text:
# D-branes, Discrete Torsion and the McKay Correspondence

## 1 Introduction

D-branes as probes of string theory in nontrivial backgrounds have been a source of useful insights since . In  Douglas and Moore used a quotient construction to study the dynamics of branes at an orbifold singularity. The construction involves a choice of a representation of the quotient group on the Chan–Paton indices. This leads to a supersymmetric gauge theory on the worldvolume (as we review later on). The moduli space of vacua of this theory contains an approximation to the geometry of the transverse space in which the brane is free to move. The parameters in the theory are determined by the closed-string background; the parameter space thus probes the moduli space of closed-string vacua. We refer to  and references therein for a larger account of this work.

Let us consider a type IIB string on the local form of an orbifold $`^n/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ for some finite group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{SU}(n)`$. It has been clear from the early days of this subject that D-branes give a particularly direct physical picture of the “McKay Correspondence”. That is, there is a relationship between the even-dimensional homology, or more properly K-theory, of the resolution of such an orbifold and the representation theory of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. (We refer to  for a review of the mathematics of the McKay correspondence.) It was realized in  that by computing the masses of wrapped branes as one blew-up a singularity, one could relate the homology of the blow-up to representations of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. This correspondence was made much more explicit in  where the explicit map between homology and representation theory was computed.

Douglas  was able to extend the work of  by considering projective representations. It is very natural to associate this degree of freedom with Vafa’s discrete torsion . It would be nice to extend the McKay correspondence to include discrete torsion. The work of Gomis  is related to this question and we explore the subject further in this paper. There has also been some work associating discrete torsion with monodromy acting on partial resolutions . We will not discuss this here.

Our aim in this paper is to cover the following topics:

1. We will present a computation of the moduli space of vacua determined by the “regular representation” and its relation to the target space geometry in the general case. This involves extending some proofs by Sardo Infirri  to the case of discrete torsion. We will also discuss how wrapped branes appear when the singularity is not isolated. Much has already been said about these topics in the context of specific examples and various generalizations. See, for example, .
2. We will use the McKay correspondence for K-theory to define a theory of stringy homology on the orbifold itself. In the absence of discrete torsion this agrees with the known results obtained by studying the masses of wrapped branes. The stringy homology will exhibit torsion when, and only when, discrete torsion is switched on. This construction will be closely related to observations in .
3. We will discuss if there is such a thing as an S-duality of the type IIB string which literally exchanges the string and the D1-brane.

Of particular note in the second case is the relationship between torsion in homology and discrete torsion. This has been analyzed in some cases (see, for example, ) but the general picture remains unclear. At least for the local analysis of an orbifold we hope to shed some light on this question. We will see that the torsion in homology naturally contains a subgroup of $`_p`$, where $`p`$ is the order of the element of discrete torsion within the group $`H^2(\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{U}(1))`$.

In section 2 we set up many aspects of the group theory we use and describe how to construct quiver diagrams. In section 3 we give a general proof that the moduli space of the D-brane associated with a point really is the target space $`^n/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ only in the case of an isolated singularity. We give the general description of the non-isolated case in terms of the familiar “wrapped branes” which are associated to induced representations of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

In section 4 we set up the McKay correspondence for orbifolds with discrete torsion. This amounts to defining what we mean by homology.

The previous sections are clarified by reviewing some examples in section 5. We draw the quiver corresponding to the field theory, analyze the possibilities for wrapped branes and compute some stringy homology groups.

Finally in section 6 we emphasize the relationship between torsion in homology and discrete torsion. We also discuss the S-duality of the type IIB string.

## 2 The $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-Equivariant D-brane Quiver

In this section we will encode the data associated to a D-brane on an orbifold in terms of a quiver diagram. We will be general here and present the analysis for any representation of the orbifold group and any choice of discrete torsion. For definiteness, we will discuss the case mentioned above, of D3-branes near a singularity of the local form $`^3/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. The worldvolume theory is then an $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetric theory in four dimensions. Our analysis follows the discussion in  with the (small) modifications required to incorporate discrete torsion.

The orbifold theory is constructed following  as a quotient from a theory of branes on the covering space. Let the brane be located at a point in $`^n`$ which is fixed under all of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. We will assume this point is the origin. Let $`R`$ be an $`m`$-dimensional representation of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. We then consider $`m`$ branes on the covering space. The low–energy dynamics on the brane worldvolume is thus a $`\mathrm{U}(m)`$ gauge theory111The diagonal $`\mathrm{U}(1)`$ always decouples in the gauge theory so the effective gauge group is only really $`\mathrm{SU}(m)`$. with $`𝒩=4`$ supersymmetry in four dimensions. In terms of the $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetry that is unbroken by the quotient, this is a gauge theory with three chiral multiplets $`X_i`$ in the adjoint representation (corresponding to the three complex transverse coordinates) and a superpotential given by

$$W=\mathrm{tr}\left(X_1[X_2,X_3]\right).$$
(1)
The representation $`R`$ defines a lift of the action of the orbifolding group on $`^n`$ to the gauge group. The orbifold theory is obtained  by projecting onto the invariant degrees of freedom under the combined action of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. The theory we obtain under the quotienting process depends very much on $`R`$. To begin with, and to fix our notations, we take $`R`$ to be a linear222Non-projective. representation, corresponding to the absence of discrete torsion.

The quotient theory will also be a gauge theory. Because the gauge fields live in the directions tangent to the brane, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ acts on these only via $`R`$. The gauge fields in the quotient theories will generate the subgroup of $`\mathrm{G}=\mathrm{U}(m)`$ which is invariant under this action

$$R(\gamma )AR(\gamma )^1=A,$$
(2)
for all $`\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }`$. To facilitate the following discussions we will introduce some fancier notation. First let us complexify the gauge group. Our initial complexified gauge group will be $`\mathrm{G}_{}=\mathrm{GL}(m,)=\mathrm{End}(^m)`$. The invariant complexified gauge group $`\mathrm{G}_{}^\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is then generated by all matrices $`A`$ which satisfy (2). We write this as

$$\mathrm{G}_{}^\mathrm{\Gamma }=(\mathrm{End}R)^\mathrm{\Gamma }.$$
(3)
These gauge fields will appear in appropriate supermultiplets. In our case we find vector multiplets.

Additional degrees of freedom in the low-energy theory come from the invariant degrees of freedom contained in the chiral multiplets. $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ acts on these, in addition to its embedding in $`\mathrm{G}`$, via the $`n`$-dimensional representation $`Q`$ determining its action on $`^n`$. The invariant degrees of freedom now satisfy

$$\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}Q_{ij}(\gamma )R(\gamma )X_jR(\gamma )^1=X_i,$$
(4)
for all $`\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }`$. In our more abstract notation this is written as

$$X(Q\mathrm{End}R)^\mathrm{\Gamma }.$$
(5)
In addition to the gauge couplings, these interact via a cubic superpotential that is simply the restriction to the invariant fields of the superpotential (1).

To allow for discrete torsion we allow $`R`$ to be a projective representation. That is

$$R(\gamma )R(\mu )=\alpha (\gamma ,\mu )R(\gamma \mu ),$$
(6)
where $`\alpha (\gamma ,\mu )\mathrm{U}(1)`$.333This implies that $`\alpha (1,\gamma )=\alpha (\gamma ,1)=1`$ for any $`\gamma `$. The associativity of group multiplication is consistent with this provided

$$\alpha (\gamma ,\mu )\alpha (\gamma \mu ,\rho )=\alpha (\gamma ,\mu \rho )\alpha (\mu ,\rho ),$$
(7)
which is precisely the condition that $`\alpha (\gamma ,\mu )`$ is a group 2-cocycle. Further, it is clear that two cocycles related by

$$\alpha ^{}(\gamma ,\mu )=\frac{\beta (\gamma )\beta (\mu )}{\beta (\gamma \mu )}\alpha (\gamma ,\mu )$$
(8)
for any map $`\beta :\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{U}(1)`$ lead to equivalent conditions (6). This shows that the allowed representations are determined by $`\alpha `$ as an element of $`H^2(\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{U}(1))`$. A choice of a cohomology class $`\alpha `$ then determines the phases $`ϵ(\gamma ,\mu )`$ associated to twisted sectors in Vafa’s formulation  by $`ϵ(\gamma ,\mu )=\alpha (\gamma ,\mu )\alpha (\mu ,\gamma )^1`$ (note this need only be defined for commuting $`\gamma ,\mu `$). We refer to  for more details.

We can now repeat the calculation of the quotient theory as above. We find it useful to resort to fairly algebraic language. Any standard text on the representation theory of finite groups should explain all the terms we use.

Let us introduce the $``$-algebra $`^\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }`$ defined as follows. Firstly we let $`e_\gamma `$, $`\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }`$, be a basis for $`^\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }`$. That is, any element may be written uniquely as a sum

$$\underset{\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }}{}c_\gamma e_\gamma ,$$
(9)
where $`c_\gamma `$. We define a distributive product by

$$e_\gamma e_\mu =\alpha (\gamma ,\mu )e_{\gamma \mu }.$$
(10)
The standard theory of representations and modules now says that any projective representation of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ can be written as a $`^\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }`$-module. Naturally we may obtain linear representations by using the trivial $`\alpha `$ to obtain $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-modules.

Let $`R_l`$ represent the irreducible representations of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ twisted by $`\alpha H^2(\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{U}(1))`$. It is well-known that irreducible linear representations of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ are counted by the number of conjugacy classes of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. There is a similar concept for projective representations. An “$`\alpha `$-regular” conjugacy class contains elements $`\gamma `$ satisfying $`\alpha (\gamma ,\mu )=\alpha (\mu ,\gamma )`$ for all $`\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }`$ such that $`\gamma \mu =\mu \gamma `$. The number of irreducible projective representations is equal to the number of $`\alpha `$-regular conjugacy classes.

We may view $`R_l`$ as simple $`^\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }`$-modules. We refer to  for an exposition of the properties of irreducible projective representations. We may then decompose

$$R=\underset{l}{}V_lR_l,$$
(11)
where $`V_l`$ is a linear vector space whose dimension is determined by the number of times a given irreducible representation appears in $`R`$.

Let us use $`\mathrm{Hom}_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ to denote the group of homomorphisms of $`^\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }`$-modules. We may now deduce that for $`A\mathrm{G}_{}^\mathrm{\Gamma }`$

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill A& (\mathrm{End}R)^\mathrm{\Gamma }\hfill \\ & =\mathrm{Hom}_\mathrm{\Gamma }(R,R)\hfill \\ & =\mathrm{Hom}_\mathrm{\Gamma }(\underset{l}{}R_lV_l,\underset{m}{}R_mV_m)\hfill \\ & =\underset{l}{}\mathrm{Hom}(V_l,V_l)\hfill \\ & =\underset{l}{}\mathrm{End}(V_l),\hfill \end{array}$$
(12)
where the penultimate step was obtained by using Schur’s Lemma. Thus if we denote $`v_l=dim(V_l)`$ we see that $`\mathrm{G}_{}^\mathrm{\Gamma }=_l\mathrm{GL}(v_l)`$. In other words, restricting back to the compact real form, we have a gauge group

$$\mathrm{G}^\mathrm{\Gamma }=\underset{l}{}\mathrm{U}(v_l).$$
(13)
Since $`Q`$ is a linear representation of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`R`$ is a projective representation twisted by $`\alpha `$, it is not hard to show that $`QR`$ is a projective representation twisted by $`\alpha `$. We may thus decompose

$$QR_l=\underset{m}{}A_{lm}R_m,$$
(14)
where $`A_{lm}`$ are vector spaces.

