text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

We hope the string theories tell us the dimensionality of spacetime. Unfortunately, perturbative analysis of them suggests that the spacetime dimension should be ten rather than four. The question is how to derive four dimensional spacetime from string theories. It will most likely make us understand superstring/M-theory in non-perturbative ways.

Matrix models are strong candidates for the non-perturbative formulation of superstring/M-theory. Through them string theories relate to the idea of quantum spacetime namely non-commutative geometry. In string theory, non-commutative gauge theories on flat space are realized with constant $`B_{\mu \nu }`$  and theories on the curved space may appear with non-constant $`B_{\mu \nu }`$ field. Non-commutative gauge theories are also obtained from matrix models with non-commutative backgrounds. The gauge invariant observables of non-commutative gauge theories, the Wilson lines were constructed through matrix models . They play crucial roles to elucidate the gravitational aspects of non-commutative gauge theories.

It is worthwhile to investigate theories on curved spaces as well as non-commutative spaces, since we live on a curved space and experimentally we have known our universe is de-Sitter space. Particularly, $`S^2`$ is very interesting because it is the simplest homogeneous space and the Wick rotation of it becomes two dimensional de-Sitter space. The homogeneous spaces $`S^2`$ and $`S^2\times S^2`$ are constructed at classical level by deforming the IIB matrix model. In previous works we have investigated quantum corrections of these models . From the results of these works we expect that the IIB matrix model single out four dimensional spacetime of spacetime among homogeneous spaces.

In the context of the IIB matrix model, the four dimensionality of spacetime has been studied in several different ways: branched polymer picture, complex phase effects and mean-field approximations. These studies seem to suggest that the IIB matrix model predicts four dimensional spacetime.

But for now it is not easy to analyze dynamics of the IIB matrix model, such as, selection of spacetime dimension and gauge groups and matter contents. So we would like to approach general features of it through studies of concrete examples. We think the matrix model on homogeneous spaces is a key to access these features. In fact we have recognized that the supersymmetry of the IIB matrix model plays a key role in selecting four dimensional spacetime from our recent work.

In this paper, we investigate the IIB matrix model on the simplest four-dimensional fuzzy homogeneous background, that is, fuzzy $`S^2\times S^2`$ background. In particular we focus on the case in which the size of one of $`S^2\times S^2`$ is different from that of the other $`S^2`$, while in the previous paper we have focused on the case in which both are of the same size. We compute the effective action up to the two loop level. We can identify the ’t Hooft coupling and large $`N`$ scaling behavior of the effective action to all order. We argue that the most symmetric $`S^2\times S^2`$ configuration where the both $`S^2`$ are of the same size minimizes the effective action up to two loop level.

We stress that loop corrections to the effective action play an important role. The tree level effective action has no local minimum (in terms of ’t Hooft coupling $`\lambda `$, see eq. (18)). This means that the fuzzy $`S^2\times S^2`$ configuration is not stable at the tree level. Actually we find that two loop corrections allow the (quantum) effective action to have a local minimum, so that the situation is drastically changed. In addition we develop a new approach to evaluate the amplitudes on fuzzy $`S^2\times S^2`$.

This paper is organized as follows. In section 2, we review fuzzy $`S^2`$ and the IIB matrix model on fuzzy $`S^2\times S^2`$ background. In section 3, we investigate the effective action of the IIB matrix model. In addition we develop a new approach to evaluate the amplitudes on fuzzy $`S^2\times S^2`$. We conclude in section 4 with discussions.

## 2 IIB matrix model on fuzzy $`S^2\times S^2`$ background

Let us briefly review the fuzzy $`S^2`$. $`S^2`$ is a homogeneous space since $`S^2=SU(2)/U(1)`$. In $`SU(2)`$ group, there are three generators $`j_1,j_2,j_3`$ which satisfy the commutation relation of the angular momenta:

$`[j_1,j_2]=ij_3.`$ (1)
This commutation relation can be realized with finite matrices since such algebra is compact. One can obtain a non-commutative space by identifying $`j_i(i=1,2,3)`$ with the coordinates $`x_i(i=1,2,3)`$.

Let us adopt $`j_i`$ as $`N=2l+1`$ dimensional representation of spin $`l`$. The Casimir operator

$`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}x_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}j_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=l(l+1)`$ (2)
gives the size of the $`S^2`$, strictly speaking, the square radius of the sphere. It is easy to extend this construction to fuzzy $`S^2\times S^2`$, which we will use as a background.

In the remaining part of this section we summarize the IIB matrix model on a fuzzy $`S^2\times S^2`$ background . The IIB matrix model action  is

$`S_{IIB}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mu ,\nu =0}{\overset{9}{}}}Tr[A_\mu ,A_\nu ]^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mu =0}{\overset{9}{}}}Tr\overline{\psi }\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu [A_\mu ,\psi ],`$ (3)
where $`A_\mu `$ and $`\psi `$ are $`N\times N`$ matrices. Since this model has the translational invariance

$`A_\mu A_\mu +c_\mu `$ (4)
and

$`\psi \psi +ϵ,`$ (5)
we remove these zero modes by restricting $`A_\mu `$ and $`\psi `$ to be traceless.

Let us split the field $`A_\mu `$ into the fuzzy $`S^2\times S^2`$ background and a fluctuating quantum field:

$`A_\mu `$ $``$ $`p_\mu +a_\mu .`$ (6)
Here we take the background $`p_\mu `$ as follows:

$`\begin{array}{cc}p_\mu =f(j_\mu 1)1_n,& (\mu =8,9,0)\\ p_\mu =f(1\stackrel{~}{j}_\mu )1_n,& (\mu =1,2,3)\\ p_\mu =0,& (others)\end{array}`$ (10)
where $`j_\mu `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{j}_\mu `$ are angular momentum generators of spin $`l_1`$ and $`l_2`$ respectively. Here we have introduced a free parameter $`f`$, which assigns the overall size of the background (see (16)). These $`p_\mu `$ satisfy the Lie algebra of $`SU(2)\times SU(2)`$:

$`[p_\mu ,p_\nu ]`$ $`=`$ $`if_{\mu \nu \rho }p_\rho ,`$ (11)
$`f_{\mu \nu \rho }`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}fϵ_{\mu \nu \rho }& (\mu ,\nu ,\rho )(8,9,0)\\ fϵ_{\mu \nu \rho }& (\mu ,\nu ,\rho )(1,2,3)\\ 0& (others).\end{array}`$ (15)
Casimir operators of this algebra

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\mu =8,9,0}{}}(p_\mu )^2=f^2l_1(l_1+1),{\displaystyle \underset{\mu =1,2,3}{}}(p_\mu )^2=f^2l_2(l_2+1)`$ (16)
determine the size of each $`S^2`$ of fuzzy $`S^2\times S^2`$ such as (2). Since $`p_\mu `$ acts on the $`n`$ copies of spin $`l_1`$ and spin $`l_2`$ representations respectively(see (10)), the size of matrices $`A_\mu `$ and $`\psi `$ is $`N=n(2l_1+1)(2l_2+1)`$. This background represents $`n`$ coincident fuzzy $`S^2\times S^2`$, and so that this theory is a $`U(n)`$ gauge theory on the fuzzy $`S^2\times S^2`$ space. In the $`l_2=0`$ limit this background reduces to a 2 dimensional space $`S^2`$. In this paper, it is always assumed that $`l_1`$ and $`l_2`$ are large, which means $`nN`$.

In this background the action (3) becomes

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`S_{IIB}+S_{gst}+S_{gf}`$ (17)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}Tr[p_\mu ,p_\nu ]^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}Tr\overline{\psi }\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu [p_\mu ,\psi ]+Trb[p_\mu ,[p_\mu ,c]]`$
$`Tra_\rho \left([p_\mu ,[p_\rho ,p_\mu ]]\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}Tr\overline{\psi }\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu [a_\mu ,\psi ]+Trb[p_\mu ,[a_\mu ,c]],`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}Tr[a_\mu (\delta _{\mu \nu }P^2+2if_{\mu \nu \rho }P_\rho )a_\nu ]`$
$`Tr[p_\mu ,a_\nu ][a_\mu ,a_\nu ]`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}Tr[a_\mu ,a_\nu ]^2.`$
where we have added a ghost term $`S_{gst}=Trb[p_\mu ,[p_\mu +a_\mu ,c]]`$ and a gauge fixing term $`S_{gf}=\frac{1}{2}Tr[p_\mu ,a_\mu ][p_\nu ,a_\nu ]`$ and introduced the adjoint operator $`P_\mu X=[p_\mu ,X]`$.

## 3 Effective action

In this section we study fuzzy $`S^2\times S^2`$ geometry by investigating the effective action of the model (17). In particular, we investigate which configuration minimizes it in terms of ratio of the radii of $`S^2\times S^2`$.

