text:
# ¹¹𝐵 NMR and Relaxation in 𝑀𝑔𝐵₂ Superconductor

## I Introduction

Magnesium diboride ($`MgB_2`$) is an intermetallic compound whose superconductivity with $`T_c`$ $``$ 39 K was recently discovered. The observation of a significant boron isotope effect strongly suggests that the system is a phonon-mediated BCS superconductor thus making this intermetallic compound very interesting for its remarkably high $`T_c`$ among conventional BCS superconductors.

$`MgB_2`$ crystallizes in the hexagonal $`AlB_2`$ type structure, which consists of alternating hexagonal layers of $`Mg`$ atoms and graphite-like honeycomb layers of $`B`$ atoms. Powder samples of isotopically enriched $`Mg^{11}B_2`$ were prepared with the method described in Ref. . X-ray powder diffraction measurements confirmed the hexagonal unit cell of $`MgB_2`$. Magnetization measurements done at $`H`$ = 25 Oe yield a transition temperature $`T_c`$ = 39.2 K with a shielding volume fraction close to 100%. We have investigated two different samples from different batches of polycrystalline enriched $`Mg^{11}B_2`$ in order to check the reproducibility of the data. The two samples are referred to as sample 1 and sample 2. Both samples are in powder form with sample 1 having been ground to a smaller grain size. No substantial differences were observed in the NMR measurements on the two samples. The onset of superconductivity in sample 2 was determined by monitoring the detuning of the NMR circuit occurring at $`T_{irr}`$ (see Fig. 1). This type of measurement corresponds to probing the temperature dependence of the radio frequency surface resistance. Thus, as the magnetic field is increased the transition region broadens due to the dissipation associated to flux lines motion below $`T_c`$ and at 7.2 Tesla no detuning can be observed although the magnetization measurements indicate a $`T_c`$ = 23 K at 7 Tesla. The temperature at which the detuning is first observed is plotted in the inset of Fig. 1 for the different magnetic fields and compared to the $`T_{irr}`$ values obtained in Ref.  from magnetization measurements. From the good agreement between the two sets of data one can deduce that the onset of detuning in the NMR circuit occurs at the irreversibility line.

## II NMR Results

$`{}_{}{}^{11}B`$ NMR and relaxation measurements were performed with a pulse Fourier transform spectrometer in an external magnetic field of 7.2 T and 1.4 T. Fig. 2 shows the $`{}_{}{}^{11}B`$ spectrum obtained from the Fourier transform of half of the solid echo following a $`(\pi /2)_0`$-$`(\pi /2)_{90}`$ pulse sequence. In order to cover the whole spectrum three separate spectra were recorded at resonance frequencies centered at the three lines and added together. The spectrum shows the typical powder pattern for a nuclear spin $`I`$ = 3/2 in presence of first order quadrupole effects with an axially symmetric field gradient. The separation of the symmetric satellite lines is given by $`\delta \nu =\nu _Q(3\mathrm{cos}^2\theta 1)`$ whereby for the powder singularities $`\theta `$ = 90 thus yielding $`\nu _Q=e^2qQ/2h=835\pm 5`$ kHz. The axially symmetric field gradient is consistent with the local hexagonal symmetry at the boron site. The quadrupole coupling constant is practically independent of temperature (see inset in Fig. 2) ruling out any structural distortion of the lattice in the temperature range investigated.

The full width at half maximum (FWHM) of the central line of the $`{}_{}{}^{11}B`$ spectrum is about 16 kHz in the 7.2 T magnetic field and is temperature independent in the 4.2 - 300 K range. The second order quadrupole broadening of the central line at this high field can be estimated to be of the order of $`\nu _Q^2/2\nu _L`$ = 3.5 kHz and can thus be neglected. At 1.4 Tesla the contribution due to quadrupole broadening is 18 kHz. This is consistent with the observed $`{}_{}{}^{11}B`$ NMR spectrum which dispalys an asymmetric central line as expected for a powder broadening due to second order quadrupole effects.

The $`{}_{}{}^{11}B`$ NMR shift of the central line was measured with respect to the resonance frequency in $`H_3BO_3`$ aqueous solution at 7.2 T. Since the central line does not show at high field any detectable asymmetry the anisotropic shift must be negligible and the measured shift can be entirely ascribed to an isotropic Knight Shift ($`K`$). The temperature dependence of $`K`$ is shown in Fig. 3. The large error bars are due to the small size of the shift with respect to the width of the line.

$`{}_{}{}^{11}B`$ nuclear spin lattice relaxation rates (NSLR) were measured by saturating the central line only with a single $`\pi /2`$ pulse and monitoring the growth of the solid echo at variable delays. The NSLR defined as $`2W=T_1^1`$ was extracted from the fit of the data to the recovery law:

$$M(\mathrm{})M(0)/M(\mathrm{})=0.1\mathrm{exp}(2Wt)+0.9\mathrm{exp}(12Wt)$$

which is obtained from the solution of the master equations in case of a magnetic relaxation mechanism. The temperature dependence of the NSLR is shown in Fig. 4. As can be seen a linear temperature dependence is observed in the normal phase that is independent of the applied magnetic field. Below $`T_c`$ the NSLR is very different for the two field values i.e. 7.2 T and 1.4 T.

## III Discussion and Conclusions

### A Normal State

The Knight Shift at the $`{}_{}{}^{11}B`$ site is dominated by the contact hyperfine interaction due to $`s`$-type electrons with negligible contributions from core polarization, exchange interactions and orbital terms. Thus, the very small value of $`K`$ at room temperature (see Fig. 3) indicates a very small $`s`$-character of the wave function of the conduction electrons at the Fermi surface in $`MgB_2`$. For comparison, in $`YNi_2B_2C`$ intermetallic compound, where the isotropic Knight Shift is almost one order of magnitude bigger than in $`MgB_2`$, the ratio between the $`s`$-type density of states at the Fermi level with respect to the total density of state was estimated to be $`N_{BS}(E_F)/N(E_F)`$ = 0.013. Thus for $`MgB_2`$ one expects an even smaller ratio. Although the absolute value of such a small shift depends critically on the reference compound chosen we can conclude that the $`s`$-type wave function at the Fermi level is negligible in $`MgB_2`$. This conclusion is not inconsistent with the results of band structure calculations.

In the normal state the NSLR follows a linear temperature dependence down to $`T_c`$ with $`T_1T`$ = 165 $`\pm `$ 10 sec K (see Fig. 4). The Korringa ratio at room temperature is $`K^2T_1T/S`$ 0.2, much lower than the ideal value of unity for $`s`$-electrons and is temperature dependent ($`S=(\gamma _e/\gamma _n)^2(h/8\pi ^2k_B)`$ = 2.57 10<sup>-6</sup> for $`{}_{}{}^{11}B`$ with $`\gamma _e`$, $`\gamma _n`$ the gyromagnetic ratios for the electron and nucleus respectively). This indicates that the NSLR is driven by a mechanism different from scattering with $`s`$-type conduction electrons at the Fermi level. One possible explanation is that the NSLR is dominated by orbital contribution due to $`p`$-electrons. This contribution is expected to be proportional to the density of p-states at the Fermi level and to temperature but does not obey the Korringa ratio.

### B Superconducting State

In conventional BCS $`s`$-wave superconductors one expects a coherence peak below $`T_c`$ in the NSLR and an exponential decrease at low $`T`$ of both the Knight Shift and $`T_1T`$ due to the opening of the superconducting gap. Since the Knight Shift is small compared to the line width in a powder sample no quantitative information can be obtained here from the decrease of $`K`$ below $`T_c`$ (see Fig. 3). Regarding the NSLR the measurements in an external magnetic field are difficult to interpret because of the presence of a contribution to relaxation due to the flux lines. Also, the size of the coherence peak can be drastically reduced by an external magnetic field, through a pair-breaking mechanism.

At 7.2 Tesla the temperature dependence of $`T_1^1`$ in Fig. 4 does not show any coherence peak nor exponential drop but rather a slight enhancement with respect to the normal state which persists down to 4.2 K. At such a high field it is likely that the NSLR below $`T_c`$ is largely dominated by the relaxation of nuclei inside the vortex core. In fact, from the measurement of the upper critical field $`H_{c2}(0)`$ = 16.5 T one can estimate a vortex size $`\xi `$ = 60 $`\AA `$ which can be compared with the intervortex spacing at 7.2 T for a triangular vortex lattice i.e. $`d`$ = 200 $`\AA `$. In presence of spin diffusion process (short $`T_2`$ and long $`T_1`$) the measured NSLR is a weighted average of the relaxation in the vortex core where the metal is in the normal state and in the intervortex region whereby the short relaxation in the vortex core dominates the measured NSLR. As a matter of fact the slight increase of the NSLR observed below $`T_c`$ at 7.2 T is similar to the effect due to thermal motion of flux lines previuosly observed in HTSC.

