format: text

text:
# On Eigenvalue Estimates for the Submanifold Dirac Operator

## 1. Introduction

The hypersurface Dirac operator has been used in E. Witten’s proof of the positive energy theorem . Lower bounds for the eigenvalues of this operator are given in , , . More recently (see ), under appropriate boundary conditions, the spectrum of the Dirac operator on compact manifolds with boundary has been examined. In this approach, the hypersurface Dirac operator appears naturally as a boundary term. In , the hypersurface Dirac operator is seen as an intrinsic Dirac-Schrödinger operator, with potential given by the mean curvature.

In this paper, we generalize the results for hypersurfaces obtained in  to the case of submanifolds. We start by restricting the spinor bundle of a Riemannian spin manifold to a spin submanifold endowed with the induced metric. We then relate this bundle to the twisted spinor bundle on the submanifold. For convenience, we adapt the algebraic identifications of the spinor spaces and Clifford multiplications given in .

Defining appropriate Dirac operators and relating them with the help of the spinorial Gauss formula, the submanifold Dirac operator $`D_H`$ can be seen as a generalization of the hypersurface Dirac operator. As in , we get lower bounds for the eigenvalues of $`D_H`$ in terms of the norm of the mean curvature vector, the Energy-Momentum tensor associated with an eigenspinor, and an adapted conformal change of the metric. However, as a consequence of our definitions, the established estimates hold for all codimensions.

Lower bounds for the eigenvalues of $`D_H`$ involve the scalar curvature of the submanifold as well as a normal curvature term. Assuming that the normal curvature vanishes, the Dirac operator on the submanifold twisted with the normal spinor bundle plays the same role as the intrinsic Dirac operator of the hypersurface.

As in , our identifications allow to discuss the limiting cases in terms of special sections of the spinor bundle. It turns out that these particular spinor fields generalize the notion of Killing spinors to the spinor bundle of the submanifold twisted with the normal spinor bundle.

We finally establish intrinsic analogous results for a modified twisted Dirac operator, by considering any auxiliary vector bundle attached to a manifold instead of the normal bundle of a submanifold.

We would like to thank Oussama Hijazi for his support during the preparation of this paper.

## 2. Dirac operators on submanifolds

### 2.1. Algebraic Preliminaries

In this section, we adapt algebraic material developped by C. Bär in . Basic facts concerning spinor representations can be found in classical books (see ,, or ).

Let $`m`$ and $`n`$ be two integers, we start by constructing an irreducible representation of the complex Clifford algebra $`l_{m+n}`$ from irreducible representations $`\rho _n`$ and $`\rho _m`$ of $`l_n`$ and $`l_m`$ respectively. Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_p`$ be the space of complex spinors for the representation $`\rho _p`$. Recall that if $`p`$ is even, $`\rho _p`$ is unique up to an isomorphism, and if $`p`$ is odd, there are two inequivalent irreducible representations of $`l_p`$; in this case, $`(\rho _p^j,\mathrm{\Sigma }_p^j)`$, $`j=0,1`$, denotes the representation which sends the complex volume form to $`(1)^j\mathrm{Id}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_p^j}`$. So we have to consider four cases according to the parity of $`m`$ and $`n`$.

First case: Assume that $`n`$ and $`m`$ are even. Define

$`\gamma :^m^n`$ $`\mathrm{End}_{}(\mathrm{\Sigma }_m\mathrm{\Sigma }_n)`$
$`(v,w)`$ $`\rho _m(v)(\mathrm{Id}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_n^+}\mathrm{Id}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_n^{}})+\mathrm{Id}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_m}\rho _n(w),`$
where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_n^\pm `$ is the $`\pm 1`$-eigenspace for the action of the complex volume form $`\omega _n`$ of $`l_n`$. Recall that $`\omega _n=i^{[\frac{n+1}{2}]}e_1\mathrm{}e_n`$, where $`(e_1,\mathrm{},e_n)`$ stands for any positively oriented orthonormal basis of $`^n`$ and ‘$``$’ denotes the Clifford multiplication in $`l_n`$. Then, for $`\sigma \mathrm{\Sigma }_m`$, $`\theta \mathrm{\Sigma }_n`$, for any vectors $`v^m`$ and $`w^n`$, we have:

$`\gamma (v+w)^2(\sigma \theta )`$ $`=`$ $`\rho _m(v)^2\sigma (\theta ^++\theta ^{})+\rho _m(v)\sigma (\rho _n(w)\theta ^{}\rho _n(w)\theta ^+)`$
$`+\rho _m(v)\sigma (\rho _n(w)\theta ^+\rho _n(w)\theta ^{})+\sigma \rho _n(w)^2\theta `$
$`=`$ $`(|v|^2+|w|^2)\sigma \theta .`$
Therefore, since $`\gamma (v+w)^2=|v+w|^2\mathrm{Id}`$, the map $`\gamma `$ induces a non trivial complex representation of $`l_{m+n}`$ of dimension $`2^{\frac{m+n}{2}}`$ and so $`\gamma `$ is equivalent to $`\rho _{m+n}`$.

With respect to the inclusions of $`l_m`$ and $`l_n`$ in $`l_{m+n}`$ corresponding to

$`^m`$ $`^{m+n}=^m^n\mathrm{and}^n^{m+n}=^m^n`$
$`v`$ $`(v,0)w(0,w),`$
we can write

$`\omega _{m+n}`$ $`=`$ $`i^{[\frac{m+n+1}{2}]}e_1\mathrm{}e_{m+n}`$
$`=`$ $`i^{[\frac{m+1}{2}]}i^{[\frac{n+1}{2}]}e_1\mathrm{}e_me_{m+1}\mathrm{}e_{m+n}`$
$`=`$ $`\omega _m\omega _n.`$
On the other hand, if $`\sigma \mathrm{\Sigma }_m`$ and $`\theta \mathrm{\Sigma }_n`$, then for all $`v^m`$,

$$\gamma (v\omega _n)(\sigma \theta )=\rho _m(v)\sigma \theta .$$
(2)
Therefore, since $`m`$ is even, we have

$$\gamma (\omega _{m+n})(\sigma \theta )=\rho _m(\omega _m)\sigma \rho _n(\omega _n)\theta $$

so that

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{m+n}^+`$ $`=\mathrm{\Sigma }_m^+\mathrm{\Sigma }_n^+\mathrm{\Sigma }_m^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_n^{}`$
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{m+n}^{}`$ $`=\mathrm{\Sigma }_m^+\mathrm{\Sigma }_n^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_m^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_n^+.`$
We can then define

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }:=\mathrm{\Sigma }_m\mathrm{\Sigma }_n=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{m+n}^+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{m+n}^{}.$$

Second case : Assume that $`m`$ is odd and $`n`$ is even. For $`j=0,1`$, set

$`\gamma ^j:^m^n`$ $`\mathrm{End}_{}(\mathrm{\Sigma }_m^j\mathrm{\Sigma }_n)`$
$`(v,w)`$ $`\rho _m^j(v)(\mathrm{Id}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_n^+}\mathrm{Id}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_n^{}})+\mathrm{Id}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_m^j}\rho _n(w),`$
As before, the map $`\gamma ^j`$ induces a non trivial complex representation of $`l_{m+n}`$ of dimension $`2^{[\frac{m+n}{2}]}`$. Since $`\omega _{m+n}=\omega _m\omega _n`$ as in (2.1), we have $`\gamma ^j(\omega _{m+n})=(1)^j\mathrm{Id},`$ and therefore the representations $`\gamma ^j`$ and $`\rho _{m+n}^j`$ are equivalent. Note that

$$\gamma ^j(v\omega _n)=\rho _m^j(v)\mathrm{Id}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_n},v^m.$$
(3)
Third case : Assume that $`m`$ is even and $`n`$ is odd. For $`j=0,1`$, set

$`\gamma ^j:^m^n`$ $`\mathrm{End}_{}(\mathrm{\Sigma }_m\mathrm{\Sigma }_n^j)`$
$`(v,0)`$ $`i\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \rho _m(v)\\ \rho _m(v)& 0\end{array}\right)\mathrm{Id}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_n^j}`$
$`(0,w)`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{Id}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_m^+}& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{Id}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_m^{}}\end{array}\right)\rho _n^j(w),`$
where the matrices are given with respect to the decomposition $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_m=\mathrm{\Sigma }_m^+\mathrm{\Sigma }_m^{}`$. Once again, $`\gamma ^j`$ is an irreducible complex representation of $`l_{m+n}`$. As in the previous case, $`\omega _{m+n}=\omega _m\omega _n`$ and we see that $`\gamma ^j(\omega _{m+n})=(1)^j\mathrm{Id}.`$

So we proved that $`\gamma ^j`$ is equivalent to $`\rho _{m+n}^j`$ and

$$\gamma ^j(v\omega _n)=(1)^ji\rho _m^j(v)\mathrm{Id}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_n},v^m.$$
(4)
Fourth case : Assume that $`m`$ and $`n`$ are odd. Define

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+`$ $`:=\mathrm{\Sigma }_m^0\mathrm{\Sigma }_n^0,`$
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ $`:=\mathrm{\Sigma }_m^0\mathrm{\Sigma }_n^1,`$
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ $`:=\mathrm{\Sigma }^+\mathrm{\Sigma }^{},`$
and

$`\gamma :^m^n`$ $`\mathrm{End}_{}(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$
$`(v,0)`$ $`i\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \rho _m^0(v)\tau ^1\\ \rho _m^0(v)\tau & 0\end{array}\right)`$
$`(0,w)`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \mathrm{Id}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_m^0}\tau ^1\rho _n^1(w)\\ \mathrm{Id}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_m^0}\tau \rho _n^0(w)& 0\end{array}\right),`$
where $`\tau `$ is an isomorphism from $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_n^0`$ to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_n^1`$ satisfying

$$\tau \rho _n^0(w)\tau ^1=\rho _n^1(w),w^n.$$

Now, as in previous cases, we have $`\gamma (v+w)^2=(|v|^2+|w|^2)\mathrm{Id}_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ for all $`v^m`$ and $`w^n`$. Moreover, since in the case where $`m`$ and $`n`$ are odd, $`\omega _{m+n}=i\omega _m\omega _n`$, we can show that

$$\gamma (\omega _{m+n})=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{Id}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }^+}& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{Id}_\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\end{array}\right).$$

Therefore we conclude that $`\gamma `$ is equivalent to $`\rho _{m+n}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{m+n}^\pm \mathrm{\Sigma }^\pm `$.

