have

$$g=2\mathrm{}^2a/ml_0^2.$$
(1)
This result follows from the analysis in  and can also be obtained by averaging the 3D interaction over the radial density profile. Thus, statistical properties of the sample are the same as those of a purely 1D system with the coupling constant given by Eq.(1).

In the regime of a weakly interacting gas, where $`nl_c1`$, we have a small parameter

$$\gamma =1/(nl_c)^2=mg/\mathrm{}^2n1.$$
(2)
For particles trapped in a harmonic (axial) potential $`V(z)=m\omega ^2z^2/2`$, one can introduce a complementary dimensionless quantity $`\alpha =mgl/\mathrm{}^2`$ which provides a relation between the interaction strength $`g`$ and the trap frequency $`\omega `$ ($`l=\sqrt{\mathrm{}/m\omega }`$ is the amplitude of axial zero point oscillations).

At $`T=0`$ one has a true condensate: In the Thomas-Fermi (TF) regime the mean square fluctuations of the phase do not exceed $`\gamma ^{1/2}`$ and, hence, these fluctuations are small under the condition (2) (see ). The condensate wavefunction is determined by the Gross-Pitaevskii equation (GPE) which gives the well-known TF parabolic density profile $`n_0(z)=n_{0\mathrm{m}}(1z^2/R_{TF}^2)`$. The maximum density $`n_{0\mathrm{m}}=n(0)=\mu /g`$, the TF size of the condensate $`R_{TF}=(2\mu /m\omega ^2)^{1/2}`$, and the chemical potential $`\mu =\mathrm{}\omega (3N\alpha /4\sqrt{2})^{2/3}`$. For $`\alpha 1`$ we are always in the TF regime ($`\mu \mathrm{}\omega `$). In this case, Eq.(2) requires a sufficiently large number of particles:

$$NN_{}=\alpha ^2.$$
(3)
Note that under this condition the ratio $`\mu /T_d(\alpha ^2/N)^{1/3}1`$. For $`\alpha 1`$ the criterion (2) of a weakly interacting gas is satisfied at any $`N`$, and the condensate is in the TF regime if $`N\alpha ^1`$. In the opposite limit the mean-field interaction is much smaller than the level spacing in the trap $`\mathrm{}\omega `$. Hence, one has a macroscopic occupation of the ground state of the trap, i.e. there is an ideal gas condensate with a Gaussian density profile.

At this point, we briefly discuss the cross-over to the BEC regime, predicted by Ketterle and van Druten . They considered a trapped 1D ideal gas and found that the decrease of temperature to below $`T_c=N\mathrm{}\omega /\mathrm{ln}2N`$ leads to a strong increase of the population of the ground state, which rapidly becomes macroscopic. This sharp cross-over originates from the discrete structure of the trap levels and is not observed in quasiclassical calculations . We argue that the presence of the interparticle interaction changes the picture drastically. One can only distinguish between the (lowest) trap levels if the interaction between particles occupying a particular level is much smaller than the level spacing. Otherwise the interparticle interaction smears out the discrete structure of the levels. For $`T`$ close to $`T_c`$ the occupation of the ground state is $`T_c/\mathrm{}\omega N/\mathrm{ln}2N`$  and, hence, the mean-field interaction between the particles in this state (per particle) will be $`Ng/l\mathrm{ln}2N`$. The sharp BEC cross-over requires this quantity to be much smaller than $`\mathrm{}\omega `$, and we arrive at the condition $`N/\mathrm{ln}2N\alpha ^1`$. For a realistic number of trapped particles ($`N10^310^4`$) this is practically equivalent to the condition at which one has the ideal gas Gaussian condensate (see above).

As we see, the sharp BEC cross-over requires small $`\alpha `$. For possible realizations of 1D gases, using the coupling constant $`g`$ (1), we obtain $`\alpha =2al/l_0^2`$. Then, even for the ratio $`l/l_010`$ and moderate radial confinement with $`l_01\mu `$m, we have $`\alpha 0.1`$ for Rb atoms ($`a50`$ Å). Clearly, for a reasonably large number of particles the cross-over condition $`N\alpha ^1`$ can only be fulfilled at extremely small interparticle interaction. One can think of reducing $`a`$ to below $`1`$Å and achieving $`\alpha <10^3`$ by using Feshbach resonances as in the MIT and JILA experiments . In this case, already for $`N10^3`$ one can expect the sharp BEC cross-over and the existence of the Gaussian condensate at $`T<T_c`$.

We now turn to the case of large $`\alpha `$. For $`\gamma 1`$ one has a gas of Tonks . The one-to-one mapping of this system to a gas of free fermions  ensures the fermionic spectrum and density profile of a trapped gas of Tonks. For (axial) harmonic trapping the condition $`\gamma 1`$ requires $`NN_{}`$. The chemical potential is equal to $`N\mathrm{}\omega `$, and the density distribution is $`n(z)=n_m\sqrt{1(z/R)^2}`$, where $`n_m=\sqrt{2N}/\pi l`$, and the size of the cloud $`R=\sqrt{2N}l`$. The density profile $`n(z)`$ is quite different from both the profile of the zero-temperature condensate and the classical distribution of particles, which provides a root for identifying the trapped gas of Tonks in future experiments. The interference effects and dynamical properties of this system are now a subject of theoretical studies . In Rb and Na this regime can be achieved for $`N10^3`$ by the Feshbach increase of $`a`$ to $`500`$ Å and using $`\omega 1`$Hz and optical radial confinement with $`\omega _010`$kHz ($`\alpha 50`$).

Large $`\alpha `$ and $`N`$ satisfying Eq.(3), or small $`\alpha `$ and $`N\alpha ^1`$, seem most feasible in experiments with trapped 1D gases. In this case, at any $`TT_d`$ one has a weakly interacting gas in the TF regime. Similarly to the uniform 1D case, the decrease of temperature to below $`T_d`$ continuously transforms a classical 1D gas to the regime of quantum degeneracy. At $`T=0`$ this weakly interacting gas turns to the true TF condensate (see above). It is then subtle to understand how the correlation properties change with temperature at $`TT_d`$. For this purpose, we analyze the behavior of the one-particle density matrix by calculating the fluctuations of the density and phase. We a priori assume small density fluctuations and prove this statement relying on the zero-temperature equations for the mean density $`n_0(z)`$ and excitations. The operator of the density fluctuations is (see, e.g. )

$$\widehat{n}^{}(z)=n_0^{1/2}(z)\underset{j=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}if_j^{}(z)\widehat{a}_j+h.c.,$$
(4)
where $`\widehat{a}_j`$ is the annihilation operator of the excitation with quantum number $`j`$ and energy $`ϵ_j`$, $`f_j^\pm =u_j\pm v_j`$, and the $`u,v`$ functions of the excitations are determined by the same Bogolyubov-de Gennes equations as in the presence of the TF condensate.

The solution of these equations gives the spectrum $`ϵ_j=\mathrm{}\omega \sqrt{j(j+1)/2}`$  and the wavefunctions

$$f_j^\pm (x)=\left(\frac{j+1/2}{R_{TF}}\right)^{1/2}\left[\frac{2\mu }{ϵ_j}(1x^2)\right]^{\pm 1/2}P_j(x),$$
(5)
where $`j`$ is a positive integer, $`P_j`$ are Legendre polynomials, and $`x=z/R_{TF}`$. For the mean square fluctuations of the density, $`(\delta \widehat{n}(z,z^{}))^2=(\widehat{n}^{}(z)\widehat{n}^{}(z^{}))^2`$, we have

