text:
# T-duality and the case of the disappearing brane

## 1 Introduction

In the last ten years it has come to be widely recognized that dualities are one of the fundamental structures of string- and M-theory. T-duality, which interchanges small circles with large ones, was one of the first dualities to be discovered and understood, see e.g.  for a review. The familiar result that applying T-duality in a direction orthogonal to a Dp-brane results in a D(p+1)-brane (and similarly that T-duality applied along a Dp-brane results in a D(p-1)-brane) is widely used to relate properties of the various Dp-branes. It is therefore of interest to uncover any cases which deviate from this rule and to carefully understand how such deviations occur.

The situation analyzed below is one to which precise application of the above rule connecting Dp- and D(p$`\pm 1`$)-branes by T-duality would raise a contradiction. We consider the case of a D4-brane created via the Hanany-Witten effect by the crossing of a D6-brane and an NS5-brane. The two branes have three spatial directions in common but are otherwise orthogonal. The D4-brane also lies along the three common directions but its fourth direction is orthogonal to both the NS5 and D6-branes, since the D4-brane stretches between them. This setting is summarized by the table below, where the X’s indicate directions along the indicated brane.

|  | $`x_1`$ | $`x_2`$ | $`x_3`$ | $`x_4`$ | $`x_5`$ | $`x_6`$ | $`x_7`$ | $`x_8`$ | $`x_9`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| D6 | X | X | X | X | X | X |  |  |  |
| NS5 | X | X | X |  |  |  | X | X |  |
| D4 | X | X | X |  |  |  |  |  | X |

In the low energy regime, the Hanany-Witten effect  can be understood from either the worldvolume (Born-Infeld-Chern-Simons) theories of the branes  or from a spacetime perspective in supergravity  as well as from a number of more stringy arguments . We find the supergravity perspective particularly useful in analyzing this situation and, as is discussed below, this analysis clearly shows the creation of the D4-brane. Such solutions were constructed and analyzed in  based on the work of . Our setting is related to the more familiar creation of a fundamental string by the crossing of D3 and D5-branes (see e.g. ) by T-duality along the three directions common to the NS5 and D6-branes and a final S-duality transformation in the type IIB theory.

Consider, however, the application of T-duality in a direction along the D6-brane but orthogonal to the NS5 and D4-branes (say along $`x_4`$). This turns the NS5-brane into a Kaluza-Klein monopole, so the IIB version is the crossing of a D5-brane and a Kaluza-Klein monopole. Naively, T-duality would turn the D4-brane into a D5-brane. However, one can show that D5-branes cannot be created by the crossing of Kaluza-Klein monopoles and other D5-branes. In fact, D5-branes can be created only in the presence of NS5-branes or D7-branes.

We find a resolution to this puzzle in the structure of the Kaluza-Klein monopole. The T-duality that creates the Kaluza-Klein monopole involves a certain cutting and pasting of the original spacetime with the property that closed surfaces in the original type IIA spacetime are not naturally mapped to closed surfaces in the final IIB spacetime. Ignoring this fact would lead to the naive result, involving creation of D5-branes and a contradiction. However, a more careful treatment shows that no net D5 charge is created and no Hanany-Witten effect takes place. We analyze the situation using the corresponding supergravity solutions.

The plan of the paper is as follows. We begin with a brief review in section 2 of the picture of the smooth creation of branes via the Hanany-Witten effect in supergravity. It will be clear from this discussion that the IIB intersection T-dual to the IIA D4-brane ending on the D6-brane cannot be merely a D5-brane three-brane junction as one might otherwise expect. In section 3, we use a differential form version of the supergravity T-duality relations to map to the IIB setting, to evaluate the various charges, and to illustrate the connection to the closed surfaces mentioned above. Finally, we end with some discussion in section 4, including comments relating D6-branes to “superconducting black holes” .

## 2 The smooth picture of the Hanany-Witten effect

This section provides a brief review of how the Hanany-Witten brane creation effect is described as a smooth process. The basic picture follows from general principles, but one can also find a one-parameter moduli space of exact BPS solutions describing certain versions of the process in either the worldvolume theory of a D-brane in the background generated by another D-brane  or in full supergravity . What happens in either the worldvolume theory or supergravity is that the flux of a gauge field generated by one brane falling on the second brane generates a third kind of charge associated with the new brane.

In the supergravity description, this effect follows from the fact that the ‘brane-source’ charge of the D4-brane (see ) is not conserved . This in turn is a straightforward consequence of the modified Bianchi identity satisfied by the gauge invariant Ramond-Ramond four-form field strength $`\stackrel{~}{F}_4`$ of which the D4-brane is a magnetic source. We have the relation

$$d\stackrel{~}{F}_4+F_2H_3=j_{D4}^{bs},$$
(1)
where the right hand side is the brane-source current (which vanishes in the absence of an explicit D4-brane source). Here, $`F_2`$ is the usual IIA Ramond-Ramond two-form field strength and $`H_3=dB_2`$ is the Neveu-Schwarz field strength. Taking an exterior derivative of (1) shows that $`dj_{D4}^{bs}`$ does not vanish. Instead, a flux of $`F_2`$ falling on an NS5 brane (where $`j_{NS5}^{bs}dH_30`$) or a flux of $`H_3`$ falling on a D6-brane (where $`j_{D6}^{bs}dF_20`$) acts as a source or sink of D4-brane charge. Some of the subtleties of defining charge and working with brane-source currents are discussed in , but it is enough for us that this result leads to the Hanany-Witten effect and the associated creation of a D4-brane as described below.

The diagram below shows various stages in this process for the case of an NS5-brane moving past a D6-brane to make a D4-brane . Similar results also follow for D$`p`$ and D$`p^{}`$ branes whenever $`p+p^{}=8.`$, see e.g.  for a worldvolume description of the D3/D5 case. At stage (i) when the NS5-brane is far from the D6-brane, the center of the NS5-brane subtends a small angle at the D6-brane and captures only a small amount of flux from the D6. As a result, essentially no D4 charge is induced in the region shown and one has only a flat NS5-brane. Then, as the NS5-brane approaches the D6-brane (ii), it subtends a larger angle and begins to capture some flux, generating some D4 charge. This charge corresponds to D4-branes lying inside the NS5-brane and running outward along this brane to infinity.

When the NS5-brane is dragged past the D6-brane (iii), all of the flux from the D6-brane is captured in the part of the NS5-brane close to the D6-brane. Capturing one quantum of flux corresponds to the creation of one quantum of fundamental string charge, so that the thin neck of NS5-brane approximates a single D4-brane. However, the NS5-brane captures flux of the opposite sign in the region where the neck joins the asymptotically flat part of the NS5-brane. The flux captured in this region is half of that generated by the D6-brane, so that a net one-half quantum of D4 charge reaches infinity along the NS5-brane. This last statement is true in each of the stages (i,ii,iii,iv), though only in stage (iii) are all of the relevant parts of the NS5-brane visible in figure 1. In stage (iv), the neck has narrowed so as to become difficult to resolve and all that remains is a D4-brane string stretching between an NS5-brane and a D6-brane.

One odd feature of the above discussion is that nowhere have we mentioned the creation of D4-branes by $`H_3`$ flux falling on the D6-brane. This is in fact the correct result, as may be seen from the explicit exact solutions in . It is related to a ‘flux-expulsion’ effect associated with D6-branes and reminiscent of the ‘superconducting branes’ phenomenon . We will discuss this effect and related issues further in section 4.

Each stage in figure 1 depicts a BPS configuration of either the worldvolume theory (as described in ) or supergravity (following ). Studying BPS configurations is useful for a variety of well-known reasons. However, one should also apply the lessons learned from BPS configurations to non-BPS contexts. For example, we learn from the above diagram that there is no fundamental difference between a D4-brane ending on a D6-brane and an NS5-brane tightly wrapped around the D6-brane. Indeed, we would generically expect fluctuations (dynamical, thermal, or quantum mechanical) between such configurations. For the case above, both configurations are BPS. However, this is a function of the detailed boundary conditions: note that the asymptotics111In both cases, the asymptotics should be those of a logarithmic curve  due to the fact that the end of the D4-brane in the NS5 is of co-dimension 2. The case of a D2-brane crossing a D6-brane and creating a fundamental string is very much the same. See  for some interesting comments on the relation of this logarithmic curve to the fundamental string charge flowing through the D2-brane. These comments also apply to the current NS5/D6/D4 case. of the NS5-brane are different at stages (i) and (iv).

