text:
# LAPTH-902/02 DTP-MSU/02-10 F0 fluxbranes, F-walls and new brane worlds

## 1 Introduction

Multidimensional generalizations of the Melvin magnetic universe , currently known as fluxbranes, were suggested by Gibbons and Witshire in 1986  and generalized for the presence of dilaton by Gibbons and Maeda . Their relevance in quantum theory was emphasized in  where quantum creation of branes in the fluxbrane background was considered. More recently fluxbrane solutions were found to be important in the superstring theory . Their applications include construction of exact string backgrounds , demonstration of duality between type 0A and IIA string theories , brane nucleation , tachyon condensation  and others. Some of these solutions (but not all) are obtainable by compactification of vacuum spaces on twisted circles , other were found as exact solutions of supergravity equations. A rather complete list of (non-intersecting) fluxbrane solutions in classical ten and eleven-dimensional supergravities was given in , this includes F6 and F3 branes in $`D=11`$ and solutions corresponding to rank $`17`$ antisymmetric potentials in IIA and IIB theories. The transverse space of F$`p`$ fluxbranes may have spherical or cylindrical topology $`S_k\times R^{(8pk)}`$. Analytic solutions of the Melvin type exist only for $`k=1`$, in other cases regular solutions were found numerically.

Here we add to the list of one-component fluxbranes new solutions corresponding to so-called exotic branes. In type IIB theory these are associated with the Ramond-Ramond scalar and its dual eight-form potential, which give rise to the D-instanton and the seven-brane . Another exotic brane is the eight-brane, usually interpreted as belonging to massive IIA supergravity . An alternative interpretation uses a formulation of type II supergravities including a nine-form potential , note also the more recent “brane and bulk” formulation of ten-dimensional supergravities including all Ramond-Ramond potentials of rank $`p=0,\mathrm{},9`$ .

Magnetic fluxbranes in IIB theory carrying the flux of an eight-form, according to current notation , are F0 branes, with a pointlike support, so they present a new type of Lorentzian solutions of physical interest. It may seem counterintuitive to think about such configurations as fluxbranes, but in fact they preserve the main fluxbrane property — the finiteness of the form flux, and the space is still of the Melvin type in the cases where analytic solutions exist. Another natural question is that of the object with which the F0 branes are entitled to interact. Similarly with F1 fluxbranes which interact with a point charge, by dimensional counting F0 fluxbranes should interact with an instanton, in other words, putting the instanton on the (euclidean continuation of the) F0 fluxbrane will modify the D-instanton action. This is, however, not in the stream of the present investigation, so we do not discuss it further. For recent generalizations of instanton solutions to arbitrary dimensions (with the same action as ours) and to (A)dS spaces see .

We show that dilatonic F0 branes exist in any dimension $`D`$ with transverse spaces $`S_k\times R^{(Dk2)}`$ for $`1kD2`$, and we find analytic solutions for $`k=1`$ and $`k=D2`$. In the first case our solution is generic and contains (after gauge fixing) four arbitrary parameters. For certain values of these parameters one has a regular space of the Melvin type, while genericaly pointlike naked singularities are present. In particular, in $`D=3`$ this is a static Melvin-type magnetic universe supported by the Maxwell field. In four dimensions such a solution is supported by the Kalb-Ramond field which can be equally associated with the NS potential.

Electric fluxbranes associated with an eight-form in ten dimensions are F8 branes, alternatively they can be viewed as magnetic solutions supported by a RR scalar. These have the well-known structure of domain walls. F-walls turn out to be singular on some nine-dimensional hyperplane, so it is suggestive to introduce the source eight-brane(s). We show that a single brane of negative tension matches indeed to the F-wall producing an otherwise non-singular space-time. The situation is similar in any dimension in the presence of a scalar potential. It is worth noting that the source brane does not carry the charge of the fluxbrane form field, which in this case is not of the correct rank. To compare the situation with the recently studied charged supersymmetric branes , we also construct a solution for a source eight-brane carrying the RR charge of a nine-form potential. This is similar to the charged Randall-Sundrum flat brane-world without bulk cosmological constant, its five-dimensional counterpart is reminiscent of the solutions discussed in . Our solution containing a single source brane is regular outside the brane in the case of a negative brane tension. More complicated regular solutions should exist, including several source branes of both positive and negative tensions.

## 2  F0 branes

In this paper we will essentially use the formulation of Ref. . Consider the coupled system of $`D`$-dimensional gravity, an antisymmetric form of rank $`D1`$ and the dilaton:

$$S=\left(R\frac{1}{2}_\mu \varphi ^\mu \varphi \frac{1}{2(D1)!}\mathrm{e}^{a\varphi }F_{[D1]}^2\right)\sqrt{g}d^Dx,$$
(2.1)
where $`F_{[D1]}=dA_{[D2]}`$ and $`a`$ is an arbitrary dilaton coupling. The F0-brane spacetime we are looking for can be parametrized by three functions $`A(r),B(r),C(r)`$ of the radial variable as follows

$$ds^2=\mathrm{e}^{2A}dt^2+\mathrm{e}^{2B}dr^2+\mathrm{e}^{2C}(r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_k^2+\delta ^{mn}dy_mdy_n),$$
(2.2)
with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k,(1kD2)`$, being the spherical volume element, and $`m,n=1,\mathrm{},D2k`$. The F0-brane is centered at the origin, the ($`D1`$)-dimensional transverse space is the product of the $`k+1`$-dimensional ball and the flat euclidean space of dimension $`D2k`$. The magnetic ansatz for the F0-brane reads

$$F_{[D1]}=f(r)drϵ_{[k]}dy_1\mathrm{}dy_{D2k},$$
(2.3)
where $`ϵ_{[k]}`$ is the volume element of the unit $`k`$-sphere. The $`D1`$-form field equation

$$_\mu \left(\sqrt{g}\mathrm{e}^{a\varphi }F^{\mu \nu _1\mathrm{}\nu _9}\right)=0,$$
(2.4)
is then easily solved with the above ansatz to give

$$f=2\overline{b}\mathrm{e}^{H+2(BA)a\varphi },$$
(2.5)
where $`\overline{b}`$ is an integration constant, and

$$H=AB+(D2)C+k\mathrm{ln}r.$$
(2.6)
The non-zero components of the Ricci tensor for the metric (2.2) are given in , the resulting Einstein equations read

$`A^{\prime \prime }+H^{}A^{}2\overline{b}^2\mathrm{e}^{2(BA)a\varphi }`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (2.7)
$`C^{\prime \prime }+H^{}C^{}+r^2\left(rH^{}1(k1)\mathrm{e}^{2B2C}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (2.8)
$`(A^{\prime \prime }+A_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}A^{}B^{})+(D2)(C^{\prime \prime }+C_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}B^{}C^{})`$
$`+kr^1(2C^{}B^{})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\varphi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (2.9)
In addition, for all $`k<D2`$ the vanishing of the $`R_{yy}`$ component of the Ricci tensor leads to the equation

$$C^{\prime \prime }+H^{}C^{}=0.$$
(2.10)
The dilaton equation is similar to (2.7):

$$\varphi ^{\prime \prime }+H^{}\varphi ^{}=2a\overline{b}^2\mathrm{e}^{2(BA)a\varphi }.$$
(2.11)
### 2.1 $`k=1`$

We start with the simplest case $`k=1`$ (assuming $`D>3`$), in which the system of equations can be integrated in a closed form. In this case, Eq. (2.8) combined with (2.10) gives

$$H=\mathrm{ln}(r/l),l=\mathrm{const}.$$
(2.12)
Substituting this into Eq. (2.10) we find

$$C=\gamma \mathrm{ln}(r/r_0),r_0=\mathrm{const},$$
(2.13)
and consequently

$$B=A+\gamma (D2)\mathrm{ln}(r/r_0)+\mathrm{ln}l.$$
(2.14)
Integrating a linear combination of Eqs. (2.7) and (2.11) we find the following relation between $`\varphi `$ and $`A`$:

$$\varphi =aA+\beta \mathrm{ln}(r/r_1),\beta ,r_1=\mathrm{const}.$$
(2.15)
Using this together with the two previous relations in the Einstein equation (2.9), we arrive at the following non-linear equation for the dilaton function

$$\ddot{\varphi }+\frac{a}{2}\dot{\varphi }^22\alpha \dot{\varphi }+2\alpha \beta a\frac{D3}{D2}(\alpha ^21)=0,$$
(2.16)
where the dot denotes the derivative with respect to the logarithmic variable $`\tau =\mathrm{ln}r`$, and $`\alpha =1+\gamma (D2)`$. This is a first order equation for $`\dot{\varphi }`$, which is solved by

$$\varphi =\varphi _0+\frac{2}{a}\left[\alpha (\tau +\tau _0)+\mathrm{ln}\left(2\mathrm{cosh}\kappa (\tau +\tau _0)\right)\right],$$
(2.17)
with

$$\kappa ^2=\alpha ^2a\beta \alpha +\frac{a^2}{2}\frac{D3}{D2}(\alpha ^21).$$
(2.18)
Here $`\varphi _0`$ and $`\tau _0`$ are two new integration constants, and it is convenient to rename

$$\tau _0=\mathrm{ln}b.$$
(2.19)
So far we have not used the Einstein equation (2.7). Substituting (2.15), (2.17), (2.13) and (2.14) into (2.7), one finds

$$\overline{b}=\frac{2\kappa b}{|a|l}(br_0)^{\alpha 1}\mathrm{e}^{a\varphi _0/2}.$$
(2.20)
As a result, we obtain the following solution

$`\mathrm{e}^{2A}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{e}^{2\varphi _0/a}\left(br\right)^{4(\alpha \kappa )/a^2}\left({\displaystyle \frac{r_1}{r}}\right)^{2\beta /a}\left(1+\left(br\right)^{2\kappa }\right)^{4/a^2},`$ (2.21)
$`\mathrm{e}^{2B}`$ $`=`$ $`l^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{r}{r_0}}\right)^{2(\alpha 1)}\mathrm{e}^{2A},`$ (2.22)
$`\mathrm{e}^{2C}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{r}{r_0}}\right)^{2(\alpha 1)/(D2)},`$ (2.23)
$`\mathrm{e}^{a\varphi /2}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{e}^{a\varphi _0/2}\left(br\right)^{\alpha \kappa }\left(1+\left(br\right)^{2\kappa }\right),`$ (2.24)
$`f`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\kappa }{|a|}}\mathrm{e}^{a\varphi _0/2}(br_0)^{1\alpha }\left(br\right)^{2\kappa 1}\left(1+\left(br\right)^{2\kappa }\right)^2,`$ (2.25)
depending on arbitrary constants $`r_0,r_1,l,b,\alpha ,\kappa ,\varphi _0`$ ($`\beta `$ being related to $`\kappa `$ by (2.18)). Without loss of generality, one can fix the scale of time and of the radial coordinate $`r`$, and choose a normalization point for the dilaton so that

$$r_0=r_1=b^1,\varphi _0=0,$$
(2.26)
so finally we have a four-parametric family of solutions. Evidently, $`b`$ is the fluxbrane field strength parameter, the physical sense of other parameters is yet to be clarified.