$`{\displaystyle \frac{(\delta \widehat{n}(z,z^{}))^2}{n_{0m}^2}}={\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_j(j+1/2)}{2\mu n_{0m}R_{TF}}}(P_j(x)P_j(x^{}))^2(1+2N_j),`$ (6)
with $`N_j=[\mathrm{exp}(ϵ_j/T)1]^1`$ being the occupation numbers for the excitations. At $`T\mathrm{}\omega `$ the main contribution to the density fluctuations comes from quasiclassical excitations ($`j1`$). The vacuum fluctuations are small: $`(\delta \widehat{n}(z,z^{}))^2_0n_{0m}^2\gamma ^{1/2}`$. For the thermal fluctuations on a distance scale $`|zz^{}|l_c`$, we obtain

$$\frac{(\delta n(z,z^{}))^2_T}{n_{0m}^2}\frac{T}{T_d}\mathrm{min}\{\frac{T}{\mu },1\}.$$
(7)
We see that the density fluctuations are strongly suppressed at temperatures $`TT_d`$. Then, one can write the total field operator as $`\widehat{\psi }(z)=\sqrt{n_0(z)}\mathrm{exp}(i\widehat{\varphi }(z))`$, where $`\widehat{\varphi }(z)`$ is the operator of the phase fluctuations, and the one-particle density matrix takes the form (see, e.g. )

$$\widehat{\psi }^{}(z)\widehat{\psi }(z^{})=\sqrt{n_0(z)n_0(z^{})}\mathrm{exp}\{[\delta \widehat{\varphi }(z,z^{})]^2/2\},$$
(8)
with $`\delta \widehat{\varphi }(z,z^{})=\widehat{\varphi }(z)\widehat{\varphi }(z^{})`$. The operator of the phase fluctuations is given by (see )

$$\widehat{\varphi }(z)=[4n_0(z)]^{1/2}\underset{j=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}f_j^+(z)\widehat{a}_j+h.c.,$$
(9)
and for the mean square fluctuations we have

$`[\delta \widehat{\varphi }(z,z^{})]^2={\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu (j+1/2)}{2ϵ_jn_{0m}R_{TF}}}(P_j(x)P_j(x^{}))^2(1+2N_j).`$ (10)
For the vacuum fluctuations we find (c.f. )

$$[\delta \widehat{\varphi }(z,z^{})]^2_0(\gamma ^{1/2}/\pi )\mathrm{ln}(|zz^{}|/l_c),$$

and they are small for any realistic size of the gas cloud. The thermal fluctuations of the phase are mostly provided by the contribution of the lowest excitations. A direct calculation, with $`N_j=T/ϵ_j`$, yields

$$[\delta \widehat{\varphi }(z,z^{})]^2_T=\frac{4T\mu }{3T_d\mathrm{}\omega }\left|\mathrm{log}\left[\frac{(1x^{})}{(1+x^{})}\frac{(1+x)}{(1x)}\right]\right|.$$
(11)
In the inner part of the gas sample the logarithm in Eq.(11) is of order unity.

Thus, we can introduce a characteristic temperature

$$T_{ph}=T_d\mathrm{}\omega /\mu $$
(12)
at which the quantity $`[\delta \widehat{\varphi }(z,z^{})]^21`$ on a distance scale $`|zz^{}|R_{TF}`$. The characteristic radius of phase fluctuations is $`R_\varphi R_{TF}(T_{ph}/T)N^{2/3}/T`$, and for $`T<T_{ph}`$ it exceeds the sample size $`R_{TF}`$. This means that at $`TT_{ph}`$ both the density and phase fluctuations are suppressed, and there is a true condensate. The condition (3) always provides the ratio $`T_{ph}/\mathrm{}\omega (4N/\alpha ^2)^{1/3}1`$.

In the temperature range, where $`T_dTT_{ph}`$, the density fluctuations are suppressed, but the phase fluctuates on a distance scale $`R_\varphi R_{TF}`$. Thus, similarly to the quasi2D case , we have a condensate with fluctuating phase (quasicondensate). The radius of the phase fluctuations greatly exceeds the correlation length: $`R_\varphi l_c(T_d/T)l_c`$. Hence, the quasicondensate has the same density profile as the true condensate. Correlation properties at distances smaller than $`R_\varphi `$ are also the same. However, the phase fluctuations lead to a drastic difference in the phase coherence properties.

In Fig.1. we present the state diagram of the trapped 1D gas for $`\alpha =10`$ ($`N_{}=100`$). For $`NN_{}`$, the decrease of temperature to below $`T_d`$ leads to the appearance of a quasicondensate which at $`T<T_{ph}`$ turns to the true condensate. In the $`TN`$ plane the approximate border line between the two BEC regimes is determined by the equation $`(T/\mathrm{}\omega )=(32N/9N_{})^{1/3}`$. For $`N<N_{}`$ the system can be regarded as a trapped gas of Tonks.

Phase coherence properties of trapped 1D gases can be studied in ‘juggling’ experiments similar to those with 3D condensates at NIST and Munich . Small clouds of atoms are ejected from the main cloud by stimulated Raman or RF transitions. Observing the interference between two clouds, simultaneously ejected from different parts of the sample, allows the reconstruction of the spatial phase correlation properties. Similarly, temporal correlations of the phase can be studied by overlapping clouds ejected at different times from the same part of the sample. In this way juggling experiments provide a direct measurement of the one-particle density matrix. Repeatedly juggling clouds of a small volume $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ from points $`z`$ and $`z^{}`$ of the sample, for equal time of flight to the detector we have the averaged detection signal $`I=\mathrm{\Omega }[n_0(z)+n_0(z^{})+2\widehat{\psi }^{}(z)\psi (z^{})]`$.

At $`TT_{ph}`$ the phase fluctuations are small and one has a true condensate. In this case, for $`z^{}=z`$ we have $`\widehat{\psi }^{}(z)\widehat{\psi }(z^{})=n_0(z)`$ and $`I=4\mathrm{\Omega }n_0(z)`$, and there is a pronounced interference effect: The detected signal is twice as large as the number of atoms in the ejected clouds. The phase fluctuations grow with $`T`$ and for $`T>T_{ph}`$, where the true condensate turns to a quasicondensate, the detection signal decreases as described by $`\widehat{\psi }^{}(z)\widehat{\psi }(z^{})`$ from Eqs. (8) and (11). For $`TT_{ph}`$ the phase fluctuations completely destroy the interference between the two ejected clouds, and $`I=2\mathrm{\Omega }n_0(z)`$.

In conclusion, we have identified 3 regimes of quantum degeneracy in a trapped 1D gas: the BEC regimes of a quasicondensate and true condensate, and the regime of a trapped gas of Tonks. The creation of 1D gases will open handles on interesting phase coherence studies and the studies of “fermionization” in Bose systems.

This work was financially supported by the Stichting voor Fundamenteel Onderzoek der Materie (FOM), by INTAS, and by the Russian Foundation for Basic Studies.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Recently there has been an increasing interest in noncommutative geometries , where coordinates satisfy

$$[x^\mu ,x^\nu ]=i\theta ^{\mu \nu }.$$
(1.1)
It has been shown that theories on such spaces naturally arise in string theory as the worldvolume theory of $`Dp`$-branes in a $`B_{\mu \nu }`$-field background . When $`\theta ^{0\mu }=0`$, then the low-energy effective theory on such branes is a noncommutative Super Yang-Mills (NCSYM) theory with 16 supercharges . In particular, starting with $`N`$ coincident D3-branes along $`0123`$ directions with a non-zero $`B_{23}`$ field, one obtains a $`𝒩=4,D=4`$ noncommutative $`U(N)`$ theory. The large $`N`$ limit of the NCSYM theories have been studied through the generalization of gravity/gauge theory correspondence to the cases with $`B`$-fields .

The case $`\theta ^{0\mu }0`$ was recently studied in , and it is relevant to the strong coupling limit of NCSYM theories. This point was investigated in , using the strong-weak coupling duality symmetry of type IIB string theory, which transforms the $`B_{23}`$ (magnetic) background field into a $`B_{01}`$ (electric) background. As a result, the strongly coupled theory can be described in terms of a weakly coupled open string theory where the coordinate $`x^1`$ and the time coordinate $`x^0`$ are noncommutative. The emergence of an open string theory –rather than a field theory– is not unexpected, since there are arguments indicating that a field theory in a noncommutative spacetime ($`\theta _{0i}0`$) cannot be unitary . The resulting open string theory, which can be directly obtained by starting with a system of D3 branes in the presence of a near critical $`B_{01}`$ field, has indeed a string scale $`\alpha ^{}`$ which is of the same order of the noncommutative scale $`\theta `$, so string effects cannot be disentangled from noncommutative effects. For a near critical electric field, one can show that closed string states all become very massive and decouple from the theory. One ends up with a consistent theory of open strings which does not require closed strings, noncommutative open string theory (NCOS) (for other recent works on spacetime noncommutativity see ).