If one fixes the boundary conditions then there is only one BPS configuration and any fluctuations should cost energy. In particular, suppose that we fix the boundary conditions to be those of stage (iv). We then conclude that there are fluctuations in which the attachment of the D4 to the D6 ‘loosens’ into the configuration shown below222Again, the same effect arises in a D2/D6/F1 system, with the fluctuations now being between a tightly attached fundamental string and one loosely attached by a loop of D2-brane. One has to wonder about the implications of this observation for understanding black hole entropy non-perturbatively. Naive extrapolation suggests that at finite $`g`$ (and finite $`N`$) the states counted by Strominger and Vafa  are not well localized on D-branes. Perhaps this is related to the fact that black hole solutions of supergravity have interiors of finite size?. However, due to the tension of the NS5-brane, this loosely attached configuration has more energy than the tightly attached configuration and the ‘noose’ will tighten of its own accord. In particular, in the limit in which string perturbation theory becomes valid ($`g0`$ with $`\mathrm{}_s`$ fixed) the NS5-brane (whose tension is proportional to $`1/g^2`$) becomes very heavy relative to a D4-brane (with tension $`T_{D4}1/g`$) and the energy difference between the loosely and tightly attached configurations diverges. This is of course consistent with the usual observation that only the tightly attached configuration (of either D4’s or F1’s ending on D6’s) is relevant in perturbation theory and that one sees no sign there of fluctuations to a loosely attached configuration.

The above discussion followed directly from an analysis of D4 brane-source charge conservation. Let us now consider a T-dual configuration, where the T-duality is applied in a direction along the D6-brane but orthogonal to the NS5-brane. This direction will also be orthogonal to the D4-brane created above.

It is simplest to begin with stage (i), which contains only two widely separated branes. The T-dual configuration clearly contains a D5-brane and a Kaluza-Klein monopole, which is the T-dual of the NS5-brane. To see whether a D5-brane can be created in stages (ii) and (iii), we should analyze conservation of the D5 brane-source charge. The associated gauge invariant field strength $`\stackrel{~}{F}_3`$ does satisfy a modified Bianchi identity, but in the form

$$d\stackrel{~}{F}_3F_1H_3=j_{D5}^{bs},$$
(2)
where $`F_1`$ is the IIB one-form field strength associated with D7-branes. Here our conventions for the IIB fields differ from those of  by a sign, in order that we make a choice compatible with the conventions of . Taking an exterior derivative, we see that $`j_{D5}^{bs}`$ is conserved except perhaps at D7-branes or NS5-branes – neither of which appear in our setting. As a result, D5 brane-source charge is conserved and no creation of D5-branes can occur333To add further weight to the argument it is useful to notice that one could further S-dualize our IIB setting and obtain a pure NS solution involving an NS5-brane and a Kaluza-Klein monopole. One is then free to reinterpret this as a IIA solution and lift to eleven dimensions. In that context, the created brane would be an M5-brane. But the M-theory 4-form field strength satisfies an unmodified Bianchi identity and M5 brane-source charge is conserved in all settings..

Considering the ending of the D4-brane on the D6-brane, one might have thought that the T-dual description should be a three D5-brane junction, which does indeed conserve D5-brane charge: the charge simply flows from one brane to the other. However, this option is ruled out by the fact that on the IIA side the D4-brane is smoothly created before the NS5 and D6-branes come into contact. As a result, there is no way for D5-brane charge to flow between the branes in stages (ii) and (iii) above.

## 3 The IIB description

In this section, we analyze the charges of the T-dual IIB spacetime. Luckily, we will find that one need not explicitly write down the IIB solution. Instead, we will be able to evaluate the various charges directly from our knowledge of the IIA case.

The charge in which we are particularly interested is the D5-charge of the created brane. Since the D5-charge is conserved in this setting, such charges can best be computed by integrating the flux of $`\stackrel{~}{F}_3`$ over an appropriate sphere. It is therefore useful to work with the T-duality relations between IIA and IIB supergravity written in a geometric way associated with differential forms instead of the original component descriptions used in . We therefore briefly reformulate these relations in subsection 3.1 before moving on to study the IIB solution in subsection 3.2.

### 3.1 A more geometric form of the T-duality relations

One can check that the results given in  for the action of T-duality on Neveu-Schwarz fields and in  for the action on Ramond-Ramond fields are equivalent to the following description of T-duality in IIA/IIB supergravity. Let us begin with a spacetime having a Killing field $`\lambda `$ with $`S^1`$ orbits. Let $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_\mu =\lambda _\mu /|\lambda |^2`$ denote the one-form obtained by lowering the index on the Killing field $`\lambda `$ with the string metric and dividing by its norm. Let $`y`$ denote any coordinate along the orbits of $`\lambda `$ satisfying $`\lambda ^\mu _\mu y=1.`$ We normalize the Killing field by requiring $`y`$ to have period $`2\pi \mathrm{}_s`$, where $`\mathrm{}_s`$ is the string length. Thus, for a spacetime that may be treated classically $`|\lambda |`$ will be of size $`R/\mathrm{}_s`$ for some macroscopic length scale $`R`$.

Just as in Kaluza-Klein reduction, one can split the metric into a part ($`ds_r^2`$, the reduced metric) associated with intervals transverse to the orbits of $`\lambda `$ and a part along $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }:`$

$$ds_{string}^2=ds_r^2+|\lambda |^2\stackrel{~}{\lambda }\stackrel{~}{\lambda }.$$
(3)
Similarly, the Neveu-Schwarz B-field can be reconstructed from the one-form $`(B\lambda )_\nu =B_{\nu \mu }\lambda ^\mu `$ and the two-form $`B^r=B\frac{1}{2}(dy+B\lambda )\stackrel{~}{\lambda }.`$ Introducing the general notation $`(C_n\lambda )_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _{n1}}=(C_n)_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _{n1}\alpha _n}\lambda ^{\alpha _n}`$ for an n-form $`C_n`$, the reader may check that the T-duality relations of  may be written:

$`\widehat{\varphi }`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi \mathrm{ln}(|\lambda |)`$ (4)
$`\widehat{ds}_r^2`$ $`=`$ $`ds_r^2`$ (5)
$`\widehat{B}_r`$ $`=`$ $`B_r`$ (6)
$`\widehat{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }}`$ $`=`$ $`dy+B\lambda `$ (7)
$`dy+\widehat{B}\lambda `$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }`$ (8)
$`|\widehat{\lambda }|^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|\lambda |^2}}`$ (9)
$`\widehat{C}_n`$ $`=`$ $`C_{n+1}\lambda +(C_{n1}C_{n1}\lambda \stackrel{~}{\lambda })(dy+B\lambda ),`$ (10)
where hatted symbols (e.g. $`\widehat{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }}`$) denote fields in the T-dual solution and $`C_n`$ are the Ramond-Ramond gauge potentials. The understanding in (4) is that the two solutions are thought of as living on the same manifold444This manifold should consist only of those points where both the metric and the NS gauge potential $`B`$ are non-singular. with $`\lambda `$ representing the same vector field in each case. However, after performing the T-duality it may be natural to extend the manifold to a larger one that is geodesically complete, e.g. in the duality between the NS5-brane and the Kaluza-Klein monopole in which the fixed points of the Killing field must be added by hand after applying (4). Note that although $`\lambda ^\mu `$ represents the same vector field on both the IIA and IIB sides, the one-forms $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_\nu =\frac{\lambda ^\mu g_{\mu \nu }}{\lambda ^\alpha g_{\alpha \beta }\lambda ^\beta }`$ and $`\widehat{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }}_\nu =\frac{\lambda ^\mu \widehat{g}_{\mu \nu }}{\lambda ^\alpha \widehat{g}_{\alpha \beta }\lambda ^\beta }`$ differ due to changes in the metric.

Since T-duality is properly applied when the orbits of the Killing vector field are compact, one should think of these relations as holding on a circle bundle over the reduced space of orbits. Note that (4) is not completely geometric due to the fact that T-duality mixes the metric and Neveu-Schwarz B-field and thus mixes diffeomorphisms with NS gauge transformations. It is for this reason that a choice of coordinate $`y`$ must be made before one can write down the above relations. Of course, two different choices of $`y`$ result in spacetimes that differ only by a Neveu-Schwarz gauge transformation.