At 1.4 Tesla the $`11B`$ NSLR (see Fig. 4) in the normal state is the same as at 7.2 T as expected for a relaxation mechanism due to scattering with the conduction electrons. Below the superconducting transition temperature the signal becomes very weak due to the small penetration of the radio frequency. The few measurements we could perform indicate that there is no measurable coherence peak just below $`T_c`$ and that the NSLR at low temperatures is much longer than at 7.2 T confirming that the dominant contribution to relaxation in an external magnetic field is associated with the density of flux lines and their thermal fluctuations.

In conclusion, we compare our results with the NSLR data reported by Kotegawa et al. Above $`T_c`$ both sets of data are in good agreement. Below $`T_c`$ our data at 7.2 T and at 1.4T are quite different from Kotegawa’s data taken at 4.42 T confirming the strong field dependence of $`1/T_1`$ in the superconducting phase that we ascribe to the contribution of fluxons. As a consequence, any conclusion regarding the coherence peak and the superconducting gap obtained from data taken in an external magnetic field appears dubious. One should either perform the measurements in zero field by a field cycling technique or one should do a careful study of the field dependence in order to subtract off first the contribution due to flux lines. These studies, which require a long time to perform due to the weakness of the $`{}_{}{}^{11}B`$ signal and the very long NSLR at low fields, are currently planned. Finally we compare our results with the results reported by Gerashenko et al. The conclusions about the $`{}_{}{}^{11}B`$ quadrupole perturbed NMR spectrum are in excellent agreement with our data. The differences in the Knight Shift values should be ascribed to the use of a difference reference sample. The data of NSLR below $`T_c`$ were taken by Gerashenko et al. in a magnetic field of 2.113 T and are in qualitative agreement with our data at 1.4T particularly regarding the absence of a coherence peak.

## IV Acknowledgments

We would like to thank D. K. Finnemore and V. P. Antropov for useful discussions and D. Procissi and R. Vincent for experimental help. Ames Laboratory is operated for US Department of Energy by Iowa State University under contract No. W-7405-Eng-82. This work at Ames Laboratory was supported by the Director for Energy Research, Office of Basic Energy Science.


format: text

text:
# 1 Single BPS D-Brane

## 1 Single BPS D-Brane

D-branes are surfaces on which open strings can end   . As such, their dynamics is described by open string field theory – e.g., of the type formulated by Witten . However, this can be difficult to work with, so it is sometimes useful to consider the low energy effective action obtained by integrating out all the massive modes, keeping only the massless super-Maxwell multiplet. This is too difficult, however. The best one can do is to keep terms in which the massless fields are slowly varying at the string scale – keeping fields strengths, but not their derivatives. There is no restriction on the size of field strengths relative to the string scale, except that electric fields cannot exceed a certain critical value.

The basic structure is always the sum of two terms

$$S=S_{DBI}+S_{CS}$$
(1)
Here $`S_{DBI}`$ is the Dirac–Born–Infeld term (the only one in the case of bosonic string theory), and $`S_{CS}`$ is the Chern–Simons term. In the case of type II superstring theory, an $`N`$ D-brane system is given by a $`U(N)`$ gauge theory .

Let us begin by considering a single D-brane ($`N=1`$). In this case, ignoring fermi fields and taking a flat 10d background, the action for a D9-brane is

$$S_{DBI}=T_9d^{10}\sigma \sqrt{\mathrm{det}(g_{\alpha \beta }+2\pi \alpha ^{}F_{\alpha \beta })}.$$
(2)
Here $`T_9`$ is the D9-brane tension and $`g_{\alpha \beta }`$ is the pullback of the (flat) spacetime metric $`\eta _{\mu \nu }`$:

$$g_{\alpha \beta }=\eta _{\mu \nu }_\alpha X^\mu _\beta X^\nu ,$$
(3)
where $`\sigma ^\alpha `$ ($`\alpha =0,1,\mathrm{},p`$) are the world-volume coordinates, and $`X^\mu (\sigma )`$ ($`\mu =0,1,\mathrm{},9`$) are the embedding functions.

The action $`S_{DBI}`$ has world-volume diffeomorphism invariance. A natural gauge choice – called static gauge – is to identify the first $`p+1`$ components of $`X^\mu `$ with $`\sigma ^\alpha `$. In this gauge the D9-brane action becomes

$$S_{DBI}=T_9d^{10}\sigma \sqrt{\mathrm{det}(\eta _{\alpha \beta }+2\pi \alpha ^{}F_{\alpha \beta })}.$$
(4)
This formula was derived first for the bosonic string theory by Fradkin and Tseytlin by computing the disk partition function . (For a review of Born–Infeld theory in the context of string theory see .)

The corresponding actions for D$`p`$-branes with $`p<9`$ can be deduced by using T duality. The result, which agrees with dimensional reduction, is

$$S_{DBI}=T_pd^{p+1}\sigma \sqrt{\mathrm{det}(\eta _{\alpha \beta }+_\alpha X^i_\beta X^i+2\pi \alpha ^{}F_{\alpha \beta })}.$$
(5)
The index $`i=p+1,\mathrm{},9`$ labels the $`9p`$ directions transverse to the Dp-brane. The world-volume scalars $`X^i`$ can be regarded as Goldstone bosons associated to broken translational symmetries.

It is remarkable that the entire $`\alpha ^{}`$ expansion of the low energy effective action of open strings – for slowly varying fields – can be encoded in such simple formulas. In particular, as observed by Bachas , for a D0-brane this gives

$$T_0𝑑\sigma ^0\sqrt{1_0X^i_0X^i},$$
(6)
which is the standard action for a relativistic particle of mass $`T_0`$.

It is natural to wonder whether something analogous might be possible for an effective low energy theory of closed strings in terms of the gravity supermultiplet. No such formula is known, but if one could be found, it would be very interesting. It could be useful for exploring whether curvatures are bounded and whether some spacetime singularities are thereby evaded.

### 1.1 Supersymmetrization

The supersymmetrization of the D-brane action was worked out in 1996 by several different groups   . The idea is to embed the D-brane in superspace $`(X^\mu ,\theta _1^a,\theta _2^a)`$, where $`(\theta _1,\theta _2)`$ are MW spinors. The global $`𝒩=2`$, $`D=10`$ supersymmetry is realized on superspace in the usual way ($`\delta \theta =ϵ`$, $`\delta X^\mu =\overline{ϵ}\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \theta `$). The D-brane action is constructed out of the supersymmetry invariants

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_\alpha ^\mu =_\alpha X^\mu \overline{\theta }\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu _\alpha \theta $$
(7)
and $`_\alpha \theta `$. The $`\theta `$’s would give twice the number of desired fermions (16 instead of 8) except for the fact that half of them are compensated by a local fermionic symmetry: called kappa symmetry.

The addition of the $`\theta `$’s plus the requirements of global supersymmetry and local kappa symmetry determine the action. One finds

$$S_{DBI}=T_pd^{p+1}\sigma \sqrt{\mathrm{det}(G_{\alpha \beta }+2\pi \alpha ^{}_{\alpha \beta })}$$
(8)
$$S_{CS}=\pm T_p\mathrm{\Omega }_{p+1},$$
(9)
where

$$G_{\alpha \beta }=\eta _{\mu \nu }\mathrm{\Pi }_\alpha ^\mu \mathrm{\Pi }_\beta ^\nu $$
(10)
$$_{\alpha \beta }=F_{\alpha \beta }B_{\alpha \beta }b_{\alpha \beta }.$$
(11)
Here $`B`$ is the pullback of NS-NS 2-form background field and $`b`$ is a two-form involving the fermi fields, which in the IIA case is

$$b=\overline{\theta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu d\theta (dX^\mu +\frac{1}{2}\overline{\theta }\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu d\theta ).$$
(12)
The familiar result for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{p+1}`$ (due to Douglas ) in the presence of R-R background fields is

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{p+1}=\left(Ce^{2\pi \alpha ^{}F}\right)_{p+1},$$
(13)
where $`C=C^{(n)}`$ is a formal sum of R-R $`n`$-form fields. ($`n`$ is odd for IIA and even for IIB.) For $`C`$ constant this is closed, but there is an additional piece involving the $`\theta `$’s that contributes to

$$I_{p+2}=d\mathrm{\Omega }_{p+1}.$$
(14)
It has the structure

$$\left\{e^{2\pi \alpha ^{}}f(\mathrm{\Pi }^\mu ,d\theta )\right\}_{p+2}.$$
(15)
### 1.2 Static Gauge

We will consider the gauge-fixed super D-brane action for the $`p=9`$ case only. The formulas for $`p<9`$ can be inferred by dimensional reduction. As before, the local diffeomorphism symmetry is used to identify the embedding functions $`X^\mu `$ with the world volume coordinates $`\sigma ^\alpha `$. In addition, the local kappa symmetry is used to eliminate half of the $`\theta `$ coordinates. A simple choice that preserves the manifest 10d covariance is to simply set one of the two $`\theta `$’s, $`\theta _2`$ say, to zero . This has the remarkable consequence of completely eliminating the Chern–Simons term.