Remarkably, the magnetic field $`F`$ depends only on the parameters $`b`$ and $`\kappa `$. It derives from the potential

$$A_{[D2]}=\frac{2}{|a|b}\frac{(br)^{2\kappa }}{1+(br)^{2\kappa }}d\phi dy_1\mathrm{}dy_{D3}.$$
(2.27)
The corresponding magnetic flux per unit (D-3)-dimensional volume is finite,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=_r\mathrm{}A_{[D2]}=\frac{4\pi }{|a|b}dy_1\mathrm{}dy_{D3}.$$
(2.28)
Solutions regular in the origin are obtained for $`\gamma =0`$ ($`\alpha =1`$), $`\beta =0`$ ($`\kappa =1`$) and $`l=1`$. The resulting metric

$$ds^2=\left(1+b^2r^2\right)^{4/a^2}(dt^2+dr^2)+r^2d\phi ^2+\delta ^{mn}dy_mdy_n$$
(2.29)
is nothing else than the smeared $`(1+2)`$-dimensional dilatonic Melvin-type solution. The corresponding dilaton and the form field are

$`\mathrm{e}^{a\varphi /2}`$ $`=`$ $`1+\left(br\right)^2,`$ (2.30)
$`F_{D1}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4b\kappa r}{|a|}}\left(1+\left(br\right)^2\right)^2drϵ_{[k]}dy_1\mathrm{}dy_{D2k}.`$ (2.31)
### 2.2 $`2kD3`$

For $`k1`$ there is no hope to find the general solution analytically (except in the ultimate spherically symmetric case $`k=D2`$, see below), so one is led to numerical calculations. Still, a particular solution of the type discussed in  can be found by making the ansatz $`C0,\varphi =aA`$ which is consistent with the set of equations. Then one can derive a decoupled second order differential equation for $`A`$:

$`\left(2krA^{\prime \prime }+2k^2A^{}+4krA_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}a^2r^2A_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\right)(k1)\mathrm{e}^{(a^2+2)A}`$
$`+2\overline{b}^2r\left(2r^2A^{\prime \prime }2rA^{}(2k1)2k(k1)+a^2r^2A_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\right)=0`$ , (2.32)
while $`B`$ is given in terms of $`A`$ as follows

$$\mathrm{e}^{2B}=\frac{2krA^{}+k(k1)a^2r^2A_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}/2}{k(k1)+2b^2r^2\mathrm{e}^{(a^2+2)A}}.$$
(2.33)
This system admits an analytic solution

$`2A`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma \mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2b^2r^2}{\gamma (\gamma +k1)}}\right),`$ (2.34)
$`2B`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{ln}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{k1}}\right),\gamma ={\displaystyle \frac{2}{a^2+2}}.`$ (2.35)
This solution is singular at the origin, but it serves as an attractor for regular ones that can be found numerically. The latter are quite similar to more general solutions found in  so we do not give them here.

### 2.3 $`k=D2`$

Another case in which some progress can be made is that of spherical symmetry, $`k=D2`$. Putting $`C=E\mathrm{ln}r`$, so that

$$H=AB+kE,$$
(2.36)
we find that Eqs. (2.8) and (2.9) take the simpler form

$`E^{\prime \prime }+H^{}E^{}=(k1)e^{2(BE)},`$ (2.37)
$`A^{\prime \prime }+A_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}A^{}B^{}+k(E^{\prime \prime }+E_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}E^{}B^{})+(1/2)\varphi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=0.`$ (2.38)
We see that Eq. (2.37) is of the same form as Eqs. (2.7) and (2.11) provided

$$E=A+\frac{a}{2}\varphi +ϵ$$
(2.39)
with constant $`ϵ`$. Furthermore, in the case $`k=D2`$ one can always use radial coordinate transformations to choose a gauge such that

$$H=\mathrm{ln}(r/l).$$
(2.40)
Note that this condition does not fix the gauge completely, the condition (2.40) being, up to an additive constant, invariant under reparametrizations $`r\overline{r}=r^p`$, which lead to $`\overline{H}=H+(p1)\mathrm{ln}r+\mathrm{const}=\mathrm{ln}\overline{r}+\mathrm{const}`$. As in the case $`k=1`$, the comparison of Eqs. (2.7) and (2.11) now leads to

$$\varphi =aA+\beta \mathrm{ln}(r/r_1),$$
(2.41)
where $`\beta `$ is some constant. On account of (2.39) it follows that

$$E=\gamma ^1A+\frac{a\beta }{2}\mathrm{ln}(r/r_1)+ϵ,$$
(2.42)
with $`\gamma ^1=1+a^2/2`$. Eqs. (2.7) and (2.37) are then equivalent provided

$$\mathrm{e}^{2ϵ}=\frac{(k1)\gamma }{2\overline{b}^2}.$$
(2.43)
Inserting these relations in Eq. (2.38), we arrive at the first order differential equation with respect to the variable $`\tau =\mathrm{ln}(br)`$:

$$\ddot{A}+(1k)a\beta \dot{A}+\frac{\beta ^2}{2}\left(1\frac{k^2}{k+\gamma }\right)+\frac{1k\gamma }{\gamma }\dot{A}^2=0.$$
(2.44)
For $`\beta 0`$ (the solution in the case $`\beta =0`$ is a gauge transform of the power-law solution (2.34), (2.35)), this is solved by

$$\dot{A}=\alpha +\kappa \delta \mathrm{cot}\kappa (\tau +\tau _0),$$
(2.45)
with

$$\alpha =(k1)\delta \frac{a\beta }{2},\delta =\frac{\gamma }{k+\gamma 1},\kappa ^2=\frac{\beta ^2}{2}\left(k2+\frac{1}{k+\gamma }\right).$$
(2.46)
At this point, we may further fix the gauge by choosing $`\beta =2/a\delta `$ so that $`\alpha =1k`$. Integrating (2.45) (with convenient choices for the integration constants) we obtain the solution as

$`\mathrm{e}^{2A}`$ $`=`$ $`(br)^{2(k1)}|\mathrm{sin}\kappa \tau |^{\frac{2\gamma }{k+\gamma 1}},`$ (2.47)
$`\mathrm{e}^{2B}`$ $`=`$ $`|\mathrm{sin}\kappa \tau |^{\frac{2(k+\gamma )}{k+\gamma 1}},`$ (2.48)
$`\mathrm{e}^{2C}`$ $`=`$ $`b^2\mathrm{e}^{2ϵ}|\mathrm{sin}\kappa \tau |^{\frac{2}{k+\gamma 1}},`$ (2.49)
$`\mathrm{e}^{a\varphi }`$ $`=`$ $`(br)^{2k}|\mathrm{sin}\kappa \tau |^{\frac{2(\gamma 1)}{k+\gamma 1}}`$ (2.50)
($`\tau =\mathrm{ln}(br)`$). Inserting these in (2.7), we check that this equation is satisfied provided

$$\overline{b}^2=\frac{\gamma \kappa ^2}{2(k+\gamma 1)}.$$
(2.51)
The corresponding magnetic potential is

$$A_{[k]}=\frac{2\overline{b}}{\kappa b}\mathrm{e}^{kϵ}\mathrm{cot}\kappa \tau ϵ_k.$$
(2.52)
The solution (2.47)-(2.50) is defined only in disjoint sectors $`n\pi <\kappa \tau <(n+1)\pi `$. In such a sector, the spacetime metric behaves near the formal singularity $`\kappa \tau =n\pi `$ as

$$ds^2R^{2\gamma }dt^2+dR^2+b^2\mathrm{e}^{2ϵ}R^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_k^2,(R\mathrm{})$$
(2.53)
(we have put $`\kappa \tau =n\pi +R^{(k+\gamma 1)}`$, and neglected irrelevant multiplicative constants). We see that the behavior near the singularity is governed by the attractor (2.34), (2.35). A first integral for geodesic motion in such a metric is

$$\dot{R}^2+\frac{L^2}{R^2}=E^2R^{2\gamma }\sigma $$
(2.54)
($`\sigma =+1`$, 0, or $`1`$ for timelike, null, or spacelike geodesics). Remembering that $`\gamma =(1+a^2/2)^1>0`$, we see that timelike geodesics and nonradial ($`L0`$) null geodesics are reflected by a potential barrier before reaching infinity, while spacelike and radial null geodesics reach infinity for an infinite value of the affine parameter. The behavior being similar at the other end $`\kappa \tau (n+1)\pi `$, it follows that the spacetime (2.47)-(2.49) is geodesically complete.

## 3 Particular cases

### 3.1 1+2 dilaton Melvin

In $`1+2`$ dimensions the action (2.1) corresponds to the Einstein-Maxwell dilaton theory. In this case, $`k=1=D2`$, so the analytic solution with $`k=1`$ is the general one. One can also fix $`\alpha =1`$ ($`C=0`$) as a gauge condition. Then the solution can be rewritten as follows

$$ds^2=\left(\frac{r}{r_1}\right)^{2(\kappa ^2+1)/a^2}\left[\left(\frac{r}{r_b}\right)^\kappa +\left(\frac{r_b}{r}\right)^\kappa \right]^{4/a^2}\left(dt^2+l^2dr^2\right)+r^2d\phi ^2,$$
(3.1)
where $`r_b=1/b`$ and we removed the constant dilaton factor by time rescaling. This spacetime is supported by the following Maxwell two-form

$$F=\frac{4\kappa }{|a|}\mathrm{e}^{a\varphi _0/2}\frac{r_b}{r}\left[\left(\frac{r}{r_b}\right)^\kappa +\left(\frac{r_b}{r}\right)^\kappa \right]^2drd\phi ,$$
(3.2)
and dilaton

$$\mathrm{e}^{a\varphi /2}=\mathrm{e}^{a\varphi _0/2}\frac{r}{r_b}\left[\left(\frac{r}{r_b}\right)^\kappa +\left(\frac{r_b}{r}\right)^\kappa \right].$$
(3.3)
We note some overlap in this point with the recent paper  which appeared after our calculations had been completed.