We may then deduce

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill X& (Q\mathrm{End}R)^\mathrm{\Gamma }\hfill \\ & =\mathrm{Hom}_\mathrm{\Gamma }(R,QR)\hfill \\ & =\mathrm{Hom}_\mathrm{\Gamma }(\underset{l}{}R_lV_l,Q\left(\underset{m}{}R_mV_m\right))\hfill \\ & =\mathrm{Hom}_\mathrm{\Gamma }(\underset{l}{}R_lV_l,\underset{mn}{}A_{mn}R_nV_m),\hfill \\ & =\underset{lm}{}A_{lm}\mathrm{Hom}(V_l,V_m).\hfill \end{array}$$
(15)
As above, in addition to the gauge couplings, the chiral multiplets interact via a cubic superpotential descended from (1).

A useful way of visualizing the structure of the resulting theory is in terms of a quiver.

1. There is a node for every irreducible representation $`R_l`$. Each node is labelled by $`v_l=dimV_l`$. Each node represents a factor of $`\mathrm{U}(v_l)`$ in the gauge group $`\mathrm{G}^\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.
2. From node $`l`$ to node $`m`$ we draw $`a_{lm}=dimA_{lm}`$ arrows. Each arrow represents a contribution of $`\mathrm{Hom}(V_l,V_m)`$ to the space in which $`X`$ lives. That is, the arrow represents a $`(\overline{𝐯}_l,𝐯_m)`$ representation of $`\mathrm{U}(v_l)\times \mathrm{U}(v_m)`$.

Note that the numbers $`a_{lm}`$, and hence the arrows, are fixed by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`\alpha `$ and do not depend on $`R`$. The numbers $`v_l`$ do depend on $`R`$. If $`v_l=0`$ for a particular node then one can ignore that vertex and the associated arrows. We will give several examples of quivers below.

## 3 D-brane Moduli Space

One object of immediate interest is the moduli space of classical vacua of the gauge theory. The is the zero string-coupling limit of the moduli space of the associated brane in the orbifold background. The classical vacua are parameterized by values for the scalars in the chiral multiplets, modulo gauge equivalence, solving $`F`$-term equations (critical points of the superpotential) as well as the $`D`$-term equations (zero moment maps for the action of $`\mathrm{G}^\mathrm{\Gamma }`$). The details of these depend upon $`R`$, but since the quotient theory is obtained from the covering theory simply be reducing the gauge group to a subgroup of $`\mathrm{G}`$ and setting some of the chiral fields to zero, we can give a uniform description directly in terms of the covering theory. From (1) we have the $`F`$-terms

$$[X_i,X_j]=0,\text{for all }i,j$$
(16)
where in a particular quotient we keep only the invariant components of $`X`$. The moment map for $`\mathrm{G}`$ is simply

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}[X_i^{},X_i]=0.$$
(17)
In the quotient theory, only the parts of this corresponding to $`\mathrm{G}^\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ will be nontrivial. One then divides the solution set of these equations by the gauge group $`\mathrm{G}^\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ to obtain $`\mathrm{M}_R`$. The key idea of the physics of D-branes on the orbifold is the following

###### Proposition 1

The space $`\mathrm{M}_R`$ represents the space of allowed positions of the D-brane associated to $`R`$ in the target space $`^n/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

The simplest case of using an irreducible representation for $`R`$ tends to give $`\mathrm{M}_R`$ equal to a point — the wrapped D-brane is stuck at the origin. One obtains more interesting results by using bigger representations.

### 3.1 The regular representation

Of particular note is the case when $`R`$ is given by putting $`R=^\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }`$. (That is, we view $`R=^\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }`$ itself as a $`^\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }`$-module.) When $`\alpha `$ is trivial, this is equivalent to making $`R`$ the regular representation.444One may extend the use of language to call $`^\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }`$ the regular representation even when $`\alpha `$ is nontrivial. This was implicit in . Note that now

$$v_l=dim(R_l).$$
(18)
Taking the dimension of $`^\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }`$ as a vector space over $``$, this implies a result which will be useful later on:

$$|\mathrm{\Gamma }|=\underset{l}{}v_l^2.$$
(19)
We may now prove the following theorems:

###### Theorem 1

If $`R=^\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ acts freely on $`^n`$ outside the origin then $`\mathrm{M}_R`$ is the orbifold $`^n/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ itself.

###### Theorem 2

If $`R=^\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ does not act freely on $`^n`$ outside the origin then $`\mathrm{M}_R`$ consists of more than one component, one of which is the orbifold $`^n/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ itself.

To do this we follow the proof of theorem 4.2 in  with a little modification to allow for discrete torsion.

First let $`𝖠_i`$ denote the operator $`\mathrm{ad}(X_i)`$, that is $`𝖠_i(X)=[X_i,X]`$. We also have the Hermitian conjugate operator $`𝖠_i^{}`$. The equations (16) and (17) together with the Jacobi identity show that

$$\underset{i}{}𝖠_i^{}𝖠_i(X_j^{})=0.$$
(20)
It is a basic fact of linear algebra that $`𝖠_i^{}𝖠_i`$ is a positive operator. Therefore the above implies that $`𝖠_i^{}𝖠_i(X_j^{})=0`$ for any choice of $`i`$ or $`j`$. That is, $`𝖠_i(X_j^{})=0`$ for any choice of $`i`$ or $`j`$. In particular

$$𝖠_i(X_i^{})=[X_i^{},X_i]=0.$$
(21)
This means that each matrix $`X_i`$ is normal and can be diagonalized by conjugation by a unitary matrix $`U\mathrm{G}=\mathrm{U}(m)`$. Furthermore (16) implies that $`X_i`$ can be simultaneously diagonalized for all $`i`$.

Let $`v_1R`$ be a simultaneous eigenvector of $`X_i`$ with eigenvalues $`\lambda _1^{(i)}`$. Denote the basis of $`Q=^n`$ by $`q_i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$. We then write

$$\lambda _1=\underset{i}{}\lambda _1^{(i)}q_iQ.$$
(22)
Now, the fact that $`X(Q\mathrm{End}R)^\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ tells us that

$$\underset{j}{}Q_{ij}(\gamma )R(\gamma )X_j=X_iR(\gamma )$$
(23)
and so

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \underset{j}{}Q_{ij}(\gamma )R(\gamma )X_jv_1& =X_iR(\gamma )v_1\hfill \\ & =\underset{j}{}Q_{ij}(\gamma )\lambda _1^{(j)}R(\gamma )v_1.\hfill \end{array}$$
(24)
In other words $`R(\gamma )v_1`$ is an eigenvector of $`X`$ with eigenvalue $`Q(\gamma )\lambda _1`$. Note in particular that the eigenvalues must always appear as $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-orbits in $`Q`$. Let us denote $`R(\gamma )v_1`$ by $`v_\gamma `$.

Now let us first assume that the action of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ on $`Q`$ has no fixed points away from the origin. Then assuming $`v_1`$ is non-zero, the eigenvalues are all distinct and so the vectors $`v_\gamma `$ will form an orthogonal basis for $`R=^\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }`$. We may fix this basis to be orthonormal.

Let us choose a fixed orthonormal basis for $`^\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }`$ by fixing $`e_1`$ and then defining $`e_\gamma =\gamma e_1`$. The unitary matrix $`U`$ diagonalizing the $`X_i`$ can be taken to rotate the $`v_\gamma `$ basis into the $`e_\gamma `$ basis. That is, $`Uv_\gamma =e_\gamma `$, for all $`\gamma `$. Note that for any $`\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }`$,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill R(\mu )Uv_\gamma & =R(\mu )e_\gamma \hfill \\ & =\mu e_\gamma \hfill \\ & =\alpha (\mu ,\gamma )e_{\mu \gamma },\hfill \end{array}$$
(25)
and

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill UR(\mu )v_\gamma & =UR(\mu )R(\gamma )v_1\hfill \\ & =\alpha (\mu ,\gamma )UR(\mu \gamma )v_1\hfill \\ & =\alpha (\mu ,\gamma )Uv_{\mu \gamma }\hfill \\ & =\alpha (\mu ,\gamma )e_{\mu \gamma }.\hfill \end{array}$$
(26)
Thus $`U`$ and $`R(\mu )`$ commute which implies that $`U\mathrm{G}^\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

So now, we see that a point $`\mathrm{M}_R`$ is determined by the eigenvalues $`\lambda `$, up to permutations. What we have shown above is that this set is precisely in one-to-one correspondence with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-orbits in $`Q`$. That the correspondence is onto is easy to see by taking diagonal matrices. This proves theorem 1.

We now come to the more interesting case of a non-isolated fixed point at the origin. Again the analysis of Sardo Infirri  applies even with discrete torsion switched on.

A fairly simple argument in linear algebra may be used to show that $`Q/\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{M}_R`$. Let $`x`$ be any point in $`Q`$ and let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_x`$ be the subgroup of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ which fixes $`x`$. We assume $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_x`$ is trivial for a generic $`xQ`$. Given $`x`$, we may construct $`X`$ such that its eigenvalues are given by the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-orbit of $`x`$ with each eigenvalue appearing with multiplicity $`|\mathrm{\Gamma }_x|`$. Now this matrix will have eigenvectors forming an orthonormal basis of $`R`$ and we again recover the above construction. Note also that if $`x`$ lies in an open neighbourhood such that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ acts freely on this neighbourhood then this inclusion $`Q/\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{M}_R`$ is locally a homeomorphism on this subset. Thus $`Q/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ appears as a component of $`\mathrm{M}_R`$.

A key point however is that if $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_x`$ is nontrivial we may choose $`X`$ to have eigenvalues $`x`$ of multiplicity less than $`|\mathrm{\Gamma }_x|`$. Suppose we have a point $`xQ`$ away from the origin which is fixed by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_x\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. The $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-orbit of $`x`$ will now have fewer than $`|\mathrm{\Gamma }|`$ points. We may build an $`X`$ which is diagonal and whose eigenvalues correspond to the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-orbit of $`x`$ together with zero for the remaining eigenvalues. This is clearly a valid $`X`$ which lies outside any one-to-one correspondence between $`\mathrm{M}_R`$ and $`Q/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Thus we see that theorem 1 must fail if the quotient singularity is not isolated at the origin. This proves theorem 2.

### 3.2 Mobile wrapped branes

These extra branches of $`\mathrm{M}_R`$ correspond to the wrapped branes discussed in . We have shown that one must always obtain extra branches of the moduli space corresponding to wrapped branes if the quotient singularity in $`Q/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is not isolated.

