text:
# Untitled Document

hep-th/0103223 SLAC-PUB-8799 SU-ITP-01/14

M-theory on Manifolds of $`G_2`$ Holonomy
and Type IIA Orientifolds

Shamit Kachru1,2 and John McGreevy1

1 Department of Physics and SLAC

Stanford University

Stanford, CA 94305/94309

2 Institute for Theoretical Physics

University of California

Santa Barbara, CA 93106

We demonstrate that M-theory compactifications on 7-manifolds of $`G_2`$ holonomy, which yield 4d $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetric systems, often admit at special loci in their moduli space a description as type IIA orientifolds. In this way, we are able to find new dualities of special IIA orientifolds, including dualities which relate orientifolds of IIA strings on manifolds of different topology with different numbers of wrapped D-branes. We also discuss models which incorporate, in a natural way, compact embeddings of gauge theory/gravity dualities similar to those studied in the recent work of Atiyah, Maldacena and Vafa.

March 2001

1. Introduction

Compactifications of M-theory and string theory down to 4d $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetry are of obvious interest. The reduced supersymmetry is probably necessary for any contact with real world physics. It also allows for richer phenomena than extended supersymmetry and so provides a nice playground for theorists.

Generic methods of constructing such models include compactifying the heterotic string on Calabi-Yau threefolds, F-theory on Calabi-Yau fourfolds, and M-theory on 7-manifolds of $`G_2`$ holonomy. Although many basic facts about all of these classes of compactifications remain mysterious, perhaps the least is known about the last class, since at least the others are amenable to attack using techniques of complex geometry.

A large class of compact 7-manifolds with $`G_2`$ holonomy was constructed by Joyce \[1,,2\]. In this note, we make the simple observation that M-theory compactified on many of these spaces admits, at special loci in its moduli space, a description as an orientifold of type IIA string theory compactified on a Calabi-Yau threefold.1 We ignore the possibility of a membrane instanton generated superpotential  in most of our discussion. If such a potential exists, it would provide a potential barrier between the large-volume M-theory and perturbative type IIA limits. Our successful comparison of these limits in many cases suggests that either such a potential is absent, or the interpolation over the potential barrier is nevertheless physically meaningful. This is reminiscent of the fact that F-theory models can be reformulated, at special loci in their moduli space, as type IIB orientifolds \[4,,5\].

There are several different reasons this observation can be useful. On the one hand, the orientifolds we discuss have a rather simple, solvable structure, and so provide a very concrete handle on these models at some special points in their moduli space. On the other hand, as we will show, a given $`G_2`$ space can admit $`\mathrm{𝚍𝚒𝚏𝚏𝚎𝚛𝚎𝚗𝚝}`$ type IIA orientifold limits. Thus, by studying limit points in the moduli space of $`G_2`$ compactifications, we learn about non-perturbative dualities of IIA compactifications with $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetry. In particular, we exhibit an example where orientifolds of type IIA on Calabi-Yau spaces of different topology (and with different numbers of D-branes and orientifold planes) are dual to each other. On yet a third hand, our construction “globalizes” interesting gauge theory/gravity dualities similar to those encapsulated in the local models of  and .

In §2, we introduce the $`G_2`$ manifold $`X`$ which will be our focus in part of this note. In §3, we show that various limit points in the moduli space of M-theory on $`X`$ are well described by IIA orientifolds. This observation allows us to find non-perturbative duality symmetries of these orientifolds. In §4 we make some remarks about the extent to which our analysis generalizes to other $`G_2`$ spaces, and also provide a simple proof that a large class of IIA orientifolds should have an “M-theory lift” to $`G_2`$ compactifications. In §5 we explain how gauge theory/gravity dualities analogous to those discussed in \[6,,7\] naturally arise in simple examples of compact $`G_2`$ manifolds and the related IIA orientifolds. We conclude in §6 by mentioning some interesting directions for further study.

Several papers analyzing various related aspects of M-theory on $`G_2`$ manifolds have appeared recently. Dual descriptions of $`𝒩=1`$ gauge theories using such spaces have been discussed in \[6,,7,,8,,9,,10,,11\], while  discusses a general relationship between certain classes of wrapped branes and geometries with exceptional holonomy. Earlier work on this subject appears in . Phase transitions between topologically distinct $`G_2`$ compactifications were described in .

2. The Manifold $`X`$

A basic example of a compact 7-manifold of $`G_2`$ holonomy is the manifold $`X`$ considered by Joyce in . It is constructed as a toroidal orbifold. Let $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_7`$ parametrize a square $`T^7`$ which is a product of seven circles of radii $`r_1,\mathrm{},r_7`$. Define $`X`$ as the (desingularization of the) quotient of this $`T^7`$ by the $`Z_2^3`$ group with generators

$$\alpha (x_i)=(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4,x_5,x_6,x_7)$$

$$\beta (x_i)=(x_1,1/2x_2,x_3,x_4,x_5,x_6,x_7)$$

$$\gamma (x_i)=(1/2x_1,x_2,1/2x_3,x_4,x_5,x_6,x_7)$$

where $`1/2`$ denotes a shift of order 2 around the circle. Then as demonstrated in , $`X`$ has betti numbers $`b_2(X)=12,b_3(X)=43`$. Therefore, M-theory compactification on $`X`$ gives rise to a 4d $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetric low-energy theory with (generically) 12 abelian vector multiplets and 43 chiral multiplet moduli.

It may be useful to review the origin of the various cohomology classes on $`X`$ here. None of the two-forms and seven of the three-forms on $`T^7`$ are invariant under the action of $`\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma `$.2 $`\mathrm{}`$ denotes “the group generated by $`\mathrm{}`$.” In addition, each of the generators fixes 16 $`T^3`$s on $`T^7`$; however e.g. the 16 $`T^3`$s fixed by $`\alpha `$ are identified by the group $`\beta ,\gamma `$ to yield 4 on the quotient $`X`$, and the fixed tori of $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$ undergo a similar fate. The local form of the singularities at the fixed $`T^3`$s is $`R^4/Z_2\times T^3`$, and resolving each of these yields a two-form and three three-forms. Since there are 12 such fixed tori on $`X`$, after desingularizing one has the stated betti numbers.

3. Orientifold Limits of $`X`$

In this section, we demonstrate that $`X`$ has several different IIA orientifold limits in its moduli space. This in particular tells us that the different orientifolds are related to one another by various dualities.

3.1. Orientifold A

We start by viewing $`x_7`$ as the “M-theory circle,” or the eleventh dimension. Then in the limit of small $`r_7`$, we should be able to get an effective IIA description of M-theory on $`X`$. Denote by $`\alpha ^{}`$ the action of $`\alpha `$ restricted to the $`T^6`$ with coordinates $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_6`$. Then since $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ don’t act on the M-theory circle anyway, in the limit of small $`x_7`$ they simply induce identifications on the $`T^6`$ visible to the type IIA string. It is therefore propagating on the Calabi-Yau space $`N=T^6/\alpha ^{},\beta ^{}`$.

However, $`\gamma `$ also acts on the M-theory circle. Using the results of , it follows that the action of $`\gamma `$ (inversion of the M-theory circle and three other coordinates) is mapped in the IIA theory to $`w=(1)^{F_L}\mathrm{\Omega }\gamma ^{}`$. Thus, IIA string theory on the orientifold of $`N`$ by $`w`$ should govern M-theory in the limit of small radius for $`x_7`$. Let us call this model orientifold A.

To check this conjecture, let us try to match up the counting of fields. $`N`$ has hodge numbers $`h^{1,1}=19,h^{2,1}=19`$. So IIA string theory on $`N`$ yields an $`𝒩=2`$ supersymmetric 4d theory with 20 hypermultiplets (including the dilaton) and 19 vector multiplets. Now, projecting by $`w`$ has the following effect (see e.g. ). Each of the 20 hypermultiplets is projected down to a chiral multiplet. The vector multiplets (which came from the Kähler moduli) are more subtle: those which come from (1,1) forms $`\mathrm{𝚒𝚗𝚟𝚊𝚛𝚒𝚊𝚗𝚝}`$ under $`w`$ give rise to $`𝒩=1`$ vector multiplets, while those which are $`\mathrm{𝚊𝚗𝚝𝚒}\mathrm{𝚒𝚗𝚟𝚊𝚛𝚒𝚊𝚗𝚝}`$ under $`w`$ give rise to chiral multiplets. It is easy to convince oneself that the untwisted (1,1) forms on $`N`$ are anti-invariant, while the 16 twisted (1,1) forms split into $`\pm `$ eigenspaces of equal size. Therefore, the Kähler moduli contribute 11 chiral multiplets and 8 vector multiplets.

This accounts for 31 chiral multiplets and 8 abelian vectors so far. However, we must also take into account the fixed points of the $`w`$ action. $`\gamma ^{}`$ acts with 8 fixed loci on $`T^6`$. Identification by $`\beta ,\gamma `$ reduces this to 2 fixed loci; a neighborhood of each in the threefold is of the form $`R^3/Z_2\times T^3`$. Therefore, there are orientifold six-planes wrapping each of these $`T^3`$s (as in ).

By the normal tadpole cancellation considerations, we must introduce 2 $`D6`$ branes for each $`O6`$ plane. Hence, we introduce a total of 4 $`D6`$ branes wrapping $`T^3`$s in this model. Each of the $`D6`$ branes comes with a $`U(1)`$ vector multiplet and 3 chiral multiplet moduli (coming from the Wilson lines on the $`T^3`$, together with the moduli of the three-cycle in $`N`$). So the $`D6`$ branes contribute a total of 12 chiral multiplet moduli and 4 vector multiplets to the low-energy theory.

Totalling up the spectrum, we find that orientifold A (at generic points in its moduli space) has 43 chiral multiplet moduli and 12 vector multiplets, just as it must to match the spectrum of M-theory on $`X`$. At special points in moduli space when the $`D6`$ branes coincide, one achieves enhanced gauge symmetries, which come from geometrical singularities in the M-theory picture .

3.2. Orientifold B

It is of course also possible to view other circles as the M-theory circle. For instance, we could take $`x_4`$ to be the M-theory circle. However, repeating the same logic as in §3.1, we would find that we again arrive (in the small $`r_4`$ limit) at an orientifold (which we could call orientifold B) of type IIA string theory on the Calabi-Yau orbifold with hodge numbers $`h^{1,1}=19,h^{2,1}=19`$, and we again have to introduce the same numbers of $`D6`$ branes.

The role of the dilaton in orientifold $`A`$ is played by a geometrical modulus in orientifold $`B`$, and vice-versa. However, they are really compactifications on the same target space. This means that the IIA theory on the orientifold of $`N`$ by $`w`$, discussed in §3.1, has a sort of $`ST`$ exchange symmetry, where $`S`$ is the dilaton chiral multiplet and $`T`$ is the chiral multiplet containing the radius of $`x_4`$. This way of seeing the $`ST`$ exchange symmetry of these orientifold models is analogous to the way that the $`ST`$ exchange symmetry  of the main heterotic string examples in  can be understood as arising from the existence of multiple $`K3`$ fibrations in the type II-dual Calabi-Yau compactifications \[19,,20\].