Besides, we have the relation

$$\gamma (v\omega _n)=i\left(\begin{array}{cc}\rho _m^0(v)\mathrm{Id}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_n^0}& 0\\ 0& \rho _m^0(v)\mathrm{Id}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_n^1}\end{array}\right),v^m.$$
(5)
### 2.2. Restriction of Spinors to a Submanifold

Let $`(\stackrel{~}{M}^{m+n},g)`$ be a Riemannian spin manifold and let $`M^m`$ be an immersed oriented submanifold in $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ with the induced Riemannian structure. Assume that $`(M^m,g_{|M})`$ is spin. If $`NM`$ is the normal vector bundle of $`M`$ in $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$, then there exists a spin structure on $`NM`$, denoted by $`\mathrm{Spin}N`$. Let $`\mathrm{Spin}M\times _M\mathrm{Spin}N`$ be the pull-back of the product fibre bundle $`\mathrm{Spin}M\times \mathrm{Spin}N`$ over $`M\times M`$ by the diagonal map. There exists a principal bundle morphism $`\mathrm{\Phi }:\mathrm{Spin}M\times _M\mathrm{Spin}N\mathrm{Spin}\stackrel{~}{M}_{|M}`$, with

$$\mathrm{\Phi }((s_M,s_N)(a,a^{}))=\mathrm{\Phi }((s_M,s_N))(aa^{})$$
(6)
for all $`(s_M,s_N)`$ in $`\mathrm{Spin}M\times _M\mathrm{Spin}N`$ and for all $`(a,a^{})`$ in $`\mathrm{Spin}(m)\times \mathrm{Spin}(n)`$, such that the following diagram commutes :

where the lower horizontal arrow is just given by juxtaposition of bases (see ).

Now, let $`𝕊:=\mathrm{\Sigma }\stackrel{~}{M}_M`$, where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\stackrel{~}{M}`$ is the spinor bundle of $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ and

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }:=\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Sigma }M\mathrm{\Sigma }N\hfill & \text{if }n\text{ or }m\text{ is even,}\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Sigma }M\mathrm{\Sigma }N\mathrm{\Sigma }M\mathrm{\Sigma }N\hfill & \text{otherwise}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Recall that there exists a hermitian inner product on $`𝕊`$, denoted by $`<.,.>`$, such that Clifford multiplication by a vector of $`T\stackrel{~}{M}_M`$ is skew-symmetric. In the following, we write $`(.,.)=\mathrm{}e(<.,.>)`$.

### 2.3. Identification of the Restricted Spinor Bundle

From the preceding considerations, it is now possible to identify $`𝕊`$ with $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. For example, if $`m`$ and $`n`$ are even, we have the following isomorphism:

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }M\mathrm{\Sigma }N`$ $``$ $`𝕊`$
$`([s_M,\sigma ],[s_N,\eta ])`$ $``$ $`[\mathrm{\Phi }(s_M,s_N),\sigma \eta ]`$
where the last equivalence class is given, for all $`(a,a^{})\mathrm{Spin}(m)\times \mathrm{Spin}(n)`$, by

$$(\mathrm{\Phi }((s_M,s_N)(a,a^{})),\sigma \eta )(\mathrm{\Phi }(s_M,s_N),\gamma (aa^{})(\sigma \eta )),$$

with respect to (6). From now on, the inverse of this isomorphism will be denoted by

$$\psi \mathrm{\Gamma }(𝕊)\psi ^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Sigma }).$$
(7)
With respect to $`<.,.>`$ and the naturally induced hermitian inner product on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, this isomorphism is unitary. This is why both inner products will be denoted by the same symbol when using this identification.

Let $`\omega _{}=\omega _n`$ if $`n`$ is even, and $`\omega _{}=i\omega _n`$ if $`n`$ is odd. Recall that in both cases $`\omega _{}^2=(1)^n`$ (compare with the definition of $`\omega _{}`$ in  and note that it keeps the same properties). From (2), (3), (4) and (5), it is easy to see that, with respect to the representation $`\gamma `$ defined in Section 2.1, Clifford multiplication by a vector field $`X`$ tangent to $`M`$ satisfies

$$\psi \mathrm{\Gamma }(𝕊),X\underset{𝑀}{}\psi ^{}=(X\omega _{}\psi )^{}.$$
(8)
### 2.4. The Gauss Formula and the Submanifold Dirac Operator

Fix $`pM`$ and denote by $`(e_1,\mathrm{},e_m,\nu _1,\mathrm{},\nu _n)`$ a positively oriented local orthonormal basis of $`T\stackrel{~}{M}_M`$ such that $`(e_1,\mathrm{},e_m)`$ (resp. $`(\nu _1,\mathrm{},\nu _n)`$) is a positively oriented local orthonormal basis of $`TM`$ (resp. $`NM`$). If $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ denotes the Levi-Civita connection of $`(\stackrel{~}{M},g)`$, then for all $`X\mathrm{\Gamma }(TM)`$, for all $`Y\mathrm{\Gamma }(NM)`$ and for $`i=1,\mathrm{},m`$, the Gauss formula can be written as

$$\stackrel{~}{}_i(X+Y)=_i(X+Y)+h(e_i,X)h^{}(e_i,Y),$$
(9)
where $`_i(X+Y)=_i^MX+_i^NY`$, and $`h^{}(e_i,.)`$ is the transpose of the second fundamental form $`h`$ viewed as a linear map from $`TM`$ to $`NM`$. Here $`\stackrel{~}{}_i`$ stands for $`\stackrel{~}{}_{e_i}`$.

Denote also by $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ and $``$ the induced spinorial covariant derivatives on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝕊)`$. Therefore, on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝕊)`$, $`=^{\mathrm{\Sigma }M}\mathrm{Id}+\mathrm{Id}^{\mathrm{\Sigma }N}`$ except for $`n`$ and $`m`$ odd where $`=(^{\mathrm{\Sigma }M}\mathrm{Id}+\mathrm{Id}^{\mathrm{\Sigma }N})(^{\mathrm{\Sigma }M}\mathrm{Id}+\mathrm{Id}^{\mathrm{\Sigma }N})`$. For $`\psi \mathrm{\Gamma }(𝕊)`$, the covariant derivative $`\psi `$ is understood via the relation $`(\psi )^{}=\psi ^{}`$.

As in , one can deduce from (9) the spinorial Gauss formula:

$$\psi \mathrm{\Gamma }(𝕊),\stackrel{~}{}_i\psi =_i\psi +\frac{1}{2}\underset{j=1}{\overset{m}{}}e_jh_{ij}\psi .$$
(10)
Now, define the following Dirac operators

$$\stackrel{~}{D}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}e_i\stackrel{~}{}_i,D=\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}e_i_i,$$

and, $`H=_{i=1}^mh(e_i,e_i)`$ denoting the mean curvature vector field,

$$D_H:=(1)^n\omega _{}\stackrel{~}{D}=(1)^n\omega _{}D+\frac{1}{2}H\omega _{}\psi $$
(11)
since $`H\omega _{}=(1)^{n1}\omega _{}H`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{D}=D\frac{1}{2}H`$ by (10).

###### Remark 2.1.

Another Dirac operator can be defined by using intrinsic Clifford multiplication and twisting the Dirac operator on the submanifold with the normal spinor bundle. This has been done by C. Bär in  by setting

$`D_M^{\mathrm{\Sigma }N}:\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$
$`\phi `$ $``$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}_ie_i\underset{𝑀}{}_i\phi \hfill & \text{ if }m\text{ or }n\text{ is even,}\hfill \\ _ie_i\underset{𝑀}{}_i\phi _ie_i\underset{𝑀}{}_i\phi \hfill & \text{ if }m\text{ and }n\text{ are odd.}\hfill \end{array}`$
In fact, with the help of (8) and (11), we can relate $`D_H`$ and $`D_M^{\mathrm{\Sigma }N}`$ by

$`(D_H\psi )^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\left((1)^n\omega _{}D\psi +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}H\omega _{}\psi \right)^{}`$ (12)
$`=`$ $`D_M^{\mathrm{\Sigma }N}\psi ^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(H\omega _{}\psi )^{},\psi \mathrm{\Gamma }(𝕊).`$
It is known that $`D_H`$ is formally self-adjoint and that $`D_H^2=\stackrel{~}{D}^{}\stackrel{~}{D}`$, where $`\stackrel{~}{D}^{}`$ is the formal adjoint of $`\stackrel{~}{D}`$ w.r.t. $`_M(.,.)v_g`$ (see ).

## 3. Estimates for the Eigenvalues of the Submanifold Dirac Operator

### 3.1. Basic Estimates

First, for any spinor field $`\psi \mathrm{\Gamma }(𝕊)`$, define the function

$$R_\psi ^N:=2\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{m}{}}(e_ie_j\mathrm{Id}\mathrm{R}_{e_i,e_j}^N\psi ,\psi /|\psi |^2)$$
(13)
on $`M_\psi :=\{xM:\psi (x)0\}`$, where $`\mathrm{R}_{e_i,e_j}^N`$ stands for spinorial normal curvature tensor. We start by giving a proof of the following result (see ):

###### Theorem 3.1 (Hijazi-Zhang).

Let $`M^m\stackrel{~}{M}^{m+n}`$ be a compact spin submanifold of a Riemannian spin manifold $`(\stackrel{~}{M},g)`$. Consider a non-trivial spinor field $`\psi \mathrm{\Gamma }(𝕊)`$ such that $`D_H\psi =\lambda \psi `$. Assume that $`m2`$ and

$$m(R+R_\psi ^N)>(m1)H^2>0$$

on $`M_\psi `$, where $`R`$ is the scalar curvature of $`(M^m,g_{|M})`$ and $`R_\psi ^N`$ is given by (13). Then one has

$$\lambda ^2\frac{1}{4}\underset{M_\psi }{inf}\left(\sqrt{\frac{m}{m1}(R+R_\psi ^N)}H\right)^2.$$
(14)
###### Proof:.