For $`\kappa =0`$ we recover the singular solution for a massless gravitating scalar field in 2+1 dimensions ,

$$ds^2=r^{2/a^2}(dt^2+dr^2)+r^2d\phi ^2,\varphi =\frac{2}{a}\mathrm{ln}r,F=0.$$
(3.4)
In this case $`a`$ is an arbitrary integration constant. Up to a coordinate transformation $`rr^p`$, the behavior (3.4) dominates the asymptotic behavior of (3.1) ($`p=1+\kappa `$)

$$ds^2r^{2(1+\kappa )^2/a^2}(dt^2+dr^2)+r^2d\phi ^2,\mathrm{e}^{a\varphi /2}r^{1+\kappa },Frr^{2(1+\kappa )}drd\phi ,$$
(3.5)
as well as the small $`r`$ behavior ($`p=1\kappa `$)

$$ds^2r^{2(1\kappa )^2/a^2}(dt^2+dr^2)+r^2d\phi ^2,\mathrm{e}^{a\varphi /2}r^{1\kappa },Frr^{2(1\kappa )}drd\phi .$$
(3.6)
So the general solution (3.1) may be viewed as a soliton interpolating between two “vacua” where the magnetic field is negligible.

For $`\kappa =1`$ we get the regular dilaton-Melvin solution. Coming back to the initial parametrization, and taking $`\varphi _0=0`$, we obtain

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1+b^2r^2\right)^{4/a^2}\left(dt^2+l^2dr^2\right)+r^2d\phi ^2,`$ (3.7)
$`F`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4br}{|a|\left(1+b^2r^2\right)^2}}drd\phi ,`$ (3.8)
$`\mathrm{e}^{a\varphi /2}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1+b^2r^2\right).`$ (3.9)
The flux of the magnetic field

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=F=_r\mathrm{}A_\phi 𝑑\phi ,$$
(3.10)
where

$$A_\phi =\frac{2br}{1+b^2r^2}$$
(3.11)
is the one-form potential generating the two-form field $`F=dA`$, is finite

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{4\pi }{ab}.$$
(3.12)
For $`a=2`$ this solution can be obtained by a twisted compactification of flat four-dimensional space, similarly to the case of usual dilatonic Melvin solutions in higher dimensions. Starting with

$$ds_4^2=dt^2+dr^2+r^2d\phi ^2+dy^2$$
(3.13)
and performing dimensional reduction with respect to the Killing vector

$$K=_y+b_\phi ,$$
(3.14)
one finds

$$ds_4^2=\mathrm{e}^\varphi ds_3^2+\mathrm{e}^\varphi (dy+A_\phi d\phi )^2$$
(3.15)
where

$$A_\phi =\frac{br^2}{1+b^2r^2},\mathrm{e}^\varphi =1+b^2r^2.$$
(3.16)
Similarly, the general solution (3.1) with $`a=2`$ is a twisted compactification of the cylindrically symmetric Levi-Civita metric

$$ds_4^2=r^{(\kappa ^21)/2}(dt^2+dr^2)+r^{1+\kappa }d\phi ^2+r^{1\kappa }dy^2.$$
(3.17)
### 3.2 F0 branes in IIB theory

In the case of IIB theory, $`D=10,a=2`$ and F0 fluxbranes correspond to the eight-form potential $`A_8`$ dual to the RR scalar. There are eight different solutions generated by the form field

$$F_{[9]}=f(r)drϵ_{[k]}dy_1\mathrm{}dy_{8k},$$
(3.18)
with $`k=1,\mathrm{},8`$. We find the following metric for $`k=1`$:

$$ds^2=(br)^{\alpha +\beta \kappa }\left(1+\left(br\right)^{2\kappa }\right)\left(dt^2+l^2(br)^{2(\alpha 1)}dr^2\right)+(br)^{(\alpha 1)/4}\left(r^2d\phi ^2+\delta ^{mn}dy_mdy_n\right),$$
(3.19)
with $`\kappa ^2=\alpha ^2+2\beta \alpha +7(\alpha ^21)/4`$, while the dilaton and the form field are

$`\mathrm{e}^\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`\left(br\right)^{\alpha \kappa }\left(1+\left(br\right)^{2\kappa }\right),`$ (3.20)
$`f`$ $`=`$ $`2\kappa {\displaystyle \frac{(br)^{2(\kappa 1)}}{\left(1+\left(br\right)^{2\kappa }\right)^2}}.`$ (3.21)
The $`\kappa =\alpha =l=1`$ solution regular at the origin reads

$`\mathrm{e}^{2A}`$ $`=`$ $`1+b^2r^2,`$ (3.22)
$`\mathrm{e}^\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`1+b^2r^2,`$ (3.23)
$`f`$ $`=`$ $`2br\left(1+b^2r^2\right)^2.`$ (3.24)
The corresponding space-time actually is nothing else than the 1+2 dilaton Melvin metric smeared in seven extra dimensions

$$ds^2=\left(1+b^2r^2\right)(dt^2+dr^2)+r^2d\phi ^2+\delta ^{mn}dy_mdy_n.$$
(3.25)
Numerical solutions for $`k1`$ approach the following asymptotics:

$$A=\frac{1}{6}\mathrm{ln}\frac{18b^2r^2}{3k2},B=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}\left(1+\frac{1}{3(k1)}\right).$$
(3.26)
### 3.3 $`D=4`$ dilaton-axion $`F0`$ branes

In four spacetime dimensions, the relevant theory is the dilaton-axion system coupled to gravity which for $`a=1`$ is associated with the toroidally compactified heterotic string. Here the metric for the $`k=1`$ solution has cylindrical symmetry and is just a smeared $`1+2`$ solution, while for $`k=2`$ one has the spherically symmetric spacetime

$$ds^2=\mathrm{e}^{2A}dt^2+\mathrm{e}^{2B}dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2,$$
(3.27)
where the metric functions $`A,B`$ can be found numerically as described above. Special solutions are the geodesically complete solutions

$$ds^2=(br)^2(\mathrm{sin}\kappa \tau )^{\frac{2\gamma }{1+\gamma }}dt^2+(\mathrm{sin}\kappa \tau )^{\frac{2(2+\gamma )}{1+\gamma }}dr^2+\mathrm{e}^{2ϵ}(br)^2(\mathrm{sin}\kappa \tau )^{\frac{2}{1+\gamma }}d\mathrm{\Omega }^2,$$
(3.28)
with $`\tau =\mathrm{ln}r`$, $`\gamma =(1+a^2/2)^1`$, $`\kappa =(1+\gamma )/a\gamma \sqrt{1+\gamma /2}`$, $`e^{2ϵ}=a^2\gamma ^2(1+\gamma /2)/(1+\gamma )`$, and the singular attractor

$$ds^2=r^{2\gamma }dt^2+(1+\gamma )dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2.$$
(3.29)
For $`a=0`$ ($`\gamma =1`$) this last metric has previously been considered by Hayward , in the context of gravitational collapse of a scalar field (actually the axion field dual to the three-form); it is continuously self-similar, and the singularity $`r=0`$ is null.

## 4 F-walls

The S-dual solutions to the F0 branes are F-walls of codimension one. The most natural way to construct them is to pass to the dual action

$$S_1=\left(R\frac{1}{2}_\mu \varphi ^\mu \varphi \frac{1}{2}\mathrm{e}^{a\varphi }F_{[1]}^2\right)\sqrt{g}d^Dx,$$
(4.1)
where $`F_{[1]}=dA_{[0]}`$, with $`A_{[0]}`$ being the RR scalar in IIB theory (with $`a=2`$, for generality we continue to assume the dimension $`D`$ and dilaton coupling $`a`$ to be arbitrary). Assuming $`SO(D2,1)`$ Lorentz symmetry on the world-volume, we choose the metric in the gauge

$$ds^2=\mathrm{e}^{2A}\eta _{ab}dx^adx^b+dy^2,$$
(4.2)
where $`A`$ is the function of the transverse coordinate $`y`$ and $`a,b=0,\mathrm{},D2`$. The form field is simply

$$F_{[1]}=f(y)dy,$$
(4.3)
and the solution for $`f`$ is readily obtained

$$f=2b\mathrm{e}^{(D1)Aa\varphi }.$$
(4.4)
The Ricci tensor has the following non-zero components:

$`R_{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`\eta _{ab}\left[A^{\prime \prime }+(D1)A_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\right]\mathrm{e}^{2A},`$ (4.5)
$`R_{yy}`$ $`=`$ $`(D1)(A^{\prime \prime }+A_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}),`$ (4.6)
and the corresponding Einstein equations read

$`R_{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (4.7)
$`R_{yy}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\varphi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\mathrm{e}^{a\varphi }f^2\right).`$ (4.8)
Therefore, one has a decoupled equation for the metric function

$$A^{\prime \prime }+(D1)A_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=0,$$
(4.9)
and a constraint

$$2(D1)(D2)A_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=\varphi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\mathrm{e}^{a\varphi }f^2.$$
(4.10)
The dilaton equation reads

$$\varphi ^{\prime \prime }+(D1)A^{}\varphi ^{}=\frac{a}{2}\mathrm{e}^{a\varphi }f^2.$$
(4.11)
It is convenient to substitute

$$A=\frac{1}{D1}\mathrm{ln}Z.$$
(4.12)
Integration of Eq. (4.9), which is equivalent to $`Z^{\prime \prime }=0`$, gives

$$Z=\alpha (y+y_0),$$
(4.13)
where $`\alpha `$ and $`y_0`$ are two integration constants. Introducing a new independent variable $`\tau `$ such that

$$\frac{d\tau }{dy}=\frac{1}{Z},$$
(4.14)
the dilaton equation becomes

$$\ddot{\varphi }2ab^2\mathrm{e}^{a\varphi }=0,$$
(4.15)
while the constraint (4.10) reads

$$\frac{\dot{\varphi }^2}{2}+2b^2\mathrm{e}^{a\varphi }=\alpha ^2\frac{D2}{D1}.$$
(4.16)
The solution to Eqs. (4.15) and (4.16) is

$$\varphi =\frac{2}{a}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{ab}{\nu \alpha }\mathrm{cosh}\left[\nu \alpha (\tau +\tau _1)\right]\right),\nu =a\sqrt{\frac{D2}{2(D1)}},$$
(4.17)
where $`\tau _1`$ is an integration constant. Finally, from (4.14) the variable $`\tau `$ is related to $`y`$ by

$$\tau +\tau _1=\alpha ^1\mathrm{ln}[c(y+y_0)],$$
(4.18)
with a new parameter $`c`$, so that the solution takes the form

$`\mathrm{e}^{2A}`$ $`=`$ $`(\alpha (y+y_0))^{2/(D1)},`$ (4.19)
$`\mathrm{e}^{a\varphi /2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ab}{2\nu \alpha }}\left[\left(c(y+y_0)\right)^\nu +\left(c(y+y_0)\right)^\nu \right],`$ (4.20)
$`f`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8\nu ^2\alpha }{a^2b(y+y_0)}}\left[\left(c(y+y_0)\right)^\nu +\left(c(y+y_0)\right)^\nu \right]^2.`$ (4.21)
It has a naked singularity at $`y=y_0`$.