Renaming $`\theta _1=\lambda `$ and setting $`2\pi \alpha ^{}=1`$ leaves the action

$$d^{10}\sigma \sqrt{\mathrm{det}(\eta _{\alpha \beta }+F_{\alpha \beta }2\overline{\lambda }\mathrm{\Gamma }_\alpha _\beta \lambda +\overline{\lambda }\mathrm{\Gamma }^\rho _\alpha \lambda \overline{\lambda }\mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho _\beta \lambda )}.$$
(16)
This is the $`𝒩=1`$, $`D=10`$ super-Maxwell theory supplemented by higher-dimension interaction terms. The latter are very special, because in addition to the 16 linearly realized supersymmetries of the free theory there are 16 additional nonlinearly realized supersymmetries. That is why this formula is reminiscent of the Volkov-Akulov action $`\lambda `$ can be interpreted as the Goldstone field for the broken supersymmetries. The formula is unique up to the freedom of field redefinitions. It would have been extremely difficult to discover if one had specialized to the static gauge before supersymmetrizing the action.

When this D9-brane action is dimensionally reduced to give the D$`p`$-brane action:

$``$ 16 supersymmetries and $`p+1`$ translation symmetries are linearly realized.

$``$ 16 supersymmetries and $`9p`$ translation symmetries are nonlinearly realized and correspond to Goldstone modes on the world volume.

It would be very interesting to rederive this formula by computing the superstring disk partition function in the presence of the appropriate boundary interactions. This ought to be a tractable extension of the calculations described in recent papers  .

## 2 Non-Abelian Generalizations

When one has $`N`$ coincident type II D$`p`$-branes the world-volume theory is a $`U(N)`$ gauge theory. As such, it should be given by a non-Abelian generalization of the formulas of the preceding section. The explicit construction of such an action is a difficult problem that has been studied extensively (starting with ), but is not yet completely settled.

Tseytlin proposed a specific recipe for generalizing Abelian formulas to non-Abelian ones . His proposal – referred to as the symmetrized trace prescription – works as follows. An expression in the Abelian theory, such as $`\sqrt{\mathrm{det}(\eta _{\alpha \beta }+F_{\alpha \beta })},`$ has an expansion of the form

$$1+\frac{1}{4}F^2\frac{1}{8}(F^4(F^2)^2)+\mathrm{},$$
(17)
where $`F^2=F_{\alpha \beta }F^{\beta \alpha }`$, etc. In the non-Abelian case, $`F`$ is also a hermitian $`N\times N`$ matrix. Tseytlin’s proposal is to take the trace of each term in the expansion, and to resolve the ordering ambiguities by averaging over all possible choices. The result is denoted

$$\mathrm{Str}\sqrt{\mathrm{det}(\eta _{\alpha \beta }+F_{\alpha \beta })}.$$
(18)
Studies by Hashimoto and Taylor  and others suggest that this is a correct rule through terms of order $`F^4`$, but that it fails at higher orders.

### 2.1 The Chern–Simons Term

It has been clear since the work of Douglas  that D-branes can carry R-R charges associated with lower dimensional branes. More recently, it has been realized that in the non-Abelian case they can also carry charges associated with higher dimension D-branes  .

Myers discovered an interesting part of the the answer by exploring consistency with T duality . He focused on the dependence on the bosonic fields $`A_\alpha `$ and $`X^i`$, each of which are now $`N\times N`$ matrices in the static gauge with all fermi fields set to zero. He included the dependence on $`B`$ and $`C`$ background fields. For the Chern–Simons term he obtained the result

$$S_{CS}=T_p\mathrm{Str}\left(P[e^{iI_XI_X}Ce^B]e^F\right).$$
(19)
This is a subtle formula that requires some explanation. First of all, $`C=C^{(n)}`$, as before. $`P[\mathrm{}]`$ means the pullback to the world volume, since $`B`$ and $`C`$ are bulk fields. $`X`$ refers to the $`9p`$ scalars $`X^i`$, which are now $`N\times N`$ matrices. The operation $`I_XI_X`$ acting on an $`n`$-form gives an $`n2`$-form. For example,

$$I_XI_XC^{(2)}=X^jX^iC_{ij}^{(2)}=\frac{1}{2}C_{ij}^{(2)}[X^j,X^i]$$
(20)
Moreover, in the pullback of a function $`f(x^\alpha ,x^i)`$, the matrices $`X^i`$ need to substituted for the bulk coordinates $`x^i`$. This requires an ordering prescription, since $`[X^i,X^j]0`$. The proposed formula is

$$P[f]=\mathrm{exp}(X^i\frac{}{x^i})f(\sigma ^\alpha ,x^i)|_{x^i=0}.$$
(21)
These rules are sufficiently subtle that it is extremely hard to check whether or not $`S_{CS}`$ is invariant under gauge transformations of the type $`CC+d\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. I would guess that this fails at some point, but I am not sure. It does work at low orders.

A crucial feature of this formula, for which there is a lot of evidence by now, is that multi D-brane systems can be sources of higher D-brane charge as well as lower D-brane charge, since all the R-R fields appear. This is to be contrasted with the Abelian case where $`(Ce^F)_{p+1}`$ only depends on $`C^{(p+1)},C^{(p1)},\mathrm{}`$.

Myers discovered a dielectric effect in which an R-R field strength can cause the brane to expand into new dimensions. For example, a system of $`N`$ D0-branes in the presence of an electric $`F^{(4)}=dC^{(3)}`$ becomes a fuzzy two-sphere with $`[X^i,X^j]Nϵ^{ijk}X^k`$. (See  for earlier related work.) For large $`N`$ this describes an ordinary $`S^2`$ with radius proportional to $`N`$. This can be interpreted as a spherical D2-brane with $`N`$ D0-branes bound to it. The Myers effect is relevant to the appearance of “giant gravitons” on the AdS side of the AdS/CFT correspondence .

### 2.2 Supersymmetrization

Part of the rationale for Tseytlin’s symmetrized trace prescription is that a field strength commutator $`[F_{ij},F_{kl}]`$ is proportional to $`[D_i,D_j]F_{kl}`$ and thus can be regarded as being higher-order in derivatives. This reflects an inherent ambiguity in the meaning of “slowly varying fields” in the non-Abelian case. This might be resolved by requiring that the action have all the desired symmetries: supersymmetry, kappa symmetry, etc.

In the case of $`N`$ coincident D-branes the supersymmetric $`U(N)`$ world-volume theory should again have as its physical field content gauge fields $`A_\alpha `$, transverse scalars $`X^i`$, and fermi fields $`\lambda `$ – this time all in the adjoint of the $`U(N)`$ Lie algebra. An interesting question is how to generalize the $`U(1)`$ formulation with local diffeomorphism invariance and local kappa symmetry to $`N>1`$. It is natural to suppose that one should start with world volume fields $`A_\alpha (\sigma )`$, $`X^\mu (\sigma )`$, $`\theta (\sigma )`$, each of which is $`U(N)`$ valued. Then, in order to end up with the right physical degrees of freedom, one would need $`U(N)`$ generalizations of the diffeomorphism and kappa symmetries. These would allow us to choose a gauge that would restrict $`X^\mu X^i`$ and $`\theta \lambda `$.

The case of D9-branes is somewhat special in that there are no transverse directions $`X^i`$. Thus, in static gauge, the only world-volume fields are the gauge fields $`A_\alpha `$ and the fermi fields $`\theta `$. Still this is quite general, because the results for $`p<9`$ can be deduced by dimensional reduction. One still needs kappa transformations in the adjoint of $`U(N)`$ so that a gauge choice can reduce $`\theta `$ to $`\lambda `$.