For any function $`q`$, nowhere equal to $`\frac{1}{m}`$, define the modified connection,

$$_i^\lambda =_i+\frac{1q}{2(1mq)}e_iH+q\lambda e_i\omega _{}.$$

Using the Lichnerowicz-Schrödinger formula (see ) we have

$$(D^2\psi ,\psi )=(^{}\psi ,\psi )+\frac{1}{4}(R+R_\psi ^N)|\psi |^2,$$

and one can easily compute

$`{\displaystyle _M}`$ $`|^\lambda \psi |^2v_g=`$
$`{\displaystyle _M}(1+mq^22q)\left[\lambda ^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{R+R_\psi ^N}{(1+mq^22q)}}{\displaystyle \frac{(m1)H^2}{(1mq)^2}}\right)\right]|\psi |^2v_g`$ (15)
Then, assuming $`m(R+R_\psi ^N)>(m1)H^2>0`$ on $`M_\psi `$, we can choose $`q`$ so that

$$(1mq)^2=\frac{(m1)H}{\sqrt{\frac{m}{m1}(R+R_\psi ^N)}H}\text{ on }M_\psi .$$
(16)
Inserting equation (16) in (3.1), and since the complement of $`M_\psi `$ in $`M`$ is of zero-measure, we conclude by observing that the left member of (3.1) is nonnegative. ∎

Let $`\kappa _1`$ be the lowest eigenvalue of the self-adjoint operator $`^N`$ defined by

$`^N:\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝕊)`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝕊)`$ (17)
$`\phi `$ $``$ $`2{\displaystyle \underset{i,j=1}{\overset{m}{}}}e_ie_j\mathrm{Id}\mathrm{R}_{e_i,e_j}^N\phi .`$ (18)
The hypothesis $`m(R+R_\psi ^N)>(m1)H^2>0`$ in Theorem 3.1 can be strengthened to give

###### Corollary 3.2.

Under the same hypotheses as in Theorem 3.1, assume that $`m2`$ and

$$m(R+\kappa _1)>(m1)H^2>0$$

on $`M`$, then

$$\lambda ^2\frac{1}{4}\underset{M}{inf}\left(\sqrt{\frac{m}{m1}(R+\kappa _1)}H\right)^2.$$
(19)
Recall that in the case of hypersurfaces, limiting cases are characterized by the existence of a real Killing spinor on $`M`$ and the fact that the mean curvature $`H`$ is constant (see  and ). A non-zero section $`\psi `$ of $`𝕊`$ satisfying

$$X\mathrm{\Gamma }(TM),_X\psi ^{}=\frac{\mu }{m}X\underset{𝑀}{}\psi ^{}$$

for a given real constant $`\mu `$ will be called a twisted (real) Killing spinor.

###### Proposition 3.3.

If equality holds in (19), then $`(M^m,g_{|M})`$ admits a twisted Killing spinor and $`H`$ is constant.

###### Proof:.

Suppose the limiting case holds in (19), then the right hand side has to be constant on $`M`$, and

$$\lambda ^2=\frac{1}{4}(\sqrt{\frac{m}{m1}(R+\kappa _1)}H)^2,^\lambda \psi =0,\text{ on }M.$$
(20)
Note that equality holds in (14) which yields $`R_\psi ^N=\kappa _1`$. Hence $`\psi `$ is an eigenspinor for the operator $`^N`$ with eigenvalue $`\kappa _1`$. Using (20), we can show that $`|\psi |`$ must be constant on $`M`$ (therefore, $`M_\psi =M`$) and compute

$`D\psi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}}e_i\left({\displaystyle \frac{1q}{2(1mq)}}e_iH\psi +q\lambda e_i\omega _{}\psi \right)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m(1q)}{2(1mq)}}H\psi +mq\lambda \omega _{}\psi .`$
Then, by (11) and the fact that $`H\omega _{}=(1)^{n1}\omega _{}H`$,

$`0`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda \omega _{}\psi +{\displaystyle \frac{H}{2}}\psi {\displaystyle \frac{m(1q)}{2(1mq)}}H\psi mq\lambda \omega _{}\psi `$
$`0`$ $`=`$ $`(1mq)^2\lambda \omega _{}\psi (m1){\displaystyle \frac{H}{2}}\psi .`$
Since in the equality case, $`\sqrt{\frac{m}{m1}(R+\kappa _1)}H=2|\lambda |`$, we can deduce the relation:

$$\omega _{}\psi =\mathrm{sgn}(\lambda )\frac{H}{H}\psi .$$

With respect to the isomorphism “$`^{}`$”, we can rewrite equation (20) as an intrinsic equation on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$:

$`X\mathrm{\Gamma }(TM),_X\psi ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{m}}X\underset{𝑀}{}\psi ^{}`$
$`\text{with }\mu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sgn}(\lambda )}{2}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{m}{m1}}(R+\kappa _1)}.`$
Note that if there exists two smooth real functions $`f`$ and $`\kappa `$ on $`M`$ and a non-zero section $`\psi `$ of $`𝕊`$ satisfying for all vector field $`X`$ on $`M`$

$$_X\psi ^{}=\frac{f}{m}X\underset{𝑀}{}\psi ^{}\mathrm{and}^N\psi =\kappa \psi ,$$

then, by computing the action of the curvature tensor on $`\psi ^{}`$, we see that necessarily

$$\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{Ric}(X)\underset{𝑀}{}\psi ^{}\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}(e_i\mathrm{Id}\mathrm{R}_{X,e_i}^N)\psi ^{}=\frac{1}{m}\mathrm{d}f\underset{𝑀}{}X\underset{𝑀}{}\psi ^{}\mathrm{d}f(X)\psi ^{}+2\frac{m1}{m^2}f^2X\underset{𝑀}{}\psi ^{}$$

which implies

$$f^2=\frac{m}{4(m1)}(R+\kappa )=\mathrm{constant}.$$

Moreover, in the equality case, the fact that $`f`$ is constant implies that $`H`$ is constant.∎

###### Remark 3.4.

If the normal curvature tensor is zero, then $`\mu `$ has to be constant and the manifold $`M`$ must be Einstein with mean curvature vector being of constant length. Besides, the equality case corresponds to that of Friedrich’s inequality. Therefore $`\mu `$ is the first eigenvalue of the Dirac operator $`D_M^{\mathrm{\Sigma }N}`$.

### 3.2. Estimate Involving the Energy-Momentum Tensor

If $`\psi \mathrm{\Gamma }(𝕊)`$ is a spinor field, we define the Energy-Momentum tensor $`Q^\psi `$ associated with $`\psi `$ on $`M_\psi `$ by

$$Q_{ij}^\psi =\frac{1}{2}(e_i\omega _{}_j\psi +e_j\omega _{}_i\psi ,\psi /|\psi |^2).$$

Note that

$$Q_{ij}^\psi =\frac{1}{2}(e_i\underset{𝑀}{}_j\psi ^{}+e_j\underset{𝑀}{}_i\psi ^{},\psi ^{}/|\psi ^{}|^2).$$

Therefore, $`Q^\psi `$ is the intrinsic Energy-Momentum tensor associated with $`\psi ^{}`$. Observe that this intrinsic Energy-Momentum tensor is the one that appears in the Einstein-Dirac equation (see ). We prove the following (compare with )

###### Theorem 3.5.

Let $`M^m\stackrel{~}{M}^{m+n}`$ be a compact spin submanifold of a Riemannian spin manifold $`(\stackrel{~}{M},g)`$. Consider a non-trivial spinor field $`\psi \mathrm{\Gamma }(𝕊)`$ such that $`D_H\psi =\lambda \psi `$. Assume that

$$R+\kappa _1+4|Q^\psi |^2>H^2>0$$

on $`M_\psi `$. Then one has

$$\lambda ^2\frac{1}{4}\underset{M_\psi }{inf}\left(\sqrt{R+\kappa _1+4|Q^\psi |^2}H\right)^2.$$
(21)
###### Proof:.

For any real function $`q`$ that never vanishes, consider the modified covariant derivative defined on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝕊)`$ by

$`_i^Q=_i{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2mq}}e_iH+(1)^{n+1}q\lambda e_i\omega _{}+{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}Q_{ij}^\psi e_j\omega _{}.`$
As in the proof of Theorem 3.1, we compute

$`{\displaystyle _M}`$ $`|^Q\psi |^2v_g=`$
$`{\displaystyle _M}(1+mq^2)\left[\lambda ^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{R+R_\psi ^N+4|Q^\psi |^2}{(1+mq^2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{H^2}{mq^2}}\right)\right]|\psi |^2v_g`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle _M}(1+mq^2)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2}{mq(1+mq^2)}}(H^2{\displaystyle \frac{<H\psi ,\omega _{}\psi >^2}{|\psi |^4}})\right]|\psi |^2v_g`$ (22)
To finish the proof of Theorem 3.5, if $`R+\kappa _1+4|Q^\psi |^2>H^2>0`$, we take

$$q=\sqrt{\frac{H}{m(\sqrt{R+\kappa _1+4|Q^\psi |^2}H)}},$$

and then observe that by the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, we have

$$H^2\frac{<H\psi ,\omega _{}\psi >^2}{|\psi |^4}0.$$
(23)
Suppose now that equality holds in (21). Then

$$^Q\psi =0,|\lambda |=\frac{1}{2}(\sqrt{R+\kappa _1+4|Q^\psi |^2}||H||)\mathrm{and}^N\psi =\kappa _1\psi .$$

Moreover,

$$H^2\frac{<H\psi ,\omega _{}\psi >^2}{|\psi |^4}=0,$$

so that, by the equality case in the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality,

$$\omega _{}\psi =fH\psi ,$$

for some real function $`f`$ on $`M`$. As in the preceding section, and taking into account the identification (7), we deduce that $`f=\frac{\mathrm{sgn}(\lambda )}{H},`$ and that the section $`\psi `$ satisfies

$$_i\psi ^{}=\underset{j}{}Q_{ij}^\psi e_j\underset{𝑀}{}\psi ^{}.$$
(24)
Hence, we can say that $`\psi `$ is a kind of Energy-Momentum spinor (see ). We will call such a section a twisted EM-spinor. One can give an integrability condition for the existence of twisted EM-spinors, by computing the action of the curvature tensor on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝕊)`$:

$$(\mathrm{tr}(Q^\psi ))^2=\frac{1}{4}(R+R_\psi ^N+4|Q^\psi |^2).$$

This implies, with equation (24), that the section $`\psi ^{}`$ is an “eigenspinor” for $`D_M^{\mathrm{\Sigma }N}`$ associated with the function $`\pm \frac{1}{2}\sqrt{R+\kappa _1+4|Q^\psi |^2}`$. Note that this function is constant if and only if $`H`$ is constant.

### 3.3. Conformal Lower Bounds

Consider a conformal change of the metric $`\overline{g}=e^{2u}g`$ for a real function $`u`$ on $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$. Let

$`𝕊`$ $`\overline{𝕊}`$ (25)
$`\psi `$ $`\overline{\psi }`$
be the induced isometry between the two corresponding spinor bundles. Recall that if $`\phi `$, $`\psi `$ are two sections of $`𝕊`$, and $`Z`$ any vector field on $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$, we have

$$(\phi ,\psi )=(\overline{\phi },\overline{\psi })_{\overline{g}}\mathrm{and}\overline{Z}\overline{}\overline{\psi }=\overline{Z\psi },$$

where $`\overline{Z}=e^uZ`$. We will also denote by $`\overline{g}=(e^{2u}g)_M`$ the restriction of $`\overline{g}`$ to $`M`$.

