text:
# Macroscopic quantum tunneling of two-component Bose-Einstein condensates

## I INTRODUCTION

Multicomponent Bose-Einstein condensates (BECs) of alkali-metal atomic gases are expected to exhibit macroscopic quantum phenomena that have not been found in a single condensate. Multicomponent atomic gases can be obtained experimentally by trapping different atomic species or the same atoms with different hyperfine spin states. The experimental realization of multicomponent BECs Myatt ; Stenger ; Miesner  further stimulated many researchers to study the physics of this interesting system.

Macroscopic quantum tunneling (MQT) is an interesting subject in many fields of physics. In this paper we study MQT of metastable two-component BECs in a trapping potential. Thus we need to know detailed information about the stationary state of this system. The structure of the ground state has been studied by solving two coupled Gross-Pitaevskii equations (GPEs) analytically or numerically Ho ; Ersy ; Pu ; Ohberg ; Bashkin ; Tim ; Ersy2 ; Ao ; Tr ; Tanatar ; Gordon ; Ohberg2 . The stationary solution of the GPEs gives the density profile of the condensate characterized by the parameters of the system—trapping frequencies, the number of atoms of each component, and three s-wave scattering lengths, $`a_1`$, $`a_2`$, and $`a_{12}`$, which represent the interactions between like and unlike components.

The interspecies interaction characterized by $`a_{12}`$ plays an important role in determining the structure of the ground state. When the inequality $`a_{12}>\sqrt{a_1a_2}`$ is satisfied, a mixture of two-component BECs without a trapping potential tends to separate spatially Tim ; Ao . The trapped BECs have two different configurations of the condensates when $`a_{12}`$ is large Ohberg ; Ersy2 . One configuration preserves the spatial symmetry of the trapping potential by forming a core-shell structure. The other breaks the spatial symmetry by displacing the center of each condensate from that of the trapping potential.

Ho and Shenoy first constructed a simple algorithm to determine the density profile within the Thomas-Fermi approximation (TFA) Ho . However, the TFA is not enough to describe the density profile of phase separation because the penetration at the boundary of each component is not considered. Without the TFA Pu and Bigelow investigated numerically the ground state of a Rb-Na BECs by assuming spherical symmetry Pu . When $`a_{12}`$ is large, they found a ground state that forms a core of Rb at the center of the trap and a shell of Na around Rb, and a metastable state that has a Rb shell and Na core. However, they noted the existence of an unstable mode which forms the core-shell structure. After that, further investigation of two- or three-dimensional GPEs showed a spherical symmetry-breaking solution for the true ground state Ohberg ; Ersy2 ; Gordon .

Öhberg showed that whether the ground state takes a symmetry-breaking state (SBS) or a symmetry-preserving state (SPS) depends not only on the interspecies interaction but also on the particle number, the intraspecies interaction, and the shape of the trapping potential Ohberg2 . However, the detaila of the metastable state have not been studied. Thus, we investigate the dependence of the ground state and the metastable state of two-component BECs in a cigar-shaped potential, which can be considered as a quasi-one-dimensional system for simplicity. We also make a linear stability analysis of the stationary solutions of the GPEs and reveal their metastability.

A metastable BEC can also be found in a single condensate with negative s-wave scattering length Bradley . The negative scattering length represents an attractive atom-atom interaction, which causes the condensate to collapse upon itself to a denser phase. The balance between the attractive interaction energy and the zero-point kinetic energy of the trapping potential realizes the metastable condensate. MQT of a condensate with attractive interaction has been predicted Ueda .

For two-component BECs with repulsive interactions the metastability mainly comes from the competition between intra- and interspecies interactions. We study the transition between the SBS and SPS by MQT.

In Sec. II, we obtain the stationary solution of the GPEs numerically. The phase diagram of the ground state has a rich structure including metastable states. The stability of these solutions is checked by following Ref. Law  which considers the stability by taking account of the linear fluctuation around the stationary solution.

In Sec. III, we introduce the collective coordinate method to evaluate the decay rate of a metastable state through MQT by an imaginary-time path integral (instanton) technique. The collective coordinate enables us to derive an effective one-dimensional Lagrangian describing the two-component BECs and obtain the decay rate. We estimate the decay rate at finite temperatures; the results show the probability of observation of MQT. We also discuss macroscopic quantum coherence (MQC), which is the oscillation between the SPS and the SBS. Section IV is devoted to conclusions and discussion.

## II FORMULATION AND STATIONARY SOLUTION

We consider two-component BECs in the external trapping potentials

$$V_{\text{ext}}^i(𝐫)=\frac{1}{2}m_i\omega _i^2x^2+\frac{1}{2}m_i\omega _i^2(y^2+z^2),i=1,2,$$
(1)
where $`m_i`$ is the atomic mass, and $`\omega _i`$ and $`\omega _i`$ are the longitudinal and transverse trapping frequencies. For $`\omega _i\omega _i`$ the trapping potential is cigar-shaped. If the two-body interaction energy is smaller than $`\mathrm{}\omega _{}`$, it does not affect the transverse component $`\psi _i`$ of the wave functions, which allows us to analyze the problem in one-dimensional space. Although it has been predicted that the two-body interaction is changed by the effect of tight confinement of the trapping potential Olshanii ; Petrov , we will use the following treatment to derive the one-dimensional GPEs Goldstein . Using the ground state wave function in the harmonic potential for $`\psi _i(y,z)`$, we assume the macroscopic wave function as $`\mathrm{\Psi }_i(𝐫,t)=\psi _i(x,t)\psi _i(y,z)`$ $`(i=1,2)`$. These wave functions are substituted into the three-dimensional Gross-Pitaevskii energy functional, which is integrated over $`y`$ and $`z`$. Thus we obtain the one-dimensional Gross-Pitaevskii energy functional,

$`[\psi _1,\psi _2]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }dx[{\displaystyle \underset{i=1,2}{}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m_i}}\right|{\displaystyle \frac{\psi _i}{x}}|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_iw_i^2x^2|\psi _i|^2`$ (2)
$`\mu _i|\psi _i|^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}U_{11}|\psi _1|^4+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}U_{22}|\psi _2|^4`$
$`+U_{12}|\psi _1|^2|\psi _2|^2]`$
with the chemical potential $`\mu _i`$. Here the two-body interactions $`U_{ii}`$ and $`U_{12}`$ are written as

$`U_{ii}`$ $`=`$ $`g_{ii}{\displaystyle 𝑑y𝑑z\left|\psi _i(y,z)\right|^4}={\displaystyle \frac{g_{ii}}{2\pi b_i^2}},`$ (3a)
$`U_{12}`$ $`=`$ $`g_{12}{\displaystyle 𝑑y𝑑z\left|\psi _1(y,z)\right|^2\left|\psi _2(y,z)\right|^2}`$ (3b)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_{12}}{\pi (b_1^2+b_2^2)}},`$
where $`b_i=\sqrt{\mathrm{}/m_i\omega _i}`$, $`g_{ii}=4\pi \mathrm{}^2a_i/m_i`$ and $`g_{12}=2\pi \mathrm{}^2a_{12}/m_{12}`$ with reduced mass $`m_{12}`$. The corresponding two coupled time-dependent GPEs are given by

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{\psi _i}{t}=H_i[\psi _1,\psi _2]\psi _i,$$
(4)
where

$`H_1[\psi _1,\psi _2]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m_1}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{x^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_1\omega _1^2x^2\mu _1`$ (5a)
$`+U_{11}|\psi _1|^2+U_{12}|\psi _2|^2,`$
$`H_2[\psi _1,\psi _2]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{x^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_2\omega _2^2x^2\mu _2`$ (5b)
$`+U_{22}|\psi _2|^2+U_{12}|\psi _1|^2,`$
and each wave function is normalized by the number of particles $`N_i`$ as $`𝑑x|\psi _i(x)|^2=N_i`$.

### II.1 Numerical solution

The stationary solutions of Eq. (4) correspond to the critical points of the energy functional $``$. There are several ways to find these critical points numerically. Our method is described in the following. The stationary solution $`\psi _{i0}`$ satisfies the relation

$$H_i[\psi _{10},\psi _{20}]\psi _{i0}=0$$
(6)
from Eq. (4). The solution $`\psi _{i0}`$ is taken to be real by making the phase zero. Using the trial function $`\psi _i^{\text{tri}}`$, $`\psi _{i0}`$ is given by $`\psi _i^{\text{tri}}`$ and its deviation $`\mathrm{\Delta }\psi _i`$, i.e., $`\psi _{i0}=\psi _i^{\text{tri}}\mathrm{\Delta }\psi _i`$. Substituting this relation in Eq. (6), we obtain the linearized equation for $`\mathrm{\Delta }\psi _i`$:

$`H_1[\psi _1^{\text{tri}},\psi _2^{\text{tri}}]+2U_{11}(\psi _1^{\text{tri}})^2\mathrm{\Delta }\psi _1`$
$`+2U_{12}\psi _1^{\text{tri}}\psi _2^{\text{tri}}\mathrm{\Delta }\psi _2=\sigma _1,`$ (7a)
$`H_2[\psi _1^{\text{tri}},\psi _2^{\text{tri}}]+2U_{22}(\psi _2^{\text{tri}})^2\mathrm{\Delta }\psi _2`$
$`+2U_{12}\psi _1^{\text{tri}}\psi _2^{\text{tri}}\mathrm{\Delta }\psi _1=\sigma _2,`$ (7b)
where $`\sigma _i=H_i[\psi _1^{\text{tri}},\psi _2^{\text{tri}}]\psi _i^{\text{tri}}`$. The linear correction $`\mathrm{\Delta }\psi _i`$ can easily be calculated and the modified trial function is defined by $`\psi _i=\psi _i^{\text{tri}}\mathrm{\Delta }\psi _i`$. We repeat the above calculation until the solution converges by conserving the norm of each component.

Assuming the condensates of two hyperfine spin states of 87Rb, we use the values of the scattering lengths $`a_1=5.36`$ nm and $`a_2=5.66`$ nm, which have the ratio $`a_2/a_1=1.06`$ Matthews . We choose the atomic mass $`m_1=m_2=m_{\text{Rb}}=1.45\times 10^{25}`$ kg, the trapping frequency $`\omega _1=\omega _2=\omega =90\times 2\pi `$ Hz, and the aspect ratio $`\omega _{}/\omega =30`$. It is convenient to introduce scales characterizing the trapping potential: (a) the length scale $`b=\sqrt{\mathrm{}/m_{12}\omega }`$, (b) the time scale $`\omega ^1`$, and (c) the energy scale $`\mathrm{}\omega `$. The dimensionless parameters normalized by these scales are expressed by putting a tilde upon the symbols. Then the dimensionless intraspecies interactions become $`\stackrel{~}{U}_{11}=0.2010`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{U}_{22}=0.2123`$ from Eqs. (3). Setting the particle numbers to $`N_1=N_2=N`$ for simplicity, our formulation has two free parameters, $`N`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{U}_{12}`$. The parameter $`\stackrel{~}{U}_{12}`$ might be controlled experimentally by the choice of some combination of atoms, or by changing the scattering length via the Feshbach resonance Inouye .