In fact, this model enjoys more symmetry than just a single $`ST`$ duality; one could equivalently consider the $`x_6`$ circle to be the M-theory circle, with the same results, yielding a sort of $`STU`$ triality symmetry.

3.3. Orientifold C

A more interesting possibility is to interpret $`x_5`$ as the M-theory circle. Then acting on the $`T^6`$ coordinates $`x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4,x_6,x_7`$, we have

$$\alpha (x_i)=(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4,x_6,x_7)$$

$$\beta \gamma (x_i)=(x_1+1/2,1/2x_2,x_3,x_4,x_6,x_7)$$

The manifold $`N^{}=T^6/\alpha ,\beta \gamma `$ is then a Calabi-Yau threefold with hodge numbers $`h^{1,1}=11,h^{2,1}=11`$. In particular, it is topologically distinct from the threefold $`N`$ which appeared in §3.1 and §3.2.

Define $`u`$ to be the composition of $`(1)^{F_L}\mathrm{\Omega }`$ with the action of $`\gamma `$ on the $`T^6`$ coordinates. Then in the limit of small $`r_5`$, M-theory on $`X`$ should be well described by IIA theory on the orientifold of $`N^{}`$ by $`u`$, which we will call orientifold C.

Let’s check that the spectrum matches our expectations. $`v`$, the composition of $`(1)^{F_L}\mathrm{\Omega }`$ with the action of $`\beta `$ on the $`T^6`$ coordinates, arises upon composing $`u`$ with elements of the orbifold group. Both $`u`$ and $`v`$ act with fixed loci on $`N^{}`$. Each has 8 fixed $`T^3`$s in the $`T^6`$, which descend to 2 fixed $`T^3`$s in the orbifold $`N^{}`$. Therefore, one has to introduce four $`O6`$ planes, and 8 wrapped $`D6`$ branes are required to cancel the RR tadpoles. These give rise to 8 abelian vector multiplets and 24 chiral multiplets, at generic points in moduli space.

The projection of the spectrum of IIA on $`N^{}`$ can be done as before. Once again, half of the 8 twisted (1,1) forms are invariant under the orientifold action, while the other half (and the untwisted (1,1) forms) are anti-invariant. So we get 4 vectors and 7 chirals from the (1,1) forms; adding in the 12 chirals descending from the $`𝒩=2`$ hypermultiplets, we indeed find a total of 43 chiral multiplets and 12 vectors.

In this orientifold C picture, the radii $`r_4,r_6,r_7`$ which are related (up to triality) to the dilaton in the pictures of §3.1 and §3.2 are all geometrical moduli of the IIA compactification, while $`r_5`$ (which is geometrized in orientifolds A,B) is playing the role of the dilaton. This gives an example of a strong/weak duality between IIA orientifolds of topologically distinct Calabi-Yau spaces, with different numbers of space-filling D-branes and orientifold planes.

4. Generalization to Other Models

In this section, we generalize our results in two directions. We first show that a large class of $`G_2`$ spaces should similarly have orientifold limits. We then take the opposite approach, and prove that a wide class of IIA orientifolds have an M-theory lift to $`G_2`$ compactifications.

4.1. Other Classes of $`G_2`$ Manifolds

Beyond the toroidal orbifold constructions of Joyce, there are other methods of constructing $`G_2`$ holonomy spaces which are amenable to an orientifold interpretation.

Barely $`G_2`$ Manifolds

Harvey and Moore defined “barely $`G_2`$ manifolds” as quotients of the form $`X=(Y\times S^1)/Z_2`$, where $`Y`$ is a Calabi-Yau threefold and the $`Z_2`$ action is a composition of a freely acting antiholomorphic involution $`\sigma `$ on $`Y`$ with inversion on the circle factor $`x_7`$ . These are of course a special case of a more general construction which should arise when $`\sigma `$ has fixed points \[1,,2\].

For the barely $`G_2`$ spaces, it turns out that

$$H^3(X)=H^2(Y)^{}+H^3(Y)^+$$

$$H^2(X)=H^2(Y)^+$$

where $`\pm `$ refer to eigenvalues under the action of $`\sigma `$ on $`Y`$. For simple examples which come from hypersurfaces in toric varieties, one simply keeps the complex structure deformations which preserve the real structure (i.e. defining equations with real coefficients), so $`H^3(Y)`$ has $`\pm `$ eigenspaces of equal dimension. For such examples, we find $`n_C=h^{1,1}(Y)^{}+h^{2,1}(Y)+1`$ chiral multiplets and $`n_V=h^{1,1}(Y)^+`$ vector multiplets in M-theory on $`X`$.

As one shrinks the radius $`r_7`$ of the $`S^1`$, one should obtain a IIA description. Indeed, since the $`Z_2`$ above acts with an inversion on $`x_7`$, we should expect that the orientifold of IIA on $`Y`$ by $`(1)^{F_L}\mathrm{\Omega }`$ composed with $`\sigma `$ arises in this limit. It follows from the general considerations of  (as discussed in §3) that the spectrum of this type IIA orientifold agrees with the M-theory spectrum.

Cases with Fixed Points

It is attractive to speculate about generalizations of the previous case to cases where $`\sigma `$ acts on $`Y`$ with fixed points. On general grounds, the fixed point locus $`\mathrm{\Sigma }Y`$ will be a special Lagrangian (sL) three-cycle (or several, in which case one should repeat the discussion below for each component). It is not known in generality how to resolve the singularities in this case to obtain a smooth metric of $`G_2`$ holonomy.

However, the existence of an orientifold limit leads to a very natural conjecture. Shrinking the $`x_7`$ circle again, we find a IIA model which should have an $`O6`$ plane and two $`D6`$ branes wrapping $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. For $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ special Lagrangian, a D6 brane wrapping $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ gives rise to a single $`𝒩=1`$ vector multiplet and $`b_1(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ chiral multiplets in spacetime. Therefore, we expect that there will be 2 vectors and $`2b_1(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ chiral multiplets associated with the $`D6`$ branes in this limit. When the $`D6`$ branes are coincident, the model has enhanced gauge symmetry (which shows up in the M-theory as the singularity of the $`G_2`$ space related to the fixed points of $`\sigma `$). For $`b_1(\mathrm{\Sigma })>0`$, one can move in the $`D6`$ brane moduli space to remove the enhanced gauge symmetry. It is then attractive to conjecture that in the M-theory picture, $`b_1(\mathrm{\Sigma })>0`$ is a condition that allows the singularities of this class of $`G_2`$ orbifolds to be repaired, and that furthermore resolving the singularity gives rise to precisely two elements of $`b_2(X)`$ and $`2b_1(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ elements of $`b_3(X)`$.3 This could be related to Condition 4.3.1 in , which was stated without proof to be an important condition in resolving singularities of this sort.

4.2. ‘‘All’’ Orientifolds of type IIA on CY have a $`G_2`$ Limit

Suppose we have a IIA orientifold which gives rise to a four dimensional $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetric theory. For simplicity, let us first restrict ourselves to orientifolds of tori. The orbifold part of the orientifold group must have (at most) $`SU(3)`$ holonomy, to preserve (at least) 4d $`𝒩=2`$ supersymmetry.4 This is because there are no geometric compactifications of IIA down to 4d which preserve precisely 4d $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetry. Let us assume we are in the most generic case, so that it preserves precisely $`𝒩=2`$ supersymmetry. Denote the full orientifold group by

$$𝒢=\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\times (1)^{F_L}\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Gamma }_2$$

The $`(1)^{F_L}`$ is present because we choose, as in , a convention where reflection on three circles must be accompanied by a $`(1)^{F_L}`$ to preserve supersymmetry in the IIA theory, and we will show momentarily that all elements of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ must reflect precisely three circles of the $`T^6`$. With these assumptions, $`T^6/\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ alone is Calabi-Yau, and so has a holomorphic three-form $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{(3,0)}`$ and a Kähler form $`J`$.

Now, consider the $`(1)^{F_L}\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ part of the group. Any element $`(1)^{F_L}\mathrm{\Omega }g_2`$ of this part must have $`g_2`$ reversing the orientation of the 6d target, or it cannot be a symmetry of the IIA theory. So we know a few things about the $`g_2`$ action:

i) $`g_2`$ maps $`J`$ to $`J`$ (orientation reversal) and

ii) $`g_2`$ maps $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{(3,0)}`$ to $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}^{(0,3)}`$. Notice that this implies that $`g_2`$ reflects precisely three circles of the $`T^6/\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$, as required above.

In $`ii)`$, we are using the fact that to preserve one supersymmetry, some linear combination of the killing spinors must be preserved. This means that $`g_2`$ either preserves the holomorphic and anti-holomorphic three-form individually, or at least preserves a linear combination. But since $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{(3,0)}\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}^{(0,3)}JJJ`$, by $`i)`$ above $`g_2`$ must permute the two. One might worry that $`g_2`$ could act with a phase in relating $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{(3,0)}`$ to its conjugate; but all $`g_2\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ which exchange $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{(3,0)}`$ and its conjugate would have to have the same phase to preserve $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetry. It can then be redefined to $`1`$ by a phase rotation of $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{(3,0)}`$.

To proceed, we add a seventh M-theory circle $`x_7`$. Define the new group $`\stackrel{~}{𝒢}`$, which acts on $`T^7`$, as follows: take each element of $`𝒢`$ and replace $`(1)^{F_L}\mathrm{\Omega }`$ anywhere it appears with inversion of the $`x_7`$ coordinate (while elements which don’t include a $`(1)^{F_L}\mathrm{\Omega }`$ act trivially on the $`x_7`$ coordinate). This will not change anything about elements of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ (since the minus sign on $`x_7`$ will cancel in the product of two $`(1)^{F_L}\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ elements). However, under assumptions i) and ii) above, the three-form

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=Jdx_7+Re[\mathrm{\Omega }^{(3,0)}]$$

is preserved by the whole (now orbifold) group $`\stackrel{~}{𝒢}`$ acting on $`T^7`$. This form is preserved by a $`G_2`$ subgroup of $`GL(7,R)`$ . This is sufficient to prove that the resulting manifold is a $`G_2`$ space.

It is clear that this argument is more generically applicable to supersymmetric models which are not toroidal orientifolds. One could replace the $`T^6`$ in the IIA theory with any manifold $`M`$, use the fact that $`M/\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ should be Calabi-Yau to preserve supersymmetry in the IIA theory, and apply the same logic.

5. The Case of the Disappearing Orientifold

Recent work has made it clear that gauge dynamics on wrapped $`D6`$ branes (or arising from singular M-theory geometries) can often be encoded by smooth geometries in a “dual” gravity description . The gauge dynamics is then encoded in appropriate RR-fluxes, or in changes of the behavior of the M-theory three-form $`C`$ field, which (suitably interpreted) capture the low-energy physics of the gauge theory. In this section, we discuss examples of this phenomenon which arise in string/M-theory compactifications in a natural way.

The most obvious source of consistent compact models with wrapped $`D6`$ branes is the Calabi-Yau orientifolds discussed here. The components of the orientifold fixed locus provide sL three-cycles $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, which are wrapped by orientifold planes and $`D6`$ branes. In fact, examples of sL cycles $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ which arise in this way were studied in \[21,,22\] precisely with the motivation of understanding the dynamics on the worldvolumes of such wrapped $`D6`$ branes.

