text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The AdS/CFT duality of Maldacena  is a very useful tool in study of nonperturbative dynamics of four dimensional gauge theories. The main idea of the approach is to use a dual gravitational description of the gauge theory living on a large stack of $`N`$ coincident D3-branes in string theory. When D3 branes are placed in a smooth type IIB background, the string theory in the near horizon geometry of the stack is dual to $`𝒩=4`$ supersymmetric YM theory .

Several approaches are used to construct gravitational backgrounds dual to gauge theories with reduced supersymmetry (and thus more interesting IR dynamics) . In particular, $`𝒩=1`$ gauge theory can be obtained by mass deformation of parent $`𝒩=4`$ gauge theory, placing large number of D3 branes on appropriate conical singularity, or, as suggested by Maldacena and Nunez , in the IR of a little string theory realized by wrapping NS 5 branes of type IIB string theory on a 2-cycle, and appropriately twisting the normal bundle to preserve $`1/4`$ of original supersymmetries. Typically, in gravitational dual of nonconformal gauge theories with reduced supersymmetry one encounters naked singularities in the IR region. Over the last year we learned that these naked singularities potentially signal to an interesting physical phenomenon in the IR dynamics of gauge theories. The nontrivial gauge theory IR physics often has a gravity (or string theory) dual that resolves the naked singularity. Alternatively, understanding the resolution of naked singularities in gravitational backgrounds 111Not all naked singularities are physical and can be resolved. could teach us about nonperturbative effects in the gauge theory.

For example, from the chiral symmetry breaking in the IR of the gauge theory on the world volume of regular and fractional branes on the conifold, Klebanov and Strassler  argued that the naked singularity of the Klebanov-Tseytlin (KT) geometry  should be resolved via the deformation of the conifold. “The flow of information” in the opposite direction, i.e. from the string theory to the field theory, was proposed in . It was suggested there that naked singularity in the KT geometry could be alternatively resolved by placing sufficiently large black hole in the background, so that its horizon would cloak the naked singularity. “Sufficiently large” means that the Hawking temperature of the black hole horizon should be larger than the critical temperature of the chiral symmetry breaking phase transition. Here, the hope is that, by studying the black hole of the critical radius one would learn about the gauge theory phase transition. The black hole solution proposed in  fails to realize this scenario. As shown in , the horizon of the non-extremal solution presented in  does not cloak the singularity, but rather coincides with it. This type of singular horizon is deemed unacceptable in studies of black hole metrics. In  a system of second order equations is derived whose solutions may describe non-extremal generalizations of the KT background with regular horizons. Recently constructed smooth solutions to this system  in a perturbation theory valid for large Hawking temperature of the horizon show that this is indeed possible. These solutions appear to support the suggestion of  that a regular horizon of the non-extremal generalization of the KT geometry appears only at some finite Hawking temperature.

Gravitational backgrounds which regular Schwarzschild horizon exists only above some critical non-extremality are unusual and, to our knowledge, new from the supergravity point of view. Analysis of  suggests that they should nonetheless be quite generic for backgrounds dual (in Maldacena sense) to gauge theories which undergo finite temperature symmetry breaking phase transition. It is thus of interest to look for additional examples of this phenomenon. An obvious choice is the supergravity solution constructed by Chamseddine and Volkov in  and interpreted by Maldacena and Nunez  as a gravity dual of the pure $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetric Yang Mills theory in the IR. In what follows we refer to this supergravity background as CV-MN. The smooth solution of  has the same IR behavior as that of the cascading gauge theory of , thus corresponding to the phase of the gauge theory with broken chiral symmetry at zero temperature. The singular CV-MN solution, like the KT geometry, describes the phase of the gauge theory with the unbroken symmetry. The crucial difference between the two models is that KT-KS model has an effective four dimensional description in the UV as well , while the CV-MN model is regularized in the UV by the little string theory. As a first step towards understanding the thermodynamics and the phase transition in the CV-MN model we construct a non-BPS generalization of the chirally symmetric (singular) CV-MN background. We argue that presented solutions have a regular horizon that exists above some critical value of non-extremality, in agreement with the dual gauge theory where the chiral symmetry is restored at finite temperature.

As a separate issue, we will also extend a no-go theorem for supersymmetric compactifications with torsion . The work of  studied compactifications of type IIB supergravity of the form given by  to 4 Minkowski dimensions. They showed that for 6 compact internal dimensions, the only solutions with globally defined dilaton are Calabi-Yau three-folds with vanishing torsion. This no-go theorem can be avoided on noncompact internal manifolds, as the CV-MN solution shows. Our results extend the no-go theorem of  to noncompact internal manifolds with the complex structure of the resolved conifold, in that all BPS solutions will have a naked singularity.

This paper is organized as follows. In the next section following the work , we review the general construction of supersymmetric vacua of type IIB supergravity with torsion. In section 3 we study supersymmetric compactifications of type IIB supergravity on resolved conifolds (which is relevant to the unbroken chiral symmetry phase of the CV-MN model). We show that all SUSY preserving vacua have naked singularity. In section 4 we rederive a simple singular solution of . In section 5 we discuss non-extremal generalizations of the background. We conclude with discussion in section 6.

## 2 Supersymmetric type IIB compactifications with torsion

Conditions for spacetime supersymmetry of the heterotic superstring on manifolds with torsion were found in . In this section we consider corresponding conditions for type IIB compactifications to four dimensions on manifolds with torsion. As we set all the R-R fields to be zero, our analysis essentially repeat those of . Similar to the heterotic compactifications, we find that supersymmetric type IIB vacua with torsion have warped four dimensional space-time and nontrivial dilaton.

Type IIB equations of motion and supersymmetry variations have been found in  which notation we follow here222See Appendix for our detailed notations and conventions.. In particular, we use mostly negative signature for the metric. The massless bosonic fields of the type IIB superstring theory consist of the complex dilaton field $`B`$ that parameterizes the $`SL(2,𝐑)/U\left(1\right)`$ coset space, the metric tensor $`g_{MN}`$ and the antisymmetric complex 2-tensor $`A_{(2)}`$, and the four-form field $`A_{(4)}`$ with self-dual five-form field strength. Their fermionic superpartners are a complex Weyl gravitino $`\psi _M`$ ($`\widehat{\gamma }^{11}\psi _M=\psi _M`$) and a complex Weyl dilatino $`\lambda `$ ($`\widehat{\gamma }^{11}\lambda =\lambda `$). The theory has $`𝒩`$=2 supersymmetry generated by two supercharges of the same chirality.

We would like to find bosonic backgrounds that preserve some supersymmetry. This will be the case provided the supersymmetry variation of the fermionic fields is zero

$`\delta \lambda `$ $`=`$ $`iP_M\widehat{\gamma }^Mϵ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{24}}G_{MNP}\widehat{\gamma }^{MNP}ϵ,`$ (2.1)
$`\delta \psi _M`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{D}_Mϵ+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{480}}F_{P_1\mathrm{}P_5}\widehat{\gamma }^{P_1\mathrm{}P_5}\widehat{\gamma }_Mϵ+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{96}}(\widehat{\gamma }_M{}_{}{}^{NPQ}G_{NPQ}^{}`$ (2.4)
$`9\widehat{\gamma }^{NP}G_{MNP})ϵ^{},`$
where

$`F_{(5)}=dA_{(4)}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\mathrm{Im}A_{(2)}F_{(3)}^{},F_{(3)}=dA_{(2)},`$ (2.5)
(2.6)
$`G_{(3)}={\displaystyle \frac{F_{(3)}BF_{(3)}^{}}{\sqrt{1|B|^2}}},P_M={\displaystyle \frac{_MB}{1|B|^2}},`$ (2.7)
(2.8)
$`\widehat{\gamma }^{11}ϵ=ϵ.`$ (2.9)
The covariant derivative $`\widehat{D}_M`$ contains $`U(1)`$ connection $`Q_M=\mathrm{Im}(B_MB^{})/(1|B|^2)`$

$$\widehat{D}_Mϵ=\left(\widehat{}_M\frac{1}{2}iQ_M\right)ϵ=\left(_M\frac{1}{4}\widehat{\omega }_{MNP}\widehat{\gamma }^{NP}\frac{1}{2}iQ_M\right)ϵ.$$
(2.10)
The spin connection is given by

$$\widehat{\omega }_{MNP}=\widehat{e}_M^r{}_{[}{}^{}_{N}^{}\widehat{e}_P{}_{]}{}^{}{}_{r}{}^{}+\widehat{e}_P^r{}_{[}{}^{}_{N}^{}\widehat{e}_M{}_{]}{}^{}{}_{r}{}^{}+\widehat{e}_N^r{}_{[}{}^{}_{M}^{}\widehat{e}_P{}_{]}{}^{}{}_{r}{}^{}.$$
(2.11)
The above supergravity potentials and the dilaton field differ from those conventionally used in D-brane physics. In the latter case we have the dilaton $`\varphi `$, $`B_{(2)}`$ two-form from the NS-NS sector, and $`C_{(n)}`$ forms from the R-R sector with $`n=0,2,4,6,8`$. The dictionary between the two descriptions was presented in , which we adopt here. In particular we have

$`C_{(0)}+ie^\varphi =i{\displaystyle \frac{1+B}{1B}},`$ (2.12)
(2.13)
$`A_{(2)}=C_{(2)}+iB_{(2)}.`$ (2.14)
It is easy to see that in type IIB equations of motion we can consistently set all R-R potentials to zero. Thus we have