This kind of a set-up has been explored recently by Bergshoeff, de Roo, and Sevrin . They carried out an iterative analysis that allowed them to deduce the action up to a certain order. Specifically, they determined terms in $`S_{CS}`$ with the structures $`\theta D\theta `$, $`\theta D\theta F`$, and $`\theta D\theta F^2`$, and in $`S_{DBI}`$ with the structures $`1`$, $`F^2`$, $`\theta D\theta `$, $`\theta D\theta F`$, and $`\theta D\theta F^2`$. Up to this order they succeeded in obtaining unique results with all the desired properties. They also gave the formulas in the gauge $`\theta _2=0`$, $`\theta _1=\lambda `$. As in the Abelian case, $`S_{CS}`$ does not contribute in this gauge. They observed, in particular, that the $`\overline{\lambda }D\lambda F^2`$ terms cannot be be expressed in terms of symmetrized traces.

The iterative analysis of Bergshoeff, de Roo, and Sevrin is technically difficult and cannot be pushed much further. It seems to me that the best hope for complete results, generalizing those of the Abelian case, would use an approach that does not invoke the static gauge at the outset. This would seem to require a matrix generalization of diffeomorphism invariance, but I doubt that such a thing is possible.

## 3 Conclusion

In conclusion, we have presented a review of the structure of low energy effective actions for D-branes. We saw that D-brane world volume actions are always given as the sum of a Dirac–Born–Infeld term and a Chern–Simons term and each term contains a lot of important information.

It would be desirable to have explicit exact results for the non-Abelian case so that one could explore the non-Abelian generalization of various effects that have been studied in the Abelian case. These include classical solutions that describe various sorts of solitons and brane configurations, as well as physical effects associated with electric fields approaching limiting values.

A powerful approach that has received a great deal of attention lately is BSFT: boundary string field theory or background independent string field theory . This provides the logical basis for deriving D-brane effective actions in terms of disk partition functions with appropriate boundary interactions. The BSFT approach allows one to formulate unstable D-brane systems and to test some of Sen’s conjectures regarding tachyon condensation . This has been done with notable success in recent works  . It also provides another approach to to studying the formation of various sorts of solitons and to formulating the non-Abelian Born–Infeld problem. Unfortunately, the relevant path integrals may not be amenable to analytic evaluation.

## Acknowledgments

This work was supported in part by the U.S. Dept. of Energy under Grant No. DE-FG03-92-ER40701.


text:
# Untitled Document

What is mass?

R. I. Khrapko 111Moscow Aviation Institute, 4 Volokolamskoe Shosse, 125871, Moscow, Russia.
E-mail: tahir@k804.mainet.msk.su Subject: Khrapko

## Abstract

Does the mass of bodies depend on their velocity? Is the mass additive if separate bodies are joined together to form a composite system? Is the mass of an isolated system conserved? Different teachers of physics and specialists give different answers to these questions because there is no general agreement on the definition of mass..We shall show that the notion of the velocity-dependent relativistic mass should be given preference over that of the rest mass.

1. Introduction

One of the achievements of the special theory of relativity is the statement about the equivalence of mass and energy in a sense that the mass of a body increases with its energy including kinetic energy; therefore, the mass depends on the velocity of the body. This relationship is unambiguously interpreted in the works of renowned physicists.

Max Born (1962): “The mass of one and the same body is a relative quantity. It is to have different values according to the system of reference from which it is measured, or, if measured from a definite system of reference, according to the velocity of the moving body. It is impossible that mass is a constant quantity peculiar to each body.” .

Richard Feynman (1965): “Because of the relation of mass and energy the energy associated with the motion appears as an extra mass, so things get heavier when they move. Newton believed that this was not the case, and that the masses stayed constant.” .

Statements to the same effect can be also found in textbooks.

S. P. Strelkov (1975): “The dependence of mass on velocity is a principal proposition of Einstein’s mechanics.” .

However, recently there had been a return to the Newton’s belief. According to this belief the mass of a body does not change with increasing velocity and remains equal to the rest mass. L B Okun’ is a dedicated mouthpiece of this tendency . Earlier, a similar viewpoint was advocated in the book \[6).

L. B. Okun’ (1989): “The mass that increases with speed – that was truly incomprehensible. The mass of a body $`m`$ does not change when it is in motion and, apart from the factor $`c`$, is equal to the energy contained in the body at rest. The mass $`m`$ does not depend on the reference frame. At the end of the twentieth century one should bid farewell to the concept of mass dependent on velocity. This is an absolutely simple matter!” .

J. Wheeler at al. (1966): “The concept of relativistic mass is subject to misunderstanding” (, p. 137).

This opinion is shared by the authors of certain textbooks for university students published abroad.

R. Resnick et al. (1992): “ ‘The Concept of Mass’ by Lev B. Okun (see Ref.  of this letter) summarizes the views held by many physicists and adopted for use in this book. But there is not universal agreement on the interpretation of Eq.

$$E_0=mc^2.$$
$`(35)`$
This equation tells us that a particle of mass $`m`$ has associated with it a rest energy $`E_0`$. Nevertheless Eq. 35 asserts that energy has mass”

A serious confusion that arose from the reversion to the Newtonian concept of mass is reflected in the following dialogue:

“Schoolboy: ‘Does mass really depend on velocity, dad?’ Father physicist: ‘No! Well, yes… Actually, no, but don’t tell your teacher.’ The next day the son dropped physics.” .

We hope that we shall succeed in this letter to formulate a rational approach to the definition of mass.

2. A splitting of a definition of mass

There are two different definitions of the inertial mass, coincident in the non-relativistic context.

Definition 1. “In ordinary language the word mass denotes something like amount of substance. The concept of substance is considered self-evident.” (See  p. 33.) More precisely: mass is defined “as a number attached to each particle or body obtained by comparison with a standard body whose mass is define as unity” .

Definition 2. Mass is a measure of the inertia of a body, i.e. the coefficient of proportionality in the formula

$$\text{F}=m\text{a}.$$
$`(1)`$
or in the formula

$$\text{p}=m\text{v}.$$
$`(2)`$
Because F, a, p and v have indisputable operational definitions, formulas (1) and (2) give the operational definition of mass. These formulas will be used to make the aforementioned comparison (see Def. 1) in order to obtain the number $`m`$ attached to a body.

For the operational definition of momentum, see . Here is an extract from this work: ”The meaning of the operational definition consists in the identification of two terms: ‘definition’ and ‘determination’. The operation used to define a momentum is essentially as follows. When a certain obstacle causes a moving particle to stop, a force $`\text{F}(t)`$ is measured with which the particle acts on the obstacle during retardation. The particle’s initial momentum equals the integral $`\text{p}=\text{F}(t)𝑑t,`$ by definition. It is postulated that this integral is independent of retardation characteristics, i.e. the form of the function $`\text{F}(t).`$

Unfortunately, the attached number determined by formulas (1) and (2) using the operational definitions of F, a, p, v for one and the same body, i.e. for the same ‘amount of substance’, turns out to be dependent on the speed of the body; when the body has a speed, it also depends on the choice of the formula, (1) or (2). Therefore, the definition of mass for a body in motion splits in three. ‘The amount of substance’ specified by the attached number from Def. 1 is no longer a measure of a inertia of the moving body.

(a) In order to determine the ‘amount of substance’, i.e. the attached number from Def. 1, the body must be stopped and formula (1) or (2) used for a low speed. The number received by this method is called the rest mass. By definition, this mass does not change when the body undergoes acceleration.

(b) If the body is not stopped to measure its mass, formula (1) is known to give no unambiguous result. Because the force and acceleration are not properties of the body, the coefficient in formula (1) depends on the direction of the force relative to the body’s velocity. As a matter of fact, this coefficient, in general, becomes a tensor. Therefore, the definition of the mass by formula (1) is completely inadequate. It is even not worth considering if the body’s speed is not sufficiently low.

(c) In contrast, formula (2) is valid at any speed including that of light. For this reason, it and only it gives the operational definition of the mass of a moving body. Such a mass is a measure of the inertia of a moving body. It is called the relativistic mass.