### 3.1 Tree & one loop effective action

The tree level effective action is the first term in RHS of (17) :

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{tree}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}Tr[p_\mu ,p_\nu ]^2`$ (18)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f^4}{2}}N\left(l_1(l_1+1)+l_2(l_2+1)\right)`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(2\pi )^2}{\lambda ^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{r+\frac{1}{r}}{2}}\right)nN`$
In the third line we have used $`l_1,l_21`$ and $`rl_2/l_1`$. Here we have also used ’t Hooft coupling $`\lambda ^2=(4\pi )^2n^2/(f^4N)`$, which will be investigated later. It is noted that $`r`$ is, roughly speaking, the ratio of the radii of two $`S^2`$s. It is because, for large $`l_1`$ and $`l_2`$, the ratio of the radii becomes

$`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\underset{\mu =1,2,3}{}(p_\mu )^2}{_{\mu =8,9,0}(p_\mu )^2}}}=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{l_2(l_2+1)}{l_1(l_1+1)}}}{\displaystyle \frac{l_2}{l_1}},`$ (19)
which is $`r`$. In the previous paper we have investigated $`r=0,1`$ cases which have been called 2d and 4d limit respectively. Now we are interested in $`r0,1`$ case. The $`r`$-dependence of the tree level effective action is quite natural because the effective action must have a symmetry associated with the exchange of one of $`S^2\times S^2`$ with the other, that is, with the exchange of $`l_1`$ with $`l_2`$. It means that the $`r`$-dependence of it, which is to say, $`(r+\frac{1}{r})=(\frac{l_2}{l_1}+\frac{l_1}{l_2})`$, is consistent with this argument.

It is noticed that we have three parameters to minimize the effective action: one is $`f`$, another is $`n`$ of the gauge group $`U(n)`$, the other is $`r`$. At the tree level the effective action is minimized at $`n=1`$ and $`r=1`$, that is, the two spheres are the same size if we fix $`\lambda `$. Since it is not stationary with respect to $`f`$ unless it vanishes, we have to investigate higher order corrections to obtain physical predictions.

The leading terms of the one loop effective action in the large $`N`$ limit is

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{1st}`$ $``$ $`Tr\left(({\displaystyle \frac{1}{P^2}}^4)F_{\mu \nu }F_{\nu \lambda }F_{\lambda \rho }F_{\rho \mu }\right)2Tr\left(({\displaystyle \frac{1}{P^2}}^4)F_{\mu \nu }F_{\lambda \rho }F_{\mu \rho }F_{\lambda \nu }\right)`$ (20)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}Tr\left(({\displaystyle \frac{1}{P^2}}^4)F_{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }F_{\lambda \rho }F_{\lambda \rho }\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}Tr\left(({\displaystyle \frac{1}{P^2}}^4)F_{\mu \nu }F_{\lambda \rho }F_{\mu \nu }F_{\lambda \rho }\right)`$
$`=`$ $`3n^2Tr({\displaystyle \frac{1}{P^2}})^26n^2Tr{\displaystyle \frac{(P_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})^2+(P_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})^2}{(P^2)^4}}+n^2Tr({\displaystyle \frac{1}{P^2}})^3`$
$`=`$ $`3n^2{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{2l_1}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{p=0}{\overset{2l_2}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(2j+1)(2p+1)}{(j(j+1)+p(p+1))^2}}6n^2{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{2l_1}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{p=0}{\overset{2l_2}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(2j+1)(2p+1)(j^2(j+1)^2+p^2(p+1)^2)}{(j(j+1)+p(p+1))^4}}`$
$`+n^2{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{2l_1}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{p=0}{\overset{2l_2}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(2j+1)(2p+1)}{(j(j+1)+p(p+1))^3}},`$
where we have defined $`F_{\mu \nu }X=[f_{\mu \nu },X]`$ and $`f_{\mu \nu }=i[p_\mu ,p_\nu ]`$. This can be estimated as

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{1st}n^2\mathrm{ln}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{N}{n}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{r+\frac{1}{r}}{2}}\right)^1\right]`$ (21)
for large $`l_1,l_2`$ but fixed $`r=l_2/l_1`$. The $`r`$-dependence of (21) is also consistent with the argument we just gave. The one loop corrections are found to be sub-leading compared to the tree level action in the large $`N`$ limit.

### 3.2 Two loop corrections

The diagrams that contribute to the two loop effective action are illustrated in Fig.1.

The two loop effective action is

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{2nd}nN\lambda ^2{\displaystyle \frac{2F(l_1,l_2)}{(4\pi )^2}},`$ (22)
with333$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{2nd}`$ has been calculated in the appendix B of , but we have found an error in (B.6). After the correction, eq. (22) differs from the orignal one by factor 2. Note that this correction does not change the qualitative conclusion of

$`F(l_1,l_2)`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{c}j_1=0\\ j_1=k_10\end{array}}{\overset{2l_1}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k_1=0}{\overset{2l_2}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{c}j_2=0\\ j_2=k_20\end{array}}{\overset{2l_1}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k_2=0}{\overset{2l_2}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{c}j_3=0\\ j_3=k_30\end{array}}{\overset{2l_1}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k_3=0}{\overset{2l_2}{}}}`$ (27)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{(2j_1+1)(2j_2+1)(2j_3+1)(2k_1+1)(2k_2+1)(2k_3+1)}{[j_1(j_1+1)+k_1(k_1+1)][j_2(j_2+1)+k_2(k_2+1)][j_3(j_31+1)+k_3(k_3+1)]}}`$
$`\times \left\{\begin{array}{ccc}j_1& j_2& j_3\\ l_1& l_1& l_1\end{array}\right\}^2\times \left\{\begin{array}{ccc}k_1& k_2& k_3\\ l_2& l_2& l_2\end{array}\right\}^2.`$
where $`\{\mathrm{}\}`$ is Wigner’s 6j symbol. Here we have used the ’t Hooft coupling $`\lambda `$, which will be clarified later. We have ignored contributions from non-planar diagrams because they are sub-leading by comparison with those of planar diagrams in the large $`N`$ limit.

For large $`l_1,l_2`$ while preserving $`r=l_2/l_1`$, we can evaluate $`F(l_1,l_2)`$ numerically as follows. Let us focus for example on the case $`r=2`$. We compute $`F(l_1,l_2=2l_1)`$ up to $`l_1=15`$ (the values are represented by open circles in the fig.2).

Fitting a function $`f(l_1)=a+\frac{b}{l_1}`$ to the data of $`F(l_1,2l_1)`$ above $`l_1=10`$, we read off $`a5.34`$ and $`b1.45`$. Therefore $`F(l_1,l_2=2l_1)5.34`$ for large $`l_1`$. This evaluation applies to $`r2`$ cases also. In the future $`F(l_1,l_2)`$ is called as $`F(r)`$, since $`F(l_1,l_2)`$ with large $`l_1,l_2`$ but fixed $`r=l_2/l_1`$ depends only on $`r`$. Then (22) becomes

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{2nd}nN\lambda ^2{\displaystyle \frac{2F(r)}{(4\pi )^2}}`$ (28)
where $`F(r)`$ behaves as in the fig. 3.

### 3.3 Another approach to evaluate two loop corrections

In the last sub-section we obtained the two loop corrections $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{2nd}`$ by evaluating the asymptotic forms of $`F(l_1,l_2=rl_1)`$ for large $`l_1`$. In this section we develop an alternative approach to evaluate two loop corrections.

The key for this new approach is the Wigner’s asymptotic estimate: for large $`j_1,j_2,j_3`$ and $`l`$ the 6j symbol is related to the volume $`V`$ of the tetrahedron whose edges are $`j_1+\frac{1}{2},j_2+\frac{1}{2},j_3+\frac{1}{2},l+\frac{1}{2},l+\frac{1}{2}`$, and $`l+\frac{1}{2}`$ (see Fig.4)

$`\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}j_1& j_2& j_3\\ l& l& l\end{array}\right\}^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{24\pi V(j_1,j_2,j_3,l)}}`$ (31)
where

$`V^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2^3(3!)^2}}\left|\begin{array}{ccccc}0& (l+\frac{1}{2})^2& (l+\frac{1}{2})^2& (l+\frac{1}{2})^2& 1\\ (l+\frac{1}{2})^2& 0& (j_3+\frac{1}{2})^2& (j_2+\frac{1}{2})^2& 1\\ (l+\frac{1}{2})^2& (j_3+\frac{1}{2})^2& 0& (j_1+\frac{1}{2})^2& 1\\ (l+\frac{1}{2})^2& (j_2+\frac{1}{2})^2& (j_1+\frac{1}{2})^2& 0& 1\\ 1& 1& 1& 1& 0\end{array}\right|`$ (37)
(In the case $`V^2`$ is zero or negative, in other words the tetrahedron with given edges does not exist, 6j symbols is approximated to zero.)

Firstly we must check whether this approximation works or not. A naive way to check it is to substitute Wigner’s asymptotic form (31) into all of the 6j symbols in (27)

$`F_{Wig}(l_1,l_2)`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \underset{j_1,j_2,j_3=0}{\overset{2l_1}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k_1,k_2,k_3=0}{\overset{2l_2}{}}}`$ (38)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{(2j_1+1)(2j_2+1)(2j_3+1)(2k_1+1)(2k_2+1)(2k_3+1)}{[j_1(j_1+1)+k_1(k_1+1)][j_2(j_2+1)+k_2(k_2+1)][j_3(j_31+1)+k_3(k_3+1)]}}`$
$`\times W(j_1,j_2,j_3,l_1)W(k_1,k_2,k_3,l_2),`$
where $`W(j_1,j_2,j_3,l_1)=\frac{1}{24\pi V(j_1,j_2,j_3,l_1)}`$ and similarity for $`W(k_1,k_2,k_3,l_2)`$. We can compare (27) with (38) by evaluating them numerically(See Table 1).