The analysis of  tells us exactly how to describe these extra branches. Again the description remains valid with discrete torsion switched on. Suppose $`x`$ is a point away from the origin fixed by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_x`$ as above. We may consider an $`\alpha `$-twisted projective representation $`R_x`$ of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_x`$. This “induces” a representation of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of the form

$$\mathrm{Ind}_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_x}^\mathrm{\Gamma }R_x=^\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }_{^\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }_x}R_x,$$
(27)
(where $`^\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is viewed as a left $`^\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }`$-module and a right $`^\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }_x`$-module). This induced representation will represent a “wrapped brane” which can be constrained to live along the fixed locus of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_x`$ if $`R_x`$ is chosen to have sufficiently low dimension. Using an irreducible representation for $`R_x`$ will always yield such an example. If we take the “regular representation” $`^\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }_x`$ for $`R_x`$ then clearly

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{Ind}_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_x}^\mathrm{\Gamma }R_x& =^\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }_{^\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }_x}^\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }_x\hfill \\ & =^\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }.\hfill \end{array}$$
(28)
This shows how a suitable sum of these wrapped branes “stuck” along the fixed point set will combine to give the brane associated to $`^\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }`$. This represents the set of wrapped branes corresponding to one or more of the extra branches of the moduli space. Looking at all fixed subspaces in the orbifold will account for all the branches.

Conversely, given a representation $`R`$ of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, we may describe the moduli space associated to $`R`$ as follows. $`R`$ can be induced by various subgroups. We need to consider each minimal such subgroup, in the sense that it contains no other subgroups that induce $`R`$. The moduli space corresponding to $`R`$ will be the union of the fixed point sets of these minimal subgroups.

We will give several examples of these induced representations in section 5.

## 4 The McKay Correspondence

### 4.1 An attempt with homology

The general idea of the McKay correspondence is as follows. Let $`Y^n/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be a crepent (i.e., maintaining the Calabi–Yau condition) maximal blow-up. The homology of $`Y`$ is then closely related to the representation theory of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

One of the most straight-forward but crude ways of seeing this correspondence in D-branes arises from the work of . Let us begin by considering the particular case of the representation $`R=^\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }`$ as in the previous section. Each node in the quiver associated to a D-brane on a orbifold can be associated to a potential Fayet-Iliopoulos term in the D-brane action. It is well-established (see  for example) that adding such terms into the action can result in a blow-up of $`\mathrm{M}_R=^n/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Note that this fact remains true even when discrete torsion is switched on.555The choice of discrete torsion considered in most examples in the literature results in a system so tightly constrained that no blow-ups remain. A sufficiently general example will still have blow-ups however. The way to picture these blow-ups is most easily seen in terms of moment maps. Note that

$$\rho =\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}[X_i^{},X_i],$$
(29)
represents a moment map $`\rho :X\mathrm{Lie}^{}\mathrm{G}^\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. The effect of adding Fayet-Iliopoulos terms to the action is to effectively shift this moment map $`\rho \rho \zeta `$ for some new moment map $`\zeta `$ lying in the centre of $`\mathrm{Lie}^{}\mathrm{G}^\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. We refer to  for more details. The centre of $`\mathrm{G}^\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ corresponds to $`\mathrm{U}(1)`$’s associated to each vertex of the quiver. We have fixed our basis of representations $`R_l`$ to label each of these vertices. Thus we may expand

$$\zeta =\underset{p}{}\zeta _pR_p^{},$$
(30)
where $`R_p^{}`$ is a basis dual to the representations $`R_l`$.

One may add the same terms to the action by adding insertions of closed string twist fields. Let us review the case for no discrete torsion. An appendix in  showed how these twist fields are related precisely to the Fayet-Iliopoulos terms. Let $`\varphi _\gamma `$ be a field in the NS-NS sector of the string theory twisted by $`\gamma `$. Then $`\zeta _p=_\gamma \mathrm{tr}R_p^{}(\gamma )\varphi _\gamma `$, where the sum is taken over the conjugacy classes of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Using the orthogonality of the characters $`\chi _p^{}(\gamma )=\mathrm{tr}R_p^{}(\gamma )`$ we may rewrite this as

$$\varphi _\gamma =\underset{p}{}\chi _p(\gamma )\zeta _p,$$
(31)
(where we have rescaled $`\varphi _\gamma `$).

Including the possibility of discrete torsion actually makes little difference to this argument. It was argued in  that the twisted strings in a theory with discrete torsion are precisely those corresponding to $`\alpha `$-regular conjugacy classes. Now the theory of characters of projective representations and $`\alpha `$-regular conjugacy classes is essentially identical to the usual theory of characters and conjugacy classes. We refer to  for more details. In fact, equation (31) is still true with discrete torsion switched on so long as we use the relevant notions of projective representations.

For a given $`\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }`$, we may write the eigenvalues of $`\gamma `$ as $`\mathrm{exp}(2\pi ia_1)`$, $`\mathrm{exp}(2\pi ia_2)`$, …, $`\mathrm{exp}(2\pi ia_n)`$ where $`0a_i<1`$. It is then a well-known result of topological field theory that we may then associate $`\varphi _\gamma `$ with an element of $`H^{2w(\gamma )}`$ with

$$w(\gamma )=\underset{i}{}a_i.$$
(32)
(Presumably this cohomology group relates to cohomology with compact support as our target space is not compact.) Notable fields are those obeying $`w(\gamma )=1`$. These correspond to marginal deformations and relate to deformations of the Kähler form in $`H^2`$. The formalism of topological field theory extends this to the case $`w(\gamma )1`$.

To return to the basis $`R_l`$ naturally associated to the vertices of our quiver we need to take the dual of this mapping and so we relate the group generated by the representations of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ to the homology of the resolution. We may then state our first draft of the D-brane McKay correspondence:

###### Conjecture 1

Let $`Y`$ be a maximal crepent resolution of $`^n/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ allowed by a given choice (possibly trivial) of discrete torsion. For any $`\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }`$ we associate a cycle in $`H_{2w(\gamma )}(Y)`$ to the D-brane with representation $`_l\chi _l^{}(\gamma )R_l`$.

One can have immediate success with this conjecture by considering the case of the untwisted sector given by $`\gamma =1`$. This conjecture then says that the associated homology class lies in $`H_0`$ and corresponds to $`_ldim(R_l)R_l=^\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }`$. In section 3 we saw how the representation $`^\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }`$ had the entire target space $`^n/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ as (at least one component) its moduli space. This agrees beautifully with it being the moduli space of a single point. This idea of associating a point with $`^\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }`$ indeed goes back to the original work of .

It is not hard to see from arguments along the lines of section 3 that taking $`R`$ to be two copies of $`^\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }`$ will give a symmetric product of $`^n/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ with itself (again with potentially further branches which we ignore for now). This is thus the moduli space of two points. Clearly this argument works for any number of points. We will therefore take this conjecture to be true in the case of $`H_0`$. That is, a point is always given by the representation $`^\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

As soon as one tries to go beyond this simple case one immediately runs into difficulty. The reason for this is clear. In the language of , the twisted fields $`\varphi _\gamma `$ are a natural basis of cohomology in the orbifold phase whereas one would normally like to picture the homology in question as living in the large radius Calabi–Yau phase. One therefore needs to change basis between these phases to get the right statement for the McKay correspondence. This change of basis was essentially described in  and has been described in exactly this context in . We refer to these references for more details.

Having said all this, it might come as a surprise that the case of $`H_0`$ worked out so nicely. Why didn’t we have to mix in other twist fields to to get the classical $`H_0`$? A special rôle is given to $`H_0`$ essentially because we are working in a noncompact example of $`^n/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. We will not attempt a general proof here but it can be seen from the examples of  that in this case one has a simple constant as one possible solution of the Picard-Fuchs equation. This is not the case for a compact Calabi–Yau manifold and so one assumes that in such a case $`H_0`$ would mix freely with the other dimensions.

Even after allowing for this mixing within the homology, our conjecture is not really satisfactory. In particular, considering wrapped branes will not give us information on torsion classes in the homology. We need to discuss K-theory to improve matters.

### 4.2 K-theory

One of the most general forms of the McKay correspondence was given in  which states the McKay correspondence in terms of derived categories of coherent sheaves. This in turn implies a statement about K-theory. Although it is clear that derived categories should play an important rôle in string theory we will restrict ourselves to the weaker language of K-theory in this paper.

As is well-known, K-theory is similar to (singular) cohomology but can differ. In the context of D-branes it is now well-established that K-theory is the more relevant notion . It is not surprising therefore that D-branes give a nice picture of the McKay correspondence when the language of K-theory is used.

Consider a type IIB string theory on the orbifold $`^n/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ with a choice of discrete torsion $`\alpha `$. Let $`D_0`$ denote the lattice of resulting D-brane charges. Crudely stated, we know that $`D_0`$ is associated to $`H^{\text{even}}(^n/\mathrm{\Gamma },)`$ in some way.

Let us assert our version of the McKay correspondence:

###### Proposition 2

The lattice $`D_0`$ is isomorphic to the free abelian group generated by the $`\alpha `$-twisted irreducible projective representations of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

When $`\alpha =1`$ this reduces to the usual McKay correspondence and the relationship between D-branes and K-theory. For nontrivial $`\alpha `$ it is probably difficult to prove this proposition given the current status of our definitions of string theory in a singular space. Indeed one may wish to regard this proposition as a definition of $`D_0`$.

In order to get a better feeling for this conjecture we need to relate things to our discussion of homology above. As we saw, it really is homology rather than cohomology which is most naturally associated to the representation theory of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Because of this, let us introduce a group $`K_0`$ which is a homological version of K-theory. It is usual to define K-theory as an abstract cohomology theory in the Eilenberg-Steenrod sense but one may also define the corresponding theory of abstract homology.

One may proceed as follows. Define $`K_{\text{even}}(\mathrm{point})=`$ and $`K_{\text{odd}}(\mathrm{point})=0`$. Now define $`K_{}`$ as a theory of homology in the Eilenberg-Steenrod sense (see, for example, section 2.3 of ). This is sufficient to define $`K_{\text{even}}`$ and $`K_{\text{odd}}`$ for any topological space. Replacing homology by cohomology here would give the usual K-theory.

For a fairly large class of toplogical spaces one can relate $`K_0`$ to the usual singular homology $`H_{}`$. This may be done by using the Atiyah-Hirzebruch spectral sequence  rewritten in terms of homology. This has also been used recently in the physics literature in . We simply quote the following

###### Theorem 3

Let $`Y`$ be a finite simplicial complex. There exists a homology spectral sequence with

$$E_{p,q}^2=H_p(Y,K_q(\mathrm{point})),$$
(33)
which converges to give $`E_{p,q}^{\mathrm{}}K_{p+q}(Y)`$.