A similar construction can be made for other Dp-branes, and also by starting with the M5 brane in a near critical three-form field strength. It is believed that the later leads to a theory of open membranes (OM theory) , which is decoupled from eleven dimensional gravity. One obtains in this way a web of open string/membrane theories connected by dualities, much like the web of dualities connecting string and M-theory compactifications . These theories can thus be used to explore string phenomena without the complications of gravity.

The aim of this work is to explore another piece of this web by considering a D3 brane system in the presence of both $`B_{01}`$ and $`B_{23}`$ field components, which is equivalent to a configuration of parallel electric and magnetic vector fields on the brane (a discussion on electric and magnetic fields suggesting a new type of dualities involving Lorentz boosts can be found in ). We shall show that there is a limit (corresponding to a critical value of the $`B_{01}`$ component) in which closed string modes are decoupled, leading to a family of noncommutative open string theories in $`x^0`$-$`x^1`$ and $`x^2`$-$`x^3`$ directions. When the noncommutative length scale in the $`x^2`$-$`x^3`$ direction is greater than the string scale $`\alpha ^{}`$, for energies much lower than $`\alpha ^{}`$, one obtains a NCSYM theory in $`x^2`$-$`x^3`$ directions, generically with a non-zero $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ term (i.e. of the form $`\mathrm{\Theta }\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }`$). We study these theories under the $`SL(2,Z)`$ symmetry of type IIB superstring theory. For irrational $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$, a generic $`SL(2,Z)`$ transformation maps our NCOS theory to another NCOS theory with different parameters (in particular, different noncommutative scales). For rational $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$, there is a (one parameter) family of $`SL(2,Z)`$ rotations which map the NCOS theory to a NCSYM theory.

The paper is organized as follows. In section 2, we consider a D3-brane in presence of both electric and magnetic backgrounds, and determine the spectrum of open and closed strings. We show that there is a critical electric field limit for which the closed string modes decouple. Using the type IIB supergravity solution corresponding to the D3-brane configuration with $`B_{01}`$ and $`B_{23}`$, in section 3 we study the transformation properties of these general NCOS theories induced by the $`SL(2,Z)`$ symmetry of the type IIB theory. Section 4 contains another derivation of these NCOS theories by compactifying OM theory along two arbitrary directions of a 2-plane. In section 5, we use the supergravity solutions which are the holographic dual of the NCOS theories to obtain a quark-antiquark potential in the NCOS theory at large $`N`$.

## 2 Open strings in the presence of $`B_{01}`$ and $`B_{23}`$

Let us consider a D3 brane in the presence of a constant $`B`$-field with components $`B_{01}`$ and $`B_{23}`$. Such constant $`B`$-field is equivalent to constant electric and magnetic vector fields on the brane pointing in the direction $`x^1`$. Open strings in constant gauge fields were originally discussed in . Let $`x^\mu `$, with $`\mu ,\nu =0,1,2,3`$, label the directions that are parallel to the brane, and $`x^a`$, $`a,b=4,\mathrm{},9`$, the transverse directions. It is convenient to choose coordinates so that the closed string metric has the form $`g_{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{diag}(\zeta ,\zeta ,\eta ,\eta )`$, $`g_{ab}=\delta _{ab}`$, where $`\zeta `$ and $`\eta `$ are constant parameters which will be fixed later. The boundary conditions for the open string coordinates are given by

$`_\sigma X^0+E_\tau X^1|_{\sigma =0,\pi }=0,_\sigma X^1+E_\tau X^0|_{\sigma =0,\pi }=0,`$ (2.1)
$`_\sigma X^2+B_\tau X^3|_{\sigma =0,\pi }=0,_\sigma X^3B_\tau X^2|_{\sigma =0,\pi }=0,`$ (2.2)
$$EB_{1}^0=\zeta ^1B_{01},BB_{3}^2=\eta ^1B_{23}.$$

The transverse open string coordinates are free string coordinates obeying Dirichlet boundary conditions:

$$X^a|_{\sigma =0,\pi }=x^a,a=4,\mathrm{},9,$$

where $`x^a`$ denote the position in transverse space of $`N`$ D3 branes. The solutions to the above boundary conditions are

$$X^0=x^0+2\alpha ^{}(p^0\tau Ep^1\sigma )+\sqrt{2\alpha ^{}}\underset{n0}{}\frac{1}{n}e^{in\tau }\left[ia_n^0\mathrm{cos}(n\sigma )Ea_n^1\mathrm{sin}(n\sigma )\right],$$

$$X^1=x^1+2\alpha ^{}(p^1\tau Ep^0\sigma )+\sqrt{2\alpha ^{}}\underset{n0}{}\frac{1}{n}e^{in\tau }\left[ia_n^1\mathrm{cos}(n\sigma )Ea_n^0\mathrm{sin}(n\sigma )\right],$$

$$X^2=x^2+2\alpha ^{}(p^2\tau Bp^3\sigma )+\sqrt{2\alpha ^{}}\underset{n0}{}\frac{1}{n}e^{in\tau }\left[ia_n^2\mathrm{cos}(n\sigma )Ba_n^3\mathrm{sin}(n\sigma )\right],$$
(2.3)
$$X^3=x^3+2\alpha ^{}(p^3\tau +Bp^2\sigma )+\sqrt{2\alpha ^{}}\underset{n0}{}\frac{1}{n}e^{in\tau }\left[ia_n^3\mathrm{cos}(n\sigma )+Ba_n^2\mathrm{sin}(n\sigma )\right],$$

$$X^a=x^a+\sqrt{2\alpha ^{}}\underset{n0}{}\frac{\alpha _n^a}{n}e^{in\tau }\mathrm{sin}(n\sigma ).$$

It is convenient to introduce the “open string parameters” $`G_{\mu \nu },\theta _{\mu \nu },G_s`$  as follows:

$$G_{\mu \nu }=g_{\mu \nu }(Bg^1B)_{\mu \nu }=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\zeta (1E^2)& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& \zeta (1E^2)& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& \eta (1+B^2)& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& \eta (1+B^2)\end{array}\right),$$
(2.4)
$$\theta ^{\mu \nu }=2\pi \alpha ^{}\left(\frac{1}{g+B}\right)_A^{\mu \nu }=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& \theta & 0& 0\\ \theta & 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& \stackrel{~}{\theta }\\ 0& 0& \stackrel{~}{\theta }& 0\end{array}\right),$$
(2.5)
$$G_s=g_s\left(\frac{detG_{\mu \nu }}{det(g_{\mu \nu }+B_{\mu \nu })}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}=g_s\sqrt{(1E^2)(1+B^2)},$$
(2.6)
where

$$\theta =2\pi \alpha ^{}\frac{E}{\zeta (1E^2)},\stackrel{~}{\theta }=2\pi \alpha ^{}\frac{B}{\eta (1+B^2)}.$$
(2.7)
The canonical commutation relations for the string coordinates then imply the following commutation relations for the mode operators:

$$[a_n^\mu ,a_m^\nu ]=n\delta _{n+m}G^{\mu \nu },$$

$$[x^\mu ,x^\nu ]=i\theta ^{\mu \nu },[x^\mu ,p^\nu ]=iG^{\mu \nu }.$$

One can also check that the ends of the string do not commute, i.e.

$$[X^\mu (\tau ,0),X^\nu (\tau ,0)]=i\theta ^{\mu \nu },[X^\mu (\tau ,\pi ),X^\nu (\tau ,\pi )]=i\theta ^{\mu \nu }.$$

Using (2.3), one can obtain the Hamiltonian operator:

$$L_0=\frac{1}{4}\alpha ^{}G^{\mu \nu }p_\mu p_\nu +2\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}G_{\mu \nu }a_n^\mu a_n^\nu +2\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\alpha _n^a\alpha _n^a1.$$

Now we set

$$\zeta =(1E^2)^1,\eta =(1+B^2)^1,$$
(2.8)
so as to have

$$G_{\mu \nu }=\eta _{\mu \nu },\theta =2\pi \alpha ^{}E,\stackrel{~}{\theta }=2\pi \alpha ^{}B.$$
(2.9)
The open string mass spectrum then becomes manifestly the same as the free string mass spectrum:

$$\alpha ^{}M^2=\alpha ^{}(p_0^2p_1^2p_2^2p_3^2)=N1.$$

The addition of fermions is as in the usual free open superstring theory (with the appropriate change in the normal ordering constant). The closed string mass spectrum is then given by

$$\alpha ^{}(1E^2)(p_0^2p_1^2)\alpha ^{}(1+B^2)(p_2^2+p_3^2)=2N+2\overline{N}4.$$

We see that as $`E1`$ the energy of the closed string states goes to infinity, while the energy of open string excitations remains finite. In the limit $`E1`$ with fixed $`B`$, $`\alpha ^{}`$ and $`G_s`$, the closed string states are thus decoupled from the theory. This is just as in the zero magnetic field case discussed in . Note that this limit requires $`g_s\mathrm{}`$ (see eq. (2.6) ).