The table 1 shows that $`F_{Wig}(l_1,l_2)`$ comes closer to $`F(l_1,l_2)`$ as we increase $`l_1`$ and $`l_2`$. It seems a bit surprising that this approximation works so well. It will be clarified later why is the case. We expect that $`F(l_1,l_2)`$ and $`F_{Wig}(l_1,l_2)`$ are equal in the large $`l_1`$ and $`l_2`$ limit and that this approximation is exact in this limit.

Moreover in the limit $`l_1`$ and $`l_2\mathrm{}`$ the summations in (38) can be approximated by integrations. As an example let us focus on the case $`l_1=l_2`$. After rescaling variables $`\frac{j_1}{l_1}j_1`$, $`\frac{k_1}{l_1}k_1`$, and so forth and taking the limit $`l_1\mathrm{}`$, we obtain 444$`_0^2𝑑j_1𝑑j_2𝑑j_3𝑑k_1𝑑k_2𝑑k_3=_0^2𝑑j_1_0^2𝑑j_2_0^2𝑑j_3_0^2𝑑k_1_0^2𝑑k_2_0^2𝑑k_3`$

$`F=2{\displaystyle _0^2}𝑑j_1𝑑j_2𝑑j_3𝑑k_1𝑑k_2𝑑k_3{\displaystyle \frac{2^6j_1j_2j_3k_1k_2k_3}{(j_1^2+k_1^2)(j_2^2+k_2^2)(j_3^2+k_3^2)}}\times W(j_1,j_2,j_3)W(k_1,k_2,k_3)`$ (39)
where the Wigner asymptotic estimate changes the 6j symbols as

$`l_1^3\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}j_1& j_2& j_3\\ l_1& l_1& l_1\end{array}\right\}^2W(j_1,j_2,j_3)\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{24\pi V(j_1,j_2,j_3)}& (V^2>0)\\ 0& (else)\end{array},`$ (44)
with

$`V^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2^3(3!)^2}}\left|\begin{array}{ccccc}0& 1& 1& 1& 1\\ 1& 0& j_3^2& j_2^2& 1\\ 1& j_3^2& 0& j_1^2& 1\\ 1& j_2^2& j_1^2& 0& 1\\ 1& 1& 1& 1& 0\end{array}\right|.`$ (50)
We now understand why this is a good approximation. From (39), we can observe that the leading contribution to $`F(l_1,l_1)`$ comes from the UV regions, i.e., $`j_1,j_2,j_3,k_1,k_2,k_3l_1`$. In such a region, (44) is certainly valid.

We can apply this approximation to $`r1`$ cases as well. The novelty here is the appearance of the ratio $`r=l_2/l_1`$:

$`F(r)=2{\displaystyle _0^2}𝑑j_1𝑑j_2𝑑j_3𝑑k_1𝑑k_2𝑑k_3{\displaystyle \frac{2^6\times j_1j_2j_3k_1k_2k_3}{(\frac{j_1^2}{r}+rk_2^2)(\frac{j_2^2}{r}+rk_2^2)(\frac{j_3^2}{r}+rk_3^2)}}W(j_1,j_2,j_3)W(k_1,k_2,k_3).`$ (51)
$`F(r)`$ is symmetric under the exchange of $`r`$ with $`\frac{1}{r}`$, which is consistent with the argument in the sub-section 3.1.

Numerically we can check whether this approximation is valid or not. We perform the multiple integration (51) twice analytically and eventually by Monte-Carlo integration. The result is shown in fig.3, which indicates this approximation is in good agreement with the method in the section 3.3.

We make a comment on the difference between the methods in the sections 3.2 and 3.3. The former method requires more machine power with increasing $`r`$, while the latter does not555This causes discrepancy between the two methods around $`r=9`$ in the fig. 5.. So it seems that the latter is more economical and gives better results.

It is noted that this approach cannot applies to the $`S^2`$ background case, that is, $`r=0`$ case. Setting $`r=0(l_2=0)`$, $`F(l_1,l_2)`$ becomes

$`F(l_1,l_2=0)=2({\displaystyle \frac{1}{l_1^3}}){\displaystyle \underset{j_1,j_2,j_3=1}{\overset{2l_1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{l_1^3}}\times {\displaystyle \frac{(\frac{2j_1}{l_1}+\frac{1}{l_1})(\frac{2j_2}{l_1}+\frac{1}{l_1})(\frac{2j_3}{l_1}+\frac{1}{l_1})}{\frac{j_1}{l_1}(\frac{j_1}{l_1}+\frac{1}{l_1})\frac{j_2}{l_1}(\frac{j_2}{l_1}+\frac{1}{l_1})\frac{j_3}{l_1}(\frac{j_3}{l_1}+\frac{1}{l_1})}}\times l_1^3\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}j_1& j_2& j_3\\ l_1& l_1& l_1\end{array}\right\}^2.`$ (54)
Rescaling variables $`j_{1,2,3}`$ and taking the large $`l_1`$ limit, we have

$`F(r=0)=2\left(\underset{l_1\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{l_1^3}}\right){\displaystyle _0^2}𝑑j_1𝑑j_2𝑑j_3{\displaystyle \frac{2^3}{j_1j_2j_3}}W(j_1,j_2,j_3).`$ (55)
The factor $`\left(lim_{l_1\mathrm{}}\frac{1}{l_1^3}\right)`$ vanishes, while the integration part diverges because of the IR contributions, i.e. $`j_1,j_2,j_30`$. This implies that (55) is ill-defined, so that the naive approximation is not valid for the case $`r=0`$.

This limitation can be explained from another point of view. In the $`r=0(l_2=0)`$ case dominant contributions to $`F(l_1,l_2)`$ comes from IR regions, which is to say, $`j_1,j_2,j_31`$. In such a region (44) is no longer valid. This approximation cannot be applied to $`S^2`$ background. In this case, however, 6j symbols are well-approximated by 3j symbols

$`\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}j_1& j_2& j_3\\ l_1& l_1& l_1\end{array}\right\}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2l}}}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}j_1& j_2& j_3\\ 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right).`$ (60)
### 3.4 Higher order corrections & total effective action

In this sub-section, we determine the structure of the effective action to all orders. By naive power counting we estimate the $`i`$-th loop contribution to be $`O(n^{i+1}l_1^2l_2^2/(f^4l_1l_2)^{i1})`$ since we obtain a factor of $`1/(l_1l_2)`$ from 6j symbols in the interaction vertices(see ). Here we also assume that the $`S^2\times S^2`$ background breaks SUSY softly, and so that leading corrections of each $`i`$-th loop cancel. Under this assumption it appears that the $`i`$-th loop contribution becomes $`O(n^{i+1}l_1l_2/(f^4l_1l_2)^{i1})`$. In fact this order estimation is correct in the two loop corrections (28). This argument allows us to define the ’t Hooft coupling of $`U(n)`$ gauge theory as $`\lambda ^2(4\pi )^2n^2/(f^4N)`$ to all orders and so that the $`i`$th loop contributions are $`O(nN(\lambda ^2)^{i1})`$.

The above arguments give the effective action to all orders in terms of the ’t Hooft coupling

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(r)`$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{(2\pi )^2}{\lambda ^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{r+\frac{1}{r}}{2}}\right)+\stackrel{~}{h}_4(r,\lambda ^2)\right]nN,`$ (62)
$`\text{with}\stackrel{~}{h}_4(r,\lambda ^2)={\displaystyle \frac{F(r)}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^2}{(2\pi )^2}}+O(\lambda ^4).`$
Our remaining task is to minimize the effective action in terms of $`n,r`$, and $`f`$ or equivalently $`\lambda ^2`$. We can fix the ’t Hooft coupling $`\lambda `$ by minimizing the effective action (62) independently of $`n`$ (but dependent on $`r`$). By solving $`\mathrm{\Gamma }/(\lambda ^2)=0`$ for $`\lambda ^2`$ we find, up to two loop level,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\lambda }^2}{(2\pi )^2}}=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{F(r)}}(r+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}})}.`$ (63)
Then the effective action becomes

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(r)|_{\lambda =\overline{\lambda }}\sqrt{(r+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}})F(r)}nN.`$ (64)
This can be evaluated numerically in two ways, i.e., the methods in the section 3.2 and 3.3 (fig.5).

It is found from this figure that the $`r=1`$ configuration minimizes the effective action, which means that the configuration of the same size $`S^2\times S^2`$ is favored over the different size configurations. Also it is apparent from (64) that the case $`n=1`$ is favored. It is the most important result of this paper that the same size $`S^2\times S^2`$ configuration with the $`U(n=1)`$ gauge group is singled out by the IIB matrix model. It is worth noting that the effective action blows up, as we decrease $`r`$ below $`r=1`$. This tendency is consistent with the result in , that is, the configuration of the 4d limit($`r=1`$) is favored rather than that of the 2d limit($`r=0`$).

We expect that higher order corrections do not change this result by the argument in .

## 4 Conclusions and discussions

In this paper we have investigated the effective action of the IIB matrix model on the fuzzy $`S^2\times S^2`$ background up to two loop level. In particular we have studied the case in which the size of one of $`S^2\times S^2`$ is different from that of the other. By the power counting and SUSY cancellation arguments, we can identify the ’t Hooft coupling and the large $`N`$ scaling behavior of the effective actions to all orders. In the large $`N`$ limit quantum corrections of the effective action are found to be $`O(N)`$. This analysis will be applied to all order corrections of the effective action. We have found the minimum point of the effective action at the two loop level, and concluded that the same size $`S^2\times S^2`$ with $`U(1)`$ gauge group is favored.