Typical stationary solutions of Eq. (4) are shown in Fig. 1. When the interspecies interaction is weak, two condensates overlap each other. For $`\stackrel{~}{U}_{12}<\stackrel{~}{U}_{11}<\stackrel{~}{U}_{22}`$ two overlapping condensates have peaks of the density at the center of the trapping potential, as shown in Fig. 1(a). For $`\stackrel{~}{U}_{11}<\stackrel{~}{U}_{12}<\stackrel{~}{U}_{22}`$ and $`\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{U}_{11}\stackrel{~}{U}_{22}}<\stackrel{~}{U}_{12}`$, the density peak of condensate 2 is not at the center and two peaks appear symmetrically about the origin $`\stackrel{~}{x}=0`$, as shown in Fig. 1(b). Note that the width of condensate 2 is larger than that of 1, because $`\stackrel{~}{U}_{11}<\stackrel{~}{U}_{22}`$. These structures can be predicted easily within the TFA Ho ; Tr . For $`\stackrel{~}{U}_{12}>\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{U}_{11}\stackrel{~}{U}_{22}}`$ the two condensates separate from each other with very narrow overlapping regions. In Fig. 1(c) the condensate 1 occupies the central region, pushing aside the condensate 2 symmetrically; this configuration preserves the spatial symmetry of the trapping potential. On the other hand, as shown in Fig. 1(d), there exists another configuration with the boundary between the two condensates at the center of the trapping potential and its spatial symmetry is broken. Now we call the stationary state in Fig. 1(c) the symmetry-preserving state and that in Fig. 1(d) the symmetry-breaking state. The total energy of solution (c) is lower than that of (d) as described in the figure caption, so that the solution (d) represents the metastable state.

In Fig. 2 we show the $`N`$-$`\stackrel{~}{U}_{12}`$ phase diagram of the ground state. The gray region represents the overlapping configurations, Fig. 1(a) and 1(b), and the other the separated configurations, Fig. 1(c) and 1(d); the two regions are divided by the line $`\stackrel{~}{U}_{12}=\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{U}_{11}\stackrel{~}{U}_{22}}=0.2066`$ which was predicted by the TFA Ersy ; Bashkin ; Tim ; Ersy2 ; Ao ; Tr . The gray region is further divided into two regions \[Fig. 1(a) and 1(b)\] by the line $`\stackrel{~}{U}_{12}=0.2010`$ Tr . More precisely, these boundaries are bent for small $`N`$ because of the failure of the TFA. The region of the separated configurations has the following structure. The bold line shows the boundary where the energy of the SBS is equal to that of the SPS. In region $`B`$ the SBS is the ground state, while in region $`P`$ the SPS is the ground state.

The position of the SBS and the SPS in the phase diagram Fig. 2 can be understood as follows. We first consider the transition on increasing the particle number $`N`$ with a fixed value of $`\stackrel{~}{U}_{12}`$. Note that the SBS has one domain wall and the SPS two domain walls. When $`N`$ is small, the SBS is realized because the multiple domain walls increase the domain wall energy, which is estimated by the energy $`𝑑x[_i(\mathrm{}^2/2m_i)|\psi _i|^2+U_{12}|\psi _1|^2|\psi _2|^2]`$ in Eq. (2). The increase in $`N`$ makes the intraspecies interaction energy important, thus tending to extend each domain. This overcomes the energy of formation of domain walls, so that the SPS becomes more stable than the SBS. When $`\stackrel{~}{U}_{12}`$ increases, the domain wall energy becomes larger and thus the region $`B`$ is extended.

The bold line suggests the existence of metastable states as shown in Fig. 3. In Fig. 2, the regions $`Bp`$ and $`bP`$ have metastable states; the SBS is the ground state and the SPS is the metastable state in the region $`Bp`$, and vice versa in the region $`bP`$. The details of the metastable state and how to decide the boundaries between $`B`$ and $`Bp`$, $`bP`$ and $`P`$ are described in the next subsection.

### II.2 Stability of the solutions

We linearize the energy functional $``$ of Eq. (2) by substituting

$$\psi _i=\psi _{i0}+\delta \psi _i.$$
(8)
Here $`\psi _{i0}`$ is the stationary solution obtained by solving the GPEs, and the fluctuation $`\delta \psi _i`$ is complex. The stationary solutions represent the local minima or the saddle points of the energy functional. Then the energy can be expanded around the stationary solution:

$`[\psi _1,\psi _2]`$ $``$ $`_0+\delta [\delta \psi _1,\delta \psi _2],`$ (9)
$`\delta [\delta \psi _1,\delta \psi _2]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i,j=1}{\overset{4}{}}}{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐫\eta _iW_{ij}\eta _j}.`$ (10)
Here $`\eta =(\eta _1,\eta _2,\eta _3,\eta _4)(\delta \psi _1,\delta \psi _2,\delta \psi _1^{},\delta \psi _2^{})`$ and $`W=(W_{ij})`$ is the Hessian operator, corresponding to the second-order derivative of the energy functional at the stationary solution:

$`W_{11}`$ $`=`$ $`W_{33}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m_1}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{x^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_1\omega _1^2x^2\mu _1`$
$`+2U_{11}\psi _{10}^2+U_{12}\psi _{20}^2,`$
$`W_{22}`$ $`=`$ $`W_{44}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{x^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_2\omega _2^2x^2\mu _2`$
$`+2U_{22}\psi _{20}^2+U_{12}\psi _{10}^2,`$
$`W_{12}`$ $`=`$ $`W_{23}=W_{34}=W_{41}=U_{12}\psi _{10}\psi _{20},`$
$`W_{13}`$ $`=`$ $`U_{11}\psi _{10}^2,W_{24}=U_{22}\psi _{20}^2.`$
When all eigenvalues of $`W`$ are positive, the stationary solution is stable, while the appearance of a negative eigenvalue makes it unstable.

This eigenvalue problem is simplified by the unitary transformation Law

$$U^{}WU=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}L_1& 0& \\ 0& L_2& \end{array}\right),$$
(11)
where

$`L_1`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}W_{11}U_{11}\psi _{10}^2& 0& \\ 0& W_{22}U_{22}\psi _{20}^2& \end{array}\right),`$ (14)
$`L_2`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}W_{11}+U_{11}\psi _{10}^2& 2W_{12}& \\ 2W_{21}& W_{22}+U_{22}\psi _{20}^2& \end{array}\right),`$ (17)
and

$`U`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}𝐚& 𝐛& \\ 𝐚& 𝐛& \end{array}\right),`$ (20)
$`𝐚=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}a& 0& \\ 0& a& \end{array}\right),𝐛`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}b& 0& \\ 0& b& \end{array}\right),|a|^2=|b|^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}.`$ (25)
Law et al. used the lowest eigenvalue of $`L_2`$ as the stability criterion of the system of two-component BECs Law . The lowest eigenvalue of $`L_1`$ is zero and the eigenfunction is given by the stationary solution $`\psi _{i0}`$.

Figure 4 shows several lower eigenvalues of $`W`$ as functions of $`N`$ for the SPS (a) and SBS (b) with $`\stackrel{~}{U}_{12}=0.2438`$ as used in Fig. 1(c) and 1(d). The critical particle number $`N_c`$ defined by the zero eigenvalue of $`L_2`$ gives the criterion for the stability of the stationary solution. From Fig. 4(a), the SPS is stable for $`N>N_c`$. Figure 4(b) shows that there always exists one negative eigenvalue whose eigenfunction changes $`N`$. Hence, as long as $`N`$ is fixed, the SBS is stable for $`N<N_c`$. Obtaining $`N_c`$ as a function of $`\stackrel{~}{U}_{12}`$ allows us to decide the boundaries between the regions $`B`$ and $`Bp`$, $`P`$ and $`bP`$ in Fig. 2.

Finally, let us note the fluctuation changing the particle number. By using the eigenfunction $`𝐮=(u_1,u_2)`$ of $`L_2`$ this fluctuation is evaluated as

$$\delta N_i2\psi _{i0}(x)u_i(x)𝑑x.$$
(26)
For the mode in Fig. 4(b) whose eigenvalue is always negative we obtain $`\delta N_i0`$. The other mode of $`L_2`$ in Fig. 4(b) conserves the particle number. The fluctuation that changes the particle number leads to the ground state of the SBS with unbalanced particle number $`N_1N_2`$ Law .

## III POSSIBILITY OF MACROSCOPIC QUANTUM TUNNELING

As described in Sec. II, the SBS is the ground state and the SPS is the metastable state in the region $`Bp`$ in Fig. 2, and vice versa in the region $`bP`$. In this section, we study the MQT of the metastable state in $`Bp`$ and $`bP`$.

### III.1 Collective coordinate approach

It is difficult to consider MQT by full quantum field theory. In the case of a single condensate, the variational method is often used to estimate the condensate wave function. This method was applied to the evaluation of the decay rate via MQT of a metastable condensate with attractive interaction Ueda . However, there is an important difference in the description of the decay of a single condensate and the transition between the SBS and SPS in two-component condensates. In the former case, there is an obvious collective coordinate, i.e., the spatial size of the condensate wave function, which allows us to approximate the wave function under the Gaussian ansatz Ueda . In contrast, in the latter case, it is difficult to find suitable collective coordinates that can describe the continuous deformation from a metastable state to the ground state. Thus we introduce an alternative variational approach for this system in order to calculate the MQT rate.