The resulting open string theory obtained in this limit contains the parameters $`G_s`$,

$$\theta =2\pi \alpha ^{},\stackrel{~}{\theta }=2\pi \alpha ^{}B=\theta B.$$
(2.10)
In the next section it will be shown that one can also introduce another parameter $`\chi `$ associated with the RR scalar of type IIB theory. So, altogether our NCOS theory is defined by four parameters, $`\alpha ^{},\stackrel{~}{\theta },G_s`$ and $`\chi `$. The parameter $`\alpha ^{}=\theta /2\pi `$ is the string scale and also characterizes the noncommutative scale in the $`x^0`$-$`x^1`$ directions, $`\stackrel{~}{\theta }`$ represents the noncommutative scale in the $`x^2`$-$`x^3`$ directions, $`G_s`$ is the open string coupling, while $`\chi `$ is not relevant in the perturbative expansion.

General scattering amplitudes on the disc for this “noncommutative” open string theory will have the form

$$V(p^1)\mathrm{}V(p^N)_{\theta ,\stackrel{~}{\theta }}=\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{i}{2}\underset{n>m}{}p^np^mϵ(\tau _n\tau _m)\right]V(p^1)\mathrm{}V(p^N)_{\mathrm{free}\mathrm{string}},$$
(2.11)
where

$$p^np^m=(p_0^np_1^mp_1^np_0^m)\theta +(p_2^np_3^mp_3^np_2^m)\stackrel{~}{\theta }.$$

In the case $`B=0`$, one recovers the open string theory of , obtained from open strings in a purely electric background.

A special limit of this NCOS theory is given by $`B\mathrm{},\alpha ^{}0`$, with

$$G_s=\mathrm{fixed},\alpha ^{}B=\mathrm{fixed}.$$
(2.12)
Because $`\alpha ^{}0`$, massive open string excitations also decouple in this limit, and one is left with the Super Yang-Mills field theory in noncommutative $`x^2`$-$`x^3`$ space. Thus the present family of NCOS theories interpolates between the purely electric NCOS theory of  and the NCSYM.

In general, the theory contains two energy scales, given by $`\theta `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\theta }`$, or $`\alpha ^{}`$ and $`B\alpha ^{}`$. At distances $`L`$ much larger than $`\sqrt{\theta }`$, $`\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{\theta }}`$, the theory reduces to ordinary SYM theory. For $`B1`$, there is a regime $`\theta L^2<\stackrel{~}{\theta }`$ in which the theory is SYM field theory on the noncommutative space $`x^2`$-$`x^3`$; string effects can be ignored, but noncommutativity effects in $`x^2`$-$`x^3`$ directions are important. If $`B`$ is of order 1 or lower, then string effects appear at the same time as noncommutative effects.

## 3 SL(2,Z) transformations on NCOS theory

In this section we study the behavior of the open string theories of the previous section under type IIB $`SL(2,Z)`$ symmetry. We start with the corresponding type IIB supergravity solution. The Lorentzian supergravity solution representing a D3 brane in the presence of $`B_{01}`$ and $`B_{23}`$ fields is given in  (see also ). In the string frame, it is

$$ds_{str}^2=f^{1/2}\left[h^{}(dx_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+dx_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})+h(dx_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+dx_{3}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})\right]+f^{1/2}\left[dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_5^2\right],$$
(3.1)
$$f=1+\frac{\alpha _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}R^4}{r^4},h^1=\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha f^1+\mathrm{cos}^2\alpha ,h_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}=\mathrm{sinh}^2\beta f^1+\mathrm{cosh}^2\beta ,$$

$$B_{01}=\mathrm{tanh}\beta f^1h^{},B_{23}=\mathrm{tan}\alpha f^1h,$$

$$e^{2\varphi }=g_{s}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}hh^{},\chi =\frac{1}{g_s}\mathrm{sinh}\beta \mathrm{sin}\alpha f^1+\chi _0,$$

$$A_{01}=(\frac{1}{g_s}\mathrm{sin}\alpha \mathrm{cosh}\beta +\chi _0\mathrm{tanh}\beta )h^{}f^1,A_{23}=(\frac{1}{g_s}\mathrm{sinh}\beta \mathrm{cos}\alpha \chi _0\mathrm{tan}\alpha )hf^1,$$

$$F_{0123u}=\frac{1}{g_s}\mathrm{cos}\alpha \mathrm{cosh}\beta hh^{}_rf^1.$$

We have generalized the solution of  by adding an extra parameter $`\chi _0`$ obtained by the $`SL(2,R)`$ transformation $`\chi \chi +\chi _0`$.

In the $`r\mathrm{}`$ region, the metric asymptotically approaches the Minkowski metric, and the asymptotic values for the different fields are as follows

$$(B^{\mathrm{}})_{1}^0=\mathrm{tanh}\beta E,(B^{\mathrm{}})_{3}^2=\mathrm{tan}\alpha B,$$

$$(A^{\mathrm{}})_{1}^0=\frac{1}{g_s}\frac{B}{\sqrt{1+B^2}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{1E^2}}\chi _0E,(A^{\mathrm{}})_{3}^2=\frac{1}{g_s}\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+B^2}}\frac{E}{\sqrt{1E^2}}\chi _0B,$$
(3.2)
$$e^{2\varphi _{\mathrm{}}}=g_s^2,\chi _{\mathrm{}}=\frac{1}{g_s}\frac{B}{\sqrt{1+B^2}}\frac{E}{\sqrt{1E^2}}+\chi _0.$$

We see that in the $`E1`$ limit, with $`G_s,\theta ,\stackrel{~}{\theta }`$ and $`\chi _0`$ fixed (see eqs. (2.6), (2.10) ), $`A_{01}^{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`A_{23}^{\mathrm{}}`$ also remain finite.

The effective open string dynamics is governed by the Born-Infeld action

$$S=\frac{1}{g_s(2\pi )^3(\alpha ^{})^2}d^4x\sqrt{det(g+B+2\pi \alpha ^{}F)}$$

$$+\pi i\left(\chi (\frac{B}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}+F)(\frac{B}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}+F)+2(B+2\pi \alpha ^{}F)A_2\right)+C_4.$$
(3.3)
The term involving $`\chi `$ gives rise to a $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ term in the low energy field theory, $`\mathrm{\Theta }=\chi _{\mathrm{}}.`$ The Born-Infeld action (3.3) is invariant under $`SL(2,Z)`$ transformations  (in the low-energy limit this reduces to the Montonen-Olive duality of the $`𝒩=4`$ SYM theory). The transformation of the fields can be inferred from the transformation properties under $`SL(2,Z)`$ of the type IIB supergravity fields .