One interesting fact (which had perplexed some of the authors of \[21,,22\] for some time) is that it is possible for the fixed locus of an anti-holomorphic involution to disappear as the complex structure of the Calabi-Yau varies; and the relevant complex structure moduli survive in the orientifold models. This fact was used in  to identify D6 branes on such real slices as mirror to D5 branes on vanishing holomorphic curves. However, it raises the question: if one continues past the point in moduli space where the fixed locus disappears (so there is no orientifold plane, and no need to introduce $`D6`$ branes), where has the information about the gauge theory on the $`D6`$ branes gone? The gauge theory/gravity dualities relevant to this situation were studied in \[6,,7\], and provide the answer to this question.

Let us illustrate this with a simple example. The easiest examples discussed in  basically involve a sL three-cycle which is the fixed locus of a real involution and which collapses at a conifold singularity. So locally, the geometry of the compact Calabi-Yau $`M`$ looks like

$$z_1^2+z_2^2+z_3^2+z_4^2=\mu $$

where $`\mu `$ is chosen to be a $`\mathrm{𝚙𝚘𝚜𝚒𝚝𝚒𝚟𝚎}`$ real parameter. Then under the involution

$$:z_i\overline{z}_i$$

the fixed point locus $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+`$ is the three-sphere

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }^+:\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}x_i^2=\mu $$

where $`z_i=x_i+iy_i`$.

We can embed this situation in a $`G_2`$ manifold as in §4.1, where the $`G_2`$ manifold $`X`$ is of the form $`(M\times S^1)/\sigma `$. The $`Z_2`$ symmetry $`\sigma `$ acts by $``$ combined with inversion on the M-theory circle, $`x_7x_7`$. Then for $`\mu >0`$, the fixed point loci of $`\sigma `$, which consist of copies of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+`$ at $`x_7=0,1/2`$, are actually $`S^3`$s of $`A_1`$ singularities in $`X`$. This gives rise in M-theory on $`X`$ to two 4d, $`𝒩=1`$ pure $`SU(2)`$ gauge theories (with equal gauge couplings).

Now, consider taking $`\mu `$ through 0. At $`\mu 0`$ there are collapsing associative three-cycles in $`X`$, and hence membrane instanton effects are expected to be large . However, the sizes of the $`S^3`$s come paired in chiral multiplets with periods of the three-form $`C`$ field over the $`S^3`$s, and for generic values of this phase, there is no singularity in the physics – singularities in $`𝒩=1`$ moduli spaces happen at complex codimension one. Therefore, one can smoothly (in the physical sense) continue from $`\mu >0`$ to $`\mu <0`$. This raises a puzzle: the $`SU(2)`$ gauge groups present for $`\mu >0`$ have now disappeared, since the $`Z_2`$ symmetry $`\sigma `$ acts on $`X`$ without fixed points for $`\mu <0`$. However, the information about the gauge theory must be encoded somehow in the $`\mu <0`$ geometry.

The basic point is as in . For $`\mu <0`$, one can still look for a homologically nontrivial three-sphere which membrane instantons can wrap. For instance, consider the locus of pure imaginary $`z_i`$, still at $`x_7=0,1/2`$. This is given by a three-sphere

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}y_i^2=\mu $$

which is orbifolded by the freely-acting $`Z_2`$ symmetry $`y_iy_i`$. Call the resulting $`\mathrm{IRIP}^3`$ $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$. It turns out that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}(\mu )`$ has exactly half the volume of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+(\mu )`$, due to the orbifolding. These $`\mathrm{IRIP}^3`$s are associative three-cycles in $`X`$ for $`\mu <0`$. However, as in , changing the period of the $`C`$ field on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+(\mu )`$ by $`2\pi `$, which is physically meaningless, corresponds to changing it by $`\pi `$ on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}(\mu )`$, due to the smaller volume. This ambiguity in the choice of phase for $`\mu <0`$ corresponds to the vacuum degeneracy due to the gaugino condensate in the gauge theory.5 Notice that since the two associative $`S^3`$s at $`x_7=0,1/2`$ are in the same homology class, their volumes (and the periods of the $`C`$-field) are the same. So although there are two $`SU(2)`$s, the choice of phase in the two gaugino condensates is related – there is only a single $`Z_2`$ ambiguity. This carries over to the $`IIA`$ picture as well.

In the IIA picture, with $`x_7`$ taken as the M-theory circle, this becomes an example where an orientifold plane and two $`D6`$ branes, present for $`\mu >0`$, disappear as $`\mu `$ passes through 0. This system has an $`SO(4)`$ gauge symmetry, and should give rise to multiple vacua after gaugino condensation, in agreement with the M-theory picture above. The phase ambiguity detected by membrane instantons in M-theory is detected by $`D2`$ brane instantons in the string theory picture. This is in accord with our gauge theory intuition, since $`D2`$ branes are the instantons of the $`D6`$ brane gauge theory in the phase where the $`D6`$ branes exist . The fact that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}(\mu )`$ has half the volume of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+(\mu )`$ then becomes the familiar fact that the superpotential from a gaugino condensate in $`𝒩=1`$ $`SU(2)`$ gauge theory looks like a “half-instanton effect.”

More precisely, once we have compactified this setup, the superpotential we are discussing destabilizes the closed-string modulus $`\mu `$ (which is a parameter in the non-compact case). In our discussion here, we are imagining that we can hold $`\mu `$ fixed at various values, which is reasonable as long as the scale generated by the superpotential is parametrically smaller than the string/Planck scale. This is true for large enough $`|\mu |`$.

It is clear that the other examples of , which involve sL three-cycles $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ with $`b_1(\mathrm{\Sigma })>0`$, could also be lifted in this way to find examples of M-theory “dualities” in gauge theories with adjoint matter. Some examples of this have already appeared in .

6. Discussion

Little is known about M-theory compactification on spaces of $`G_2`$ holonomy. Naive extrapolation of the kinds of results that exist so far suggests that further study of the relationship between IIA orientifolds and M-theory compactifications could yield:

1) A large class of examples of non-perturbative dualities between orientifolds of type II compactifications on Calabi-Yau spaces of different topologies, with different numbers of space-filling D-branes.

2) New gauge theory/gravity dualities along the lines of , in a compact context (i.e., coupled to 4d gravity).

3) Connections between the study of disc instanton effects in type II compactifications with branes (see e.g. \[21,,22,,24,,25\]) and membrane instanton effects in M-theory . The real involution of the CY pairs holomorphic discs  even when the sL three-cycle on which they end is deformed away from the real slice. In this way, pairs of discs times the M-theory circle form closed orbifold-invariant three-manifolds which membrane instantons can wrap. Similarly, $`\mathrm{IRIP}^2`$ worldsheets with their crosscap on the real slice lift to orbifolds of membrane instantons on the M-theory circle times the covering sphere of the $`\mathrm{IRIP}^2`$ .

4) A good understanding of the new physics which arises at singularities of M-theory on spaces of $`G_2`$ holonomy (some examples of this were discussed in ). It would be particularly interesting to find various singularities which correspond to chiral gauge theories. Perhaps these would provide a useful tool for the further exploration of chirality changing phase transitions .

5) A new window into type I compactifications. The type IIA orientifolds studied here are T-dual to type I string compactifications (roughly speaking, by T-duality on the $`T^3`$ fibers  of the Calabi-Yau space which is being orientifolded). Therefore, any insights gained about these models through their M-theory interpretation will carry over to the study of certain type I theories.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank J. Polchinski and E. Silverstein for helpful discussions, and B. Acharya for pointing out a minor error in §5 of the first version of this note. This work was supported in part by NSF grant PHY-95-14797 and by the DOE under contract DOE-AC03-76SF00098. S.K. enjoyed the hospitality of the ITP Santa Barbara “M-theory” program while performing the work reported here, and was supported by the National Science Foundation under grant number PHY-99-07949. The work of S.K. was supported in part by a David and Lucile Packard Foundation Fellowship for Science and Engineering and an Alfred P. Sloan Foundation Fellowship. The work of J. M. was supported in part by the Department of Defense NDSEG Fellowship program.

References

relax D.D. Joyce, “Compact Riemannian 7-manifolds with $`G_2`$ Holonomy, I,” J. Diff. Geom. 43 (1996) 291. relax D.D. Joyce, “Compact Riemannian 7-manifolds with $`G_2`$ Holonomy, II,” J. Diff. Geom. 43 (1996) 329. relax J. Harvey and G. Moore, “Superpotentials and Membrane Instantons,” hep-th/9907026. relax A. Sen, “F-theory and Orientifolds,” Nucl. Phys. B475 (1996) 562; A. Sen, “Orientifold Limit of F-theory Vacua,” Phys. Rev. D55 (1997) 7345, hep-th/9702165. relax R. Gopakumar and S. Mukhi, “Orbifold and Orientifold Compactifications of F-theory and M-theory to Six and Four Dimensions,” Nucl. Phys. B479 (1996) 260, hep-th/9607057. relax M. Atiyah, J. Maldacena and C. Vafa, “An M-theory Flop as a Large N Duality,” hep-th/0011256. relax S. Sinha and C. Vafa, “SO and Sp Chern-Simons at Large N,” hep-th/0012136. relax B.S. Acharya, “On Realizing $`𝒩=1`$ Super Yang-Mills in M-theory,” hep-th/0011089; “Confining Strings from G(2) Holonomy Space-Times,” hep-th/0101206; B.S. Acharya and C. Vafa, “On Domain Walls of $`𝒩=1`$ Supersymmetric Yang-Mills in Four-Dimensions,” hep-th/0103011. relax F. Cachazo, K. Intriligator and C. Vafa, “A Large N Duality via a Geometric Transition,” hep-th/0103067. relax E. Witten, “M-theory Dynamics on Manifolds of $`G_2`$ Holonomy,” talk presented March 3, 2001 at “Heterotic Dreams and Asymptotic Visions,” the 60th birthday celebration for David Gross, ITP, Santa Barbara. relax J. Edelstein and C. Nunez, “D6 branes and M theory geometrical transitions from gauged supergravity,” hep-th/0103167. relax J. Gomis, “D-branes, Holonomy and M-theory,” hep-th/0103115. relax B.S. Acharya, “M-theory, Joyce Orbifolds and Super Yang-Mills,” Adv. Th. Math. Phys. 3 (1999) 227, hep-th/9812205. relax H. Partouche and B. Pioline, “Rolling Among $`G_2`$ Vacua,” JHEP 0103 (2001) 005, hep-th/0011130. relax A. Sen, “A Note on Enhanced Gauge Symmetries in M and String Theory,” JHEP 9709 (1997) 001, hep-th/9707123. relax C. Vafa and E. Witten, “Dual String Pairs with $`𝒩=1`$ and $`𝒩=2`$ Supersymmetry in Four Dimensions,” Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 46 (1996) 225, hep-th/9507050. relax A. Klemm, W. Lerche and P. Mayr, “K3 Fibrations and Heterotic-Type II String Duality,” Phys. Lett. B357 (1995) 313, hep-th/9506112. relax S. Kachru and C. Vafa, “Exact Results for $`𝒩=2`$ Compactifications of Heterotic Strings,” Nucl. Phys. B450 (1995) 69, hep-th/9505105. relax P. Aspinwall and M. Gross, “Heterotic-Heterotic String Duality and Multiple $`K3`$ Fibrations,” Phys. Lett. B382 (1996) 81, hep-th/9602118. relax D. Morrison and C. Vafa, “Compactifications of F-theory on Calabi-Yau Threefolds, I,” Nucl. Phys. B473 (1996) 74, hep-th/9602114. relax S. Kachru, S. Katz, A. Lawrence and J. McGreevy, “Open string instantons and superpotentials,” Phys.Rev. D62 (2000) 026001, hep-th/9912151. relax S. Kachru, S. Katz, A. Lawrence and J. McGreevy, “Mirror symmetry for open strings,” Phys.Rev. D62 (2000) 126005, hep-th/0006047. relax M. Douglas, “Branes within branes,” hep-th/9512077. relax H. Ooguri and C. Vafa, “Knot Invariants and Topological Strings,” Nucl. Phys. B577 (2000) 419, hep-th/9912123. relax M. Aganagic and C. Vafa, “Mirror Symmetry, D-branes and Counting Holomorphic Discs,” hep-th/0012041. relax S. Kachru and E. Silverstein, “Chirality Changing Phase Transitions in 4d String Vacua,” Nucl. Phys. B504 (1997) 272, hep-th/9704185; B. Ovrut, T. Pantev and J. Park, “Small Instanton Transitions in Heterotic M-theory,” hep-th/0001133. relax A. Strominger, S.T. Yau and E. Zaslow, “Mirror Symmetry Is T-Duality,” Nucl. Phys. B479(1996) 243, hep-th/9606040.


