format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Non-commutative Yang-Mills theories (NCYM) arise as effective theories of open strings whose endpoints move on D-branes in the background of a constant antisymmetric tensor field $`B_{ij}`$ or magnetic field $`F_{ij}`$ on the branes . The scaling limit which is involved to decouple gravity and massive modes is schematically given by

$`\alpha ^{}0,F_{ij}\mathrm{finite}.`$
The S-duality of IIB superstrings maps the magnetic background field $`F_{ij}`$ to electric fields $`F_{0k}`$,

$`F_{0k}={\displaystyle \frac{F_{ij}}{\sqrt{1+\left(F_{ij}\right)^2}}},`$
and the S-dual of NCYM is usually referred to as NCOS (non-commutative open strings) . The above limit for $`F_{ij}`$ translates to a critical electric field which implies a theory of light open strings along the $`0k`$ directions and decoupled from gravity. In order to study non-perturbative configurations like supersymmetric instantons in NCYM, bound states of D0-D$`(2p)`$ branes with background magnetic fields were considered, where supersymmetry puts some severe restrictions on the form of the $`F`$-field. These systems are T-dual to D$`p`$-D$`p^{}`$ branes intersecting at certain angles which are likewise determined by supersymmetry.

In this paper we will discuss the lifting of such situations to M-theory and explain the relations to OM-theory (open membrane theory) . Therefore we have to study non-threshold bound states of M5- and M2-branes, which are equivalent to M5-branes in the presence of an antisymmetric 3-form field $`H_{ijk}`$ living on the M5-brane world volume along the direction of the M2-brane. The circle-compactification of the M-theory set-up involves the D4-D2 bound state, the NS5-D2 and the D4-F1 bound states, and the scaling limit of OM-theory maps to the OD2-theory (open D2-brane theory) and to the NCOS limits, respectively.

In the first part of this paper we will analyze the conditions on the fluxes and the shape of these bound states in order to preserve supersymmetry from a ten dimensional perspective. The conditions on the flux $`F`$ for the three types of bound states in type IIA string theory will be found equivalent to the self-duality condition of $`H`$. In particular the supersymmetry conditions on the D4-D2 brane bound state will be investigated in some detail, where the D2-brane is rotated inside the D4-brane by arbitrary angles and, in addition, magnetic fluxes on the D4-brane are turned on. As a result we will show that the D2-brane in the presence of the fluxes describes a deformed 2-cycle with an induced symplectic form determined by the flux. We then demonstrate by the techniques of geometric quantization that due to the non-trivial symplectic structure the coordinates of the curve that describes the embedding of the D2-brane are non-commutative.

In the second part of the paper we will consider superpositions of two M5-branes, filling different spatial directions, or, in the smooth case, the 2-cycle which is formed by a single M5-brane. The M5-branes will be bound together with two different M2-brane configurations, namely first a separate M2-brane inside each M5-brane, corresponding to M2-branes wrapping the 2-cycle, and second in a fashion such that the intersection of any M2-brane with an M5-brane is a self-dual string. The motivation for these configurations originates from the observation  that the embedding of a smooth M5-brane in M-theory for the case of vanishing background fields reproduces the Seiberg-Witten curve of $`𝒩=2`$ supersymmetric gauge theories. Similarly the M-theory lift of certain $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetric gauge theories leads to a supersymmetric M5-brane whose internal embedding is given by a supersymmetric 3-cycle, i.e. a special Lagrangian submanifold in 6-dimensions . We will see that for the first M2-brane configuration (see table 3.1) the Seiberg-Witten curve will not be deformed by any of the allowed fluxes, in agreement with some recent discussion on non-commutative $`𝒩=2`$ gauge theories .

For the second M2-brane configuration (see table 3.2), following the work of , we have already considered the way a constant $`H`$-field affects the geometry of an M5-brane in  (see also ). We will see that turning on $`H`$ indeed lifts the Lagrangian condition in the BPS-equations of the M5-brane, which means that the Seiberg-Witten curve in the presence of the flux gets deformed, such that it is no longer holomorphic in the same complex structure. Via geometric quantization this again signals a non-commutativity on the deformed curve. But in the two dimensional case the holomorphicity can be restored by a rotation of coordinates in the definition of the complex structure.

## 2 Supersymmetric bound states

We first discuss a bound state of a single M5-brane with another single M2-brane inside the M5-brane. From the M5 world volume perspective, an M5-brane with a constant $`H`$-field represents a non-threshold bound state of this M5-brane with an M2-brane along two spatial directions of the M5-brane. This will be the prototype and building block of more complicated superpositions we shall encounter later on.

### 2.1 M5-M2 bound states: OM-theory

In static gauge the embedding of the M5-brane into flat 11d spacetime is realized by a map, which describes the dependence of the transverse coordinates $`X_i`$, $`i=6,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}`$ on the brane coordinates $`x_j`$, $`j=0,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}5}`$. Furthermore there is a two-form potential $`B_{\mu \nu }`$ on the six-dimensional worldvolume of the M5-brane with field strength $`H=dB`$. A nonlinear self duality constraint is realized on the field $`H`$, so that the anti-self-dual part can be computed from the self-dual one:

$`H_{ijk}={\displaystyle \frac{4}{Q}}\left(h_{ijk}+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}(kh)_{ijk}\right),`$
where $`k_i^j`$ and $`Q`$ are defined by $`k_i^j=h_{ikl}h^{jkl}`$ and $`Q=1\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{tr}k^2`$. If one considers the case with only $`H_{012}`$ and $`H_{345}`$ turned on, this constraint can be solved by parametrizing $`H_{012}`$ and $`H_{345}`$ through a single variable, which by convention is chosen to be

$`H_{012}=\mathrm{sin}(\stackrel{~}{\phi }),H_{345}=\mathrm{tan}(\stackrel{~}{\phi }).`$ (2.1)
Equivalently, this can be expressed as

$`H_{012}={\displaystyle \frac{H_{345}}{\sqrt{1+(H_{345})^2}}}.`$ (2.2)
The equations of motion of the M5-brane are obtained from the superembedding approach . For the brane considered here the supersymmetry projector $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is given by

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{1+H_{ijk}^2}}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{012345}{\displaystyle \frac{H_{ijk}}{\sqrt{1+H_{ijk}^2}}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ijk}.`$ (2.3)
We now consider a bound state of an M5- and an M2-brane along the 012 directions of the world volume of the M5-brane. This is the configuration of table 2.1. It will be of interest in the decoupling limits of OM-theory, NCOS and OD2-theory, to be explained in the following section.
M5 1 2 3 4 5  M2 1 2      Table 1. M5-M2 bound state configuration

This set-up has been discussed e.g. in  and an according gravity solution was constructed in . One has to take into account that the projection operators $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{012345}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{012}`$ no longer commute, such that the supersymmetric configuration must be a non-threshold BPS bound state. The conserved supersymmetry is determined by the projector

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(12)}=\mathrm{cos}(\stackrel{~}{\phi })\mathrm{\Gamma }_{012345}+\mathrm{sin}(\stackrel{~}{\phi })\mathrm{\Gamma }_{012}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{012345}e^{\stackrel{~}{\phi }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{345}}.`$ (2.4)
It is equivalent to the projector of a single M5-brane with flux given by $`H_{012}=\mathrm{sin}(\stackrel{~}{\phi })`$ as in (2.3).

We would now like to address the issue of scaling limits which decouple gravity from the theory on the M5-brane and conserves the influence of the flux $`H_{012}`$: OM-theory  (see also ). While the Planck mass $`M_\mathrm{p}`$ has to go to infinity, the effective scale $`M_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ of a membrane stretching along the worldvolume directions 012 of the M5-brane, which support the flux, can stay finite

$`M_\mathrm{p}^3ϵ^{012}H_{012}=M_{\mathrm{eff}}^3\mathrm{finite}`$
by letting the flux go to its critical value, which implies:

$`H_{012}M_\mathrm{p}^3.`$
The resulting theory has light excitations of M2-branes extending in the 012 directions of the M5-brane as dominating degrees of freedom. It has been conjectured that the coordinates of the fluctuating M2-brane are non-commutative, but no proper derivation could be presented up to now.