$`G_{MNP}=iH_{MNP}e^{\varphi /2},P_M={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_M\varphi ,`$ (2.15)
$`F_{P_1\mathrm{}P_5}=0,Q_M=0,`$ (2.16)
where $`H=dB_{(2)}`$. We assume geometry to be a direct product of two spaces $`M_4\times K`$

$$d\widehat{s}_{10}^2=e^{2A(y)}\eta _{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu e^{2B(y)}g_{mn}dy^mdy^n,$$
(2.17)
with warp factors depending on the coordinates of the six dimensional factor only. The warp factor $`B(y)`$ is not to be confused with the complex dilaton parameterizing $`SL(2,𝐑)/U\left(1\right)`$ coset space; we will not use the latter in the following. Furthermore, we take both the dilaton and the NS-NS two form to depend only on the coordinates $`y^m`$ of $`K`$. Introducing

$$ϵ=e^{i\pi /4}\eta ,\eta ^{}=\eta ,$$
(2.18)
and manipulating with gamma matrices, supersymmetry variations (2.4) become

$`\delta \lambda =\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\widehat{\begin{array}{c}\text{/}\\ \varphi \hfill \end{array}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}e^{\varphi /2}\widehat{\begin{array}{c}\text{/}\\ H\hfill \end{array}}\right]\eta ,`$ (2.23)
(2.24)
$`\delta \psi _M=\widehat{}_M\eta {\displaystyle \frac{e^{\varphi /2}}{16}}\left(2\widehat{\begin{array}{c}\text{/}\\ H\hfill \end{array}}\widehat{\gamma }_M+\widehat{\gamma }_M\widehat{\begin{array}{c}\text{/}\\ H\hfill \end{array}}\right)\eta .`$ (2.29)
Vanishing of the dilatino and gravitino variations (2.29) is identical to the supersymmetry preserving conditions of the heterotic compactification with torsion discussed in , provided we set gauge fields to zero. So we can simply adopt the latter results. First of all, from the gravitino variation in four dimensions we find

$$A=\frac{1}{4}\varphi ,$$
(2.30)
that is, the $`M_4`$ factor of the background geometry is flat Minkowski space in string frame. The remaining SUSY preserving conditions is convenient to formulate in string frame, that is choosing

$$B=\frac{1}{4}\varphi .$$
(2.31)
Consider six dimensional manifold $`\stackrel{~}{K}`$, with the metric

$$ds_{\stackrel{~}{K}}^6=g_{mn}dy^mdy^n.$$
(2.32)
Unbroken supersymmetry in four dimensions implies $`\stackrel{~}{K}`$ to be hermitean, endowed with a holomorphic (3,0) form $`\omega `$ :

$$\overline{}\omega =0.$$
(2.33)
Introducing global complex coordinates $`z^i`$ and $`\overline{z^i}z^{\overline{i}}`$ on $`\stackrel{~}{K}`$ and denoting global (anti-)holomorphic indices as $`(\overline{a},\overline{b},\overline{c},\mathrm{})a,b,c,\mathrm{}`$, the fundamental (1,1) form on $`\stackrel{~}{K}`$

$`J`$ $`=`$ $`ig_{a\overline{b}}dz^adz^{\overline{b}}`$ (2.34)
relates to $`\omega `$ as

$$d^+J+i\left(\overline{}\right)\mathrm{ln}\omega =0,$$
(2.35)
where the norm of $`\omega `$ is given by

$$\omega ^2=\omega _{a_1a_2a_3}\overline{\omega }_{\overline{b}_1\overline{b}_2\overline{b}_3}g^{a_1\overline{b}_1}g^{a_2\overline{b}_2}g^{a_3\overline{b}_3}.$$
(2.36)
Finally, the torsion is

$$H=i\left(\overline{}\right)J,$$
(2.37)
and the dilaton is given by

$$\varphi =\varphi _0\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}\omega ,$$
(2.38)
where we explicitly included constant $`\varphi _0`$.

## 3 Supersymmetric compactifications on resolved conifolds with torsion

333Results reported in this section we obtained in collaboration with Joe Polchinski.

Supersymmetric compactifications on Hermitian manifolds with torsion are very restrictive. In fact, in  it was shown that there are no supersymmetric compactifications of this type on compact Hermitian manifolds $`M^6`$ with non-vanishing torsion and a globally defined dilaton. This no-go theorem could be avoided with non-compact $`M^6`$ . It is thus of interest to study supersymmetry on other non-compact Hermitian manifolds with torsion.

In this section we discuss supersymmetric compactifications of type IIB supergravity on resolved conifolds with torsion. We explicitly show that with the nonvanishing torsion, the resolved conifold geometry always has a naked singularity, also the dilaton can not be defined globally. As shown in  supersymmetric backgrounds in this class are dual to the phase with unbroken chiral symmetry of pure $`𝒩=1`$ four dimensional Yang Mills theory at zero temperature. Since the chiral symmetry of the YM theory is broken in the IR, the appearance of a naked singularity is not surprising.

The general supersymmetry conditions for type IIB compactification with torsion were reviewed in the previous section. The string frame metric is given by

$$ds_{str}^2=\eta _{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu ds_6^2,$$
(3.39)
where the hermitian metric $`ds_6^2`$ on the six dimensional manifold $`\stackrel{~}{K}`$ (resolved conifold in our case) satisfies (2.35) once the holomorphic $`(3,0)`$ form $`\omega `$ is specified. The SUSY preserving torsion is then given by (2.37), and the dilaton is determined from (2.38). After recalling some useful facts from the conifold geometry , we solve (2.35). The metric is further constraint by the Bianchi identity on the torsion

$$dH=\rho _5,$$
(3.40)
where $`\rho _5`$ is the properly normalized density of the NS5 branes. In this paper we assume $`\rho _5=0`$, except for possible delta-function sources.

A singular conifold can be described by a quadric in $`\mathrm{IC}_4`$

$$XYUV=0.$$
(3.41)
A small resolution of the cone is obtained by replacing the equation (3.41) by the pair of equations

$$\stackrel{~}{K}:W\left(\begin{array}{c}\lambda _1\\ \lambda _2\end{array}\right)=0,\left(\begin{array}{c}\lambda _1\\ \lambda _2\end{array}\right)\mathrm{IP}_1,$$
(3.42)
where the matrix

$$W=\left(\begin{array}{cc}X& U\\ V& Y\end{array}\right),$$
(3.43)
has rank $`1`$, except when all of $`X,Y,U,V`$ vanish where it has rank $`0`$. Away from the apex of the cone (3.42) determines a unique point on $`\mathrm{IP}_1`$. At the apex of the cone (3.42) defines the entire $`\mathrm{IP}_1`$. Let $`H_+`$and $`H_{}`$ be two coordinate patches covering $`\mathrm{IP}_1`$ with local coordinates $`\lambda \frac{\lambda _2}{\lambda _1}`$, $`\lambda _10`$ and $`\mu \frac{\lambda _1}{\lambda _2}`$, $`\lambda _20`$ respectively. On $`H_+`$, (3.42) implies

$$W=\left(\begin{array}{cc}U\lambda & U\\ Y\lambda & Y\end{array}\right),$$
(3.44)
so we can choose $`(U,Y,\lambda )`$ as our complex coordinates. Similarly, on $`H_{}`$ we have

$$W=\left(\begin{array}{cc}X& X\mu \\ V& V\mu \end{array}\right),$$
(3.45)
so we can choose as complex coordinates $`(V,X,\mu )`$. On $`H_+H_{}`$ the transition function is given by

$$(V,X,\mu )=(Y\lambda ,U\lambda ,1/\lambda ).$$
(3.46)
In above coordinates the holomorphic $`(3,0)`$ form takes a simple form

$$\omega =dUdYd\lambda =dVdXd\mu .$$
(3.47)
Resolved conifold has global $`SU(2)\times SU(2)`$ symmetry with the following action

$`W`$ $``$ $`LWR^+,`$ (3.48)
$`\left(\begin{array}{c}\lambda _1\\ \lambda _2\end{array}\right)`$ $``$ $`R\left(\begin{array}{c}\lambda _1\\ \lambda _2\end{array}\right),`$ (3.50)
where $`L,R`$ are independent $`SU(2)`$ matrices. The three form $`\omega `$ of (3.47) is invariant under the symmetries of the resolved conifold, and up to a c-number factor is unique444Any other holomorphic three form $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }`$ would differ from (3.47) by a holomorphic $`SU(2)\times SU(2)`$ invariant function $`f(W):\stackrel{~}{\omega }=f(W)\omega `$, where $`W`$ is given by (3.44), (3.45) on $`H_+,H_{}`$ correspondingly. With the transformation law (3.50), $`f`$ can depend only on $`det[W]`$: $`f(W)\stackrel{~}{f}(det[W])=\stackrel{~}{f}(0)`$, which is constant..