Note that this isomorphism commutes with the isomorphism “$`^{}`$” given by (7). By conformal covariance of the Dirac operator, for $`\psi \mathrm{\Gamma }(𝕊)`$, we have,

$$\overline{D}\left(e^{\frac{(m1)}{2}u}\overline{\psi }\right)=e^{\frac{(m+1)}{2}u}\overline{D\psi },$$
(26)
where $`\overline{D}`$ stands for the Dirac operator w.r.t. to $`\overline{g}`$. On the other hand, the corresponding mean curvature vector field is given by

$$\stackrel{~}{H}=e^{2u}\left(Hm\mathrm{grad}^Nu\right).$$
(27)
Now, assume that $`\mathrm{grad}^Nu=0`$. If $`\overline{D}_H`$ stands for the submanifold Dirac operator w.r.t. to $`\overline{g}`$, equations (26) and (27) imply that $`\overline{D}_H`$ is a conformally covariant operator, i.e.

$$\overline{D}_H\left(e^{\frac{(m1)}{2}u}\overline{\psi }\right)=e^{\frac{(m+1)}{2}u}\left(\overline{D_H\psi }\right).$$
(28)
for any section $`\psi `$ of $`𝕊`$.

¿From now on, we will only consider regular conformal changes of the metric, i.e., $`\overline{g}=e^{2u}g`$ with $`\mathrm{grad}^Nu=0`$, on $`M`$.

###### Theorem 3.6.

Let $`M^m\stackrel{~}{M}^{m+n}`$ be a compact spin submanifold of a Riemannian spin manifold $`(\stackrel{~}{M},g)`$. Consider a non-trivial spinor field $`\psi \mathrm{\Gamma }(𝕊)`$ such that $`D_H\psi =\lambda \psi `$. For any regular conformal change of the metric $`\overline{g}=e^{2u}g`$ on $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$, assume that

$$\overline{R}e^{2u}+\kappa _1+4|Q^\psi |^2>H^2>0$$

on $`M_\psi `$. Then one has

$$\lambda ^2\frac{1}{4}\underset{M_\psi }{inf}\left(\sqrt{\overline{R}e^{2u}+\kappa _1+4|Q^\psi |^2}H\right)^2.$$
(29)
###### Proof:.

For $`\psi \mathrm{\Gamma }(𝕊)`$ an eigenspinor of $`D_H`$ with eigenvalue $`\lambda `$, let $`\overline{\phi }:=e^{\frac{n1}{2}u}\overline{\psi }`$. Then (28) gives $`\overline{D}_H\overline{\phi }=\lambda e^u\overline{\phi }.`$ Recall that

$`\overline{}_i\overline{\psi }=\overline{_i\psi }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{e_i\mathrm{d}u\psi }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e_i(u)\overline{\psi },`$
and $`\overline{e_i}=e^ue_i.`$ Now, it is straightforward to get $`\overline{Q}_{\overline{i}\overline{j}}^{\overline{\phi }}=e^uQ_{ij}^\psi `$, hence,

$$|\overline{Q}^{\overline{\phi }}|^2=e^{2u}|Q^\psi |^2.$$
(30)
Equation (3.2), which is also true on $`(\stackrel{~}{M},\overline{g})`$, applied to $`\overline{\phi }`$ yields

$`{\displaystyle _M}`$ $`|\overline{}^{\overline{Q}}\overline{\phi }|^2v_{\overline{g}}=`$
$`{\displaystyle _M}(1+mq^2)\left[(\lambda e^u)^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\overline{R}+\overline{R}_{\overline{\phi }}^N+4|\overline{Q}^{\overline{\phi }}|^2}{(1+mq^2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{H}_{\overline{g}}^2}{mq^2}}\right)\right]|\overline{\phi }|_{\overline{g}}^2v_{\overline{g}}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle _M}(1+mq^2)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2}{mq(1+mq^2)}}(\stackrel{~}{H}_{\overline{g}}^2{\displaystyle \frac{<\stackrel{~}{H}\overline{}\overline{\phi },\overline{\omega _{}}\overline{}\overline{\phi }>_{\overline{g}}^2}{|\phi |_{\overline{g}}^4}})\right]|\overline{\phi }|_{\overline{g}}^2v_{\overline{g}}.`$
Since $`\stackrel{~}{H}=e^u\overline{H}`$, and $`\overline{R}_{\overline{\phi }}^N=e^{2u}R_\psi ^N`$, we have

$`{\displaystyle _M}`$ $`|\overline{}^{\overline{Q}}\overline{\phi }|^2v_{\overline{g}}=`$
$`{\displaystyle _M}(1+mq^2)e^{2u}\left[\lambda ^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\overline{R}e^{2u}+R_\psi ^N+4|Q^\psi |^2}{(1+mq^2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{H^2}{mq^2}}\right)\right]|\overline{\phi }|^2v_{\overline{g}}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle _M}(1+mq^2)e^{2u}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2}{mq(1+mq^2)}}(H^2{\displaystyle \frac{<H\psi ,\omega _{}\psi >^2}{|\psi |^4}})\right]|\overline{\phi }|^2v_{\overline{g}}.`$
As in the proof of Theorem 3.5, we finally take

$$q=\sqrt{\frac{H}{m(\sqrt{\overline{R}e^{2u}+\kappa _1+4|Q^\psi |^2}H)}}$$

and use the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality (23). ∎

If the hypothesis in Theorem 3.6 is satisfied by an eigenfunction $`u_1`$ associated with the first eigenvalue $`\mu _1`$ of the Yamabe operator, then one has:

###### Corollary 3.7.

Under the same conditions as in Theorem 3.6, assume that $`m3`$ and $`\mu _1+\kappa _1+4|Q^\psi |^2>H^2>0`$ on $`M_\psi `$, then

$$\lambda ^2\frac{1}{4}\underset{M_\psi }{inf}\left(\sqrt{\mu _1+\kappa _1+4|Q^\psi |^2}H\right)^2.$$

###### Corollary 3.8.

Under the same conditions as in Theorem 3.6, if $`M`$ is a compact surface of genus zero and $`\frac{8\pi }{\mathrm{Area}(M)}+\kappa _1+4|Q^\psi |^2>H^2>0`$ on $`M_\psi `$, then

$$\lambda ^2\frac{1}{4}\underset{M_\psi }{inf}\left(\sqrt{\frac{8\pi }{\mathrm{Area}(M)}+\kappa _1+4|Q^\psi |^2}H\right)^2.$$

Now suppose that equality holds in (29). Then

$`\overline{}^{\overline{Q}}\overline{\phi }=0,\omega _{}\psi =\epsilon {\displaystyle \frac{H}{H}}\psi \text{ where }\epsilon \{\pm 1\},`$
$`|\lambda |={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\sqrt{\overline{R}e^{2u}+\kappa _1+4|Q^\psi |^2}H\right)\mathrm{and}^N\psi =\kappa _1\psi .`$
Using (25) and (30), it follows $`\epsilon =\mathrm{sgn}(\lambda )`$ and

$$_i\psi ^{}=\frac{1}{2}e_i\underset{𝑀}{}\mathrm{d}u\underset{𝑀}{}\psi ^{}+\frac{m}{2}\mathrm{d}u(e_i)\psi ^{}\underset{j}{}Q_{ij}^\psi e_j\underset{𝑀}{}\psi ^{}$$
(31)
with $`\mathrm{d}u=\frac{2\mathrm{d}(\mathrm{ln}(|\psi |))}{m1}`$. Non-trivial spinor fields satisfying equation (31) will be naturally called twisted WEM-spinors (compare with ).

## 4. Final Remark

In this section, we show that the normal bundle of the submanifold can be replaced by an auxiliary arbitrary vector bundle on the submanifold. Thus, all the preceding computations could be done in an intrinsic way to obtain results for a twisted Dirac operator on the manifold.

Let $`(M^m,g)`$ be a compact Riemannian spin manifold. Let $`NM`$ be a Riemannian vector bundle of rank $`n`$ over $`M`$. Suppose that $`N`$ is endowed with a metric connection $`^N`$ and a spin structure. Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }M`$ (resp. $`\mathrm{\Sigma }N`$) be the spinor bundle of $`M`$ (resp. $`N`$). Set

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }:=\mathrm{\Sigma }M\mathrm{\Sigma }N.$$

Recall that Clifford multiplication on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ by a tangent vector field $`X`$ is given by:

$$\psi \mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Sigma }),X\psi =(\rho _M(X)\mathrm{Id}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }N})(\psi ).$$

Define the tensor-product connection $``$ on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ by

$$=^{\mathrm{\Sigma }M}\mathrm{Id}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }N}+\mathrm{Id}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }M}^{\mathrm{\Sigma }N},$$

where $`^{\mathrm{\Sigma }M}`$ and $`^{\mathrm{\Sigma }N}`$ are the induced connections on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Sigma }M)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Sigma }N)`$ respectively. Let $`D_M^{\mathrm{\Sigma }N}`$ be the twisted Dirac operator given by

$$D_M^{\mathrm{\Sigma }N}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}e_i_i.$$

For any smooth real function $`f`$ on $`M`$, define the modified twisted Dirac operator by

$$D_f=D_M^{\mathrm{\Sigma }N}\frac{f}{2}.$$

For $`\lambda `$, consider the following modified connections

$`\widehat{}_i^\lambda `$ $`=`$ $`_i+{\displaystyle \frac{(1q)f}{2(1mq)}}e_i+q\lambda e_i`$
$`\widehat{}_i^Q`$ $`=`$ $`_i{\displaystyle \frac{f}{2mq}}e_i+(1)^{n+1}q\lambda e_i+{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}Q_{ij}^\psi e_j`$
where $`Q^\psi `$ is now the intrinsic Energy-Momentum tensor associated with $`\psi `$.

Note that these connections can be obtained from those defined in section 3, assuming that

$$H\psi =f\omega _{}\psi .$$

In fact, this is the only way to give an intrinsic meaning to the modified connection used before. Then the same computations as in the proofs of Theorem 3.1, 3.5 and 3.6, lead to the following assertions:

Let $`(M^m,g)`$ be a compact Riemannian spin manifold with $`NM`$ an auxiliary oriented Riemannian spin vector bundle of rank $`n`$. Let $`\psi \mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ be an eigenspinor for the modified twisted Dirac operator $`D_f`$, associated with the eigenvalue $`\lambda `$. Then,

###### Proposition 4.1.

Assume that $`m2`$ and $`m(R+\kappa _1)>(m1)f^2>0`$ on $`M_\psi `$. Then one has

$$\lambda ^2\frac{1}{4}\underset{M_\psi }{inf}\left(\sqrt{\frac{m}{m1}(R+\kappa _1)}|f|\right)^2.$$

If equality holds, $`(M^m,g)`$ admits a twisted Killing spinor.

Following the proof of Theorem 3.6, we can extend the previous theorem by performing a conformal change of the metric on $`M`$. For the limiting case, just note that $`Q^\psi =\frac{1}{m}\mathrm{tr}(Q^\psi )g`$.