This theorem encodes two ways in which $`K_0(Y)`$ may differ from $`H_{\text{even}}(Y,)`$. Firstly one may have nontrivial differentials $`_r:E_{p,q}^rE_{pr,q+r1}^r`$. The effect of this is to kill elements of $`K_0(Y)`$ which appear in $`H_{\text{even}}(Y,)`$. While this certainly can happen, such effects tend not to occur until one considers homology of a large dimension. We are mainly concerned with 0-cycles and 2-cycles in this paper and we will ignore such a possibility.666For the dual cohomology spectral sequence one may analyze the differentials in terms of “cohomology operations”. This severely restricts the allowed maps. Indeed, proposition 4.82 of  may be used to rule out the possibility of differentials in the spectral sequence from $`H^0`$ or $`H^2`$. We thus assume that $`E_{p,q}^2=E_{p,q}^{\mathrm{}}`$.

Of more interest is the fact that $`E_{p,q}^{\mathrm{}}`$ is associated to a filtration. Ignoring the effect of the differentials, there is a sequence of inclusions777Note this this filtration is in the opposite direction to the usual K-theory associated with cohomology.

$$K_0=K_0^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{}K_0^4K_0^2K_0^0,$$
(34)
where

$$H_nK_0^n/K_0^{n2},$$
(35)
and $`K_0^2=0`$.

Returning to the world of string theory, we know that singular (co)homology is not the relevant notion for describing string states on an orbifold with, or without, torsion. One needs to use “stringy (co)homology”. We will assert that the group $`D_0`$ essentially plays the rôle an object like $`K_0`$ except that it is related to stringy homology via the Atiyah-Hirzebruch spectral sequence. From now on we will use the symbol $`K_0`$ to refer to this stringy object. Note that $`K_0`$ knows about discrete torsion. This is similar to the approach of . Preliminary aspects of the mathematics of this object have been conjectured . We use equation (35) as our definition of stringy homology.

Note that (35) is not quite the same thing as saying

$$K_0=\underset{i\mathrm{even}}{}H_i,$$
(36)
as we will see shortly. Indeed (36) is false in general. Having said that, (36) is correct if one considers rational (or real or complex) coefficients rather than integers. In this way we really should see a McKay correspondence for homology from D-branes if we ignore considerations such as torsion.

Finally in this section we would like to prove the following:

###### Theorem 4

The stringy homology of $`^n/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ contains a torsion group of order $`p`$ as a subgroup, where $`p`$ is the order of the discrete torsion $`\alpha `$ in the group $`H^2(\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{U}(1))`$. Furthermore, the group $`H_2`$ is torsion-free if $`\alpha `$ is trivial.

Suppose first that $`\alpha `$ is trivial. Note that $`K_0`$ and thus all the subgroups $`K_0^n`$ are free. Next note that if $`\alpha `$ is trivial then one of the representations of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the trivial representation, $`R_0`$, which is one dimensional. Now the regular representation $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ breaks up into a sum $`_ldim(R_l)R_l`$ and so $`R_0`$ appears with multiplicity one. Since $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ generates $`K_0^0`$ we may construct $`H_2=K_0^2/K_0^0`$ from $`K_0^2`$ simply by eliminating $`R_0`$ as a generator. Thus $`H_2`$ is free and we prove the second part of the theorem.

The proof of the first part of the theorem requires the introduction of some more technicalities and the reader may wish to skip the rest of this section. The “representation group”, $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$, of a group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ over the field $``$ is defined as follows. Suppose we have the following central extension of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$:

$$1A\stackrel{i}{}\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\begin{array}{c}s\\ \\ j\\ \\ \end{array}\mathrm{\Gamma }1,$$
(37)
where $`A`$ is a finite group isomorphic to $`H^2(\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{U}(1))`$. The map $`s`$ is a set-theoretic map acting as a right-inverse to $`j`$. Given any linear representation of $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ we may use $`s`$ to define a projective representation of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, The group $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ is said to be a representation group for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ over $``$ if any projective representation may be lifted to a linear representation of $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$. It is established (see 3.3 in ) that $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ exists for any $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

Let $`R`$ be an $`N`$-dimensional irreducible projective representation of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ twisted by a specific $`\alpha H^2(\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{U}(1))`$. We lift this to an $`N`$-dimensional irreducible linear representation $`\widehat{R}`$ of $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$. Since $`i(A)`$ is central, the representation in $`\widehat{R}`$ of any element of $`i(A)`$ must be proportional to the identity matrix. There is natural isomorphism $`\mathrm{Hom}(A,\mathrm{U}(1))H^2(\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{U}(1))`$ which explicitly gives $`\widehat{R}(i(A))`$ as a subgroup of $`\mathrm{U}(1)`$ for a given choice of $`\alpha `$.

Consider the projective representation ring of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. If $`R_1`$ is an $`\alpha _1`$-twisted projective representation of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`R_2`$ is an $`\alpha _1`$-twisted projective representation then $`R_1R_2`$ is an ($`\alpha _1+\alpha _2`$)-twisted projective representation where we use the natural group structure of $`H^2(\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{U}(1))`$. Thus if $`\alpha `$ is of order $`p`$ in $`H^2(\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{U}(1))`$, then the elements of $`\widehat{R}(i(A))`$ must be of order $`p`$. Indeed it must be that $`\widehat{R}(i(A))_p`$.

Now note that one cannot have a one-dimensional truly projective representation. This is because the choice of $`\alpha `$ in such a representation would necessarily be the coboundary of a one-cocycle. Taking determinants of the matrices $`\widehat{R}`$ above, gives a one-dimensional representation which is an submodule of the tensor product $`R^N`$. This implies that the $`N`$th power of any element of $`A`$ must be trivial in the representation $`\widehat{R}(i(A))`$. This implies that $`N`$ is a multiple of $`p`$.

The above argument shows that all the irreducible projective representations of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ have dimension equal to a multiple of some integer $`p`$ given by the order of $`\alpha `$. This implies that the representation $`^\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }=_ldim(R_l)R_l`$ is $`p`$-divisible. Since $`K_0^0`$ is generated by $`^\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }`$, this means that $`K_0/K_0^0`$ has an element of $`p`$-torsion. This proves the first part of the theorem.

Note that we have not proven that this torsion subgroup lives entirely in $`H_2`$. The form of the filtration could conceivably force it to be spread over many homology groups. It would also be interesting if we could prove that $`p`$ is the greatest common divisor of the dimensions of the projective representations of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. This would show that the torsion in $`K_0/K_0^0`$ is precisely $`_p`$. We will not attempt this here.

## 5 Examples

### 5.1 $`_2\times _2`$

We first consider everyone’s favorite example of discrete torsion. Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be the group $`_2\times _2`$ acting on $`^3`$ generated by $`a=\mathrm{diag}(1,1,1)`$ and $`b=\mathrm{diag}(1,1,1)`$. It is well-known that $`H^2(_2\times _2,\mathrm{U}(1))_2`$. Hence there are two choices — one may have discrete torsion switched on or off. This example gives rise to a non-isolated singularity. There are three complex lines of $`_2`$-fixed points passing through the origin.

#### 5.1.1 No discrete torsion

Let us first discuss the case without discrete torsion. Many aspects of this have been analyzed in the context of D-branes in  for example. Since this is an abelian group, there are as many representations as there are group elements — i.e., four. Each representation is one-dimensional and is listed in table 1. We show the quiver in figure 1. Note that if we have an arrow going from vertex $`i`$ to vertex $`j`$ and another arrow from vertex $`j`$ back to vertex $`i`$ then we combine them into a single line in this diagram. The simplifies the appearance of the diagrams in this paper.888Indeed all the arrows appearing in this paper have this property. This is certainly not true in general.

We see therefore that $`K_0`$ is the free abelian group generated by four elements which we call $`k_0,\mathrm{},k_3`$. The regular representation is given by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=R_0R_1R_2R_3`$ and thus $`k_0+k_1+k_2+k_3`$ corresponds to a point in $`^3/(_2\times _2)`$.

Computing the value of $`w(\gamma )`$ from (32) for each of the group elements shows that we expect $`H_0`$ to be dimension one and $`H_2`$ to be dimension three with $`H_n`$ dimension zero for $`n>2`$. Thus the filtration associated to the Atiyah-Hirzebruch spectral sequence implies that

$$H_2K_0/K_0^0K_0/H_0.$$
(38)
That is, we may consider $`H_2^3`$ to be generated by $`k_1,k_2,k_3`$ with a redundant generator $`k_0=k_1k_2k_3`$.

In order to map this to the classical picture for the homology of this orbifold, we need to blow-up. The toric picture for a blow-up is given in figure 2. We refer to  for example for more details.

This resolution contains three isolated rational curves $`C_1,C_2,C_3`$ shown as lines in figure 2. We claim that these curves correspond to the generators $`k_1,k_2,k_3`$.

This would mean that $`C_1`$ is represented by the representation $`R_1`$. That is, the integers $`v_l`$ of section 2 are given by $`(v_0,v_1,v_2,v_3)=(0,1,0,0)`$. Constructing the moduli space for such a quiver is rather trivial and $`\mathrm{M}_{R_1}`$ is a point. This is consistent with this curve being isolated.

Now consider the homology class $`C_1+C_3`$. The geometry of the blow-up dictates that this is the class of a 2-cycle that is free to move along the resolution of a fixed line of the orbifold action. Indeed, for $`(v_0,v_1,v_2,v_3)=(0,1,0,1)`$ one may show that $`\mathrm{M}_{R_1R_3}`$ is given by $`/_2`$.

We now show this is consistent with the discussion at the end of section 3. Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_x_2`$ be the subgroup of $`_2\times _2`$ generated by $`a`$. This fixes a complex line. Let $`R_x`$ be trivial representation of this $`_2`$ subgroup and let $`R_x^{}`$ be the induced representation of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Now $`R_x^{}=^\mathrm{\Gamma }_{_x^\mathrm{\Gamma }}R_x`$ is easily seen to be two-dimensional and generated by $`11`$ and $`b1`$. With respect to this basis one computes $`1`$ and $`a`$ to be given by the identity matrix; and $`b`$ and $`ab`$ is given by $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right)`$.

This implies that $`R_x^{}=R_0R_2`$. Similarly if $`R_x`$ were the nontrivial representation of $`_2`$ then $`R_x^{}=R_1R_3`$. Thus the regular representation can be decomposed $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=(R_0R_2)(R_1R_3)`$ to give two wrapped branes running up and down the lines fixed by $`a`$. Note that in homology $`k_0+k_2=(k_1+k_3)`$ and so these two branes are oppositely oriented consistent with the description in .

The K-theory story gives the full picture. The representations $`R_0R_2`$ and $`R_1R_3`$ both correspond to the homology element given by the two-cycle $`C_1+C_3`$. The sum of these representations gives a point (rather than a trivial cycle).

In the case of the regular representation we have various components for $`\mathrm{M}_{R_0R_1R_2R_3}`$:

1. A point may move anywhere in $`^3/(_2\times _2)`$. This gives a component of the moduli space equal to $`^3/(_2\times _2)`$.
2. Two wrapped branes may move up and down the complex line fixed by $`a`$. This gives a component equal to $`^2/(_2)^3`$.
3. Two wrapped branes may move up and down the complex line fixed by $`b`$. This gives another component equal to $`^2/(_2)^3`$.
4. Two wrapped branes may move up and down the complex line fixed by $`ab`$. This gives another component equal to $`^2/(_2)^3`$.