What we will need most to compute charges is not the potentials given in (4) above, but the associated field strengths. If we can choose a gauge in which the Lie derivatives of the potentials $`C_n,B`$ vanish along the Killing field $`\lambda `$, then the relations $`d(C_n\lambda )=(dC_n)\lambda `$ hold and the field strengths $`F_n=dC_{n1}`$ satisfy

$`\widehat{F}_n`$ $`=`$ $`F_{n+1}\lambda +(F_{n1}F_{n1}\lambda \stackrel{~}{\lambda }+(1)^{(n2)}C_{n2}\lambda d\stackrel{~}{\lambda })(dy+B\lambda )`$ (11)
$`+`$ $`(1)^{n2}(C_{n2}C_{n2}\lambda \stackrel{~}{\lambda })H\lambda ,`$ (12)
where $`H=dB`$. Of course, not all of these field strengths are gauge invariant. In particular, neither the field strength $`F_4=dC_3`$ which couples magnetically to D4-branes nor the $`F_3=dC_2`$ which couples magnetically to D5-branes is gauge invariant. Instead, the gauge invariant versions are555Again, our conventions are compatible with . However, while they agree with those of  on the IIA side, they differ with  by a sign on the IIB side.

$`\stackrel{~}{F}_3`$ $`=`$ $`F_3+C_0H,`$ (13)
$`\stackrel{~}{F}_4`$ $`=`$ $`F_4C_1H.`$ (14)
It follows from (11) above that these are related by

$$\widehat{\stackrel{~}{F}}_3=\stackrel{~}{F}_4\lambda +(F_2F_2\lambda \stackrel{~}{\lambda })(dy+B\lambda ).$$
(15)
Taking a further exterior derivative leads to the conclusion that the D4, D5, and D6 brane-source charges satisfy

$$j_{D5}^{bs}=j_{D4}^{bs}\lambda +(j_{D6}^{bs}j_{D6}^{bs}\lambda \stackrel{~}{\lambda })(dy+B\lambda ).$$
(16)
Similar relations hold for the other D-branes.

As a result, at least if the branes appear in a part of the spacetime where the circle bundles are smooth, the T-dual of a D4 brane-source current is indeed a D5 brane-source current when the T-duality acts orthogonally to the D4-brane.

### 3.2 Surfaces, Charges, and disappearing branes

From the results of the last subsection, one would be tempted to conclude that our D4-branes are replaced by D5-branes in the T-dual type IIB spacetime. However, the subtlety is that these branes would lie exactly at the points where the circle bundle description breaks down. In particular, on the the IIB side they would lie at the core of the Kaluza-Klein monopole where the circles degenerate to a point666Singularities associated with branes can sometimes be removed by smearing out the charge over a finite volume. However, there is no smooth spacetime corresponding to a smeared Kaluza-Klein monopole just as there is no fiber bundle that realizes the idea of a smeared magnetic charge.. As a result, we must compute D5-brane charge by considering flux integrals of $`\stackrel{~}{F}_3`$ over various surfaces in the spacetime. Since $`\lambda `$ is along the D6-brane, one expects $`C_1\lambda `$ and $`F_2\lambda `$ to vanish on the IIA side. This may be checked explicitly using the solution of . One may also check that the Lie derivatives along $`\lambda `$ of $`C_n`$ and $`B`$ vanish. As a result, equation (15) becomes just

$`\widehat{\stackrel{~}{F}}_3`$ $`=`$ $`F_4\lambda C_1H\lambda +F_2(dy+B\lambda )`$ (17)
$`=`$ $`d\left[C_3\lambda +C_1(dy+B\lambda )\right].`$ (18)
In particular, $`\widehat{\stackrel{~}{F}}_3`$ is a total derivative, as one would expect in a situation in which the associated D5-brane charge is conserved. As a result, integrals of this field over a closed surface can be evaluated purely in terms of contributions from submanifolds where the potentials are ill-defined; i.e., from Dirac strings. It is useful to note that our D5 charge can be evaluated from the Dirac strings of the associated type IIA fields $`C_3`$, $`C_1`$, and $`B`$.

Before proceeding, we pause briefly to acquaint the reader with the coordinate system used in . The Cartesian coordinates $`x_0`$ (time), and $`x_1,x_2,x_3`$ are taken to run along all three branes (D6, NS5, and D4). The T-duality will be performed along the $`x_4`$ direction, which is also along the D6-brane. Here consider the D4- and D5-branes to be smeared along this direction in order to generate the required translational symmetry. The coordinates $`x_5,x_6`$ are along the D6-brane but transverse to the NS5- and D4-branes.

For the rest of the coordinate system, we take $`x_7,x_8,x_9`$ to be Cartesian-like coordinates in the space transverse to the D6-brane which are defined in a manner adapted to the spherical symmetry of the $`F_2`$ field. When the NS5-brane is far from the D6-brane (i.e., stage (i)), we may think of it as lying in the $`x_7,x_8`$ directions at $`x_9=constant`$. However, when the NS5-brane approaches the D6-brane it deforms and is no longer flat. As a result, to describe stages (ii) through (iv) it is useful to introduce the coordinates $`v,w`$ through

$`r^2`$ $`=`$ $`x_7^2+x_8^2+x_9^2,`$ (19)
$`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ $`=`$ $`x_9/r,`$ (20)
$`v`$ $`=`$ $`r\mathrm{sin}\theta /2,`$ (21)
$`w`$ $`=`$ $`r\mathrm{cos}\theta /2,`$ (22)
In particular, in the region close to the D6-brane core the NS5-brane lies on the surface $`v=constant`$.

We are interested in the following surfaces. First, we wish to measure the total D5-brane charge flowing down from infinity along the Kaluza-Klein monopole. So, we need a 3-sphere surrounding the $`v=0`$ axis (and in fact outside the surface $`v=b,x_5=x_6=0`$). One particular choice in the IIA near D6-brane spacetime would be the surface $`S_U`$ ($`U`$ for upper) defined by

$`v^2+w^2r^2=const,`$ (23)
$`v^2+x_5^2+x_6^2R_U^2=const,`$ (24)
$`x_0,x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4=0.`$ (25)
This three-sphere lies above the second brane and surrounds the monopole so long as $`r^2>2R_U^2`$ and $`R_U>b`$. A ‘side view’ of this sphere is shown below, where the $`x_7`$ and $`x_9`$ axes are shown and the direction out of the page represents, say, $`x_6.`$ The closer side of the sphere passes in front of the $`x_7`$ and $`x_9`$ axes with the farther size passing behind.

We would also like to measure the charge flowing outward along the second brane. To do so requires a surface surrounding this brane in an appropriate sense. Some thought shows that the correct surface has the topology $`S^2\times S^1`$ and that a particular example is the surface $`S_0`$ given by taking

$`v^2+w^2r^2=const,`$ (26)
$`x_5^2+x_6^2R_0^2=const,`$ (27)
$`x_0,x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4=0.`$ (28)
To double check the results we fill find, we might also consider a surface lying entirely below the second brane. The flux through this sphere should be the sum (with an appropriate sign) of the fluxes through the two surfaces described above. The sphere $`S_L`$ defined by

$`v^2+w^2r^2=const,`$ (29)
$`w^2+x_5^2+x_6^2R_L^2=const,`$ (30)
$`x_0,x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4=0,`$ (31)
lies below the second brane for $`r^2>2R_L^2`$.

Let us now consider the Dirac strings of the IIA fields. As in , we may we work in a gauge where the Dirac string of $`C_1`$ lies at $`v=0`$ and does not intersect any of the surfaces above. From  one finds that such a gauge has $`C_3=0,`$ so that Dirac strings of $`C_3`$ are not a concern.

What remain are only the IIA Dirac strings of $`B`$. We pause here to note that these become Dirac strings of the Kaluza-Klein monopole in the IIB solution. At a Dirac string of $`B`$, one must perform a large gauge transformation in order to smooth out the description of the field. For the Kaluza-Klein monopole, the associated smoothing requires a large coordinate transformation. The result is that if a Dirac string of $`B`$ intersects a smooth closed surface in the IIA solution defined by coordinate conditions such as those above, then these conditions need not define a smooth closed surface in the IIB solution. This is exactly what happens in the gauge used for $`B`$ in , and performing the associated integrals over our surfaces gives a nonvanishing result for $`S_U`$ and $`S_0`$. The sphere $`S_L`$ does not intersect these strings and so the corresponding flux vanishes. However, due to the Dirac string of the Kaluza-Klein monopole the conditions (23,26) considered in the IIB solution in this gauge do not in fact define closed surfaces.