It appears appropriate to cite M. Born once again: “In physics, as we must very strongly emphasize, the word mass has no meaning other than that given by formula $`\text{p}=m\text{v}`$. It is the measure of resistance of a body to changes of velocity.” (See , p. 33)

At this point, a problem arises. Which of the two masses, the rest mass of (a) or the relativistic mass of (c), is to be called simply mass and denoted by the letter m without a subscript and thus regarded as the ‘chief’ mass. This is not a matter of terminology. The problem has serious psychological and methodological implications.

It can be resolved through the comparison of the properties of different masses. The rest mass will be denoted by the symbol $`m_0`$ and the relativistic mass by the symbol $`m`$ (otherwise, the latter will have no simple designation at all).

3. System of particles

If two particles having momenta $`\text{p}_1=m_1\text{v}_1`$ and $`\text{p}_2=m_2\text{v}_2`$ join together into a single whole system, the momenta are known to add up so that $`\text{p}=\text{p}_1+\text{p}_2.`$ Moreover, the four-dimensional momenta are also summed giving $`\text{P}=\text{P}_1+\text{P}_2.`$ The 4-momentum P is by definition tangential to the world line of a particle in Minkowski space and its spatial component equals an ordinary momentum p. Hence, the time component is equal to the relativistic mass $`m`$:

$$\text{P}=\{m,\text{p}\}.$$

This immediately leads to the conclusion that the relativistic masses are simply summed up: $`m=m_1+m_2,`$ when particles join together into a system.

Things differ when rest masses come into question. In the 4-dimensional sense, the rest mass of a particle is the modulus of its 4-momentum (to an accuracy of c):

$$m_0=\sqrt{m^2p^2/c^2}.$$

Therefore, the rest mass of a pair of bodies with rest masses $`m_{01},m_{02}`$ is not equal to the sum $`m_{01}+m_{02}`$ but is determined by a complicated expression dependent on momenta $`\text{p}_1,\text{p}_2`$ :

$$m_0=\sqrt{\left(\sqrt{m_{01}^2+p_1^2/c^2}+\sqrt{m_{02}^2+p_2^2/c^2}\right)^2(\text{p}_1+\text{p}_2)^2/c^2}.$$
$`(3)`$
A similar formula for the rest mass is presented in  (c = 1):

$$M^2=(E_{\mathrm{system}})^2(p_{\mathrm{system}}^x)^2(p_{\mathrm{system}}^y)^2(p_{\mathrm{system}}^z)^2.$$
$`(4)`$
It follows from formulas (3) and (4) that the rest mass is lacking the property of additivity. We think that physicists do not mean the rest mass when they speak about beauty as a criterion for truth.

4. A violence to mind

The thing is that both the relativistic mass (a time component of 4-momentum) and the rest mass (its modulus) obey the conservation law. This is ascertained in .

However, it is not so simple to accept that a non-additive quantity is conserved. Indeed, according to (3) and (4), the rest mass of a system does not change as a result of particle collisions or nuclear reactions. But as soon as a system of two moving bodies is mentally divided into two separate bodies, the rest mass will change because the rest mass of the pair is not equal to the sum of the rest mass of the bodies of the pair. In our opinion, the use of non-additive notions entails a serious intellectual burden: a pair of photons, each having no rest mass, does have a rest mass.

Another very difficult question is: “Does energy have a rest mass?” The correct answer may be as follows: the energy of two photons will have a rest mass when they move in opposite directions. A system of two photons will have zero rest mass if they move in the same direction . Thus, it appears that even the authors of the textbook  failed to solve the problem.

Furthermore, photons moving in the same direction have no rest mass while the rest mass of the body which emitted them decreases. Therefore, it may be suggested that some of the body’s rest mass has been converted into the massless energy of photons. However, according to (3), (4) the rest mass of the system body-photons has been conserved during radiation!

Unable to bear such an intellectual burden, the advocates of the rest mass concept refuse to adopt the law of conservation of the rest mass of a system, in defiance of the formulas (3), (4). Now, they state that “rest mass of final system increases in an inelastic encounter” (, p. 121). In contrast, nuclear reactions lead to ‘the mass defect’. For example, in the synthesis of deuteron, p + n = D + 0.2 MeV, its rest mass is less than that of the neutron and proton.

At the same time, it follows from formulas (3), (4) that there must be no rest mass ‘defect’ during nuclear reactions. In our example, the allegedly lacking rest mass of the system at stage D + 0.2 MeV is actually provided by a massless $`\gamma `$-quantum with the energy of 0.2 MeV. This disturbs the additivity of the system’s rest mass.

It is easy to understand why the schoolboy dropped physics in the face of such a confusion concerning the rest mass.

5. Underlying psychologic reason

For all that, many physicists consider the rest mass to be the ‘chief’ one and denote it by the symbol $`m`$ instead of $`m_0.`$ Simultaneously, they discriminate against the relativistic mass and leave it without notation. This causes an additional confusion making it sometimes difficult to understand which mass is really meant. This situation is exemplified by the statement from  cited above.

These physicists agree that the mass of a gas in a state of rest increases upon heating because the energy contained in it grows. However, there seems to exist a psychological barrier which prevents relating this rise to a larger mass of individual molecules due to their high thermal velocity.

The said physicists sacrifice the concept of a mass as a measure of inertia, sacrifice the additivity of mass and the equivalence of mass and energy to a label attached to each particle and bearing information about a constant ‘amount of substance’, just because such a label is in line with the deeply ingrained Newtonian concept of mass. For them, radiation that ”transmits inertia between emitting and absorbing bodies” (according to A Einstein ) has no mass.

The main psychological problem is how to establish the identity between mass and energy (which varies) and regard these two entities as one. It is easy to accept that $`E_0=m_0c^2`$ for a body at rest. The authors of Ref.  entitled Chapter 13 as “The equivalence of energy and rest mass”222The title is characteristically ambiguous implying the equivalence between the rest energy and the rest mass. It is more difficult to admit that the formula $`E=mc^2`$ is valid for any speed. The remarkable formula $`E=mc^2`$ is described by L. B. Okun’ as ‘ugly’ .

Transition from the rest mass to the relativistic one in the relativistic theory appears to encounter the same psychological problems as transition from proper to relative time.

It is appropriate to quote from Max Planck here:

> “An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out and that the growing generation is familiarized with the idea from the beginning: another instance of the fact that the future lies with youth. For this reason a suitable planning of school teaching is one of the most important conditions of progress in science.” .

Unfortunately, the important concept of relativistic mass is carefully isolated from youth: the present paper has been rejected by editors of the following journals: “Russian Physics Journal”, “Kvant” (Moscow), “American Journal of Physics”, “Physics Education” (Bristol). “Physics Today”.

6. Conclusions

Thus, the relativistic mass has a natural operational definition based on the formula $`\text{p}=m\text{v}.`$ It is additive and obeys the law of conservation. Also, it is equivalent to both energy and gravitational mass. It should be referred to as mass and denoted by the letter $`m`$.

The rest mass is not conserved or lacks the property of additivity. Here, the advocates of the rest mass concept contradict themselves; at first, they justly maintain that the rest mass is conserved but not additive, then they say that it is additive but not conserved. It is not equivalent to energy. It should be denoted as $`m_0`$ and used with caution especially if the notion is applied to a system of bodies.

The relativistic mass together with momentum are transformed as coordinates of an event during transition to a new inertial laboratory:

$$m=\frac{m^{}+p^{}v/c^2}{\sqrt{1v^2/c^2}},p=\frac{p^{}+m^{}v}{\sqrt{1v^2/c^2}}.$$

Specifically, if $`p^{}=0`$ then $`m^{}=m_0,`$ and

$$m=\frac{m_0}{\sqrt{1v^2/c^2}},p=\frac{m_0v}{\sqrt{1v^2/c^2}}.$$

It is worthwhile to note in conclusion that if instead of the coordinates $`t,x,`$… we use the coordinates $`t^{},x^{},`$… the relativistic mass $`m`$ and the rest mass $`m_0`$, which are both scalars, will be expressed by the formulas

$$mc=u^i^{}p^j^{}g_{i^{}j^{}},m_0c=\sqrt{p^i^{}p^j^{}g_{i^{}j^{}}},$$

which are valid for the curved space of GTR. Here, $`u^i^{},p^j^{}`$ and $`g_{i^{}j^{}}`$ are the unit vector of the experimentalist, 4-momentum of the body, and metric tensor of the new coordinates, respectively. It is assumed that for the initial coordinates $`t,x,`$…, $`u^i=\delta _0^i,g_{00}=1,g_{ii}=1,`$

A photon has no rest mass-energy, hence no proper frequency. But its mass-energy and frequency can be measured in experiment as $`E=h\nu =cu^ip^jg_{ij}`$ and prove to be of any value depending on the experimenter’s speed. I thank G. S. Lapidus whose comments helped to improve the text of this paper.