The F8 fluxbrane of IIB theory corresponds to $`D=10,a=2`$, so $`\nu =4/3`$. Letting for simplicity $`\alpha =1,y_0=0`$, we obtain:

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`y^{2/9}\eta _{ab}dx^adx^b+dy^2,`$ (4.22)
$`\mathrm{e}^\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3b}{4}}\left((cy)^{4/3}+(cy)^{4/3}\right),`$ (4.23)
$`f`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{32}{9by}}\left((cy)^{4/3}+(cy)^{4/3}\right)^2.`$ (4.24)
After the coordinate transformation $`z=3/4y^{4/3}`$ and a suitable rescaling of $`x^a`$, one can cast this solution into the ‘Melvin-like’ form:

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`z^{1/6}\eta _{ab}dx^adx^b+z^{1/2}dz^2,`$ (4.25)
$`\mathrm{e}^\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3b}{4\overline{c}z}}\left(1+\overline{c}^2z^2\right),`$ (4.26)
$`f`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8\overline{c}^2z^{5/4}}{3b}}\left(1+\overline{c}^2z^2\right)^2.`$ (4.27)
## 5 Adding source brane

The nature of the singularity in the F-wall solutions suggests that one can try to improve these solutions by introducing a source brane. In fact, a non-singular metric can be obtained by orbifolding the above solution at some point away from the singularity. In physical terms, we add to the lagrangian (4.1) a source brane term and (for more generality and to make contact with the Randall-Sundrum setup) a (negative) cosmological constant

$$S=S_1\left(2\mathrm{\Lambda }+2\lambda \mathrm{e}^{\beta \varphi }\delta (y)\right)\sqrt{g}d^Dx.$$
(5.1)
Then, Eqs. (4.9) and (4.11) are replaced by

$`A^{\prime \prime }+(D1)A_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _0}{D2}}\delta (y){\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{\Lambda }}{D2}},`$ (5.2)
$`\varphi ^{\prime \prime }+(D1)A^{}\varphi ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{a}{2}}\mathrm{e}^{a\varphi }f^2+2\lambda _0\beta \delta (y),`$ (5.3)
where

$$\lambda _0=\lambda \mathrm{e}^{\beta \varphi (0)},$$
(5.4)
while the constraint equation now reads

$$2(D1)(D2)A_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+4\mathrm{\Lambda }=\varphi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\mathrm{e}^{a\varphi }f^2.$$
(5.5)
Note that the form field does not interact with the brane, so the solution (4.4) remains true.

Using again the parametrization (4.12), we find for $`Z`$ the equation

$$Z^{\prime \prime }\kappa ^2Z=\lambda _0\frac{D1}{D2}Z\delta (y),$$
(5.6)
where

$$\kappa ^2=\frac{2(D1)\mathrm{\Lambda }}{D2},$$
(5.7)
and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is assumed to be negative. For $`\beta =0`$ and in the absence of the form field ($`b=0`$) it is consistent to set the dilaton to zero. In this case a particular solution will be the flat RS brane-world in the AdS bulk, it is given by

$$Z=\alpha \mathrm{e}^{\kappa |y|},\alpha >0,\kappa >0,$$
(5.8)
the matching condition at $`y=0`$ leading to

$$2\kappa =\lambda _0\frac{D1}{D2}.$$
(5.9)
The tension $`\lambda `$ of the brane thus has to be positive.

Adding $`F_{[1]}`$ and the dilaton (i.e. two bulk scalar fields) changes the situation as follows. Introducing the variable $`\tau `$ as in (4.14), one obtain the dilaton equation

$$\ddot{\varphi }2ab^2\mathrm{e}^{a\varphi }=2\lambda _0\beta \delta (y).$$
(5.10)
The first integral (which does not contain discontinuities) replacing (4.16) is

$$\frac{\dot{\varphi }^2}{2}+2b^2\mathrm{e}^{a\varphi }=2\mu ^2,$$
(5.11)
where from the constraint equation (5.5)

$$\mu ^2=\frac{D2}{2(D1)}\left(Z_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\kappa ^2Z^2\right),$$
(5.12)
$`\kappa `$ being still given by (5.7). In view of this relation, the exponential solution of the $`Z`$-equation is no longer valid, instead we should take the following solution to Eq. (5.6):

$$Z=\alpha \mathrm{sinh}\kappa (|y|+y_0),$$
(5.13)
so that

$$\mu ^2=\frac{D2}{2(D1)}\kappa ^2\alpha ^2.$$
(5.14)
Now the matching condition on the brane gives

$$2\kappa \mathrm{coth}\kappa y_0=\lambda _0\frac{D1}{D2},$$
(5.15)
leading to a negative brane tension. The solution to the dilaton equation now reads

$$\varphi =\frac{2}{a}\mathrm{ln}\left[\frac{b}{\mu }\mathrm{cosh}a\mu (|\tau |+\tau _0)\right],$$
(5.16)
and the matching condition reads

$$\frac{2\mu }{\alpha }\frac{\mathrm{tanh}(a\mu \tau _0)}{\mathrm{sinh}\kappa y_0}=\lambda _0\beta .$$
(5.17)
The dependence $`\tau (y)`$ normalized so that $`\tau (0)=0`$ reads

$$\tau =\frac{ϵ(y)}{\kappa \alpha }\mathrm{ln}\left[\frac{\mathrm{tanh}\left(\kappa (|y|+y_0)/2\right)}{\mathrm{tanh}(\kappa y_0/2)}\right].$$
(5.18)
This is valid for any non-zero bulk cosmological constant. The limit $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ corresponds to taking $`\kappa 0`$ with $`\kappa \alpha `$ fixed. Then

$$\tau =\frac{ϵ(y)}{\kappa \alpha }\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{(|y|+y_0)}{y_0}\right),$$
(5.19)
with

$$y_0=\frac{2}{|\lambda _0|}\frac{D2}{D1},$$
(5.20)
and

$$Z=\kappa \alpha (|y|+y_0).$$
(5.21)
Again, the matching condition gives a negative brane tension.

## 6 Charged RS walls

The ansatz (4.2) of the previous section is actually the same as for the D8 brane in the massive IIA theory , but the form field is different, actually the D8 brane can be obtained by adding a non-dynamical $`A_{[9]}`$ potential in ten dimensions, or, more generally, $`A_{[D1]}`$ in D dimensions. Recently this problem attracted attention in connection with supersymmetric generalizations of the Randall-Sundrum setup . To clarify the relationship of our F-wall solutions with BPS brane worlds we construct here the one-brane charged RS type solution, without a bulk cosmological constant, in any number of dimensions $`D`$.

Our action is

$`S_D={\displaystyle \left(R\frac{1}{2}_\mu \varphi ^\mu \varphi \frac{1}{2D!}\mathrm{e}^{a\varphi }F_{[D]}^2\right)\sqrt{g}d^Dx}`$
$`\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}\lambda {\displaystyle \mathrm{e}^{\beta \varphi }\sqrt{g_{D1}}d^{D1}x}q{\displaystyle A_{[D1]}},`$ (6.1)
while the ansatz for the space-time metric is again (4.2), so the difference with the previous section is that the form field now interacts with the brane (the last term in (6)). Clearly, the $`D`$-form in $`D`$ dimensions

$$F_{[D]}=f(y)dydtdx_1\mathrm{}dx_{D2}$$
(6.2)
is trivial and the corresponding term in the lagrangian acts merely as a dilaton potential. However, we have to be careful about the jump condition on the source brane. From the form equation

$$_y\left(f(y)\mathrm{e}^{(D1)A+a\varphi }\right)=q\delta (y),$$
(6.3)
it follows that

$$f=2b\mathrm{e}^{(D1)Aa\varphi },$$
(6.4)
with the discontinuous parameter

$$b=b_+\theta (y)+b_{}\theta (y),b_\pm =\mathrm{const},$$
(6.5)
and the jump condition

$$b_+b_{}=\frac{q}{2}.$$
(6.6)
Substituting this into the other equations one arrives at the following system:

$`(D2)[A^{\prime \prime }+(D1)A_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}]`$ $`=`$ $`2b^2\mathrm{e}^{a\varphi }\lambda _0\delta (y),`$ (6.7)
$`2(D1)(D2)A_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}4b^2\mathrm{e}^{a\varphi },`$ (6.8)
$`\varphi ^{\prime \prime }+(D1)A^{}\varphi ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`2ab^2\mathrm{e}^{a\varphi }+2\beta \lambda _0\delta (y).`$ (6.9)
First we assume the relation

$$\beta =\frac{a}{2},$$
(6.10)
which results from imposing the scale invariance of the action (6). Again it is convenient to introduce the function $`Z(y)`$ via Eq. (4.12). Then, as can be easily seen, the dilaton equation and Eq. (6.7) imply that $`\varphi `$ and $`A`$ are proportional modulo the solution of the homogeneous equation:

$$\varphi =a(D2)A+d(\tau +\tau _0),(d,\tau _0=\mathrm{const}),$$
(6.11)
where $`\tau `$ satisfies Eq. (4.14). The remaining equations are easily solved in the special case $`d=0`$. Combining (6.11) with Eq. (6.7) one obtains the following equation for $`Z`$:

$$Z^{\prime \prime }+2b^2\frac{D1}{D2}Z^{2\nu 1}=\lambda _0\frac{D1}{D2}Z\delta (y),$$
(6.12)
with

$$\nu =1+\frac{a^2(D2)}{2(D1)}.$$
(6.13)
The constraint equation (6.8) then implies

$$Z_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\kappa ^2Z^{2\nu }=0,$$
(6.14)
where

$$\kappa ^2=\frac{4b^2(D1)^2}{(D2)(a^2(D2)2D+2)}.$$
(6.15)
For this to be consistent, one has to impose the condition

$$a^2>\frac{2(D1)}{D2}$$
(6.16)
($`\nu >0`$), which we assume to hold. The solution to Eqs. (6.12) and (6.14) is readily obtained,

$$Z=\left[\kappa (1+\nu )(|y|+y_0)\right]^{1/(1+\nu )}.$$
(6.17)
Here the parameter $`\kappa `$ is continuous on the brane provided

$$b_+=b_{}=\frac{q}{4},$$
(6.18)
and we have to accommodate for the source term in Eq. (6.12). This is achieved imposing the following condition on the parameter $`y_0`$:

$$4=\lambda _0a^2y_0.$$
(6.19)
In the case of a single source brane one has to demand positivity $`y_0>0`$ to ensure regularity of the metric, so in this case the appropriate brane tension is negative. However, in a many-brane setup such as in  one can achieve a non-singular metric including positive tension branes as well.