Upon compactification on circles one can now recover supersymmetric bound states of type IIA branes. The M-theory-IIA dictionary then translates M5-branes to D4-branes or NS5-branes and M2-branes to D2-branes or fundamental F1 strings, respectively. One has three options to pick some direction as the eleventh:

* parallel to only the M5-brane $``$ D4-D2 bound state (NCYM-theory),
* parallel to both of the two branes $``$ D4-F1 bound state (NCOS-theory) or
* orthogonal to both of them $``$ NS5-D2 bound state (OD2-theory).

The 3-form flux becomes an electric 2-form on the D4-branes or a RR 3-form flux on the NS5-branes:

$`R_iH_{ijk}=F_{jk}.`$
Let us go through the different options case by case.

### 2.2 D4-D2 bound states: NCYM

Compactifying along any of the 345 directions leads to a D4(01234)-D2(012) state. In the appropriate scaling limit $`\alpha ^{}0`$ with $`F_{34}=R_5H_{345}`$ kept finite the resulting theory is NCYM in (4+1) dimensions . Closed string states as well as massive open string excitations decouple, and one is left with pure YM theory on a non-commutative space. The flat superposition of the two kinds of D-branes is non-supersymmetric. But, in the presence of constant magnetic background fluxes together with non-trivial intersection angles of the two branes, supersymmetry can be restored. In the following we will derive the combined supersymmetry conditions on the fluxes and on the angles from the projector conditions on the spinors.

#### 2.2.1 Projector relations

To be slightly more generic we now consider D$`p`$-D$`q`$-brane bound states, which one can easily specialize to the D4-D2 case. The coordinates are chosen such that the D$`p`$-brane extends into $`0,1,\mathrm{},p`$ directions, the D$`q`$-brane into $`0,1,\mathrm{},q`$ directions, and $`qp`$. The D$`q`$-brane can then be rotated inside the world volume of the D$`p`$-brane by any angle $`\phi _{ij}`$ in a plane spanned by $`x_i`$ and $`x_j`$, with $`iq`$ and $`q<jp`$. The projector that defines the condition for preserving supersymmetry reads

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{01\mathrm{}p}ϵ=\stackrel{~}{ϵ}\&\mathrm{\Gamma }_{01\mathrm{}q}(Rϵ)=(R\stackrel{~}{ϵ})\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(q+1)\mathrm{}p}R^2ϵ=\pm ϵ,`$ (2.5)
where $`R`$ denotes the rotation

$`R=\mathrm{exp}\left(\phi _{ij}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}\right)`$ (2.6)
of the spinors, $`ϵ`$ for left-moving, $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}`$ for right-moving supersymmetries and normalizations chosen such that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}/2`$ takes eigenvalues $`\pm i/2`$.

Now we also turn on also magnetic fluxes $`F_{ij}=\mathrm{tan}(\stackrel{~}{\phi }_{ij})`$ on the D$`p`$-brane. Then the supersymmetry condition is identical to the last equation of (2.5), where we have replaced $`\phi _{ij}`$ in $`R`$ by $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }_{ij}`$, i.e.

$`\stackrel{~}{R}=\mathrm{exp}\left(\stackrel{~}{\phi }_{ij}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}\right)`$ (2.7)
In fact, due to the change of commutation relations, this is now derived from an asymmetric rotation

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{01\mathrm{}q}ϵ=\stackrel{~}{ϵ}\&\mathrm{\Gamma }_{01\mathrm{}p}(\stackrel{~}{R}ϵ)=(\stackrel{~}{R}^1\stackrel{~}{ϵ})\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(q+1)\mathrm{}p}\stackrel{~}{R}^2ϵ=\pm ϵ,`$ (2.8)
treating left- and right-moving spinors with opposite phases. This agrees with the fact that the boundary conditions for an open string in the presence of background 2-form flux can be derived from an asymmetric rotation from pure Neumann or Dirichlet boundary conditions .

These conditions for D-branes at angles and D-branes with flux can now be lifted to eleven dimensions, where we restrict ourselves to branes of dimensions less that six. The first case is of course trivial, two D-branes intersecting at any relative angle lift to two M-branes with the same relative angle. For the second, we use the ten-dimensional chirality projector $`(1\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11})`$ in order to rewrite the asymetrically rotated equation in (2.8) as a condition on the 11-dimensional spinor $`\eta =ϵ\stackrel{~}{ϵ}`$

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{0\mathrm{}p}\stackrel{~}{R}\left(1+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}\right)\eta =\stackrel{~}{R}^1\left(1\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}\right)\eta .`$ (2.9)
From this we derive

$`\left(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}+\beta (1\beta )\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}\right)\eta `$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{0\mathrm{}p}\left(\left(\stackrel{~}{R}^2+\stackrel{~}{R}^2\right)+\left(\stackrel{~}{R}^2\stackrel{~}{R}^2\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}\right)\eta `$
$`=`$ $`2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{0\mathrm{}p}\left(\mathrm{cos}(\stackrel{~}{\phi }_{ij})+\mathrm{sin}(\stackrel{~}{\phi }_{ij})\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}\right)\eta ,`$
where we have used $`\beta =\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{0\mathrm{}p}\right)^2=\pm 1`$. Obviously, asymmetric rotations or 2-form fluxes on D-branes are lifted to become 3-form fluxes in M-theory. On the contrary, a similar computation shows that the conditions (2.5) lift trivially to eleven dimensions, angles indeed remain angles. All this is in accord with the fact that in M-theory the 2-form field $`F_{ij}`$ is lifted to $`H_{ij11}`$,

$`R_{11}H_{ij11}=F_{ij}.`$
We have to expect that D-branes with 2-form flux lift to M-branes with 3-form flux simply because there is no 2-form present in M-theory.

Upon compactification on a torus $`𝕋^2`$ the Dirac quantization requires the flux to take discrete values only. Concretely, $`F_{ij}`$ is rational

$`F_{ij}={\displaystyle \frac{n}{m}},\mathrm{gcd}(m,n)=1,`$ (2.10)
where we have set the compact volume to one. The two integers $`m`$ and $`n`$ are the D4- and D2-brane charges of the bound state. In the T-dual picture with D2-branes at angles, they translate into the wrapping numbers of these D2-brane on the 1-cycles of the tori .

#### 2.2.2 Bound States with supersymmetric field strength

For simplicity consider first a D4-D2 bound state with vanishing angles $`\phi _{ij}`$ and only non-zero fluxes with the components $`F_{12}=\mathrm{tan}(\stackrel{~}{\phi }_{12})`$ and $`F_{34}=\mathrm{tan}(\stackrel{~}{\phi }_{34})`$. If there is no flux in the 12 directions, $`F_{12}=0`$, one can employ T-duality to get the D2(034)-D0(0) bound state recently considered by . An alternative description was presented in , where another T-duality towards a D1(03)-D1(04’) bound state of two D1-branes at a relative angle $`\varphi _{34}=\pi /2\mathrm{arctan}(F_{34})`$ in the 34-plane was used∗4subscript4{\Large\*}\_{4}∗4subscript4{\Large\*}\_{4}$`_4`$ In order not to confuse the notation, remember the $`\phi `$’s denote the rotation angles of the D2-brane inside the D4-brane; on the other hand, the $`\varphi `$’s are angles between the D-branes in the T-dual picture. Finally the ‘angles’ $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }`$ always parametrize the magnetic fluxes. . The condition for the system to preserve some supersymmetry is simply $`\varphi _{34}=0`$, i.e. $`\pi /2=\mathrm{arctan}(F_{34})`$, which translates into an infinite magnetic field $`F_{34}`$ on the D2(034)-brane. In fact, this configuration then is parallel and trivial. A more generic solution for the D4(01234)-D2(012) system to be supersymmetric is obtained by including relative flux $`F_{12}`$ as well. The configuration can then be T-dualized into a D2(013)-D2(02’4’) state at relative angles $`\varphi _{12}=\stackrel{~}{\phi }_{12}=\mathrm{arctan}(F_{12})`$ and $`\varphi _{34}=\pi /2\stackrel{~}{\phi }_{34}=\pi /2\mathrm{arctan}(F_{34})`$, primes indicating rotated directions. Then supersymmetry provides the condition