#### 5.1.2 With discrete torsion

Now let us switch discrete torsion on. The discrete quaternion group $`𝖧`$ can be written as a central extension:

$$1_2𝖧_2\times _2.$$
(39)
This defines a cocycle in $`H^2(_2\times _2,_2)`$ which defines a cocycle $`\alpha H^2(_2\times _2,\mathrm{U}(1))`$. The cocycle is given in table 2.999It is not possible to write a valid cocycle in any way as $`\alpha (a^mb^n,a^m^{}b^n^{})=i^{mn^{}m^{}n}`$ as has been claimed in the literature. This case was analyzed in .

The proof of theorem 4 shows that any irreducible representation of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ must have a dimension which is a multiple of two. Since $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ has only four elements, (19) implies that there can only be a single irreducible representation, $`R_0`$, of dimension two. The rather trivial quiver in this case is shown in figure 3.

The only $`\alpha `$-regular conjugacy class is the identity. The value of $`w(1)`$ is zero and so we have $`H_0`$ having rank one. There are no twisted strings states which generate $`H_n`$ for $`n>0`$. However, it is not correct to say that $`H_0`$ is the only nontrivial stringy homology group.

It is clear that $`^\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }=2R_0`$. This implies that $`K_0/K_0^0_2`$ which means that one of the stringy homology groups $`H_{2a}`$ is given by $`_2`$ for some $`a1`$. It is not clear how this torsion cycle could be declared to be a 2-cycle rather than a 4-cycle etc. All that we see is that there is a torsion cycle somewhere!

For the wrapped branes, let us consider a subset $`_2\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ which fixes some complex line. Restricting to this subgroup, $`\alpha `$-twisted projective representations become linear representations. Either of the irreducible representations of $`_2`$ induce the projective representation $`R_0`$ of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Thus $`R_0`$ gives the brane stuck along the fixed lines.

Again in the case of the representation $`^\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }`$ we have various components for $`\mathrm{M}_{2R_0}`$:101010The extra components were missed in the analysis of .

1. A point may move anywhere in $`^3/(_2\times _2)`$. This gives a component of the moduli space equal to $`^3/(_2\times _2)`$.
2. Two wrapped branes may move up and down the complex line fixed by $`a`$. This gives a component equal to $`^2/(_2)^3`$.
3. Two wrapped branes may move up and down the complex line fixed by $`b`$. This gives another component equal to $`^2/(_2)^3`$.
4. Two wrapped branes may move up and down the complex line fixed by $`ab`$. This gives another component equal to $`^2/(_2)^3`$.
5. One wrapped brane may move along the line fixed by $`a`$ and one wrapped brane may move along the line fixed by $`b`$. This gives another component equal to $`^2/(_2)^3`$.
6. One wrapped brane may move along the line fixed by $`a`$ and one wrapped brane may move along the line fixed by $`ab`$. This gives another component equal to $`^2/(_2)^3`$.
7. One wrapped brane may move along the line fixed by $`b`$ and one wrapped brane may move along the line fixed by $`ab`$. This gives another component equal to $`^2/(_2)^3`$.

In particular, there are a good deal more components than there were in the case with no discrete torsion. This is because the two wrapped branes are not now paired. One may obtain the K-theory element corresponding to a point by adding any two wrapped branes together. They need not originate from the same fixed line.

### 5.2 A trihedral group

Let $`a`$ and $`b`$ generate $`_2\times _2`$ as above. Let

$$g=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\\ 1& 0& 0\end{array}\right).$$
(40)
In this section we will let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be the twelve element group generated by $`a`$, $`b`$ and $`g`$. This is a “trihedral group” and is probably the easiest nonabelian to analyze in the context of the McKay correspondence. It has been analyzed in  for example.

Note that $`g^1ag=b`$, $`g^1bg=ab`$, and $`g^1abg=a`$. This gives a $`_3`$ action on $`_2\times _2`$ and realizes $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ as the semi-direct product $`_3(_2\times _2)`$. One may now use the Hochschild-Serre spectral sequence (see section VII.6 of  for example) to show that $`H^2(\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{U}(1))_2`$. Thus, as in the previous example, we have a choice of no discrete torsion or a unique nontrivial discrete torsion.

#### 5.2.1 No discrete torsion

It is a simple matter to determine that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ has 4 conjugacy classes given by $`\{1\}`$, $`\{a,b,ab\}`$, $`\{g,ag,bg,abg\}`$ and $`\{g^2,ag^2,bg^2,abg^2\}`$. The characters are shown in table 3, where $`\omega =\mathrm{exp}(2\pi i/3)`$. $`R_0`$ is the trivial representation and $`R_3`$ is the same as $`Q`$. The quiver is shown in figure 4.

Now $`w(1)=0`$ and $`w(a)=w(g)=w(g^2)=1`$. This leads to $`H_0`$ and $`H_2^3`$.

Next note that the $`_3`$ subgroup of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ generated by $`g`$ fixes a line. Let us find the representations of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ corresponding to wrapped branes running along this line. A little group theory shows that the trivial representation of $`_3`$ induces the representation $`R_0R_3`$ of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ while the other two irreducible representations of $`_3`$ induce the representations $`R_1R_3`$ and $`R_2R_3`$. The representation of a point which is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=R_0R_1R_23R_3`$ may thus break up into these three wrapped branes in accord with the usual picture.

We also have a line of fixed points generated by the $`_2`$ subgroup generated by $`a`$. (This is identified with the lines fixed by $`b`$ and $`ab`$ by the $`_3`$ action.) Again, it is an exercise in group theory to show that the trivial representation of $`_2`$ induces the representation $`R_0R_1R_2R_3`$. The nontrivial irreducible representation of $`_2`$ induces the representation $`2R_3`$. Again these two representations add up to give the regular representation.

Note that for the $`_2`$-fixed line there is a definite lack of symmetry between the two wrapped branes. One of them comes from a representation which is 2-divisible. That is, the state corresponding to the representation $`R_3`$ is stuck at the origin where as twice this representation gives a state that is free to run along the $`_2`$ fixed line. This is a little reminiscent of torsion even though there there is no torsion in this model.

#### 5.2.2 With discrete torsion

The quaternion group $`𝖧`$ admits a $`_3`$ automorphism leading to the group $`_3𝖧`$. This can be written as a central extension

$$1_2_3𝖧\mathrm{\Gamma }1,$$
(41)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is our desired trihedral group. This central extension gives an explicit representation of the group cocycle corresponding to the nontrivial choice of discrete torsion.

The analysis of section 4.2 together with equation (41) tells us that every projective representation of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ must have an even dimension. Since $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ has twelve elements, (19) implies that there must be three irreducible projective representations each of dimension two. The three $`\alpha `$-regular conjugacy classes are $`\{1\}`$, $`\{g,ag,bg,abg\}`$ and $`\{g^2,ag^2,bg^2,abg^2\}`$. The character table is given in table 4 and the quiver in figure 5.

The fields twisted by $`g`$ and $`g^2`$ both have $`w=1`$. Thus we appear to have two generators for $`H_2`$. The representation $`^\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is 2-divisible and so we have 2-torsion somewhere in $`H_{}`$. Either one writes $`H_2_2`$, or the 2-torsion goes into a higher $`H_n`$. As in the previous case with discrete torsion, it is difficult to ascribe any dimensionality to this torsion cycle.

The element $`g`$ fixes a complex line as before. This $`_3`$ subgroup’s three irreducible representations induce $`R_1R_2`$, $`R_0R_2`$ and $`R_0R_1`$ respectively as the projective representations of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. These are our three wrapped branes that move on this complex line.

The element $`a`$ fixes another complex line as before. The two irreducible representations of the corresponding $`_2`$ both induce the projective representation $`R_1R_2R_3`$. This representation is “half of a point” and gives a state that is free to move along this fixed line. Twice this state can move anywhere.

## 6 Discussion of Strings versus D-Branes

We would like to draw attention to the fact that theorem 4 does not say that the torsion in the homology of an orbifold with discrete torsion is given by $`H^2(\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{U}(1))`$. Rather we say that $`\alpha `$ may take on any value of $`H^2(\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{U}(1))`$ and, for a given choice, the homology of the orbifold will naturally contain a cyclic torsion component $`_p`$ where $`p`$ depends upon $`\alpha `$.

The examples in section 5 both had $`H^2(\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{U}(1))_2`$ and the nontrivial choice of $`\alpha `$ yielded $`p=2`$. Life can get more complicated than this however. It is quite possible that $`H^2(\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{U}(1))`$ is not a cyclic group. For $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=_2\times _2\times _2\mathrm{SU}(4)`$, one has $`H^2(\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{U}(1))(_2)^3`$ for example.111111It would be interesting to see if any finite subgroup of $`\mathrm{SU}(3)`$ gives a noncyclic discrete torsion group. The torsion in the homology we found in section 4 is cyclic and can never therefore equal the full discrete torsion group in this case. (We should point out that there may be other contributions to torsion in the homology groups of dimension $`>2`$ but this is not the torsion in homology we are naturally associating to the discrete torsion.)

This, combined with the K-theory nature of D-brane charge gives a definite asymmetry between the string and the D1-brane as we now discuss.

Consider a type IIB string on a space $`Y`$. The $`B`$-field which is associated to the string charge is valued in $`H^2(Y,\mathrm{U}(1))`$. It generally believed that the $`B`$ field therefore encodes the discrete torsion degree of freedom. This has been established rigorously by Sharpe  if one views the $`B`$-field as a gerbe connection.

The analogue degree of freedom for the D1-brane comes from the RR degrees of freedom which live on a torus associated to the lattice of D-brane charges. In the case of $`Y=^n/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ we have proposition 2 which implies that this torus has dimension given by the number of irreducible (projective) representations of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Two points are worth noting:

1. This torus is a connected space — there are never discrete degrees of freedom. This is because the lattice of charges in proposition 2 is a free group.
2. The dimensionality depends upon a choice $`\alpha `$ of discrete torsion.

Clearly this implies that there is no analogue of “discrete torsion” in the RR sector. The $`B`$-field degrees of freedom and the RR degrees of freedom are completely different. We believe that the interpretation of this fact is that one cannot truly claim that there is an S-duality of the type IIB string which exchanges the string with the D1-brane. Note that S-duality was also analyzed in a related context in . It would be interesting to understand the relation between their work and ours.

Note that this is consistent with the point of view that such a duality is likely to be killed if we look at vacua with too little supersymmetry . In order to obtain nontrivial discrete torsion we must compactify on a space with holonomy at least $`\mathrm{SU}(3)`$.121212For any finite group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{SU}(2)`$ one may show that $`H^2(\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{U}(1))`$ is trivial. This may be done by applying the Cartan–Leray spectral sequence to the free quotient $`S^3/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Thus we only see these peculiarities in the discrete degrees of freedom for theories with eight supercharges or fewer.

Note finally that for examples where the orbifold action is free, one might expect discrete degrees of freedom in the RR sector. An example of this was analyzed in  where are definite choice of an apparent discrete degree of freedom was required in order to obtain “black hole level matching”. Clearly we do not yet completely understand the RR degrees of freedom in general.