###### Proposition 4.2.

Assume that $`m2`$ and $`m(\overline{R}e^{2u}+\kappa _1)>(m1)f^2>0`$ on $`M_\psi `$ for any conformal change of the metric $`\overline{g}=e^{2u}g`$ on $`M`$. Then one has

$$\lambda ^2\frac{1}{4}\underset{M_\psi }{inf}\left(\sqrt{\frac{m}{m1}(\overline{R}e^{2u}+\kappa _1)}|f|\right)^2.$$

If equality holds, $`(M^m,\overline{g})`$ admits a twisted WEM-spinor, with $`Q^\psi =\frac{\mu }{m}g`$, where

$$\mu ^2=\frac{1}{4}\frac{m}{m1}(\overline{R}e^{2u}+\kappa _1).$$

###### Proposition 4.3.

Assume that $`R+\kappa _1+4|Q^\psi |^2>f^2>0`$ on $`M_\psi `$. Then one has

$$\lambda ^2\frac{1}{4}\underset{M_\psi }{inf}\left(\sqrt{R+\kappa _1+4|Q^\psi |^2}|f|\right)^2.$$

If equality holds, $`(M^m,g)`$ admits a twisted EM-spinor.

###### Proposition 4.4.

Assume that $`\overline{R}e^{2u}+\kappa _1+4|Q^\psi |^2>f^2>0`$ on $`M_\psi `$ for any conformal change of the metric $`\overline{g}=e^{2u}g`$ on $`M`$. Then one has

$$\lambda ^2\frac{1}{4}\underset{M_\psi }{inf}\left(\sqrt{\overline{R}e^{2u}+\kappa _1+4|Q^\psi |^2}|f|\right)^2.$$

If equality holds, $`(M^m,g)`$ admits a twisted WEM-spinor.

###### Remark 4.5.

Assuming the normal curvature tensor is zero and $`f`$ is constant, then the necessary conditions for the equality cases in Theorem 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4 become sufficient conditions. Moreover, when $`m`$ is odd, the considered Dirac operator may have to be defined with the opposite Clifford multiplication according to the sign of $`f`$.


text:
# Quark-Antiquark Potential and Generalized Borel Transform Partially supported by CONICET and ANPCyT-Argentina.

## Abstract

The heavy quark potential and particularly the one proposed by Richardson to incorporate both asymptotic freedom and linear confinement is analyzed in terms of a generalized Borel Transform recently proposed. We were able to obtain, in the range of physical interest, an approximate analytical expression for the potential in coordinate space valid even for intermediate distances. The deviation between our approximate potential and the numerical evaluation of the Richardson’s one is much smaller than $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ of QCD. The $`c\overline{c}`$ and $`b\overline{b}`$ quarkonia energy levels agree reasonably well with experimental data for $`c`$ and $`b`$ masses in good agreement with the values obtained from experiments.

Classification: 12.38 Aw - 12.38 Lg
Keywords: quark-antiquak potential; Borel transform; analytic properties.

Among the different proposals for describing quark-antiquark interactions, the Richardson’s potential , due to its is simple structure, has been the subject of continuous interest . This potential requieres, in the author words, the minimal number of parameters. In fact, the only parameter entering the potential is the QCD related scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. This potential, designed in order to present both asymptotic freedom and linear quark confinement includes the single dressed gluon exchange amplitude, namely

$$V(q)=\frac{4}{3}\frac{\alpha _s(q^2)}{q^2}$$
(1)
Asymptotic freedom is present as soon as one adopts for $`\alpha _s(q^2)`$ the effective running coupling constant provided by the renormalization group. Quark confinement is imposed by requiring that for $`q`$ small $`V(q)`$ behaves as the inverse four power of $`q`$ that guarantees a linear behavior in $`r`$. Then, the Richardson’s potential reads

$$V^R(q)=\frac{16\pi ^2C_F}{\beta _0}\frac{1}{q^2\mathrm{ln}(1+q^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2)}$$
(2)
where $`C_F`$ is a group coefficient.

It is clear that the explicit calculation of the QCD coupling constant in position space is crucial when the Richardson’s potential is to be applied in a concrete case. This is because the Fourier transform of (2) provides the configuration space expression

$$\overline{V}^R(r)=\frac{C_F}{r}\frac{2\pi }{\beta _0}\overline{\alpha }(1/r)=\frac{C_F}{r}\frac{2\pi }{\beta _0}\left[a(1/r)\mathrm{\Lambda }^2r^2\right]$$
(3)
Here

$$a(1/r)=14f(r)$$
(4)
$$f(r)_1^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dq}{q}\frac{e^{q\mathrm{\Lambda }r}}{\left[\mathrm{ln}(q^21)\right]^2+\pi ^2}$$
(5)
This expression was only computed numerically. There exist some analytical results corresponding to some asymptotic conditions. For example, for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }r1`$, the Richardson’s potential was shown to behave softer than the Coulomb interaction , namely

$$\overline{V}^R(r)\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }r\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{\Lambda }r)}$$
(6)
and for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }r1`$ provides linear confinement.

Our main point in this paper is the calculation of the strong coupling constant in position space starting from the last integral representation eq.(5). In so doing, we provide either an input for the Richardson’s potential in configuration space or to any other alternative proposal for the quark potential including the original QCD running coupling constant or any alternative expression . To this end, we fully analyze the analytic structure of the integral in the Borel plane . Then, we are able to obtain the potential behaviour as a function of $`r`$, including intermediate distances.

Any perturbative analysis starts from the general relationship between $`V(q)`$ and $`\overline{V}(r)`$ that ends with the corresponding relation between the couplings $`\alpha _s(q)`$ and $`\overline{\alpha }(1/r)`$. Notice that in the perturbative calculation, $`\overline{\alpha }(1/r)`$ coincides with $`a(1/r)`$. Moreover, it has been shown  that one can write, for any static potential,

$$\overline{\alpha }(1/r)=\underset{n}{}f_n\left[\beta (\alpha _s)\frac{}{\alpha _s}\right]^n\alpha _s(q=\kappa /r)$$
(7)
where $`f_n`$ are known constants, $`\kappa =exp(\gamma _E)`$ a constant and $`\beta (\alpha _s)\mu ^2\alpha _s(q)/\mu ^2`$. In the case of the Richardson’s potential, this series is asymptotically ($`q^21`$) factorial divergent and its Borel sum does not exist, namely

$$\overline{\alpha }(1/r)\alpha _s(q=\kappa /r)\underset{n}{}f_n\left[\beta _0\alpha _s(q=\kappa /r)\right]^nn!$$

Certainly, this expression provides sensible results only for very small distances because at increasing distances the non-perturbative contributions start to be important.

It is worth mentioning that the analytic behaviour of $`\overline{\alpha }(1/r)`$ has been studied  by summing the divergent asymptotic series by using the standard Borel formalism. Clearly, being the expression no Borel summable, the Borel transform $`B(s)`$ has singularities for different values $`s_k`$ on the integration path of

$$\overline{\alpha }(1/r)=_0^{\mathrm{}}exp\left[s/\alpha (q=\kappa /r)\right]B(s)𝑑s$$

Consequently, it can be defined only in principal value, showing ambiguities coming from the exponential in this integral. This approach implies that the non-perturbative contribution is considered of the same order of magnitude as the ambiguity inherent to the method . An additional problem coming from the use of a perturbative $`\alpha _s`$ is the presence of the Landau pole, conditioning the validity of any amplitude representing any physical observable to a finite range of energy. In this respect, there is an alternative proposal  that starts from a modification of the $`\alpha _s`$ definition that avoids the Landau pole but retains the standard properties. Nevertheless, this change implies a modification in the linear confinement behaviour loosing the standard connection with the string tension.

All the previous mentioned problems can be avoided by using the generalized Borel Transform (GBT) that was introduced in Ref. . This version of the Borel transform was originally defined on a finite lattice but it can be readily adapted to the continuum, preserving all of its characteristics.

The main vantage of this proposal comes from the fact that its analytic properties have no ambiguities. Moreover, it allows to perform computations in terms of a real and positive arbitrary parameter $`\lambda `$ avoiding the implementation of perturbative expansions. The approach generally ends with non-perturbative calculations of the saddle point type, when $`\lambda `$ takes large arbitrary values. This is possible because the generalization implies the definition of a valid Borel transformation for each value of the parameter $`\lambda `$. Then, the better adapted value for each particular problem can be chosen. In other words, when using the GBT, a function of $`B_\lambda (s)`$, a whole class of transformations is performed. It is found that, as it should be, the results do not depend on $`\lambda `$. For the particular case of the present paper, this can be summarize as

$$a(1/r)=T_\lambda ^1\left[T_\lambda \left(a(1/r)\right)\right]whereT_\lambda \left(a(1/r)\right)B_\lambda (s)for\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}0}<r<\mathrm{}$$

We start by presenting our previous generalization  of the Borel transform of a function $`f(r)`$, namely

$$B_\lambda (s)=_0^{\mathrm{}}exp[s/\eta (r)]\left[\frac{1}{\lambda \eta (r)}+1\right]^{\lambda s}f(r)d(1/\eta (r));Re(s)<0$$
(8)
Among the properties of this definition we want to notice that it is valid for any analytic function $`\eta (r)`$ in the interval $`0<r<\mathrm{}`$ that allows to define

$$u_\lambda (r)\frac{1}{\eta (r)}\lambda \mathrm{ln}\left[\frac{1}{\lambda \eta (r)}+1\right]$$
(9)
being monotonically increasing in the same interval if $`\eta (r)`$ is. Consequently, the integral transform can be written as

$$B_\lambda (s)=_0^{\mathrm{}}exp[su]f[r_\lambda (u)]\{1+\lambda \eta [r_\lambda (u)]\}𝑑u;Re(s)<0$$
(10)
where $`r_\lambda (u)`$ is the inverse coming from the change of variables. From the last expression it is clear that

$$B_\lambda (s)=_0^{\mathrm{}}exp(su)L_\lambda [r(u)]𝑑u;Re(s)<0$$
(11)
is the Laplace transform of the function $`L_\lambda [r(u)]`$ implicitly defined. That definition implies that $`\eta (r)`$ gives rise to an analytic transformation in the negative Borel half-plane, such that its extension to the other half-plane is also analytic with a cut on the real positive axis. From this observation it is clear that $`f(r)`$ can be unambiguously expressed in terms of the inverse Laplace transform integrated on the above mentioned cut (for details see Ref. )

$$f(r)=\frac{1}{\lambda \eta (r)+1}_0^{\mathrm{}}exp[s/\eta (r)]\left[\frac{1}{\lambda \eta (r)}+1\right]^{\lambda s}\mathrm{}B_\lambda (s)𝑑s$$
(12)
As it was said before, the parameter $`\lambda `$ can take any real positive non zero value generating a continuous family of transformations. A large value of $`\lambda `$ could be useful because in this case asymptotic techniques can be used in the calculations.