This paper has been published in Physics - Uspekhi 43 (12) 1267 (2000), http://www.ufn.ru
Uspekhi Fizicheskikh Nauk 170 (12) 1363 (2000), http://www.ufn.ru
http://www.mai.ru/projects/mai\_works/index.htm

This topic is elaborated in physics/0103008.

References

1. Born M., Einstein’s Theory of Relativity (New York: Dover Publ., 1962) p. 269.

2. Feynman R., Character of Physical Law (London: Cox and Wyman, 1965) p. 76.

3. Strelkov S. P., Mechanics (Moscow: Nauka, 1975) p. 533 (in Russian).

4. Okun’ L. B., “The concept of mass”, Soviet Physics Uspekhi 32 (7), 629–638 (1989).

5. Okun’ L. B., “The concept of mass”, Physics Today 42 (6), 31 (1989)

6. Taylor E. F., Wheeler J. A., Spacetime Physics (San Francisco: W.H. Freeman, 1966).

7. Resnick R., Halliday D., Krane K. S., Physics, Vol. 1 (New York Wiley, 1992), p. 166, 167.

8. Adler C. G. “Does mass really depend on velocity, dad!” Am. J. Phys. 55, 739 (1987).

9. Alonso M., Finn E. J., Physics (Wokingham, England: Addison- Wesley, 1992) p. 96.

10. Khrapko R. I., Spirin G. G., Ramrenov V. M., Mechanics (Moscow: Izd. MAI, 1993).

11. Einstein A. “Ist die Tragheit eines Korpers von seinem Energiegehalt abhangig?’ Ann. d. Phys. 18, 639 (1905).

12. Planck M., The Philosophy of Physics (George Allen & Unwin Ltd, London, 1936), p. 90.


text:
# The geometry of RG flows in theory space

## Abstract

Renormalisation Group (RG) flows in theory space (the space of couplings) are generated by a vector field – the $`\beta `$ function. Using a specific metric ansatz in theory space and certain methods employed largely in the context of General Relativity, we examine the nature of the expansion, shear and rotation of geodesic RG flows. The expansion turns out to be a negative quantity inversely related to the norm of the $`\beta `$ function. This implies the focusing of the flows towards the fixed points of a given field theory. The evolution equation for the expansion along geodesic RG flows is written down and analysed. We illustrate the results for a scalar field theory with a $`j\varphi `$ coupling and pointers to other areas are briefly mentioned.

In the theory of quantised fields, the notion of the Renormalisation Group (RG) plays a central role in understanding certain non–perturbative issues. It is a well-known fact that an ambiguity arises in the choice of the infinite part of a regularised Feynman amplitude. This necessitates the choice of a renormalisation scheme, which, naturally, implies the existence of a scale or a renormalisation point. The requirement that physical amplitudes, say the one-particle irreducible amplitudes , are independent of a choice of scale leads to the concept of the Renormalisation Group. The RG transformations are finite renormalisations and the RG equation, essentially, follows from the scale invariance of the physical Green functions.

The fact that the RG equation can be written as a geometric statement was first noted by Lassig in  and later by Dolan , . The idea there, was to visualise the $`\beta `$–function as a vector field in the space of couplings (this is the space we refer to as ‘theory space’). Theory space, constructed with the couplings as the coordinates can be thought of as a manifold in its own right. Each point on such a manifold defines a set of values for the various couplings which appear in a given Lagrangian. A curve in theory space, therefore, represents the flow of couplings. Finite renormalisation generates such a flow and thereby, gives rise to RG trajectories which have the $`\beta `$–function as the tangent vector at each point. The RG equation, in its theory space incarnation, can be expressed as a Lie–derivative of the n–point function with respect to this vector field. The change in physical amplitudes due to a diffeomorphism of $`R^D`$ (scale transformations of the spatial variables), at fixed couplings, generated by the dilatation generator $`𝐃`$ is equivalent to the change in amplitudes due to a diffeomorphism of theory space, generated by the $`\beta `$–function, at fixed spatial positions. This fact lies at the heart of the geometric form of the RG equation. As is well known, the definition of the Lie–derivative does not require the concept of a metric or a connection. However, we do need such structures in order to define and analyse a geometry. The natural question which one therefore has to address is – how do we define a metric in theory space ?

There have been proposals for such a metric. One of them is related to the spatial integral of a two–point function , which, in general, could, as well be, a two-point function of composite operators. We also need to impose the crucial fact that spatial points are well separated. This enables us to avoid the possible divergences of amplitudes which always come up in quantum field theory. The above proposal is akin to that due to Zamolodchikov, which he and later authors utilised in order to prove the $`c`$-theorem for two–dimensional field theories.

Given a definition of a metric we can now investigate the geometry of theory space through the ensuing connection and curvature. This has been worked out for several field theoretic models such as scalar field theories with a $`j\varphi `$ term , $`\lambda \varphi ^4`$ theory, the one dimensional Ising model , the O(N) model (for large N)  and $`N=2`$ supersymmetric Yang–Mills theory . The location of zeros of the $`\beta `$–function which correspond to fixed points for the flows, (and also imply conformally invariant field theories) coincide, rather surprisingly, with points of diverging Ricci curvature in theory space.

The fact that the $`\beta `$ function is a vector field in theory space can improve our understanding of the nature of RG flows in a novel way, if we employ the techniques and results primarily used in proving the singularity theorems in General Relativity (GR). This is what we aim to do in this article. We shall also point out that there are some worthwhile directions which may be pursued in greater depth, in future.

Firstly, let us recall the analysis from Riemannian geometry and GR which we will use extensively. This is based on the fact that the covariant derivative of the velocity field in a Riemannian/pseudo–Riemannian spacetime is a second rank tensorial object. Therefore $`v_{\mu ;\nu }`$ can be split into it’s symmetric traceless, trace and antisymmetric parts. These three parts constitute the shear, expansion and rotation of the geodesic flow. Along the families of flow lines, one can therefore write down the differential equations for each of these quantities. It turns out that these equations are coupled and quite difficult to solve completely. However, for simplistic scenarios, there do exist solutions which have been analysed in some amount of detail.

In Riemannian geometry and GR one does not quite solve these equations. For general, possibly non-geodesic flows, one has the Raychaudhuri identity given by :

$$_\alpha \left(v^\mu _\mu v^\beta \right)=\left(_\alpha v^\mu \right)\left(_\mu v^\beta \right)+v^\mu _\alpha _\mu v^\beta $$
(1)
In the case of affinely parametrised geodesic curves, the left hand side is zero, which, thereby, gives us the Raychaudhuri equation. Utilising the split of $`v_{\mu ;\nu }`$ into shear, rotation and expansion one obtains equations for each of these quantities. As an example, we have the equation for the expansion :

$$\frac{d\theta }{d\lambda }+\frac{1}{n1}\theta ^2+2\sigma ^22\omega ^2=R_{\mu \nu }\xi ^\mu \xi ^\nu $$
(2)
which, along with the other equations for the shear and rotation, comprise the full set of nonlinear, coupled ODEs. $`n`$ here is the dimension of space (for Euclidean signature) or spacetime (for Lorentzian signature). The equation for the expansion is analysed in a couple of ways. Here we state one of them (for details see , ). It is easy to see that a redefinition of $`\theta `$ in terms of the quantity $`\theta =(n1)\frac{F^{}}{F}`$ converts the equation into a second order linear ODE (note that the first order equation was a nonlinear first order ODE, known in mathematics as a Riccati equation). Thereafter, by imposing $`\omega _{\mu \nu }=0`$ (which is an allowed solution of the evolution equation for rotation) we find that the existence of zeros in a solution crucially depends on the positivity (or nullity) of the quantity $`R_{\mu \nu }\xi ^\mu \xi ^\nu `$. Translating $`R_{\mu \nu }`$ into $`T_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}Tg_{\mu \nu }`$ via the Einstein field equation one obtains a condition on the matter stress energy known as the ‘strong energy condition’ (this condition is the statement that $`T_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}Tg_{\mu \nu }0`$. This (and some weaker versions) is, therefore, a requirement on the existence of zeros in F and therefore an infinity in $`\theta `$. Since $`\theta `$ is related to the rate of change of the cross–sectional area of the family of geodesics (the cross-section being normal to the tangent vector field) one finds that an infinity in $`\theta `$ (more precisely a negative infinity) at a finite value of the affine parameter, implies a vanishing of this area and therefore an intersection of the set of geodesics. Such an intersection is termed focusing of geodesics and is a precursor to the existence of spacetime singularities in the sense of geodesic incompleteness, which, in some cases, does coincide with the other definition of singularities–i.e. divergent curvatures.