## Acknowledgements

It is a pleasure to thank R. Bryant, D. Hain, E. Sharpe and everyone in “The McKay Correspondence” workshop at UNC for useful conversations. Research partially supported by National Science Foundation grant DMS-0074072. P.S.A. is also supported in part by a research fellowship from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation.


format: text

text:
# Untitled Document

This paper has been withdrawn by the authors, due to a mistake pointed out by Lenny Ng and Josh Sabloff.


text:
# Dislocation-Mediated Melting: The One-Component Plasma Limit

## 1 Introduction

The classical one-component plasma (OCP) is an idealized system of mobile ions of charge $`Ze,`$ number density $`n,`$ and temperature $`T,`$ immersed in a neutralizing background of uniform charge density $`Zne.`$ The OCP is realized in nature only at the enormous densities occuring in white dwarfs and neutron stars. The thermodynamics of the classical OCP is completely described in terms of the dimensionless coupling parameter

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=\frac{(Ze)^2}{ak_BT},$$
(1)
where $`a=(3/4\pi n)^{1/3}`$ is the Wigner-Seitz radius. In the quantum regime, one more parameter, $`a`$ or $`T,`$ is needed to characterize the system. Melting of a classical OCP occurs at a fixed value, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_m,`$ of the plasma coupling parameter. When $`\mathrm{\Gamma }>\mathrm{\Gamma }_m,`$ a OCP is either a glass , or it has a bcc crystal structure provided that it is subject to only hydrostatic stress. The evaluation of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_m`$ for melting from the bcc structure has been the subject of extensive Monte Carlo (MC) calculations \[3-16\] employing the Ewald potential, which yields data pertinent to an infinite system from simulations using only a finite number of particles confined to a cubic computational cell with periodic boundary conditions. By fitting simple functional forms, guided by theory, to the measured excess potential energy per particle for both liquid and solid phases of the OCP, it is possible to obtain the Helmholtz free energy as a function of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }.`$ The intersection of the liquid and solid free-energy curves gives the value of the melting parameter $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_m.`$ In their pioneering study , Brush, Sahlin and Teller observed melting in a 32-particle system at $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_m125.`$ Subsequently Hansen  and Pollock and Hansen  followed with an improved calculation and found $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_m=155\pm 10.`$ Van Horn  used the empirical Lindemann melting criterion to obtain $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_m=170\pm 10.`$ Other MC studies resulted in the following values of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_m:`$ 144 , $`168\pm 4`$ , $`178\pm 1`$ , $`180\pm 1`$ , 178 , 172 , and 173 . Values of very similar magnitude have been obtained in MC simulations of a strongly-coupled screened-Coulomb (Yukawa) system in the limit of zero screening: 171  and 171.8 . Recent path-integral MC simulations of the OCP  give $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_m=175.`$ Hence, numerous MC studies suggest that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_m170180`$ for the classical bcc OCP.

In this paper we calculate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_m`$ using a melting relation obtained from our model of dislocation-mediated melting . Before proceeding with the calculation of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_m,`$ we briefly recapitulate the main ideas and assumptions of our melting model. As first proposed by Mott , dislocations are assumed to be the basic degrees of freedom underlying the melting transition. Dislocation interactions beyond a distance of order the mean dislocation separation are assumed negligible because of screening, and steric interactions are ignored. Accordingly, dislocations are taken to be non-interacting and therefore uncorrelated, and are modeled as lines lying along the nearest-neighbor links of the lattice. The links coincide with the shortest perfect-dislocation Burgers vectors, which have magnitude $`b.`$ The dislocation configurations (Brownian, self-avoiding, open, closed, etc.) are parametrized by a single parameter $`q>1,`$ in terms of which the mean dislocation length is given by $`L=4qb/(q1).`$ In addition to $`q,`$ the partition function depends on the temperature-dependent effective dislocation line tension, that is, the energy cost to create unit length of dislocation at temperature $`T.`$ The effective line tension vanishes at the critical temperature $`k_BT_{cr}=\sigma b/\mathrm{ln}(z1).`$ Here $`z`$ is the coordination number of the lattice and $`\sigma ,`$ which we discuss in more detail below, is the $`\rho `$-dependent self-energy per unit length, $`\rho `$ being the dislocation density. Dislocations proliferate as $`T_{cr}`$ is approached from below, while at temperatures just above $`T_{cr}`$ the partition function diverges, an indication that a new phase appears. So $`T_{cr}`$ corresponds to a phase transition, namely melting, and we identify $`T_{cr}`$ with the melting temperature, $`T_m.`$ A full defect theory of melting, a version of which is presently available , would have to include the effects of both dislocations and disclinations. In our model we ignore the effects of disclinations under the assumption that they will produce only small changes of the order of 10% to the melting temperature.

Under the assumption that dislocation strain fields are screened away at distances beyond the mean interdislocation spacing, the self-energy per unit length is given by

$$\sigma =\frac{1\nu /2}{1\nu }\frac{Gb^2}{4\pi }\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\alpha R}{b}\right)=\frac{1\nu /2}{1\nu }\frac{Gb^2}{8\pi }\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\alpha ^2}{4b^2\rho }\right),$$
(2)
where $`2R1/\sqrt{\rho }`$ is the mean distance between dislocations, $`\nu `$ is the Poisson ratio, $`G`$ is the shear modulus and $`\alpha `$ accounts for non-linear effects in the dislocation core. Many authors  have successfully used this $`\mathrm{ln}(1/\rho )`$ form for $`\sigma ,`$ so we chose it as well, even though it has not been thoroughly investigated theoretically. Careful derivations  have been carried out only for nearly parallel dislocations. However, the $`\mathrm{ln}(1/\rho )`$ form is expected to hold in a three-dimensional ensemble of non-directed dislocations provided the mean dislocation length is much larger than the mean distance between dislocations, that is, $`L\sqrt{\rho }1.`$ In our model the $`\mathrm{ln}(1/\rho )`$ self-energy leads to a dislocation free energy $`F=a_1\rho \mathrm{ln}\rho a_2\rho a_3\rho ^{a_4},`$ and the $`\rho \mathrm{ln}\rho `$ term results in a first-order melting transition.

We obtain the following melting relation:

$$k_BT_m=\frac{1\nu /2}{1\nu }\frac{\lambda G(T_m)v_{WS}(T_m)}{8\pi \mathrm{ln}(z1)}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\alpha ^2}{4b^2\rho (T_m)}\right).$$
(3)
Here $`v_{WS}`$ is the Wigner-Seitz volume, $`\lambda b^3/v_{WS}`$ is a geometric factor characterizing the lattice, and $`\rho (T_m)`$ is the dislocation density at melt. Note that the factor $`\mathrm{ln}(z1)`$ explicitly accounts for the influence of crystal structure on melting. This melting relation plus experimental data on over half the elements in the periodic table gives $`b^2\rho (T_m)=0.61\pm 0.20`$ .

In ref.  we applied Eq. (3) to the zero-pressure elemental data for more than half of the periodic table and found that it is accurate to 17%. Here we investigate the validity of this relation in the OCP limit by using it to calculate the value of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_m`$, which is then compared to the available MC data.

Calculation of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_m`$ from Eq. (3) requires that we make the reasonable assumption that $`\alpha ^2/b^2\rho (T_m)`$ is a pressure-independent constant. Then we can estimate this quantity for the OCP from zero-pressure data on the alkali metals. It is well known that the deviations of alkali-metal Fermi surfaces from perfect spheres are of order 1% or less, clear evidence that the valence electrons are very nearly free. In addition, the ratio of ionic radius to half the interatomic distance increases from 0.4 in Li to only 0.7 in Cs , hence the overlap between alkali ions is small, and so to a good approximation the ions are effectively point charges. With respect to many of its physical properties (third-order elastic constants are one exception ), an alkali metal can be regarded as a bcc lattice of point positive ions in a uniform background of free electrons, i.e., a one-component plasma.

## 2 Analysis of alkali metal data

Let us first discuss the temperature dependencies of $`G`$ and $`v_{WS},`$ since their values to be used in Eq. (3) should be those at $`T=T_m,`$ not the measured values at room temperature.

The fixed-pressure ratio of Wigner-Seitz volumes at $`T_m`$ and $`T=0`$ is equal to $`1+\beta T_m,`$ where $`\beta `$ is the volume expansivity. At $`p=0,`$ $`\beta `$ is typically of order $`10^5`$ K$`^1,`$ and melting temperatures are at most about 4000 K, so $`v_{WS}`$ changes by only a few percent between $`T=0`$ and $`T_m.`$ We can therefore always use room-temperature values for $`v_{WS}.`$

In contrast to $`v_{WS},`$ the dependence of $`G`$ on $`T`$ is not necessarily weak. Its $`T`$-dependence involves two characteristic temperatures, namely the Debye temperature, $`T_D,`$ and the melting temperature. $`G`$ is always monotonically decreasing with $`T,`$ and is nonlinear for $`T\stackrel{<}{}T_D`$ and linear from $`T_D`$ to $`T_m.`$ An accurate representation of $`G(T)`$ at fixed density is achieved by ignoring the low-temperature non-linearity and approximating $`G(T)`$ as a linear function of the reduced temperature $`T/T_m`$ with the correct value $`G(0)`$ at $`T=0`$ :

$$G(T)=G(0)\left(1\gamma \frac{T}{T_m}\right).$$
(4)
This straight-line representation turns out to be quite accurate: the maximum deviation of the data from the corresponding fitted lines is $`11`$% for the 22 metals analyzed in .

Hence, as follows from Eq. (3),

$$\frac{1}{\lambda \mathrm{ln}(\alpha ^2/4b^2\rho (T_m))}=\frac{1\nu /2}{1\nu }\frac{1\gamma }{2}\frac{G(0)v_{WS}}{4\pi k_BT_m\mathrm{ln}7},$$
(5)
where we have taken $`z=8.`$ For our analysis, we use Li, Na, K, Rb, and Cs, and omit Fr for which lattice constant data are not available. For the remaining 5 alkali metals, $`v_{WS}=a^3/2,`$ where the values of the lattice constant, $`a`$, are taken from . The values of both $`G(0)`$ and $`T_m`$ come from . We take the values of $`\gamma `$ from ref.  for Na, K and Rb, and for Li and Cs we use $`\gamma =0.23,`$ which is the average value over the 22 metals analyzed in . The corresponding values of $`\nu `$ are taken from ref. . Averaging over the five alkali metals gives

$$\frac{1}{\lambda \mathrm{ln}(\alpha ^2/4b^2\rho (T_m))}=0.385\pm 0.052,$$
(6)
where the error is the root-mean-square deviation.