$`F_{12}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{F_{34}}},`$ (2.11)
which translates via $`F_{12}^{}=F_{12}`$ and $`F_{34}^{}=1/F_{34}`$ into the familiar self-duality condition $`F^{}=F^{}`$ of the field strength $`F^{}`$ on a T-dual D0-D4 bound state. The non-commutative deformation of the world volume of the D4-brane is ruled by the deformation parameter

$`\mathrm{\Theta }_{12}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{F_{12}^{}}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{F_{34}^{}}}=\mathrm{\Theta }_{34}.`$ (2.12)
In M-theory the magnetic flux is of course lifted as

$`R_5H_{345}=\mathrm{tan}(\stackrel{~}{\phi }_{34}),`$ (2.13)
in agreement with the parametrization in eq. (2.1). An advantage of the D4-D2 bound state as compared to the M5-M2 state is that we have got a completely well defined microscopic description in terms of open string theory for this state. We can use our knowledge about such brane configurations in type IIA to derive some properties of the M-brane state, such as the self-duality (2.1) and the projector conditions (2.4) for preserving supersymmetry in the following.

#### 2.2.3 Supersymmetric cycles with flux

Actually, for the D4(01234)-D2(012) bound state from above there are more possibilities to be supersymmetric than just the flux $`F_{12}=1/F_{34}`$. In principle we can introduce any kind of additional constant flux $`F_{13,},F_{24},F_{14},F_{23}`$ on the D4-brane and rotate the D2-brane within the D4-brane by relative angles $`\phi _{13},\phi _{14},\phi _{23},\phi _{24}`$. These parameters describe a flat embedding, $`f:(x_3,x_4)(x_3+iX_1(x_3,x_4),x_4+iX_2(x_3,x_4))`$, of the D2-brane into the D4-brane, which in the presence of additional flux will not be a supersymmetric cycle anymore. In  the global conditions on angles to preserve any supersymmetry for flat D-branes were generalized to local conditions on branes with non-trivial embedding into space-time. This passing from global to local conditions implies a repacement of the so far flat brane by a generic supersymmetric cycle. The condition are usually phrased in terms of the pull backs of the holomorphic 2-form $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and of the symplectic form $`\omega `$ (see appendix A), defined for the 2-cycle in question by

$`f^{}\omega `$ $`=`$ $`\left(_4X_1_3X_2\right)dx^3dx^4,`$
$`f^{}\mathrm{}𝔢\mathrm{\Omega }`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1_3X_1_4X_2+_4X_1_3X_2\right)dx^3dx^4,`$ (2.14)
$`f^{}\mathrm{}𝔪\mathrm{\Omega }`$ $`=`$ $`\left(_3X_1+_4X_2\right)dx^3dx^4.`$
The conditions for supersymmetry in the absence of fluxes are then simply given by

$`f^{}\omega =f^{}\mathrm{}𝔪\mathrm{\Omega }=0.`$ (2.15)
In a similar vein we now combine the relations (2.8) and (2.5) for an asymmetric rotation $`\stackrel{~}{R}_1`$ and a symmetric rotation $`R_2`$ respectively to get the conditions for a cycle with flux∗5subscript5{\Large\*}\_{5}∗5subscript5{\Large\*}\_{5}$`_5`$ These conditions can be analysed in full generality.

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{01234}(\stackrel{~}{R}_1ϵ)=(\stackrel{~}{R}_1^1\stackrel{~}{ϵ})\&\mathrm{\Gamma }_{012}(R_2ϵ)=(R_2\stackrel{~}{ϵ})\mathrm{\Gamma }_{34}\stackrel{~}{R}_1^2R_2^2ϵ=ϵ.`$ (2.16)
Now $`\stackrel{~}{R}_1`$ and $`R_2`$ are no longer commuting such that one cannot remove the deformation by a change of coordinates, as was possible for (2.5) and (2.8) separately. There are three sets of commuting rotations, those simultaneous in 12 and 34, those in 23 and 14 and those in 24 and 13 directions. By decomposing $`\stackrel{~}{R}_1^2R_2^2`$ into these three components we then get the conditions to preserve any supersymmetry:

$`0`$ $`=`$ $`F_{12}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{F_{34}}},`$
$`0`$ $`=`$ $`\phi _{23}\phi _{14}+\mathrm{arctan}(F_{23})\mathrm{arctan}(F_{14}),`$ (2.17)
$`0`$ $`=`$ $`\phi _{24}+\phi _{13}+\mathrm{arctan}(F_{24})+\mathrm{arctan}(F_{13}).`$
Each line of (2.17) states a condition that is capable to define a flat supersymmetric D-brane bound state by being satisfied globally, whereas they may only be patched together locally. The three rotations, symmetric or asymmetric, corresponds to three different relative $`U(1)`$ rotation of the two branes. Only together they generate the most general local $`SU(2)`$ deformation of the globally flat cycle. One may simplify the conditions by choosing coordinates where one of the $`U(1)`$ rotations is absorbed, such that e.g. $`f^{}\mathrm{}𝔪\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$. The choice of relative signs in (2.17) is arbitrary and stems from a paricular choice of complex structure. It relates the equation with minus signs to the symplectic structure $`f^{}\omega `$ and the one without to $`f^{}\mathrm{}𝔪\mathrm{\Omega }`$. We now follow the usual procedure to replace the flat intersecting branes by a smooth curve $`X_1(x_3,x_4)`$, $`X_2(x_3,x_4)`$, which means replacing the global angles $`\phi _{ij}`$ by local quantities according to

$`\mathrm{tan}(\phi _{ij})\widehat{=}_jX_i.`$ (2.18)
Then we find

$`{\displaystyle \frac{f^{}\omega }{f^{}\mathrm{}𝔢\mathrm{\Omega }}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{F_{23}F_{14}}{1+F_{23}F_{14}}},`$ (2.19)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{f^{}\mathrm{}𝔪\mathrm{\Omega }}{f^{}\mathrm{}𝔢\mathrm{\Omega }}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{F_{24}+F_{13}}{1F_{24}F_{13}}}.`$
These are the conditions that the deformed cycle preserves any supersymmetry in the presence of the 2-form flux on the D4-brane. Note, that in the case $`F_{23}=F_{14}=(F)_{23}`$ and $`F_{24}=F_{13}=(F)_{24}`$ the standard conditions (2.15) are recovered. Then, the field strength and the cycle are separately supersymmetric. In (2.19) the deviation of the flux from being self-dual or anti-self-dual is compensated by the deviation of the cycle from being special Lagrangian.

The non-commutativity on the two-dimensional cycle, which describes the embedding of the D2-brane into the D4-brane, due to the fluxes $`F_{23}`$ and $`F_{14}`$ is now provided by the non-vanishing of the induced symplectic form $`f^{}\omega `$ in eq. (2.19). As explained in appendix B we can introduce a Poisson bracket via $`f^{}\omega `$ and apply the formalism of geometric quantization to define commutator of the coordiates, i.e.

$`[x^3,x^4]=i\{x^3,x^4\}=if^{}\omega (\mathrm{sgrad}x^3,\mathrm{sgrad}x^4).`$ (2.20)
Hence eq. (2.19) suggests a noncommutative deformation of the operators which are associated to the coordinates of the cycle that describes the embedding of the D2-brane into the D4-brane by the presence of additional 2-form flux. The flux $`F_{12}=1/F_{34}`$ would not have been sufficient to make this construction. In what sense this non-commutativity arising from (2.19) can be understood from a microscopic point of view, and how the values of the non-commutativity parameters can be reconciled with the $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{ij}`$ parameters known for NCYM, remains an open question.