In the previous paper we have concluded that the IIB matrix model favors the 4 dimensional spacetime(fuzzy $`S^2\times S^2`$) rather than 2 and 6 dimensional spacetimes $`S^2`$ and $`S^2\times S^2\times S^2`$. Combining the previous work and the results in this paper suggests that the IIB matrix model singles out not only four dimensionality of spacetime but also more symmetric spacetime. We hope this suggestion is one of general features of the IIB matrix model.

In addition we have developed a approach to calculate the amplitudes on the fuzzy $`S^2\times S^2`$. This approach cannot be applied to the $`S^2`$ background($`r=0`$) case. We wish that extensions of this approach enables us to calculate amplitudes on other homogeneous spaces, such as $`CP^2`$ and $`CP^3`$.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Y. Kitazawa, D. Tomino for discussions. This work is supported in part by the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture of Japan.


format: text

text:
# The Breakdown of Topology at Small Scales

## 1 Introduction

The concept of spacetime is supposed to be derived rather than fundamental in superstring theory. Many ideas have emerged concerning how one might obtain such a derivation but none seems to be without its flaws.

To avoid the extraordinary complications introduced by the presence of a nontrivial time-like direction, it is simplest to study a compactification model. Here one can ask how to deduce the geometry of a Calabi–Yau space $`X`$ of complex dimension $`d`$ used to compactify string theory down to $`102d`$ dimensions. Then one can ask to what extent the geometry of $`X`$ can be deduced from “intrinsic” properties of the string, which in many cases can be paraphrased in terms of the physics of the uncompactified dimensions.

It is a repeated phenomenon in string theory that questions associated to compactifications tend to be most mathematically interesting in the case $`d=3`$ which happily coincides with observed 4-dimensional spacetime. It is this case that we consider here.

Let us consider a type II string compactification. The D-branes corresponding to BPS solitons of the resulting $`N=2`$ theory are the focus of our attention. Following the work of Kontsevich  and Douglas , it is known that some of the D-branes (the “B-branes”) are described by the derived category of coherent sheaves on $`X`$. In this context, the conditions for stability  are now understood to a fair extent. In particular, it is known that many D-branes which are understood to exist in flat space become unstable as the characteristic radius of a Calabi–Yau becomes small with respect to the scale set by the string tension.

In this short paper we outline a simple idea for how one might use such a decay of D-branes to motivate the notion that topology is only well-defined in the large radius limit. We should immediately concede that this argument is not without its limitations not least of which is our use of the Zariski topology. This topology is not usually associated with physics. The main point we wish to emphasize is that the picture we propose coincides beautifully with the “phase” picture of . At least in the context of linear $`\sigma `$-models or, equivalently, toric geometry, the moduli space of $`N=(2,2)`$ superconformal field theories can be roughly divided into phases, each with a particular interpretation. The “geometric phases” consist of the smooth Calabi–Yau $`X`$ together with other phases representing singular versions of $`X`$ such as orbifolds. The “non-geometric phases” consist of interpretations such as Landau–Ginzburg models, fibrations with a Landau–Ginzburg fibre (“hybrid models”) and exoflops which have a Landau–Ginzburg model associated to some subspace. In the language of algebraic geometry, these Landau–Ginzburg models can be associated with non-reduced schemes.

We will see that the topology is lost as one moves from the geometric phases to the non-geometric phases as one would hope. In  the author hoped that 0-branes might play the key rôle in this loss of geometry or topology. Indeed, it is 0-branes that decay as one passes through a flop . However, in non-geometrical phases the 0-brane remains stubbornly stable . Instead, as realized in , it is the 4-branes which naturally decay along the phase boundaries. Our purpose here is to argue that this can be associated with a loss in topology and that it is a general feature of all models associated to toric geometry. So the picture appears to be that 0-brane decay is associated with a “change” in topology while 4-brane decay is associated to a “loss” of topology.

## 2 The Zariski Topology

Let $`X`$ be a topological space. That means that $`X`$ is a set of points and we have a set of subsets of $`X`$, called “open sets”, satisfying the following conditions:

1. $`X`$ itself and the empty set $`\mathrm{}`$ are both open.
2. Any union of open sets is open.
3. Any finite intersection of open sets is open.

If $`X`$ has a metric, then one can form a topology with open sets consisting of unions of interiors of balls of any radius $`ϵ>0`$ and any center. This “metric topology” is probably the one we are most used to thinking about in physics.

In algebraic geometry, the natural topology is the “Zariski topology” defined as follows. Let $`X`$ be embedded in $`^N`$ as the intersection of the zeroes of some algebraic equations in the homogeneous coordinates of $`^N`$. If $`f`$ is any algebraic equation in the homogeneous coordinates of $`^N`$, then the intersection of $`f=0`$ with $`X`$ will be an “algebraic” subspace of $`X`$ (typically of codimension one). Let $`U_f`$ be the complement of this subspace in $`X`$.

The Zariski topology on $`X`$ is then defined as the open sets consisting of $`\mathrm{}`$, $`X`$, unions of $`U_f`$’s, and finite intersection of $`U_f`$’s, for any $`f`$’s. In other words, the open sets consist of complements of algebraic subspaces of $`X`$.

Note that the Zariski topology can be built from a knowledge of the algebraic codimension one subspaces, i.e., divisors of $`X`$.

It should be admitted from the outset that the Zariski topology is peculiar by physicists standards. For example, it is never Hausdorff in nontrivial examples. The problem is that it is very “coarse”, i.e., it consists of relatively few open sets. Having said that, for some purposes (e.g., computing cohomology) it is equivalent to a metric topology. This relationship was explored in the famous GAGA paper .

Knowing to what extent the Zariski topology suffices for string theory is probably a deep question and we will certainly not attempt to answer it here. Let us just suggest that many approaches to string theory are algebraic in nature, and in such a context one should expect something like the Zariski topology to be very natural.

## 3 D-Branes

The Zariski topology suggests that we are interested in the following D-branes on the Calabi–Yau threefold $`X`$:

1. The 0-branes which form the “points”.
2. The 4-branes which form the divisors.

These are all B-branes. That is, they are BPS branes which are preserved by the twist to the topological B-model.

In this paper we will restrict our attention to the zero string-coupling limit. In this case it is established that B-branes are described by the derived category of coherent sheaves on $`X`$ .

The 0-branes consist of (a complex with a single nonzero element given by) a skyscraper sheaf $`\mathrm{O}_\mathrm{p}`$ for $`pX`$. Similarly the 4-branes are associated to the sheaves $`\mathrm{O}_\mathrm{D}`$ supported on divisors $`DX`$.

It is an interesting question to ask to what extent one might determine the set of 0-branes given only the purely categorical (i.e., worldsheet) description of the D-branes. This was discussed in the context of string theory in  based on the work of Bondal and Orlov . Here we will assume that a determination of the 0-branes and 4-branes has been made.

Given a 0-brane corresponding to $`p`$ and a 4-brane corresponding to $`D`$, there is an open string between these D-branes in the topological sector precisely when $`pD`$. Thus the topological field theory has enough information to define the Zariski topology. In derived category language, the open set $`U_D`$, equal to the complement of $`D`$, is given by the set

$$U_D=\{\mathrm{O}_\mathrm{p}|\mathrm{Hom}(\mathrm{O}_\mathrm{D},\mathrm{O}_\mathrm{p})=0\}.$$
(1)
It was realized by Douglas  that the 4-branes can decay as one moves away from the large radius limit. It is this observation that we will exploit here.

## 4 The Quintic Threefold

Let us quickly review a result from . Suppose $`X`$ is the quintic threefold and is given by the embedding $`i:X^4`$.

Let $`\mathrm{O}(\mathrm{k})`$ denote the pullback, via $`i`$, of the usual twisted sheaves on $`^4`$. We then have a short exact sequence

$$0\mathrm{O}(1)\stackrel{\mathrm{f}}{}\mathrm{O}\mathrm{O}_\mathrm{D}0,$$
(2)
where $`D`$ is a degree one divisor in $`X`$ associated to the linear map $`f`$.

Ignoring other possible decays, the stability of $`\mathrm{O}_\mathrm{D}`$ is determined by the mass of the open string associated with the map $`f`$. $`\mathrm{O}_\mathrm{D}`$ is stable if and only if this open string is tachyonic. This mass was computed explicitly in  and the result is shown in figure 1. This figure shows the complex $`B+iJ`$ plane. This plane is divided into non-tesselating fundamental regions of the moduli space as discussed in . At large radius $`\mathrm{O}_\mathrm{D}`$ is stable. As we cross the line of marginal stability the 4-brane decays into $`\mathrm{O}`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{O}(1)}`$.

The line of marginal stability ends at the points where the decay products become massless. This is due to a general rule of $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$-stability as argued in  — a line of marginal stability will either end at a point where a decay product becomes massless or it will end on another line of marginal stability for that decay product.

The decay products $`\mathrm{O}`$ and $`\mathrm{O}(1)`$ become massless for $`B=0`$ and $`B=1`$ respectively. The line of marginal stability forms a “wall” across the fundamental region shown in the figure. This ties in with the “phase” picture for $`N=(2,2)`$ superconformal field theories studied in . The 4-brane is stable while we are in the “Calabi–Yau phase” and becomes unstable as we pass into the “Landau-Ginzburg” phase.