## 3 OCP melting parameter $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_m`$

We first consider the Poisson ratio in the OCP limit. In terms of $`G`$ and the bulk modulus, $`B,`$ the Poisson ratio is given by

$$\nu =\frac{3B2G}{2(3B+G)}.$$
(7)
We approximate $`B^{\mathrm{OCP}}`$ by the bulk modulus of the electron gas since the negative electrostatic (Madelung) contribution never exceeds 10% of the bulk modulus of the gas. The variation of $`B^{\mathrm{OCP}}`$ with density changes from a $`n^{5/3}`$ dependence in the non-relativistic case to a $`n^{4/3}`$ dependence in the extreme relativistic limit, whereas the OCP shear modulus always varies as $`n^{4/3}.`$ Hence, in a non-relativistic gas, $`B/Gn^{1/3}1,`$ so $`\nu 1/2,`$ as seen from Eq. (7). Although $`B`$ and $`G`$ both vary as $`n^{4/3}`$ in the extreme relativistic limit, we find $`B/G1000Z^{2/3},`$ so again $`B/G1`$ and $`\nu 1/2.`$

Hence, as follows from Eqs. (1),(3) and (6) with $`\nu =1/2,`$ the OCP melting parameter is given by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_m=(0.385\pm 0.052)8\pi \mathrm{ln}7\frac{2}{3}\frac{(4\pi /3)^{1/3}(Ze)^2n^{4/3}}{G^{\mathrm{OCP}}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_m)},$$
(8)
where we have used $`v_{WS}=1/n.`$

The bcc OCP elastic constants were recently obtained by Ogata and Ichimaru, using MC simulations , as functions of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }.`$ However, the formula for the effective shear modulus used in ref. ,

$$G_{\mathrm{eff}}=\frac{c_{11}c_{12}+3c_{44}}{5},$$
(9)
is in fact the Voigt (upper) bound  on the shear modulus, and therefore does not give the correct value of $`G,`$ which is known to always lie between the Voigt and the Reuss (lower)  bounds.

An analysis by Kröner  shows that successively narrower bounds can be placed on the shear modulus as the degree of disorder in grain orientation increases. In the limit of perfect disorder, the shear modulus can be obtained as a root of a cubic equation with coefficients that depend on the single-crystal elastic constants. In the case of the OCP, where the shear modulus is down by a factor of $`n^{1/3}`$ from the bulk modulus, the cubic equation reduces to a quadratic with only one positive real root:

$$G=\frac{1}{6}\left[c_{44}+\sqrt{c_{44}^2+12(c_{11}c_{12})c_{44}}\right].$$
(10)
In Table I we present the values of the elastic constants from ref.  and the correct values of $`G^{\mathrm{OCP}}`$ as calculated from Eq. (10).

| $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ | $`(c_{11}c_{12})/2`$ | $`c_{44}`$ | $`G^{\mathrm{OCP}}`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`\mathrm{}`$ | 0.02454 | 0.1827 | 0.0930 |
| 800 | 0.024(2) | 0.174(1) | 0.089(12) |
| 400 | 0.025(2) | 0.167(1) | 0.087(11) |
| 300 | 0.025(3) | 0.157(4) | 0.084(19) |
| 200 | 0.019(3) | 0.12(1) | 0.064(28) |

Table I. The elastic constants and shear modulus,

in units of $`(4\pi /3)^{1/3}(Ze)^2n^{4/3}.`$

Let us again assume a linear temperature dependence of $`G^{\mathrm{OCP}}`$ on $`T1/\mathrm{\Gamma }:`$

$$G^{\mathrm{OCP}}(\mathrm{\Gamma })=G^{\mathrm{OCP}}(\mathrm{})\left(1\frac{\eta }{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\right).$$
(11)
Fitting the values in Table I to this linear formula, and taking into account their uncertainties, we obtain

$$\eta =36.7\pm 30.4.$$
(12)
Finally, we evaluate the OCP melting parameter $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_m`$ in the framework of melting as a dislocation-mediated phase transition. As follows from Eqs. (8), and (11),(12) with the value of $`G^{\mathrm{OCP}}(\mathrm{})`$ from Table I,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_m=172\pm 35.$$
(13)
This value is in good agreement with the available data from MC simulations, albeit with 20% uncertainty. We note that most $`(2/3)`$ of this uncertainty comes from the uncertainty in the value of $`\eta .`$

The OCP value of the parameter $`\gamma `$ defined in Eq. (4) is simply related to $`\eta `$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_m:`$

$$\eta \gamma ^{\mathrm{OCP}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_m.$$
(14)
From Eqs. (12) and (13) we get $`\gamma ^{\mathrm{OCP}}=0.21\pm 0.18,`$ which is consistent with the value of $`\gamma `$ at $`p0,`$ namely 0.23 .

## 4 Concluding remarks

Our central value for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_m,`$ that is 172, agrees well with the more recent MC results. Two-thirds of the 20% uncertainty in this value is attributable to the error in the MC-calculated temperature dependence of the OCP single-crystal elastic constants.

Our previous study of the melting curves of 18 elements  revealed that the melting relation (3) is in good agreement with data up to pressures $`100200`$ GPa. Here we have demonstrated that Eq. (3) also holds in a classical OCP. These successful comparisons of Eq. (3) with experimental data and MC calculations suggest, but of course do not by themselves prove, that melting is a dislocation-mediated phase transition.

## Acknowledgements

We wish to thank T. Goldman and R.R. Silbar for very valuable discussions during the preparation of this work, and M.M. Brisudová for her help with a least-squares fitting.


text:
# Proximity to a Nearly Superconducting Quantum Critical Liquid

\[

## Abstract

The coupling between superconductors and a quantum critical liquid that is nearly superconducting provides natural interpretation for the Josephson effect over unexpectedly long junctions, and the remarkable stripe-spacing dependence of the critical temperature in LSCO and YBCO superconductors.

\]

In the resonating-valence-bond (RVB) theory, the superconductivity in underdoped cuprates is thermodynamically close to a quantum spin liquid. Although at zero doping there is a Néel ordered state, it is believed that after sufficient doping the mobilized holes disorder the Néel state to a quantum spin liquid. This picture is in general agreement with the experimental data measured in underdoped samples. For example, a quasi-particle pseudo-gap forms much above the superconducting transition temperature $`T_c`$, and both the pseudo-gap and the energy gap below $`T_c`$ exhibit the $`d_{x^2y^2}`$-wave symmetry in the momentum space. Indeed, in a mean field solution to the RVB theory, the pseudo-gap follows from preformed spin pairs, and the condensation of these pairs, which is determined by the hole density $`x`$, defines the superconducting transition. The mean field solution captures the major feature of the underdoped superconductors, but it was accepted with skepticism because of the neglected gauge fluctuations.  However, it was recently realized that the gauge fluctuations can be integrated out rigorously in the long wave length and low energy limit and a renormalized theory can be obtained. In this respect, the notion of a quantum spin liquid is pertinent in the underdoped regime.

In the cuprates, superconductivity is developed beyond a critical doping $`x_c(>x_N)`$, and the transition temperature $`T_c`$ increases with $`x`$ at $`x>x_c`$ (but $`x<x_p`$ with $`x_p`$ the optimum doping). Since the transition involves condensation of spin pairs, it is reasonable to believe that the spin liquid at $`x_c`$ is a quantum critical liquid (QCL) that is nearly superconducting. The transition to a hole-uniform superconductor is, however, hidden by the phase separation instability at higher $`x`$, where the system is likely in a mixed phase composing of hole-rich stripes and the hole-poor critical liquid.  Below we argue that proximity to the postulated QCL is consistent with two seemingly unrelated sets of data: the Josephson effect in unusually lengthy junctions made of underdoped cuprates at $`x`$ slightly lower than $`x_c`$, and the stripe-spacing dependence of the transition temperature of underdoped superconductors.

We first consider the general behavior of the QCL. It is known that the Coulomb interaction is strong and long-ranged in cuprates, which frustrates the phase separation of holes to form stripes. Therefore, we believe that the dynamical exponent of the QCL should be $`z=1`$. An immediate consequence of this exponent is that the inverse of a length has the dimension of energy. On the other hand, since the spin pairs are well formed, the amplitude fluctuations of the pairs are massive and can be integrated out in principle. The important dynamics comes from the phase $`\theta `$ degrees of freedom of the pairs. Because of the isotropy in space and (imaginary) time, a generalized Josephson scaling relation for the phase stiffness can be obtained as follows. The Green’s function for $`\theta `$ is, in general,

$$G(q)=q^{(2\eta )}Y(q\xi ),$$
(1)
where $`q=(𝐤,\omega )`$ is a three-vector ($`𝐤`$ is the spatial wave vector and $`\omega `$ is the Matsubara frequency), $`\eta `$ is the anomalous dimension, $`\xi `$ is the correlation length, and finally $`Y(\zeta )`$ is a scaling function of $`\zeta `$. The phase stiffness $`\rho `$ (including the superfluid density and the compressibility) is determined by

$$\underset{q0}{lim}G(q)=b^2/\rho q^2,$$
(2)
where $`b=|\sqrt{x}e^{i\theta }|\xi ^{\beta /\nu }`$ is the order parameter with $`\beta `$ and $`\nu `$ being the scaling exponent for the order parameter and correlation length, respectively. Here $`x`$ is the hole density in the QCL. Thus

$$\rho =b^2\underset{q0}{lim}q^\eta Y^1(q\xi )\xi ^{\eta 2\beta /\nu }=\xi ^{(d+z2)},$$
(3)
where in the last step we have used the generalized hyperscaling relation $`2\beta =\nu (d+z2+\eta )`$ with $`d=2`$ being the spatial dimension in our case. Thus the desired Josephson scaling relation reads $`\rho \xi ^1`$. This result could also be obtained by a simple power counting as follows. Near criticality, one expects that

$$_{\xi ^{d+z}}\rho (_\mu \theta )^21$$
(4)
where the integration is over a volume of $`\xi ^{d+z}`$ due to the isotropy in space and time. The ansatz $`_\mu \theta 1/\xi `$ gives immediately the Josephson scaling. The above analysis implies that both the superfluid density and the compressibility scale as energy and/or inverse length. This statement is important to discuss the finite-size scaling in the following. With the general behavior of the QCL in mind, let us now discuss the relevance of the QCL in the cuprates.