The most general $`SU(2)\times SU(2)`$ invariant Hermitian metric on $`\stackrel{~}{K}`$ takes the form

$$ds_6^2=f_1\mathrm{tr}\left(dW^+dW\right)+f_2|\mathrm{tr}\left(W^+dW\right)|^2+f_3\frac{|d\lambda |^2}{(1+|\lambda |^2)^2},$$
(3.51)
where $`f_i=f_i(x)`$ are scalar functions of

$$x\mathrm{tr}\left(W^+W\right).$$
(3.52)
Consider first condition coming from the gravitino variation (2.35). The norm of the holomorphic three form (3.47) in (3.51) evaluates to

$$\omega =\sqrt{6}\mathrm{det}^{1/2}(g_{a\overline{b}})=\sqrt{6}\left[f_1(f_1+f_2x)(f_1x+f_3)\right]^{1/2}.$$
(3.53)
As a shorthand notation we define

$$g\mathrm{det}(g_{a\overline{b}})=f_1(f_1+f_2x)(f_1x+f_3).$$
(3.54)
Now,

$$i\left(\overline{}\right)\mathrm{ln}\omega =\frac{i}{2}[\mathrm{ln}g]^{}\left[\mathrm{tr}\left(dW^+W\right)\mathrm{tr}\left(W^+dW\right)\right],$$
(3.55)
where the prime denotes derivative with respect to $`x`$. After some straightforward, though rather tedious algebra we find

$$d^+J=i\frac{2f_1f_1^{}x+f_3f_1^{}+f_1f_3^{}f_2f_32f_1f_2x}{f_1(f_1x+f_3)}\left[\mathrm{tr}\left(dW^+W\right)\mathrm{tr}\left(W^+dW\right)\right].$$
(3.56)
With (3.55) and (3.56), eq. (2.35) gives

$$\left[f_1(f_1+f_2x)(f_1x+f_3)\right]^{}+2(f_1+xf_2)\left[(f_2f_1^{})(f_3+2f_1x)f_1f_3^{}\right]=0.$$
(3.57)
Once the metric (3.51) is specified, we can determine torsion following (2.37). We will not give the complete expression here, just mention that the Bianchi identity on $`H`$ (in the absence of NS5 branes) results in the following constraints

$`\left[(f_1^{}f_2)x^2\right]^{}=0,`$ (3.58)
(3.59)
$`f_3^{}=2x(f_2f_1^{}).`$ (3.60)
Finally, the dilaton is determined by (2.38)

$$\varphi =\mathrm{const}+\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{ln}\left[f_1(f_1+f_2x)(f_1x+f_3)\right].$$
(3.61)
Eqs. (3.57) and (3.60) represent complete set of constraints that determine supersymmetric compactifications on type IIB string theory on resolved conifolds with torsion.

To write down the metric (3.51) explicitly we will parameterize $`W`$ in terms of two sets of Euler angles555 This parametrization first appeared in .

$`U`$ $`=`$ $`re^{i(\psi +\varphi _1+\varphi _2)/2}\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{\theta _1}{2}}\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{\theta _2}{2}},`$ (3.62)
$`Y`$ $`=`$ $`re^{i(\psi \varphi _1+\varphi _2)/2}\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{\theta _1}{2}}\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{\theta _2}{2}},`$ (3.63)
$`\lambda `$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\varphi _2}\mathrm{tan}{\displaystyle \frac{\theta _2}{2}}.`$ (3.64)
The metric on $`\stackrel{~}{K}`$ is then given by

$`ds_6^2`$ $`=`$ $`(dr)^2\left(f_1+f_2x\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{f_1x}{4}}\left(d\theta _1^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _1d\varphi _1^2\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{f_1x+f_3}{4}}\left(d\theta _2^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _2d\varphi _2^2\right)`$ (3.66)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{f_1x+f_2x^2}{4}}\left(d\psi +{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}}\mathrm{cos}\theta _id\varphi _i\right)^2,x=r^2.`$
From the Bianchi constraints (3.60), away from the 5-brane sources, we find

$$\left[f_3^{}x\right]^{}=0,$$
(3.67)
with the most general solution

$$f_3=c_1\mathrm{ln}x+c_2,$$
(3.68)
for some constants $`c_i`$. Furthermore,

$$f_2=f_1^{}+\frac{f_3^{}}{2x}.$$
(3.69)
Given (3.68) and (3.69), (3.57) gives an ordinary (nonlinear) differential equation on $`f_1`$. Some general conclusions concerning supergravity backgrounds discussed here could be reached without explicitly solving the resulting equation. Most importantly, with (3.68) we immediately see from (3.66) that unless $`c_1=0`$ the background geometry always has a naked singularity: radius squared of one of the two $`S^2`$s (parameterized by $`(\theta _i,\varphi _i)`$ for $`i=1`$ or $`i=2`$) will necessarily become negative for $`r>r_s`$ (or $`r<r_s`$ depending on the sign of $`c_1`$) with some $`r_s`$. From (3.61), we see that in the same region the dilaton would become complex valued. When $`c_1=0`$ and $`c_2`$ being arbitrary, eq. (3.69) requires $`\stackrel{~}{K}`$ to be K$`\ddot{\mathrm{a}}`$hler; we find in this case torsion to vanish identically. This is the main result of the section: we showed that there are no nonsingular supersymmetric backgrounds of type IIB supergravity on resolved conifolds with nontrivial torsion.

We can also make a few comments about the nature of this naked singularity. First of all, following the definition of , we can see that this is a repulson singularity. That is, a massive particle coupled to the Einstein metric follows a radial trajectory given by

$$\tau =𝑑r|g_{rr}|^{1/2}g_{tt}^{1/2}\left[E^2g_{tt}\right]^{1/2},$$
(3.70)
where $`E`$ is the energy per unit mass. Because $`g_{tt}=e^{\varphi /2}`$ blows up at the singularity (recall (3.61)), the particle will always bounce away from the singularity in finite proper time. This also implies that our solutions violate the criterion of , because $`g_{tt}`$ in the Einstein frame is unbounded at the singularity. This means they cannot accurately describe the IR dynamics of a dual gauge theory. This is not to say that our singularities cannot be resolved (indeed the CV-MN solution is the resolution) but rather that there is no chirally symmetric phase to the dual gauge theory at extremality.

## 4 Supergravity dual of YM theory with unbroken chiral symmetry

In  Maldacena and Nunez described gravitational solutions corresponding to a large number of NS fivebranes wrapping a two sphere. They argued that these solutions describe pure $`𝒩=1`$ super YM in the IR. More specifically, they described two solutions: one having a smooth geometry and broken $`U(1)_R`$ chiral symmetry of the dual gauge theory in the IR666The complex geometry and the supersymmetry of the smooth solution has been discussed in details in ., and a solution with a naked singularity in the IR, dual to the gauge theory phase with the unbroken chiral symmetry. The latter could be understood as a supersymmetric vacuum of type IIB string theory on the resolved conifold with torsion. Using the results of the previous section, we show here that this is indeed the case.

A simple solution of (3.57), (3.60) is

$`f_3`$ $`=`$ $`2a^2\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{x}{r_{}^2}},`$ (4.71)
$`f_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2a^2}{x^2}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{x}{r_{}^2}},`$ (4.72)
$`f_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{a^2}{x}}\left(1+2\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{x}{r_{}^2}}\right),`$ (4.73)
where $`a,r_{}`$ are constants. The ten-dimensional metric in the string frame is given by

$`ds_{str}^2`$ $`=`$ $`\eta _{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu a^2[{\displaystyle \frac{(dr)^2}{r^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1+2\mathrm{ln}\frac{r^2}{r_{}^2}}{4}}(d\theta _1^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _1d\varphi _1^2)`$ (4.75)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(d\theta _2^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _2d\varphi _2^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(d\psi +{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}}\mathrm{cos}\theta _id\varphi _i)^2].`$
The torsion is

$$H=\frac{a^2}{4}\left[\left(d\psi +\underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}\mathrm{cos}\theta _id\varphi _i\right)\left(\mathrm{sin}\theta _1d\theta _1d\varphi _1\mathrm{sin}\theta _2d\theta _2d\varphi _2\right)\right],$$
(4.76)
and the dilaton

$$e^\varphi =\mathrm{const}\left(\frac{1+2\mathrm{ln}\frac{r^2}{r_{}^2}}{r^4/a^4}\right)^{1/4}.$$
(4.77)
Note that the naked singularity is at $`r_s`$

$$r_s=r_{}e^{1/4}.$$
(4.78)
We would like to match (4.75)-(4.77) with the UV behavior of the smooth CV-MN solution. The smooth ten dimensional solution in  is given by

$`ds_{str}^2`$ $`=`$ $`\eta _{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu N[d\rho ^2+e^{2g(\rho )}(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\phi ^2)`$ (4.80)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \underset{a}{}}(w^aA^a)^2],`$
$`e^{2\varphi }`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{const}{\displaystyle \frac{2e^{g(\rho )}}{\mathrm{sinh}2\rho }},`$ (4.82)
$`H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N}{4}}\left[(w^1A^1)(w^2A^2)(w^3A^3)+{\displaystyle \underset{a}{}}F^a(w^aA^a)\right],`$ (4.85)
where

$`A^1`$ $`=`$ $`a(\rho ),A^2=a(\rho )\mathrm{sin}\theta ,A^3=\mathrm{cos}\theta ,`$ (4.87)
$`a(\rho )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\rho }{\mathrm{sinh}2\rho }},`$ (4.88)
$`e^{2g}`$ $`=`$ $`\rho \mathrm{coth}2\rho {\displaystyle \frac{\rho ^2}{\mathrm{sinh}^22\rho }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}},`$ (4.89)
$`w^1+iw^2`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\psi }\left(d\stackrel{~}{\theta }+i\mathrm{sin}\stackrel{~}{\theta }d\varphi \right),w^3=d\psi +\mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{\theta }d\varphi .`$ (4.90)
In the limit $`\rho \mathrm{}`$ we find that both backgrounds agree, provided we identify

$`\rho `$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{ln}r,\mathrm{as}r\mathrm{},`$ (4.91)
$`N`$ $`=`$ $`a^2.`$ (4.92)
## 5 Towards finite temperature resolution of the IR singularity

In the previous section we showed that the supergravity solution described by Maldacena and Nunez  with unbroken $`U(1)_R`$ symmetry is in the class of type IIB compactifications on resolved conifold with nonvanishing torsion. All such solutions have a naked singularity in the IR which is the reflection of the fact that the chiral symmetry in the dual Yang Mills must be broken at low energies. In fact, the smooth CV-MN solution has this $`U(1)_R`$ symmetry broken to a $`Z_2`$, as predicted by the dual gauge theory.