So far we only considered divisors of degree one. One may also consider higher degree cases given by the exact sequence:

$$0\mathrm{O}(\mathrm{k})\stackrel{\mathrm{f}}{}\mathrm{O}\mathrm{O}_{\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{k}}0,$$
(3)
where $`D_k`$ is a divisor of degree $`k`$. As discussed in , such a 4-brane decays in a similar way to the degree one case but will decay at a larger radius depending on $`k`$.

The picture we wish to present is then as follows. Near large radius limit, very nearly all of the 4-branes on $`X`$ are stable, allowing us to determine the Zariski topology to a good approximation. Then as the radius of $`X`$ decreases, we start to lose 4-branes of progressively lower degree. As we pass out of the Calabi–Yau phase, we lose the last 4-brane and the Zariski topology is completely lost.

## 5 The General Phase Picture

A general Calabi–Yau threefold $`X`$ will have more than one deformation of $`B+iJ`$ and so the above picture of walls of marginal stability will be become considerably more complicated. Fortunately we know enough about general features of the moduli space to generalize the above computation.

Suppose that $`H^2(X,)`$ is generated by $`e_j`$, where $`j=1\mathrm{}h^{1,1}(X)`$. Suppose further that each $`e_j`$ is positive in the sense that it is Poincaré dual to an algebraic 4-cycle $`D_jX`$. These divisors $`D_j`$ are the 4-branes whose decay we wish to analyze.

Assume the decay is associated to the obvious sequence:

$$0\mathrm{O}(\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{j})\stackrel{\mathrm{f}}{}\mathrm{O}\mathrm{O}_{\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{j}}0,$$
(4)
where $`\mathrm{O}(\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{j})`$ is the line bundle on $`X`$ with $`c_1=e_j`$. This implies that the wall of marginal stability will stretch between a locus where the basic 6-brane $`\mathrm{O}`$ becomes massless and a locus where $`\mathrm{O}(\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{j})`$ becomes massless. When these branes become massless, the associated conformal field theory becomes singular and we are on the discriminant locus within the moduli space of $`B+iJ`$. This is equivalent to the classical discriminant in the moduli space of complex structures of the mirror to $`X`$.

Except for the simplest of examples, an explicit computation of the discriminant is not practical. Suppose we restrict attention to the large “Batyrev–Borisov” class of complete intersections in a toric variety . Virtually all known Calabi–Yau threefolds fall into this class. Many features of the discriminant in this case have been studied by Gelfand, Kapronov, and Zelevinsky . Much of this structure has also been analyzed directly from the linear $`\sigma `$-model by Morrison and Plesser .

The Calabi–Yau $`X`$ is associated to a set of points $`\mathrm{A}`$ on a lattice $`N`$ (see , for example, for more details). Let $`P_X`$ be the convex polytope of this point set. The discriminant is reducible with each irreducible component associated with a face (of any codimension) of this polytope. One irreducible component is distinguished — namely the one associated to $`P_X`$ itself. We call this the “primary component” of the discriminant which we denote $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$.

It has been conjectured  that this primary component of the discriminant is precisely where the basic 6-brane $`\mathrm{O}`$ becomes massless. This is a very natural conjecture and has been shown to be true in several examples. We will assume it to be true.

The statement that a certain D-brane becomes massless for a certain component of the discriminant locus is not really well-defined. One must specify some basepoint in the moduli space (usually near large radius) to define the labeling of the set of D-branes and then specify the path taken to the discriminant. It follows that the above conjecture should really assert that, for some naturally defined short path from the large radius limit to the primary component of the discriminant, the D-brane $`\mathrm{O}`$ becomes massless.

Suppose we loop around the large radius limit point before we embark on this path towards the primary component $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$. Under the established rules (see, for example, ) the monodromy around large radius limit gives an autoequivalence of $`𝐃(X)`$ given by $`\mathrm{F}\mathrm{F}L`$ for some line bundle $`L`$. $`c_1(L)`$ is determined by exactly how one went around the large radius limit. In particular, if we perform this monodromy by varying the component of $`B+iJ`$ associated to $`e_j`$, we obtain $`L=\mathrm{O}(\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{j})`$. Thus the D-brane $`\mathrm{O}(\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{j})`$ also has vanishing mass on $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ — we just have to loop around the large radius limit in the right way before heading off towards $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$.

The case of the quintic in figure 1 should help the reader visualize this construction. Here the primary component of the discriminant consists simply of the “conifold point”. The D-brane $`\mathrm{O}`$ indeed becomes massless here but $`\mathrm{O}(1)`$ becomes massless at an image of this point in the Teichmüller space under monodromy around the large radius limit.

We have therefore established a higher-dimensional analogue of figure 1. The wall of marginal stability will form a wall which encloses the large radius phase in the moduli space of $`B+iJ`$ in the direction of a given $`e_j`$. By considering each divisor $`D_j`$ in turn we may completely wall off the large radius limit. The location of this (real co-dimensional one) wall is guided by the location of the (complex co-dimensional one) primary component of the discriminant locus $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$. Each one-complex-dimensional slice of the moduli space should look roughly like figure 1.

To understand a more complicated example consider the much-studied two-parameter model of . Our notation is taken from . Here we have four phases consisting of a Calabi–Yau, an orbifold, a hybrid and a Landau–Ginzburg theory. The hybrid consists of a fibration over $`^2`$ with fibre given by a Landau–Ginzburg theory. Projecting this moduli space into the “algebraic” $`J`$-plane as discussed in , we obtain figure 2. The discriminant locus has two components shown as $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$ in the figure. The primary component, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$, lies in 3 of the 4 walls forming the phase “boundaries”. The wall between the Calabi–Yau phase and the orbifold phase contains only $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$.

Imagine passing from the Calabi–Yau phase to the hybrid phase. Since we cross $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$, all the 4-branes dual to that direction in $`H^2(X)`$ decay, thus destroying the Zariski topology.111The 4-branes wrapping the $`^2`$ base are still stable. One might use this to say that part of this model still has a geometrical interpretation as would befit a “hybrid” model. Passing from the Calabi–Yau phase to the orbifold phase involves blowing down an exceptional $`^2`$. This does not involve crossing $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ and so we do not expect a loss of topology. Indeed, the 4-branes which wrap the exceptional $`^2`$, which are the ones one might expect to decay, instead become massless on $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$. Proceeding further to the Landau–Ginzburg phase should cause theses 4-branes to decay.

We therefore have a Zariski topology apparently well-defined in the Calabi–Yau and orbifold limits of the theory, but not in the hybrid and Landau–Ginzburg limits. That is, we have a topology in the “geometric” phases as one might expect.

One can define exactly what one means by “geometric phases” in the case of hypersurfaces in toric varieties by demanding that each simplex in the triangulation of $`\mathrm{A}`$ has the unique interior point as a vertex . A generalization to complete intersections exists. As argued in , based on the results in , the phase boundaries between geometric and non-geometric phases always contain $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ whereas the phase boundaries between two geometric phases never contain $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$. Therefore, we always lose the Zariski topology as we leave the geometric phases.

## 6 Problems

The reader may have noticed that we have an unnecessarily restrictive definition of a 4-brane. According to the usual correspondence between sheaves and bundles, the sheaf $`\mathrm{O}_\mathrm{D}`$ corresponds to the trivial line bundle over $`D`$ (extended by zero to form a sheaf over $`X`$).222This correspondence actually gets shifted in string theory. See  for more details. Why not choose a nontrivial line bundle over $`D`$?

For example, in the quintic there is the 4-brane $`\mathrm{O}_\mathrm{D}(1)`$ defined by the sequence:

$$0\mathrm{O}\stackrel{\mathrm{f}}{}\mathrm{O}(1)\mathrm{O}_\mathrm{D}(1)0.$$
(5)
The mode of decay of $`\mathrm{O}_\mathrm{D}(1)`$ represented by this sequence forms a line of marginal stability between the points where $`\mathrm{O}`$ and $`\mathrm{O}(1)`$ become massless. In terms of figure 1, this would move the line of marginal stability by a shift of $`B`$ by one unit to the left. Thus we could make this 4-brane D-decay by going around the large radius limit once before heading off to the Landau–Ginzburg phase. However, if we head straight for the Landau–Ginzburg phase this decay will not happen.

It would be nice if we could show that all such 4-branes really decay by some other channel. The current understanding of $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$-stability makes it very difficult to assess the stability of any D-brane except in the easiest of examples. Several obvious potential decay modes for $`\mathrm{O}_\mathrm{D}(1)`$ were checked without success. However, given the lack of a systematic method for checking decay modes, this does not constitute evidence that the D-brane is stable.

One might try to find the stable D-branes at the Gepner point directly using boundary conformal field theory methods such as in . It appears to be a formidable task to completely describe all the possibilities but there appears to be no stable state with the charge of a 4-brane (with any number of 2-branes added) of the limited types of D-brane studied in .

An observation which might count against the decay of $`\mathrm{O}_\mathrm{D}(1)`$ comes from the analysis of the $`^3/_3`$ orbifold. Let $`E^2`$ be the exceptional divisor in this case and let $`C^1`$ be a complex line on $`E`$. The 2-brane $`\mathrm{O}_\mathrm{C}`$ wrapping $`C`$ can be shown to decay as one moves from the large-blow-up limit to the orbifold point in a very similar way to the decay of the 4-branes above . However, the D-brane $`\mathrm{O}_\mathrm{C}(1)`$ can be shown to be stable in the neighbourhood of the orbifold point . Having said that, the rules for orbifolds are not quite the same as for Gepner models. The analysis in the orbifold case is facilitated by the central charges of the B-branes lining up to have the same phase at the orbifold — allowing for quiver methods to be used . This does not happen for Gepner points.