The action $`S`$ for the Gross-Pitaevskii model is given by $`S=𝑑t`$ with the Lagrangian

$$=\underset{i=1,2}{}𝑑x\left(i\mathrm{}\psi _i^{}\frac{}{t}\psi _i\right),$$
(27)
where $``$ is the Hamiltonian of Eq. (2). The macroscopic wave functions are written as $`\psi _i=\mathrm{\Phi }_i(x,t)e^{i\theta _i(x,t)}`$, where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i^2=\rho _i`$ and $`\theta _i`$ are the number density and the phase for each component, respectively. Substituting these forms in Eq. (27) yields

$$=𝑑x\left[\underset{i=1,2}{}\left\{\mathrm{}\frac{\rho _i}{t}\theta _i\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m_i}\mathrm{\Phi }_i^2\left(\frac{\theta _i}{x}\right)^2\right\}V(\mathrm{\Phi }_i)\right],$$
(28)
where $`V(\mathrm{\Phi }_i)`$ is written as

$`V(\mathrm{\Phi }_i)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1,2}{}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m_i}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_i}{x}}\right)^2+(V_{\text{ext}}^i\mu _i)\mathrm{\Phi }_i^2\right]`$ (29)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{U_{11}}{2}}\mathrm{\Phi }_1^4+{\displaystyle \frac{U_{22}}{2}}\mathrm{\Phi }_2^4+U_{12}\mathrm{\Phi }_1^2\mathrm{\Phi }_2^2.`$
The amplitude $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$ can be expanded around the stationary solution $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i^s=\sqrt{\rho _i^s}=|\psi _{i0}|`$ in Sec. II by using an orthogonal complete set $`u_{in}(x)`$,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_i(x,t)=\mathrm{\Phi }_i^s(x)+\underset{n}{}\stackrel{~}{Q}_n(t)u_{in}(x)(n=1,2,\mathrm{}),$$
(30)
with the normalization

$$\underset{i=1,2}{}u_{in}u_{im}𝑑x=\delta _{nm}.$$
(31)
Here $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_n(t)`$ stands for the dimensionless arbitrary function and represents the small displacement of the density profile from the stationary solution:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\stackrel{~}{Q}_n^2(t)={\displaystyle \underset{i=1,2}{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑x\left[\mathrm{\Phi }_i(x,t)\mathrm{\Phi }_i^s(x)\right]^2}`$ (32)
$`(n=1,2,\mathrm{}).`$
Substituting Eq. (30) to Eq. (28), we can obtain the effective action written by the functions $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_n(t)`$. If we assume that the phase has the form $`\theta _i(x,t)=_n\stackrel{~}{P}_n(t)v_{in}(x)/N`$ with some complete set $`v_{in}(x)`$, the first term of Eq. (28) can be written as

$$\underset{nm}{}2\mathrm{}\frac{\stackrel{~}{P}_m(t)}{N}\dot{\stackrel{~}{Q}}_n(t)\underset{i}{}𝑑xv_{im}(x)\mathrm{\Phi }_i^s(x)u_{in}(x),$$
(33)
by using $`\dot{\rho }_i2_n\dot{\stackrel{~}{Q}}_n\mathrm{\Phi }_i^su_{in}`$. Then we define the collective coordinate $`Q_n=b\stackrel{~}{Q}_n/\sqrt{N}`$ and the collective momentum $`P_m=2\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{P}_m/b`$ with the length scale $`b`$ of the trapping potential. By choosing the complete set $`v_{in}(x)`$ as

$$\underset{i}{}𝑑xv_{im}(x)\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_i^s(x)}{\sqrt{N}}u_{in}(x)=\delta _{mn},$$
(34)
the first term of Eq. (28) becomes $`_nP_n\dot{Q}_n`$ and the second term

$$𝑑t\underset{mn}{}\frac{P_m(t)P_n(t)}{2M_{mn}},$$
(35)
where the effective mass matrix $`M_{mn}`$ is given by

$$\frac{1}{M_{mn}}=\underset{i=1,2}{}\frac{b^2}{4m_iN^2}\rho _i^s\left(\frac{dv_{im}}{dx}\frac{dv_{in}}{dx}\right)𝑑x.$$
(36)
The potential $`V(\mathrm{\Phi }_i)`$ is a function of the collective coordinate $`Q_n`$. Thus we can obtain the effective action

$`S{\displaystyle 𝑑t\left[\underset{n}{}P_n\dot{Q}_n_{\text{eff}}(𝐏,𝐐)\right]},`$ (37)
$`𝐏=(P_1,P_2,\mathrm{}),𝐐=(Q_1,Q_2,\mathrm{}),`$
with the effective Hamiltonian

$$_{\text{eff}}(𝐏,𝐐)=\underset{mn}{}\frac{P_mP_n}{2M_{mn}}+V(𝐐).$$
(38)
By substituting Eq. (30) into Eq. (29) the effective potential $`V(𝐐)`$ can be expanded as follows:

$$V(𝐐)=V(\mathrm{\Phi }_i^s)𝑑x+\frac{1}{2}\underset{n}{}\stackrel{~}{Q}_n^2\underset{i,j}{}u_{in}H_{ij}u_{jn}+\mathrm{}.$$
(39)
Here the linear term in $`Q_n`$ vanishes because $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i^s`$ is the stationary solution. The quadratic term of $`Q_n`$ can be written by the Hessian operator $`H_{ij}`$, which is equal to $`2L_2`$ given by Eq. (17). We take the orthogonal set $`u_{in}`$ as the eigenfunction of $`L_2`$. Thus the second term of Eq. (39) is diagonalized and $`V(𝐐)`$ is written as

$$V(𝐐)=V(\mathrm{\Phi }_i^s)𝑑x+\frac{1}{2}\underset{n}{}N\lambda _n^2\frac{Q_n^2}{b^2}+\mathrm{},$$
(40)
where $`\lambda _n^2`$ $`(n=1,2,\mathrm{})`$ are the eigenvalues of $`H_{ij}`$. The constant $`V(\mathrm{\Phi }_i^s)𝑑x`$ will be chosen to be zero in the following section.

### III.2 Calculation of the decay rate

We now calculate the MQT rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of the metastable state in Fig. 2. The energy of the metastable state must have an (exponentially small) imaginary part when the tunneling is taken into account. Then the decay rate of the metastable state is given by Kleinert

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=\frac{2}{\mathrm{}}\text{Im}E_g.$$
(41)
The energy $`E_g`$ is evaluated by the partition function

$$Z(\beta )e^{W(\beta )}=\mathrm{tr}(e^{\beta H})$$
(42)
as

$$E_g=\underset{\beta \mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{W(\beta )}{\beta },$$
(43)
where $`\beta =1/k_BT`$. Using the action Eq. (37) with the imaginary time $`ti\tau `$ (Euclidean action $`S_E`$), the partition function is written as

$`Z(\beta )={\displaystyle D𝐐(\tau )\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{S_E(𝐐)}{\mathrm{}}\right]}.`$ (44)
Within the WKB approximation this path integral is evaluated by the saddle-point method Kleinert . More precisely, the dominant contributions to the path integral are from paths that minimize the Euclidean action $`S_E`$. Such paths are the solution of the Euler-Lagrange equation $`\delta S_E/\delta 𝐐=0`$, the classical equation of motion for the valuables $`𝐐(\tau )`$ in the inverted potential $`V(𝐐)`$. We choose the boundary condition that $`𝐐(\tau )`$ approaches the metastable minimum at $`\tau =\pm \mathrm{}`$. By solving this equation of motion, we obtain the solution $`𝐐_B`$ called the “bounce solution.” Then the decay rate has the form

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }A\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{S_B}{\mathrm{}}\right),$$
(45)
where $`S_B=S_E(𝐐_B)`$ is the Euclidean action evaluated at the bounce solution $`𝐐_B`$ and $`A`$ the quadratic quantum fluctuation around the bounce solution. The following describes how to approximate the bounce solution.

We are interested in the regions $`Bp`$ and $`bP`$ near the dashed lines in Fig. 2. These regions have metastable states as described in Sec. II. On the dashed lines, one of the eigenvalues of the Hessian operator $`H_{ij}`$ vanishes. Thus, in the region close to the dashed lines, the potential barrier of the metastable state is very small along the direction of the eigenfunction with the zero eigenvalue. We may assume that the direction of the initial (infinitesimal) velocity of the bounce solution is given by the eigenfunction $`𝐮_1`$ subject to the following conditions. First, $`𝐮_1`$ has the eigenvalue $`\lambda _1^2`$ which is small in this region and becomes zero on the dashed line. Secondly, this eigenfunction conserves the particle number, i.e., $`\delta N_i=0`$ in the sense of Eq. (26). Thus the trajectory of the bounce solution is mainly described by the collective coordinate $`Q_1(t)`$, which is the coordinate along the direction of $`𝐮_1`$, and the other coordinates $`Q_2(t),Q_3(t),`$ . . . give higher order corrections of the solution. These assumptions allow us to solve the bounce solution approximately; the trajectory of the bounce solution is straight in the collective coordinate space $`𝐐=(Q_1,Q_2,Q_3`$. . . ) Yasui2 . Thus the infinite-dimensional system of Eq. (37) is reduced to a one-dimensional quantum mechanical system with the collective coordinate $`Q_1`$ subject to the action

$$S_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑t\left[\frac{M}{2}\left(\frac{dQ_1}{dt}\right)^2+V(Q_1)\right].$$
(46)
Here we have defined the mass $`M`$ by the (1,1) component of Eq. (36); the other components represent the mass relevant to $`Q_2,Q_3`$ . . . , so that they are negligible. The mass $`M`$ includes unknown functions $`v_{i1}`$, although they satisfy Eq. (34). We will assume $`v_{i1}O(1)`$, thus obtaining $`M=M_{11}(4m_{Rb}N^2/b^2)\times (b^2/N)m_{Rb}N`$.