As a result, more care must be taken. The simplest way to proceed is to perform a change of gauge in the IIA solution to move the Dirac strings of the B field out of the way. This of course affects neither $`C_1`$ nor $`C_3`$. These Dirac strings can in fact be moved to $`x_5=x_6=0`$ and into the region $`v<b`$ (i.e., inside the paraboloid). To see this, we need only change to $`v,w`$ coordinates in which the surface $`v=b`$ becomes a plane. The region $`x_5=x_6=0,v<b`$ then becomes the usual half-space shaped Dirac string. In this gauge, the strings do not intersect any of our surfaces $`S_U`$, $`S_0`$, or $`S_L`$.

Thus, using this new IIA gauge, all three surfaces do in fact represent the closed surfaces we desire in the IIB solution. In addition, the total flux through any of these surfaces vanishes since they intersect no Dirac strings. We conclude that the only D5-branes in the IIB solution are those lying at $`v=w=0.`$

## 4 Discussion

We have studied a situation in which, instead of transforming into D5-brane charge, D4-brane charge simply disappears under T-duality. Note that in the limit that the IIA NS5-brane degenerates to a line, the IIA configuration appears to be just a D4-brane ending on a D6-brane. On the other hand, the T-dual solution is a D5-brane attached to a strange degenerate configuration of Kaluza-Klein monopole. This latter is some sort of singularity that carries no charge.

There is clearly some tension with the usual result that the T-dual of a brane-ending configuration is another brane-ending configuration or perhaps a three-brane junction. The resolution appears to stem from the fact that the IIA configuration is a rather subtle type of brane-ending solution. This can be seen by comparing our case with the worldvolume solution of  representing a fundamental string ending on a D2-brane. One important difference is that in the case of  brane-source charge is conserved and flows through the D2-brane from the junction out to infinity. In contrast, it was explicitly shown in  that the D4-brane brane-source charge is not conserved in our IIA setting and is directly absorbed by the D6-brane. Indeed, had D4-charge been conserved on the IIA side then it would have been consistent to match this charge to the D5-brane charge on the IIB side (which is certainly conserved). In addition, had D4-brane charge flowed through the D6-brane on the IIA side, one would certainly expect the IIB solution to replace this D6-brane with D5-branes of two sorts: one sort coming from the D4-branes and one from the D6-branes. It would then be quite natural for the IIB solution to be a three-brane junction.

The fact that our solution is not of this type has to do with a somewhat confusing property of D6-branes. Consider any massless type IIA solution containing D6-branes. This of course provides a solution to 11-dimensional supergravity in which the D6-branes are replaced by the cores of Kaluza-Klein monopoles. This solution has a Killing field $`\lambda ^{11}`$ which vanishes at the core of each monopole. The natural boundary condition to impose on the D6-branes is that the corresponding 11-dimensional solutions be smooth777In the case of unit-charged monopoles. In the case of multiply-charged Kaluza-Klein monopoles, the natural boundary condition is that an appropriate multiple cover be smooth. at these cores. But now consider the 11-dimensional four-form field strength $`F_4^{\{11\}}`$. If it is smooth then $`F_4^{\{11\}}\lambda ^{11}`$ must vanish when $`\lambda ^{11}`$ does and in particular at any core. Since $`H_3=F_4^{\{11\}}\lambda ^{11}`$, it follows that $`H_3`$ will vanish at any D6-brane. Note that since the lowest Fourier mode around the circle will again give some smooth field, this conclusion also holds in cases where the 11-dimensional solution does not have an exact translation symmetry along $`\lambda _{11}`$ but which can be treated perturbatively. The same argument also applies to the dual field, so that $`\stackrel{~}{F}_4=_{11}F_4^{\{11\}}`$ should also vanish at a D6-brane. Here $`_{11}`$ is the eleven-dimensional Hodge dual. This is the flux that causes D6-branes to produce fundamental strings, so no fundamental string charge should be induced on a D6-brane when a D2-brane is dragged past it.

A similar sort of flux-excluding property was studied in . For the ‘superconducting’ branes considered in that work, the normal component of some field strength was forced to vanish on the horizon. The situation here is somewhat different, however, as now the entire field strength $`H_3`$ or $`\stackrel{~}{F}_4`$ must vanish at the brane.

The unexpected nature of our IIA solution can be directly traced to this property888As can the fact that the D6-brane did not deform in space as the NS5-brane was pulled past it, since the deformation of a brane is associated  with the tension from the induced charge flowing through the brane to infinity.. Consider again the four stages of section 2. If $`H_3`$ had not vanished at the D6-brane, then the D6-brane would have captured some non-zero flux from the NS5-brane. This would in turn have resulted in the creation of D4-brane charge at the center of the D6-brane which would then flow along the D6-brane to infinity. In stages (ii) and (iii) we would see D4-brane charge absorbed on the NS5-brane and created on the D6-brane. However, in the limiting case (iv) the charge would in fact have been conserved as the absorption and creation would both occur at the same place (the intersection). As a result, in this alternate setting one could have said at stage (iv) that the D4 charge flows directly from the NS5-brane to the D6-brane.

Although we have identified the property that leads to our unexpected results and we have shown that this property is a natural result of the eleven-dimensional description, certain aspects of this story remain quite puzzling. For example, flux is clearly not expelled from the NS5-brane or from a corresponding D2-brane crossing a D6-brane. Yet, the D6-brane is connected to these other branes by dualities. Thus, at least naively it appears that application of supergravity dualities can transform the solutions of  into ones in which D6-branes do in fact admit flux from other branes. On the other hand, suppose that these dualities do in fact produce a solution in which the D6-brane admits flux, D4-brane charge flows into the D6-brane at stage (iv), and the IIB solution dual to stage (iv) is a three D5-brane junction. What then will be the IIB story at stages (ii) and (iii) where the branes are not in contact? Recall that it was in fact the flux-expulsion property of our D6-brane that led to the resolution described in section 3. This line of thinking suggests that some subtlety must arise in dualizing the solutions of  in this way.

Another avenue that should be explored is to compare the IIB solution discussed here with recent solutions  representing M5-brane junctions and other holomorphic curves of M5-branes. Under an appropriate set of operations one should be able to transform these solutions into three-brane junctions and brane-terminating solutions similar to the ones discussed here. Now, the solutions of  have certain odd properties of their own. Consider for example , which analyzes an intersection two M5-branes in which the two M5-branes should in principle play symmetric roles. Now, the solution found in  is valid only in the near-horizon limit of one of the branes. While this does break the explicit symmetry between the branes, the fact that it is supposed to be part of a more complete symmetric solution implies that certain properties of the two branes should be the same. Yet, a close examination of the solution shows that one brane lies at a singularity while the other has a smooth horizon. The second (smooth) brane is the one we are ‘near’ in the solution and here the spacetime is much like AdS space. Performing a sufficient number of dualities and comparing the result with the solutions of  might therefore yield insight into the puzzles associated with both solutions.

In summary, it would appear that two sorts of brane-terminating solutions occur. In the first, the termination occurs on a brane that admits flux from other branes. Here the charge of the terminated brane is conserved and flows through the other brane back out to infinity. T-dualizing such solutions leads to further brane-ending solutions or to three-brane junctions. In the second sort, the termination occurs on a brane that for some reason does not capture the proper sort of flux and the charge of the terminating brane evaporates when it contacts the second brane. In this latter case T-duality leads to a solution with charge only at the location of this second brane, the terminating brane having been replaced only with a singularity that carries no charge though it may carry multipole moments under various fields. Whether these two sorts of intersections are connected by dualities remains unclear.

###### Acknowledgments.

The author would like to thank Neil R. Constable, Ben Craps, Gary Gibbons, Andrés Gomberoff, Jeff Harvey, Clifford Johnson, Emil Martinec, Rob Myers, Amanda Peet, Savdeep Sethi, and Oyvind Tafjord for useful discussions. This work was supported in part by NSF grant PHY97-22362 to Syracuse University, the Alfred P. Sloan foundation, and by funds from Syracuse University.


format: text

text:
# Anisotropic superconducting properties of aligned MgB2 crystallites

\[

## Abstract

Samples of aligned MgB2 crystallites have been prepared, allowing for the first time the direct identification of an upper critical field anisotropy $`H_{c2}^{ab}/H_{c2}^c=\xi _{ab}/\xi _c1.7`$; with $`\xi _{o,ab}70`$ Å, $`\xi _{o,c}40`$ Å, and a mass anisotropy ratio $`m_{ab}/m_c0.3`$. A ferromagnetic background signal was identified, possibly related to the raw materials purity.