Rather similarly, the naked singularity of the KT geometry is resolved in . A different mechanism for resolving this singularity was proposed in . As we expect that the chiral symmetry of the gauge theory is restored at a finite temperature $`T_c`$, we expect that there should exist a non-extremal generalization of the KT geometry with the regular horizon cloaking the singularity. Such regular Schwarzschild horizon should appear only for some finite Hawking temperature. This is a rather unusual phenomenon from the supergravity point of view. The non-BPS generalization presented in  does not realize this proposal. As shown in , the horizon of the solution discussed there is singular for arbitrary non-extremality parameter. The horizon singularity can be traced back  to the too restrictive requirement of the self-duality of the three form fluxes off the extremality. On a more technical level, this corresponds to the fact that the $`U(1)`$ fiber of compact $`T^{1,1}`$ in the KT geometry was not “squashed” relative to the 2-spheres of $`T^{1,1}`$. Such squashing does not violate $`U(1)_R`$ chiral symmetry and is necessary for a non-BPS solution to have a nonsingular horizon. This has been shown in . There, the daunting task of solving a coupled system of the second order differential equations describing regular non-extremal generalization of the KT geometry was approached with a beautiful physical insight: in the KT-KS model the number of fractional D3 branes is fixed, while the number or regular ones changes logarithmically with the energy scale (radial coordinate); thus, if at the horizon of the non-BPS KT geometry the number of regular D3 branes is still large, one could imagine developing a perturbation theory around standard black D3 branes , with the small parameter being the ratio of fractional and the regular D3 branes. Computation to the first order in this perturbation theory demonstrated the chiral symmetry restoration in the gravitational dual of the cascading gauge theory at high temperature, with horizon “cloaking” the naked singularity of the extremal KT solution .

In this section we construct nonsingular, non-BPS generalizations of the geometry (4.75)-(4.77). In the case of $`T^{1,1}`$ of the KT geometry, squashing the $`U(1)`$ fiber off the extremality induced a source for the dilaton . That is, the constant dilaton at $`T=0`$, should run for $`TT_c`$. In our case, the dilaton is nontrivial even at the extremality. In constructing the appropriate non-BPS solution we assume that the $`U(1)`$ fiber (parameterized by $`\psi `$ in (4.75)) is not squashed relative to the $`(\theta _2,\varphi _2)`$ sphere, as it is at the extremality. This restriction substantially simplifies type IIB equations of motion, but unlike a somewhat similar ansatz in , leads to geometries with regular horizons.

In what follows we discuss the following non-extremal generalization of (4.75)-(4.77):

$`ds_E^2`$ $`=`$ $`c_1(r)^2[\mathrm{}_1^2dt^2d\overline{x}^2]c_1(r)^2a^2[{\displaystyle \frac{dr^2}{\mathrm{}_2^2r^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{h(r)}{4}}(d\theta _1^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _1d\varphi _1^2)`$ (5.94)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(d\theta _2^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _2d\varphi _2^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(d\psi +{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}}\mathrm{cos}\theta _id\varphi _i)^2],`$
$`H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{a^2}{4}}\left[\left(d\psi +{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}}\mathrm{cos}\theta _id\varphi _i\right)\left(\mathrm{sin}\theta _1d\theta _1d\varphi _1\mathrm{sin}\theta _2d\theta _2d\varphi _2\right)\right],`$ (5.96)
$`\varphi (r)`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi (r),`$ (5.98)
where the metric is given in Einstein frame, $`\varphi `$ in the last equation denotes the dilaton. Note that we used the same torsion as in the extremal case (4.76).

Checking type IIB equations of motion is tedious, so we only outline the steps. We perform the computations in the orthonormal frame with

$`e^1=c_1\mathrm{}_1dt,e^{2\mathrm{}4}=c_1dx^{1\mathrm{}3},e^5=c_1a{\displaystyle \frac{dr}{\mathrm{}_2r}},`$ (5.99)
$`e^6={\displaystyle \frac{c_1a}{2}}\left(d\psi +{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}}\mathrm{cos}\theta _id\varphi _i\right),e^7={\displaystyle \frac{c_1ah^{1/2}}{2}}d\theta _1,`$ (5.100)
$`e^8={\displaystyle \frac{c_1ah^{1/2}}{2}}\mathrm{sin}\theta _1d\varphi _1,e^9={\displaystyle \frac{c_1a}{2}}d\theta _2,`$ (5.101)
$`e^{10}={\displaystyle \frac{c_1a}{2}}\mathrm{sin}\theta _2d\varphi _2.`$ (5.102)
With ansatz (5.98), the 3-form Maxwell equations and its Bianchi identity are satisfied automatically. The energy-momentum tensor of the three form satisfies

$$T_{11}^{(3)}+T_{22}^{(3)}=0,$$
(5.103)
which requires the sum of the corresponding components of the Ricci tensor to vanish. This gives

$$\mathrm{}_1^{}\mathrm{}_2=\frac{A}{c_1(r)^8h(r)r},$$
(5.104)
where (a constant) $`A`$ is the non-extremality parameter. Turns out, all the other Einstein equations, and the dilaton equation, could be reduced to the following second order differential equations

$`0`$ $`=`$ $`A^2\left[\mathrm{ln}F(y)\right]^{\prime \prime }4F^2(y)\left(h^2(y)+1\right),`$ (5.105)
$`0`$ $`=`$ $`A^2\left[\mathrm{ln}h(y)\right]^{\prime \prime }8F^2(y)\left(h(y)1\right),`$ (5.107)
$`0`$ $`=`$ $`A^2(\left[F^2(y)\right]^{}\left[h^2(y)\right]^{}+F^2(y)\left(h(y)^{}\right)^2+2h^2(y)\left(F(y)^{}\right)^2`$ (5.110)
$`2F^2(y)h^2(y))8F^4(y)h^2(y)(h^2(y)+2h(y)1),`$
where the derivatives are with respect to777Note that the “good” coordinate of  is also proportional to $`\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{}_1`$.

$$y\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{}_1(r),$$
(5.111)
also

$`F(y(r))`$ $`=`$ $`c_1^8(r)\mathrm{}_1(r),h(r)=h(y(r)),`$ (5.112)
$`e^{\varphi /2}`$ $`=`$ $`c_1^2(r).`$ (5.114)
Note that dilaton is related to the warp factor of three space dimensions $`\overline{x}`$ as in the extremal case.

The system of differential equations (5.110) is overdetermined. It is straightforward to check that it is actually compatible. Further assuming $`F(y)=F(h(y))`$ one can obtain from (5.110) a second order nonlinear differential equation for $`F(h)`$

$`F^{\prime \prime }Fh^2[A^2+4F^2(h^2+2h1)]+F^{}h[F(4F^2(h^23h+4)A^2)`$ (5.115)
$`F^{}h(8F^2(h^2h+2)+A^2)+8F^2Fh^2(h1)]`$ (5.116)
$`2F^4(h^2+1)=0,`$ (5.117)
where the derivatives are with respect to $`h`$. Above equation is solved with

$$F(h)=Ch^{1/2}e^{h/2},$$
(5.118)
for zero non-extremality parameter $`A=0`$, thus reproducing (4.75)-(4.77) directly from the type IIB equations of motion. The constant $`C`$ in (5.118) depends on parameter $`r_{}`$ in (4.75) and the bare string coupling $`e^{\varphi _0}`$, $`C=r_{}^2e^{2\varphi _0}`$.

In the remaining of this section we argue that our solution (5.110) have a regular horizon. It is easy to see that there will be a regular horizon at $`r=r_h`$, $`\mathrm{}_1(r_h)=0`$, when $`F(y(r))e^{y(r)}`$ and $`h(r)`$ are nonzero at $`r=r_h`$. Really, in this case in the vicinity of $`r_h`$, we can introduce a well-defined coordinate $`\eta \mathrm{}_1`$, so that the metric (5.98) can be written as

$`ds_E^2`$ $``$ $`c_1(r_h)^2\left[\eta ^2dt^2d\overline{x}^2\right]{\displaystyle \frac{c_1^{18}(r_h)a^2h^2(r_h)}{A^2}}d\eta ^2`$ (5.121)
$`c_1(r_h)^2a^2[{\displaystyle \frac{h(r_h)}{4}}(d\theta _1^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _1d\varphi _1^2)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(d\theta _2^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _2d\varphi _2^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(d\psi +{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}}\mathrm{cos}\theta _id\varphi _i)^2],`$
which clearly describes a nonsingular horizon at $`r_h`$, provided $`c_1(r_h)`$ and $`h(r_h)`$ are nonzero. From (5.111), as $`rr_h`$, $`y\mathrm{}`$. So the existence of regular horizon implies

$`F(y)\alpha _1e^y,`$ (5.122)
$`h(y)\alpha _2,\mathrm{as}y\mathrm{},`$ (5.123)
for some positive constants $`\alpha _i`$. This boundary conditions are compatible with (5.110), and allow to construct a power series solution888The form of the series expansion is simplest to deduce by rewriting (5.110) in terms of a new variable $`x\alpha _1e^y`$.