From this point on, a series of almost trivial calculations follows. Let us only indicate the most important steps. Using the ansatz $`1/\eta (r)=\lambda \left[exp(\mathrm{\Lambda }r/\lambda )1\right]`$ which is well defined for $`0<r<\mathrm{}`$, the function $`u_\lambda (r)`$ results

$$u_\lambda (r)=\lambda \left[exp(\mathrm{\Lambda }r/\lambda )1\right]\mathrm{\Lambda }r$$

Consequently, one can write

$$B_\lambda (s)=_1^{\mathrm{}}𝑑qH(q)_0^{\mathrm{}}exp(s\lambda v)(v+1)^{\lambda (s+q)}𝑑v$$
(13)
with

$$H(q)=\frac{1}{\left[\mathrm{ln}\left(q^21\right)\right]^2+\pi ^2}\frac{1}{q}$$
(14)
where the change of variable $`1/[\lambda \eta (r)]=v`$ was introduced. Notice that the last integral, for $`Re(s)<0`$, represents the confluent hypergeometric function  $`G(1,\lambda s\lambda q+2,s\lambda )`$. Consequently, in this region $`B_\lambda (s)`$ is an analytic function and when an analytic continuation to the positive half-plane of $`s`$ is performed, a cut appears. Introducing the discontinuity of the $`G`$ function, one gets

$$\mathrm{}B_\lambda (s)=2\pi \lambda exp(\lambda s)_1^{\mathrm{}}𝑑qH(q)\frac{(\lambda s)^{\lambda (s+q)1}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }[\lambda (s+q)]}$$
(15)
We can now transform back to obtain $`f(r)`$ from eq.(12)

$$f\left(r\right)=\frac{1}{\pi }\lambda ^2A_\lambda \left(r\right)\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{exp}\left[G(w,t,r,\lambda )\right]𝑑w𝑑t$$
(16)
where

$$A_\lambda \left(r\right)=1\mathrm{exp}\left[\mathrm{\Lambda }r/\lambda \right]$$

and

$`G(w,t,r,\lambda )`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda v\left(t\right)u_\lambda \left(r\right)+t\pi w\mathrm{ln}\left[w^2+1\right]2\mathrm{ln}\left(q\left(w\right)\right)`$ (17)
$`\mathrm{ln}\left\{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left[\lambda \left(\lambda v\left(t\right)+q\left(w\right)\right)\right]\right\}+\lambda q\left(w\right)\mathrm{ln}\left[\lambda ^2v\left(t\right)\right]\lambda ^2v\left(t\right)`$
$`+\left(\lambda ^2v\left(t\right)1\right)\mathrm{ln}\left[\lambda ^2v\left(t\right)\right]`$
with

$$q(w)=[1+e^{\pi w}]^{1/2};v(t)=e^t$$

The next step is to look for the asymptotic contribution in $`\lambda `$ of the double integral in eq.(16). To this end one can use the steepest descent technique in the combined variables $`(t,w)`$. Consequently one first computes the saddle points $`t_0(r)`$ and $`w_o(r)`$ and then one checks the positivity condition , in particular when the discriminant $`D(t_0,w_0)`$ of the second derivatives of $`G`$ at this point is positive. In so doing one obtains

$$f\left(r\right)2\lambda ^2A_\lambda \left(r\right)\mathrm{exp}\left[G(w_o\left(r\right),t_o\left(r\right),r,\lambda )\right]\left[\frac{^2G}{w^2}\frac{^2G}{t^2}\left(\frac{^2G}{wt}\right)^2\right]^{1/2}$$
(18)
the saddle point being

$$t_o=\mathrm{ln}\left[\frac{q_0\left(r\right)}{F\left(q_0\left(r\right)\right)}\right]=t_o\left(r\right);w_o=\frac{1}{\pi }\mathrm{ln}\left[q_0^2\left(r\right)1\right]=w_o\left(r\right)$$
(19)
where $`q_0(r)`$ is the solution of the implicit equation coming from the extremes of the function $`G`$, namely

$$r^2=\frac{F\left(q_0\right)}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\left[F\left(q_0\right)+\frac{1}{q_0}\right]$$
(20)
with

$$F\left(q_0\right)=\frac{2}{q_0\left[q_0^21\right]}\left[1\frac{2q_0^2\mathrm{ln}\left(q_0^21\right)}{\left[\mathrm{ln}\left(q_0^21\right)\right]^2+\pi ^2}\right]$$
(21)
Notice that $`F(q_0)`$ should be positive and consequently $`q_0<2.130156`$. On the other hand, from eq.(19), $`q_0>1`$. In fact, moving $`q_0`$ between these values, the variable $`r`$ covers all the positive real axis in a biunivocal way. Moreover, the condition $`F(q_0)0`$ implies that $`r=0`$ is excluded from the analysis. This is clearly not a drawback of the method.

Going now to the expression (18) of $`f(r)`$, one finally finds, in the saddle point approximation ($`\lambda \mathrm{}`$)

$$f_{Ap}\left(r\right)=f\left(q_0\left(r\right)\right)\frac{e^{1/2}\sqrt{2}\sqrt{\left(F\left(q_0\right)+1/q_0\right)}}{2\sqrt{\pi D\left(q_0\right)}}\frac{1}{\left[q_0\right]^{3/2}}\left[q_0^21\right]\frac{\mathrm{exp}\left[q_0F\left(q_0\right)\right]}{\left(\left[\frac{1}{\pi }\mathrm{ln}\left(q_0^21\right)\right]^2+1\right)}$$
(22)
where

$`D\left(q_0\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2\left(q_0^21\right)}{2q_0^4}}\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{q_0^3F\left(q_0\right)}{2}}\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{1\left[\frac{1}{\pi }\mathrm{ln}\left(q_0^21\right)\right]^2}{\left[\left[\frac{1}{\pi }\mathrm{ln}\left(q_0^21\right)\right]^2+1\right]^2}}`$
$`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\pi \left(q_0^21\right)F\left(q_0\right)}{2q_0}}\right]^2`$
Finally, the approximated expression for the potential is

$$V_{Ap}(r)=\frac{2\pi C_F}{\beta _0}\left[\frac{14f_{Ap}(r)}{r}\mathrm{\Lambda }^2r\right]$$
(24)
In order to test the precision provided by the GBT, we have compared the behavior in the coordinate space of our approximated analytical formula (24) with the numerical integration of the exact expression (3). This comparison, within the range of physical interest $`0.1fm<r<1fm`$ (see for example , ), has been performed for the Richardson’s potential free parameter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.398GeV`$ which he found to be the best to fit the charmonium and botomonium lowest bound states. The corresponding results are exhibited in Table I, being the relative error $`5\%`$ at most.

We have also evaluated, the charmonium and bottomoniun spectra following the Richardson’s algorithm. For this purpose, with the help of (24), we have adjusted $`m_c`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ to reproduce the best measured charmonium energy levels $`\psi (1S)`$ and $`\psi (2S)`$ . The resulting charm quark mass is $`m_c=1.363GeV`$ and the scale size $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.434GeV`$ (to be compared with $`m_c=1.491GeV`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.398GeV`$ obtained by Richardson). In the bottomonium case we kept $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.434GeV`$ assuming, like Richardson, that the scale size should be a fundamental scale of the theory independent from the quarkonium system. The bottom mass reproducing the best measured bottomonium energy state $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(2S)`$  results in $`m_b=4780GeV`$ . Notice that Richardson has fitted the botomonium fundamental level $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(1S)`$ obtaining $`m_b=4888GeV`$. The results for both spectra and the corresponding experimental values are presented in Tables II and III respectively.

In Summary, we have obtained an analytic expression for the quark potential valid for any value of $`r`$. Our results, in the leading order of the saddle point approximation, give rise to absolute values of the uncertainties always much smaller than $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ of QCD ($`0.4GeV`$). It is worth mentioning that any perturbation based calculation obtained by means of the standard Borel transform, ends with uncertainties at least of the order of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ . This result shows the ability and potentiality of the previously introduced generalized Borel Transform.

As regards the quarkonia energy levels, our spectra prediction results reasonably well when compared with the spectra obtained by Richardson. The deviations of our results with respect to the corresponding experimental values, are certainly smaller than the scale size $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (see Tables II and III). Let us remark that our adjustment leads to quark masses, when compared with those of Richardson, in best agreement with the values reported in the particle data table . The resulting $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ parameter falls in the range of values expected from perturbative QCD.

There exist in the literature other simple potentials in the coordinate space   that can compete with our approximation and that give similar results for the spectra. However these potentials are strictly phenomenological, not having a direct connection with pertubatibe QCD and in general, they have more free parameters to be adjusted.

Finally, our $`Q\overline{Q}`$ approximate potential, due to computing simplicities, is clearly useful in any further calculations of interesting physical quantities .

Table I: Comparison between potentials for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.398GeV`$

| $`r`$ $`\left[GeV\right]^1`$ | $`V_{Rich}\left[GeV\right]`$ | $`V_{Ap}\left[GeV\right]`$ | $`\left|\delta V\right|\text{}`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 7.0 | 0.899941 | 0.899923 | 0.000018 |
| 5.0 | 0.554276 | 0.554244 | 0.000032 |
| 3.0 | 0.149355 | 0.149637 | 0.000281 |
| 1.0 | -0.571347 | -0.554343 | 0.017004 |
| 0.5 | -1.114402 | -1.062477 | 0.051926 |
| 0.2 | -2.208255 | -2.284687 | 0.086730 |

Table II: System $`c\overline{c}`$

$`\begin{array}{cccc}l& E_{Exp}\left[GeV\right]& E_{Rich}\left[GeV\right]& E_{Ap}\left[GeV\right]\text{}\\ 0& 3.096& 3.096& 3.096\\ 0& 3.684& 3.684& 3.684\\ 0& 4.040\left(4160\right)^{}& 4.096& 4.127\\ 0& 4.415& 4.440& 4.506\\ 1& 3522& 3.514& 3.494\\ 2& 3770& 3.799& 3.786\end{array}`$

Our parameters are $`\left[\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.434GeV,m_c=1.363GeV\right]`$ and the corresponding Richardson’s ones $`\left[\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.398GeV,m_c=1.491GeV\right]`$.
See  for an alternative level assignment.