PACS numbers: 74.25.Ha, 74.60.Ec, 74.60.Jg, 74.70.Ad

\]

The recent discovery of superconductivity at 39 K in Magnesium Diboride (MgB2) has brought new excitement to the area of basic and applied research on superconducting materials. The observation of an isotope effect, a BCS-type energy gap measured by Scanning Tunneling Spectroscopy, as well as band structure studies, point to a phonon-mediated superconductivity in MgB2. Some reports have suggested that MgB2 has an isotropic (or 3D) behavior, based on measurements done in polycrystalline samples. However, other studies have also discussed its possible anisotropic nature. The relatively high values reported for the critical current density ($`J_c`$) are possibly indicating the absence of weak link problems, which are well known in the high-Tc materials. While polycrystalline MgB2 is very easy to grow and is a readily available reagent, good-sized single crystals of this material have not yet been reported, and their development promises to be a greater challenge. Here we present results from samples of aligned MgB2 crystallites that establish the anisotropy of the upper critical field ($`H_{c2}`$), thus implying an anisotropic character for other superconducting properties, e.g., the energy gap, coherence length ($`\xi `$), field penetration depth ($`\lambda `$), and $`J_c.`$

In this work, a weakly sintered sample of MgB2 was prepared, starting with a stoichiometric mixture of 99.5 at% pure Boron and 99.8 at% pure Magnesium, both in chips form (Johnson Matthey Electronics). The loose mixture was sealed in a Ta tube under Ar atmosphere, which was then encapsulated in a quartz ampoule and put into the furnace. The compound formation was processed by initially holding the furnace temperature at 1200C for 1 hour, followed by a decrease to 700C (10C/h), then to 600C (2C/h), and finally to room temperature at a rate of 100C/h. The weakly sintered product was easily crushed and milled employing mortar and pestle. Using a stereomicroscope we could observe a very uniform powder consisting mainly of shiny crystallites, with aspect ratios ranging from 2 to 5. This is mainly due to the main surface size distribution ranging from 5 to 40 $`\mu `$m for the larger linear dimension, since the crystallites’ thickness is very regular, around 2 $`\mu `$m. The powder was then sieved into a range of particle sizes between 5 - 20 $`\mu `$m, which allows the crystallites fraction to be maximized to almost 100%. Small amounts of the powder were then patiently spread on both sides of a small piece of paper, producing an almost perfect alignment of the crystallites, as shown in the SEM picture in the upper part of Fig. 1. The lower part of this figure shows an X-ray diffraction pattern ($`\theta 2\theta `$ scan) from a sample of the crystallite-painted paper, displaying only the (001) and (002) reflections coming from the MgB2 phase. A lattice parameter c = 3.518 $`\pm `$ 0.008 Å was evaluated from these two peak positions. The two small impurity peaks marked with asterisks were indexed as SiO2. The inset of Fig. 1 shows a rocking curve ($`\omega `$ scan) for the (002) peak that reveals an angular spread around 4.6 degrees, associated with a small misalignment of the crystallites c axis.

Electron microprobe analysis done on four different areas between the MgB2 crystallites, revealed the following average concentration (in at%) of elements: O (62.9), C (22.2), Ca (9.48), Si (1.48), Mg (1.44), Al (1.37), K (0.09), Fe (0.50), Cr (0.21), Ni (0.09). The first eight elements in this list were found also in the composition analysis made on the same type of paper used (Canson, ref. 4567-114). Microprobe analysis done also on the initial Mg and B revealed a few small precipitates, smaller than 10 $`\mu `$m and containing up to 8 at% Fe, only in the Mg chips. This confirms the expectation of Fe being a common impurity in commercial Mg and sets a general concern on its possible effects. The average composition found on top of several crystallites, normalized to the whole MgB2 formula unit, was: Mg (30.80), O (2.20), Ca (0.17), Si (0.07), Fe (0.06). Although Boron contributes with a fraction of 66.6 at% it does not show-up in the microprobe analysis because it is too light. The contaminants found on top of the crystallites most possibly came from a surface contamination caused by the alignment technique, which required vigorous rubbing on top of the powder, using a steel tweezers tip to spread the crystallites uniformly. This is corroborated by a further analysis done on top of several as-grown crystallites, which detected only Mg and a small amount of O (possibly from MgO). This result is consistent with the very small solid solubility limit of about 0.004 at% Fe in Mg, which is known to occur at the solidification temperature of 650 C. The inter-crystallite type of rubbish shown in Fig. 1 is attributed mainly to the paper abrasion, which produces a varied distribution of irregular grains of paper fragments. In order to characterize the superconducting and magnetic properties of the aligned crystallites, we mounted several samples consisting of a pile of 5 small squares (3 $`\times `$ 3 mm2) cut from the crystallite-painted paper and glued with Araldite resin. Each one of these samples contains a number of crystallites estimated to be around 6.5 $`\times `$ 105, totalizing an effective volume of 0.065 mm3, which is reasonably close to 0.060 mm3 that was evaluated from the expected slope of $`1/4\pi `$ for the diamagnetic shielding at $`H0.`$

Figure 2 shows the anisotropic signature of the $`H_{c2}`$($`T`$) line in the field interval $`0H40`$ kOe. The values were taken from the transition onset of the real component ($`\chi ^{}`$) of ac susceptibility, measured using a PPMS-9T machine (Quantum Design), with an excitation field of amplitude 1 Oe and frequency 5 kHz. The inset shows an enlarged view of the $`\chi ^{}`$($`T`$) curves for H parallel (solid symbols) and perpendicular (open symbols) to the sample c axis. The $`\chi ^{}`$($`T`$) as well as the $`M`$($`T`$) (inset of Fig. 3) measurements, for $`H=10`$ Oe, show sharp transitions at the same critical temperature $`T_c=39.2`$ K. The dashed lines connecting points in Figs. 2 - 4 are only guides to the eyes. Typically, some of the published data on the temperature dependence of $`H_{c2}`$($`T`$) agree with our result for $`H_{c2}`$($`T`$) // $`ab`$. As an example, the data from Ref. 14 is plotted in Fig. 2 as stars. This could simply mean that in polycrystalline samples the transitions are broadened, showing the onset at the highest temperature that corresponds to the highest critical field available, which is $`H_{c2}(T)//ab.`$

The ratio $`\eta =H_{c2}^{ab}/H_{c2}^c,`$ between the upper critical field when $`H`$ is applied parallel to the $`ab`$ plane, and when it is along the c direction, was evaluated at different temperatures, producing $`\eta =1.73\pm 0.03.`$ Using the Ginzburg-Landau mean field expression (in CGS units) $`\xi `$($`T`$) = $`\xi _o(1T/T_c)^{1/2}`$ and the results for anisotropic situations $`H_{c2}^c`$($`T`$) = $`\varphi _o/(2\pi \xi _{ab}^2)`$ and $`H_{c2}^{ab}/H_{c2}^c=1/\epsilon `$, where $`\varphi _o=2.07\times 10^7`$ G cm2 is the quantum of flux and $`\epsilon ^2=m_{ab}/m_c`$ is the mass anisotropy ratio, we find that $`\xi _{o,ab}/\xi _{o,c}=\xi _{ab}`$($`T`$)/$`\xi _c`$($`T`$) = $`\eta 1.73`$ and $`\epsilon ^20.3.`$ Since at $`T=27`$ K we have $`H_{c2}^c=20`$ kOe, this implies that $`\xi _{o,ab}70`$ Å and $`\xi _{o,c}40`$ Å. The mass anisotropy ratio of MgB2 thus corresponds to a relatively small anisotropy when compared to the highly anisotropic high-Tc cuprates, like YBCO ($`\epsilon ^20.04`$) and BSCCO ($`\epsilon ^210^4`$). We do not expect that a likely very small bulk contamination of the crystallites could eventually change their anisotropy values. In fact our careful composition analysis have indicated that almost all contaminants are located in the region between the crystallites, thus having a negligible chance to affect the underlying mechanism of the superconducting condensation.