The next problem is to decide the form of the effective potential $`V(Q_1)`$. It should be noticed the potential is expressed as $`V(Q_1)\frac{1}{2}N\lambda _1^2(Q_1^2/b^2)`$ for small $`Q_1`$ around the metastable state, from Eq. (40). As $`Q_1`$ increases, it is not clear how to extrapolate the potential. However, $`V(Q_1)`$ should reflect the structure of the original potential $`V(\mathrm{\Phi }_i)`$ of Eq. (29), which has a metastable state in addition to the ground state as discussed in Sec. II. Hence we require, first, that $`V(Q_1)`$ has a metastable minimum at $`Q_1=0`$. Secondly, as $`Q_1`$ increase, $`V(Q_1)`$ increases once and decreases via a potential barrier $`\mathrm{\Delta }V`$ as shown in Fig. 5. The potential is expected to be written as a power series of $`Q_1`$. Since the calculation of the decay rate does not need information on the ground state, we neglect the $`n`$th order terms ($`n4`$) and approximate the potential as

$$V(Q_1)\frac{1}{2}N\lambda _1^2\frac{Q_1^2}{b^2}\frac{1}{6}\alpha Q_1^3(\alpha >0),$$
(47)
with an unknown parameter $`\alpha `$. Then the height of the potential barrier is given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }V=\frac{2N^3\lambda _1^6}{3\alpha ^2b^6}.$$
(48)
The value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }V`$ cannot be determined within the collective coordinate method. The barrier $`\mathrm{\Delta }V`$ may be interpreted as follows. In general, when we consider quantum tunneling, it is natural to assume that the bounce trajectory will go through the sphaleron, which is the unstable stationary solution of the equation of motion, corresponding to the saddle point of the potential Manton . Then $`\mathrm{\Delta }V`$ represents the energy of the sphaleron. In our case, the equation of motion is the GPE of the potential Eq. (29); we have found the sphaleron by numerical simulations (see Fig. 6) and obtained the value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }V`$. The collective coordinate $`Q_1`$ of the sphaleron is simply written as

$$Q_1^s=2b\sqrt{\frac{3\mathrm{\Delta }V}{2\lambda _1^2N}}.$$
(49)
Thus our collective coordinate $`Q_1`$ effectively describe MQT: the points $`Q_1=0`$ and $`Q_1=Q_1^s`$ correspond to the metastable state and the sphaleron, respectively, and the tunneling is represented by the bounce solution, going through the sphaleron. We will give the explicit bounce solution written via the collective coordinate in Eq. (56).

To calculate the decay rate of Eq. (45), it is convenient to introduce new scales characterizing the quantum tunneling instead of the scales of the trapping potential: according to Fig. 5 we define the length scale

$$R_0=3b\sqrt{\frac{3\mathrm{\Delta }V}{2\lambda _1^2N}},$$
(50)
the energy scale

$$U_0=\mathrm{\Delta }V,$$
(51)
and a time scale representing the “tunneling time”

$$\tau _0=R_0\sqrt{\frac{M}{U_0}}=\omega _0\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{}}{\omega \lambda _1^2}}\sqrt{\frac{M}{m_{12}N}}$$
(52)
with $`\omega _0=\sqrt{27/2}.`$ In these units the action Eq. (46) can be written by the dimensionless length $`q=Q_1/R_0`$ and the time $`s=t/\tau _0`$ as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{S}{\mathrm{}}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{h}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑s\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{dq}{ds}}\right)^2+\stackrel{~}{V}(q)\right],`$ (53)
$`\stackrel{~}{V}(q)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\omega _0^2q^2(1q).`$ (54)
Here $`h`$ is the effective Planck constant defined as

$$h=\frac{\mathrm{}}{\tau _0U_0}=\frac{1}{\omega _0}\sqrt{\frac{m_{12}N}{M}}\frac{\sqrt{\mathrm{}\omega \lambda _1^2}}{\mathrm{\Delta }V},$$
(55)
whose value must be smaller than unity for use of the WKB approximation, although it includes the macroscopic valuable $`N`$. From Eq. (53) the bounce solution can easily be obtained by solving the equation of motion $`d^2q/ds^2=d\stackrel{~}{V}(q)/dq`$ with the boundary condition $`q=0`$ at $`s=\pm \mathrm{}`$:

$$q_B(s)=\text{sech}^2\left(\frac{\omega _0s}{2}\right),$$
(56)
and the decay rate can be written as

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }\frac{\stackrel{~}{A}}{\tau _0}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\stackrel{~}{S}_B}{h}\right)$$
(57)
with the prefactor $`\stackrel{~}{A}=4\sqrt{\omega _0^3/\pi h}`$ and the bounce action $`\stackrel{~}{S}_B=8\omega _0/15`$.

We may observe MQT experimentally if the decay rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is of the order of the lifetime of the BEC. Let us search the region near the dashed lines in Fig.2 satisfying this condition. We obtained the potential barrier $`\mathrm{\Delta }V`$ from the sphaleron energy and the eigenvalue $`\lambda _1^2`$ from the Hessian operator $`H_{ij}`$ . Recalling that $`N`$ is equal to the critical particle number $`N_c`$ on the dashed line (Sec. II.2), it is convenient to introduce a small parameter $`\delta =|1N/N_c|`$. Figure 7 shows the $`\delta `$ dependence of $`\lambda _1^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }V`$ for the metastable SPS and SBS near the dashed lines in Fig. 2. Since $`\lambda _1^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }V`$ vanish on the dashed line with $`\delta =0`$, the scaling laws for the particle number are expected to be like those of a single condensate Ueda :

$`\lambda _1^2`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{}\omega 𝒞\delta ^\beta ,`$ (58)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }V`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{}\omega 𝒟\delta ^\gamma .`$ (59)
The exponents $`\beta `$,$`\gamma `$ and the coefficients $`𝒞`$,$`𝒟`$ are determined by fitting the scaling laws to the numerical results. Thus we obtain the exponents $`\beta =1.0\pm 0.002`$, $`\gamma =2.06\pm 0.03`$ for the metastable SBS, and $`\beta =0.788\pm 0.006`$, $`\gamma =1.673\pm 0.007`$ for the metastable SPS. As shown in Table. 1, they are approximately independent of the value of $`U_{12}`$ within our analysis, while the coefficients $`𝒞`$ and $`𝒟`$ depend on $`U_{12}`$. When we calculate $`R_0`$ and $`U_0`$ of Eqs. (50) and (51) by using these exponents and coefficients, we find that the metastable SPS has larger values of $`R_0`$ and $`U_0`$ than the SBS. Thus MQT cannot be expected for the metastable SPS compared with the metastable SBS.

Substituting Eq. (58) and Eq. (59) to $`\tau _0`$ and $`h`$ of Eqs. (52) and (55), we can obtain the scaling laws of the decay rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of Eq. (57) by

$$\frac{\stackrel{~}{S}_B}{h}\frac{8\omega _0^2}{15}\sqrt{\frac{M}{m_{12}N}}\frac{𝒟}{\sqrt{𝒞}}\delta ^{\gamma \beta /2},$$
(60)
and

$$\frac{\stackrel{~}{A}}{\tau _0}\omega \frac{4\omega _0}{\sqrt{\pi }}\left(\frac{M}{m_{12}N}\right)^{1/4}(𝒞𝒟^2)^{1/4}\delta ^{\beta /4+\gamma /2}.$$
(61)
The dominant contribution to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the exponential factor. To obtain the observable decay rate, we require $`h10^1`$, although $`h`$ should be small under the WKB approximation. Figure 8 shows the effective Planck constant for several values of $`\stackrel{~}{U}_{12}`$ as a function of $`\delta =|1N/N_c|`$. The SBS has a wider range with respect to $`\delta `$ satisfying the above condition for $`h`$ than the SPS. Although it is difficult to tune the value of $`\delta `$ experimentally, we may observe MQT of the SBS more easily than that of the SPS. We now estimate the range of $`\delta `$ for $`U_{12}=0.2483`$ where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ becomes of the order of $`10^2`$ sec-1; the lifetime of the BEC is typically $`100`$ sec Myatt . The metastable SPS ($`N_c=770`$) yields $`\stackrel{~}{S}_B/h=9713\times \delta ^{1.283}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{A}/\tau _0=44.66\times \omega \times \delta ^{1.039}`$ sec-1, so that $`\delta <3.9\times 10^3`$, a range too narrow to observe MQT. For the metastable SBS ($`N_c=2520`$) we obtain $`\stackrel{~}{S}_B/h=146.7\times \delta ^{1.537}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{A}/\tau _0=53.15\times \omega \times \delta ^{1.269}`$ sec-1; then $`\delta <0.205`$. However, values of $`\delta <6.4\times 10^2`$ make $`h`$ larger than unity, thus breaking the WKB approximation.

### III.3 Macroscopic quantum coherence

An interesting phenomenon may appear on the bold line in Fig. 2 where the energy of the SPS is equal to that of the SBS. It is macroscopic quantum coherence between the SBS and the SPS, i.e., the oscillation of a wave packet between their potential wells. Then the effective potential $`V(Q)`$ has a triple-well geometry, as illustrated in Fig. 9.

The period of that oscillation can be estimated by the splitting $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ of the ground state energy due to the tunneling. The splitting is written as $`\mathrm{\Delta }Ae^{I/h}`$, where $`h`$ is the effective Planck constant, $`I`$ the instanton action, and $`A`$ a prefactor of the order of unity. Here we only estimate the order of the oscillation period by using the effective Planck constant $`h=\mathrm{}/(R\sqrt{MU_0})`$ of Eq. (55).

The barrier height $`U_0`$ is given by the energy of the saddle-point solution, and the barrier width $`R`$ is given by the “distance” between two stable solutions of the SBS and the SPS. Then the distance is estimated to be $`R=(R_1+R_2)/2`$ as shown in Fig. 9, where $`R_1`$ and $`R_2`$ are given by Eq. (50). By tuning the parameter $`N200`$ and $`U_{12}0.2116`$, the period of the oscillation becomes of the order of $`1`$ sec. The increase of the particle number raises the energy barrier between the SPS and the SBS so that MQC cannot be observed.

### III.4 Finite-temperature effect

Let us consider finite-temperature effects, although the discussion of the last subsection was limited to zero temperature. Then the bounce solution Eq. (56) turns into the periodic solution, i.e., the classical solution in the potential $`\stackrel{~}{V}(q)`$ \[Eq. (54)\] with energy $`E`$ $`(0<E<1)`$ Zweger . From Fig. 10 the explicit solution is given by the elliptic function

$$q_B(s)=q_2(q_2q_1)\text{sn}^2(\frac{\omega _0}{2}\sqrt{q_2q_0}s;m)$$
(62)
with $`m=\sqrt{(q_2q_1)/(q_2q_0)}`$, and the period $`T`$ is given by the complete elliptic integral of the first kind $`K(m)`$,

$$T=\frac{4}{\omega _0\sqrt{q_2q_0}}K(m).$$
(63)
The period $`T`$ is related to the temperature, $`T=h\beta `$, where $`\beta `$ is the inverse temperature normalized by $`U_0`$. This solution reduces, of course, to the previous solution Eq. (56) for $`E=0`$. The corresponding bounce action is evaluated as

$`\stackrel{~}{S}_B(\beta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{h\beta }}𝑑s\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{dq_B}{ds}}\right)+\stackrel{~}{V}(q)\right]`$ (64)
$`=`$ $`W+h\beta E,`$ (65)
where

$`W`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{15}}\omega _0\sqrt{q_2q_0}`$ (66)
$`\times [2(q_0^2+q_1^2+q_2^2q_0q_1q_0q_2q_1q_2)E(m)`$
$`+(q_1q_0)(2q_0q_1q_2)K(m)]`$
with the complete elliptic integral of the second kind $`E(m)`$. The decay rate by MQT takes the form

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(\beta )=\frac{A(\beta )}{\tau _0}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\stackrel{~}{S}_B(\beta )}{h}\right).$$
(67)
The prefactor $`A(\beta )`$ was derived in Ref. Yasui  as

$`A(\beta )=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _0^3}{2\pi h}}}(q_2q_0)^{3/4}(q_2q_1)(1m^2)`$
$`\times [a(m)E(m)+b(m)K(m)]^{1/2}\mathrm{sinh}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega _0\beta h}{2}}\right)`$ (68)
with

$`a(m)=2(m^4m^2+1),`$ (69)
$`b(m)=(1m^2)(m^21).`$ (70)
The thermal effect increases the MQT rate by a factor of only the order of unity from the MQT rate at zero temperature.