Having stated the notion of focusing in the context of spacetime geodesics we now return to quantum field theory. The RG flows are integral curves of the $`\beta `$-function in theory space, with the added fact that they obey the RG equation. The curves may be geodesic or non–geodesic. If they are geodesic then too they may be affinely or non-affinely parametrised. The overall analysis of the previous paragraphs can therefore be translated to the case of RG flows which may or may not be geodesic.

It has been shown by Dolan  that the RG equation for a class of theories (exceptions and more general discussion with an example are available in ) can indeed be written as a condition on the $`\beta `$–function. More precisely, $`\beta ^a`$ (we use Latin indices for theory space) is a conformal Killing vector. As mentioned before, this was previously assumed by Lassig  in order to demonstrate that the RG equation can be written (in theory space) in terms of a Lie derivative of the Green function with respect to $`\beta ^a`$.

This condition is :

$$_a\beta _b+_b\beta _a=Dg_{ab}$$
(3)
where $`g_{ab}=\mathrm{\Phi }_a(y)\mathrm{\Phi }_b(0)d^Dy`$ is the O’Connor–Stephens metric and $`D`$ is the dimension of Euclidean space in which the field theory is defined. $`\mathrm{\Phi }_a`$ are, in general, composite operators and are defined after taking care of a subtraction of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_a`$ (for details on this see ). The metric in theory space is essentially the Fisher-Rao metric (based on the Fisher information matrix–for details see) used in statistics to compare probability distributions).

The above equation follows in a straightforward way, from the RG equation for the two–point function :

$`\kappa _\kappa \mathrm{\Phi }_a(x)\mathrm{\Phi }_b(y)+\beta ^c_c\mathrm{\Phi }_a(x)\mathrm{\Phi }_b(y)+_a\beta ^c\mathrm{\Phi }_c(x)\mathrm{\Phi }_b(y)+`$ (4)
$`_b\beta ^c\mathrm{\Phi }_a(x)\mathrm{\Phi }_c(y)=0`$ (5)
Using the facts that couplings are scaled to be dimensionless, the $`\mathrm{\Phi }_a(x)`$ have canonical mass dimension $`D`$ and the scaling argument one can arrive at the equation :

$`\left(x^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{}{x^\mu }}+y^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{}{y^\mu }}\right)\mathrm{\Phi }_a(x)\mathrm{\Phi }_b(y)+2D\mathrm{\Phi }_a(x)\mathrm{\Phi }_b(y)=`$ (6)
$`\beta ^c_c\mathrm{\Phi }_a(x)\mathrm{\Phi }_b(y)_a\beta ^c\mathrm{\Phi }_c(x)\mathrm{\Phi }_b(y)_b\beta ^c\mathrm{\Phi }_a(x)\mathrm{\Phi }_c(y)`$ (7)
Integrating over all $`y`$ and using translational invariance we get

$$\beta ^c_cg_{ab}+(_a\beta ^c)g_{cb}+(_b\beta ^c)g_{ca}=Dg_{ab}$$
(8)
which will finally yield (after some simple manipulations) the condition given earlier.

In this condition, if we use the following decomposition :

$$_a\widehat{\beta }_b=\sigma _{ab}+\omega _{ab}+\frac{1}{n1}h_{ab}\theta $$
(9)
where $`\widehat{\beta }^a=\frac{\beta ^a}{\sqrt{\beta ^a\beta _a}}`$, $`h_{ab}=g_{ab}\widehat{\beta }_a\widehat{\beta }_b`$ and the quantities $`\sigma _{ab}`$ (shear), $`\omega _{ab}`$ (rotation) and $`\theta `$ (expansion) are functions of $`\lambda `$. Taking the trace of the above expression w.r.t. $`h^{ab}`$ we arrive at the rather striking result that :

$$\theta =\frac{D(n1)}{2\beta }$$
(10)
This is a general result. It states that RG flows must necessarily converge ($`\theta `$ negative). They will converge to a point where the norm of the $`\beta `$ function is zero, which means (since the norm here is a positive quantity and we are working in a Euclidean space) that the flows focus where the field theory has a fixed point (i.e. all the $`\beta `$–functions –each component of the vector field $`\beta ^a`$ tend to zero).

The shear is given by the symmetric, traceless part of the gradient of the normalised $`\beta `$–function. It turns out to be :

$$\sigma _{ab}=\frac{1}{2}\left(_a\widehat{\beta }_b+_b\widehat{\beta }_a\right)+h_{ab}\frac{D}{2\beta }$$
(11)
In a similar way, the antisymmetric part leads to the rotation , given through the expression :

$$\omega _{ab}=\frac{1}{2}\left(_a\widehat{\beta }_b_b\widehat{\beta }_a\right)$$
(12)
It is also possible that along certain directions in theory space the $`\beta `$ functions are zero but they remain non–zero along others. For example, in a three dimensional theory space the geodesics which lie entirely on a two dimensional section may converge to a point where the $`\beta `$–functions along the coordinate directions which define this section, vanish. If on has parallel sections where geodesics focus, then the expansion does not tend to negative infinity–it is negative nevertheless but we get a curve along which the convergence happens. One can relate this to shear and rotation which are nonzero if even one of the $`\beta `$–functions is finite.

Knowing the $`\beta `$ function and the metric in the coupling space , one may therefore calculate these quantities. We shall do this in detail later when we discuss a specific example.

The condition that $`\beta ^a`$ be a conformal Killing vector translates into the following under contraction with $`\beta ^b`$. We have :

$$\widehat{\beta }^b_b\beta ^a=^a\beta D\widehat{\beta }^a$$
(13)
This equation is a consequence derived from the RG equation.

The evolution equations for the quantities $`\theta `$, $`\sigma _{ab}`$ and $`\omega _{ab}`$ are the usual Raychaudhuri equations. However, the major difference from ordinary geodesic flows in geometry and RG flows in theory space is the fact that RG flows obey an extra condition–notably that the $`\beta `$–function vector field is conformally Killing. This determines $`\theta `$ universally for all RG flows. Let us now write down the Raychaudhuri equation for the expansion in terms of the $`\beta `$–function. This turns out to be (for $`\sigma _{ab}=0`$, $`\omega _{ab}=0`$ which, are, consistent solutions of the equations for $`\sigma _{ab}`$ and $`\omega _{ab}`$ :

$$\frac{D(n1)}{2}\left[\frac{d\beta }{d\lambda }+\frac{D}{2}\right]=R_{ab}\beta ^a\beta ^b$$
(14)
Note that this is a relation between the curvature properties of theory space and the $`\beta `$–function. For geodesic flows both the conformal Killing vector condition and the above equation has to hold good simultaneously.

One can comment qualitatively on the realtion between curvature properties of theory space and the existence of zeros of the $`\beta `$–function. A divergence in $`R_{ab}`$ must be killed by a zero in $`\beta ^a`$ because the L. H. S. of the Raychaudhuri equation if finite. Thus it is possible that the existence of a curvature singularity in theory space indicates a fixed point of the underlying field theory.

In a coupling space which is Einstein, i.e. $`R_{ab}=\mathrm{\Lambda }g_{ab}`$ the above equation takes the form :

$$\frac{d\beta }{d\lambda }+\frac{D}{2}=C\beta ^2$$
(15)
where $`C=\frac{2\mathrm{\Lambda }}{D(n1)}`$. The equation can easily be solved to obtain the norm $`\beta `$, of the $`\beta `$–function vector field in terms of the affine parameter. We have two cases to deal with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }<0`$. The expressions for $`\beta `$ are :

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }>0;\beta =\sqrt{\frac{D}{2C}}tan\sqrt{\frac{D}{2C}}\left(C_1C\lambda \right)$$
(16)
$$\mathrm{\Lambda }<0;\beta =\sqrt{\frac{D}{2|C|}}tanh\sqrt{\frac{D}{2|C|}}\left(C_1+|C|\lambda \right)$$
(17)
where $`C=\frac{2\mathrm{\Lambda }}{D(n1)}`$ and $`C_1`$ is an arbitrary constant.