format: text

text:
# Discrete Symmetries and Localization in a Brane-world

## I Introduction

Recently there has been a revived interest in models containing extra spatial dimensions. The first time this idea was put in concrete form possibly dates back to the ’20s , when the existence of more than four dimensions was employed in an attempt to unify gravity with the electromagnetic field. The lack of signals from (and loss into) the fifth dimension was assured by taking the size of the extra dimension small, which gives a huge mass gap between the ground state fields and the Kaluza-Klein (KK) modes. One could then Fourier-transform all fields, retain just the lowest mode and integrate out any dependence on the fifth dimension. In the context of such theories, the discrete symmetries of charge conjugation (C), parity (P) and time reversal (T) were investigated in Ref. , where it was found that the Dirac equation contains terms which violate CP and T. However, such violating terms are highly suppressed by factors of $`1/M_p`$, where $`M_p`$ is the Planck mass, and are not likely to lead to any observable effect.

Higher dimensional spaces naturally arise in string theory , where one must compactify the fundamental theory down to our four-dimensional world. In Ref.  a compactification mechanism was built for the strongly coupled $`E_8\times E_8`$ heterotic string, whose low energy limit is eleven-dimensional supergravity. Six dimensions are then compactified on a Calabi-Yau manifold and integrated out to leave a five-dimensional (bulk) space-time bounded by two copies of the same D3-brane . Matter particles are low energy excitations of open strings, whose end-points are tight to the D3-brane, which could thus represent our (brane-) world. Gravitons are instead closed strings and can propagate also in the extra direction, which has topology $`S^1/`$Z2. Further, this construction yields a relation between the Planck scale on the D3-brane and the fundamental string scale which allows the latter to be much smaller than the former.

Starting from this result, several models have been proposed, with a variety in the number of extra dimensions, which can further be either compact  or infinitely extended but with a warp factor along the extra directions . In both cases, the parameters can be tuned in such a way that the fundamental mass scale $`M`$ is small enough to lead to new physics slightly above 1 TeV without violating Newton’s law at the present level of confidence . One of the main concerns in such models is actually to provide an explicit, low energy, confining mechanism for the matter fields which does not violate any of the tested properties of the Standard Model and yields, at the same time, predictable effects to be probed by the forthcoming generation of detectors . Early proposals for confining matter fields on a four-dimensional wall are actually older (see Refs. ) and make use of a mechanism which was proposed to generate masses dynamically by coupling fermions to a solitonic state (“kink”) of a scalar field. Such a mechanism yields a brane whose thickness  can then be related to the existence of KK-like partners of the SM particles and constrained by comparing with precision measurements such as the anomalous magnetic moment of leptons . The fact that bulk gravitons living in the extra dimensions have not yet been detected is then generally a consequence of the small coupling with SM particles, namely $`1/M_p`$ .

In the present paper we analyze general aspects of the discrete symmetries C, P and T for fermions interacting with gauge fields and the Z2 symmetry along the extra dimension in much the same spirit as such symmetries were studied in Ref. . (For the sake of simplicity, we just consider one extra dimension and abelian gauge fields.) In particular, we are interested in the interplay between CPT (and Lorentz invariance) in five and four dimensions and the mechanism of confinement for fermions mentioned above from the viewpoint of local field theory, without attempting any rigorous connection to string theory or D-brane theory.

In the next Section we define the model. In Section III we introduce C, P and T both from the five- and four-dimensional points of view and highlight some ambiguities in the definition of the corresponding transformations. However, we show that there is a unique form of five-dimensional CPT invariance which is compatible with localization. Finally, in Section IV we summarize and comment on our results.

## II Localized fermions and fermion doubling

We consider a five-dimensional space-time with (non-factorizable) metric $`g_{AB}`$ ($`A,B=0,\mathrm{},4`$) given by

$`ds^2=a^2d𝒙d𝒙+dy^2,`$ (1)
where $``$ is the flat (Minkowski) scalar product between four-dimensional vectors. We do not assume for the warp factor $`a=a(y)`$ any given form. In principle, $`a`$ could be determined once the matter content is given by solving Einstein field equations, however, in this article we shall just need to know that it is Z2-even, to wit $`a(y)=a(y)`$. The four-dimensional metric on the brane, which is located at $`y=0`$, is $`𝜼=\mathrm{diag}[1,+1,+1,+1]`$ and the four brane coordinates are denoted by $`𝒙=(t,\stackrel{}{x})`$. In order to describe spinors, we introduce the “pentad”

$`e_B^A=\mathrm{diag}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a}},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a}},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a}},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a}},1].`$ (2)
All fields will be taken as functions of $`(𝒙,y)`$ and Dirac matrices satisfy the five-dimensional Clifford algebra (note the appearance of the warp factor $`a`$)

$`e_C^Ae_D^B\{\gamma ^C,\gamma ^D\}=2g^{AB},`$ (3)
and are given in the Weyl representation by

$`\gamma ^0=\left[\begin{array}{cc}0& \text{1 I}_2\\ \text{1 I}_2& 0\end{array}\right],\stackrel{}{\gamma }=\left[\begin{array}{cc}0& \stackrel{}{\sigma }\\ \stackrel{}{\sigma }& 0\end{array}\right],`$ (8)
with $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }`$ the Pauli spin matrices, and $`\gamma ^4=i\gamma ^5=i\mathrm{diag}[+\text{1 I}_2,\text{1 I}_2]`$, where $`\text{1 I}_2`$ is the $`2\times 2`$ identity matrix.

The five-dimensional action for one Dirac spinor $`\psi =\psi (𝒙,y)`$ minimally coupled to a gauge boson $`A_A=A_A(𝒙,y)`$ in the background with metric (1) is given by

$`S={\displaystyle a^4𝑑yd^4x\overline{\psi }\left[\frac{i}{a}\mathit{}+i\gamma ^4\left(D_y+\omega \right)V\right]\psi },`$ (9)
where $`D_y=_y+ieA_4`$, $`\mathit{}=\partial ̸+ie\mathit{}`$, $`\partial ̸=𝜸\mathbf{}`$, $`\mathit{}=𝜸𝑨`$ and $`\omega =_y\mathrm{ln}(a^2)`$ is a sum of spin connection terms. In the following Dirac spinor fields are taken in the Weyl representation,

$`\psi =\left(\begin{array}{c}\psi _L\\ \psi _R\end{array}\right),`$ (12)
with $`L`$ for left- and $`R`$ for right-handed, and their field equation reads

$`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{i}{a}}\mathit{}+i\gamma ^4\left(_y+ieA_4+\omega \right)V\right]\psi =0.`$ (13)
The potential $`V=m+\mathrm{\Phi }`$, where the constant $`m`$ is the five-dimensional mass of the spinor and $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }(𝒙,y)`$ is a (complex) scalar field.

The (orbifold) symmetry Z$`{}_{2}{}^{}:yy`$ requires that the Lagrangian density appearing in the action for any given set of fields be an even function of $`y`$. If we then assume $`S`$ be Z2 invariant, one finds that $`\psi _L`$ and $`\psi _R`$ must have opposite parity under $`yy`$ and the potential $`V`$ must be Z2-odd, that is

$`m=0`$ (14)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }(𝒙,y)=\mathrm{\Phi }(𝒙,y)`$ $`.`$ (16)
An example of scalar field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ which is used to confine fermions on a domain wall is that of the kink ($`+`$) or anti-kink ($``$) ,

$`\mathrm{\Phi }=\pm q\mathrm{tanh}(py).`$ (17)
The above (positive) parameters $`p`$ and $`q`$ are related to the thickness of the brane and energy threshold of confinement, as discussed in Ref. . There it is shown that, on properly taking into account the finite thickness of the brane, the field $`\psi `$ can be expanded in a tower of KK-like modes. Here, for simplicity, we consider infinitesimal the thickness of the brane and set $`p\mathrm{}`$ in (17). This yields a scalar field

$`\mathrm{\Phi }\pm q\mathrm{sgn}(y),`$ (18)
which confines just one of the chiralities of a Dirac spinor. This fact prevents a mass term for the localized spinor and, as a consequence, we cannot interpret the confined fermions as the usual standard model particles. This problem is also present in the case of a thick brane but just for the zero-mode of the KK tower (see Appendix A for details).

A solution to the above problem is the “fermion doubling”: since we need both chiralities to recover the correct low energy phenomenology, one doubles the fermion fields $`\psi (\psi _1,\psi _2)`$ and couples $`\psi _1`$ to the kink \[plus sign in Eq. (17)\] and $`\psi _2`$ to the “anti-kink” \[minus sign in Eq. (17)\]. It is useful to organize the two kind of fermions in a single field

$`\mathrm{\Psi }\left(\begin{array}{c}\psi _1\\ \psi _2\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\psi _{1,L}\\ \psi _{1,R}\\ \psi _{2,L}\\ \psi _{2,R}\end{array}\right),`$ (25)
where $`\psi _1`$ and $`\psi _2`$ are two four-component spinors living in five dimensions. Further, because of the Z2 symmetry, $`\psi _{1,L}`$ and $`\psi _{2,R}`$ must be even (odd) functions of $`y`$, while $`\psi _{1,R}`$ and $`\psi _{2,L}`$ must be odd (even). After the fermion doubling, the five-dimensional action (9) can be written as

$`S_{(5)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }a^4dy{\displaystyle }d^4x\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\{{\displaystyle \frac{i}{a}}[𝜸\text{1 I}_2]𝑫`$ (28)
$`+i\left[\gamma ^4\text{1 I}_2\right]\left(D_y+\omega \right)\mathrm{\Phi }\left[\text{1 I}_4\sigma ^3\right]`$
$`\frac{\mu }{a}[\text{1 I}_4\sigma ^1]\}\mathrm{\Psi },`$
where we have denoted by $`\text{1 I}_4`$ the $`4\times 4`$ identity matrix. The last term is an interaction term between the two families ($`\psi _1`$ and $`\psi _2`$) of fermions which can give rise to a four-dimensional mass. In fact, on factorizing the spinor $`\psi _i=\alpha (y)f_i(𝒙)`$ and first imposing the equation for the localization,

$`(D_y+\omega +\mathrm{\Phi })\alpha =0,`$ (29)
and then the vanishing condition for half of the components,

$`f_{2,L}=f_{1,R}=0,`$ (30)
one obtains the usual four-dimensional action (multiplied by a numerical coefficient)

$`S_{(4)}={\displaystyle \left|\alpha \right|^2a^3𝑑yd^4x\overline{\chi }\left[i\mathit{}\mu \right]\chi }.`$ (31)
for the spinor field

$`\chi =\left(\begin{array}{c}f_{1,L}\\ f_{2,R}\end{array}\right)`$ (34)
of mass $`\mu `$. Clearly the above reduction is successful if the integration on $`y`$ is convergent. Note that the spinor so obtained ($`\chi `$) is organized in such a way that its $`L`$ component is the $`L`$ component of the family number one and its $`R`$ component is the $`R`$ component of the family number two. Note also that we have considered the gauge field $`A_A`$ as independent of $`y`$.