For $`E0`$, we have $`(1m^2)\mathrm{sinh}(\omega _0\beta h/2)8`$, $`a(m)E(m)+b(m)K(m)2`$, and $`q_0,q_10`$, $`q_21`$, so that $`A(\beta )4\sqrt{\omega _0^3/\pi h}`$, which reproduces the zero-temperature decay rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of Eq. (57). Let us turn to the limit $`E1`$, where the period behaves as

$$\beta h=\frac{2\pi }{\omega _0}\left(1+\frac{5}{36}(1E)+\mathrm{}\right).$$
(71)
The leading term gives the crossover temperature $`\beta _c^1=h\omega _0/2\pi `$. As the temperature is raised above $`\beta _c^1`$, the system has no bounce solutions, and the decay is caused by thermal activation (the Arrhenius law): $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\beta \omega _0\mathrm{exp}(\beta \mathrm{\Delta }V)`$. The crossover temperature is of the order of $`0.1`$nK for the range of $`\delta `$ discussed in the last subsection.

Equation (67) and the Arrhenius formula are not available in the narrow region near $`\beta _c`$. In this region the decay rate is given by Affleck

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\beta )\tau _0`$ $``$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{8\omega _0^3}{15h\pi ^2}}}\text{sinh}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega _0\beta h}{2}}\right)\text{erf}\left[\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{36}{5\beta _c}}}(\beta \beta _c)\right]`$ (72)
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left[\beta +{\displaystyle \frac{18\beta _c}{5}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta \beta _c}{\beta _c}}\right)^2\right],`$
with the error function

$$\text{erf}(x)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }}_{\mathrm{}}^x𝑑y\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{y^2}{2}\right).$$
(73)
For small $`h10^2`$, this formula matches smoothly onto Eq. (67) for $`\beta >\beta _c`$ and the Arrhenius formula for $`\beta <\beta _c`$ near $`\beta _c`$. However, we cannot apply the formula Eq. (72) to MQT since the value of $`h`$ in our situation is of the order of $`10^1`$. We leave the issue of the crossover region for future study.

## IV CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION

The metastability and MQT of two-component BECs were studied theoretically. By analyzing two coupled GPEs numerically, we obtained two kinds of metastable state, the symmetry-breaking state (SBS) and the symmetry-preserving states (SPS), which depend on the particle numbers and the interspecies interaction. We introduced the collective coordinate method by improving the usual Gaussian variational approach, and calculated the MQT rate within the WKB approximation. The effective potential $`V(Q)`$ was determined by analysis of the linear stability and using the saddle-point solution. Then the decay rate is found to obey a scaling law near the critical region. MQT from the SBS to the SPS is expected to be observed in a wide range of the parameter $`\delta `$. We also predicted MQC between the SBS and the SPS, although the range of $`\delta `$ is rather narrow.

Our analysis is restricted to the one-dimensional condensate, but it can be applied to a system in a highly anisotropic trapping potential. The extension to the three-dimensional system is troublesome. However, the qualitative nature will be the same as in the one-dimensional case. This analysis can also be applied to the MQT between the domains of a spinor condensate Miesner  where the external magnetic field can be used as another variable parameter.

In Sec. II.2 we stated that negative eigenvalues always exist for the SBS, corresponding to the change of particle number. This instability may be caused by inelastic collisions of atoms in a real system. However, if we confine ourselves to the region near the critical particle number, MQT is expected to be the dominant mechanism of decay Ueda . Thus the change of particle number is neglected in the analysis of the MQT.

Finally, we comment on the validity of the quasi-one-dimensional approximation. In this paper, we used the atom-atom interaction Eqs. (3). This would be modified for atoms in a one-dimensional confining potential such as an atom waveguide or a cigar-shaped potential. According to Ref. Olshanii , a two-body potential of the atoms in such a confining potential can be written as

$$U_{1\mathrm{D}}(x)=\delta (x)\frac{2\pi \mathrm{}^2a}{m}\frac{1}{\pi b_{}^2}\left(11.4603\frac{a}{b_{}}\right)^1,$$
(74)
where $`b_{}=\sqrt{\mathrm{}/m\omega _{}}`$. For $`b_{}a`$, which our parameter $`b_{}0.29`$ $`\mu \text{m}`$ satisfies, Eq. (74) is smoothly reduced to Eq. (3).


format: text

text:
# Causality Violation and Naked Time Machines in AdS5

## 1 Introduction

It is well-known that supersymmetry does not exclude the existence of closed timelike curves. Simple examples are flat space with periodically identified time and anti-de Sitter space. However, these spacetimes are not simply connected, and one can avoid CTCs by passing to the universal covering. One might therefore assume that in simply connected supersymmetric spaces closed timelike curves do not exist. This however turned out not to be the case, for example the BMPV black hole , which is a BPS solution of $`D=5`$, $`𝒩=2`$ supergravity111Cf. also  for a generalization of the BMPV solution to the case of $`D=5`$, $`𝒩=2`$ supergravity coupled to vector multiplets. with trivial fundamental group, admits CTCs. These black holes are characterized by a charge parameter $`q`$ and a rotation parameter $`a`$. For $`a^2<q^3`$ (hereafter referred to as the “under-rotating” case), CTCs occur only in the region beyond the horizon, and thus an external observer cannot use them to construct a time machine. This is quite similar to the case of the Kerr black hole. However, in the “over-rotating” case $`a^2>q^3`$, CTCs are present in the exterior region outside the event horizon . This happens in spite of supersymmetry and the presence of a matter stress tensor satisfying the dominant energy condition. Various aspects of these naked time machines have been extensively analyzed in . Among other things, the authors of  showed that causal geodesics cannot penetrate the horizon for the over-rotating solution (repulson-like behaviour), and so the exterior region is geodesically complete (with respect to causal geodesics). Furthermore, in  it was shown that upon lifting of the over-rotating BMPV black hole to a solution of type IIB string theory and passing to the universal covering space, the causal anomalies disappear. The rotating BMPV black hole, which corresponds to a D1-D5-Brinkmann wave system in type IIB string theory , admits a dual description in terms of an $`𝒩=4`$ two-dimensional superconformal field theory. The causality bound $`a^2=q^3`$ is then equivalent to the unitarity bound in this CFT , obtained by requiring unitary representations of the superconformal algebra, which implies an inequality involving the central charge, conformal weight and R-charge.
Recently, the generalization of the BMPV solution to the case of $`D=5`$, $`𝒩=2`$ gauged supergravity has been found in . These black holes, which also preserve four supercharges, were shown to suffer from CTCs outside the horizon for all parameter values, as soon as rotation is turned on. Due to these causal anomalies, the naively computed Hawking temperature and the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy are imaginary. According to the AdS/CFT correspondence , these black hole solutions, which asymptotically approach anti-de Sitter space, should be dual to $`𝒩=4`$, $`D=4`$ super Yang-Mills theory in the presence of $`R`$-charges. Similar to the ungauged case, where the appearance of CTCs was shown to be related to unitarity violation in a two-dimensional CFT, we thus expect that the causal anomalies occurring in the charged rotating AdS black holes correspond to loss of unitarity in $`𝒩=4`$, $`D=4`$ super Yang-Mills theory. One has thus a relation between macroscopic causality in the AdS bulk and microscopic unitarity in the boundary CFT.
In this paper, we will be concerned with a detailed study of the rotating AdS black holes found in  and their causal anomalies. Our work is organized as follows. In sections 2 and 3, we review the solution and analyze its geometric properties. In section 4 the throat geometry describing the near-horizon limit of the extremal solutions is determined. In 5 it is shown that no charged or uncharged geodesic can penetrate the horizon, implying that the exterior region is geodesically complete. This behaviour still holds true in the quantum case, that is the absorption cross section of the hole for Klein-Gordon scalars is zero. This suggests that the effective Hawking temperature is zero instead of assuming the naively found imaginary value. The results obtained in section 5 are thus very similar to those of the ungauged case that was studied in . In 6 our results are generalized to the case when the gauged supergravity theory is coupled to vector multiplets. The solution of the $`STU=1`$ model is lifted to a solution of type IIB supergravity in ten dimensions in section 7, yielding a rotating D3 brane wrapping $`𝒮^3`$. It is then shown that the original CTCs present in five dimensions disappear upon lifting, but new CTCs show up. Therefore, in contrast to the BMPV black holes, we have no resolution of causal anomalies in higher dimensions. We conclude in 8 with some final remarks.