$`F(y)`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _1e^y\left[1+{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}q_ke^{2ky}\right],`$ (5.124)
$`h(y)`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _2\left[1+{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}p_ke^{2ky}\right],(y)1,`$ (5.125)
where the first couple terms are given by

$`q_1=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _1}{A}}\right)^2\left(1+\alpha _2^2\right),q_2=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _1}{A}}\right)^4\left(1+\alpha _2^2+\alpha _2^3+\alpha _2^4\right),`$ (5.126)
$`p_1=2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _1}{A}}\right)^2\left(\alpha _21\right),p_2=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _1}{A}}\right)^4\left(\alpha _21\right)\left(\alpha _2^2+3\alpha _21\right).`$ (5.127)
(5.128)
Compatibility of the boundary conditions at the regular horizon with the equations of motion is a strong hint that such regular horizon indeed exists. This should be contrasted with the non-extremal generalization of the KT geometry discussed in . It is possible to show that boundary conditions at a regular horizon of the non-BPS generalization of the KT geometry with constant dilaton are actually incompatible with the equations of motion999On one hand, this follows indirectly from the conclusion of  that non-extremal deformations with constant dilaton produce singular horizons. One could also see this directly by repeating analysis discussed here..

Once convinced that it is consistent to impose boundary conditions of the regular horizon on (5.110), the next step is to identify restrictions on $`(\alpha _1,\alpha _2)`$ coming from the asymptotic in the UV, where we expect to recover the extremal solution (5.118). The statement that parameters $`(\alpha _1,\alpha _2)`$ compatible with the UV asymptotic exist at all, is highly nontrivial. We show however, that it is actually true.

From the first two equations in (5.110) and the boundary condition (5.125), it follows that both $`F(y)`$ and $`h(y)`$ are monotonic functions of $`y`$. While $`F(y)`$ always increases, $`h(y)`$ increases for $`\alpha _2>1`$ and decreases for $`\alpha _2<1`$. When $`\alpha _2=1`$, $`h(y)=1`$ identically. In the UV, at the extremality, we have both $`h`$ and $`F`$ increasing, thus only $`\alpha _2>1`$ can be compatible with the UV asymptotic. In what follows we assume this is the case. We would like to show now that both $`F(y)`$ and $`h(y)`$ become infinitely large at finite $`yy_{UV}`$. This follows from the fact that as $`r\mathrm{}`$, $`\mathrm{}_1(r)`$ approaches a constant — actually one, for proper normalization of the non-BPS deformation. Really, as $`h(y)1`$, the first equation in (5.110) is well approximated by

$$A^2\left[\mathrm{ln}\left(F(y)h(y)\right)\right]^{\prime \prime }4\left(F(y)h(y)\right)^2,$$
(5.129)
which can be solved exactly

$$F(y)h(y)AC_1\frac{e^{yC_1+C_2}}{1e^{2(yC_1+C_2)}},$$
(5.130)
where $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$ are integration constants. $`C_1`$ is positive as $`F(y)h(y)`$ is always positive, thus $`F(y)h(y)`$ blows up at finite $`y_{UV}=C_2/C_1`$. It is straightforward to check, that given (5.130), from the second equation in (5.110),

$$h(y)2\mathrm{log}\left[1e^{2(yC_1+C_2)}\right],\mathrm{as}yy_{UV}0.$$
(5.131)
We already mentioned that proper normalization of the non-extremal deformation requires $`y_{UV}\mathrm{log}[\mathrm{}_1(r\mathrm{})]=0`$, while we are finding that $`y_{UV}=C_2/C_1`$. This is not a contradiction. Note that equations (5.110) are invariant under an arbitrary finite shift of $`y`$. Shifts in $`y`$ can be absorbed into the multiplicative normalization of $`\alpha _1`$. Thus $`y_{UV}=0`$ uniquely fixes $`\alpha _1`$, and the only free parameter is $`\alpha _2`$ constraint by $`\alpha _2>1`$. We would like to show now that for any $`\alpha _2>1`$ we have asymptotically (5.118) for specific $`C`$ determined by $`\alpha _2`$. This is easiest to see from equation (5.117). We are looking for the most general solutions of (5.117), such that

$$F(h)\mathrm{},\mathrm{as}h\mathrm{}.$$
(5.132)
Let’s assume first that $`A=0`$. With (5.132), solution of (5.117) is a power series in $`e^{h/2}`$

$$F(h)=d_0e^{h/2}h^{1/2}\left[1+d_1e^{h/2}h^{3/2}\left(1+O\left(1/h\right)\right)+O\left(e^h\right)\right],$$
(5.133)
where $`d_0`$ and $`d_1`$ are arbitrary integration constants. It is easy to see that (5.133) also solves (5.132) with $`A0`$ to the specified order, and the corrections to (5.117) from finite $`A`$, show up as $`\delta F(h)A^2e^{h/2}`$ corrections to (5.133). Since the latter corrections are subdominant, they would generically fix $`d_1`$. This is indeed what we find

$$F(h)=d_0e^{h/2}h^{1/2}\left[1\frac{A^2}{4d_0^2}e^hh^2\left(1+O\left(1/h\right)\right)+O\left(e^{2h}\right)\right].$$
(5.134)
That is, $`d_1`$ in (5.133) is fixed to be zero for $`A0`$. Eq. (5.134) reproduces the extremal solution in the UV if we identify $`C`$ of (5.118) with $`d_0`$. Clearly $`d_0`$ depends on $`(\alpha _2,A)`$. The $`A`$ dependence is trivial. Note that the $`A`$ dependence of (5.110) drops out if we redefine $`F(y)F(y)A`$. Thus

$$Cd_0=A(\alpha _2),$$
(5.135)
where $`(\alpha _2)`$ is some specific function. Unfortunately, we do not know the relevant exact analytical solution of (5.110), and thus we can not determine this function explicitly101010Unlike solutions discussed in  there is no small parameter here which could be used to set up a perturbation theory.. Recall that for the extremal solution $`C=r_{}^2e^{2\varphi _0}`$, so from (5.135) we identify

$$\alpha _2=^1\left(\frac{r_{}^2}{A}e^{2\varphi _0}\right),$$
(5.136)
where we used $`^1`$ to denote an inverse function to $``$. We argued previously that to have a regular horizon with proper UV asymptotic $`\alpha _2>1`$, thus

$$^1\left(\frac{r_{}^2}{A}e^{2\varphi _0}\right)>1,$$
(5.137)
indirectly determines relation between the non-extremality parameter $`A`$ and the scale of the chiral symmetry breaking of the extremal solution $`r_{}`$.

Additionally, numerical results support our belief that solutions exist which properly interpolate between the boundary conditions (5.125), (5.128) at the horizon and the appropriate UV asymptotic (5.118). To do so, we set initial conditions for $`F`$ and $`h`$ using the $`p_1,q_1`$ terms in the series (5.125) at a value of $`x=e^y`$ such that the correction was small. Then we solved the first two equations of (5.110) numerically (using the variable $`x`$). For all the cases studied, both $`F\mathrm{}`$ and $`h\mathrm{}`$ at a finite value of $`x`$, which can be shifted to $`x=1`$ by the multiplicative normalization of $`\alpha _1`$ discussed above. It is then possible to check the UV asymptotic by making a log-log plot of $`Fe^{h/2}`$ versus $`h`$ near $`x=1`$ and find the power law slope. Again, in all cases studied, we found a power law between $`h^{0.49}`$ and $`h^{1/2}`$, correctly reproducing the UV asymptotic (5.118).

To summarize, in this section we constructed a family of non-extremal deformations of the singular CV-MN solution. We argued that our deformations have a regular Schwarzschild horizon, and showed that given the scale of a naked singularity of the chirally symmetric CV-MN solution, $`r_{}`$, its non-singular non-extremal deformation exists only for a range of non-extremality parameter $`A`$ determined from (5.137).

## 6 Discussion

In this paper we considered supersymmetric compactifications of type IIB string theory on resolved conifolds with torsion. We extended the no-go theorem stated previously for compact Hermitian six dimensional manifolds in  to the non-compact manifolds with the complex structure of the resolved conifold, and showed that nonvanishing torsion leads to the naked singularities in the geometry. In classifying supersymmetric compactifications we have not found the nonsingular Chamseddine-Volkov-Maldacena-Nunez solution , which was argued in  to be in the class of string backgrounds on Hermitian manifolds with torsion. As the infrared (small $`r`$) geometry of  is that of the deformed conifold, and thus its complex structure is different from the complex structure of the resolved conifold, the latter fact is not a contradiction. Classification of supersymmetric compactifications on deformed conifolds with torsion should recover solution of  and might uncover other interesting nonsingular backgrounds. We plan to return to this problem in the future.