Under the $`SL(2,Z)`$ symmetry of the type IIB superstring the coupling

$$\lambda =\mathrm{\Theta }+\frac{i}{g_s},\mathrm{\Theta }\chi _{\mathrm{}},$$

transforms as

$$\lambda \lambda ^{}=\frac{a\lambda +b}{c\lambda +d},adbc=1,$$
(3.4)
where $`a,b,c,d`$ form an $`SL(2,Z)`$ matrix, whereas $`B_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`A_{\mu \nu }`$ (NSNS and RR) fields form a doublet:

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}B_{\mu \nu }\\ A_{\mu \nu }\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}B_{\mu \nu }^{}\\ A_{\mu \nu }^{}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}d& c\\ b& a\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}B_{\mu \nu }\\ A_{\mu \nu }\end{array}\right).$$
(3.5)
Therefore

$$g_sg_s^{}=g_s|c\lambda +d|^2.$$
(3.6)
The Einstein metric $`g_{\mu \nu }^E=e^{\varphi /2}g_{\mu \nu }^{\mathrm{str}}`$ remains invariant, so the new string metric at $`r=\mathrm{}`$ is $`|c\lambda +d|\eta _{\mu \nu }`$. Using eqs. (3.2), (3.5), one finds that the transformed electric and magnetic fields are

$$\begin{array}{cc}EE^{}=\frac{1}{|c\lambda +d|}\left[(d+c\mathrm{\Theta })E+c\frac{B}{G_s}(1E^2)\right],& \\ BB^{}=\frac{1}{|c\lambda +d|}\left[(d+c\mathrm{\Theta })Bc\frac{E}{G_s}(1+B^2)\right].& \end{array}$$
(3.7)
Let us now consider the $`E1`$ limit for the $`SL(2)`$ rotated parameters. In this limit the transformation (3.7) simplifies, since $`g_s\mathrm{},\lambda \mathrm{\Theta }`$. One can distinguish two different cases:

a) Irrational $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$:

In this case there are no integers $`c`$ and $`d`$ such that $`c\chi +d=0`$. In the $`E1`$ and $`g_s\mathrm{}`$ limit, $`|c\lambda +d|`$ reduces to $`|c\mathrm{\Theta }+d|`$ and $`E^{}`$ and $`B^{}`$ are:

$$\begin{array}{cc}E^{}=\frac{1}{|c\mathrm{\Theta }+d|}(d+c\mathrm{\Theta })E=\pm 1,& \\ B^{}=\pm B\frac{c(1+B^2)}{G_s|c\mathrm{\Theta }+d|}=\mathrm{finite}.& \end{array}$$
(3.8)
In the $`E1`$ limit, the electric and magnetic fields are obtained by the simple transformation rules

$$\frac{1E^2}{|c\lambda +d|^2}\frac{1E_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{|c\mathrm{\Lambda }+d|^2},\frac{1+B^2}{|c\lambda +d|^2}\frac{1+B_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{|c\mathrm{\Lambda }+d|^2},$$

where

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=\chi _0+\frac{i}{G_s},\chi _0=\mathrm{\Theta }\frac{B}{G_s}.$$
(3.9)
The fact that $`E_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}1`$, with $`B^{}`$ finite (and also $`g_s^{}\sqrt{1E_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}`$ remains finite) shows that an $`SL(2,Z)`$ transformation leads to another NCOS with transformed parameters

$$(\theta ,\stackrel{~}{\theta },G_s,\mathrm{\Theta })(\theta ^{},\stackrel{~}{\theta }^{},G_s^{},\mathrm{\Theta }^{}),$$

where

$$\mathrm{\Theta }^{}=\frac{a\mathrm{\Theta }+b}{c\mathrm{\Theta }+d},G_s^{}=G_s|c\mathrm{\Lambda }+d|^2.$$
(3.10)
To find $`\theta _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu \nu }`$ and $`G_{\mu \nu }^{}`$ we use eqs.(2.4),(2.5). One can choose coordinates (by scaling by suitable factors $`\zeta `$ and $`\eta `$ given by (2.8) as in the previous section) so that the open string metric before the $`SL(2)`$ transformation is $`G_{\mu \nu }=\eta _{\mu \nu }`$. We find

$$G_{\mu \nu }^{}=\frac{|c\mathrm{\Lambda }+d|^2}{|c\lambda +d|}\eta _{\mu \nu },$$
(3.11)
$$\theta ^{}=2\pi \alpha ^{}\frac{E^{}(1E^2)}{|c\lambda +d|(1E_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})}=2\pi \alpha ^{}\frac{|c\lambda +d|}{|c\mathrm{\Lambda }+d|^2},$$
(3.12)
$$\stackrel{~}{\theta }^{}=2\pi \alpha ^{}\frac{B^{}(1+B^2)}{|c\lambda +d|(1+B_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})}=2\pi \alpha ^{}B^{}\frac{|c\lambda +d|}{|c\mathrm{\Lambda }+d|^2}.$$
(3.13)
Rescaling the coordinates so that the new open string metric $`G_{\mu \nu }^{}`$ is equal to $`\eta _{\mu \nu }`$, we conclude that the new NCOS theory has parameters,

$$\theta ^{}=2\pi \alpha ^{},\stackrel{~}{\theta }^{}=2\pi \alpha ^{}B^{}.$$
(3.14)
b) Rational $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$:

In this case there exists an $`SL(2,Z)`$ transformation under which $`c\mathrm{\Theta }+d=0`$. The string coupling transforms as follows:

$$g_sg_s^{}=g_s|c\lambda +d|^2=\frac{c^2}{g_s},$$
(3.15)
i.e. this transformation relates strong and weak coupling regimes. From (3.7) one can find transformed $`E`$ and $`B`$ in the $`E1`$ limit:

$$\begin{array}{cc}E^{}=\pm \frac{B\sqrt{1E^2}}{\sqrt{1+B^2}}0,& \\ B^{}=\pm \frac{\sqrt{1+B^2}}{\sqrt{1E^2}}\pm \mathrm{}.& \end{array}$$
(3.16)
Therefore

$$\begin{array}{cc}\theta ^{}=2\pi \alpha ^{}\frac{E^{}(1E^2)}{|c\lambda +d|(1E_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})}=0,& \\ \stackrel{~}{\theta }^{}=2\pi \alpha ^{}\frac{B^{}(1+B^2)}{|c\lambda +d|(1+B_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})}=2\pi \alpha ^{}\frac{G_s}{c}=\mathrm{finite},& \end{array}$$
(3.17)
and the open string coupling is

$$G_s^{}=g_s^{}\sqrt{1E_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}\sqrt{1+B_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}=g_s^{}B^{}=\frac{c^2(1+B^2)}{G_s}=\mathrm{finite}.$$
(3.18)
In conclusion, for rational $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ there is an $`SL(2,Z)`$ transformation which maps the NCOS theory to a NCSYM field theory, with $`\mathrm{\Theta }=\frac{a}{c}`$. In particular, we see that whenever $`\mathrm{\Theta }=0`$ the NCOS theory is S-dual to NCSYM theory, even if both $`E`$ and $`B`$ are non-vanishing. The reason is that in this case $`A_{01}`$ given in (3.2) also vanishes, and therefore the S-dual theory will have a vanishing $`B_{01}`$. This generalizes the result of  that the theory with $`E=0,B\mathrm{}`$ is S-dual to the theory with $`E=1,B=0`$. For irrational $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$, under $`SL(2,Z)`$ transformations the NCOS theory is always transformed to a NCOS theory with new parameters given by the above transformation rules.

## 4 Six-dimensional origin

To clarify how these more general NCOS theories fit in the OM theory framework of , and also to exhibit the geometric origin of $`SL(2,Z)`$ symmetry, it is useful to reproduce these theories by starting with OM theory. We shall first review OM-theory and its compactification on an electric circle , and then study new compactifications on arbitrary directions of a 2-plane that lead to the general electric-magnetic NCOS theories obtained in sect. 2.