A more general solution can be derived by relaxing the condition (6.10). Putting

$$BA^{},\psi \frac{\kappa }{D1}\mathrm{e}^{a\varphi /2},$$
(6.20)
and combining Eqs. (6.7) and (6.8) we obtain, outside the brane,

$$\varphi ^{}=a(D2)\psi \frac{dB}{d\psi }.$$
(6.21)
Inserting this in Eq. (6.8) yields the Lagrange-type differential equation

$$(1+\nu )\psi ^2\left(\frac{dB}{d\psi }\right)^2B^2\nu \psi ^2=0.$$
(6.22)
To solve this, put

$$B=t\psi ,\frac{dB}{d\psi }=\pm f(t)\pm \frac{q}{p}\sqrt{t^2+p^2}$$
(6.23)
with

$$p^2=\nu ,q^2=\frac{\nu }{1+\nu }$$
(6.24)
($`p>0`$, $`q>0`$). The case $`d=0`$ corresponds to $`t\pm 1`$, $`f1`$. In the present case,

$$\frac{d\psi }{\psi }=\frac{dt}{\pm f(t)t},$$
(6.25)
which is integrated, for $`qp`$, by

$$\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\psi _\pm }{\psi _0}\right)=\frac{p}{q^2p^2}\left(p\mathrm{ln}|qp\mathrm{sin}\theta |\pm q\mathrm{ln}(1+\mathrm{sin}\theta )(p\pm q)\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{cos}\theta )\right),$$
(6.26)
where we have put $`t=p\mathrm{tan}\theta `$ ($`\pi /2<\theta <\pi /2`$). Also, it follows from the definitions (6.20) and from Eq. (6.21) that

$$dA=\frac{2}{(D2)a^2}\left(\frac{d\psi }{\psi }\frac{p}{q}\frac{d\theta }{\mathrm{cos}\theta }\right),dy=\frac{2pd\theta }{(D2)a^2q(qp\mathrm{sin}\theta )\psi }.$$
(6.27)
The resulting spacetime metric after suitable rescaling of $`x^a`$ is

$$\begin{array}{c}ds_\pm ^2=\left(\frac{(1+\mathrm{sin}\theta )^{\pm \gamma }|1\gamma \mathrm{sin}\theta |}{(\mathrm{cos}\theta )^{1\pm \gamma }}\right)^{\frac{2/(D1)}{\gamma ^21}}\eta _{ab}dx^adx^b+\hfill \\ \hfill +\frac{1}{((D1)p\psi _0)^2}\left(\frac{(1+\mathrm{sin}\theta )^{\pm \gamma }|1\gamma \mathrm{sin}\theta |}{(\mathrm{cos}\theta )^{\pm \gamma (1\pm \gamma )}}\right)^{\frac{2}{\gamma ^21}}d\theta ^2,\end{array}$$
(6.28)
with $`\gamma =p/q=\sqrt{1+\nu }`$, while the dilaton function and form potential read

$`\mathrm{e}^{a\varphi /2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{D1}{\kappa }}\psi _0\left[{\displaystyle \frac{q(1+\mathrm{sin}\theta )^{\pm 1}}{(\mathrm{cos}\theta )^{\gamma \pm 1}}}(1\gamma \mathrm{sin}\theta )^\gamma \right]^{\frac{\gamma }{\gamma ^21}},`$ (6.29)
$`A_{[D1]}`$ $`=`$ $`\pm {\displaystyle \frac{\psi _0}{b(D2)}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{\sqrt{\gamma ^21}}}\right)^{\frac{2\gamma }{\gamma ^21}1}(1\gamma \mathrm{sin}\theta )^1.`$ (6.30)
Note that $`ds_\pm ^2(\theta )=ds_{}^2(\theta )`$ (the same being true for the dilaton $`\varphi `$).

For $`\gamma <1`$ ($`\nu <0`$), this metric is singular for $`\theta =\pi /2`$ and for $`\theta =\pi /2`$. Putting $`\theta =ϵ(\pi /2u)`$, we find that for $`u0`$, $`y_\pm u^{\frac{1}{1ϵ\gamma }}`$ and the metric behaves as

$$ds^2|y|^{2/(D1)}\eta _{ab}dx^adx^b+dy^2(y0).$$
(6.31)
Because there are two singularities, it is not possible to obtain a regular solution with a single source brane. On the other hand, for $`\gamma >1`$ ($`\nu >0`$), i.e. when the condition (6.16) holds, the singularity at $`\theta =\pm \pi /2`$ is sent off to infinity, while a new singularity appears at $`\theta =\pm \theta _0`$ with $`\mathrm{sin}\theta _0=1/\gamma `$. So the regular RS type solution is given by

$`(ds^2,\varphi ,f)`$ $`=(ds_+^2,\varphi _+,f_+)(\theta )`$ $`(\theta _1<\theta <\pi /2)`$ (6.32)
$`=(ds_{}^2,\varphi _{},f_{})(\theta )`$ $`(\pi /2<\theta <\theta _1)`$ (6.33)
with $`\theta _0<\theta _1<\pi /2`$. The continuity of the metric and of the dilaton on the brane $`y=0`$ ($`\theta =\pm \theta _1`$) is ensured by the above-mentioned symmetry together with the relation (6.18) which fixes the strength of the form field, while the full equation (6.7) gives for the jump of the connexion

$$2(D2)A_+^{}(\theta _1)=2(D2)p\mathrm{tan}\theta _1\psi _+(\theta _1)=\lambda _0,$$
(6.34)
so that the brane tension is again negative. Finally, the comparison of Eqs. (6.7) and (6.9) yields

$$\beta =\frac{a}{2}\frac{f(\theta _1)}{t(\theta _1)}=\frac{a}{2}\frac{\mathrm{sin}\theta _0}{\mathrm{sin}\theta _1}>\frac{a}{2}$$
(6.35)
(it follows that for $`\beta =a/2`$ the $`d=0`$ solution is the unique regular solution).

## 7 Conclusion

In this paper we have presented two classes of solutions to gravity coupled to a dilaton and to an antisymmetric form in arbitrary dimensions. These two classes lie at the limits of the sequence of fluxbranes of different dimensionalities

The first class is that of zero fluxbranes supported by a form of rank $`D2`$. Presumably (the Euclidean continuations of) such branes are entitled to interact with instantons. We have shown that such solutions may exist with the transverse spaces $`S_k\times R^{(Dk2)}`$, with $`1kD2`$, and in the case $`k=1`$ we obtained a complete analytic solution containing four physical parameters. One of these parameters is connected with the form field strength, while the other parameters are associated with pointlike singularities on the regular Melvin-type background. Solutions of an entirely new type are obtained in the case of a spherically symmetric transverse space $`k=D2`$. The full metric then consists of an infinite number of disjoint sectors, each of which is shown to be geodesically complete. For other values of $`k`$ regular solutions exist which can be found numerically.

At the other extreme of the supergravity fluxbrane sequence lies the F-wall of codimension one. Actually, this is a domain wall supported by the scalar field. Such a solution is easy to find in a closed form which reveals its singularity on a hyperplane of dimension $`(D1)`$. We explored whether one can regularize the solution by orbifolding the space at some point away from the singularity. This leads to some new brane world setup with two scalar fields. In the case where only one brane is present, the space is non-singular if the brane tension is negative (in a multibrane setup positive tension branes will be present too). The general solution was found with a bulk cosmological constant added. It is worth noting that in this setup the brane does not carry a Ramond-Ramond charge.

We have also constructed new brane-world solutions with charged branes, assuming an arbitrary coupling of the dilaton to the brane. The usual supersymmetric brane-world corresponds to a particular value of this constant. In the general case the solution turns out to be strikingly different. We found conditions for its regularity, and, as a by product, have shown uniqueness of the supersymmetric brane-world.

## Acknowledgements

One of the authors thanks LAPTH (Annecy-le-Vieux) for hospitality and support. He also acknowledges support from the RFBR under grant 00-02-16306.


format: text

text:
# Absorbing Phase Transitions of Branching-Annihilating Random Walks

## Abstract

The phase transitions to absorbing states of the branching-annihilating reaction-diffusion processes $`mA(m+k)A`$, $`nA(nl)A`$ are studied systematically in one space dimension within a new family of models. Four universality classes of non-trivial critical behavior are found. This provides, in particular, the first evidence of universal scaling laws for pair and triplet processes.

Even though it is widely believed that far from equilibrium phase transitions can be classified, recent numerical results reveal that we are still far from a satisfactory understanding of even the relevant ingredients deciding to which class a given transition belongs. This is in particular true for transitions from a fluctuating phase to one or several absorbing states (APT, for absorbing phase transitions) where, in spite of a wealth of analytical and numerical studies, rather little is known beyond the existence of the prominent universality class of directed percolation (DP) HH-REVIEW . In terms of reaction-diffusion processes, the DP class is often represented by the simplest branching-annihilating reactions: $`A2A`$, $`A\mathrm{}`$.