The magnetization curves $`M`$($`T`$) and $`M`$($`H`$), displayed in Figs. 3 and 4, were measured using a SQUID magnetometer (Quantum Design, model MPMS-5). The $`M`$($`H`$) curves ($`T=5`$ K) shown in Fig. 3 are intriguing in the region -1 $`H`$ 1 kOe, where the maximum shielding and first field penetration (in the initial virgin state) occur. For $`\left|H\right|1`$ kOe the hysteretic curves in both field directions look very similar. However, for $`\left|H\right|40`$ kOe (not shown here) the magnetization difference between the up and down curves ($`\mathrm{\Delta }M)`$ becomes smaller than the noise. Large fluctuations of the magnetic moment were consistently observed in this field region, for 3 different samples and temperatures ($`T=5,10,20K`$), possibly associated with the high creep rate and the fast drop of $`J_c`$ occurring at high fields. Fig. 4 shows a clear signature of the ferromagnetic hysteresis loop measured at $`T=45`$ K, mainly attributed to the presence of Fe, Cr and Ni in the inter-crystallite region. The inset displays an enlarged view close to $`H=0`$ indicating that demagnetization effects are also observed for the $`H`$ // $`ab`$ and $`H`$ // $`c`$ orientations. In a recent detailed study the occurrence of Fe contamination has already been identified, through measurements of MgB2 samples made from commercial powder supplied by a different company.

In view of the superimposed ferromagnetic signal in the magnetization curves, we found to be not reliable to discuss the expected anisotropy in $`J_c\mathrm{\Delta }M`$, which could be determined using the Bean model. A rough estimate for both field orientations gives $`J_c10^6`$ A/cm2 at $`H=1.5`$ kOe and $`T=5`$ K (Fig. 3). This calculation neglects the small influence of the ferromagnetic hysteresis and considers the average crystallite geometry as described before. However, an anisotropy between $`J_c(H//c)`$ and $`J_c(H//ab)`$ should be expected. Indeed, independently of the different regime of vortex pinning, $`J_c`$ is predicted to be proportional to $`\xi ^2`$, leading to $`J_c(H//c)`$ / $`J_c(H//ab)(\xi _{ab}/\xi _c)H_{c2}^{ab}/H_{c2}^c`$.

A final cautionary observation has to be addressed to the possibility that surface superconductivity could also be occurring for $`H//ab`$, since coincidently the surface nucleation field is $`H_{c3}1.7H_{c2}`$. However, we have made several careful measurements of $`M(H)`$ and $`\chi ^{}`$($`H`$), as well as $`M(T)`$ and $`\chi ^{}`$($`T`$), around the onset of transition, and no signature of a surface nucleation field was found. This is consistent with the fact that our $`H_{c2}^{ab}(T)`$ line agrees with several reported $`H_{c2}(T)`$ lines measured in polycrystalline samples, which certainly did not comply the boundary condition required for surface nucleation in the $`ab`$ planes, i.e. $`H//ab`$.

In conclusion, we have prepared samples of aligned MgB2 crystallites that allowed, for the first time, the identification of an anisotropy for the upper critical field given by $`H_{c2}^{ab}/H_{c2}^c1.73`$, implying an anisotropy of the coherence length $`\xi _{ab}/\xi _c1.73`$ and a mass anisotropy ratio $`m_{ab}/m_c0.3`$. This could be considered a mild anisotropy when compared to the values found for the high-Tc materials ($`m_{ab}/m_c0.04`$). The influence of contaminants is requiring further work, aimed at a more complete and reliable characterization of the MgB2 intrinsic properties. Naturally the production of a good-sized single crystal of MgB2 is also highly desirable.

Note added: Since this manuscript was submitted two papers have appeared showing results consistent with our anisotropy data.

We are very grateful to S. Gama for supplying some of the raw materials, to I. Torriani and C. M. Giles for the X-ray diffractograms, and to D. Silva (IG-Unicamp) for the SEM and microprobe analysis. This work is supported by the Brazilian science agencies FAPESP (Fundação de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo) and CNPq (Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico).

FIG. 1. Top: SEM picture showing the well aligned crystallites and inter-crystallite material. Bottom: X-ray diffraction pattern showing only the (001) and (002) peaks of MgB2, plus two spurious peaks indexed as SiO2. Inset: rocking curve ($`\omega `$ scan) for the (002) peak, showing an angular spread of about 4.6 degrees along the crystallites c axis.

FIG. 2. Upper critical field $`H_{c2}`$ vs. Temperature phase diagram, for both sample orientations. The stars represent the $`H_{c2}`$ vs. $`T`$ line from Ref. 14. The inset shows the real component $`\chi ^{}`$ of the ac susceptibility vs. temperature, measured at several dc fields for both orientations. Open symbols are for the $`H//ab`$ curves and solid symbols for $`H//c`$.

FIG. 3. Magnetization loops at 5 K for both sample orientations, showing a superconducting hysteresis on a ferromagnetic background. The inset shows a dc magnetization vs. temperature curve at 10 Oe, showing a sharp transition at 39.2 K and $`70`$ % recovery of diamagnetism for the FCC curve.

FIG. 4. Magnetization loops at 45 K (above $`T_c`$) for both sample orientations, showing the ferromagnetic behavior of our sample. The inset shows the hysteretic behavior at low fields.


text:
# General Birkhoff’s Theorem

## Abstract

Space-time is spherically symmetric if it admits the group of SO(3) as a group of isometries, with the group orbits spacelike two-surfaces. These orbits are necessarily two-surface of constant positive curvature. One commonly chooses coordinate $`\{t,r,\theta ,\varphi \}`$ so that the group orbits become surfaces $`\{t,r=const\}`$ and the radial coordinate $`r`$ is defined by the requirement that $`4\pi r^2`$ is the area of these spacelike two-surfaces with the range of zero to infinity. According to the Birkhoff’s theorem upon the above assumptions, Schwarzschild metric is the only solution of the vacuum Einstein field equations. Our aim is to reconsider the solution of the spherically symmetric vacuum Einstein field equations by regarding a weaker requirement. We admit the evident fact that in the completely empty space the radial coordinate $`r`$ may be defined so that $`4\pi r^2`$ becomes the area of spacelike two-surfaces $`\{t,r=const\}`$ with the range of zero to infinity. This is not necessarily to be true in the presence of a material point mass M. It turns out that inspite of imposing asymptotically flatness and staticness as initial conditions the equations have general classes of solutions which Schwarzschild metric is the only member of them which has an intrinsic singularity at the location of the point mass M. The area of $`\{t,r=const\}`$ is $`4\pi (r+\alpha M)^2`$ in one class and $`4\pi (r^2+a_1Mr+a_2M^2)`$ in the other class while the center of symmetry is at $`r=0`$.
PACS numbers: 04.20.Jb,04.70.Bw

Introduction

Every spherically symmetric vacuum solution of Einstein’s field equations is part of the Schwarzschild solution according to the Birkhoff’s theorem. The solution possesses a four dimensional isometry group at least locally. Historicaly Jebsen(1921) was the first to formulate it and Birkhoff(1923) was the first to prove it. A popular proof has been presented by Hawking and Ellis . Usually the method which applied to prove this theorem is under a relatively stringent assumption. The radial coordinate $`r`$ is defined by the requirement that $`4\pi r^2`$ is the area of the spacelike two-surfaces $`\{t,r=const\}`$ which are invarient under the group of isometries SO(3) operating on them. This assumption which is certainly an evident fact in the completely empty space , physically is not necessarily always to be true even in the presence of a material point mass particle M. Our aim in this article is to reconsider the solution of the spherically symmetric vacuum Einstein’s field equations i.e. Birkhoff’s theorem by regarding a weaker assumption. Let assume only in completely empty space radial coordinate $`r`$ may be defined so that $`4\pi r^2`$ to be the area of spacelike two-surfaces with the range of zero to infinity. It results in that Shwarzschild metric is not the unique solution but general classes of Schwarzschild form solutions exist which most of them are geodesically complete. The Schwarzschild metric is the only member of them which possesses an intrinsic singularity at the location of the point particle.