From the variation of the action in Eq. (28) we obtain the following equation of motion

$`\{{\displaystyle \frac{i}{a}}[𝜸\text{1 I}_2]𝑫+i[\gamma ^4\text{1 I}_2](D_y+\omega )\mathrm{\Phi }[\text{1 I}_4\sigma ^3]`$ (35)
$`\frac{\mu }{a}[\text{1 I}_4\sigma ^1]\}\mathrm{\Psi }=0.`$ (36)
The gauge field $`A_A`$  couples minimally to the fermions via the “electric” charge $`e`$. We shall not need to work out the field equations satisfied by $`A_A`$, so that in the following it can be taken as a generic external field. Of course, from the usual parity properties of the electromagnetic tensor $`F_{AB}=_AA_B_BA_A`$, one obtains that the vector potential must satisfy the following relations

$`A_0(t,\stackrel{}{x},y)=A_0(t,\stackrel{}{x},y)`$ (37)
$`=A_0(t,\stackrel{}{x},y)`$ (38)
$`=A_0(t,\stackrel{}{x},y)`$ (39)
(40)
$`\stackrel{}{A}(t,\stackrel{}{x},y)=\stackrel{}{A}(t,\stackrel{}{x},y)`$ (41)
$`=\stackrel{}{A}(t,\stackrel{}{x},y)`$ (42)
$`=\stackrel{}{A}(t,\stackrel{}{x},y)`$ (43)
(44)
$`A_4(t,\stackrel{}{x},y)=A_4(t,\stackrel{}{x},y)`$ (45)
$`=A_4(t,\stackrel{}{x},y)`$ (46)
$`=A_4(t,\stackrel{}{x},y).`$ (47)
## III Discrete symmetries

We are now ready to investigate the discrete symmetries Z2, C, P and T. As it will be clear from the following, such symmetries are no more uniquely represented when a fifth dimension is introduced. In particular, since we are dealing with an effective five-dimensional field theory, one could define discrete symmetries from the purely five-dimensional point of view (see Section III A) and consider that CPT holds in five dimensions, regardless of fermion doubling and thus for each family $`\psi _i`$ separately. However, in so doing, one obtains something which does not relate to the four-dimensional description in a a priori clear way, since the fermion doubling mixes components of the two families, and new definitions of C, P, and T are needed (Section III B).

It is our main aim to clarify the compatibility of the above two aspects and their relation with localization in general. For our discussion, the precise shape of $`a`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ in the bulk is not required and we shall mostly need to know just their parity properties.

### A Five-dimensional symmetries

In this Section we define discrete symmetries as acting on each one of the two families $`\psi _i`$ separately. These are expected to be the fundamental symmetries of the five-dimensional effective field theory. Having grouped together the two families $`\psi _i`$ according to Eq. (25), we now have to deal with eight-spinors $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$. Correspondingly, the operators generating (local) Lorentz transformations as well as C, P and T will be represented by $`8\times 8`$ matrices of the form $`F\text{1 I}_2`$, where $`F`$ is $`4\times 4`$. We shall just consider candidates of C, P and T which have previously appeared in the literature.

#### 1 Charge conjugation

The first possible definition of five-dimensional charge conjugation (C5) which we consider is the usual charge conjugation (C)  acting on each family $`\psi _i`$,

$`C_5\left[\mathrm{\Psi }\right](x^A)=\left[C\text{1 I}_2\right]\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(x^A),`$ (48)
where $`C=i\gamma ^2`$ and satisfies

$`C`$ $`\left(\gamma ^\mu \right)^{}=\gamma ^\mu C`$ (49)
$`C`$ $`\left(\gamma ^4\right)^{}=\gamma ^4C.`$ (51)
Invariance of Eq. (36) requires

$`\left\{i\left[\gamma ^4\text{1 I}_2\right]\left(D_y+\omega \right)\left[\text{1 I}_4\sigma ^3\right]\text{I I}\text{}(\mathrm{\Phi })\right\}\mathrm{\Psi }=0.`$ (52)
If we choose a scalar field of the type in Eq. (17), we do not have compatibility with Eq. (29) for localization of spinors because the kink is a real function. It then follows that localization breaks C5. However, if $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is not real, the above condition (52) is not invariant under rotations and boosts involving the fifth dimension, therefore it breaks five-dimensional Lorentz invariance (but is still compatible with four-dimensional Lorentz symmetry).

We can alternatively define charge conjugation in the following way :

$`\stackrel{~}{C}_5\left[\mathrm{\Psi }\right](x^A)=\left[\stackrel{~}{C}\text{1 I}_2\right]\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(x^A)`$ (53)
where $`\stackrel{~}{C}=i\gamma ^2\gamma ^5`$ and satisfies

$`\stackrel{~}{C}\left(\gamma ^A\right)^{}=\gamma ^A\stackrel{~}{C}.`$ (54)
Invariance of Eq. (36) requires

$`\left\{\text{I R}\text{}\left(\mathrm{\Phi }\right)\left[\text{1 I}_4\sigma ^3\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{a}}\left[\text{1 I}_4\sigma ^1\right]\right\}\mathrm{\Psi }=0.`$ (55)
This is satisfied for every $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ if

$`\{\begin{array}{c}\mu =0\hfill \\ \\ \text{I R}\text{}\left(\mathrm{\Phi }\right)=0.\hfill \end{array}`$ (59)
The second condition is again in contrast with the solitonic state (17), but (55) is compatible with Lorentz invariance in five and four dimensions.

There is also a third possible definition which involves a change of sign of the coordinate $`y`$ :

$`C_{5(y)}\left[\mathrm{\Psi }\right](𝒙,y)=\left[C\text{1 I}_2\right]\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(𝒙,y).`$ (60)
Invariance of Eq. (36) now requires

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(𝒙,y)=\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(𝒙,y),`$ (61)
and is not compatible with the $`Z_2`$ symmetry if we take $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ real.

To summarize, there appear to be no known definition of charge conjugation in five dimensions which is compatible with localization given by the use of the scalar field in Eq. (17).

#### 2 Parity

We define the five-dimensional parity (P5) as the usual parity (P) acting on each family $`\psi _i`$,

$`P_5\left[\mathrm{\Psi }\right](t,\stackrel{}{x},y)=\left[P\text{1 I}_2\right]\mathrm{\Psi }(t,\stackrel{}{x},y),`$ (62)
where $`P=i\gamma ^0`$. Invariance of Eq. (36) requires

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(t,\stackrel{}{x},y)=\mathrm{\Phi }(t,\stackrel{}{x},y).`$ (63)
This is in contrast with Eq. (17) so that the five-dimensional parity is broken if we choose $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ kink-like, and the conclusion is the same as for charge conjugation.

#### 3 Time reversal

We define the five-dimensional time reversal (T5) as the usual time reversal (T) acting on each family $`\psi _i`$,

$`T_5\left[\mathrm{\Psi }\right](t,\stackrel{}{x},y)=\left[T\text{1 I}_2\right]\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(t,\stackrel{}{x},y),`$ (64)
where $`T=i\gamma ^1\gamma ^3`$. Invariance of Eq. (36) requires

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(t,\stackrel{}{x},y)=\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(t,\stackrel{}{x},y).`$ (65)
If $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is given by Eq. (17), this symmetry is satisfied.

#### 4 CPT

One expects that, if the five-dimensional theory is a genuine (locally Lorentz invariant) field theory, CPT holds . However, we have three ways of defining CPT depending on the choice of the operator of charge conjugation and we would like to pick up the one which is compatible with the localization mechanism given by the soliton in Eq. (17) and Eq. (29).

The preferred CPT is thus given by the combination C5P5T5. In fact, invariance of Eq. (36) under the transformation

$`\left(C_5P_5T_5\right)[\mathrm{\Psi }](x^A)=\left[\gamma ^5\text{1 I}_2\right]\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(x^A),`$ (66)
requires:

$`\{i[\gamma ^4\text{1 I}_2](D_y+\omega )`$ (67)
$`[\text{1 I}_4\sigma ^3]{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }(x^A)\mathrm{\Phi }(x^A)}{2}}\}\mathrm{\Psi }=0.`$ (68)
If $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is kink-like the latter equation becomes precisely Eq. (29) for the localization. Thus we conclude that localization on the brane is a consequence of CPT invariance of the (effective) five-dimensional field theory. However, since the condition (68) suffers of the same problem as Eq. (52), it violates (local) five-dimensional Lorentz invariance (while preserving four-dimensional Lorentz invariance). This is not surprising, since confined states are not invariant under rotations and boosts which involve the fifth dimension or, put another way, the brane itself represents a preferred frame. Note that separately C5 and P5 are broken but together with T5 they give Eq. (68) that becomes (29) when (17) \[and (30) for zero modes\] are imposed.

For completeness we also consider the remaining cases. In particular, invariance of Eq. (36) under the combination $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{C}}_5`$P5T5,

$`\left(\stackrel{~}{C}_5P_5T_5\right)[\mathrm{\Psi }](x^A)=\left[\text{1 I}_4\text{1 I}_2\right]\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(x^A),`$ (69)
requires

$`\{[\text{1 I}_4\sigma ^3]{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }(x^A)+\mathrm{\Phi }(x^A)}{2}}`$ (70)
$`+\frac{\mu }{a}[\text{1 I}_4\sigma ^1]\}\mathrm{\Psi }=0.`$ (71)
If we take $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ to be given as in Eq. (17) we have to set $`\mu =0`$. This confirms that $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{C}}_5`$ is a bad definition of charge conjugation if we want massive fermions on the brane, although this choice is fully compatible with five-dimensional Lorentz symmetry.