Following an early suggestion by Grassberger GRASS82 , a lot of attention has been devoted recently to the case of binary or pair reaction-diffusion processes such as $`2A(2+k)A`$, $`2A\mathrm{}`$ or $`A`$, which involve two particles both for branching and annihilating HT97 ; CHS01 ; HH01 ; ODOR00 ; HH01bis ; ODOR01bis ; OMS01 ; ODOR02 ; MHHH02 ; NP02 ; DICK02 ; MUNOZ ; HH-NEW . Usually designated under the name of “pair contact process with diffusion” (PCPD), it is still unclear as of now if systems of this type can exhibit universal scaling laws or even if (simple) scaling occurs at all at the APT. The origin of the strong deviations to scaling observed is debated DICK02 ; HH-NEW , and various conclusions have been drawn ranging from diffusion-rate dependent sub-classes ODOR00  to continuously-varying exponents NP02  to no scaling to slow crossover to the DP class HH-NEW . At the analytical level, a bosonic field theory of PCPD processes exists but is not renormalizable whereas no fermionic version is available HT97 ; CHS01 ; MUNOZ . Completing this unsatisfactory picture, similar results were reported recently for the “triplet contact process with diffusion” (TCPD) $`3A4A`$, $`3A2A`$, where three particles are involved for both reactions TCPD . Finally, the role of the conservation of parity of the number of particles in APT is not well understood either: it is known to be relevant for some one-dimensional DP-like processes, giving rise to the so-called “parity-conserving” (PC) class PC ; CT , whereas it was argued not to influence the critical properties of PCPD systems PHK01 .

In this Letter, we report on a systematic numerical investigation of the reaction-diffusion processes $`mA(m+k)A`$, $`nA(nl)A`$ in one space dimension, from which we draw a considerably clarified picture of the above situation. This is achieved thanks to a new class of very simple models which, contrary to all the works cited above, abandon the “fermionic constraint” usually considered for both theoretical and practical reasons (to avoid the divergence of the density of particles in the active phase, and —hopefully— increase numerical efficiency). Our results include the first evidence of universal (ordinary) scaling for PCPD and TCPD processes, the classification of “hybrid” rules (i.e. those for which $`mn`$), and further insights into the conditions under which the conservation of the number of particles modulo 2 or 3 is able to change the “reference” scaling laws.

Following Hinrichsen TCPD , we may write, for the $`mA(m+k)A`$, $`nA(nl)A`$ processes, the following “mean-field Langevin equation” expected to govern the coarse-grained local density $`\rho `$:

$$_t\rho =a\rho ^mb\rho ^nc\rho ^{m+1}+D^2\rho +\zeta (𝐱,t),$$
(1)
where $`a`$, $`b`$, and $`c`$ are positive constants related to the reaction rates and $`D`$ is the diffusion constant. Note that of the two negative terms in Eq.(1) only the lowest-order one is relevant. As usual, the stochastic nature of the process is embodied in $`\zeta `$, a delta-correlated noise whose amplitude is a power of $`\rho `$ (thus ensuring the absence of fluctuations in the $`\rho =0`$ absorbing phase):

$$\zeta (𝐱,t)\zeta (𝐱^{},t^{})=\mathrm{\Gamma }\rho ^\mu (𝐱,t)\delta ^d(𝐱𝐱^{})\delta (tt^{}).$$
(2)
In the absence of branching (i.e. in the inactive phase leading to an absorbing state), the noise dimension $`\mu =n`$ and the upper critical dimension of the annihilation process is $`d_\mathrm{c}=2/(n1)`$. In the critical region, fluctuations are expected to increase the noise strength and thus to reduce $`\mu `$ and increase $`d_\mathrm{c}`$. In the following, we restrict ourselves to $`m,n4`$ (in one dimension, non-trivial APT are mostly expected to occur if $`n<4`$).

Each of the branching-annihilating processes $`mA(m+k)A`$, $`nA(nl)A`$ is defined by the 4 integers $`(m,n,k,l)`$. Obviously, one must have $`0<nl<m`$ to insure the existence of at least one absorbing state. For legibility, $`m`$ and $`n`$ will be coded below by the letters s, p, t, q (for singleton, pair, triplet, quadruplet). The PCPD rule $`2A3A`$, $`2A\mathrm{}`$ is thus noted pp12, and tt$`xx`$ denote TCPD processes. The fermionic constraint adopted in most PCPD and TCPD models studied so far can be seen as counter-productive: the actual implementation of their Monte-Carlo simulations often lead to complicated rules, inefficient for both code elaboration and simulation. More importantly, the fermionic constraint may well be at the origin of the strong deviations to scaling observed. Our branching-annihilating random walk (BARW) models are designed to bypass both of these problems. Particles of a single species $`A`$ evolve in parallel in two synchronized sub-steps: random walk on the lattice (diffusion) followed by on-site reaction. For simplicity, in the following, the diffusion constant is kept constant: all particles always jump to a randomly chosen nearest-neighbor. Let us consider, to describe our on-site reaction scheme, the PCPD rule pp12. (The generalization to all other rules studied here is straightforward.) Suppose that $`n_A`$ particles are present at a given site. If $`n_A=1`$, nothing happens (this is the main PCPD constraint). For $`n_A2`$, each of the $`n_A/2`$ pairs into which the local population can be divided branches with probability $`p^{n_A/2}`$ (thus creating each time one new particle for this particular example) otherwise it annihilates. The only parameter is $`p`$: for large $`p`$, branching is likely, and one expects to be in the active phase. For small $`p`$, annihilation dominates (indeed this is the only process at play for $`p=0`$), leading to an absorbing state. One key feature is the nonlinearity introduced by raising $`p`$ to the power $`n_A/2`$: branching/annihilation is inhibited/enhanced for large local populations, preventing the divergence of population of usual bosonic models. All the results presented below were obtained for reaction schemes of this type, but we have checked that the functional form of the nonlinearity as well as other details do not change the critical properties observed.

As recommended when studying APT numerically, we first investigate, for a given rule, the decay of the order parameter from some highly active, correlation-less, initial condition in a large system. Above threshold, activity eventually reaches a constant level in time. Well below threshold, one observes a decay typical of the annihilation process (exponential for $`n=1`$, algebraic for $`n>1`$). At $`p=p_\mathrm{c}`$, in the usual framework, one expects a non-trivial algebraic decay characterized by the scaling exponent $`\delta =\beta /\nu _{}`$. Once the threshold determined, other scaling exponents can be estimated. In this work, we also give —without showing the data— our estimates of $`z`$, obtained by the finite-size scaling of the mean lifetime of the system at threshold ($`\tau L^z`$), and of $`\beta `$, given by the decay of the stationary density with the distance to threshold ($`lim_t\mathrm{}\rho (pp_\mathrm{c})^\beta `$). More precise estimates will appear elsewhere TBP . In the following, the role of conservation (modulo 2 or 3) of the number of particles is discussed at the end. Before proceeding to higher-order rules, we report that ss$`xx`$ rules are easily verified to exhibit DP-class scaling laws (not shown).

In Fig. 1, we show the critical behavior of the PCPD rule pp12. Quite easily, a clean algebraic decay in time of all order parameters is observed over many decades with the exponent $`\delta ^{\mathrm{PCPD}}=0.200(5)`$. At the determined threshold, the mean lifetime scales nicely with system size, yielding the estimate $`z^{\mathrm{PCPD}}=1.70(4)`$. Finally, the decay of the stationary order parameter with distance to threshold allows to estimate $`\beta ^{\mathrm{PCPD}}=0.375(10)`$. These exponent values appear to be universal: this has been checked to the above numerical accuracy for rule pp11 and with less care for several other rules.

Similar results were obtained for TCPD rules. Although scaling usually sets in later than for the PCPD rules, it is well established over a large range of scales. Again, scaling laws are found to be universal within numerical accuracy. Fig. 2 shows typical results obtained for the decay of the particle density at threshold for five different rules, from which we estimate $`\delta ^{\mathrm{TCPD}}=0.27(1)`$. Other exponents are reported in Table 1.

Next, we consider hybrid rules for which $`m>n`$. At the mean-field level, they are expected to present first-order transitions (see Eq.(1)). Nevertheless, in one space dimension, all the cases we considered show DP scaling, at least for the decay exponent $`\delta `$. This is true for $`n=1`$ (simple radioactive decay), a case where we have studied rules ps11, ts21, and qs11. But this is also true for higher-order annihilation processes, as shown by pair-annihilation rules tp12 (2 variants) and qp12, as well as by triplet-annihilation rule qt12. As seen in Fig. 3, for high-order branching process scaling sets in rather late, probably because the initial conditions chosen are not “optimal”. That a given process for which a first-order APT is predicted at mean-field level exhibits a continuous transition in low dimensions is by no means surprising, especially in one dimension, where this has been noticed early BBC . Nevertheless, to our knowledge, satisfactory analytical arguments for our finding are not available.

Hybrid rules for which the branching process is of lower order than the annihilation reaction ($`m<n`$) are also easily investigated within our family of models. First, we note that whenever $`n=4`$, no non-trivial APT was found in any of the rules sq$`xx`$, pq$`xx`$, tq$`xx`$ or qq$`xx`$ that we have considered. In other words, $`p_\mathrm{c}=0`$ and the decay is then that of the mean-field prediction ($`t^{1/3}`$), in agreement with the fact that the upper critical dimension of the decay process is $`\frac{3}{4}<1`$. For $`m<n<4`$, we find that the universality class of the critical behavior is determined by the order of the branching process: $`m=1`$ rules such as sp12, st13, st23 exhibit DP-scaling, in agreement with the analytical arguments of CT . Pair-branching rules ($`m=2`$) pt12 and pt13, after a rather long crossover time, show scaling compatible with the PCPD class (Fig. 4). That $`m`$ sets the universality class in this case is actually not too surprising: it is clear at the mean-field level of Eq.(1), and can also be deduced from “vertex generation arguments” such as those developed in CT .

We now pay particular attention to the rules for which the total number of particles is conserved modulo 2 (parity conservation) or modulo 3. Phase space is then divided into 2 or 3 disjoint sectors, each of which may or may not possess an absorbing state. For example, the even sector of parity-conserving rule sp22, the archetypical rule of the PC class, includes an absorbing state (the empty configuration) whereas its odd sector does not. For parity-conserving PCPD rule pp22, on the other hand, each sector has an absorbing state. We studied at least one rule in each of the relevant sub-families (namely pp, tt, sp, pt, tp, qp, qt for parity conservation, and st, pt, tt, qt for conservation $`mod3`$). We find that whenever every sector includes an absorbing state, mod2 or mod3 conservation does not change the “reference” scaling class. Thus rule pp22 is in the PCPD class (as suggested in PHK01 ), rules tt22 and tt33 in the TCPD class (Fig. 2). Interestingly, rules tp22, qp22, qt22, and qt33 are found to be in the DP class, like their non-conserving counterparts, and thus constitute the first examples of DP-class rules with mod2 or mod3 conservation (Fig. 3).