Whenever the flux of the D4-D2 system is not tuned in the supersymmetric fashion, there will appear a tachyon in the open string spectrum of strings stretching between the two branes. It is believed that this signals a condensation mechanism towards the true ground state of the system, which is again BPS. At the critical point of the field strength, when the tachyon becomes massless, one suspects a marginal deformation that takes the bound state with tachyon condensate into the state described by (2.19). This is only a special case of the more general scenarios of Dq-Dp bound states considered in .

### 2.3 D4-F1 bound states: NCOS

The M2-M5 configuration also allows compactification in 12 directions, say we take 2, to a D4-F1 bound state. It is related by a chain of a T-duality along any of the 345 directions, e.g. 5, the S-duality of type IIB and another T-duality along 5 to the D4-D2 bound state discussed above  after only exchanging the labels for the 2 and 5 directions (see also ). The dualities also relate the conditions for preserving supersymmetry by just erasing $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$’s and switching chiralities appropriately. The mapping of the magnetic flux $`F_{34}`$ to an electric flux $`F_{01}`$ has been given in  by

$`F_{01}={\displaystyle \frac{F_{34}}{\sqrt{1+\left(F_{34}\right)^2}}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{1+\left(F_{12}\right)^2}}}=\mathrm{sin}(\stackrel{~}{\phi }),`$ (2.21)
via the condition eq. (2.11) imposed by supersymmetry of the D4-D2 state on the $`F`$-flux. A formula for the Dirac quantization of the flux on a D$`p`$-F1 bound states has also been derived in  by boundary state techniques. It reproduces the flux quantization (2.10) on the D4-D2 bound state. Dual gravity solutions have been constructed in . Lifting the flux to eleven dimension gives the electric component

$`R_2H_{012}=F_{01}=\mathrm{sin}(\stackrel{~}{\phi })`$
of the 3-form. Together with (2.21) this precisely reproduces the condition (2.1) on $`H`$ after scaling the radii to 1. In other words, the supersymmetry of the type IIA D4-D2 bound state implies the self-duality of $`H`$.

It has been shown in  that the OM scaling limit of the M5-M2 bound state reduces to the NCOS limit on a D4-brane provided the radius of the circle and the flux is tuned in a particular way:

$`R_2=G_\mathrm{o}^2\sqrt{\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}^{}},M_{\mathrm{eff}}^3={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2G_\mathrm{o}^2\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}^{3/2}}}.`$ (2.22)
Then $`G_\mathrm{o}`$ stands for the open string coupling and $`\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}^{}`$ for the effective scale of fundamental strings. In NCOS the closed string excitations decouple from the brane but all open string states remain at finite mass. The electric field introduces a non-commutativity of the time-space coodinates 01, governed by the parameter

$`\mathrm{\Theta }_{01}=\mathrm{\Theta }_{34}G_\mathrm{o}^2`$ (2.23)
This limit has been introduced as the weakly coupled S-dual of the strongly coupled NCYM-theory that arises on a D-brane in the presence of a magnetic 2-form flux, when going to strong coupling.

### 2.4 NS5-D2 bound states: OD2-theory

By compactifying along any of transverse directions 678910 one obtains a D2-brane inside an NS5-brane with a RR-flux $`C_{ijk}`$ inherited from $`H_{ijk}`$. This state is related via a T-duality in 3 direction, an S-duality which trades the NS5-brane for a D5-brane and another T-duality on 3 to the D4-D2 bound state discussed above, after only exchanging the labels 3 and 5. This chain of dualities transforms the 3-form $`C_{345}`$ on the NS5-brane into the magnetic flux $`F_{34}`$ on the D4-brane. In  the gravity solution for such a bound state has been calculated. From the formulas for the RR-flux on the NS5-D2 bound state given there, one can read off the coefficients

$`C_{012}=\mathrm{sin}(\stackrel{~}{\phi }),C_{345}=\mathrm{tan}(\stackrel{~}{\phi })`$
The Dirac quantization again forces $`\mathrm{tan}(\stackrel{~}{\phi })`$ to be rational. Together, the NS5-D2 bound state also carries the information of the self-duality of $`H`$.

By tuning the radius and the flux of the resultant OM-theory formally in the same way as in (2.22)

$`R_6=G_{\mathrm{o2}}^2\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{\mathrm{eff}}^{}},M_{\mathrm{eff}}^3={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2G_{\mathrm{o2}}^2\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{\mathrm{eff}}^{3/2}}},`$ (2.24)
one gets the so-called OD2-theory with light open D2-branes excitations on the world volume of the NS5-brane but closed strings decoupled again. $`G_{\mathrm{o2}}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{\mathrm{eff}}^{}`$ are now the D2-brane coupling constant and the effective scale of fundamental strings.

## 3 Superpositions of M-brane bound states

In this section we study two types of superpositions of M2-M5 bound states. The basic building block in both cases is the Kähler calibration of two M5-branes as given in table 3.
M5 1 2 3 4 5    M5’   3 4 5 6 7   Table 2. Kähler calibration
It consists of two intersecting M5-branes, whose embedding into the $`^4`$ spanned by the 1267 directions is the holomorphic cycle that governs the dynamics of the $`𝒩=2`$ gauge theory in the four non-compact space-time directions 0345 . In the following, this setting is then combined with additional M2-branes. First, in the way of the previous chapters, a separate M2-brane inside each M5-brane, and second in a fashion such that the intersection of any M2-brane with an M5-brane is a self-dual string. The first is a direct generalization of the previous chapters. It will not lead to a deformation of the Seiberg-Witten curve, whereas the second case does.

### 3.1 M2-branes wrapping the Seiberg-Witten curve

Because the respective projectors (2.4) mutually commute the bound states that have been studied so far as isolated states can also be superposed:

$`[\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(12)},\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(67)}]=0.`$
Such a configuration is the set-up of table 3.1.
M5 1 2 3 4 5    M2 1 2       M5’   3 4 5 6 7  M2’      6 7   Table 3. Bound state superposition
It may be interpreted as an M2-brane wrapping the Seiberg-Witten curve, or, equivalently, as a Seiberg-Witten curve with additional 3-form flux turned on.

In general, a compactification down to type IIA now leads to a superposition of either NS5-D2 and D4-F1 or of two D4-D2 bound states. Along the compact eleventh direction the configuration looks like F1 and D4, with 2-form flux on the D4 along the world volume of the F1, and transverse to it, like D2 and NS5 with 3-form flux on the NS5 along the worldvolume of the D2-brane, which has been depicted in figure 3.1.
Fig. 1 Blowing up the eleventh direction
The scaling limit of OM-theory now applied to the superpositions of bound states then reveals a superposition of such effective theories of noncommutative open D2-branes and fundamental strings. Upon compactification along any of the 1267 directions we get NCOS along the eleventh direction and OD2 transverse to it. Interestingly, both, the NCOS and the OD2 scaling limits (2.22) and (2.24) are compatible: Given the radius $`R_{11}`$ and the critical scaling limit of the flux, i.e. $`M_{\mathrm{eff}}`$, the couplings and, as well, the fundamental string scales are identical for both, the OD2 fluctuations on the NS5-brane, as well as the open string fluctuations on the D4-brane. This had to be expected as both stem from the fluctuations of M2-branes in the elevendimensional OM-theory. While a complete description of the (NS5,D4,D2,F1) bound state and its scaling limit is not known to us, partial results for such bound states have for instance been discussed in . There gravity duals of bound states of the kind (NS5,D4,D2) and (D4,F1) have been derived and the NCOS or OD2 limits of such systems have been analyzed.