Table III: System $`b\overline{b}`$

$`\begin{array}{cccc}l& E_{Exp}\left[GeV\right]& E_{Rich}\left[GeV\right]& E_{Ap}\left[GeV\right]\text{}\\ 0& 9.460& 9.460& 9.522\\ 0& 10.023& 10.016& 10.023\\ 0& 10.355& 10.343& 10.351\\ 0& 10.580& 10.607& 10.620\\ 1& 9.900& 9.896& 9.910\\ 1& 10.260& 10.249& 10.252\end{array}`$

Our parameters used are $`\left[\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.434GeV,m_b=4.780GeV\right]`$ and the corresponding Richardson’sq ones $`\left[\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.398GeV,m_b=4.888GeV\right]`$.


text:
# References

$`^{^{^{\text{LMU-TPW 01-02}}}}`$

On Duality Rotations in Light-Like
Noncommutative Electromagnetism*** Talk presented at the Euroconference: Brane New World and Noncommutative Geometry, Villa Gualino (Torino), October 2000

Paolo Aschieri
Sektion Physik der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität
Theresienstr. 37, D-80333 München, Germany
e-mail address: aschieri@theorie.physik.uni-muenchen.de

ABSTRACT: We study electric-magnetic duality rotations for noncommutative electromagnetism (NCEM). We express NCEM as a nonlinear commutative $`U(1)`$ gauge theory and show that it is self-dual when the noncommutativity parameter $`\theta `$ is light-like (e.g. $`\theta ^{0i}=\theta ^{1i}`$). This implies, in the slowly varying field approximation, self-duality of NCEM to all orders in $`\theta `$. Keywords: Duality; Born-Infeld; Noncommutative Gauge Theory

Introduction
Field theories on noncommutative spaces have received renewed interest since their relevance in describing Dp-branes effective actions (see  and references therein). Noncommutativity in this context is due to a nonvanishing NS background two form on the Dp-brane. Initially space-like (magnetic) backgrounds ($`B^{ij}0`$) were considered, then NCYM theories also with time noncommutativity ($`B^{0i}0`$) have been studied . It turns out that unitarity of NCYM holds only if $`B`$ is space-like or light-like (e.g. $`B_{0i}=B_{1i}`$) and that these are precisely the NCYM theories that can be obtained from open strings in the decoupling limit $`\alpha ^{}0`$ . Following , gauge theory on a Dp-brane with constant two-form $`B`$ can be described via a commutative Lagrangian and field strength $`(F+B)`$ or via a noncommutative one $`\widehat{}(\widehat{F})`$, where $`\widehat{F}_{\mu \nu }=_\mu A_\nu _\nu A_\mu i[A_\mu _,A_\nu ]`$. (Here $``$ is the star product, on coordinates $`[x^\mu _,x^\nu ]=x^\mu x^\nu x^\nu x^\nu =i\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$, where $`\theta `$ depends on $`B`$ and the metric on the Dp-brane). These two descriptions are complementary and are related by Seiberg-Witten map (SW map). In the $`\alpha ^{}0`$ limit  the exact effective electromagnetic theory on a Dp-brane is NCEM, this is equivalent, via SW map, to a nonlinear commutative $`U(1)`$ gauge theory. For a D3-brane, in the slowly varying field approximation, we give an explicit expression of this nonlinear $`U(1)`$ theory and we show that it is self-dual when $`B`$ (or $`\theta `$) is light-like. Via SW map solutions of $`U(1)`$ nonlinear electromagnetism are mapped into solutions of NCEM, so that duality rotations are also a symmetry of NCEM, i.e. NCEM is self-dual. When $`\theta `$ is space-like we do not have self-duality and the S-dual of space-like NCYM is a noncommutative open string theory decoupled from closed strings . Related work appeared in . Self-duality of NCEM was initially studied in  to first order in $`\theta `$.

We show self-duality of NCEM using Gaillard-Zumino approach  to study duality rotations in nonlinear electromagnetism, we thus provide \[see (26)\] a new example of Lagrangian satisfying Gaillard-Zumino self-duality condition. We present here the case where the axion and the dilaton are zero. It is also possible to include arbitrary constant axion and dilaton as well as a kinetic and interaction term for Higgs fields. Higgs fields in the noncommutative description result minimally coupled to the gauge field. Formally (covariant derivatives, minimal couplings) NCEM resembles commutative $`U(N)`$ YM, and on tori with rational $`\theta `$ the two theories are $`T`$-dual . Self-duality of NCEM then hints to a possible duality symmetry of the equations of motion of $`U(N)`$ YM.

This paper is organized as follows. We first review Gaillard-Zumino self-duality condition and see that the D3-brane Lagrangian is self-dual . We then present a simple argument showing why we need $`B`$ and $`\theta `$ light-like in the zero slope limit. Finally we discuss self-duality of noncommutative Born-Infeld theory and NCEM. Duality Rotations

Consider in four dimension and with metric $`g_E`$ the Lagrangian density (Lagrangian for short)

$$(F_{\mu \nu },g_{E\mu \nu },\chi ^i)=\sqrt{g_E}L(F_{\mu \nu },g_{E\mu \nu },\chi ^i)$$
(1)
where $`\chi ^i`$ are some constant parameters that can possibly have space-time indices. If we defineThe Hodge dual of a two form $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mu \nu }`$ is defined by $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mu \nu }^{}\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{g_E}ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }\mathrm{\Omega }^{\rho \sigma }`$, where $`ϵ^{0123}=ϵ_{0123}=1`$; $`g_E`$ has signature $`(,+,+,+)`$. We have $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{}^{}{}_{\mu \nu }{}^{}=\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mu \nu }`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{g_E^1}ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }\mathrm{\Omega }_{\rho \sigma }`$.

$$K_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu \nu }=\frac{L}{F_{\mu \nu }}\left(\frac{F_{\rho \sigma }}{F_{\mu \nu }}=\delta _\rho ^\mu \delta _\sigma ^\nu \delta _\rho ^\nu \delta _\sigma ^\mu \right)$$
(2)
then the Bianchi identity and the equations of motion (EOM) for $``$ read

$`\begin{array}{c}_\mu (\sqrt{g_E}F^{\mu \nu })=_\mu \stackrel{~}{F}^{\mu \nu }=0,\\ _\mu (\sqrt{g_E}K^{\mu \nu })=_\mu \stackrel{~}{K}^{\mu \nu }=0,\end{array}`$ (5)
where $`\stackrel{~}{F}^{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }F_{\rho \sigma }`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{K}^{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }K_{\rho \sigma }`$. Under the infinitesimal transformations

$$\delta \left(\begin{array}{c}K\\ F\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\text{A}& \text{B}\\ \text{C}& \text{D}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}K\\ F\end{array}\right)$$
(6)
the system of EOM (5) is mapped into itself. We can also allow the parameters $`\chi `$ to vary

$$\delta \chi ^i=\xi ^i(\chi ),$$
(7)
then under (6),(7) the $`_\chi `$ EOM (5) are mapped into the $`_{\chi +\delta \chi }`$ EOM. Consistency of (6),(7) with the definition of $`K`$, i.e. $`K+\delta K=\frac{}{(F+\delta F)}(F+\delta F,g,\chi +\delta \chi )`$ holds in particular if $`({}_{\text{C}\text{D}}{}^{\text{A}\text{B}})`$ belongs to the Lie algebra of $`SL(2,R)`$, and the variation of the Lagrangian under (6),(7) can be written as

$$\delta (\delta {}_{F}{}^{}+\delta {}_{\chi }{}^{})=\frac{1}{4}(\text{B}F\stackrel{~}{F}+\text{C}K\stackrel{~}{K}).$$
(8)
When (8) holds, under a finite $`SL(2,R)`$ rotation a solution $`F`$ of $`_\chi `$ is mapped into a solution $`F^{}`$ of $`_\chi ^{}`$ and we say that $`_\chi `$ is self-dual. A self-duality condition equivalent to (8) is obtained using (6) to evaluate the $`\delta _F`$ term in (8)

$$\delta _\chi =\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{B}F\stackrel{~}{F}\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{C}K\stackrel{~}{K}\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{D}F\stackrel{~}{K}.$$
(9)
If the $`\chi `$ parameters are held fixed (strict self-duality) the maximal duality group is $`U(1)`$ , see also the nice review . Viceversa we can always extend a $`U(1)`$ self-dual Lagrangian to a $`SL(2,R)`$ self-dual one introducing two real valued scalars $`S=S_1+iS_2`$ (axion and dilaton). If the Lagrangian $`(F)`$ is self dual under $`U(1)`$, then the new Lagrangian

$$\stackrel{ˇ}{}(F,S)(S_2^{\frac{1}{2}}F)+\frac{1}{4}S_1F\stackrel{~}{F},$$
(10)
where $`F\stackrel{~}{F}F_{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{F}^{\mu \nu }`$, is self-dual under $`SL(2,R)`$ provided that $`S=S_1+iS_2`$ transforms as

$$S^{}=\frac{aS+b}{cS+d}\mathrm{where}\left({}_{c}{}^{a}^b_{d}^{}\right)SL(2,R).$$
(11)
The term in (10) proportional to $`S_1`$ is a total derivative if $`S_1`$ is constant; this term does not affect the EOM but enters the definition of $`K`$. To recover the original Lagrangian just set $`S_1=0`$ and $`S_2=1`$; the duality group is then $`U(1)`$, the $`SL(2,R)`$ subgroup that leaves $`S_1=0`$ and $`S_2=1`$ invariant.

We now discuss self-duality of the D3-brane effective action in a IIB supergravity background with constant axion, dilaton NS and RR two-forms. The background two-forms can be gauged away in the bulk and we are left with the field strength $`=F+B`$ on the D3-brane. Here $`B`$ is defined as the constant part of $``$, or $`B=|_{\mathrm{spatial}\mathrm{}}`$ since $`F`$ vanish at spatial infinity. For slowly varying fields the Lagrangian, in string and in Einstein frames, respectively readswe omit the RR four-form $`C_4`$ because it is invariant under $`SL(2,R)`$ duality rotations. If $``$ is self-dual then also $`_{\mathrm{D3}}=+\stackrel{~}{C}_4`$ is self-dual (here $`\stackrel{~}{C}_4=\frac{1}{24}ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }C_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }`$).

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}g_s}}\sqrt{\mathrm{det}(g+\alpha ^{})}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}C\stackrel{~}{}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}\sqrt{\mathrm{det}(g_E+\alpha ^{}S_2^{1/2})}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}S_1\stackrel{~}{}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}\sqrt{g_E}\sqrt{1+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{2}}S_2^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}}{16}}S_2^2(^{})^2}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}S_1\stackrel{~}{}`$
in the second line $`S=S_1+iS_2=C+\frac{i}{g_s}`$ while, in the last line, we have simply expanded the 4x4 determinant and $`^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}_{\mu \nu }^{\mu \nu },^{}_{\mu \nu }^{\mu \nu }`$.