Conversely, conserving rules with at least one non-absorbing sector do not offer such a clear conclusion: as expected, rules sp22 and sp42 fall into the PC class (not shown). As argued in CT , rule st33 does not have a non-trivial APT. This is also observed for rule pt33, probably for similar theoretical reasons. The only possible case left is that of parity-conserving hybrid rules pt$`(2k)2`$. There the even sector is non-absorbing because the empty state —which is absorbing— cannot be reached from any other configuration. Numerical simulations of rules pt22 and pt42, however, do not show any significant difference from their non-conserving cousins (Fig. 4). This result, which needs confirmation due to the lateness of scaling, seems to refute the suggestion of PHK01  that influence of parity conservation may be equivalent to having a non-absorbing sector of phase space. Instead we would like to propose that rules sp$`(2k)2`$ are the only ones in the PC class because they are the only BARW processes equivalent to generalized two-state Voter models, as defined in VOTPRL , i.e. spin models with up/down symmetry, no bulk noise, and an order/disorder transition. This remark, which will be developed in TBP2 , calls for renaming the PC class the Voter class.

We now summarize and discuss our results. We first note that our BARW models, at criticality, exhibit ordinary scaling after some crossover scale, and do not seem to be plagued by the strong deviations observed with even the simplest fermionic PCPD or TCPD rules DICK02 ; HH-NEW . Numerical results of basic fermionic models can be shown to converge to the critical behavior found here TBP . To our numerical accuracy, the scaling exponents recorded at criticality lead to conclude to the existence of three basic universality classes: DP, PCPD, and TCPD. Table 1 summarizes our current estimates of the basic exponents $`\delta `$, $`z`$, and $`\beta `$, pending more precise ones TBP . Extrapolating from our numerical findings, we believe that the critical behavior of all processes considered here is as follows (Table 2): rules with four-particle annihilation ($`n=4`$) do not have non-trivial APT, indicating (in partial agreement with TCPD ) that $`d_\mathrm{c}1`$ in this case. Hybrid processes fall into one of these basic classes: $`m>n`$ rules exhibit DP critical behavior, whereas the class of $`m<n`$ rules is set by $`m`$. Finally, we have shown that mod2 (parity) or mod3 conservation seems to act only on sp$`(2k)2`$ rules, suggesting that the PC class should be seen as the (one-dimensional, generalized) Voter class.

Obviously, our numerical findings need to be confirmed by analytical approaches. We hope that, at the very least, they will trigger some new lines of attack to the difficult issues at play. At the numerical level, ongoing work aims at obtaining more comprehensive results, including the study of spreading exponents and the case of higher space dimensions.

We thank F. van Wijland for useful discussions.


text:
# Improved performance of QCD code on ALiCE

## 1 Introduction

In a typical lattice QCD project the total run-time of code on a supercomputing platform is often measured in months or even years. This means that even a modest improvement in the performance of the code can yield very tangible benefits. There are two aspects to the optimisation of code for parallel machines: single-node optimisation and the minimisation of the overhead incurred by inter-node communications.

The former requires that the code be written to take full advantage of the high performance available from todays advanced hardware, The latter is of particular importance on cluster machines, like ALiCE , where the scalability of code can be a serious problem.

## 2 Single node optimisation

Experience tells us that the dominant part of a typical lattice QCD code is that implementing the multiplication of a vector by the fermion matrix so it is here that the effort should be made. Secondly, the use of hand-coded optimised assembler routines can dramatically improve performance since the programmer can use information about the code which is unavailable to the compiler.

The disadvantage with assembler routines is that they are difficult to develop and harder to maintain, in addition to the obvious lack of portability. We address these problems by adopting a metacoding approach; writing a C++ program to write the assembler code for us. We have developed special software tools to enable this.

### 2.1 Metacode software toolkit

The first stage in creating the assembler routine is to reduce the computational task to elementary assembler-level abstract instructions, e.g. load a datum from memory into registers, perform arithmetic on the data, cache management, textitetc.

In order to write the metacode we have developed a system of C++ classes and routines which automatically schedule the instructions to hide the instruction latencies as much as possible and automatically manage the register usage.

When the metacode written using these routines is compiled and run, the abstract instructions with their arguments are translated into an actual assembly language and written to a file.

By basing the toolkit design on an abstract RISC ISA it should be possible to produce assembler code for any RISC machine by changing the architecture-dependent parameters. Here we show the results on ALiCE , a cluster of Compaq DS10 servers which have a 616 Mhz, 4-way superscalar Alpha 21264 processor with a 64Kb 2-way set-associative level 1 (on-chip) data cache and a 2Mb level 2 (off-chip) cache.

### 2.2 QCD kernels

An advantage of the metacode toolkit as that it permits a large degree of flexibility in writing various assembler kernels; different approaches can be tried and compared, and the kernels can be rewritten to adapt to changes in the action or algorithm.

Figure 1 shows the improvement, over a wide range of lattice volumes, in the performance of the Wilson matrix multiplication routine when written with assembler kernels over that of the original implementation in C. To demonstrate the effect in a more realistic environment, the inversion of the Wilson matrix using BiCGStab is shown in figure 2.

## 3 Cluster performance

ALiCE is clustered using ParaStation 3 over 64bit/33MHz Myrinet. Our code uses MPICH 1.2.3 to do the communications.

We test the multinode performance of the BiCGstab solver on a $`16^4`$ lattice running on $`n`$ = 1, 2, 4, 8 and 16 nodes arranged in a 1-dimensional ($`1\times n`$) grid and a 2-dimensional (square) grid. We use a standard metric of parallel performance:

$$\text{speedup}=\frac{\text{speed on }\text{n}\text{ nodes}}{\text{speed on 1 node}}$$

Our original implementation used a conventional array ordering for all the fields, where each lattice site with coordinates $`(x_0,x_1,x_2,x_3)`$ is numbered $`n=x_3+N_3x_2+N_3N_2x_1+N_3N_2N_1x_0`$ where $`N_\mu `$ is the size of the local lattice in directon $`\mu `$. This is illustrated in figure 4 (left) which shows that while the data along the boundary in one direction is contiguous, in the second direction it is strided. Investigations into the performance of our MPI communications suggest that the communication of strided data introduces an overhead of at least 20% compared to contiguous data. This explains the poor scaling of the solver on a 2-dimensional grid shown in figure 3. The scaling on the 1-dimensional grid suffers from the increasingly unfavourable surface-to-volume ratio of the local lattice.

The solution to these problems appears to be to rearrange the data layout so that the sites on the lattice boundaries are ordered in a contiguous fashion, illustrated in figure 4 (right).

Separating the boundary and interior sites in this way has the additional advantage that computation can proceed on the interior sites while the boundary sites are waiting for a non-blocking communication to finish. Figure 5 shows that using this new data layout greatly improves the speedup of the solver. The new data layout does not adversely affect single node performance.

## 4 Summary

We have introduced a flexible software toolkit  which can successfully generate optimised assembler routines for performance-critical parts of our lattice QCD code. On a single node we see a 100–150% improvement in the Wilson matrix solver performance at single precision and 50–100% at double precision.

We demonstrate that good scaling performance can be achieved on ALiCE if the data layout and communication strategy is carefully adapted to suit the communication needs.

## Acknowledgements

Thanks to Dr. P. Boyle for inspiration and information and to the ALiCE Team.

I acknowledge the financial support provided through the European Community’s Human Potential Programme under contract HPRN-CT-2000-00145, Hadrons/Lattice QCD.

## References

1.  www.theorie.physik.uni-wuppertal.de/
Computerlabor/Alice/akmt.phtml


text:
# A simple explanation of the non-appearance of physical gluons and quarks

## Abstract

We show that the non-appearance of gluons and quarks as physical particles is a rigorous and automatic result of the full, i.e. nonperturbative, nonabelian nature of the color interaction in quantum chromodynamics. This makes it in general impossible to describe the color field as a collection of elementary quanta (gluons). Neither can a quark be an elementary quantum of the quark field, as the color field of which it is the source is itself a source, making isolated noninteracting quarks, crucial for a physical particle interpretation, impossible. In geometrical language, the impossibility of quarks and gluons as physical elementary particles arises due to the fact that the color Yang-Mills space does not have a constant trivial curvature.

In QCD, the particles “gluons” and “quarks” are merely artifacts of an approximation method (the perturbative expansion) and are simply absent in the exact theory. This also coincides with the empirical, experimental evidence.

One major problem in contemporary particle physics is to explain why quarks and gluons are never seen as isolated particles. A lot of effort has gone into trying to resolve this puzzle over a period of years. Different approaches include lattice QCD, dual Meissner effect (in the QCD-vacuum), instantons, etc, but the problem is not yet fully solved. For a review, see .

We will take a different route than normally used, to eliminate the problem before it arises.

Usually, most particle physicists use “fields” and “particles” interchangeably, i.e. as denoting the same things. That is because the almost universal usage of Feynman diagrams gives the false impression that particles (quanta) are always exchanged, even when they cannot exist. This is an example of mistaking the approximation (perturbation theory) for the exact theory. However, this misconception seems to be so common that many physicists do not even note, or care about, the distinction. The usage of the Feynman diagram technique (propagators, Green’s functions, etc) can be justified as an approximation for mildly nonlinear theories (weak coupling limit) but breaks down for strongly coupled nonabelian theories. (And also for strongly coupled abelian theories with sources.)

In quantum chromodynamics (QCD) it is at first sight a puzzle why the color force should be short-range, and especially why gluons are not seen as free particles, as the nonbroken SU(3) color symmetry seems to demand massless quanta, which naively would have infinite reach. However, as we shall see, there generally are no quanta.

In quantum field theory an elementary particle , i.e. a quantum $`=`$ a harmonic excitation of a fundamental field , is defined through the creation and annihilation operators, $`a^{}`$ and $`a`$, of the “second-quantized” theory. For instance, in quantum electrodynamics (QED), the entire electromagnetic field can be seen as a collection of superposed quanta, each with an energy $`\omega _k`$. The hamiltonian of the electromagnetic field (omitting the zero-point energy) can be written

$$H=\underset{k}{}N_k\omega _k,$$
(1)
where

$$N_k=a_k^{}a_k,$$
(2)
is the “number operator”, i.e. giving the number of quanta with a specific four-momentum $`k`$ when operating on a free state,

$$N_k|\mathrm{}n_k\mathrm{}=n_k|\mathrm{}n_k\mathrm{}.$$
(3)
As all oscillators are independent,

$$|\mathrm{}n_k\mathrm{}=\underset{k}{}|n_k,$$
(4)
where $`n_k`$ is a positive integer, the number of quanta with that particular momentum. The energy in the electromagnetic field is thus the eigenvalue of the hamiltonian (1). The reasoning for fermion fields is the same, but then the number of quanta in any given state can be only 0 or 1 (“Fermi statistics”).