### 4.1 OM theory on an electric circle

We start with a configuration of M5 branes in the presence of a 3-form field strength. For later convenience, we choose the world-volume metric as follows:

$$g_{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{diag}(\xi ^2,\xi ^2,\rho ^2,\rho ^2,\rho ^2,\xi ^2).$$
(4.1)
The field strength is given by

$$H_{015}=\xi ^3\mathrm{tanh}\beta ,H_{234}=\rho ^3\mathrm{sinh}\beta .$$
(4.2)
The $`H`$ field satisfies the non-linear self-duality constraints . Note that $`H`$ is rescaled by a factor of $`M_P^3`$ with respect to that of ref. , so $`H`$ is dimensionless ($`M_P`$ is the eleven-dimensional gravitational scale). Now we take the limit $`\beta \mathrm{}`$ with

$$M_{\mathrm{eff}}^3\frac{1}{2}M_P^3\left(\xi ^3+H_{015}\right)=\frac{1}{2}M_P^3\xi ^3\left(1\mathrm{tanh}\beta \right)=\mathrm{fixed},$$
(4.3)
$$M_P^3\xi \rho ^2=\mathrm{fixed}.$$
(4.4)
The above quantities represent the effective tension (or energy per unit area) of an M2-brane lying on the 015 and 023 directions, respectively. This is achieved with

$$\xi =\xi _0e^{2\beta /3},\rho =\rho _0e^{\beta /3}.$$
(4.5)
with fixed $`\xi _0,\rho _0`$ and $`M_P`$ (alternatively, one can send $`M_P\mathrm{}`$ and set $`\xi =1`$, as done in ). As a result, $`H_{234}`$ remains finite, and

$$M_{\mathrm{eff}}=M_P\xi _0.$$

Now let us consider the compactification of OM theory on a circle parametrized by the $`x^5`$ direction, $`x^5x^5+2\pi R_5`$. One obtains $`N`$ type IIA D4-branes with a non-zero electric field along $`01`$ directions, with the metric in the string frame given by

$$g_{\mu \nu }^{str}=g_s^{2/3}\mathrm{diag}(\xi ^2,\xi ^2,\rho ^2,\rho ^2,\rho ^2),$$
(4.6)
and

$$g_s=(\xi R_5M_P)^{3/2}=e^\beta (R_5M_{\mathrm{eff}})^{3/2},\alpha ^{}=\frac{1}{M_{\mathrm{eff}}^3R_5},$$
(4.7)
$$B_{01}=M_PR_5H_{015}=M_PR_5\xi ^3\mathrm{tanh}\beta .$$
(4.8)
Thus

$$g_{\mu \nu }^{str}=\xi _0R_5M_P\mathrm{diag}(\xi _0^2e^{2\beta },\xi _0^2e^{2\beta },\rho _0^2,\rho _0^2,\rho _0^2),$$
(4.9)
$$EB_{1}^0=\mathrm{tanh}\beta .$$
(4.10)
By setting

$$\xi _0=(4M_PR_5)^{1/3},\rho _0=2\xi _0,$$

the closed string metric becomes $`g_{\mu \nu }^{str}=\mathrm{diag}(\frac{1}{4}e^{2\beta },\frac{1}{4}e^{2\beta },1,1,1)`$, and the open string metric is

$$G_{\mu \nu }=g_{\mu \nu }^{str}(Bg_{\mathrm{str}}^1B)_{\mu \nu }=\eta _{\mu \nu }.$$

Therefore the open string coupling $`G_s`$ is given by

$$G_s=g_s\left(\frac{detG_{\mu \nu }}{det(g_{\mu \nu }+B_{\mu \nu })}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}=g_s\sqrt{1E^2}=2(M_{\mathrm{eff}}R_5)^{3/2}=\mathrm{finite}.$$
(4.11)
Thus one obtains NCOS theory in $`4+1`$ dimensions. Compactifying along the $`x^4`$ direction one gets the $`3+1`$ dimensional NCOS theory with $`B_{23}=0`$ (which is equivalent to compactifying OM theory on a 2-torus ).

### 4.2 Oblique reduction of OM theory

Let the coordinates $`x_4`$ and $`x_5`$ be periodic with periods

$$x_5x_5+2\pi R_5,x_4x_4+2\pi R_4^0.$$
(4.12)
Non-vanishing electric and magnetic fields can be generated by compactifying the theory in an oblique direction. Our starting point is the M5-brane configuration of section 4.1, but with a rotation in the 2-plane $`x_4`$-$`x_5`$, i.e.

$$H_3=H_{01\stackrel{~}{5}}dx_0dx_1d\stackrel{~}{x}_5+H_{23\stackrel{~}{4}}dx_2dx_3d\stackrel{~}{x}_4,$$
(4.13)
$$\stackrel{~}{x}_4=x_4\mathrm{cos}\alpha +x_5\mathrm{sin}\alpha ,\stackrel{~}{x}_5=x_4\mathrm{sin}\alpha +x_5\mathrm{cos}\alpha .$$

The metric is taken to be

$$g_{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{diag}(\xi ^2,\xi ^2,\rho ^2,\rho ^2,\xi ^2,\xi ^2).$$

The $`H`$ field components are

$$H_{015}=\xi ^3\mathrm{tanh}\beta \mathrm{cos}\alpha ,H_{014}=\xi ^3\mathrm{tanh}\beta \mathrm{sin}\alpha ,$$
(4.14)
$$H_{234}=\rho ^2\xi \mathrm{sinh}\beta \mathrm{cos}\alpha ,H_{235}=\rho ^2\xi \mathrm{sinh}\beta \mathrm{sin}\alpha .$$
(4.15)
The theory should be decoupled from gravity in the limit $`\beta \mathrm{}`$ as above, with

$$\begin{array}{cc}M_{\mathrm{eff}}^3=\frac{1}{2}M_P^3\left(\xi ^3+H_{01\stackrel{~}{5}}\right)=\frac{1}{2}M_P^3\xi ^3\left(1\mathrm{tanh}\beta \right)=\mathrm{fixed},& \\ M_P^3\xi \rho ^2=\mathrm{fixed}& \end{array}$$
(4.16)
(equivalent conditions can be written, e.g. in terms of $`H_{015}`$). In addition, we also scale $`\mathrm{sin}\alpha `$ so that

$$\mathrm{sinh}\beta \mathrm{sin}\alpha =B=\mathrm{fixed}.$$
(4.17)
The above conditions are satisfied by setting

$$\xi =\xi _0e^{2\beta /3},\rho =\rho _0e^{\beta /3},$$
(4.18)
with fixed $`\xi _0,\rho _0,B`$ and $`M_P`$.

Dimensional reduction along $`x_5`$ gives as before $`N`$ D4 branes with a $`B_{01}`$ field, but now there is in addition a non-vanishing $`B_{23}`$ component. Explicitly,

$$\begin{array}{cc}B_{01}=M_PR_5H_{015}=M_PR_5\xi ^3\mathrm{tanh}\beta \mathrm{cos}\alpha ,& \\ B_{23}=M_PR_5H_{235}=M_PR_5\rho ^2\xi \mathrm{sinh}\beta \mathrm{sin}\alpha .& \end{array}$$
(4.19)
The other components $`H_{014},H_{234}`$ lead to non-zero components of the 3-form RR field $`A_3`$. The metric is given by

$$g_{\mu \nu }^{str}=g_s^{2/3}\mathrm{diag}(\xi ^2,\xi ^2,\rho ^2,\rho ^2,\xi ^2),$$
(4.20)
with $`g_s`$ and $`\alpha ^{}`$ given by eq. (4.7). The electric and magnetic field components are given by

$$B_{1}^0=\mathrm{tanh}\beta \mathrm{cos}\alpha ,B_{3}^2=\mathrm{sinh}\beta \mathrm{sin}\alpha .$$
(4.21)
In the limit $`\beta \mathrm{}`$ we get $`B_{1}^0=1`$ and a magnetic field $`B_{3}^2`$ equal to $`B`$. Let us write $`x_4=R_4^0\theta _4`$, where $`\theta _4`$ is $`2\pi `$ periodic. In order to have a finite $`g_{44}`$ component in the $`\beta \mathrm{}`$ limit, we set

$$R_4=\frac{R_4^0}{\sqrt{1(B_{1}^0)^2}}=\mathrm{fixed}.$$

By T-duality in the $`x_4`$ direction, one obtains $`N`$ D3 branes, with non-vanishing NSNS and RR two-form components. After setting

$$\xi _0=[4M_PR_5(1+B^2)]^{1/3},\rho _0=2\xi _0,$$

the closed string metric for the $`3+1`$ dimensional world-volume is

$$g_{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{diag}(\frac{1}{1E^2},\frac{1}{1E^2},\frac{1}{1+B^2},\frac{1}{1+B^2}),$$

and hence the open string metric and coupling become

$$G_{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{diag}(1,1,1,1),$$
(4.22)
$$G_s=g_s^B\sqrt{1(B_{1}^0)^2}\sqrt{1+(B_{3}^2)^2}=2\frac{R_5}{R_4}(1+B^2)=\mathrm{finite}.$$
(4.23)
where we have used

$$g_{44}=\frac{R_4^2}{\alpha ^{}},g_s^B=\frac{g_s}{\sqrt{g_{44}}}.$$

In the $`\beta \mathrm{}`$ limit, the type IIB gauge fields are as follows:

$$B_{1}^0=1,B_{3}^2=B,\chi =0,$$

$$A_{1}^0=0,A_{3}^2=\frac{1}{G_s}(1+B^2).$$
(4.24)
This agrees with the asymptotic values of the gauge fields for the corresponding supergravity configuration (3.2) with $`\chi _{\mathrm{}}=0(\chi _0=\frac{B}{G_s})`$. In order to obtain the more general configuration with non-vanishing $`\chi `$, one has to consider the reduction on a non-orthogonal torus $`x_4`$-$`x_5`$, characterized by a modular parameter $`\tau =\tau _1+i\tau _2`$. \[Equivalently, one can start with eq. (4.13) and introduce coordinates $`(\stackrel{~}{x}_4,\stackrel{~}{x}_5)`$ by a general non-orthogonal linear transformation in the $`(x_4,x_5)`$ plane.\] Then the metric has a non-vanishing non-diagonal component $`g_{45}`$ which, upon dimensional reduction in $`x_5`$ and T-duality in $`x_4`$ gives rise to a non-zero $`\chi `$ field and also to a non-zero $`A_{01}`$, in accordance to eq. (3.2).