The $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>0`$ expression is defined over the interval $`0\left(C_1C\lambda \right)\frac{\pi }{2}`$, or between $`\pi `$ and $`\frac{3\pi }{2}`$ and so on. This is to ensure non–negativity of the norm of the $`\beta `$ function vector field. Similarly, for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }<0`$ expression the interval is $`\mathrm{}\left(|C|\lambda +C_1\right)0`$. The focal points of the RG flows are those where $`\beta =0`$ and these are seen to occur at finite values of the parameter $`\lambda `$.

For a theory space of zero Ricci curvature, it is easy to see that $`\beta `$ is linearly related to the parameter $`\lambda `$.

It is worth noting that these expressions for $`\beta `$ are conclusions which are theory independent –it is possible that there could be many theories for which the theory space is Einstein. The existence of zeros at finite values of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ also follow largely from the expressions for $`\beta `$–these correspond to the focal points of these RG flows.

The equations for $`\sigma _{ab}`$ and $`\omega _{ab}`$ are the same as the usual Raychaudhuri equations except for the fact that the expression for $`\theta `$ needs to be substituted. As in the usual case $`\sigma _{ab}`$, $`\omega _{ab}`$ both equal to zero are valid solutions of these equations.

We shall now illustrate the above results by working out the details for the simplest of field theories–a theory involving a single scalar with a $`j\varphi `$ coupling (where $`j`$ is a constant). The action is :

$$S(\varphi ;j,m^2)=d^Dx\left(\frac{1}{2}\varphi \left(^2+m^2\right)\varphi +j\varphi \right)$$
(18)
From the action one can find out the corresponding $`w(j,m^2)`$ ($`W=d^Dxw`$ and $`Z=\mathrm{exp}(W)`$) after integrating over $`\varphi `$. Subsequently, the line element (for a Lagrangian linear in couplings the metric $`g_{ab}=_a_bw`$ ) is given as :

$$ds^2=\left(_a_bw\right)dx^adx^b=m^2d\xi ^2+\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{(4\pi )^{\frac{D}{2}}}m_{}^{2}{}_{}{}^{\frac{D}{2}2}\mathrm{\Gamma }(2\frac{D}{2})(dm^2)^2$$
(19)
The mass–squared $`m^2`$ and the quantity $`\xi =<\xi >=\frac{j}{m^2}`$ are the two ‘couplings’ (in a generalised sense the mass is also attributed the status of a coupling). The theory space here is two–dimensional and we shall assume the Euclidean coordinate space in which the theory is defined as a flat Euclidean space of dimension $`D`$.

The metric given above can be transformed into the form :

$$ds^2=dr^2+r^{\frac{4}{D}}d\chi ^2$$
(20)
where :

$`\chi =2\sqrt{\pi }\left[{\displaystyle \frac{D}{4}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2\frac{D}{2})}}}\right]^{\frac{2}{D}}\xi `$ (21)
$`r={\displaystyle \frac{4}{D}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2\frac{D}{2})}{2}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{4\pi }}\right)^{\frac{D}{4}}`$ (22)
The Ricci scalar is given as ;

$$R=\frac{2(2D)}{D^2r^2}$$
(23)
Notice that for $`D=2`$ the Ricci scalar is zero and the space is also flat (a coordinate transformation will reduce the polar coordinate form for $`D=2`$ to $`ds^2=dx^2+dy^2`$). The geometry for $`D2`$ is, however, nontrivial. For $`D>2`$ can easily show that the line elements can be written in the form $`ds^2=dr^2+a^2(r)d\chi ^2`$ (analgous to an Euclidean , two–dimensional cosmological line element)

The $`\beta `$–functions can be obtained by using the scaling properties of the couplings w.r.t a parameter, the values of which define the renormalisation point. These turn out to be :

$$\beta ^r=\frac{D}{2}r;\beta ^\chi =\left(\frac{D}{2}1\right)\chi $$
(24)
The norm of the $`\beta `$ function in the coupling space , given by $`g_{ab}\beta ^a\beta ^b`$ provides us with the ‘normalised’ $`\beta `$–functions which we use while defining the expansion. It has been shown that for $`D=2`$ the flows are geodesic. The trajectories correspond to radial curves which focus at the origin. The expansion of the geodesic congruences (for $`D=2`$) also indicate such a behaviour :

$$\theta =\frac{1}{\beta }=\frac{1}{r}$$
(25)
which implies that as $`r0`$, $`\theta \mathrm{}`$ which is the focal point of the congruence.

Note also that these $`\beta `$–functions satisfy the conformal Killing vector condition.

Solving them we can obtain the integral curves $`r(\lambda )`$ and $`\chi (\lambda )`$. The result should tally with the Raychaudhuri equation for the expansion $`\theta `$ written down above. One can check easily that it does.

It is also easy to see that the shear and rotation for these flows in $`D=2`$ are both identically equal to zero.

Let us now briefly frame the notions mentioned above for the non-linear sigma model which describes strings. Recall that one of the basic statements of string theory has been to view the metric appearing in the sigma model as a coupling. The dynamic geometry of GR is a derived concept in string theory. It is easy to see that if the metric is a coupling, then the space of metrics is the corresponding theory space. Therefore, the Raychaudhuri equation can be used to analyse the nature of the RG flows in this ‘superspace’. For simplicity, let us qualitatively look at bosonic strings. Here the metric $`g_{\mu \nu }`$, the anti–symmetric tensor potential ($`B_{\mu \nu }`$) and the dilaton $`\varphi `$ are the background fields to which the string couples. The full theory space $`(𝐠,𝐁,\varphi )`$ is therefore a space of functions. The $`\beta `$–functionals for each of these ‘couplings’ are known from the RG analysis of the nonlinear $`\sigma `$ model. As a simple example, one may think of a minisuperspace model with only a single function $`a(t)`$ specifying the metric and a dilaton $`\varphi (t)`$ as a second ‘coupling’. The space of theories is therefore the space of $`a(t)`$, $`\varphi (t)`$–a function space. It is therefore necessary to evaluate the metric in this space which is obtainable from the two-point functions of the nonlinear sigma model. Once we know the metric, we can draw conclusions on geodesic flows, curvature properties of theory space and the Raychaudhuri identity. An analysis somewhat in the same vein was carried out in  where attractive and repulsive behaviour of the RG trajectories in theory space (with a minisuperspace ansatz) was discussed.

In models of particle physics the evolution of couplings, the nature and extrapolation of RG flows and their intersection do play an important role in understanding the unification of interactions It is certainly worth investigating whether the methods and results presented here can be of any use there.

Let us conclude by summarising the main results :

* It has been shown that the expansion for an RG flow is a negative quantity depending directly on coordinate and theory space dimensions and inversely on the norm of the $`\beta `$–function in theory space. The shear and rotation for these flows may/may not be zero. Both these facts result from the geometric version of the RG equation.
* The Raychaudhuri equation for the expansion has been rewritten in terms of the $`\beta `$-function and it serves as an additional constraint on the $`\beta `$–function. RG flows are generated by conformally Killing vector fields and their evolution (for geodesic flows) is indeed governed by the Raychaudhuri equations.

The salient feature of the analysis presented here is, that methods and conclusions obtained in coordinate space in Riemannian geometry and GR can be used (with a few appropriate modifications) to analyse the the geometry and physics in the space of couplings of a given quantum field theory. It is not clear as yet whether this approach helps in some way in understanding quantum field theory or it is just an exercise which will remain an exclusively aesthetic endeavour. However, we should note that the results on the nature of RG flows in theory space do not pertain to any specific  field theory but are applicable to the class of field theories for which the $`\beta `$–function satisfies the conformal Killing condition. For theories where the conformal Killing vector character of the $`\beta `$–function does not hold (such as the one dimensional Ising model as shown in ) one will have to write down the full set of Raychaudhuri equations (without assuming specific forms of $`\sigma _{ab}`$ or $`\theta `$ ) for geodesic RG flows . Then one may proceed to further the analysis. A crucial assumption in all this, is the metric ansatz which, however, has been used extensively in this context and follows from statistics. Additionally, the fact that the theory space in the QFT of strings coincides with the actual space of metrics is a problem worth pursuing. So is the application in realistic models of particle physics. Further detailed calculations along the each of these directions, as well as more nontrivial examples illustrating the ideas presented here, will be communicated elsewhere.


text:
# Defensive alliances in spatial models of cyclical population interactions

## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Support from the Hungarian National Research Fund (T-33098 and T-25793) is acknowledged.