Spherically Symmetric Space

Spherical symmetry requires the existence of a special coordinate system $`(t,r,\theta ,\varphi )`$ so that in which the line element has the form

$$ds^2=B(r,t)dt^2A(r,t)dr^22C(r,t)dtdrD(r,t)(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}{}_{}{}^{2}\theta d\phi ^2)$$
(1)
As mentioned above $`r`$ is defined so that the area of spacelike two-surfaces $`\{t,r=const\}`$ becomes $`4\pi r^2`$. There is a common belief that the line element can be transformed to the following standard form by a suitable coordinate transformation. Some texts start from here e.g..

$$ds^2=B^{^{}}(r^{^{}},t^{^{}})dt^{}_{}{}^{}2A^{^{}}(r^{^{}},t^{^{}})dr^{}_{}{}^{}2r^{}_{}{}^{}2(d\theta ^{}_{}{}^{^{}}2+\mathrm{sin}{}_{}{}^{2}\theta _{}^{^{}}d\phi ^{}_{}{}^{}2)$$
(2)
Taking advantage of the mentioned form to compute the field equations it can be shown that it is necessarily static and has a unique Schwarzschild solution, as required by Birkhoff’s theorem . This means that the other solutions are just different forms of this metric which are related by coordinate transformation. What indeed is flawing the reasoning, is that the change of the coordinate $`rr^{}=\sqrt{D(r,t)}`$ with new parameter having the same range of $`r`$, while it is true in completely empty space is not necessarily to be generally true in the presence of material particle M. Accordingly we believe that the steps which follow to arrive at the standard form are not justified. Since it is a hard task to solve the vacuum field equations with the general form of the metric (1) we restrict our investigation to asymptotically flat and static space-time by convention i.e.

$$ds^2=B(r)dt^2A(r)dr^2D(r)(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}{}_{}{}^{2}\theta d\phi ^2)$$
(3)
This metric tensor has the nonvanishing components

$$g_{tt}=B(r),g_{rr}=A(r),g_{\theta \theta }=D(r),g_{\phi \phi }=D(r)\mathrm{sin}{}_{}{}^{2}\theta $$
(4)
with functions $`A(r),B(r)`$and $`D(r)`$ that are to be determined by solving the field equations. The nonvanishing contravariant components of the metric are :

$$g^{tt}=B^1,g^{rr}=A^1,g^{\theta \theta }=D^1,g^{\phi \phi }=D^1\mathrm{sin}{}_{}{}^{2}\theta $$
(5)
The metric connection can be computed by the use of (4) and (5) from the usual definition. Its only nonvanishing components are:

$$\begin{array}{cccc}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{rr}^r=\frac{A^{^{}}}{2A}\hfill & \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\theta \theta }^r=\frac{D^{^{}}}{2A}\hfill & \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\phi \phi }^r=\mathrm{sin}{}_{}{}^{2}\theta \frac{D^{^{}}}{2A}\hfill & \mathrm{\Gamma }_{tt}^r=\frac{B^{^{}}}{2A}\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Gamma }_{r\theta }^\theta =\frac{D^{^{}}}{2D}\hfill & \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\phi \phi }^\theta =\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta \hfill & & \\ \mathrm{\Gamma }_{r\phi }^\phi =\frac{D^{^{}}}{2D}\hfill & \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\phi \theta }^\phi =\mathrm{cot}\theta \hfill & & \\ \mathrm{\Gamma }_{tr}^t=\frac{B^{^{}}}{2B}\hfill & & & \end{array}$$
(6)
where primes stand for differentiation with respect to $`r`$. With these connections the Ricci tensor can be obtained.

$$R_{rr}=\frac{B^{^{\prime \prime }}}{2B}\frac{B^{^{}}}{4B}(\frac{A^{^{}}}{A}+\frac{B^{^{}}}{B})\frac{A^{^{}}D^{^{}}}{2AD}+\frac{D^{^{\prime \prime }}}{D}\frac{D^{}_{}{}^{}2}{2D^2}$$
(7)
$$R_{\theta \theta }=1+\frac{D^{^{}}}{4A}(\frac{A^{^{}}}{A}+\frac{B^{^{}}}{B})+\frac{D^{^{\prime \prime }}}{2A}$$
(8)
$$R_{\phi \phi }=\mathrm{sin}{}_{}{}^{2}\theta R_{\theta \theta }$$

$$R_{tt}=\frac{B^{^{\prime \prime }}}{2A}+\frac{B^{^{}}}{2A}(\frac{A^{^{}}}{A}+\frac{B^{^{}}}{B})\frac{B^{^{}}D^{^{}}}{2AD}$$
(9)
$$R_{\mu \nu }=0for\mu \nu $$

The Einstein field equations for vacuum are $`R_{\mu \nu }=0`$. Dividing $`R_{rr}`$ by $`A`$ and $`R_{tt}`$ by $`B`$ and putting them together we get

$$\frac{D^{^{}}}{2AD}(\frac{A^{^{}}}{A}+\frac{B^{^{}}}{B})+\frac{1}{A}(\frac{D^{^{\prime \prime }}}{D}\frac{D^{}_{}{}^{}2}{2D^2})=0$$
(10)
Multiplying (10) by $`\frac{2AD}{D^{^{}}}`$ gives

$$\frac{A^{^{}}}{A}+\frac{B^{^{}}}{B}=\frac{2D^{^{\prime \prime }}}{D^{^{}}}\frac{D^{^{}}}{D}$$
(11)
Now let integrate (11) with respect to $`r`$ and find

$$AB=C_1\frac{D^{}_{}{}^{}2}{D}$$
(12)
where $`C_1`$is a constant of integration which can be fixed by requiring that $`D`$ asymptotically approaches to $`r^2`$ and $`A`$ and $`B`$ to one. This will fix $`C_1`$ to $`\frac{1}{4}`$ by (12), thus

$$AB=\frac{D^{}_{}{}^{}2}{4D}$$
(13)
Now using (9) and dividing the field equation $`R_{tt}=0`$ by $`\frac{B^{^{}}}{2A}`$ we obtain

$$\frac{B^{^{\prime \prime }}}{B^{^{}}}+\frac{1}{2}(\frac{A^{^{}}}{A}+\frac{B^{^{}}}{B})\frac{D^{^{}}}{D}=0$$
(14)
Substituting (11) in (14) we get

$$\frac{B^{^{\prime \prime }}}{B^{^{}}}+\frac{3D^{^{}}}{2D}=\frac{D^{^{\prime \prime }}}{D^{^{}}}$$
(15)
The next step is to integrate (15) with respect to $`r`$ which gives

$$B^{^{}}D^{\frac{3}{2}}=C_2D^{^{}}$$
(16)
where $`C_2`$is a constant of integration. Dividing (16) by $`D^{\frac{3}{2}}`$ and taking another integration with respect to $`r`$ we get

$$B=2C_2D^{\frac{1}{2}}+C_3$$
(17)
where C3 is another constant of integration. $`C_2`$ and $`C_3`$ can be fixed by considering the Newtonian limit of $`B`$ which gives $`C_3=1`$ and $`C_2=M`$ ($`G=c=1`$). Thus

$$B=12MD^{\frac{1}{2}}$$
(18)
$`A`$ may be computed by (12) and (18). It is

$$A=\frac{\frac{D^{}_{}{}^{}2}{4D}}{12MD^{\frac{1}{2}}}$$
(19)
It is a natural expectation that the functional form of $`D`$ to be fixed by using the $`\theta \theta `$ component of the field equation, that is $`R_{\theta \theta }=0.`$ But using (18) , (19) and (11) it turns out that the equation $`R_{\theta \theta }=0`$ will become an identical relation of zero equal to zero for any analytic function of $`D`$ which is only restricted to the following constraints

$$Dr^2ifr\mathrm{}M0$$
(20)
This means that $`D`$ has the functional form

$$D(r,M)=r^2f(\frac{M}{r})$$
(21)
where $`f(0)=1`$. The appearance of square root of $`D`$ in the final solution reveals that $`D`$ cannot adapt negative values otherwise the metric becomes complex which physically is not acceptable. Let’s assume $`D`$ to be an analytic monotonic non-negative increasing function of $`r`$ from zero to infinity and satisfies (21).There is no obligation that $`D(0,M)`$ becomes zero. Since the functional form of $`f`$ is not fixed then generally $`D(0,M)`$ may admit any positive value. Thus we may have the transformation $`rr^{^{}}=\sqrt{D(r,M)}=r\sqrt{f(\frac{M}{r})}`$ but this does not specify the range of $`r^{^{}}`$ at all. It is clear that the Schwarzschild solution is a special case of the general solution by choosing $`f=1,`$ indeed the simplest case. This does not based on any physical fact. This unjustified choice which is not even stand on any fundamental reasoning, is the source of the trouble of singularity in some parts of space-time and of course can be avoided. Then we may perform the following coordinate transformation

$$r\text{with the range }(0,+\mathrm{})r^{^{}}=D(r,M)^{\frac{1}{2}}\text{with the range }(D(0,M)^{\frac{1}{2}},\mathrm{})$$
(22)
where $`D(0,M)`$ may be any arbitrarily real non-negative number. Since $`D`$ has $`\left[L^2\right]`$ dimension and $`D(0,0)`$ is equal to zero and also $`M`$ is the only natural parameter of the system which has length dimension we may conclude that the general form of $`D(0,M)`$ is