Let us again look closer at the limit which we know most about, a compactification along the 5 direction towards a D4-D2-D4’-D2’ bound state. We call the field strength on the first D4-D2 bound state $`F`$, on the second $`F^{}`$ and have the equations (2.19) for both states separately after adapting indices. The Seiberg-Witten curve is obtained by analyzing the embedding of $`X_6`$ and $`X_7`$ as functions of $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$. If we now write symmetric and asymmetric rotation operators for any kind of angle and flux which can occur for the state of table 3.1, we have to realize that there are no fluxes that could deform the Seiberg-Witten curve. Deforming the equations

$`\phi _{16}+\phi _{27}`$ $`=`$ $`0f^{}\omega =0,`$ (3.1)
$`\phi _{17}+\phi _{26}`$ $`=`$ $`0f^{}\mathrm{}𝔪\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$
would require fluxes $`F_{ij},i\{1,2\},j\{6,7\}`$, which are not present here. This situation is very similar to that of D$`p`$-D$`p^{}`$ bound states in . All the other equations which can be derived analogously to (2.19) decouple, and are identical to those of an isolated D4-D2 bound state. Thus, we have to conclude that the supersymmetric cycle, which describes the embedding of the D4’-brane relative to the D4-brane is not deformed and remains special Lagrangian. Such we have to expect that also in M-theory an M2-brane that wraps the Seiberg-Witten curve does not lead to any non-commutative deformation of the curve, which should otherwise be inherited by the type IIA realization. This result is supported by , where non-commutative $`𝒩=2`$ gauge theories were recently studied by more direct means with the result that the Seiberg-Witten curve is kept unchanged.

### 3.2 Self-dual strings on an M5-brane

Finally we like to consider another configuration of M5- and M2-branes, where the M2-branes intersect the world volume of the M5-branes in self-dual strings. It has been shown to describe $`𝒩=2`$ supersymmetric gauge theory in the presence of BPS monopoles whose positions are given by the positions of the M2-branes in the space-time directions 0345.

| $`\overline{\mathrm{M5}}`$ | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| M5 |  |  | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
| M2 | 1 |  |  |  |  | 6 |  |
| M2 |  | 2 |  |  |  |  | 7 |

Table 4. Brane configuration

Now the M2-brane end as points on either of the two asymptotic M5-branes. We want to study again the embedding of the two-dimensional curve in the directions 1267, which is described by the embedding map $`f:(x_1,x_2)(x_1+iX_6(x_1,x_2),x_2+iX_7(x_1,x_2))`$. Unlike the previous M5-M5’ bound state the 2-cycle will be now deformed by the presence of the $`H`$-field. The derivation of the BPS-equations is identical to the derivation in  or the more general discussion in . The tangent frame the non zero components of $`H`$ can also be expressed in terms of $`h_{012}`$. The two relevant components of eq. (2.1) read:

$`H_{012}=\mathrm{sin}\stackrel{~}{\phi }={\displaystyle \frac{4h_{012}}{4h_{012}^2+1}},H_{345}=\mathrm{tan}\stackrel{~}{\phi }={\displaystyle \frac{4h_{012}}{4h_{012}^21}}.`$ (3.2)
The spacetime frame components are distinguished from them by an additional twiddle $`\stackrel{~}{H}_{012}`$. The BPS-equations (compare with eq. 2.19) read

$`\left[f^{}\omega \right]`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{H}_{012}=\mathrm{sin}\stackrel{~}{\phi }\sqrt{g},`$ (3.3)
$`\left[f^{}\mathrm{}𝔢\mathrm{\Omega }\right]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{H}_{012}}{\stackrel{~}{H}_{345}}}=\mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{\phi }\sqrt{g},`$ (3.4)
$`\left[f^{}\mathrm{}𝔪\mathrm{\Omega }\right]`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (3.5)
Equation (3.3) is a gauged symplectic structure, i.e. it is proportional to $`H_{012}`$. Again, using the methods of geometric quantization, it leads to a non-commutativity on the deformed cycle. The tangent frame component $`H_{012}`$ can be easily interpreted with respect to the Grassmanian $`G(2,4)=S_+^2\times S_{}^2`$, defined in appendix A. The algebraic identity

$`detg`$ $`=`$ $`\left[f^{}\mathrm{}𝔪\mathrm{\Omega }\right]^2+\left[f^{}\mathrm{}𝔢\mathrm{\Omega }\right]^2+\left[f^{}\omega \right]^2.`$ (3.6)
provides a parametrisation of the sphere $`S_+^2`$ by:

$`[f^{}\omega ]/\sqrt{g}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}\stackrel{~}{\vartheta }\mathrm{sin}\stackrel{~}{\phi },`$
$`[f^{}\mathrm{}𝔢\mathrm{\Omega }]/\sqrt{g}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}\stackrel{~}{\vartheta }\mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{\phi },`$ (3.7)
$`[f^{}\mathrm{}𝔪\mathrm{\Omega }]/\sqrt{g}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{\vartheta }.`$
Obviously eq. (3.5) leads to $`\stackrel{~}{\vartheta }=\pi /2`$ and we can identify the component $`H_{012}`$ with an angle of $`S_+^2`$ by:

$`H_{012}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}\stackrel{~}{\phi }.`$
As explained at the end of appendix A this can be interpreted as a brane rotation if one compares with the standard choice of holomorphic coordinates.

## Appendix A Notation

The definition of the BPS-solutions can be restated in terms of certain closed p-forms (calibrations), which are defined after fixing a complex structure on the embedding space. Since we are mainly concerned with 2-cycles in $`^4`$, the space of $`q^1,p^1,q^2,p^2`$, the set of complex structures is given by the set of matrices

$`J`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& a_1& a_2& a_3\\ a_1& 0& a_3& a_2\\ a_2& a_3& 0& a_1\\ a_3& a_2& a_1& 0\end{array}\right)`$
with $`(a_1,a_2,a_3)`$ a point on a sphere of unit length. If we select one of them, say $`J_0=(1,0,0)`$, the complex coordinates are $`z^1=q^1+ip^1`$ and $`z^2=q^2+ip^2`$.
In these complex coordinates the sphere of complex structures may be identified with the sphere of selfdual 2-forms in $`^4`$. Then the coordinates $`(a_1,a_2,a_3)`$ refer to the basis below:

$`\omega `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\left(dz^1d\overline{z}^1+dz^2d\overline{z}^2\right),`$
$`\mathrm{}𝔢\mathrm{\Omega }`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}𝔢\left(dz^1dz^2\right),`$ (A.2)
$`\mathrm{}𝔪\mathrm{\Omega }`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}𝔪\left(dz^1dz^2\right).`$
The tangent planes of a generic two manifold in $`^4`$ are in one to one correspondence with the space of two planes in $`^4`$, $`G(2,4)`$, which can be identified with the manifold $`S_+^2\times S_{}^2`$. Each of the two spheres is embedded in the space of self- or anti-self-dual 2-forms, respectively. If one identifies the sphere of complex structures on $`^4`$ with one of the $`S_\pm ^2`$, say $`S_+^2`$ (the difference is only the choice of orientation of $`^4`$), the calibration condition restricts the remaining planes to $`J_0\times S_{}^2`$. This reflects the fact, that the Kähler cycle is the one where the symplectic form becomes maximal. In principle one can compute the complex combination for each point in $`S_+^2`$. In section 3.2 we are concerned with the following pencil of complex structures

$`(a_1,a_2,a_3)=(\mathrm{sin}\stackrel{~}{\phi },\mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{\phi },\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0})`$ (A.3)
with the complex coordinates

$`\stackrel{~}{z}^1`$ $`=`$ $`q^1i\left(\mathrm{sin}\stackrel{~}{\phi }p^1+\mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{\phi }q^2\right)`$
$`\stackrel{~}{z}^2`$ $`=`$ $`p^2i\left(\mathrm{cos}\stackrel{~}{\phi }p^1\mathrm{sin}\stackrel{~}{\phi }q^2\right).`$
This could be seen as a rotation inside the $`q^2p^1`$-plane.