## 2 The black hole solution

We consider Einstein-Maxwell theory in five dimensions with a negative cosmological constant and a Chern-Simons term for the abelian gauge field. The action is given by

$$S=\frac{1}{16\pi G_5}d^5x\sqrt{g}\left(R2\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{1}{12}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }\right)+\frac{1}{16\pi G_5}d^5x\frac{1}{108}ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma \lambda }F_{\mu \nu }F_{\rho \sigma }A_\lambda ,$$
(1)
where $`R`$ is the scalar curvature, $`F_{\mu \nu }=_\mu A_\nu _\nu A_\mu `$ the abelian field-strength tensor, $`G_5`$ denotes the five-dimensional Newton constant and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=6g^2`$ the cosmological constant. (1) is the bosonic truncation of the gauged five-dimensional $`𝒩=2`$ pure supergravity theory.
In , a charged rotating solution of this theory was found. Its metric reads

$$ds^2=g^2r^2dt^2\frac{1}{r^4}\left[\left(r^2q\right)dta\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi +a\mathrm{cos}^2\theta d\psi \right]^2+\frac{dr^2}{V(r)}+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2,$$
(2)
where

$$V(r)=\left(1\frac{q}{r^2}\right)^2+g^2r^2\frac{g^2a^2}{r^4},$$
(3)
and the gauge fields are given by

$$A_\varphi =\frac{3a}{r^2}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta ,A_\psi =\frac{3a}{r^2}\mathrm{cos}^2\theta ,A_t=3\left(1\frac{q}{r^2}\right).$$
(4)
Here, $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2`$ denotes the standard metric on the unit three-sphere,

$$d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2=d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2+\mathrm{cos}^2\theta d\psi ^2,$$
(5)
with the angles $`\theta `$, $`\varphi `$ and $`\psi `$ parametrizing $`𝒮^3`$ ranging in $`\theta [0,\pi /2]`$, $`\varphi [0,2\pi [`$, $`\psi [0,2\pi [`$.
For convenience, we define two other functions, which will be of use in the following, namely

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(r)1\frac{q}{r^2},\mathrm{\Delta }_L(r)1\frac{a^2}{r^6}.$$
(6)
Using the diffeomorphism $`𝒮^3SU(2)`$, one can parametrize the three-sphere with the Euler parameters $`(\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma )`$ of $`SU(2)`$, related to the angular variables $`\theta `$, $`\varphi `$ and $`\psi `$ through the transformation

$$\alpha =\psi +\varphi ,\beta =2\theta ,\gamma =\psi \varphi .$$
(7)
In these coordinates, the metric of the three-sphere takes the form

$$d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2=\frac{1}{4}\left(d\alpha ^2+d\beta ^2+d\gamma ^2+2\mathrm{cos}\beta d\alpha d\gamma \right),$$
(8)
with $`\alpha [0,2\pi [`$, $`\beta [0,\pi ]`$ and $`\gamma [0,4\pi [`$. The isometry group of the three-sphere $`SO(4)SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R`$ consists of two copies of the $`SU(2)`$ group. The left-invariant vector fields $`\xi ^R`$ generating the right translations are

$`\xi _1^R=\mathrm{cos}\gamma \mathrm{cosec}\beta _\alpha \mathrm{sin}\gamma _\beta \mathrm{cos}\gamma \mathrm{cot}\beta _\gamma ,`$
$`\xi _2^R=\mathrm{sin}\gamma \mathrm{cosec}\beta _\alpha +\mathrm{cos}\gamma _\beta \mathrm{sin}\gamma \mathrm{cot}\beta _\gamma ,`$ (9)
$`\xi _3^R=_\gamma .`$
whereas the right-invariant vector fields generating the left translations read

$`\xi _1^L=\mathrm{sin}\alpha \mathrm{cot}\beta _\alpha +\mathrm{cos}\alpha _\beta +\mathrm{sin}\alpha \mathrm{cosec}\beta _\gamma ,`$
$`\xi _2^L=\mathrm{cos}\alpha \mathrm{cot}\beta _\alpha \mathrm{sin}\alpha _\beta +\mathrm{cos}\alpha \mathrm{cosec}\beta _\gamma ,`$ (10)
$`\xi _3^L=_\alpha .`$
They satisfy the commutation relations

$$[\xi _a^R,\xi _b^R]=ϵ_{abc}\xi _c^R,[\xi _a^L,\xi _b^L]=ϵ_{abc}\xi _c^L,[\xi _a^R,\xi _b^L]=0.$$
(11)
Introducing the left-invariant one-forms $`\sigma _i`$ ($`i=1,2,3`$), dual to the left-invariant vector fields $`\xi _a^R`$ in the sense that $`(\xi _a^R,\sigma _b)=\delta _{ab}`$,

$`\sigma _1=\mathrm{sin}\gamma d\beta +\mathrm{cos}\gamma \mathrm{sin}\beta d\alpha ,`$
$`\sigma _2=\mathrm{cos}\gamma d\beta +\mathrm{sin}\gamma \mathrm{sin}\beta d\alpha ,`$ (12)
$`\sigma _3=d\gamma +\mathrm{cos}\beta d\alpha ,`$
the metric of the three sphere can be written as

$$d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2=\frac{1}{4}\left(\sigma _1^2+\sigma _2^2+\sigma _3^2\right).$$
(13)
The left-invariant one-forms satisfy $`d\sigma _1=\sigma _2\sigma _3`$ (together with its cyclic permutations). Rewriting the black hole metric (2) in terms of the one-forms $`\sigma ^i`$, we obtain

$$ds^2=g^2r^2dt^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2(r)\left(dt+\frac{a}{2r^2\mathrm{\Delta }(r)}\sigma _3\right)^2+\frac{dr^2}{V(r)}+\frac{r^2}{4}\left(\sigma _1^2+\sigma _2^2+\sigma _3^2\right),$$
(14)
and the gauge-field 1-form is given by

$$A=3\mathrm{\Delta }(r)dt+\frac{3a}{2r^2}\sigma _3.$$
(15)
## 3 Geometric properties of the black hole spacetime

### 3.1 “Horizons”

The horizons of the black hole are located at the zeroes of the function $`V(r)`$. Using the dimensionless parameters $`\alpha =g^3a`$, $`\rho =g^2q`$ and $`\zeta =gr`$, the problem reduces to finding the zeroes of the polynomial $`f(\zeta )`$ defined by

$$f(\zeta )=\zeta ^6+\zeta ^42\rho \zeta ^2+\rho ^2\alpha ^2.$$
(16)
If $`\rho 0`$, we have $`f^{}(\zeta )=0`$ only for $`\zeta =0`$, and hence $`f(\zeta )`$ is an increasing function of its variable. As $`f(0)=\rho ^2\alpha ^2`$, for $`|\rho |>|\alpha |`$ we have a naked singularity, for $`|\rho |=|\alpha |`$ a single horizon at $`\zeta _+=0`$, and for $`|\rho |<|\alpha |`$ a single horizon located at some point $`\zeta _+>0`$, with a spacelike singularity.

The situation is more interesting for $`\rho >0`$. In this case, the derivative $`f^{}`$ has an additional positive root for

$$\zeta ^2=\overline{\zeta }^2\frac{1}{3}\left(\sqrt{1+6\rho }1\right).$$
(17)
Hence, if $`\overline{\zeta }`$ is also a root of $`f`$, it is a double root and thus the black hole is extremal. This occurs for $`\alpha ^2=\alpha _{extr}^2\overline{\zeta }^6+\overline{\zeta }^42\rho \overline{\zeta }^2+\rho ^2`$. The critical rotation parameter is given by

$$\alpha _{extr}^2(\rho )=\rho ^2+\frac{2}{3}\rho +\frac{2}{27}\frac{2}{27}\left(1+6\rho \right)^{3/2}.$$
(18)
It is easy to verify that $`\rho ^2>\alpha _{extr}^2`$ holds for $`\rho >0`$. Hence, for positive $`\rho `$, we have the following cases:

* $`\rho ^2>\alpha _{extr}^2(\rho )>\alpha ^2`$ : There is no positive root, and hence no horizon and therefore we are left with a naked singularity.
* $`\alpha ^2=\alpha _{extr}^2(\rho )`$ : There is a double root $`\zeta _+>0`$ of $`f`$, and thus the black hole is extremal. The singularity is timelike, and the horizon is exactly at $`\zeta _+=\overline{\zeta }`$ given by equation (17).
* $`\rho ^2>\alpha ^2>\alpha _{extr}^2(\rho )`$ : There are two roots $`\zeta _+`$ and $`\zeta _{}`$, corresponding to an outer event horizon at $`\zeta _+`$, and an inner Cauchy horizon at $`\zeta _{}`$. In this case, the singularity is spacelike.
* $`\alpha ^2=\rho ^2`$ : The Cauchy horizon collapses in the singularity, $`\zeta _{}=0`$, leaving a simple root $`\zeta _+>0`$ corresponding to the bifurcated horizon of the black hole.
* $`\alpha ^2>\rho ^2`$ : There is a single positive root $`\zeta _+`$, and the metric describes a black hole with a spacelike singularity hidden by a bifurcated horizon located at $`\zeta _+`$.

The results are summarized in figure 1, where the properties of our metric are shown in the $`(\alpha ,\rho )`$-plane.

The one-parameter subfamily of extreme black holes can be parametrized by the location $`\zeta _+`$ of the double root of $`f`$. In this case, $`f`$ takes the form

$$f(\zeta )=\left(\zeta ^2\zeta _+^2\right)^2\left(\zeta ^2+2\zeta _+^2+1\right),$$
(19)
and the rotation and charge parameters are given by

$$\rho =\frac{1}{2}\left(3\zeta _+^2+2\right)\zeta _+^2,\alpha ^2=\left(\frac{9}{4}\zeta _+^2+1\right)\zeta _+^6.$$
(20)
With these relations, it is possible to explicitly write the metric components of the extreme metrics as a function of $`\zeta _+`$.

We finally look for ergospheres. Ergoregions occur when the norm of the asymptotically timelike Killing vector $`_t`$ becomes positive. But $`(_t,_t)=g^2r^2\mathrm{\Delta }^2(r)<0`$ for every $`r`$, hence $`_t`$ is always timelike and there are no ergospheres in the manifold under consideration.

### 3.2 Velocity of light surfaces and time machines

It can be easily seen that our metric allows for closed timelike curves. For instance, the norm of $`_\gamma `$ is $`r^2/4a^2/(4r^4)`$ and becomes timelike for $`r<a^{1/3}`$. The integral curves of this Killing vector being closed circles, we see that for $`r`$ sufficiently small there are CTCs. It is then essential to see whether these curves arise behind the horizon - as for the Kerr black hole - or if they are outside, thus yielding a naked time machine undermining causality.

On the boundary between the time machine region and the causal region, the Killing vector $`_\gamma `$ becomes lightlike. As in  we shall call this boundary the *velocity of light surface* (VLS); it is a timelike surface located in $`\zeta _{VLS}=\alpha ^{1/3}`$. If this surface is not hidden by a horizon, our spacetime is a naked time machine.

Rearranging terms in the polynomial $`f`$, we obtain $`f(\zeta )=\zeta ^6\alpha ^2+(\zeta ^2\rho )^2`$, which implies

$$\zeta _{VLS}=\left|\alpha \right|^{1/3}\zeta _+$$
(21)
for every choice of the parameters $`(\alpha ,\rho )`$ giving rise to a horizon. Hence, the velocity of light surface is always *outside* of the horizon, and the black hole (2) has naked CTCs for every choice of parameters222The appearance of naked CTCs is a general feature of spinning black holes that are solutions of the vacuum Einstein equations in any odd number of dimensions, when all the rotation parameters are nonvanishing, as shown in . (this contrasts with its asymptotically flat ($`g=0`$) counterpart, where the VLS is hidden by an event horizon for $`a^2<q^3`$ ). When equality holds in equation (21), the VLS coincides with the horizon, $`\zeta _{VLS}=\zeta _+`$. This occurs for $`f(\zeta _{VLS})=(\alpha ^{2/3}\rho )^2=0`$, that is for the parameters of the black hole satisfying $`\alpha _{VLS}^2=\rho ^3`$. This curve is shown in figure 1.