Under the $`SL(2,R)`$ rotation

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}𝒦^{}\\ ^{}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ c& d\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}𝒦\\ \end{array}\right),S^{}=\frac{aS+b}{cS+d},g_E^{}=g_E,(\alpha ^{})^{}=\alpha ^{},$$
(13)
where $`\stackrel{~}{𝒦}=\frac{}{}`$, it is not difficult to directly check that the Lagrangian $``$ satisfies the self-duality condition (8) (with $`F,K`$ replaced by $`,𝒦`$). For simplicity, we will later set $`S_1=0`$ and $`S_2=g_s=1`$. Then the duality group reduces to $`U(1)`$, moreover string and Einstein frames coincide. The Lagrangian reduces to the Born-Infeld Lagrangian

$$_{\mathrm{BI}}=\frac{1}{\alpha _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}\sqrt{\mathrm{det}(g+\alpha ^{})}.$$
(14)
Using (10) we can always recover the more general situation (S0.Ex2). The explicit expression of $`𝒦`$ is

$$𝒦_{\mu \nu }=\frac{_{\mu \nu }^{}+\frac{\alpha _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{4}^{}_{\mu \nu }}{\sqrt{1+\frac{\alpha _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{2}^2\frac{\alpha _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}}{16}(^{})^2}}.$$
(15)
From (13) and (15), one can extract how $`B`$ (the constant part of $``$) transforms

$$B_{}^{}{}_{\mu \nu }{}^{}=\mathrm{cos}\gamma B_{\mu \nu }\mathrm{sin}\gamma \frac{B_{\mu \nu }^{}+\frac{\alpha _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{4}BB^{}B_{\mu \nu }}{\sqrt{1+\frac{\alpha _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{2}B^2\frac{\alpha _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}}{16}(BB^{})^2}};$$
(16)
this transformation is independent from the slowly varying fields approximation.

Open/closed strings and light-like noncommutativity

The open and closed string parameters are related by (see , the expressions for $`G`$ and $`\theta `$ first appeared in )

$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{1}{g+\alpha ^{}B}=G^1+\frac{\theta }{\alpha ^{}}\hfill \\ g^1=(G^1\theta /\alpha ^{})G(G^1+\theta /\alpha ^{})=G^1\alpha _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\theta G\theta \hfill \\ \alpha ^{}B=(G^1\theta /\alpha ^{})\theta /\alpha ^{}(G^1+\theta /\alpha ^{})\hfill \\ G_s=g_s\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{det}G}{\mathrm{det}(g+\alpha ^{}B)}}=g_s\sqrt{\mathrm{det}G\mathrm{det}(G^1+\theta /\alpha ^{})}=g_s\sqrt{\mathrm{det}g^1\mathrm{det}(g+\alpha ^{}B)}\hfill \end{array}$$

The decoupling limit $`\alpha ^{}0`$ with $`G_s,G,\theta `$ nonzero and finite  leads to a well defined field theory only if $`B`$ is space-like or light-like . Looking at the closed and open string coupling constants it is easy to see why one needs this space-like or light-like condition on $`B`$. Consider the coupling constants ratio $`G_s/g_s`$, that expanding the 4x4 determinant reads (here $`B^2=B_{\mu \nu }B_{\rho \sigma }g^{\mu \rho }g^{\nu \sigma }`$, $`\theta ^2=\theta ^{\mu \nu }\theta ^{\rho \sigma }G_{\mu \rho }G_{\nu \sigma }`$ and so on)

$$\frac{G_s}{g_s}=\sqrt{1+\frac{\alpha _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{2}\theta ^2\frac{\alpha _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}}{16}(\theta \theta ^{})^2}=\sqrt{1+\frac{\alpha _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{2}B^2\frac{\alpha _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}}{16}(BB^{})^2}.$$
(17)
Both $`G_s`$ and $`g_s`$ must be positive; since $`G`$ and $`\theta `$ are by definition finite for $`\alpha ^{}0`$ this implies $`\theta \theta ^{}=0`$ and $`\theta ^20`$. Now $`\theta \theta ^{}=0\mathrm{det}\theta =0\mathrm{det}B=0BB^{}=0`$. In this case from (17) we also have $`\theta ^2=\alpha _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}B^2`$. In conclusion the $`\alpha ^{}0`$ limit defined by keeping $`G_s,G,\theta `$ nonzero and finite , is well defined iff

$$B^20,BB^{}=0\text{i.e.}\theta ^20,\theta \theta ^{}=0$$
(18)
This is the condition for $`B`$ (and $`\theta `$) to be space-like or light-like. Indeed with Minkowski metric (18) reads $`\stackrel{}{B}^2\stackrel{}{E}^20`$ and $`\stackrel{}{E}\stackrel{}{B}`$.

If we now require the $`\alpha ^{}0`$ limit to be compatible with duality rotations, we immediately see that we have to consider only the light-like case $`B^2=BB^{}=0`$. Indeed under $`U(1)`$ rotations the electric and magnetic fields mix up, in particular under a $`\pi /2`$ rotation (16) a space-like $`B`$ becomes time-like.

In the light-like case, relations (S0.Ex5) simplify considerably. The open and closed string coupling constants coincide: $`G_s=g_s=S_2^1=1`$. Use of the relations

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mu \rho }^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\rho \nu }\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mu \rho }\mathrm{\Omega }^{\rho \nu }=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }^2\delta _\mu ^\nu ,\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mu \rho }\mathrm{\Omega }_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\rho \nu }=\mathrm{\Omega }_{}^{}{}_{\mu \rho }{}^{}\mathrm{\Omega }^{\rho \nu }=\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\delta _\mu ^\nu $$
(19)
valid for any antisymmetric tensor $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, shows that any two-tensor at least cubic in $`\theta `$ (or $`B`$) vanishes. It follows that $`g^1G\theta =\theta `$ and that the raising or lowering of the $`\theta `$ and $`B`$ indices is independent from the metric used. We also have

$$B_{\mu \nu }=\alpha _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\theta _{\mu \nu }.$$
(20)
Self-duality of NCBI and NCEM

We now study duality rotations for noncommutative Born-Infeld (NCBI) theory and its zero slope limit that is NCEM. The relation between the NCBI and the BI Lagrangians is

$$\widehat{}_{\mathrm{BI}}(\widehat{F},G,\theta ,G_s)=_{\mathrm{BI}}(F+B,g)+O(F)+\mathrm{tot}.\mathrm{der}.$$
(21)
where $`O(F)`$ stands for higher order derivative corrections, $`\widehat{F}`$ is the noncommutative $`U(1)`$ field strength and we have set $`g_s=1`$. The NCBI Lagrangian is

$$\widehat{}_{\mathrm{BI}}(\widehat{F},G,\theta ,G_s)=\frac{1}{\alpha _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}G_s}\sqrt{\mathrm{det}(G+\alpha ^{}\widehat{F})}+O(\widehat{F}).$$
(22)
In the slowly varying field approximation the action of duality rotations on $`\widehat{}_{\mathrm{BI}}`$ is derived from self-duality of $`_{\mathrm{BI}}`$. If $`\widehat{F}`$ is a solution of the $`\widehat{}_{\mathrm{BI}}^{G_s,G,\theta }`$ EOM then $`\widehat{F}^{}`$ obtained via $`\widehat{F}\stackrel{\text{SW map}}{}\stackrel{\text{duality\hspace{0.17em} rot.}}{}^{}\stackrel{\text{SW map}}{}\widehat{F}^{}`$ is a solution of the $`\widehat{}_{\mathrm{BI}}^{G_s^{},G^{},\theta ^{}}`$ EOM where $`G_s^{},G^{},\theta ^{}`$ are obtained using (S0.Ex5) from $`g^{}`$, $`B^{}`$ and $`g_s^{}=g_s=1`$.

In the light-like case we have $`G_s=g_s=1`$, the $`B`$ rotation (16) simplifies to

$$B_{\mu \nu }^{}=\mathrm{cos}\gamma B_{\mu \nu }\mathrm{sin}\gamma B_{\mu \nu }^{},$$
(23)
using (13) and (23) the $`U(1)`$ duality action on the open string variables is

$$G^{}=G,\theta ^{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{cos}\gamma \theta ^{\mu \nu }\mathrm{sin}\gamma \theta _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu \nu }.$$
(24)
For $`\theta `$ light-like, solutions $`\widehat{F}`$ of $`\widehat{}^{G,\theta }`$ are mapped into solutions $`\widehat{F}^{}`$ of $`\widehat{}^{G,\theta ^{}}`$ and therefore $`\widehat{}^{G,\theta }`$ is self-dual. Moreover, by a rotation in three dimensional space we can map $`\theta ^{}`$ into $`\theta `$. In order to show self-duality of NCEM we consider the zero slope limit of (21) and verify that the resulting lagrangian on the r.h.s. of (21) is self-dual. We rewrite $`_{\mathrm{BI}}`$ in terms of the open string parameters $`G,\theta `$

$`_{\mathrm{BI}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}\sqrt{\mathrm{det}(g+\alpha ^{})}={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{G}}{\alpha _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{det}(g+\alpha ^{}B+\alpha ^{}F)}{\mathrm{det}(g+\alpha ^{}B)}}}`$ (25)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}\sqrt{\mathrm{det}(G+\alpha ^{}F+G\theta F)}.`$
The determinant in the last line can be evaluated as sum of products of traces (Newton-Leverrier formula). Each trace can then be rewritten in terms of the six basic Lorentz invariants $`F^2,FF^{},F\theta ,F\theta ^{},\theta ^2=\theta \theta ^{}=0`$, explicitly

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{detG}^1\mathrm{det}(\mathrm{G}+\alpha ^{}\mathrm{F}+\mathrm{G}\theta \mathrm{F})=(1\frac{1}{2}\theta \mathrm{F})^2+\alpha _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}[\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{F}^2+\frac{1}{4}\theta \mathrm{F}^{}\mathrm{FF}^{}]\alpha _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}(\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{FF}^{})^2\hfill \end{array}$$

Finally we take the $`\alpha ^{}0`$ limit of (25), drop the infinite constant and total derivatives and denote by $`_\theta ^{\alpha ^{}0}`$ the resulting Lagrangian

$$_\theta ^{\alpha ^{}0}=\frac{\frac{1}{4}F^2\frac{1}{8}\theta F^{}FF^{}}{1\frac{1}{2}\theta F}.$$
(26)
We thus have an expression for NCEM in terms of $`G,\theta `$ and $`F`$

$$\widehat{}_{\mathrm{EM}}\frac{1}{4}\widehat{F}^2=_\theta ^{\alpha ^{}0}+O(F)+\mathrm{tot}.\mathrm{der}.$$
(27)
The Lagrangian (26) satisfies the self-duality condition (9) with $`\chi =\theta `$ and A$`=`$D$`=0`$, C$`=`$B and therefore NCEM is self-dual under the $`U(1)`$ duality rotations (24) and $`F^{}=\mathrm{cos}\gamma F\mathrm{sin}\gamma K`$.

Acknowledgements
I am indebted with Sergei M. Kuzenko and Stefan Theisen for many enlightening discussions. I wish to thank Branislav Jurc̆o, John Madore, Peter Schupp and Harold Steinacker for fruitful discussions, and the organizers of the conference for the stimulating atmosphere. This work has been supported by Alexander von Humboldt-Stiftung.