Finally, invariance of Eq. (36) under the combination which includes C5(y),

$`\left(C_{5(y)}P_5T_5\right)[\mathrm{\Psi }](𝒙,y)=\left[\gamma ^5\text{1 I}_2\right]\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(𝒙,y),`$ (72)
requires

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(𝒙,y)=\mathrm{\Phi }(𝒙,y).`$ (73)
This constraint is satisfied by Eq. (17). We will see below that this definition of CPT is really four-dimensional.

#### 5 CP and T

Since T5 holds for the choice in Eq. (17), one expects that CP is unbroken as a consequence of CPT invariance. We have three different ways of defining CP depending on the three possible choices of charge conjugation. Invariance of Eq. (36) under C5 and P5,

$`\left(C_5P_5\right)[\mathrm{\Psi }](x^A)=\left[\gamma ^2\gamma ^0\text{1 I}_2\right]\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(t,\stackrel{}{x},y),`$ (74)
requires:

$`\{i[\gamma ^4\text{1 I}_2](D_y+\omega )`$ (75)
$`[\text{1 I}_4\sigma ^3]{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }(t,\stackrel{}{x},y)\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(t,\stackrel{}{x},y)}{2}}\}\mathrm{\Psi }=0.`$ (76)
If $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is given by Eq. (17) the above condition again becomes the equation for localization and CP is unbroken for fermions living on the brane (while five-dimensional Lorentz invariance is violated).

The second possible definition makes use of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{C}}_5`$ and P5:

$`\left(\stackrel{~}{C}_5P_5\right)[\mathrm{\Psi }](x^A)=\left[\gamma ^2\gamma ^5\gamma ^0\text{1 I}_2\right]\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(t,\stackrel{}{x},y).`$ (77)
Invariance of Eq. (36) then requires:

$`\{[\text{1 I}_4\sigma ^3]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\mathrm{\Phi }(t,\stackrel{}{x},y)+\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(t,\stackrel{}{x},y))`$ (78)
$`+\frac{\mu }{a}[\text{1 I}_4\sigma ^1]\}\mathrm{\Psi }=0.`$ (79)
Note that if $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is kink-like the first term vanishes and the above condition is verified for every $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ if $`\mu =0`$. We conclude that $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{C}}_5`$P5 respects five-dimensional Lorentz invariance and is satisfied if there is no interaction term between the two families of fermions. However, as we mentioned, this term is necessary to obtain the four-dimensional mass term and to recover the low energy phenomenology.

We can also define CP using C5(y) and P5:

$`\left(C_{5(y)}P_5\right)[\mathrm{\Psi }](x^A)=\left[\gamma ^2\gamma ^0\text{1 I}_2\right]\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(t,\stackrel{}{x},y).`$ (80)
In this case invariance of Eq. (36) yields:

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(t,\stackrel{}{x},y)=\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(t,\stackrel{}{x},y).`$ (81)
This condition is satisfied if $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is given by Eq. (17) and, as we show below, coincides with the condition that ensures CP in four dimensions.

### B Four-dimensional symmetries

In this Section we define discrete symmetries as acting on eight-spinors as seen from the four-dimensional point of view. In other words we are looking for operators that act on $`\psi _{1,L}`$ and $`\psi _{2,R}`$ ($`\psi _{2,L}`$ and $`\psi _{1,R}`$) as if they belonged to the same Dirac spinor $`\psi ^{(1)}`$ ($`\psi ^{(2)}`$) and are not substantially affected by the existence of a fifth coordinate, hence they must be represented by matrices of the form

$`\left[\begin{array}{ccc}F_{2\times 2}^{(1)}& 0_{2\times 4}& F_{2\times 2}^{(1)}\\ 0_{4\times 2}& F_{4\times 4}^{(2)}& 0_{4\times 2}\\ F_{2\times 2}^{(1)}& 0_{2\times 4}& F_{2\times 2}^{(1)}\end{array}\right],`$ (85)
in which upper indeces denote blocks acting on the corresponding spinor $`\psi ^{(i)}`$.

Strictly speaking such symmetries are not as fundamental as the five-dimensional analogues and are properly defined only for states localized on the brane. Further, they all naively respect four-dimensional Lorentz invariance, since four-dimensional Lorentz transformations must be represented by matrices of the form (85) and, as we show below, C, P and T coincide with the standard four-dimensional expressions. We finally note that four-dimensional Lorentz invariance for confined states also follows from the effective action (31).

#### 1 Charge conjugation

We define the four-dimensional charge conjugation as

$`C_4\left[\mathrm{\Psi }\right](x^A)=\left[C\sigma ^1\right]\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(x^A)`$ (86)
where, as before, $`C=i\gamma ^2`$. Invariance of Eq. (36) now requires

$`\left\{i\left[\gamma ^4\text{1 I}_2\right]\left(D_y+\omega \right)\left[\text{1 I}_4\sigma ^3\right]\text{I R}\text{}(\mathrm{\Phi })\right\}\mathrm{\Psi }=0.`$ (87)
If we choose (17), this symmetry is satisfied if the equation for localization (29) holds.

As in five dimensions, this is not the only way to define this operation. In fact we can also define the four-dimensional charge conjugation as

$`\stackrel{~}{C}_4\left[\mathrm{\Psi }\right](x^A)=\left[\stackrel{~}{C}\sigma ^1\right]\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(x^A)`$ (88)
where, as before, $`\stackrel{~}{C}=i\gamma ^2\gamma ^5`$. Invariance of Eq. (36) requires Eq. (55) and we obtain the same results as in five dimensions \[see Eq. (59)\].

Analogously to the five-dimensional case, we could also define charge conjugation as

$`C_{4(y)}\left[\mathrm{\Psi }\right](𝒙,y)=\left[C\sigma ^1\right]\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(𝒙,y).`$ (89)
Invariance of Eq. (36) then requires (61).

To conclude, while C4-invariance is compatible with localization, both $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{C}}_4`$ and C4(y) lead to the same conditions as the anologous $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{C}}_5`$ and C5(y) and are therefore in contrast with localization. If one wants an operator of charge conjugation which, from a four-dimensional point of view, gives rise to an invariance of Eq. (36), one is then forced to discard $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{C}}_4`$ and C4(y) as candidates for charge conjugation.

#### 2 Parity

We define the four-dimensional parity as follows

$`P_4\left[\mathrm{\Psi }\right](t,\stackrel{}{x},y)=\left[P\sigma ^1\right]\mathrm{\Psi }(t,\stackrel{}{x},y),`$ (90)
where, as before, $`P=i\gamma ^0`$. Invariance of Eq. (36) requires

$`\{i[\gamma ^4\text{1 I}_2](D_y+\omega )`$ (91)
$`[\text{1 I}_4\sigma ^3]{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }(t,\stackrel{}{x},y)+\mathrm{\Phi }(t,\stackrel{}{x},y)}{2}}\}\mathrm{\Psi }=0.`$ (92)
One more time, if $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is given by (17), we get that $`P`$ is satisfied when the equation for localization holds.

#### 3 Time reversal

The four-dimensional definition of this operation T4 is exactly the same as T5 in five dimensions.

#### 4 CPT

Invariance of Eq. (36) under the combination

$`\left(C_4P_4T_4\right)[\mathrm{\Psi }](𝒙,y)`$ $`=`$ $`\left[\gamma ^5\text{1 I}_2\right]\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(𝒙,y)`$ (93)
$`=`$ $`\left(C_{5(y)}P_5T_5\right)[\mathrm{\Psi }](𝒙,y)`$ (94)
requires Eq. (73). If $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ does not depend on $`𝒙`$ (as the kink) the latter equation is automatically satisfied.

#### 5 CP and T

Invariance of Eq. (36) under combination of the previous operations C4 and P4,

$`\left(C_4P_4\right)[\mathrm{\Psi }](x^A)`$ $`=`$ $`\left[\gamma ^2\gamma ^0\text{1 I}_2\right]\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(t,\stackrel{}{x},y)`$ (95)
$`=`$ $`\left(C_{5(y)}P_5\right)[\mathrm{\Psi }](x^A),`$ (96)
requires Eq. (81).

## IV Conclusions

We have analyzed discrete symmetries in a four-dimensional brane-world of codimension one and their relation with localization and Lorentz invariance. We found that the usual way of localizing fermions with a (anti-) kink  is compatible with CPT in five dimensions (and follows from it), provided one uses C5, P5 and T5 given respectively in Eqs. (48), (62) and (64). In fact, we have shown that, among the three expressions of CPT that we have considered in five dimensions, just C5P5T5 is consistent with a brane-world. On the contrary, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{C}}_5`$P5T5 is not compatible with a mass term \[such as the vacuum expectation value of the Higgs field, $`\mu `$ in Eq. (28)\] for fermions on the brane and C5(y)P5T5 is actually four-dimensional (since it equals C4P4T4). Correspondingly, CPT in four dimensions (i.e., C4P4T4, which is properly defined only for localized fermions) does not impose any further restriction except Eq. (73). It is also possible to obtain Eq. (29) for the localization from a purely four-dimensional point of view: it is sufficient to impose the invariance of the Dirac equation (36) under either C4 or P4.

It is nevertheless worth noting that it is $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{C}}_5`$P5T5 which respects five-dimensional (local) Lorentz invariance. Instead, C5P5T5 breaks this symmetry (while preserving Lorentz invariance on the brane), as one could naively expect since the brane represents a preferred frame. Since Lorentz invariance is a main hypothesis for the CPT theorem (in any dimensions) , this seems to play in favour of the expression involving $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{C}}_5`$ and one would therefore expect that five-dimensional CPT is broken when there are massive fermions on the brane. Whether the breakdown of this five-dimensional symmetry leads to observable effects in our (brane-)world will be the subject of subsequent investigations.

Since the origin of the reference frame on the brane is arbitrary, the condition (73) for CPT invariance in four dimensions implies that the kink must be static and homogeneous, although such a condition is not required for CPT invariance from the five-dimensional point of view. One would expect that background fields, such as $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, are not static in a cosmological context (at least during the early stages of the Universe) and can therefore be a source of CPT asymmetries on the brane-world. Analogously, spatial inhomogeneities could generate local violations of CP in four dimensions. It could be that some work can be done in that direction.

###### Acknowledgements.

We would like to thank G. Venturi for useful discussions.

## A Thick brane

In this Section we explicitly consider the case of a thick brane. For this purpose it is useful to approximate the kink as

$`\mathrm{\Phi }=\{\begin{array}{cc}(m_f^2/2)L_f\hfill & y<L_f\hfill \\ (m_f^2/2)y\hfill & |y|<L_f\hfill \\ +(m_f^2/2)L_f\hfill & y>+L_f,\hfill \end{array}`$ (A4)
where $`L_f`$ is the typical brane thickness for fermions, and take $`a(y)1`$ for $`|y|<L_f`$. It is then easy to show that fermions have a confined massless (chiral) mode, together with a tower of states (which are allowed only if their mass is smaller than the threshold $`m_f^2L_f/2`$ ). Since $`\gamma ^5=\mathrm{\Pi }_L\mathrm{\Pi }_R`$ (the difference between L and R chiral projectors), one can introduce “creation and annihilation” operators

$`\widehat{a}^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_f}}\left(_y\mathrm{\Phi }\right),\widehat{a}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_f}}\left(_y+\mathrm{\Phi }\right),`$ (A5)
such that $`[\widehat{a},\widehat{a}^{}]=1`$ and the Lagrangian density for $`|y|<L_f`$ becomes

$`L_{(5)}=\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\left(i\mathit{}m_f\widehat{a}\mathrm{\Pi }_Lm_f\widehat{a}^{}\mathrm{\Pi }_R\right)\mathrm{\Psi }.`$ (A6)
This allows an expansion for the fermions

$`\mathrm{\Psi }(𝒙,y)=H_0(y)\mathrm{\Pi }_L\psi ^{(0)}(𝒙)`$ (A7)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{N_f}{}}}\left[H_n(y)\mathrm{\Pi }_L+H_{n1}(y)\mathrm{\Pi }_R\right]\psi ^{(n)}(𝒙),`$ (A8)
where $`H_n`$ are the normalized eigenfunctions of the harmonic oscillator. From the above it is clear that while the zero mode is a two-component spinor, modes with $`n1`$ can have both chiralities.