We discussed non-extremal generalizations of the CV-MN solution describing the unbroken symmetry phase of the dual Yang Mills theory. We argued (though not proven rigorously) that the simplest solution we found have regular horizon which develops only above some critical non-extremality. This is in accord with the gauge theory where the chiral symmetry restoration occurs at finite temperature. There are lots of open questions. First of all, it would be extremely interesting to determine the exact analytical form of the function $``$ in (5.135), and thus explicitly prove the restriction on the non-extremality coming from the boundary conditions of the regular horizon. Maybe it is possible to solve (5.110) exactly111111It is possible to reduce the first two second order equations in (5.110) to first order equations; the third equation becomes then algebraic. ? We did not discuss the thermodynamical quantities of the background. It would also be interesting to study the critical black hole in this non-extremal geometry, corresponding to the gauge theory at the phase transition. Finally, the non-extremal generalization we found is rather special. It is thus interesting to find out how generic it is, and if other solutions exist, what is their interpretation.

## Acknowledgments

We wish to thank Jerome Gauntlett, Steven Gubser, Sunny Itzhaki, Igor Klebanov, Andrei Mikhailov, Amanda Peet and Joe Polchinski for valuable discussions. The work of AB was supported in part by NSF grants PHY97-22022 and PHY99-07949. The work of AF was supported by a National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship.

## Appendix

We follow notations of . The metric signature is mostly minus and the Clifford algebra is

$$\{\widehat{\gamma }^{r_i},\widehat{\gamma }^{r_j}\}=2\eta ^{r_ir_j},$$
(6.138)
where $`r_i`$ is the tangent space index and $`\eta ^{r_ir_j}`$ is the Minkowski metric. We define

$`\widehat{\gamma }^{r_1\mathrm{}r_k}=\widehat{\gamma }^{[r1}\widehat{\gamma }^{r_2}\mathrm{}\widehat{\gamma }^{r_k]},`$ (6.139)
$`\widehat{\gamma }^{11}=\widehat{\gamma }^1\mathrm{}\widehat{\gamma }^{10},`$ (6.140)
where symmetrization of indices is carried out with weight one: $`[ab]=\frac{1}{2!}(abba)`$. The notation $`\widehat{\gamma }`$ indicates a ten-dimensional quantity, while $`g`$ indicates either four or six dimensional quantity. In a Majorana representation $`\widehat{\gamma }^1`$ is antisymmetric and imaginary, and $`\widehat{\gamma }^2`$ to $`\widehat{\gamma }^{10}`$ are symmetric and imaginary. When $`r`$ indices are used, $`\widehat{\gamma }`$ matrices are purely numerical (independent of the coordinates). When they are converted to greek indices with the 10-bein $`\widehat{e}_M^r`$ or its inverse $`\widehat{e}_r^M`$, they become field dependent functions. We use roman subindices $`M,N,\mathrm{}=1,\mathrm{},10`$; $`\mu ,\nu =1,2,3,4`$ and $`m,n,\mathrm{}=5,\mathrm{},10`$.

We consider warped product geometries of the form

$$d\widehat{s}_{10}^2=e^{2A(y)}\eta _{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu e^{2B(y)}g_{mn}dy^mdy^n,$$
(6.141)
where $`A(y)`$, are $`B(y)`$ are warp factors that depend only on 6D indices. The minus sign in $`(\text{6.141})`$ allows us to have six-dimensional metric of positive signature. The natural relation between 10- and 4- (6-) beins is

$$\widehat{e}_\mu ^r=e^Ae_\mu ^r,\widehat{e}_m^r=ie^Be_m^r,$$
(6.142)
where $`i`$ in (6.142) accounts for the change of signature $`\widehat{g}_{mn}=e^{2B}g_{mn}`$. From (6.142),

$$\widehat{\gamma }_m=ie^B\gamma _m,\widehat{\gamma }^m=ie^B\gamma ^m,$$
(6.143)
with

$$\{\gamma _m,\gamma _n\}=2g_{mn}.$$
(6.144)
Note that the $`\gamma _m`$ matrices are symmetric and real.

For the $`k`$-forms we use notation $`F_{(k)}=\frac{1}{k!}F_{M_1\mathrm{}M_k}dx^{M_1}\mathrm{}dx^{M_k}`$. We define

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{/}\\ \widehat{F}\hfill \end{array}_{(k)}=\frac{1}{k!}F_{M_1\mathrm{}M_k}\widehat{\gamma }^{M_1\mathrm{}M_k}.$$
(6.145)
Note that if the $`k`$-form is nonzero only in six dimensions,

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{/}\\ \widehat{F}\hfill \end{array}_{(k)}=(i)^ke^{kB}\begin{array}{c}\text{/}\\ F\hfill \end{array}_{(k)}.$$
(6.146)
Hodge duals are defined as

$$(\widehat{}F)_{M_{k+1}\mathrm{}M_{10}}=\frac{\sqrt{|\widehat{g}|}}{k!}\widehat{ϵ}_{M_{k+1}\mathrm{}M_{10}}{}_{}{}^{M_1\mathrm{}M_k}F_{M_1\mathrm{}M_k}^{},$$
(6.147)
and similarly for the six-dimensional Hodge dual $``$. We take convention $`\widehat{ϵ}_{12\mathrm{}10}=+1`$; also $`ϵ_{5\mathrm{}10}=+1`$. We also need the adjoint exterior derivative operator, which in six-dimensions is defined as

$$d^+d.$$
(6.148)


format: text

text:
# Constraints on Neutrino Oscillations Using 1258 Days of Super-Kamiokande Solar Neutrino Data

## Abstract

We report the result of a search for neutrino oscillations using precise measurements of the recoil electron energy spectrum and zenith angle variations of the solar neutrino flux from 1258 days of neutrino-electron scattering data in Super-Kamiokande. The absence of significant zenith angle variation and spectrum distortion places strong constraints on neutrino mixing and mass difference in a flux-independent way. Using the Super-Kamiokande flux measurement in addition, two allowed regions at large mixing are found.

For over 30 years, measurements of the solar neutrino flux Cl ; Kam3 ; SAGE ; Gallex ; SKflux2  have been significantly below the prediction of the Standard Solar Models (SSMs)BP2000 ; SSMs . Neutrino flavor oscillations, similar to those seen in atmospheric neutrinosSKatmos , are a natural explanation for this discrepancy. This type of flavor conversion is inherently energy-dependent. Since Super-Kamiokande (SK) measures the energy of the recoil electron from elastic electron-neutrino scattering, it has sensitivity to this energy dependence. In addition to a conversion in vacuum, a matter-induced resonance in the sunMSW  may sufficiently enhance the disappearance probability of solar neutrinos even for small neutrino mixing. For some oscillation parameters, matter-enhanced oscillations within the earth can lead to a different flux during day-time than during the night. Therefore, either a distorted energy-dependence or a zenith angle variation of the solar neutrino flux would be considered evidence for oscillation. In addition, the shape of the distortion and zenith angle variation would determine the oscillation parameters independently from uncertainties in the SSM’s flux prediction. As a real-time solar neutrino experiment, SK can study the solar zenith angle flux variation.

Super-Kamiokande started taking data in April, 1996. It has since confirmed the deficit of solar neutrinosSKflux2 , measured the recoil energy spectrumSKspec  and carried out an initial search for zenith angle variationSKdn . In this report, we analyze the first 1258 days of data (May $`31^{\text{st}}`$, 1996 through October $`6^{\text{th}}`$, 2000) using both spectral distortion and zenith angle variation. The total number of solar neutrino events above a threshold of 5 MeV of recoil electron energy is $`18464_{590}^{+677}`$. The resulting flux of 8B solar neutrinos, $`(2.32_{0.08}^{+0.09})\times 10^6/`$(cm2s)SKflux2 , is $`0.451_{0.015}^{+0.017}`$ of the flux predicted by the reference SSM(BP2000)BP2000 .

The sample is divided into seven zenith angle bins (one day bin and six bins in $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _z`$ for the night); within each zenith angle bin, the data are divided into eight recoil electron bins. We will refer to this binning of the data as the “zenith angle spectrum” (see Fig. 1). We define the zenith angle $`\theta _z`$ of an event as the angle between the vertical direction and the solar direction at the time of the event. Day events have $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _z0`$ and night events $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _z>0`$. The size of the sample (already divided into seven zenith angles) does not allow a subdivision into 19 energy bins shown in SKflux2 . Due to this statistical limitation the lowest (5.0-5.5 MeV) and the highest (16.0-20.0 MeV) energy bin combine the flux of all zenith angles. Table 1 shows the flux, statistical and systematic uncertainty for all zenith angle and energy bins. The expected SSM flux of a particular energy bin is calculated from the total 8B and hep flux of BP2000BP2000  and the neutrino spectrum from Ortiz et al.newb8 . This neutrino spectrum is based on an improved measurement of the $`\beta `$-delayed $`\alpha `$ spectrum of the 8B decay with a small and well-controlled systematic uncertainty. Earlier reportsSKspec  used the neutrino spectrum by Bahcall et al.BP96 .