Now, assuming that QCD is the correct theory of quark interactions, a problem arises, as it is generally impossible to write the color fields in terms of superposed harmonic oscillators. It is not possible to represent the solution as a Fourier expansion and then interpret the Fourier coefficients as creation/annihilation operators through “second quantization”, as the color vector potentials $`A_\mu ^b`$ ($`b1,\mathrm{},8`$) are governed by nonlinear evolution equations,

$$D^\mu F_{\mu \nu }=j_\nu ,$$
(5)
and Fourier methods are inapplicable to nonlinear equations (see, e.g., ).

Without a quark current, $`j_\nu g_s\overline{\psi }\gamma _\nu \psi =0`$, we get, in component form

$`(\delta _{ab}^\mu +g_sf_{abc}A_c^\mu )(_\mu A_\nu ^b_\nu A_\mu ^b+g_sf_{bde}A_\mu ^dA_\nu ^e)=0,`$ (6)
where $`g_s`$ is the color coupling constant (summation over repeated indices implied).

When we have an abelian dynamical group, as in QED, all the structure constants $`f_{abc}`$ are zero. Eq.(6) then reduces to a linear differential equation, and a general solution can be obtained by making the Fourier expansion:

$`A_\mu ^{QED}={\displaystyle d^3k\underset{\lambda =0}{\overset{3}{}}[a_k(\lambda )ϵ_\mu (k,\lambda )e^{ikx}+a_k^{}(\lambda )ϵ_\mu ^{}(k,\lambda )e^{ikx}]},`$ (7)
where $`ϵ_\mu `$ is the polarization vector. We have also omitted an, for our purposes, inessential normalization factor.

However, for a theory based on a nonabelian group, like QCD, this can no longer be done , due to the nonlinear nature of Eq.(6) when $`f_{abc},f_{bde}0`$,

$`A_\mu ^{bQCD}{\displaystyle d^3k\underset{\lambda =0}{\overset{3}{}}[a_k^b(\lambda )ϵ_\mu (k,\lambda )e^{ikx}+a_k^b(\lambda )ϵ_\mu ^{}(k,\lambda )e^{ikx}]}.`$ (8)
Thus, the color fields can be represented by harmonic oscillators (gluons) only in the trivial, and physically empty, limit when the strong interaction coupling constant tends to zero, $`g_s0`$ (or, within perturbation theory, equivalently when $`Q^2\mathrm{}`$ because of asymptotic freedom). Hence, no elementary quanta of the color interaction, in the usual sense, can exist. This means that no gluon particles are possible, and that Eq.(1) does not hold for color fields111Early criticism of this paper focused on that physical particles surely not are as simple as these “bare” particles, and that by necessity “dressed” particles must be used for physical states. This misses the point that the distinction “bare” vs. “dressed” is defined solely within perturbation theory. Even the “dressed” particle states rely on exactly the same kind of approximation methodology as the “bare” particles. Also, the classic explanation of the photoelectric effect uses just these “naive” quanta, in terms of photons.. The fields are there, but their quanta, gluons (and quarks), are relevant only when probed at sufficiently (infinitely) short distances. Generally, quarks do not exchange gluons, but the fermion fields $`\psi `$ react to the color fields given by $`A_\mu `$. Fields are primary to particles.

So far we have strictly only banished gluons. To also banish quarks as physical particles we note that a quark field is the source of a color field, but this color field is itself a source of a color field. Hence, a quark field is never removed from other sources, is always interacting, and can never be considered to be freely propagating. This results in that the quark fields can never be represented by harmonic oscillator modes, unless $`Q^2\mathrm{}`$, whereas physical particles, observable in nature, should exist as $`Q^20`$. This means that no quark field quanta (quarks) can ever exist. In QCD, the particles “gluons” and “quarks” are merely artifacts of the approximation method used, i.e. the perturbative expansion in the interaction on a “background” of assumed free gluons and quarks. They are simply absent in the exact theory.

In QED things are very different. An electric charge gives rise to an abelian field, which is not the source of another field. Hence an electrically charged field can be removed from other sources and exist as a physical particle. Thus, the observability of, e.g. an electron is ultimately due to the fact that electromagnetic quanta (photons) can exist as real particles.

A more mathematical treatment of the physical picture regarding quarks given above is provided by geometry. A case analogous to the one we are studying appears in quantum field theory on a curved spacetime , where it is well known, and generally accepted, that fields are more fundamental than particles. Indeed, there it can be shown that the very concept of a particle is, in general, useless . Actually, nonabelian gauge fields and quantum field theory on a curved background have a lot in common. The quark fields can, in an approximation similar to quantum field theory on a curved (spacetime) background, be treated as “living” on the curved (gauge) space defined by the color fields. The total curvature, and also the dynamical coupling to “matter fields” through the covariant derivative, is given by one part coming from the Yang-Mills connection (i.e. gauge potential) and one part coming from the Riemannian (Levi-Civita) connection . Only when both the gauge field curvature and the spacetime curvature  are zero, or at most constant, can a particle be unambiguously defined. The former is constant for abelian quantum field theory, the latter is zero on a Minkowski background with inertial observers, and constant for some special, and static, spacetimes. The curvature in gauge space is given by the field strength tensor,

$$F_{\mu \nu }^b=_\mu A_\nu ^b_\nu A_\mu ^b+g_sf_{bcd}A_\mu ^cA_\nu ^d,$$
(9)
this being the analog in gauge space to the Riemann curvature tensor, $`R_{\mu \nu \sigma \rho }`$, for spacetime. The properties of $`F_{\mu \nu }`$ under a gauge transformation, $`U`$, is

$$F_{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }^{}=UF_{\mu \nu }U^1,$$
(10)
i.e. the gauge curvature generally transforms as a tensor in gauge space.

However, we see directly that for an abelian gauge theory, like QED,

$$F_{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }^{}=F_{\mu \nu },$$
(11)
as $`U`$ now commutes with $`F_{\mu \nu }`$. This means that the curvature is constant (invariant) in gauge space for an abelian field, i.e. that $`F_{\mu \nu }`$ transforms as a scalar in gauge space. It also means that the field is a gauge singlet, which only reflects that it has no “charge” and that the fields have no self-interactions. Abelian gauge fields $``$ sources of fields.

For nonabelian fields, like QCD, the gauge curvature, $`F_{\mu \nu }`$ transforms as a tensor, i.e. is covariant, not invariant, and is thus generally different at different points in gauge space. The color-electric and color-magnetic fields, $`𝐄^b`$ and $`𝐁^b`$, which are the components of $`F_{\mu \nu }^b`$ defined by $`F_{0i}^b=E_i^b`$ and $`F_{ij}^b=ϵ_{ijk}B_k^b`$ ($`i,j,k1,2,3`$), are thus not gauge independent and cannot be observable physical fields, which is another, complementary and perhaps more physically direct way of seeing that physical gluons cannot exist, regardless of coupling strength222Thus, gluon and quark “confinement” can be considered as just a special case of the more general requirement that observables be gauge invariant, i.e. independent of the local choice of gauge “coordinates”.. (In contrast to usual electric and magnetic fields which are both gauge singlets and observed.) The fact that $`F_{\mu \nu }^b`$ color singlet, just implies that color gauge fields are sources of color gauge fields.

We conclude that the unbroken nonabelian gauge theories of gravity and QCD are strictly incompatible with the concept of elementary quanta in a traditional sense. In practice, however, this only rules out gluons and quarks as physical particles, as spacetime curvature (or, equivalently, observer accelerations) is normally completely negligible in experimental settings in particle physics. The difference can be traced to the fact that the dynamical curvature is directly related to the nonlinear coupling strength, which is enormously much larger for QCD than for gravity. Leptons can exist as physical particles as QED has abelian gauge dynamics and weak (nonabelian) SU(2) is broken, i.e. absent from the point of view of particle detectors.

It also follows, as a direct corollary to the argument above, that hadrons must be color singlets, i.e. color neutral, as they otherwise could not exist as physical particles.

It would be interesting to continue the analogy with gravity and speculate that the hadrons are “grey holes”, as the color stays inside. The curvature induced by the color fields would then give the hadron, or confinement, radius. This would require nonperturbative solutions to the coupled $`\psi `$-$`A`$ system, with fully dynamical quark fields, which is a very hard and unsolved problem. Strictly, also gravity should be included, perhaps in a Kaluza-Klein fashion, the lagrangian then containing both $`F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }`$, now with covariant spacetime derivatives, and $`R=R_\mu ^\mu `$, the Ricci-scalar. Although this is a nice picture, which may/may not be true, it is not necessary for the purpose of excluding gluons and quarks as physical quanta, or particles, for which the argument given in this article is sufficient.

In conclusion, what we have done is to provide a “Gordian knot”-like theoretical explanation of the empirical “non-appearance” of gluons/quarks in the physical world.
We assume only that:

1) QCD is the correct theory of quark-field interactions

2) particles (quanta) are represented by $`a`$ and $`a^{}`$
which unambiguously leads to the result that QCD can have no elementary color quanta (gluons). If a specific fundamental quantum does not exist within a certain, supposedly correct, theory it neither can be detected in experiments. As the quark fields always generate color fields, which in turn act as sources of other color fields, the quark fields can never be considered to be noninteracting. Hence an expansion in harmonic oscillator modes is impossible, which means that no quark field quanta (quarks) can exist. Only if I) QCD is wrong, or II) elementary quanta are not necessarily described by harmonic oscillator modes (which would mean that the fundamental relation $`E=\mathrm{}\omega `$ does not hold, and that the notion of what a quantum really is must be broadened from the traditional definition), or both, can gluons and quarks exist as physical particles. In geometrical terms the curvature of Yang-Mills (color) space makes quarks, as particles, impossible.

This proves that the theory of QCD automatically forbids particles with color charge, hence formally implying gluon/quark “confinement”. However, in a very real sense, there actually is nothing to confine in terms of particles.
Acknowledgements: Part of this work was done while visiting the Theory Group, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA. The visit was supported by the Foundation BLANCEFLOR Boncompagni-Ludovisi, née Bildt.