Since the zero mode is massless (because $`\widehat{a}H_0=0`$),

$`(\partial ̸+m_f\widehat{a})H_0\mathrm{\Pi }_L\psi ^{(0)}=H_0\partial ̸\mathrm{\Pi }_L\psi ^{(0)}=0,`$ (A9)
$`\psi ^{(0)}`$ can be taken as a L Weyl spinor, $`\psi ^{(0)}=\mathrm{\Pi }_L\psi ^{(0)}`$. We note in passing that $`\widehat{a}H_0=0`$ is precisely the equation which ensures the confinement of the left zero mode within a width $`\mathrm{}_f1/m_f`$ around $`y=0`$. Since for the (would-be) right zero mode the corresponding equation $`\widehat{a}^{}\overline{R}_0=0`$ does not admit any (non-vanishing) normalizable solution in $`y\text{I R}`$, we have set $`\mathrm{\Pi }_R\psi ^{(0)}=0`$.

The sum in Eq. (A8) ends with a maximum integer $`N_f<\mathrm{}`$. The reason for such a cut-off can be easily understood if we set $`\mathit{}=0`$ and write down the Klein-Gordon equation corresponding to the Dirac equation obtained from $`S`$,

$`\left[\partial ̸m_f\left(\widehat{a}^{}\mathrm{\Pi }_L\widehat{a}\mathrm{\Pi }_R\right)\right]\left[\partial ̸+m_f\left(\widehat{a}\mathrm{\Pi }_L+\widehat{a}^{}\mathrm{\Pi }_R\right)\right]\mathrm{\Psi }`$ (A10)
$`=\left[p^2+m_f^2\left(\widehat{a}^{}\widehat{a}\mathrm{\Pi }_L+\widehat{a}\widehat{a}^{}\mathrm{\Pi }_R\right)\right]\mathrm{\Psi }`$ (A11)
$`=\left[p^2+\left(_y^2+\mathrm{\Phi }^2\right)\right]\mathrm{\Psi }=0.`$ (A12)
It is thus clear that only those modes $`\psi _n`$ whose eigenvalues $`m_f^2n<\mathrm{\Phi }^2(L)M_f^2`$ can be retained (see Fig. 1).


text:
# SCATTERING IN QUANTUM TUBES

## 1 Introduction

In the search for faster computers critical parts are becoming smaller. Today, it is possible to build mesoscopic structures where some dimensions are of the order of the de Broglie wavelength for cold electrons. Often the electron motion is confined to two dimensions. Consequently, it may be necessary, at least for some computer parts, to include quantum effects in the design process.

A large number of studies, devoted to such quantum effects, have been carried out in recent years and a review is given by Londegan et al . Many investigations aim at understanding the physical properties of a particular quantum tube rather than developing reliable mathematical and numerical methods that can be used in a more general context. The research has given valuable knowledge on the physical behaviour but also reports on the limitations of the methods used. For instance, Lin & Jaffe  report that a straightforward matching at the boundary of a circular bend does not converge, demonstrating the numerical problems with such a method. An illposedness is present in quantum tube scattering and some type of regularisation is therefore required to avoid large errors. Often, the tubes have sharp corners to facilitate manufacturing but also to enhance quantum effects. The presence of corners with attached singularities requires special treatment.

Scattering of electrons in quantum tubes, see figure 1, is theorywise related to the scattering of acoustic and electromagnetic waves in ducts. Nilsson  treats a general method for the acoustic transmission in curved ducts with varying cross-sections. Wellposedness, i.e. stability, is achieved in an asymptotic sense. The mathematical framework guarantees consistent results and allows for sharp corners and a proof for numerical convergence is given. We set out to present a quantum version of the results of Nilsson . In this way the problems reported on convergence  and on inconsistent mathematical results would be resolved.

The paper is organised as follows. An introduction to scattering in quantum tubes is given in section 2 and a mathematical model is formulated in section 3. The Building block Method which is a systematic method to analyse complicated tubes in terms of results for simple tubes is also briefly described. Then in section 4 the scattering problem for the curved tube with varying cross-section and constant potential is reformulated to a scattering problem for a straight tube with a varying refractive index. The solution to this problem is presented in section 5 and a discussion on numerical methods are also given.

## 2 Tubes in quantum heterostructures

A schematic view of a quantum heterostructure is shown in figure 2 following Wu et al.  Electrons are emitted from the n-type doped AlGaAs layer, migrate into the GaAs layer and stay close to the boundary to the AlGaAs layer. In this way a very narrow layer of electrons which are free to move in a plane is formed. Nearly all the electrons in this two-dimensional gas are in the same quantum state. By applying a negative potential on the metal electrodes on the top of the heterostructure in figure 1, the electrons are banished from the region below the electrodes. For relatively low voltages, the effective potential in the tube for one electron is close to the square-well potential.  As a consequence the electrons in the two-dimensional gas are further restricted to a tube that in form is a mirror picture of the gap between the two electrodes. This quantum tube links the electrons between the two two-dimensional gases on both sides of the strip formed by the electrodes.

## 3 Mathematical model

Consider a two-dimensional tube with interior $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ according to figure 1. The boundary $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ consists of two continuous curves, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_+^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{}`$, which are piecewise C2. The upper boundary $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_+^{}`$ can be continuously deformed to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{}`$ within $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$. Outside a bounded region the duct is straight with constant widths $`a`$ and $`b,`$ respectively. These terminating ducts are called the left and the right terminating duct or L and R for short. We use stationary scattering theory for one electron in an effective potential, with time dependence exp$`(iEt/\mathrm{})`$, assuming that the wave function $`\psi `$ satisfies the time-independent Schrödinger equation $`\mathrm{}\psi +k^2\psi =0`$ in $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{},`$where $`k^2=2m^{}E/\mathrm{}`$ and $`m^{}`$ is the effective mass . Usually $`k^2`$ is called energy. The effective potential is assumed to be a square well meaning that $`\psi |_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}=0.`$

In a tube with constant cross-section the harmonic wavefunction $`\psi `$ can be uniquely decomposed in leftgoing and rightgoing parts by $`\psi =\psi ^++\psi ^{}`$. Super indices $`\mathrm{"}+\mathrm{"}`$ and $`\mathrm{"}\mathrm{"}`$ indicate rightgoing or plus and leftgoing or minus waves respectively. Let $`\psi _{in}^+`$ and $`\psi _{in}^{}`$ be known incoming waves in the terminating ducts. $`\psi _{in}^+`$ is present in the left and $`\psi _{in}^{}`$ in the right one. Let us write

$$\{\begin{array}{c}\psi =\psi _{in}^++R^+\psi _{in}^++T^{}\psi _{in}^{}\text{ in L}\\ \psi =\psi _{in}^{}+R^{}\psi _{in}^{}+T^+\psi _{in}^+\text{ in R}\end{array},$$
(1)
where for example the last two terms in (1a) are minus waves and the equation defines the left reflection mapping $`R^+`$ that maps the incoming wave to an outgoing one in L. The scattering problem consists of finding the mappings $`R^+,T^{},R^{}`$ and $`T^+`$ as functions of energy for a given duct. In summary we have

$$\{\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{}\psi +k^2\psi =0\text{ in }\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\\ \psi |_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}=0\\ \psi ^+=\psi _{in}^+\text{ in L}\\ \psi ^{}=\psi _{in}^{}\text{ in R}\end{array}.$$
(2)
There is always a solution to (2), and except for a discrete number of eigenenergies $`k^2=k_i^2,i=1,2,3,\mathrm{},`$ the solution is unique.  When $`k^2=k_j^2,`$ an eigenenergy, there exists a solution without incoming but with outgoing waves.

The use of the Building Block Method  or transfer matrix formalism  is very efficient for the solution of scattering problems. In this method a tube with a complicated geometry is divided into two parts usually where the tube is straight. These two parts are converted to the type shown in figure 1 by extending the terminating tubes to infinity. A sub tube for the tube shown in figure 1 originates from the left part and is depicted in figure 3. The Building Block Method gives a procedure for calculating the mappings $`R^+,`$ $`T^{},`$ $`R^{},`$ and $`T^+`$ for the entire tube in terms of the corresponding scattering properties for the sub tubes. This procedure can be repeated to get several sub tubes. Rather than using a general numerical package for conformal mappings we have for the calculations in this paper employed the Schwarz-Christoffel mapping for a duct with corners and rounding the corners using the methods of Henrici . Required analytic integrations are performed in MATHEMATICA.

We recall the standard duct theory  in a form that illustrates the illposedness of the problem and we have

$$\psi =\psi ^++\psi ^{}=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}A_n^+e^{i\alpha _nx}\phi _n(y)+\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}A_n^{}e^{i\alpha _nx}\phi _n(y),$$
(3)
with $`\phi _n(y)=`$ sin$`(n\pi y/a)`$ and $`\alpha _n=\sqrt{k^2n^2\pi ^2/a^2},`$ Im $`\alpha _n0.`$ It is convenient to define the operator $`B_0`$ by

$$\{\begin{array}{c}B_0f=_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}\alpha _nf_n\phi _{n,}\\ f(y)=_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}\alpha _nf_n\phi _n(y)\end{array}.$$
(4)
We find that $`B_0^2=_x^2+k^2`$ and $`_x\psi ^\pm =\pm iB_0\psi ^\pm .`$ The initial value problem,

$$\{\begin{array}{c}_x\psi ^+(x)=iB_0\psi ^+(x),\\ \psi ^+(0)=\psi _0,\end{array}$$
(5)
is illposed for $`x<0,`$ but not for $`x>0`$. If an attenuated plus wave is marched to the left an exponential growth is found. To avoid the illposedness, $`\psi `$ is decomposed and the plus waves are calculated by marching to the right and minus waves in the opposite direction.