$$D(0,M)^{\frac{1}{2}}=\alpha (M)M$$
(23)
where $`\alpha `$ is a dimensionless parameter which for simplicity may take it as a constant independent of $`M`$. Now we make another coordinate transformation

$$r^{^{}}r^{^{\prime \prime }}=r^{^{}}\alpha M$$
(24)
The range of new radial coordinate is from zero to infinity. Dropping primes the final form of the metric becomes

$$ds^2=(1\frac{2M}{r+\alpha M})dt^2\frac{dr^2}{1\frac{2M}{r+\alpha M}}(r+\alpha M)^2(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\phi ^2)$$
(25)
Thus $`\alpha `$ is an arbitrary constant which its different values define the members of our general solutions family . The only condition on $`\alpha `$ is that it should not be much much bigger than one, otherwise it would contradict with Newtonian mechanics predictions. The corresponding metrics related to the values of $`\alpha `$ bigger than 2 are all regular in the whole space. The actual metric of the spacetime of course is merely a special member of this class but not necessarily the Schwarzschild metric($`\alpha =0`$). Specifying this requires further information about the actual properties of spacetime at Schwarzschild scales which at this time there is no access to such data.

Test for Equivalence

Someone may be taken in by the apparent form of the general solution that these are just the usual Schwarzschild solution with $`r`$ replaced by $`r+\alpha M`$ and conclude that they are not new. In the following we clarify this point and show that it is not so.

1- In Schwarzschild solution the range of radial coordinate $`r`$ is between $`0`$to$`\mathrm{}`$ and the center of symmetry is at $`r=0`$. Replacing $`r`$ by $`\stackrel{´}{r}+\alpha M`$ does not lead to the new solution because the range of the transformed radial coordinate is between $`\alpha M`$ to $`\mathrm{}.`$ Of course negative values for conventional radial coordinate is meaningless and the center of symmetry is located at $`\stackrel{´}{r}=\alpha M`$. This is not identical to the new solution because the range of radial coordinate is between $`0`$ to $`\mathrm{}`$ and the center of symmetry is at $`\stackrel{´}{r}=0`$. On the other hand in the new metric replacing $`r+\alpha M=\stackrel{´}{r}`$ does not lead to Schwarzschild solution because the range of $`r`$here is between $`0`$ to $`\mathrm{}`$ and the center of symmetry is at $`r=0`$. While the range of the transformed radial coordinate is between $`\alpha M`$ to $`\mathrm{}`$ and the center of symmetry is at $`\stackrel{´}{r}=\alpha M`$. This evidently is different from Schwarzschild solution. Though the extension of $`\stackrel{´}{r}`$ to values smaller than $`\alpha M`$ is physically meaningless because a point by definition has no internal structure to be extended inside of it, let us consider such a mathematical hypothetical spacetimes. Even these are essentially different from Schwarzschild spacetime because in Schwarzschild the point mass $`M`$ is at $`r=0`$ while in these spacetimes it is located at $`r=\alpha M`$.

2- The center of spherical symmetry that is the position of point mass $`M`$ is a common point between the Schwarzschild spacetime and the presented spherically symmetric vacuum spacetimes in this manuscript. As it has been shown the field equations and the given boundary conditions are not sufficient to fix $`\alpha `$. Thus if we take $`\alpha 0`$ , then these solutions will not be singular at the center of symmetry while the Schwarzschild spacetime possesses an intrinsic singularity at the center of symmetry. If these new metrics were isometric to Schwarzschild metric they should be singular too, because coordinate transformation cannot change the intrinsic properties of spacetime. This clearly shows that the presented metrics are not Kottler solutions of Schwarzschild spacetime.

3- The presented general solution and the Schwarzschild solution have exactly the same space extension. Making use of Cartesian coordinate system as frame of reference will elucidate this fact. It turns out that all components have the same range $`(\mathrm{},+\mathrm{}).`$

4- Let us consider hypothetically spacetimes which possesses different lower bound for the surface area of a sphere. Obviously they have different geometrical structures and present different physics.

5- The zone of $`r`$ of the order of Schwarzschild radius is the domain in which gravitational field is tremendously strong and conventionally we have to give up our common sense and replace the character of $`r`$ and $`t`$. So it is not surprising to have a geometry completely different.

6- Schwarzschild solution is a special case of our general solutions Eq.(25) for the case of $`\alpha =0`$. Therefore both Schwarzschild and general solutions are in the same coordinate system which manifestly have different form. Any transformation to new radial coordinate $`r^{^{}}=r+\alpha m`$ requires the Schwarzschild metric be written in this new coordinate too which means we should replace $`r`$ by $`r^{^{}}\alpha m`$. Thus in the new coordinate they will have different form too. This means general solutions are not isometric to any piece of the Schwarzschild metric.

Completeness

For $`\alpha >2`$ in (25) $`t`$ remains time coordinate everywhere. This means the hypersurfaces $`t=const.`$ become spacelike positive definite Riemanian 3-dimensional manifolds. These are metrically complete because every Cauchy sequence with respect to the distance function converges to a point in the manifold. It is well known that metric completeness and geodesically completeness are equivalant for a positive definite metric .

The Most General Case

What we have assumed in the previous sections for $`D(r,M)`$ i.e. to be an analytic monotonic non-negative increasing function is not generally a necessary requirement. It is merely necessary to be analytic and non-negative. To see how this may be possible let us consider a series expansion of $`f(\frac{M}{r})`$ as follows;

$$f(\frac{M}{r})=\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}a_n(\frac{M}{r})^n$$
(26)
The condition, $`f(0)=1`$ implies that

$`a_n`$ $`=`$ $`0,n=1,2,\mathrm{},\mathrm{}`$
$`a_0`$ $`=`$ $`1`$ (27)
Since $`D(r,M)`$ is supposed to be analytic everywhere including $`r=0`$, this leads to

$$a_n=0,n=3,4,\mathrm{},+\mathrm{}$$
(28)
Thus the most general form of $`D(r,M)`$ is

$$D(r,M)=r^2f(\frac{M}{r})=r^2+a_1Mr+a_2M^2$$
(29)
where $`a_1`$ and $`a_2`$ are dimensionless numbers which should be fixed by comparision with observation. The non-negativeness of $`D(r,M)`$ would be guaranteed if

$`a_20`$ $`and`$ $`a_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}4a_20`$ (30)
$`or`$ $`2\sqrt{a_2}a_12\sqrt{a_2}`$
The minimum value of $`D(r,M)`$ is at

$$r=\frac{a_1M}{2}$$
(31)
For $`a_10`$ (29) is a non-negative monotonic and increasing function of $`r`$ from zero to infinity as the same case which was discussed previously. But for $`2\sqrt{a_2}a_10`$ , $`D(r,M)`$ decreases as $`r`$ goes from $`+\mathrm{}`$ to $`\frac{a_1M}{2}`$ and then increases as $`r`$ goes from $`\frac{a_1M}{2}`$ to zero. Thus for the case $`a_20`$ and $`2\sqrt{a_2}a_10`$ it is not possible to have a transformation like $`rr^{}=\sqrt{D}`$. Becuase there is not one to one correspondence between $`r`$ and $`r^{}`$ in this case.
We may write the most general form of the solution as

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`(12MD^{\frac{1}{2}})dt^2{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{D^{}_{}{}^{}2}{4D}}{12MD^{\frac{1}{2}}}}dr^2D(d\theta ^2+sin^2\theta d\varphi ^2)`$ (32)
$`D`$ $`=`$ $`r^2+a_1Mr+a_2M^2anda_20,2\sqrt{a_2}a_10`$
This metric would be free of any coordinate singularity if we have

$$a_2\frac{a_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{4}>4$$
(33)
(33) will restrict the allowed values of $`a_1`$ and $`a_2`$ to the range

$$a_2>4and2\sqrt{a_24}<a_1<0$$
(34)
The proof of completeness which was presented for (25) does hold for (32).

Conclusion

We may conclude the discussion that Birkhoff’s theorem to be modified with this statement that the vacuum Einstein field equation spherical solutions are uniqely of general Schwarzschild-like form (25) or (32) which may be called general Birkhoff’s theorem. Spacetimes (25) for $`\alpha >2`$ and (32) for (34) are nonsigular and maximally extended.