(I) Photodoping experiment: In a very recent and elegant experiment,  superconducting wires are generated by photo-doping a film with $`x`$ slightly lower than $`x_c`$. The unluminated region serves as a junction. The critical current $`I_c`$ is measured as a function of the junction length $`s`$ (in the direction of current flow). It turns out that a relation

$$I_c1/s$$
(5)
holds from $`s=45nm`$ up to $`s=100nm`$, a length much larger than the coherence length $`\xi _s`$ ($`15nm`$) in the superconducting leads. This phenomenon is difficult to understood if the junction is a normal insulator or metal, as one would expect $`I_cse^{s/l}`$ where $`l=\xi _s`$ for a normal insulator and $`l=v_F/T`$ for a ballistic metal. According to the experimental setup, $`l100nm`$ for both cases. Therefore, the junction may be in a special state of matter, which is arguably a QCL. We note that the geometry of the experimental setup is two one-dimensional (1D) superconducting wires immersed in a QCL. This is an important aspect of the experiment. The Cooper pairs can tunnel through an extended area connecting the two wires. Because the junction length is the only relevant length scale, the Josephson energy scales as

$$E_J=F(s/\xi )/s$$
(6)
with a scaling function $`F(s/\xi )`$ if the junction is not exactly at criticality. It is expected that $`F(s/\xi )`$ remains a constant at $`s\xi `$. The above result can also be understood as follows. Since $`s`$ is the only length scale, the superfluid density $`\rho _s`$ in the junction sacles as $`1/s`$ and the transverse extension of the supercurrent flow is $`X_ss`$, up to corrections from a scaling function. The Josephson energy scale is thus given by

$$E_J_{sX_s}𝑑x𝑑y\rho _s(\theta )^2F(s/\xi )/s,$$
(7)
where the integration is over the area $`sX_s`$ where supercurrent flows. We have used $`\theta 1/s`$ for a rough estimate, and have included correction from the finiteness of $`s/\xi `$ by the scaling function. Since $`E_J`$ determines the critical current $`I_c`$, in suitable units we have

$$I_cs=F(s/\xi ).$$
(8)
At $`s<\xi `$ we expect that $`F`$ is roughly a constant, so that Eq.(5) is recovered. The plot of $`I_cs`$ is nothing but a scaling function. From the data $`I_cs`$ drops to zero quickly at $`s>100nm`$. This suggests that $`\xi 100nm`$. The decrease of $`I_cs`$ may be related to the thermal activation of vortices in the junction. More efforts should be devoted to explain the sharp drop of the scaling function, which is beyond the scope of this scaling argument. On the other hand, because $`z=1`$, we expect that $`\xi 1/T`$ in the critical regime, so that the scaling relation can be rewritten as

$$I_cs=F(Ts).$$
(9)
An important prediction follows from this function: Instead of varying $`s`$, one could vary the temperature $`T`$ to find the scaling behavior, provided that the superconductivity within the wires is hardly changed. This situation is perhaps not feasible by photodoping, but is plausible by other techniques.

To appreciate the importance of the special geometry of the junction we addressed so far, consider another situation. Suppose the superconducting leads are wide enough so that effectively the QCL only lives within the junction. Neglecting boundary corrections the Josephson energy should be extensive in the junction width $`L`$. The only other length scale is $`s`$. By dimension analysis, we obtain

$$E_J_0^L𝑑y_0^s𝑑x\rho _s(\theta )^2(L/s)\stackrel{~}{F}(s/\xi ,s/L)/s.$$
(10)
In the last expression, the first factor $`L/s`$ is extensive in $`L`$ but is dimensionless. The remaining part is the characteristic energy. Here $`\stackrel{~}{F}(s/\xi ,s/L)`$ is another scaling function that is finite at vanishing arguments. In this geometry, one would expect that

$$I_cs=(L/s)\stackrel{~}{F}(s/\xi ,s/L).$$
(11)
At $`s\xi `$ and $`sL`$, one would expect that $`I_cL/s^2`$, which should be contrasted with Eq.(5). This scaling form leads us to propose the experimental test of the idea of QCL in the junction. If one can create a wide junction by photodoping the wide stripes of material then the critical current should follow Eq.(11). The data of Decca et al begin with $`s>L`$, and are better described by the first geometry. (In fact, in their case, the width $`L`$ can not be well defined as the wires become rounded at the tips).

The QCL should also manifest itself in the magnetic field dependence of the Josephson critical current. Since the proliferation of vortices, each carrying a flux quantum, would wash out superconductivity, we expect that the magnetic field $`H`$ defines another length scale through $`1/\sqrt{H}`$. Thus in the presence of a weak magnetic field, we expect that in a given geometry of the junction the field dependence of the critical current should be qualitatively given by

$`I_c(H)/I_c(0)=1a(\xi \sqrt{H})^n`$

where $`n`$ is a universal positive exponent and $`a`$ a non-universal positive constant. In the critical regime where $`\xi >1/T`$ the above expression should be replaced by $`I_c(H)/I_c(0)=1a(\sqrt{H/T^2})^n`$. From the experiment of Decca et al, it turns out that $`n=4`$. In order to see whether their results support the QCL scenario, it is desirable to vary both $`H`$ and $`T`$ and to see whether $`I_c(H)/I_c(0)`$ is a scaling function of $`H/T^2`$ (in the critical regime).

(II) Stripes in underdoped cuprates: Let us now discuss the relevance of QCL in underdoped cuprates with hole-rich stripes. It was found that in LSCO materials there exists a striking linear relation between the superconducting critical temperature $`T_c`$ the incommensurate width $`\delta `$ near the peak at $`(\pi ,\pi )`$ in the neutron scattering spectrum. Recently, a similar relation was discovered from the inelastic neutron scattering dada in YBCO samples. More interestingly, it was further argued that $`T_c\delta `$ translates to

$$T_c=hv^{}/s,$$
(12)
where $`h=2\pi \mathrm{}`$ is the Planck constant, $`s`$ the spacing between stripes, and $`v^{}`$ a material-dependent constant with the dimension of velocity. Two aspects of Eq.(12) are quite unusual. First, for a given material, $`v^{}`$ should be constant and small ($`v^{}v_F`$ with $`v_F`$ being the Fermi velocity). And second, the robustness of the scaling up to the optimum doping, where the stripes, if they existed at all, would be densely spaced (with $`s1nm`$). It was conjectured that $`v^{}`$ may be related to an unknown collective-mode of the stripes and/or the motion of heavy quasiparticles near the flat band around $`(\pi ,0)`$. Given the experimental results, this conjecture is an important clue to the underlying mechanism. Here we argue that Eq.(12) follows from dynamic stripes coupled by QCL.

We note that the stripes are metalic. They behaves as anti-phase domain walls for the remaining anti-ferro-magnetic background. (Recent mean-field calculations for the t-J model indicated that in-phase stripes are slightly more favorable energetically. However, it was believed that quantum fluctuations might stablize anti-phase stripes.) The holes in the stripes are not strickly localized in the transverse direction. Rather, because of quantum fluctuations, the stripes are dynamic unless pinned by inhomogeneities. Such transverse fluctuations were believed to develop strong superconducting correlations along the longitudinal direction of the stripes.  Also because of the transverse fluctuations of the stripes, the intervening region between the stripes may be driven to a quantum critical liquid, which is almost superconducting. Combining these considerations, we model the whole system as a superposition of superconducting stripes and quantum critical liquids plus coupling between them. This phenomenological model should be understood as an effective theory in the low energy limit. It does not answer why there are stripes and a QCL, which are the issue of a higher energy scale. Without loss of generality, let us assume that an isolated stripe $`\alpha `$ can be described by an action

$`S_\alpha ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑y𝑑\tau \left[u(_y\theta _\alpha )^2+v(_\tau \theta _\alpha )^2\right]},`$

where $`u`$ and $`v`$ are the bare stiffness components with respect to space $`y`$ and time $`\tau `$, and are assumed to be independent of the the stripe spacing $`s`$. (Because of transverse fluctuations of the stripes, the spacing is only defined in an average sense.) As we argued, the stripes are coupled by the QCL. We imagine to find the effective coupling between the stripes mediated by the QCL. This is virtually a real-space renormalization. In the long wave length and low energy limit, we need only to retain lowest order couplings. Clearly, there may be corrections to the bare stiffness components, which we believe is relatively small and is neglected in the following. Among the other effects, the Josephson-like coupling between nearest stripes $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑y𝑑\tau j(\theta _\alpha \theta _\beta )^2}`$

is the most relevant. The coefficient $`j`$ can be obtained by the same scaling arguments as that for the wide-junction geometry described above,

$`j=\stackrel{~}{F}(s/\xi ,s/L)/s^2,`$

where $`L`$ now denotes the characteristic length of the stripes. Again in the long wave length and low energy limit, we can approximate $`(\theta _\alpha \theta _\beta )^2/s^2`$ as $`(_x\theta )^2`$, so that the total action for the stripes can be put back into a continuum form in the $`r(x,y,\tau )`$ space as,

$`S={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle d^3r\rho _\mu (_\mu \theta )^2},`$

where $`\mu `$ denotes the three components, $`\rho _x=\stackrel{~}{F}(s/\xi ,s/L)/s`$, $`\rho _y=u/s`$ and $`\rho _\tau =v/s`$. This is an anisotropic 3D XY-model. To leading order all of the stiffness components in the new action are inversely proportional to $`s`$. If the system is macroscopically isotropic due to stripes in both directions, the global stiffness $`\rho `$ is given by the geometrical mean of the three components, so that

$$\rho =H(s/\xi ,s/L)/s.$$
(13)
Here $`H=\stackrel{~}{F}^{1/3}`$ is a scaling function given by $`\stackrel{~}{F}`$. The 3D XY-model develops long range ordering as long as $`\rho >0`$ in thermodynamic limit (i.e., in an infinite plane and at zero temperature).  This is again a quantum critical point with $`z=1`$ due to isotropy in space and time. Since $`\rho `$ has the dimension of energy, it naturally defines the scale of the superconducting gap. Thus at $`T>\rho `$ the system is in a quantum critical state, while at $`T<\rho `$ it is a renormalized superconductor. As a result, the transiton temperature is given by $`T_c=\rho `$, which was also indicated earlier in some stripe scenarios of high temperature superconductivity. In combination with the behavior of $`\rho `$ we obtain

$$T_cs=H(s/\xi ,s/L).$$
(14)
For long stripes, we can simplify the expression by the approximation $`T_cs=H(s/\xi ,0)`$. This explains why $`T_c`$ should be determined by $`s`$. The scaling function takes into account the correction due to the finiteness of $`s/\xi `$. The above results follow essentially from a finite-size scaling with respect to a QCL. It is not clear a priori that such a scaling should work at all at the more or less microscopic stripe spacing scales. Furthermore, the above relation does not guarantee that $`T_cs`$ will be a constant if $`H`$ varies significantly at moderate arguments. However, $`\xi 1/T_c`$ at $`T=T_c`$ in the critical regime of the QCL. Consequently,

$$T_cs=H(T_cs,0).$$
(15)
This is a remarkable result, indicating that the plot of $`H(T_cs,0)`$ against $`T_cs`$ only accesses a unique point of the scaling function at $`T_cs=hv^{}`$, with $`hv^{}`$ determined by the equation

$$hv^{}=H(hv^{},0).$$
(16)
We believe that this explains the robustness of Eq.(12), even though the scaling function $`H(\zeta ,0)`$ may vary with $`\zeta `$ due to the finite size effect. Clearly the notion of a QCL plays an important role in our arguments.

In summary, proximity to a quantum critical liquid that is nearly superconducting provides appealing interpretation of the abnormal Josephson effect and the stripe spacing dependence of $`T_c`$ in underdoped cuprates. We also predicted the Josephson effect in a geometry different from that in Ref.. The field dependence of the Josephson current is also discussed. Naturally one would expect other properties of superconductors in proximity to a quantum critical liquid. These may include scaling behavior of the various stiffness as a function of temperature, probing frequency and length scale.

###### Acknowledgements.

We are grateful to Dung-Hai Lee for his insightful comments in the initial stage of this work, and to I. Martin for useful discussions. QHW was supported by the National Natural Science Fundation of China, the Ministry of Science and Technology of China (NKBRSF-G19990646), and in part by the Berkeley Scholars Program financed by the Hutchison-Whampoa Company, Hong Kong. Work at Los Alamos was supported by US DOE.