## 4 Reformulated scattering problem

To be able to use powerful spectral methods it is advantageous to transform the tube to a flat boundary. It is enough, according to the Building Block Method, to consider the scattering in the sub tubes and we restrict ourselves to the first part as shown in figure 3. One way of transforming the tube is to use a conformal mapping $`w(\zeta )`$ transforming the interior $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ of the tube with variable cross-section in the $`\zeta =x+iy`$ plane (figure 3) to the interior $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ of a straight tube with constant cross-section in the $`w=u+iv`$ plane. The straight tube is described by $`\mathrm{}<u<\mathrm{},`$ $`0<v<a.`$

Introducing $`\varphi (u,v)=\psi (x,y)`$ we get

$$\{\begin{array}{c}_u^2\varphi +B^2(u)\varphi =0\text{ in }\mathrm{\Omega }\\ \varphi (u,0)=\varphi (u,a)=0,u\end{array},$$
(6)
with $`B^2(u)=_v^2+k^2\mu (u,v)`$ and $`\mu =|d\zeta /dw|^2`$. $`\mu (u,v)^1`$ can be denoted as a refractive index for the straight tube. In figure 4, $`\mu `$ related to the simple tube in figure 3 is depicted. The factor $`\mu (u,v)`$ is asymptotically constant at both ends of the tube or more precisely $`\mu (u,v)=\mu _\pm +`$O$`(e^{|cu|}),u\pm \mathrm{}`$ with $`\mu _{}=1`$ and $`\mu _+=(b/a)^2`$.

We use a first order description and rewrite (6a) as

$$_u\left(\begin{array}{c}\varphi \\ _u\varphi \end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ B^2& 0\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\varphi \\ _u\varphi \end{array}\right).$$
(7)
To avoid illposedness the decomposition $`\varphi =\varphi ^++\varphi ^{}`$ is introduced which must be identical to the corresponding decomposition (3) in regions where $`\mu `$ is a constant. The new state variables $`(\varphi ^+,\varphi ^{})`$ are introduced via the linear relation

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\varphi \\ _u\varphi \end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 1\\ iC& iC\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\varphi ^+\\ \varphi ^{}\end{array}\right).$$
(8)
Solving (8) for $`\varphi ^+`$and $`\varphi ^{}`$ and taking the $`u`$-derivative and using (7) we find that

$$_u\left(\begin{array}{c}\varphi ^+\\ \varphi ^{}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\alpha & \beta \\ \gamma & \delta \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\varphi ^+\\ \varphi ^{}\end{array}\right),$$
(9)
where

$$\{\begin{array}{c}\alpha =\frac{1}{2}[(_uC^1)C+iC^1B^2+iC]\\ \beta =\frac{1}{2}\left[(_uC^1)C+iC^1B^2iC\right]\\ \gamma =\frac{1}{2}\left[(_uC^1)CiC^1B^2+iC\right]\\ \delta =\frac{1}{2}\left[(_uC^1)CiC^1B^2iC\right]\end{array}.$$
(10)
To generalize the concept of transmission operators we make them $`u`$-dependent, using a similar notation as Fishman :

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\varphi ^+(u_2)\\ \varphi ^{}(u_1)\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}T^+(u_2,u_1)& R^{}(u_1,u_2)\\ R^+(u_2,u_1)& T^{}(u_1,u_2)\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\varphi ^+(u_1)\\ \varphi ^{}(u_2)\end{array}\right),$$
(11)
assuming that $`u_1u_{2,}`$ and suppressing the explicit $`v`$-dependence. It is assumed for (11) that the scattering problem has a unique solution or that homogenous solutions are removed. A homogenous solution is usually called a bound state.

Next we find a differential equation for the scattering operators $`T^+(u_2,u_1),`$ $`R^{}(u_1,u_2),`$ $`R^+(u_2,u_1)`$ and $`T^{}(u_1,u_2)`$ in (11) using the invariant imbedding technique , . It is required that the incoming wave from the right, $`\varphi ^{}(u_2),`$ is vanishing. Then put $`u_1=u,`$ find $`_u\varphi ^{}(u)`$ from (11), use (11) once more to obtain

$$_uR^+(u_2,u)=\gamma +\delta R^+(u_2,u)R^+(u_2,u)\alpha R^+(u_2,u)\beta R^+(u_2,u),$$
(12)
In a similar manner we get

$$_uT^+(u_2,u)=T^+(u_2,u)\alpha T^+(u_2,u)\beta R^+(u_2,u).$$
(13)
The stability properties of (12) and (13) are of central importance. In the flat regions where $`B=B_+`$ or $`B_{}`$ we have $`C=B`$ and $`_uC^1=0`$ implying that $`\beta =\gamma =0`$ and $`\alpha =\delta =iB.`$ Similarly (12) and (13) reduce to $`_uX^+=iBX^+,`$ $`X^+=R^+`$ or $`T^+,`$ equations which are well-posed for marching to the left. The initial values to accompany (12) and (13) are $`R^+(u_2,u_2)=0`$ and $`T^+(u_2,u_2)=I,`$ where $`I`$ is the identity operator.

We choose $`C=B_{}+f(u)(B_+B_{})`$ that is independent of $`v`$. Here $`f`$ is increasing and smooth with lim$`{}_{u\mathrm{}}{}^{}f(u)=0,`$ and lim$`{}_{u\mathrm{}}{}^{}f(u)=1`$.

## 5 Solution of the scattering problem

For the numerical solution of the scattering operator we expand $`\varphi `$ in a Fourier sine series and $`\mu `$ in a Fourier cosine series:

$$\{\begin{array}{c}\varphi (u,v)=_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}\varphi _n(u)\phi _n(v)\\ \mu (u,v)=_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}\mu _n(u)\xi _n(v)\end{array},$$
(14)
where $`\xi _n(v)=\mathrm{cos}(n\pi /a).`$ Using the notation $`\varphi =(\varphi _0,\varphi _1,\mathrm{})^T`$ we find that

$$\frac{d^2\varphi (u)}{du^2}+𝐁^2(u)\varphi (u)=0.$$
(15)
The matrix elements of $`𝐁^2(u)`$ are given by

$$𝐁^2(u)_{nm}=\frac{k^2}{2}[\mu _{m+n}(u)\mu _{mn}(u)\mu _m+\mu _{nm}(u)]\frac{n^2\pi ^2}{a^2}\delta _{nm},n,m=0,1,2,\mathrm{},$$
(16)
and it is understood in (16) that $`\mu _l(u)=0`$ for negative $`l.`$

For the tube in the physical $`\zeta `$plane we require that locally both the potential and the kinetic part of the energy are finite, that is both $`_X\left|\psi \right|^2𝑑x𝑑y<\mathrm{}`$ and $`_X\left|\psi \right|^2𝑑x𝑑y<\mathrm{}`$ for all finite regions $`X`$ inside the tube. We say that $`\psi `$ belongs to the Sobolev space H$`{}_{}{}^{1}{}_{\text{loc}}{}^{}`$ meaning that $`\psi `$ and its first derivatives are locally square integrable. Transformed to the straight duct the local finite energy requirement means $`_U\left|\varphi \right|^2\mu 𝑑u𝑑v<\mathrm{}`$ and $`_U\left|\varphi \right|^2𝑑u𝑑v<\mathrm{}`$ for all finite regions $`U`$ inside the tube. For a smooth boundary $`\varphi `$ is more regular, and also the second derivatives of $`\varphi `$ are square integrable, that is $`\varphi `$ H$`{}_{}{}^{2}{}_{\text{loc}}{}^{}.`$ It follows from the theory of Grisvard  that also the second derivatives of $`\varphi `$ are square integrable, which means that $`\varphi `$ H$`{}_{}{}^{2}{}_{\text{loc}}{}^{}.`$ According to a graph theorem  $`\varphi `$ H$`{}_{}{}^{2}{}_{\text{loc}}{}^{}`$ implies that $`\varphi (u,)`$ H$`{}_{}{}^{3/2}(0,a),`$ meaning that up to 3/2 derivatives are square integrable. To interpret this regularity with fractional derivatives we define, following Taylor , the function space

$$\text{D}_s=\left\{f\text{L}^2(0,a);\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}|f_n|^2\left(1+n^2\right)^s<\mathrm{}\right\},s0,$$
(17)
with $`f=_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}f_n\phi _n`$ and $`f_n=(f,\phi _n)/(\phi _n,\phi _n).`$ Ds is a Hilbert space with the norm

$$f_{\text{D}_s}^2=(f,f)=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}|f_n|^2\left(1+n^2\right)^s.$$
(18)
Taylor  shows that D$`{}_{0}{}^{}=`$L$`{}_{}{}^{2}(0,a),`$ D$`{}_{1}{}^{}=`$H$`{}_{0}{}^{1}(0,a),`$ D$`{}_{2}{}^{}=`$H$`{}_{}{}^{2}(0,a)`$H$`{}_{0}{}^{1}(0,a)`$ and that $`_v`$D$`{}_{s}{}^{}=`$ D$`_{s1},`$ $`s1.`$ In this terminology we have that for a smooth boundary $`\varphi (u,)`$ D$`_{3/2}.`$

The operator $`_v^2`$ is self-adjoint on D$`_{3/2}.`$ Thus, we may define $`B_\pm `$ by

$$B_\pm f=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\sqrt{k^2\mu _\pm n^2\pi ^2/a^2}f_n\phi _n,$$
(19)
assuming that the branch Im $`>`$ 0 of the square root is taken. It is clear that $`T^+,`$ $`R^{},`$ $`R^+`$ and $`T^{}`$ are mappings D$`{}_{3/2}{}^{}`$D3/2 and $`B_\pm `$: D$`{}_{s}{}^{}`$ D$`_{s1},`$ $`s1.`$

For tubes with edges in the $`\zeta `$duct things are a little more complicated. With no restriction on the sharpness of the edges we cannot improve that $`\varphi H_{\text{loc}}^1`$ implying $`\varphi (u,)`$D$`_{1/2}.`$ Then, as an intermediate step in our calculations $`B_\pm \varphi `$ should be in the space D$`_{1/2}.`$ Such a derivative must of course be interpreted as a distribution. However, the end result, i.e. scattered wave function belongs to D1/2. To generalise we define by duality for positive $`s`$

$$\text{D}_s=\left\{g\text{ };_0^af(v)g(v)𝑑v<\mathrm{}\text{ for all }f\text{D}_s\right\}.$$

Multiplication by$`\sqrt{\mu }`$ is an operator D$`{}_{1/2}{}^{}`$ D-1/2 and if $`s1/2`$ we have the following mapping properties: $`B_\pm :`$ Ds $``$ D$`{}_{s1}{}^{},_v:`$ Ds $``$ D$`_{s1},`$ and $`T^+,`$ $`R^{},`$ $`R^+`$ and $`T^{}`$ are mappings D$`{}_{s}{}^{}`$D$`_s.`$

The equations (12-13) can only in very special cases be solved in a closed form. Therefore some type of numerical scheme is used. Generally a numerical method cannot give uniform convergence for the entire space $`D_s.`$ In a practical application it is usually sufficient to know the effect of the scattering matrices on the lowest eigenfunctions, the first $`N_0`$ say. A practical method is therefore to truncate the matrix representation of (12) - (13) to $`N>>N_0`$ and solve the finite-dimensional ordinary differential equation with a standard numerical routine. Nilsson  proves that such a procedure converges when $`N\mathrm{}.`$

Presently, numerical results are not available for the quantum tube scattering. However, Nilsson  presents results for the acoustic case where the Neumann rather than the Dirichlet boundary condition applies. He reports that for the lowest order reflection coefficient $`N=1,`$ i.e. a scalar solution, is accurate up to $`ka=1.5,`$ $`N=2`$ gives a good and $`N=5`$ gives a perfect discription up to $`ka=6.`$ Energy conservation holds for all $`N.`$