## 5 Supergravity description of Large $`N`$ NCOS

The strong coupling $`G_s\mathrm{}`$ limit of $`U(N)`$ NCSYM theory at fixed $`N`$ leads to a NCOS theory with $`B_{23}=0`$. Another interesting limit is the limit of large $`N`$ with fixed ’t Hooft coupling $`2\pi G_sN=g_{YM}^2N`$. For large ’t Hooft coupling, this regime can be studied by using a supergravity description, generalizing the dualities of . The relevant supergravity background was described in , and it is obtained from (3.1) by scaling the parameters as follows:

$`\mathrm{cosh}\beta ={\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{b}^{}}{\alpha ^{}}},\mathrm{cos}\alpha =\mathrm{fixed},`$ (5.1)
$`x_{0,1}={\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{b}^{}}{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}}\stackrel{~}{x}_{0,1},x_{2,3}=\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}\mathrm{cos}\alpha \stackrel{~}{x}_{2,3},`$ (5.2)
$`r=\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}u,g={\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{b}^{}\mathrm{cos}\alpha }{\alpha ^{}}}\widehat{g}`$ (5.3)
$`R^4=\mathrm{fixed}=4\pi N\widehat{g},\chi _0=\mathrm{fixed}.`$ (5.4)
One obtains the following supergravity background :

$$ds^2=\alpha ^{}f^{1/2}\left[\frac{u^4}{R^4}(d\stackrel{~}{x}_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+d\stackrel{~}{x}_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})+\frac{u^4}{R^4}\widehat{h}(d\stackrel{~}{x}_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+d\stackrel{~}{x}_{3}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})+du^2+u^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_5^2\right],$$

$$f=1+\frac{R^4}{u^4},\widehat{h}^1=1+\frac{u^4}{R^4\mathrm{cos}^2\alpha },$$

$$B_{01}=\alpha ^{}\frac{u^4}{R^4},B_{23}=\alpha ^{}\mathrm{tan}\alpha \frac{u^4}{R^4}\widehat{h},$$

$$e^{2\varphi }=\widehat{g}^2f^2\frac{u^8}{R^8}\widehat{h},\chi =\frac{1}{\widehat{g}}\mathrm{tan}\alpha f^1+\chi _0,$$
(5.5)
$$A_{01}=\alpha ^{}\frac{u^4}{R^4}\left(\frac{1}{\widehat{g}}\mathrm{tan}\alpha +\chi _0\right),A_{23}=\alpha ^{}\frac{u^4}{R^4}\widehat{h}\left(\frac{1}{\widehat{g}}\chi _0\mathrm{tan}\alpha \right),$$

$$F_{0123u}=\alpha _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\frac{1}{\widehat{g}}\widehat{h}\frac{4u^3}{R^4},R^4=4\pi N\widehat{g}.$$

The coupling constant $`\widehat{g}`$ can be identified with $`G_s`$. It is worth noting that $`\stackrel{~}{x}^i,u,R`$ are dimensionless. The only dimensionful parameter is $`\alpha ^{}`$, which is fixed.

The case $`\chi _0=\frac{1}{\widehat{g}}\mathrm{tan}\alpha `$ is special. In this case the $`u=\mathrm{}`$ value of $`\chi `$ is zero, and one has $`A_{01}=0`$. As a result, the S-dual background (in which $`B_{01}`$ and $`A_{01}`$ are exchanged) has $`B_{01}=0`$ and describes the purely magnetic case. This is in agreement with the observation of sect. 3 that the case $`\mathrm{\Theta }=0`$ is S-dual to NCSYM theory.

### 5.1  Calculation of Wilson loops

A “quark-antiquark” potential $`V(L)`$ for the large $`N`$ $`𝒩=4`$ SYM theory was computed in , with the result

$$V(L)=\frac{c_0\sqrt{g_{YM}^2N}}{L},g_{YM}^2N=2\pi \widehat{g}N=\frac{1}{2}R^4,c_0=\frac{4\pi ^2\sqrt{2}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{1}{4})^4}.$$
(5.6)
The $`1/L`$ behavior is dictated by the conformal symmetry of the theory. The fact that $`V(L)`$ is proportional to $`\sqrt{g_{YM}^2N}`$ is believed to be a consequence of strong coupling physics. Noncommutative super Yang-Mills theory is not scale invariant, so the quark-antiquark potential $`V(L)`$ can have a more complicated dependence on $`L`$ at distances which are comparable with the scale of noncommutativity. At large distances one should recover the potential (5.6) with the usual $`1/L`$ behavior. A question of interest is how the noncommutativity of spacetime affects the forces between quarks and antiquarks at short distances. Are these forces weaker or stronger than the commutative case? At large $`N`$, this question can be addressed by using the supergravity description in terms of the background (5.5), and computing a Wilson line.

The case with $`B_{01}=0`$ was already considered in , and it was found that strings cannot be localized near the boundary. In the case of $`B_{01}0`$, we will find that if the quark-antiquark pair lies on a plane orthogonal to the electric field direction, then the corresponding string configuration can indeed get to the boundary, and in this way gives rise to a quark-antiquark potential. For pairs which are aligned with the electric field (e.g. string configurations of the form $`x_0=\tau ,x_1=\sigma `$) the string will stretch from the horizon to the boundary but will not connect, and hence will not give rise to a potential. This is expected: the electric field tends to separate the charges and for a near critical electric field it takes a lot of energy for the strings to bend and connect.

To illustrate how noncommutative effects modify the Coulomb potential at short distances, we consider a string configuration in this geometry of the form $`x^0=\tau `$, $`x^2=\sigma `$, $`\frac{u}{R}U=U(\sigma )`$, $`x_1=x_3=0`$ (representing a string lying on a plane which is orthogonal to the electric field). The Nambu-Goto action for this string in the background (5.5) is

$$S=\frac{T}{2\pi }𝑑\sigma \sqrt{(1+U^4)\left(U^4\widehat{h}+R^2(_\sigma U)^2\right)},\widehat{h}=\frac{1}{1+a^4U^4},a^4=\frac{1}{\mathrm{cos}^2\alpha },$$
(5.7)
where the factor $`T`$ arises from the integral over the time $`x_0`$.