The projections of the Kähler form in the rotated complex coordinates $`\stackrel{~}{z}^1,\stackrel{~}{z}^2`$ to the old basis in eq. (A.2) leads to the equations (3.3) - (3.5).

## Appendix B Definition of the commutator

Here we collect all the details necessary to explain the transition from the Poisson bracket to the commutator of coordinates. The construction uses essentialy a symplectic structure $`\omega `$. In normal form it reads $`\omega =_idq^idp^i`$. Here $`q^i`$ and $`p^i`$ are the conjugated variables. To define a Poisson bracket we need the symplectic gradient $`\mathrm{sgrad}g`$ of a function $`g`$. It is simply defined by

$`\mathrm{sgrad}g`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\mathrm{l}\\ 1\mathrm{l}& 0\end{array}\right)\mathrm{grad}g.`$
Now the Poisson bracket of two functions $`g`$ and $`h`$ is defined via $`\omega `$ by the formula:

$`\{g,h\}=\omega (\mathrm{sgrad}g,\mathrm{sgrad}h).`$
For the symplectic structure above this leads to the standard relations

$`\{x^i,p^j\}=\delta ^{ij}.`$ (B.2)
This is a realisation of the usual Heisenberg algebra $`𝒜_H`$.
So far the construction is standard. Quantization can be performed by applying a construction called geometric quantization . Given a symplectic manifold $`(M,\omega )`$ it construct a linear map $`\rho :𝒜𝒪`$ from an algebra $`𝒜`$ of functions on $`M`$ to the set of hermitian operators $`𝒪`$ on a Hilbert space∗6subscript6{\Large\*}\_{6}∗6subscript6{\Large\*}\_{6}$`_6`$ The technical difficulty is the precise definition of the Hilbert space. Usualy the space of functions on $`M`$ is to large.  $`(M)`$, satisfying the following constraints:

$`\rho (1)`$ $`=`$ $`1\mathrm{l}_{},\mathrm{if}\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}1}𝒜`$ (B.3)
$`\rho (F^{})`$ $`=`$ $`\rho (F)^{}`$ (B.4)
$`[\rho (F),\rho (G)]`$ $`=`$ $`i\mathrm{}\rho (\{F,G\})F,G𝒜`$ (B.5)
On a patch $`U_\alpha M`$ the map $`\rho `$ is given by

$`\rho _\alpha (F)=i\mathrm{}\mathrm{sgrad}F+F\theta _\alpha (\mathrm{sgrad}F)`$ (B.6)
with $`\theta _\alpha =_{k=1}^np_kdq_k`$ and $`\omega =d\theta _\alpha `$. The consistency of the construction leads to the Bohr-Sommerfeld quantization:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi \mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{2cycle}{}}\omega .`$ (B.7)
Appying the procedure outlined before to the case at hand by combining eq. (B.2) and eq. (B.5) leads to

$`[\rho (x^i),\rho (p^j)]=i\mathrm{}\delta ^{ij}.`$ (B.8)
with $`\mathrm{}`$ a free constant (here $`\mathrm{}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}`$).

The formula eq. (B.7) is the first Chern number of the line bundle with curvature $`\omega `$. Its physical interpretation is the following. By the $`S^1`$compactification the M2- and M5-branes are reduced to a fundamental string or D4-brane, respectively. Each of these branes carries a winding number, one of which classifies the magnetic the other one the electric charge of the system. The magnetic charge is precisely the number above. The electric charge is invisible in our geometric setup. The reason is quite simple. Since we are dealing only with a single electrically charged object, there is no possibility to define what is meant by the minimal quantum of electrical charge.

Acknowledgements:

We want to thank Ralph Blumenhagen for useful discussions. The work was partly supported by the EC contract HPRN-CT-2000-00131. B.K. also wants to thank the Studienstiftung des deutschen Volkes.


text:
# Equivalent classes of closed three-level systems.

## Abstract

In recent years a significant amount of research in quantum optics has been devoted to the analysis of atomic three-level systems and for many physical quantities the same effects have been predicted for different configurations. These configurations can be split into essentially two classes. One for which the system contains a metastable state and another where the system has two close-lying levels and coherence effects become important. We demonstrate when and why for a wide range of parameters these two classes are in fact equivalent for many important physical quantities. A unified picture underlying a large body of work on these categories of atomic three-level systems is presented and applied to some examples.

Atomic coherence effects are essential for many important effects in the response of an atomic system to strong laser irradiation. The Mollow spectrum  for a strongly driven two-level system has been one of the early results in quantum optics where atomic coherence plays a significant role. Following the detailed study of the population dynamics and the spectral response of the laser-driven two-level system (see e.g. ), theoretical and experimental interest began to shift towards multi-level configurations and, in particular, to three-level systems. A large body of work has been devoted to analyze all of the systems shown in Figs. 1 and 2. The systems in Figs. 1b and 2b, for example, exhibit many effects based on quantum coherence such as dark resonances , electron shelving , narrow spectral lines , electro-magnetically induced transparency  and lasing without inversion . However, many of these, and also other effects, had also been predicted for systems such as those in Figs. 1a and 2a, where quantum interference does not seem to play a major role. Examples are again electron shelving , spectral line-narrowing without loss of intensity  electro-magnetically induced transparency  and lasing without inversion . Obviously, the same effects can be found in apparently different configurations with or without the use of quantum coherence. This suggests an underlying structure common to all these systems.

The key result of this letter is a proof that reveals such a common structure for the two systems depicted in Fig. 1, and an analogous structure (also based on a partial dressed state picture) for the systems in Fig. 2. It is as a consequence of this common structure, that seemingly different systems exhibit for many important quantities the same physical behaviour. First steps toward this general result have been found for special cases and less general level configurations in  and in the context of electro-magnetically induced transparency for example in . We illustrate our results with some examples discussing important physical quantities such as photon statistics and spectra. These examples demonstrate, how the common structure developed here can be used to reveal the common origin of a wide variety of effects for apparently different system. This structure therefore serves to unify a large body of work that has been devoted to three-level systems.

We begin by demonstrating that the systems shown in Fig. 1a and 1b obey equivalent master equations. The three-level configuration in Fig. 1a consists of a stable ground state $`1`$, and the two $`i1`$ transitions driven by different lasers with Rabi frequencies $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{i1}^{(a)}`$. The strong

$`12`$ transition decays at a rate $`2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{21}^{(a)}`$, and the $`13`$ transition is metastable. The $`23`$ transition with spontaneous emission rate $`2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{23}^{(a)}`$ is assumed to be undriven. For vanishing decay rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{23}^{(a)}`$ this system is identical to the one proposed by Dehmelt for the observation of electron shelving . Its photon statistics , resonance fluorescence and absorption spectra  has been analysed in detail and narrow spectral lines have been found . Going over to an interaction picture with respect to $`H_0=_{i=2}^3\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\omega }_{i1}+_{𝐤\lambda }\mathrm{}\omega _{𝐤\lambda }a_{𝐤\lambda }^{}a_{𝐤\lambda }`$ and using standard techniques from quantum optics  one can derive a master equation for the density operator of system 1a. We find

$`\dot{\rho }^{(a)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}[H_{coh},\rho ^{(a)}]+2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{21}^{(a)}|12|\rho ^{(a)}|21|`$ (3)
$`+2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{23}^{(a)}|32|\rho ^{(a)}|23|`$
$`(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{21}^{(a)}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{23}^{(a)})\left(|22|\rho ^{(a)}+\rho ^{(a)}|22|\right),`$
where $`2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^{(a)}=e^2|𝐝_{ij}^{(a)}|^2\omega _{ij}^3/(3\pi c^3\mathrm{}ϵ_0)`$ is equal to the Einstein coefficient on the $`ij`$ transition and $`H_{coh}=_{i=2}^3\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }_{i1}|ii|+_{i=2}^3\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{i1}^{(a)}\left(|i1|+|1i|\right)`$ with the detunings $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{i1}=\stackrel{~}{\omega }_{i1}\omega _{i1}`$, the Rabi frequencies $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{i1}=𝐝_{i1}^{(a)}𝐄/2\mathrm{}`$, the dipole moments $`𝐝_{ij}^{(a)}`$ for the $`ij`$ transition.