If one can show that all the 4-branes decay on moving out of the geometric phases, then it brings this work into line with the analysis of Bondal and Orlov . They showed how the derived category (i.e., D-branes) could be used to reconstruct an algebraic variety complete with its Zariski topology by using such 4-branes.

On the other hand, if these 4-branes corresponding to nontrivial bundles do tend to remain stable in the non-geometric phases, then we need to motivate why it is the trivial line bundles that are essential in building the Zariski topology.

One might take a completely different approach to determining the target space from the BPS D-brane data. For example, one might say that the target space is given by the moduli space of the 0-brane. Since the 0-brane is stable in the non-geometric phases, one is free to do this. It is not obvious however that this is a perfect definition of spacetime. For example, in  it was shown that the metric seen by a 0-brane on an orbifold resolution is not the expected one. I would like to argue that such an approach is essentially different to the algebraically-motivated ideas in this paper. Such a D-brane probe never sees the phase structure anyway since the non-geometric phases get squeezed away as pictured in .

If one is wedded to such an idea of a “differential” approach to spacetime geometry, then the ideas in this paper probably hold little appeal. On the other hand, the more “algebraic” approaches to spacetime should always require arguments about stability, such as the ones in this paper, to organize ideas concerning topology.

## Acknowledgments

I wish to thank A. Lawrence, I. Melnikov, D. Morrison, R. Plesser, L. Susskind and W. Taylor for useful conversations. The author is supported in part by NSF grants DMS-0074072 and DMS-0301476.


text:
# Using Atomic Diffraction of Na from Material Gratings to Measure Atom-Surface Interactions

## Abstract

In atom optics a material structure is commonly regarded as an amplitude mask for atom waves. However, atomic diffraction patterns formed using material gratings indicate that material structures also operate as phase masks. In this study a well collimated beam of sodium atoms is used to illuminate a silicon nitride grating with a period of 100 nm. During passage through the grating slots atoms acquire a phase shift due to the van der Waals interaction with the grating walls. As a result the relative intensities of the matter-wave diffraction peaks deviate from those expected for a purely absorbing grating. Thus a complex transmission function is required to explain the observed diffraction envelopes. An optics perspective to the theory of atomic diffraction from material gratings is put forth in the hopes of providing a more intuitive picture concerning the influence of the vdW potential. The van der Waals coefficient $`C_3=2.7\pm 0.8\text{ meV nm}^3`$ is determined by fitting a modified Fresnel optical theory to the experimental data. This value of $`C_3`$ is consistent with a van der Waals interaction between atomic sodium and a silicon nitride surface.

atom optics

It is known that correlations of electromagnetic vacuum field fluctuations over short distances can result in an attractive potential between atoms. For the case of an atom and a surface the potential takes the form

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill V(r)& =\frac{C_3}{r^3},\hfill \end{array}$$
(1)
where $`r`$ is the atom-surface distance and $`C_3`$ is a coefficient which describes the strength of the van der Waals (vdW) interaction Milonni (1994). Equation 1 is often called the *non-retarded* vdW potential and is valid over distances shorter than the principle transition wavelength of the atoms involved. The significance of this interaction is becoming more prevalent as mechanical structures are being built on the nanometer scale. The vdW potential also plays an important part in chemistry, atomic force microscopy, and can be used to test quantum electrodynamic theory.

Early experiments concerning the vdW interaction were based on the deflection of atomic beams from surfaces. It was demonstrated that the deflection of ground state alkali Shih and Parsegian (1975) and Rydberg Anderson et al. (1988) atom beams from a gold surface is compatible with Eq. 1. Later measurements based on the Stark shift interpretation of the vdW potential Sukenik et al. (1993) were sufficiently accurate to distinguish between the retarded $`Vr^4`$ and non-retarded $`Vr^3`$ forms. More recently atom optics techniques have been employed to measure the magnitude of the vdW coefficient $`C_3`$. Various ground state Grisenti et al. (1999) and excited noble gas Bruhl et al. (2002) atom beams have been diffracted using nano-fabricated transmission gratings in order to measure $`C_3`$. The influence of the vdW potential has also been observed for large molecules in a Talbot-Lau interferometer constructed with three gold gratings Brezger et al. (2002).

In this article we present atomic diffraction of a thermal sodium atom beam and show that the data cannot be described by a purely absorbing grating. A diagram of the experimental apparatus is shown in Fig. 1.

The supersonic beam of sodium atoms passes through a .5 mm diameter skimmer and is collimated by two $`\text{10 }\mu \text{m}`$ slits separated by $`1\text{ m}`$. By changing the carrier gas the atom velocity can be adjusted from 0.6 to 3 km/s with $`\frac{\sigma _v}{v}.1`$. The collimated atom beam is used to illuminate a silicon nitride grating Savas et al. (1996) with a period of $`d=100\text{ nm}`$, thickness $`t=150\pm 5\text{ nm}`$, open width $`w=50.5\pm 1.5\text{ nm}`$, and grating bar wedge angle $`\alpha =5.25\pm .75`$ degrees. All of the grating parameters are measured independently using scanning electron microscope images. The diffraction pattern is measured by ionizing the sodium atoms with a hot Re wire and then counting the ions with a channel electron multiplier.

An optical description is helpful in gaining an intuitive picture of how the vdW interaction modifies the atomic diffraction pattern. To this end one should recall that the Schroedinger equation for a wave function $`\psi `$ can be written as

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill i\mathrm{}\frac{}{t}\psi (\text{r},t)& =\left[\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}^2+V(\text{r})\right]\psi (\text{r},t),\hfill \end{array}$$
(2)
where $`m`$ is mass, $`\mathrm{}`$ is Planck’s constant, and $`V`$ is the potential Griffiths (1995). One can take the Fourier transform of Eq. 2 with respect to time and use the fact that $`\frac{}{t}i\omega `$ in the frequency domain to obtain

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \left[^2+\left(1\frac{V(\text{r})}{\mathrm{}\omega }\right)k_o^2\right]\psi (\text{r},\omega )& =0,\hfill \end{array}$$
(3)
where the dispersion relation $`\omega =\frac{\mathrm{}k_o^2}{2m}`$ has been utilized. Equation 3 is usually referred to as the time independent Schroedinger equation. It is quite illuminating to recall that the Helmholtz equation Jackson (1999) for the electric field E is given by

$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill \left(^2+n^2k_o^2\right)\text{E}(\text{r},\omega )=0,\end{array}$$
(4)
where $`n`$ is index of refraction. By inspection one can see that Eqs. 3 and 4 are formally equivalent where the quantities $`n`$ and $`\left(1\frac{V}{\mathrm{}\omega }\right)^{1/2}`$ play analogous roles. Due to this fact many wave propagation methods developed in optics can be applied directly to matter wave propagation, being mindful of the fact that in optics $`\omega =ck_o`$.

While Eq. 3 can be formally solved using a Green’s function approach, approximate solutions used in physical optics can lead to a better understanding of how the vdW interaction affects atomic diffraction patterns. The Fresnel and Fraunhofer approximations are commonly used in optics and represent a useful tool when faced with propagating the wave function $`\psi `$ from the grating to the detector plane. The Fresnel or paraxial approximation is valid as long as the propagation distance $`z`$ satisfies the inequality

$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill z|x\xi |.\end{array}$$
(5)
This is certainly satisfied for our experiment since the diffraction angles are less than $`10^3`$ radians and the orders are resolved. The Fraunhofer or far-field approximation goes beyond the Fresnel approximation by requiring that

$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill z\frac{k_o}{2}\xi _{max}^2=\frac{\pi }{\lambda _{dB}}\xi _{max}^2,\end{array}$$
(6)
where $`\lambda _{dB}`$ is the de Brolglie wavelength of the atoms and $`\xi _{max}`$ is the relevant extent in the aperture plane Goodman (1996). For the case of propagation from a uniformly illuminated grating of period $`d`$ to the detector plane, $`\xi _{max}d`$ and Eq. 6 takes the form $`z\frac{\pi d^2}{\lambda _{dB}}`$. For our experimental setup $`d=100\text{ nm}`$ and $`\lambda _{dB}10^{11}\text{ m}`$, so the inequality $`z2\text{ m}\frac{\pi }{1000}\text{ m}`$ is met. However, our atom beam diameter is on the order of $`10^5`$ m and so $`\xi _{max}10^5`$ m implying that the inequality in Eq. 6 is not met.

In light of the previous discussion it seems most appropriate to use the Fresnel approximation to model our experiment. According to the Fresnel approximation the wave function in the detector plane $`\psi (x)`$ is related to that just after the grating $`\psi (\xi )`$ by a scaled spatial Fourier transform

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \psi (x)& \left\{e^{i\frac{k_o\xi ^2}{2z_o}}\psi (\xi )\right\}|_{f_\xi =\frac{x}{\lambda _{dB}z_o}},\hfill \end{array}$$
(7)
where $`\{\}`$ denotes a Fourier transform and $`f_\xi `$ is the Fourier conjugate variable to $`\xi `$ Goodman (1996). The quadratic phase factor in Eq. 7 accounts for the fact that the phase fronts have a parabolic shape before the far-field is reached.