This zenith angle spectrum is analyzed in a two-neutrino oscillation scenario, which can be described with a mixing angle $`\theta `$ and a mass difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$. We consider two cases: (i) $`\nu _e\nu _{\mu ,\tau }`$ and (ii) $`\nu _e\nu _{\text{sterile}}`$. For each set of neutrino oscillation parameters ($`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$) the expected number of solar neutrinos and its zenith angle spectrum are calculated. First, the probability $`P_1`$ ($`P_2`$) of a solar neutrino to be in the mass eigenstate $`\nu _1`$ ($`\nu _2`$) on the surface of the sun is obtained from a numerical calculation which propagates a neutrino wave function from the production point in the core to the surface. This calculation uses models for the distribution of the neutrino production point in the sun BP2000 , the electron density in the sun BP2000 , and the neutrino spectrum newb8 . Above $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2=1.810^9`$ eV2 the propagation of the two mass eigenstates from the sun to the earth and inside the earth can be assumed to be incoherent. The survival probability at the detector is given by

$$P(\nu _e\nu _e)_{SK}=P_1P_{1e}+P_2P_{2e},$$
(1)
where $`P_{1e}`$ ($`P_{2e}`$) is the probability to be $`\nu _e`$ at the detector if the neutrino arrives at the earth as $`\nu _1`$ ($`\nu _2`$) taking into account matter effects inside the earth MSW . The electron density model for the earth (PREM PREM ) assumes a charge-to-mass ratio (Z/A) of 0.468 for the core and 0.497 for the mantle mantleratio . Below $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2=1.810^9`$ eV2 matter effects inside the earth are unimportant and the propagation from the sun to the earth is assumed to be coherent. The survival probability is then

$`P(\nu _e\nu _e)_{SK}`$ $`=`$ $`P_1\mathrm{cos}^2\theta +P_2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta +`$ (3)
$`2\times \sqrt{P_1P_2}\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m^2L}{2E_{\nu _e}}}),`$
where $`L`$ is the distance from the sun to the earth ranging from perihelion (winter) to aphelion (summer) 111In the case of vacuum oscillations $`P_1=\mathrm{cos}^2\theta ,P_2=\mathrm{sin}^2\theta `$, and this reduces to $`1\mathrm{sin}^22\theta \mathrm{sin}^2\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m^2L}{4E}`$.

Four experiments have quoted measurements of the solar neutrino flux: Homestake Cl  ($`2.56\pm 0.16\pm 0.16`$ SNU), SAGE SAGE  ($`75.4_{7.4}^{+7.8}`$ SNU), GALLEX/GNO Gallex  ($`74.1_{6.8}^{+6.7}`$ SNU), and SK SKflux2 . Taking an average of SAGE and GALLEX, a combined analysis results in several allowed regions. The combined analysis is performed by the method given in methglob  considering updated theoretical correlated and uncorrelated uncertainties (37Cl cross section BP96 , 71Ga cross section crossga , neutrino-electron scattering cross section crossscat , and diffusion diffusion ). The hatched areas of Fig. 2 show the allowed regions at 95% C.L.($`\chi ^2<\chi _{min}^2+5.99`$) assuming $`\nu _e\nu _{\mu ,\tau }`$ oscillation. There are four allowed regions called “small mixing angle solution” (SMA, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^210^5`$ eV2, $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta 10^2\mathrm{}10^3`$), “large mixing angle solution” (LMA, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^210^4\mathrm{}10^5`$ eV2, $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta >0.5`$), “low solution” (LOW, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^210^7`$ eV2, $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta 0.9`$)222This solution only appears at 99% C.L.; however it is usually discussed as a possible solution., and “just-so solution” ($`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2<10^9`$ eV2). The SMA and just-so solutions predict spectral distortion, while the LMA and LOW solutions predict a zenith angle variation and can therefore be constrained by the zenith angle spectrum data of SK. The hatched areas of Fig. 3 are the combined analysis allowed regions at 95% C.L. assuming $`\nu _e\nu _{\text{sterile}}`$ oscillation. In this case, LMA and LOW solutions do not occur, since there is not enough neutral current contribution to neutrino-electron scattering to accommodate the difference between the SK and the Homestake flux results.

Using the zenith angle spectrum (see Fig. 1) the probability of two neutrino oscillation scenarios was tested with a $`\chi ^2`$ method. For each energy bin $`i`$, we form a zenith angle flux difference vector $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Delta }_i}`$. Its seven zenith components $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{i,z}`$ are

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{i,z}=\frac{\varphi _{i,z}^{\text{meas}}}{\varphi _i^{\text{SSM}}}\alpha \times f(E_i,\delta _{\text{corr}})\times \frac{\varphi _{i,z}^{\text{osc}}}{\varphi _i^{\text{SSM}}}$$

where $`z`$ is the zenith angle bin, $`\varphi _{i,z}^{\text{meas}}`$ is the observed flux of each energy and zenith angle bin, and $`\varphi _i^{\text{SSM}}`$ and $`\varphi _{i,z}^{\text{osc}}`$ are the expected event rates in that bin without and with neutrino oscillation. The spectral distortion $`f`$ due to the correlated systematic error (see table 1) of $`\varphi _{i,z}`$ is scaled by the parameter $`\delta _{\text{corr}}`$. The definition of the $`\chi ^2`$ is thus

$$\chi ^2=\underset{i=1}{\overset{8}{}}\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Delta }_i}V_i^1\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Delta }_i}+\left(\frac{\delta _{\text{corr}}}{\sigma _{\text{corr}}}\right)^2$$
(4)
Each energy bin $`i`$ has also a separate $`7\times 7`$ error matrix $`V_i`$ describing the energy-uncorrelated uncertainty. $`V_i`$ is the sum of the statistical error matrix and the energy-uncorrelated systematic error matrix (see table 1), the latter of which is constructed assuming full correlation in zenith angle. The flux normalization factor $`\alpha `$ is unconstrained to make the $`\chi ^2`$ independent of the total solar neutrino flux. The correlation parameter $`\delta _{\text{corr}}`$ is constrained within $`\sigma _{\text{corr}}`$. The size and shape of the correlated error are calculated as in SKspec . The hep contribution to the neutrino flux is not constrained.

The $`\chi ^2`$ values are calculated in the parameter space, ($`10^4\mathrm{sin}^22\theta 1`$, $`10^{11}`$ eV$`{}_{}{}^{2}\mathrm{\Delta }m^210^3`$ eV2). In the case of active neutrinos, the minimum $`\chi ^2`$ value is 36.1 with 40 degrees of freedom at ($`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta =1`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2=6.5310^{10}`$ eV2). The best-fit flux normalization is $`\alpha =0.788`$, the correlation parameter is $`\delta _{\text{corr}}=0.06\sigma _{\text{corr}}`$ and the hep flux is $`0`$. The shaded areas in Fig. 2 are excluded at 95% C.L. from this flux independent analysis. Most of the SMA and just-so solutions are disfavored with this C.L.. In the case of sterile neutrinos, the minimum $`\chi ^2`$ value is 35.7 at ($`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta =1`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2=6.5710^{10}`$ eV2). All possible solutions are disfavored at 95% C.L. in this case. The best-fit flux normalization is $`\alpha =0.917`$, the correlation parameter is $`\delta _{\text{corr}}=0.06\sigma _{\text{corr}}`$ and the hep flux is $`0`$. The shaded areas in Fig. 3 show the excluded regions (95% C.L.).

Using the theoretical uncertainty of the 8B flux $`\sigma _{\text{flux}}=_{0.16}^{+0.20}`$SSM, an analysis combining flux and zenith angle spectrum has also been performed. In the active neutrino case, the minimum $`\chi ^2`$ value is 37.8 with 41 d.o.f. at the same position as the unconstrained case. The flux normalization changes to $`\alpha =0.789`$ and the correlation parameter to $`\delta _{\text{corr}}=0.02\sigma _{\text{corr}}`$ The minimum $`\chi ^2`$ point is within the just-so solution, but some LMA $`\chi ^2`$ are similar to the minimum. For example, $`\chi ^2=39.1`$ at ($`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta =0.87,\mathrm{\Delta }m^2=710^5`$ eV2) with a hep flux of 2.9$`\times `$BP2000. The dotted lines in Fig. 2 show the contours of the 95% C.L. allowed regions. In the sterile neutrino case, the minimum $`\chi ^2`$ value is 35.9 with 41 d.o.f at the same position as the unconstrained case. Flux normalization, correlation parameter and hep flux are unchanged. The inside of dotted lines in Fig. 3 is allowed at 95% C.L.. Since the allowed area from the combined flux analysis does not overlap these regions, oscillations into only sterile neutrinos are disfavored at this confidence level.

Figures 2 and 3 are based on the $`\chi ^2`$ analysis of the zenith angle spectrum. We have also performed an oscillation search using the “day/night spectrum”, which, in contrast to the zenith angle spectrum, divides the data into two zenith angle bins (day and night bin). Each of these bins is then divided into 19 energy bins SKflux2 . The $`\chi ^2`$ is defined as follows:

$`\chi ^2={\displaystyle \underset{D,N}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{19}{}}}`$
$`\left(\left({\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _{i,D/N}^{\text{meas}}}{\varphi _i^{\text{SSM}}}}\alpha \times f(E_i,\delta _{\text{corr}})\times {\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _{i,D/N}^{\text{osc}}}{\varphi _i^{\text{SSM}}}}\right)/\sigma _i\right)^2`$
$`+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta _{\text{corr}}}{\sigma _{\text{corr}}}}\right)^2,`$
The notation is analogous to that used in the $`\chi ^2`$ definition of the zenith angle spectrum analysis. $`\sigma _i`$ is the sum of statistical and uncorrelated errors added in quadrature.