Now we would like to show that a basis change leads to the master equations governing the dynamics of the system shown in Fig. 1b. To see this we introduce a new basis for which $`|2^{}=|2`$ and

$$|1^{}=\mathrm{cos}\theta |1+\mathrm{sin}\theta |3;|3^{}=\mathrm{sin}\theta |1\mathrm{cos}\theta |3$$
(4)
with

$$\mathrm{cos}\theta =\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_{31}^{(a)}}{\sqrt{\lambda _1^2+(\mathrm{\Omega }_{31}^{(a)})^2}};\lambda _1=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_3\pm \sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }_3^2+4(\mathrm{\Omega }_{31}^{(a)})^2}}{2}.$$

The basis Eq. (4) diagonalizes the Hamiltonian $`H_{13}=\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }_{31}|33|+\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{31}^{(a)}\left(|31|+|13|\right),`$ and it can therefore be viewed as a partial dressed state picture. Shifting the origin of energy such that it coincides with level $`|1^{}`$ we obtain $`H_{coh}`$ in the new basis

$`H_{coh}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=2}{\overset{3}{}}}\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{i1}|i^{}i^{}|\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{21}\mathrm{cos}\theta \left(|2^{}1^{}|+|1^{}2^{}|\right)`$ (6)
$`\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{21}\mathrm{sin}\theta \left(|2^{}3^{}|+|3^{}2^{}|\right),`$
where $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{21}=\mathrm{\Delta }_{21}+\lambda _1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{31}=\mathrm{\Delta }_{31}+\lambda _1\lambda _2`$. In the basis given by Eq. (4) we find the new master equation

$`\dot{\rho }^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}[H_{coh}^{},\rho ^{}](\mathrm{\Gamma }_{21}^{}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{23}^{})(|2^{}2^{}|\rho ^{}+\rho ^{}|2^{}2^{}|)`$ (9)
$`+2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{21}^{}|1^{}2^{}|\rho ^{}|2^{}1^{}|+2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{23}^{}|3^{}2^{}|\rho ^{}|2^{}3^{}|`$
$`+2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{13}^{}|1^{}2^{}|\rho ^{}|2^{}3^{}|+2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{31}^{}|3^{}2^{}|\rho ^{}|2^{}1^{}|,`$
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{21}^{}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{21}^{(a)}\mathrm{cos}^2\theta +\mathrm{\Gamma }_{23}^{(a)}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta `$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{23}^{}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{21}^{(a)}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta +\mathrm{\Gamma }_{23}^{(a)}\mathrm{cos}^2\theta `$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{13}^{}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{31}^{}=(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{21}^{(a)}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{23}^{(a)})\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{sin}\theta `$.

The key result is now the observation, that the master equation (9) is of the same form as that for the system shown in Fig. 1b. In fact, if the dipole moments $`𝐝_{2i}^{(b)}`$ for the $`2i`$-transitions in the system in Fig. 1b form an angle $`\varphi `$, i.e. $`\mathrm{cos}\varphi =𝐝_{21}^{(b)}𝐝_{23}^{(b)}/|𝐝_{21}^{(b)}||𝐝_{23}^{(b)}|`$, then we find the master equation

$`\dot{\rho }^{(b)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}[H_{coh}^{(b)},\rho ^{(b)}]+2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{21}^{(b)}|1^{}2^{}|\rho ^{(b)}|2^{}1^{}|`$ (14)
$`+2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{23}^{(b)}|3^{}2^{}|\rho ^{(b)}|2^{}3^{}|`$
$`+2\sqrt{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{23}^{(b)}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{21}^{(b)}}\mathrm{cos}\varphi |3^{}2^{}|\rho ^{(b)}|2^{}1^{}|`$
$`+2\sqrt{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{23}^{(b)}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{21}^{(b)}}\mathrm{cos}\varphi |1^{}2^{}|\rho ^{(b)}|2^{}3^{}|)`$
$`(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{21}^{(b)}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{23}^{(b)})(|2^{}2^{}|\rho ^{(b)}\rho ^{(b)}|2^{}2^{}|)`$
with $`H_{coh}^{(b)}=\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }_2|2^{}2^{}|\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{21}^{(b)}\left(|2^{}1^{}|+|1^{}2^{}|\right)+\mathrm{}(\mathrm{\Delta }_3\mathrm{\Delta }_2)|3^{}3^{}|\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{23}^{(b)}\left(|2^{}3^{}|+|3^{}2^{}|\right)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2=\stackrel{~}{\omega }_2\omega _{21}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_3=\stackrel{~}{\omega }_3\omega _{31}`$. To see the equivalence between master equations Eq. (9) and (14) we just need to chose $`\varphi `$ such that

$$\mathrm{cos}^2\varphi =\mathrm{\Gamma }_{13}^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{31}^{}/\mathrm{\Gamma }_{21}^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{23}^{},$$
(15)
where the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^{}`$ have been defined below Eq. (9). The polarization of the laser in system 1b is then chosen such that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{21}^{(b)}\mathrm{sin}\theta =\mathrm{\Omega }_{23}^{(b)}\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ which can always be satisfied. If in system 1a we chose $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{23}^{(a)}=0`$, one can easily verify that the master equation Eq. (9) is identical to the master equation Eq. (14) with $`\varphi =0`$. Therefore the system in Fig. 1a with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{23}^{(a)}=0`$ is equivalent the system in Fig. 1b with parallel transition dipole moment! Furthermore, the master equations for the system in Fig. 1b with non-parallel dipole moments ($`\varphi 0`$) is equivalent to the master equation (9) for the system in Fig. 1a with non-vanishing $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{23}`$! Note that the basis change Eq. (4) implies that the weakly coupled state $`|3`$ in system 1a is a superposition of the two strongly coupled states in system 1b, i.e. quantum coherence leads to a metastable superposition state in system 1b.

Following an analogous procedure to the one for the systems in Fig. 1, we are also able to exhibit the equivalence of the master equations for the systems shown in Figs. 2a and 2b. In Fig. 2a both the $`21`$ and the $`23`$ transition are driven by individual lasers at Rabi frequencies $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{21}^{(a)}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{23}^{(a)}`$ respectively. The $`23`$ transition is assumed to be metastable while the other two transitions decay with rates $`2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{21}^{(a)}`$ and $`2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{23}^{(b)}`$ respectively. The system in Fig. 2b is a V-system where the two upper levels $`2`$ and $`3`$ are both unstable and can decay with rates $`2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{21}^{(b)}`$ and $`2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{31}^{(b)}`$ to the common ground state $`1`$. The system is driven by a single laser which gives rise to Rabi frequencies $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{21}^{(b)}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{31}^{(b)}`$. The dynamics of the system 2b depends strongly on the relative orientation of the dipole moments $`𝐝_{i1}^{(b)}`$ on the $`i1`$ transition. For the system in Fig. 2a we find the master equation

$`\dot{\rho }^{(a)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}[H_{coh},\rho ^{(a)}]+2{\displaystyle \underset{i=2}{\overset{3}{}}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{i1}^{(a)}|1i|\rho ^{(a)}|i1|`$ (17)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{i=2}{\overset{3}{}}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{i1}^{(a)}\left(|ii|\rho ^{(a)}+\rho ^{(a)}|ii|\right),`$
where $`H_{coh}=\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }_2|22|+\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{21}^{(a)}\left(|12|+|21|\right)+\mathrm{}(\mathrm{\Delta }_3\mathrm{\Delta }_2)|33|+\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{23}^{(a)}\left(|32|+|23|\right).`$ with $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2=\stackrel{~}{\omega }_2\omega _{21}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_3=\stackrel{~}{\omega }_3\omega _{23}`$. Now consider the basis change for which $`|1^{}=|1`$ and

$$|2^{}=\mathrm{cos}\theta |2+\mathrm{sin}\theta |3;|3^{}=\mathrm{sin}\theta |2\mathrm{cos}\theta |3.$$
(18)
with