The solution to the equations of motion for $`U(\sigma )`$ is given by

$$\frac{\sqrt{(1+U^4)}U^4\widehat{h}}{\sqrt{U^4\widehat{h}+R^2(_\sigma U)^2}}=K=\mathrm{const}.$$
(5.8)
Solving the above equation for $`_\sigma U`$ we find

$$R^2(_\sigma U)^2=\frac{U^4}{K^2(1+a^4U^4)^2}\left[U^8+U^4K^2a^4U^4K^2\right].$$
(5.9)
As a function of $`\sigma `$, $`U`$ will vary from $`U=\mathrm{}`$ up to a minimum value $`U_0`$, given by the solution of $`_\sigma U=0`$. In terms of $`U_0`$, the integration constant $`K`$ is thus given by

$$K^2=\frac{U_0^4(1+U_0^4)}{1+a^4U_0^4}.$$
(5.10)
The integration constant $`K`$ (or, equivalently, $`U_0`$) can be determined by the condition that the quark separation is given by some distance $`L`$,

$$L(U_0)=𝑑x_2=\frac{2Rb}{U_0}_1^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dy}{y^2}\frac{1+a^4U_0^4y^4}{\sqrt{(y^41)(U_0^4y^4+b^2)}},$$
(5.11)
$$b=\sqrt{\frac{1+U_0^4}{1+a^4U_0^4}}.$$

The quark-antiquark interaction energy $``$ then follows from the relation $`S=T`$. In this expression, one should subtract as in  the “quark masses” corresponding to the energy of two strings that stretch from the horizon to infinity. We obtain

$$V(U_0)=(U_0)(0)=\frac{RU_0}{\pi }_1^{\mathrm{}}𝑑y\sqrt{1+U_0^4y^4}\left(\frac{y^2\sqrt{1+U_0^4y^4}}{\sqrt{(y^41)(U_0^4y^4+b^2)}}1\right)$$

$$\frac{RU_0}{\pi }_0^1𝑑y\sqrt{1+U_0^4y^4}.$$
(5.12)
Equations (5.11), ( 5.12) define the quark-antiquark potential $`V(L)`$.

Let us first examine $`V(L)`$ in the case of large distances $`L1`$. Restoring $`\alpha ^{}`$, this means $`L\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}`$, or $`L^2\theta `$, where $`\theta `$ is the noncommutative scale parameter in the $`x_0`$-$`x_1`$ plane, given by $`\theta =2\pi \alpha ^{}`$. As a function of $`U_0`$, $`L(U_0)`$ has a minimum value $`L_{\mathrm{min}}`$ at some $`U_0=U_1`$, and it goes to infinity in both the small and large $`U_0`$ regions (for small $`U_0`$ one has $`L1/U_0`$; for large $`U_0`$ one has $`LU_0`$). Thus there are two possible values of $`U_0`$ for a given $`L>L_{\mathrm{min}}`$, and hence two possible values for the potential for a given $`L`$. It is easy to see that the branch $`U_1<U_0<\mathrm{}`$ has higher energy and it is unstable, so we restrict to the branch $`0<U_0<U_1`$. The large distance region is then obtained in the region of small $`U_0`$. To obtain the potential $`V`$ as a function of $`L`$, we need to find $`U_0=U_0(L)`$ using (5.11). Although the integral (5.11) cannot be performed analytically, a systematic (large distance) expansion in powers of $`1/L`$ can be obtained by expanding the factor $`1/\sqrt{y^41}`$ in powers of $`1/y`$. Consider for example the purely electric case corresponding to $`\alpha =0`$ (and hence $`a=b=1`$). The resulting integrals are hypergeometric functions which can be expanded in powers of $`U_0`$. A given order in $`U_0`$ is given by a series which can be re-summed. We obtain the following result:

$$\frac{L}{R}=\frac{a_0}{U_0}+a_1U_0^2+O(U_0^3),$$
(5.13)
$$a_0=2_1^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dy}{y^2}\frac{1}{\sqrt{y^41}}=\frac{2\sqrt{2}\pi ^{3/2}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{1}{4})^2},a_1=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{1}{4})^2}{3\sqrt{\pi }},$$

or

$$U_0=\frac{a_0R}{L}+a_1a_0^3\frac{R^4}{L^4}+O(1/L^5).$$
(5.14)
Expanding the integral eq. (5.12) in powers of $`U_0`$ and inserting eq. (5.14) we obtain

$$V(L)=\frac{c_0\sqrt{g_{YM}^2N}}{L}c_1\frac{(2g_{YM}^2N)^{5/4}}{L^4}+O(1/L^5),$$
(5.15)
$$c_0=\frac{4\pi ^2\sqrt{2}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{1}{4})^4},c_1=\frac{16\pi ^{9/2}}{3\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{1}{4})^6}.$$

From this formula we can read the first corrections to a quark-antiquark potential due to the noncommutative nature of spacetime. Comparing this potential with the usual SYM case (represented by the first term in (5.15) ), we see that the force between oppositely charged particles increases more rapidly as the distance is decreased from $`L\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}`$.

At shorter distances, the potential $`V(L)`$ is more complicated, but it can be computed numerically. Figure 1 shows a plot of $`V(L)`$ for the ordinary SYM theory and for the present noncommutative case. The curve $`V(L)`$ terminates at $`L=L_{\mathrm{min}}=L(U_1)`$ ($`2.7`$ in the figure). For shorter distances, there is no solution. Presumably, this may indicate a breakdown of the present simple description at very short distances. From the figure, we can see that the net effect of noncommutativity is increasing the force between a quark and an antiquark. A similar behavior is obtained for a generic $`\alpha \pi /2`$, i.e. configurations with both electric and magnetic fields.

Acknowledgements

J.R. would like to thank ICTP for hospitality, where this work was carried out. The work of M.M. Sh-J. was partly supported by the EC contract no. ERBFMRX-CT 96-0090.


text:
# Reply to the “Comment on ‘quantum backaction of optical observations on Bose-Einstein condensates’ ”

\[

today

\]

How is a Bose-Einstein condensate perturbed by dispersive imaging ? Suppose that dispersive imaging is absorptionless, what is the quantum backaction?

In our paper  we have only addressed the second question. We found that two processes contribute to the backaction, phase diffusion and condensate depletion. The pioneering paper  referred only to phase diffusion as the quantum backaction and made no estimation of the diffusion rate. According to our calculation , depletion turned out to dominate the quantum backaction. Since the depletion rate agreed with the experimental facts  within the available accuracy, we conjectured that the quantum backaction might indeed explain the observed perturbation. However, in our analysis we have entirely ignored the residual absorption of dispersive imaging, in order to determine the backaction per se. The Comment  stresses the fact that absorption is still stronger than the quantum backaction. This is correct, as can be seen from the following calculation.

The depletion rate due to backaction is, according to Eq. (62) of Ref. ,

$$\gamma _L=\frac{\pi ^2}{4}\frac{\chi _0^2}{\mathrm{}c}I\lambda ^3,$$
(1)
where $`\lambda `$ denotes the wave length of light, $`I`$ is the intensity and $`\chi _0`$ is the susceptibility per atom-wave density. We assume the individual atoms as two-level systems with detuning $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and Rabi frequency

$$\omega _R=\frac{d}{\mathrm{}}E^{(+)},$$
(2)
where $`d`$ is the dipole moment and $`E^{(+)}`$ is the positive frequency part of the electric field strength. Our goal is to compare $`\gamma _L`$ with the spontaneous emission rate

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=\frac{1}{4\pi ϵ_0}\frac{4d^2}{3\mathrm{}}\left(\frac{2\pi }{\lambda }\right)^3=\frac{1}{4\pi ϵ_0}\frac{4d^2\mathrm{}|\omega _R|^2}{3|E^{(+)}|^2}\left(\frac{2\pi }{\lambda }\right)^3.$$
(3)
First, we express $`\chi _0`$ in terms of the detuning and of the Rabi frequency, utilizing the fact that the light-matter interaction energy in the Lagrangian (1) of Ref.  is equal to the optical potential,

$$\frac{ϵ_0\chi _0}{2}E^2=ϵ_0\chi _0|E^{(+)}|^2=\mathrm{}\frac{|\omega _R|^2}{2\mathrm{\Delta }}.$$
(4)
According to Eqs. (16) and (36) of Ref.  the light intensity is

$$I=2ϵ_0c|E^{(+)}|^2.$$
(5)
Consequently, we obtain

$$\gamma _L=\frac{3}{16}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left|\frac{\omega _R}{2\mathrm{\Delta }}\right|^2.$$
(6)
The upper-state excitation of a far-detuned two-level atom is $`|\omega _R/(2\mathrm{\Delta })|^2`$. The incident light excites the atoms, and the subsequent spontaneous decay gives rise to Rayleigh scattering, being the principal absorption mechanism. Therefore, the calculated backaction rate is $`3/16`$ of the absorption rate.

Even in the limit of extremely far detuning, absorption is still stronger than the quantum backaction, as can be seen from the comparison of the two different rates. Consequently, residual absorption sets indeed the limit of dispersive imaging .