Analyzing the sign of $`(_t,_\gamma )`$, we see that $`_\gamma `$ is future pointing for $`\alpha >0`$, and past pointing for $`\alpha <0`$.

### 3.3 Symmetries and Killing tensors

The spacetime (14) is stationary, hence $`_t`$ is a Killing vector. Turning to the isometries of the three-sphere (9), (10), we see that the rotation in the right $`SU(2)`$ sector of $`SO(4)`$ breaks the $`\xi _1^R`$ and $`\xi _2^R`$ right translations, and hence breaks the $`SU(2)_R`$ isometry group to $`U(1)_R`$ generated by $`\xi _3^R`$. On the other side, it can be verified that the left rotation isometry subgroup $`SU(2)_L`$ remains unbroken, and the vectors $`\xi _i^L`$ given in (10) are Killing vectors of the metric. Thus, the isometry group of our spacetime is $`\times SU(2)_L\times U(1)_R`$.
In the following sections, we shall study the geodesics of this metric. The Killing vectors give rise to three conserved charges, which will show useful in the separation of the angular part of the equations. Furthermore, a fourth conserved quantity is provided by the Stäckel-Killing tensor

$$K^{\mu \nu }=\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}\xi _i^L{}_{}{}^{\mu }\xi _{i}^{L}{}_{}{}^{\nu }=\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}\xi _i^R{}_{}{}^{\mu }\xi _{i}^{R}{}_{}{}^{\nu }.$$
(22)
This is the Casimir invariant of any of the $`SU(2)`$ subgroups of the $`SO(4)`$ rotation group, which coincide in the scalar representation. As a consequence, breaking $`SU(2)_RU(1)_R`$ does not decrease the actual number of constant of motions, and even in the rotating case the geodesic and wave equations remain completely separable. We refer the reader to  for a complete discussion.

## 4 Throat geometry of the near-extreme solution

To perform the near-extremal, near-horizon limit, it is useful to start from the canonical form of the metric

$$ds^2=\frac{V(r)}{\mathrm{\Delta }_L}dt^2+\frac{dr^2}{V(r)}+\frac{r^2}{4}\mathrm{\Delta }_L\left(\sigma _3\omega dt\right)^2+\frac{r^2}{4}\left(\sigma _1^2+\sigma _2^2\right),$$
(23)
where we have defined

$$\omega =\frac{2a\mathrm{\Delta }}{r^4\mathrm{\Delta }_L}.$$
(24)
To obtain a non-singular near-horizon limit, we have to approach the extremal limit while moving towards the horizon. Following , we keep the charge $`q`$ fixed and parametrize the rotation parameter as $`a=a_{extr}(q)(1+kϵ^2)`$, where $`k`$ is an arbitrary constant, and $`ϵ`$ is the extremality parameter. Let us call $`r_e`$ the location of the double root of $`V(r)`$ which develops for $`ϵ=0`$. For simplicity, we define also the rotation parameter at extremality $`a_e=a_{extr}(q)`$ and the angular velocity at extremality

$$\omega _e=\frac{2a_e\mathrm{\Delta }}{r^4\mathrm{\Delta }_L}|_{extr}=\frac{4a_e}{3r_e^4}.$$
(25)
In order to take the near-horizon limit as we approach the extremal solution, we define the new coordinates $`(\psi ,R,\gamma _c)`$

$$r=r_e+ϵR,\psi =ϵt,\gamma _c=\gamma \omega _et;$$
(26)
hence $`\sigma _3`$ becomes

$$\sigma _c=\sigma _3\omega _edt.$$
(27)
One then finally performs the $`ϵ0`$ limit. The function $`V(r)`$ reads

$$V(r)=\left[4\left(1+3g^2r_e^2\right)\frac{R^2}{r_e^2}\frac{2g^2a_{extr}^2(r_e)}{r_e^4}k\right]ϵ^2+𝒪\left(ϵ^3\right)$$
(28)
and the near horizon metric is

$$ds^2=\frac{4f(R)}{9g^2r_e^2}d\psi ^2+\frac{dR^2}{f(R)}\frac{9g^2r_e^4}{16}\left(\sigma _c\frac{16a_e}{9g^2r_e^7}Rd\psi \right)^2+\frac{r_e^2}{4}\left(\sigma _1^2+\sigma _2^2\right),$$
(29)
with

$$f(R)=4\left(1+3g^2r_e^2\right)\frac{R^2}{r_e^2}2k\frac{g^2a_e^2}{r_e^4}.$$
(30)
Similar throat solutions (with $`k=0`$) have been found in  for Kerr black holes and in  for black holes in five-dimensional dilaton-axion gravity. To obtain a finite limit for the vector potential, we have to perform a gauge transformation $`AA2dt`$. The limit can then be performed safely, obtaining

$$A=\frac{2R}{r_e}d\psi +\frac{3a_e}{2r_e^2}\sigma _c.$$
(31)
For $`k=0`$, the throat solution has an enhanced isometry group; the original $`SU(2)_L\times U(1)_R`$ symmetry generated by $`\xi _i^L`$ and $`\xi _3^R`$ is still present, but we have now three additional Killing vectors

$`\chi _1`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{}{\psi }},\chi _2=\psi {\displaystyle \frac{}{\psi }}R{\displaystyle \frac{}{R}},`$
$`\chi _3`$ $`=\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\psi ^2}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{9g^2r_e^6}{128\left(1+3g^2r_e^2\right)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{R^2}}\right]{\displaystyle \frac{}{\psi }}\psi R{\displaystyle \frac{}{R}}{\displaystyle \frac{a_e}{4r_e\left(1+3g^2r_e^2\right)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{R}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\gamma _c}},`$
which obey the commutation relations of the $`SL(2,)`$ algebra. As a consequence, the full isometry group of the throat solution is $`SL(2,)\times SU(2)_L\times U(1)_R`$. A non-vanishing $`k`$, in contrast, breaks the $`SL(2,)`$ symmetry group and only $`\chi _1`$ remains a Killing vector. In this case the isometry group is $`\times SU(2)_L\times U(1)_R`$, as in the full metric.
The near-horizon limit (29), (31) with $`k=0`$ is a special case of a general class of solutions to (1), given by

$`ds^2`$ $`=c_1^2(d\chi ^2+\mathrm{sinh}^2\chi d\zeta ^2)+c_2^2(d\beta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\beta d\alpha ^2)(d\gamma +b_1A_1+b_2A_2)^2,`$
$`A`$ $`=a_1A_1+a_2A_2,A_1=\mathrm{cosh}\chi d\zeta ,A_2=\mathrm{cos}\beta d\alpha .`$ (32)
(Note that $`dA_1`$ and $`dA_2`$ are essentially the Kähler forms on $`H^2`$ and $`S^2`$ respectively). The constants $`a_i`$, $`b_i`$ and $`c_i`$ are subject to the constraints

$`a_1^2=6b_1^26c_1^2+3b_2^2(c_1/c_2)^4,a_2^2=6b_2^2+6c_2^2+3b_1^2(c_2/c_1)^4,`$
$`12g^2=c_1^2c_2^2,2c_1^2c_2^2a_1a_2+\sqrt{3}(c_2^4a_1b_1+c_1^4a_2b_2)=0,`$
following from the equations of motion of the action (1). This system leaves two parameters undetermined, e. g. we can choose $`c_1^2`$ and the ratio $`b_1/a_2`$ freely333In particular, for the choice $`a_1=b_2=0`$, $`a_2=1/g`$, $`b_1^2=c_1^2=1/(9g^2)`$, $`c_2^2=1/(3g^2)`$, one obtains the solutions considered in , of the form $`AdS_3\times H^2`$, where the $`AdS_3`$ part is written as an $`S^1`$ bundle over $`H^2`$. These solutions preserve half of the supersymmetries.. It is straightforward to show that the general solution (32) is a homogeneous manifold $`[SO(2,1)\times SU(2)\times U(1)]/[U(1)\times U(1)]`$. It should therefore be interesting to study this spacetime in the context of holography and coset spaces .

## 5 Maximal extension of the black hole solution

### 5.1 Geodesics of the black hole solution

The Hamilton-Jacobi equation for the action function $`S(x^\mu )`$, describing the geodesics of the metric (2), reads

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_L}{V}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{S}{t}}\right)^2+V\left({\displaystyle \frac{S}{r}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{4a\mathrm{\Delta }}{r^4V}}{\displaystyle \frac{S}{t}}\left(L_3S\right)+`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{r^2}}\left(\left(L_1S\right)^2+\left(L_2S\right)^2+\left(L_3S\right)^2\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{4g^2a^2}{r^6V}}\left(L_3S\right)^2=m^2,`$ (33)
where we have defined $`L_i=\xi _i^R`$. The AdS signature is completely encoded in the function $`V`$ and the last term of the left hand side, proportional to $`g^2`$. This partial differential equation is completely integrable, thanks to the symmetries of the metric (2): $`_t`$, $`_\alpha `$ and $`_\gamma `$ are Killing vectors of the spacetime. This suggests the ansatz

$$S=Et+H(\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma )+W(r),H(\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma )=j_L\alpha +j_R\gamma +\chi (\beta ).$$
(34)
A further conserved quantity, $`j^2`$, arises from the Stäckel-Killing tensor of the spacetime,

$$\left(L_1H\right)^2+\left(L_2H\right)^2+\left(L_3H\right)^2=j^2,$$
(35)
which allows to determine $`\chi `$,

$$\frac{\chi }{\beta }=\pm \sqrt{j^2\frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}^2\beta }\left(j_R^2+j_L^22j_Lj_R\mathrm{cos}\beta \right)}.$$
(36)
Using the ansatz for the action, the Hamilton-Jacobi equation reduces to

$$W^{}(r)^2=\frac{1}{V^2(r)}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_LE^2V\left(m^2+\frac{4j^2}{r^2}\right)\frac{4\mathrm{\Delta }}{r^4}aj_RE\frac{4g^2a^2}{r^6}j_R^2\right),$$
(37)
which can be integrated.
The geodesic equations follow then from the action,