The wave function just after the grating $`\psi (\xi )`$ is given by

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \psi (\xi )& =\left[T(\xi )\text{comb}\left(\frac{\xi }{d}\right)\right]U(\xi ),\hfill \end{array}$$
(8)
where $`\text{comb}\left(\frac{\xi }{d}\right)`$ is an array of delta functions with spacing $`d`$, the operator $``$ denotes a convolution, and $`U(\xi )`$ is complex function describing the atom beam amplitude in the plane of the grating. The transmission function of a single grating window $`T(\xi )`$ in Eq. 8 is defined as

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill T(\xi )& e^{i\varphi (\xi )}\text{rect}\left(\frac{\xi }{w}\right),\hfill \end{array}$$
(9)
where $`\text{rect}(arg)=1`$ when $`|arg|\frac{1}{2}`$ and zero otherwise. The phase $`\varphi (\xi )`$ accounts for the vdW interaction and its origin will be discussed later. This description of $`\psi (\xi )`$ and $`T(\xi )`$ in terms of the functions comb() and rect() is standard Fourier optics notation and convenient due to its modular nature Goodman (1996).

Equation 8 can then be substituted into Eq. 7 to obtain

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \psi (x)& \underset{j=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝒜_jU\left(xj\frac{\lambda _{dB}z_o}{d}\right),\hfill \end{array}$$
(10)
where the summation index corresponds to the $`j^{th}`$ diffraction order, the diffraction amplitude $`𝒜_j`$ is defined as

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 𝒜_j& \left\{T(\xi )\right\}|_{f_\xi =\frac{j}{d}}=\left\{e^{i\varphi (\xi )}\text{rect}\left(\frac{\xi }{w}\right)\right\}|_{f_\xi =\frac{j}{d}},\hfill \end{array}$$
(11)
and the beam profile in the detector plane is given by

$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill U(x)=\left\{e^{i\frac{k_o\xi ^2}{2z_o}}U(\xi )\right\}|_{f_\xi =\frac{x}{\lambda _{dB}z_o}}.\end{array}$$
(12)
From Eq. 10 we can predict the atom intensity

$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill I(x)\left|\psi (x)\right|^2,\end{array}$$
(13)
in the detector plane which can also be interpreted as the probability law for atoms. A distribution of atom velocities can be incorporated by a weighted incoherent sum of the intensity pattern for each atom velocity $`I(x;v)`$

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill I(x)& =\underset{v}{}P(v)I(x;v);v=\frac{h}{m\lambda _{dB}},\hfill \end{array}$$
(14)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill P(v)& v^3exp\left(\frac{m(vu)^2}{2k_BT}\right),\hfill \end{array}$$
(15)
where the $`P(v)`$ is the probability distribution function of velocities for a supersonic source, $`u`$ is the average flow velocity, $`k_B`$ is Boltzmann’s constant, and $`T`$ is the longitudinal temperature of the beam in the moving frame of the atoms Dunning and Hulet (1996).

One can see from Eq. 10 that the diffraction pattern consists of replications of the beam shape $`\left|U(x)\right|^2`$ shifted by integer multiples of $`\frac{\lambda _{dB}z_o}{d}`$ with relative intensities determined by the modulus squared of Eq. 11. An important feature to notice in Eq. 11 is that a diffraction order in the detector plane corresponds to a spatial frequency in the grating plane through the relation $`f_\xi =\frac{j}{d}`$. This highlights the connection between the spatially dependent phase $`\varphi (\xi )`$ in Eq. 9 and the magnitude of the diffraction orders in Eq. 10.

The earlier assertion that $`\varphi (\xi )`$ in Eq. 9 somehow incorporates the vdW interaction into the optical propagation theory can be understood by recalling from Eq. 3 that the index of refraction $`n`$ and quantity $`\left(1\frac{V}{\mathrm{}\omega }\right)^{1/2}`$ play similar roles in optics and atom optics, respectively. In optics one calculates a phase shift $`\varphi `$ induced by a glass plate by multiplying the wavenumber in the material $`nk_o`$ by the thickness of the plate $`L`$ (i.e. $`\varphi =nk_oL`$). Just as in the optics case one can calculate the phase shift $`\varphi (\xi )`$ accumulated by the wave function passing through the grating windows

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \varphi (\xi )& =\left(\text{wavenumber in potential}\right)\left(\text{differential thickness}\right)\hfill \\ & =_t^0k_o\left(1\frac{V(\xi ,z)}{\mathrm{}\omega }\right)^{1/2}𝑑z,\hfill \end{array}$$
(16)
where $`t`$ is the thickness of the grating and $`V(\xi ,z)`$ is the potential the atoms experience between the grating bars due to the vdW interaction. Thus the vdW interaction is analogous to a glass plate with a spatially dependent index of refraction, a kind of diverging lens that fills each grating window. The result in Eq. 16 is consistent with the wave function phase according to the WKB approximation Griffiths (1995).

In arriving at Eq. 16 diffraction due to abrupt changes in the potential $`V(\xi ,z)`$ has been ignored while the wave function propagates through the grating windows. This is a valid approximation due to the fact that $`\lambda _{dB}w,\left[\frac{}{\xi }\frac{V(\xi )}{\mathrm{}\omega }\right]^1`$ in the region of the potential that corresponds to the diffraction orders of interest. The relationship between spatial regions of the potential $`V(\xi ,z)`$ and a given diffraction order will be discussed in subsequent paragraphs. It is also important to note that Eq. 16 assumes that the potential $`V(\xi ,z)`$ exists only between the grating bars (i.e. $`V(\xi ,z)=0`$ for $`z<t`$ or $`z>0`$) and neglects the fact that the bars are not semi-infinite planes. Theoretical work done by Spurch et al. Zhou and Spruch (1995) suggests that the vdW potential corresponding to our $`50`$ nm grating bar width is very similar to that of a semi-infinite plane in the $`\xi `$ direction. Since the phase $`\varphi (\xi )`$ from Eq. 16 only depends on the integral of the potential in the $`z`$ direction one would also expect that edge effects in $`V(\xi ,z)`$ due to the finite grating thickness $`t`$ are a small correction.

If the particle energy $`\mathrm{}\omega `$ is much greater than the potential $`V(\xi ,z)`$ then Eq. 16 can be further simplified by Taylor expanding the quantity $`\left(1\frac{V}{\mathrm{}\omega }\right)^{1/2}`$ and keeping the leading order term in $`\frac{V}{\mathrm{}\omega }`$

$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill \varphi (\xi )=tk_o\frac{1}{\mathrm{}v}_t^0V(\xi ,z)𝑑z;\mathrm{}\omega V(\xi ,z),\end{array}$$
(17)
through the use of the dispersion relation $`\omega =\frac{\mathrm{}k_o^2}{2m}`$ and $`p=mv=\mathrm{}k_o`$. Equation 17 is often called the Eikonal approximation. The term $`tk_o`$ in Eq. 17 is independent of $`\xi `$ and of no consequence in Eq. 11 so it can be neglected. One can see from Eq. 17 that if $`V(\xi ,z)0`$ then Eq. 11 reduces to the sinc diffraction envelope expected from a purely absorbing grating. Furthermore, it is now clear from Eqs. 11 and 17 that the relative heights of the diffraction orders are altered in a way that depends on $`V(\xi ,z)`$ as well as the atom beam velocity $`v`$.

As a simple model one can represent the potenial in Eq. 17 as the sum of the potential due to the two interior walls of the grating window

$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill \varphi (\xi )=\frac{t}{\mathrm{}v}\left[g_{}(\alpha )V_{}(\xi )g_+(\alpha )V_+(\xi )\right],\end{array}$$
(18)
where the function $`g_\pm (\alpha )`$ incorporates the influence of the wedge angle $`\alpha `$

$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill g_\pm (\alpha )\frac{1\pm \frac{t\mathrm{tan}\alpha }{2\left(\xi \pm \frac{w}{2}\right)}}{\left(1\pm \frac{t\mathrm{tan}\alpha }{\left(\xi \pm \frac{w}{2}\right)}\right)^2},\end{array}$$
(19)
and $`V_\pm (\xi )C_3\left(\xi \pm \frac{w}{2}\right)^3`$ is implied by Eq. 1. Equations 18 and 19 are arrived at by carrying out the integration in Eq. 17 while assuming that the open grating width $`w`$ varies in the propagation direction $`z`$ as $`w(z)=w+2z\mathrm{tan}\alpha `$. Since the principle transition wavelength of Na (590 nm) is much larger than $`\frac{w}{2}`$ (i.e. the maximum atom-surface distance of $`25`$ nm) the non-retarded form of the vdW potential is appropriate.