The minimum $`\chi ^2`$ value is 28.2 with 34 degrees of freedom at $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta =0.4`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2=1.3810^{10}`$ eV2. The best-fit flux normalization is $`\alpha =0.488`$ and the correlation parameter is $`\delta _{\text{corr}}=0.2\sigma _{\text{corr}}`$. Figure 4 shows the 95% excluded regions using the shape of this day/night spectrum. The excluded area is similar to that obtained in the zenith angle spectrum, but more restrictive in the SMA region. The differences at the LMA and near the LOW solution are due to the zenith angle variations within the night bin. The lower left corner of the SMA predicts a slight depression of the core flux resulting in a day flux prediction that is larger than the night flux. SK measures a $`1.3\sigma `$ excess of the night flux over the day fluxSKflux2 , but the flux in the core bin is below the day flux. This leads to a slightly better fit of these parameters to the zenith angle spectrum than to the day/night spectrum. The lower left corner of the SMA 95% C.L. region is excluded at 93% C.L by the zenith angle spectrum and at 97% C.L. by the day/night spectrum analysis. Other differences are due to the use of different binnings.

In summary, Super-Kamiokande precisely measured the energy dependence and zenith angle dependence of the solar 8B neutrino flux. The data do not show a significant distortion of the spectrum or zenith angle variation. This places strong constrainins on neutrino oscillation solutions to the solar neutrino problem independently of the flux expectation. If oscillations into active neutrinos are assumed, just-so and the SMA solutions are disfavored at 93% (zenith angle spectrum) to 97% C.L.(day/night spectrum) and the LMA solutions are preferred. In conjunction with the SK 8B flux measurement, two allowed areas at large mixing remain. All possible oscillation solutions into only sterile neutrinos are disfavored at 95% confidence level.

The authors acknowledge the cooperation of the Kamioka Mining and Smelting Company. The Super-Kamiokande detector has been built and operated from funding by the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, the U.S. Department of Energy, and the U.S. National Science Foundation. This work was partially supported by the Korean Research Foundation (BK21) and the Korea Ministry of Science and Technology.


text:
# Critical Phenomena Associated with Boson Stars

Here we present a synopsis of related work HawleyChop ; Hawley  describing a study of black hole threshold

phenomena for a self-gravitating massive complex scalar field in spherical symmetry.

Studies of models of gravitational collapse have revealed structure which can arise near the threshold of black hole formation. The solutions in this regime are known as “critical solutions,” and their properties as “critical phenomena”. These solutions can arise generically, even in simple models such a massless scalar field in spherical symmetry Mattcrit .

Critical solutions can be constructed dynamically via numerical simulations, in which one considers continuous one-parameter families of initial data with the following “interpolating” property: for sufficiently large values of the family parameter, $`p`$, the evolved data describes a spacetime containing a black hole, whereas for sufficiently small values of $`p`$, the matter-energy in the spacetime disperses to large radii at late times, and no black hole forms. Within this range of parameters, there will exist a critical parameter value, $`p=p^{}`$, which demarks the onset, or threshold, of black hole formation.

Over the past decade, numerical and closed-form studies of collapse in various matter models have enlarged the picture of critical phenomena Dave ; MattYM ; Brady ; AE , so that we now have a more complete understanding of the relevant dynamics. (Interested readers should consult the reviews by Gundlach CarstenRev ; CarstenLivRev  for a more comprehensive discussion of critical phenomena.) Black-hole-threshold solutions are attractors in the sense that they are almost completely independent of the specifics of the particular family used as a generator. Up to the current time, the only initial data dependence which has been observed in critical collapse occurs in models for which there is more than one distinct black-hole-threshold solution. Critical solutions are by construction unstable, having precisely one unstable mode EC ; Koike . Thus letting $`pp^{}`$ amounts to minimizing or “tuning away” the initial amplitude of the unstable mode present in the system. These solutions also possess additional symmetry which, to date, has either been a time-translation symmetry, in which the critical solution is static or periodic, or a scale-translation symmetry (hometheticity), in which the critical solution is either continuously or discretely self-similar (CSS or DSS).

These symmetries are indicative of the two principal types of critical behavior that have been seen in black hole threshold studies (with some models exhibiting both types of behavior depending on the initial data). For Type I solutions, there is a finite minimum black hole mass which can be formed, and there exists a scaling law for the lifetime $`\tau `$ of the near-critical solutions such that $`\tau \gamma \mathrm{ln}|pp^{}|`$ where $`\gamma `$ is a model-specific exponent. In Type II critical behavior, a black hole of arbitrarily small mass can be formed, and the critical solutions are generically self-similar.

Our current interest is a critical-phenomena-inspired study of the dynamics associated with “boson stars” Kaup ; RB ; Colpi ; Jetzer ; Mielke . A boson star is given by a complex massive scalar field $`\varphi (t,r)=\varphi _0(r)\mathrm{exp}(i\omega t)`$, minimally coupled to gravity as given by general relativity. In this study, we dynamically construct critical solutions of the Einstein equations coupled to a massive, complex scalar field $`\varphi (t,r)`$, by simulating the implosion of a spherical shell of massless real scalar field $`\varphi _3(t,r)`$ around an “enclosed” boson star. The massless pulse then passes through the origin, explodes and continues to $`r\mathrm{}`$, while the massive complex (boson star) field is compressed into a state which ultimately either forms a black hole or disperses. For the massless field $`\varphi _3(0,r)`$, we choose a gaussian of fixed width $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and initial distance $`r_0`$ from the origin, and vary the amplitude $`A`$ until the critical solution is obtained (to within machine precision).

Figure 1 shows a series of snapshots from a typical simulation in which the parameter $`p`$ ($`pA`$) is slightly below the critical value $`p^{}`$, for an initial stable boson star with a mass of $`M=0.59M_{Pl}^2/m`$ (where $`M_{Pl}`$ is the Planck mass). In this figure, we have plotted the individual contributions of the complex and real fields to the total mass of the spacetime. That is, we have defined masses $`M_C`$ and $`M_R`$ of the complex and real fields, respectively. (Only in vacuum regions and for times at which the supports of the two fields do not overlap can $`M_C`$ and $`M_R`$ be interpreted as physically meaningful masses.) During this gravitational “collision,” mass is is transferred from the real to the complex field, as shown in Figure 2.

The resulting critical solutions persist for some finite amount of time which depends on the fine-tuning $`pp^{}`$ of the initial data. As we have shown in HawleyChop , the lifetimes $`\tau `$ of the near-critical solutions follow the scaling law for Type I solutions, $`\tau =\gamma \mathrm{ln}|pp^{}|`$. Here $`\gamma `$ is related to the imaginary part of the growth factor $`\sigma `$ of the unstable mode ($`\mathrm{exp}[i\sigma t]`$) by $`\mathrm{}(\sigma )=1/\gamma `$. In keeping with the Type I nature of these solutions, we find a finite minimum mass for the black hole formed for as we let $`pp^{}`$ (for $`p>p^{}`$).

The critical solutions have properties which correspond closely with those of unstable boson stars, as shown in Figure 3. To further extend the comparison between these critical solutions and boson stars, we perform a linear perturbation analysis about boson star equilibria, building on the work of Gleiser and Watkins GW . Using the method described in HawleyChop , we find the distribution for the squared frequency $`\sigma ^2`$ of boson star quasinormal modes with respect to $`\varphi _0(0)`$, and we find the radial shapes of the modes. In Figure 4 we provide a comparison between unstable modes found from our simulations and corresponding results obtained via perturbation theory about a boson star which is a ”best fit” to the simulation data. We find close agreement between the shapes and frequencies of the unstable modes obtained by these two different methods. A comparison of the next higher (oscillatory) mode also yields favorable results.

Thus the critical solutions we obtain appear to correspond to boson stars exhibiting superpositions of stable and unstable modes. For boson stars with masses somewhat less than the maximum boson star mass $`M_{\mathrm{max}}0.633M_{Pl}^2/m`$ (e.g. those boson stars with masses $`0.9M_{\mathrm{max}}`$ or less), however, we find less than complete agreement between the critical solutions and unstable boson stars of comparable mass. This is evidenced by the presence of an additional spherical shell or “halo” of matter in the critical solution, located in what would be the tail of the corresponding boson star. Interior to this halo, we find that the critical solution compares favorably with the boson star profile.

It is our contention that this halo is not part of the true critical solution, but is instead an artifact of the collision with the massless field. As one might expect, the properties of the halo are not universal, i.e. they are quite dependent on the type of initial data used. In contrast, the critical solution interior to the halo is largely independent of the form of the initial data. To demonstrate this, we use two families of initial data, given by a gaussian a “kink” ($`\varphi _3(0,r)=A/2[1+\mathrm{tanh}[(rr_0)/\mathrm{\Delta }]`$). A series of snapshots from one such pair of evolutions is shown in Figure 5. We suspect that the halo is radiated over time (via scalar radiation, or “gravitational cooling” SandSGC ) for all critical solutions. We find, however, that the time scale for radiation of the halo is comparable to the time scale for dispersal or black hole formation for each (nearly) critical solution we consider. With higher numerical precision, one might be able to more finely tune out the unstable mode, allowing more time to observe the behavior of the halo before dispersal or black hole formation occur.

For the future, we consider it worthwhile to investigate similar scenarios for neutron stars. While there have bee studies regarding the explosion of neutron stars near the minimum mass (e.g.,ENS1 ), we would like to see whether neutron stars of non-minimal mass can be driven to explode via dispersal from a critical solution.