$`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_{23}^{(a)}}{\sqrt{\lambda _1^2+(\mathrm{\Omega }_{23}^{(a)})^2}}}`$ (19)
$`\lambda _{1/2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_3\pm \sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }_3^2+4(\mathrm{\Omega }_{23}^{(a)})^2}\right)\mathrm{\Delta }_2.`$ (20)
Using the basis change Eq. (18) we obtain with $`H_{coh}^{}=\mathrm{}\lambda _1|2^{}2^{}|+\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{21}\mathrm{cos}\theta (|2^{}1^{}|+|1^{}2^{}|)+\mathrm{}\lambda _2|3^{}3^{}|+\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{21}\mathrm{sin}\theta (|3^{}1^{}|+|1^{}3^{}|)`$ the new Bloch equations

$`\dot{\rho }^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}[H_{coh},\rho ^{}]+{\displaystyle \underset{i=2}{\overset{3}{}}}2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{i1}^{}|1^{}i^{}|\rho ^{}|i^{}1^{}|`$ (21)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=2}{\overset{3}{}}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{i1}^{}(|i^{}i^{}|\rho ^{}+\rho ^{}|i^{}i^{}|)`$ (22)
$``$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{32}^{}(|3^{}2^{}|\rho ^{}+\rho ^{}|2^{}3^{}|)\mathrm{\Gamma }_{23}^{}(|2^{}3^{}|\rho ^{}+\rho ^{}|3^{}2^{}|)`$ (23)
$`+`$ $`2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{23}^{}|12^{}|\rho ^{}|3^{}1^{}|+2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{32}^{}|13^{}|\rho ^{}|2^{}1^{}|.`$ (24)
Here $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{21}^{}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{21}\mathrm{cos}^2\theta +\mathrm{\Gamma }_{31}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta `$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{31}^{}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{21}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta +\mathrm{\Gamma }_{31}\mathrm{cos}^2\theta `$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{32}^{}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{23}^{}=(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{21}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{31})\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{sin}\theta `$.

If the angle between the dipole moments $`𝐝_{i1}^{(b)}`$ on the $`i1`$-transition in system 2b equals $`\varphi `$, we use the correspondence between $`\varphi `$ and $`\theta `$

$$\mathrm{cos}^2\varphi =\mathrm{\Gamma }_{32}^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{23}^{}/\mathrm{\Gamma }_{21}^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{31}^{}.$$
(25)
and chose the polarization $`𝐄`$ of the laser such that $`𝐝_{2^{}1^{}}^{(b)}𝐄=2\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{21}\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ and $`𝐝_{3^{}1^{}}^{(b)}𝐄=2\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{21}\mathrm{sin}\theta `$. Then we find that the master equation Eq. (24) is exactly equivalent to the Bloch equations for the V-system with close-lying upper levels given in Fig. 2b.

To demonstrate that the basis changes introduced above are useful, we will now show for some relevant physical quantities that the two systems in Fig. 2 can exhibit exactly the same behaviour. We begin with the intensity correlation function of the light emitted from the atoms. For system 2a the intensity correlation function is given by

$$g_a^{(2)}(\tau )=2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{21}^{(a)}\sigma _{22}(\tau )+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{31}^{(a)}\sigma _{33}(\tau )$$
(26)
where the average is taken for a system initially in the ground state $`|1`$. With Eq. (18) and (25) we find

$`g_a^{(2)}(\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{21}^{}\sigma _{2^{}2^{}}(\tau )+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{31}^{}\sigma _{3^{}3^{}}(\tau )`$ (28)
$`+\sqrt{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{21}^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{31}^{}}\mathrm{cos}\varphi (\sigma _{2^{}3^{}}(\tau )+\sigma _{3^{}2^{}}(\tau ))`$
where the average is again taken in the ground state $`|1^{}`$. Eq. (28) is identical to the intensity correlation function $`g_b^{(2)}(\tau )`$ of the system in Fig. 2b if we chose $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^{(b)}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^{}`$ . It should be noted that identical intensity correlation functions for the two systems 2a and 2b imply that also the next photon probabilities for the two systems coincide and therefore all properties of the photon statistics .

Now consider the spectrum of the resonance fluorescence of the two systems. For the spectrum of system 2a we find with Eq. (18)

$`S(\omega )`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\tau e^{i\omega \tau }\sigma _{21}(\tau )\sigma _{12}_{ss}`$ (29)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}d\tau e^{i\omega \tau }\sigma _{2^{}1^{}}(\tau )\sigma _{1^{}2^{}}\mathrm{cos}^2\theta +\sigma _{3^{}1^{}}(\tau )\sigma _{1^{}3^{}}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta `$ (31)
$`+(\sigma _{2^{}1^{}}(\tau )\sigma _{1^{}3^{}}+\sigma _{3^{}1^{}}(\tau )\sigma _{1^{}2^{}})\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{sin}\theta _{ss}.`$
To maximize the visibility of coherence effects in the spectrum we assume that we observe the resonance fluorescence spectrum of system 2b along the polarization direction $`\widehat{𝐄}`$ of the laser. If we chose $`\widehat{𝐄}`$ such that $`\widehat{𝐄}𝐝_{21}^{(b)}/\widehat{𝐄}𝐝_{31}^{(b)}=\mathrm{cos}\theta /\mathrm{sin}\theta `$ the spectrum for system 2b coincides with Eq. (31). Analogously we can show that the absorption spectra for the two systems can be made to coincide.

As an application of the above results, we demonstrate that a number of recent results, which have previously been considered as due to different mechanisms, are in fact essentially equivalent. It has been pointed out that the system in Fig. 2a can exhibit bright and dark periods in the resonance fluorescence if the metastable $`23`$ transition is weakly driven . Quantitatively the same behaviour has been predicted later for the system in Fig 2b . The fact that the next photon probabilities for the two systems can be made to coincide (see discussion below Eq. (28)), clarifies why electron shelving is possible in both systems. In system 2a the electron is ’shelved’ in the metastable state $`|3`$, while in system 2b the electron is ’shelved’ in a weakly coupling coherent superposition of the two upper levels.

We are also able to unify recent results on the resonance fluorescence and absorption spectra for different three-level configurations using our approach. In  it has been shown analytically, that in system 2a one can observe an ultra-narrow peak in the spectrum of resonance fluorescence in the same parameter regime in which the system exhibits electron shelving. This peak can be understood quantitatively as a widening of the coherent Rayleigh peak due to the on-off modulation of the light intensity by the electron shelving . Subsequently it has been proposed that the system presented in Fig. 2b exhibits the same effect . There the angle between the dipole moments on the two transitions was used to adjust the width of a narrow peak in the spectrum of resonance fluorescence. The reason for the existence of the narrow peak in system 2b can now be understood quantitatively by considering the dynamics of system 2a for different decay rates $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{31}^{(a)}`$ on the $`31`$ transition (see Eq. (25)). As the value of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{31}^{(a)}`$ is increased, the electron can escape the shelving state quicker. Therefore the frequency of modulation of the resonance fluorescence increases and consequently the width of the narrow peak. Quantitative agreement for the behaviour between the two systems can be reached with the approach described above. Following an identical argument, analogous equivalences can be demonstrated in the absorption spectrum of the systems shown in the Figures 1 and 2. Similar equivalences are known in the context of lasing without inversion and electro-magnetically induced transparency .

These examples show, that a large body of work on the different three-level systems can be understood and explained quantitatively analyzing just one system. The common underlying structure of the different systems explains why and when the same physical effects can be found in different systems. It is the hope that these results will help to focus future efforts in theoretical analysis of these systems and will help experimental studies of proposed effects as it allows the use of alternative systems.

The author thanks S.F. Huelga and P.L. Knight for reading the manuscript and the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, the European Union and the Leverhulme Trust for financial support.