It is not immediately obvious how the phase representation in Eq. 17 will affect the far-field diffraction pattern or if the Eikonal approximation is appropriate in light of Eq. 18 (i.e. $`V_\pm (\xi )\mathrm{}`$ as $`|\xi |\frac{w}{2}`$). In order to address this it is helpful to introduce the concept of an *instantaneous* spatial frequency Boyd (1992)

$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill f_\xi \left(\xi _j\right)\frac{\varphi }{\xi }|_{\xi =\xi _j}=\frac{j}{d},\end{array}$$
(20)
where $`\xi _j`$ is the grating window location corresponding to the diffraction order $`j`$ as in Eq. 11. For the limiting case of $`\alpha 0`$ the geometry factor $`g_\pm (\alpha )1`$ the higher order terms in Eq. 16 will become important when $`\xi _j\xi _c`$ and $`C_3\left(\xi _c\frac{w}{2}\right)^3\mathrm{}\omega `$. If Eq. 18 is inserted into Eq. 20 with the previously mentioned limits one can solve for the diffraction order $`j_c`$ at which the approximation in Eq. 17 breaks down

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill j_c& \frac{3k_ot}{2}\frac{C_3d}{\mathrm{}\omega \left(\xi _c\frac{w}{2}\right)^4}=\frac{3k_ot}{2}\left(\frac{d^3\mathrm{}\omega }{C_3}\right)^{\frac{1}{3}}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(21)
For the present experiment $`\frac{3k_ot}{2}10^5`$ and $`\left(\frac{d^3\mathrm{}\omega }{C_3}\right)^{\frac{1}{3}}10^{\frac{7}{3}}`$ which implies that $`j_c10^7`$. Thus the approximation in Eq. 17 is appropriate since we typically concerned with only the first ten diffraction orders. In fact, the paraxial approximation will become invalid before Eq. 17 becomes invalid due to the fact the diffraction order spacing is typically $`\frac{\lambda _{dB}z_o}{d}.1\text{ mm}`$. It is also interesting to note that using Eqs. 18 and 20 one can solve for the position $`\xi _j`$ in the grating window

$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill \xi _j\frac{w}{2}\left(\frac{3tC_3d}{j\mathrm{}v}\right)^{\frac{1}{4}};j1,\end{array}$$
(22)
corresponding to a particular diffraction order $`j`$. If $`j=1`$ in Eq. 22 then $`\xi _13.2`$ nm and since $`\xi _jj^{\frac{1}{4}}`$ the shape of the diffraction amplitude in Eq. 11 depends on a small region of the potential near an an atom-surface distance of $`20`$ nm.

The experimental data for diffraction patterns of four different atom beam velocities are displayed in Fig. 2. One can see from Fig. 2 that the second order diffraction peak is almost completely suppressed for the faster atoms whereas it is quite pronounced for the slower atoms. This velocity dependence is a clear indication that a complex transmission functions such as Eq. 9 (i.e. $`C_30`$) is required to explain the data. A least-squares fit to Eqs. 10 and 14 is used to determine diffraction envelope $`\left|𝒜_j\right|^2`$ and the average velocity. It is clear from Fig. 2 that the diffraction orders overlap to some extent, hence the tails of the beam shape are important when determining $`\left|𝒜_j\right|^2`$. The broad tails of the beam shape were not adequately described by a Gaussian so an empirical shape using a fixed collimating geometry was derived from the measured raw beam profile and used for $`\left|U(x)\right|^2`$.

The diffraction amplitudes $`\left|𝒜_j\right|^2`$ determined from Fig. 2 for the various velocities are displayed in Fig. 3. The vdW coefficient $`C_3`$ is determined by a least-squares fit to this reduced data with the modulus squared of Eq. 11. All of the grating parameters are determined independently, therefore $`C_3`$ is the only free parameter. Data from each velocity is fit simultaneously with the same $`C_3`$. It is clear that a purely absorbing grating (i.e. $`C_3=0`$) is inconsistent with all of the observed $`\left|𝒜_j\right|^2`$ especially at lower velocities for which the phase $`\varphi (\xi )`$ is much larger. Uncertainty in the determination of the grating parameter $`w`$ and the exact shape of the potential in Eq. 17 may be responsible for the slight deviation from theory evident in Fig. 3.

A study of the systematic errors in our experiment and analysis suggest that $`w`$ is largest source of uncertainty when calculating $`C_3`$. One can numerically calculate the function $`C_3(w)`$, which is the best fit $`C_3`$ as a function of $`w`$, whose linear dependence around the physical value of $`w`$ is found to be $`\frac{C_3}{w}|_{w=50.5\text{ }nm}=.52\text{ }\text{ meV nm}^2`$. The error in $`C_3`$ is arrived at by taking the product of this slope and the 1.5 nm uncertainty in $`w`$. After carrying out the previously described analysis we obtain a value for the vdW coefficient $`C_3=2.7\pm 0.8\text{ }\text{ meV nm}^3`$. The uncertainty determined this way is considerably larger than the statistical uncertainty in $`C_3`$ from the least-squares fitting procedure. The uncertainty due to $`w`$ is also larger than the systematic corrections due to the atom beam profile or uncertainties due to imperfect knowledge of the grating parameters: $`d`$, $`t`$, and $`\alpha `$.

To compare our experimental measurement with theoretical predictions of the van der Waal potential strength, we evaluate five different theoretical cases for sodium atoms and various surfaces in Table 1. The Lifshitz formula Lifshitz (1956) for $`C_3`$ is

$$C_3=\frac{\mathrm{}}{4\pi }_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\omega \alpha (i\omega )\frac{ϵ(i\omega )1}{ϵ(i\omega )+1},$$
(23)
where $`\alpha (i\omega )`$ is the dynamic polarizability of the atom and $`ϵ(iw)`$ is the permittivity of the surface material, both of which are a function of complex frequency.

A single Lorentz oscillator model for an atom (i.e. neglecting all but the valence electron) with no damping gives an expression for polarizability Meystre and Sargent (1998)

$$\alpha (i\omega )=\frac{\alpha (0)}{1+(\frac{\omega }{\omega _0})^2}.$$
(24)
For sodium atoms $`\alpha (0)=24.1\AA ^3`$ Ekstrom et al. (1995) and $`\omega _0=2\pi c/(590\text{nm})`$. Combining this with a perfect conductor (i.e. $`ϵ=\mathrm{}`$) in Eq. 23 gives $`C_3=6.29\text{meV nm}^3`$. This value agrees well with the non-retarded limit calculated in reference Marinescu et al. (1997) for sodium atoms with a single valence electron.

For more accurately modeled sodium atoms and a perfect conductor, Derevianko $`et`$ $`al.`$ Derevianko et al. (1999) calculated $`C_3=7.60\text{meV nm}^3`$ and reported a range of values spanning $`0.08\text{meV nm}^3`$ based on different many-body calculation methods which all include the effect of core electrons. It is noteworthy that $`16\%`$ of this recommended value is due to the core electrons Derevianko et al. (1999).

For a metal surface, the Drude model describes $`ϵ(i\omega )`$ in terms of the plasma frequency and damping:

$$ϵ(i\omega )=1+\frac{\omega _p^2}{\omega (\omega +\gamma )}.$$
(25)
For sodium metal, $`\mathrm{}\omega _p=5.8\text{eV}`$ and $`\mathrm{}\gamma =23\text{meV},`$ resulting in $`C_3=4.1\text{meV nm}^3`$ for a sodium atom and a bulk sodium surface. Presumably this calculation also under-estimates $`C_3`$ because the core electrons are neglected. However, the calculation error is probably smaller than that of a perfect conductor because the core electron excitations are at frequencies comparable to $`\omega _p`$.

For an insulating surface of silicon nitride, which is the diffraction grating material, Bruhl $`et`$ $`al`$ Bruhl et al. (2002) used a model with

$$ϵ(i\omega )=\frac{\omega ^2+(1+g_0)\omega _0^2}{\omega ^2+(1g_0)\omega _0^2}$$
(26)
where $`\mathrm{}\omega _0E_s=13\text{eV}`$ and $`g_0=0.588`$ is the material response function at zero frequency. Using Eqs. 23, 24, and 26 gives a value of $`C_3=3.2\text{meV nm}^3`$.

A multilayered surface makes a vdW potential that no longer depends exactly on $`r^3,`$ even in the non-retarded limit. We used Equation 4.10 from reference Zhou and Spruch (1995) to calculate $`V(r)`$ for thin films of sodium on a slab of silicon nitride. Because our experiment is sensitive to atom-surface distances in the region 20 nm, we report the nominal value of $`C_3`$ from these calculations using $`C_3=V(\text{20 nm})\times (\text{20 nm})^3`$. Evaluated this way, isolated thin films make a smaller $`C_3`$ as $`r`$ increases. Films on a substrate make $`C_3`$ vary from the value associated with the bulk film material to the value associated with the bulk substrate material as $`r`$ increases.

In conclusion an optics perspective to the theory of atomic diffraction from a material grating has been put forth. The results in Eqs. 11, 17 and 18 have been derived using Fourier optics techniques and appear to be consistent with the diffraction theory presented in Grisenti et al. (2000). Diffraction data for a sodium atom beam at four different velocities show clear evidence of atom-surface interactions with the silicon nitride grating. A complex transmission function such as that in Eq. 9 is required to explain the data. The measured value of $`C_3=2.7\pm 0.8\text{ }\text{ meV nm}^3`$ is limited in precision by uncertainty of the grating parameter $`w`$. Based on the results in Table 1 for a single Lorentz oscillator the new measurement of $`C_3`$ presented in this article is consistent with a vdW interaction between atomic sodium and a silicon nitride surface. Our measurement is inconsistent with a perfectly conducting surface and also a silicon nitride surface coated with more than one nm of bulk sodium. This implies that atomic diffraction from a material grating may provide the means to test the theory of vdW interactions with a multi-layered surface Zhou and Spruch (1995) by using coated gratings.

The authors would like to thank Hermann Uys for technical assistance.


text:
# Absolute Branching Ratio Normalization for Rare 𝜋⁺ and 𝜇⁺ Decays in the PIBETA Experiment

## I Acknowledgements

The PIBETA experiment has been supported by the National Science Foundation, the Paul Scherrer and the Russian Foundation for Basic Research. This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 0098758.