$$\frac{dx^\mu }{d\lambda }=g^{\mu \nu }\frac{S}{x^\nu },$$
(38)
where $`\lambda `$ denotes the geodesic parameter. For the radial motion, we obtain

$$\left(\frac{dr}{d\lambda }\right)^2=\mathrm{\Delta }_LE^2V\left(m^2+\frac{4j^2}{r^2}\right)\frac{4\mathrm{\Delta }}{r^4}aj_RE\frac{4g^2a^2}{r^6}j_R^2.$$
(39)
One would like to know if geodesics can cross the velocity of light surface and how far they can travel towards the horizon. Obviously, the motion is allowed as long as the right hand side of equation (39) is positive. Let us consider first geodesics with $`j_R=0`$. In this case we have

$$\dot{r}^2=\mathrm{\Delta }_LE^2V\left(m^2+\frac{4j^2}{r^2}\right)<\mathrm{\Delta }_LE^2,$$
(40)
because $`V>0`$ for $`r>r_+`$. Moreover, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_L`$ is positive outside the velocity of light surface, but becomes negative for $`r<r_{VLS}`$. Hence *particles with $`j_R=0`$ cannot cross the VLS*. To enter the time machine, we have to lower the potential barrier by putting some angular momentum along the $`\gamma `$ direction. For $`j_R0`$, we have two additional terms in (39): the last term is always negative, but the third term can become positive if $`\mathrm{\Delta }aj_R<0`$. Hence, the geodesics can enter the time machine only if they have spin *opposite* to the dragging effects of the spacetime.
Let us examine now if such a geodesic can cross the event horizon. For $`r=r_+`$, the r.h.s. of equation (39) becomes

$$\left(\frac{dr}{d\lambda }\right)^2|_{r_+}=\mathrm{\Delta }_L^+E^2\frac{4\mathrm{\Delta }_+}{r_+^4}aj_RE\frac{4g^2a^2}{r_+^6}j_R^2,$$
(41)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_L^+`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_+`$ stand for the values on the horizon of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_L`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ respectively. The condition $`V(r_+)=0`$ yields

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_L^+=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_+^2}{g^2r_+^2}.$$
(42)
Inserting this into (41), we finally obtain

$$\left(\frac{dr}{d\lambda }\right)^2|_{r_+}=\frac{1}{g^2r_+^2}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_+E+\frac{2g^2}{r_+^2}aj_R\right)^20.$$
(43)
If the previous quantity is strictly negative, it is obvious that the geodesics cannot reach the horizon, but bounce back. In the limiting case

$$E=\frac{2g^2}{r_+^2\mathrm{\Delta }_+}aj_R,$$
(44)
the analysis needs more care. Writing the equation of motion (39) as $`\dot{r}^2+U(r)=0`$, we see that it describes the classical one-dimensional motion of a particle in the potential $`U(r)`$. If $`U^{}(r_+)0`$, then $`r_+`$ is a turning point, and the geodesic bounces back without crossing the horizon. In contrast, if $`U^{}(r_+)`$ vanishes, the particle needs an infinite time to reach $`r_+`$, i. e. the geodesic approaches asymptotically the horizon for $`\lambda \mathrm{}`$. But $`\lambda `$ is just the affine parameter, and hence the geodesic ends there. Note that this result still holds true for spacelike geodesics ($`m^2<0`$).

Hence, *no geodesic can cross the horizon and penetrate the black hole region in the spacetime* (2). This means, moreover, that the $`r>r_+`$ region of the manifold is *geodesically complete*, and contains no singularity444As a consequence, the solutions under consideration are *not* black holes. However, allowing for a slight abuse of language, we shall continue to speak about “black holes” and “horizons” for convenience..

### 5.2 Charged geodesics

We have seen that geodesics in our manifold cannot cross the horizon. We turn now to the study of charged geodesics, and see if this property also holds for charged particles. The Hamiltonian follows from the minimal coupling with the $`U(1)`$ potential,

$$H=\frac{1}{2}g^{\mu \nu }\left(p_\mu +QA_\mu \right)\left(p_\nu +QA_\nu \right),$$
(45)
where $`Q`$ is the charge of the particle. The Hamilton-Jacobi equation can be separated again by the ansatz (34), and reads for charged geodesics

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{dr}{d\lambda }}\right)^2=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_LE^2V\left(m^2+{\displaystyle \frac{4j^2}{r^2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{4\mathrm{\Delta }}{r^4}}aj_RE{\displaystyle \frac{4g^2a^2}{r^6}}j_R^2`$
$`6\mathrm{\Delta }QE{\displaystyle \frac{12g^2a}{r^2}}j_RQ9\left({\displaystyle \frac{g^2a^2}{r^4}}\mathrm{\Delta }^2\right)Q^2.`$ (46)
For $`r=r_+`$, the equation becomes

$$\left(\frac{dr}{d\lambda }\right)^2|_{r_+}=\frac{1}{g^2r_+^2}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_+E+\frac{2g^2}{r_+^2}aj_R+3g^2r_+^2Q\right)^2<0.$$
(47)
Being negative on the horizon, we can extend the previous conclusion to the propagation of charged particles: *charged geodesics cannot cross the horizon of the black holes under consideration*.

### 5.3 Scalar field propagation

We consider now a neutral, minimally coupled scalar field propagating in the background (2). The Klein-Gordon equation $`\left(^2m^2\right)\mathrm{\Phi }=0`$ reads

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{r}}\left(r^3V{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{r}}\right)=`$ $`m^2\mathrm{\Phi }{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_L}{V}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2\mathrm{\Phi }}{t^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{4a\mathrm{\Delta }}{r^4V}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}\left(L_3\mathrm{\Phi }\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{r^2}}\left(L_1^2+L_2^2+L_3^2\right)\mathrm{\Phi }+{\displaystyle \frac{4g^2a^2}{r^6V}}L_3^2\mathrm{\Phi }.`$ (48)
The variables can again be separated due to the symmetries of the problem. We use the ansatz

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=F(r)e^{iEt}D_{j_L,j_R}^j,$$
(49)
with $`D_{j_L,j_R}^j`$ the Wigner $`D`$-functions, which are simultaneous eigenfunctions of $`L_3`$, $`R_3`$, $`L^2`$ and $`R^2`$:

$`R_3D_{j_L,j_R}^j`$ $`=ij_LD_{j_L,j_R}^j,L_3D_{j_L,j_R}^j=ij_RD_{j_L,j_R}^j,`$ (50)
$`L^2D_{j_L,j_R}^j`$ $`=R^2D_{j_L,j_R}^j=j(j+1)D_{j_L,j_R}^j.`$ (51)
We obtain then the radial wave equation,

$$\frac{V}{r^3}\frac{d}{dr}\left(r^3V\frac{dF}{dr}\right)=\left[\mathrm{\Delta }_LE^2V\left(m^2+\frac{4j(j+1)}{r^2}\right)\frac{4a\mathrm{\Delta }}{r^4}Ej_R\frac{4g^2}{r^6}a^2j_R^2\right]F.$$
(52)
To eliminate the first order derivative from (52), we introduce a tortoise-like coordinate

$$r_{}(r)=\frac{dr}{r^3V(r)},$$
(53)
which is a smooth strictly decreasing function of the radial coordinate $`r`$ in the outer region; its range is $`r_{}]0,+\mathrm{}[`$, where $`r=r_+`$ corresponds to $`r_{}+\mathrm{}`$ and the spatial infinity $`r+\mathrm{}`$ corresponds to $`r_{}=0`$. In terms of this new variable, the radial wave equation reads

$$\frac{d^2F}{dr_{}^2}+U(r_{})F=0,$$
(54)
where we have defined the potential function

$$U(r_{})=r^6\left[\mathrm{\Delta }_LE^2V\left(m^2+\frac{4j(j+1)}{r^2}\right)\frac{4a\mathrm{\Delta }}{r^4}Ej_R\frac{4g^2}{r^6}a^2j_R^2\right].$$
(55)
We are now interested in the behaviour of equation (54) near the horizon (i. e. for $`r_{}\mathrm{}`$). To this end, we first observe that the potential $`U`$ converges for $`r\mathrm{}`$; let us denote its asymptotic value by $`U_0`$,

$$U_0\underset{r_{}\mathrm{}}{lim}U(r_{})=\frac{r_+^4}{g^2}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_+E+\frac{2g^2aj_R}{r_+^2}\right)^2.$$
(56)
Hence, performing a Taylor-Laurent expansion of $`U(r_{})`$ near infinity, the coefficients of the positive powers vanish, and we are left with $`U(r_{})=U_0+𝒪\left(r_{}^1\right)`$. The behaviour near $`r_{}\mathrm{}`$ of the solutions of the radial equation (54) is determined by the sign of $`U_0`$: if it is positive, we have oscillating solutions for $`rr_+`$, otherwise the solutions are exponentially depressed or diverging. From equation (56), we see that $`U_0`$ is always negative, and oscillating solutions are therefore not possible. This means that the net flux of particles through $`r=r_+`$ vanishes, and the total absorption cross section of the horizon is zero:

$$\sigma _{abs}=0.$$
(57)
This result is exact and holds for any frequency. In fact it generalizes our previous conclusions on geodesic motion, which is the high frequency, WKB approximation. As a consequence of the non-existence of near-horizon oscillating modes, there is no particle production and the Hawking temperature vanishes, $`T_{BH}=0`$. Furthermore, as the absorption cross section $`\sigma _{abs}`$ is a measure for the horizon area, (57) suggests that one should assign zero entropy to the black holes (2).

## 6 General solution with vector supermultiplets

The results obtained in the Einstein-Maxwell theory can be straightforwardly generalized to $`𝒩=2`$, $`D=5`$ gauged supergravity coupled to $`n`$ vector supermultiplets. The bosonic part of the Lagrangian is given by

$$e^1=\frac{1}{2}R+g^2𝒲\frac{1}{4}G_{IJ}F_{\mu \nu }^IF^{J\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}G_{IJ}_\mu X^I^\mu X^J+\frac{e^1}{48}ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma \lambda }C_{IJK}F_{\mu \nu }^IF_{\rho \sigma }^JA_\lambda ^K,$$
(58)
where $`I=0,\mathrm{},n`$. The scalar potential reads

$$𝒲(X)=𝒲_I𝒲_J\left(6X^IX^J\frac{9}{2}𝒢^{ij}_iX^I_jX^J\right).$$
(59)
Here $`𝒲_I`$ specify the appropriate linear combination of the vectors that comprise the graviphoton of the theory, $`𝒜_\mu =𝒲_IA_\mu ^I`$. The $`X^I`$ are functions of the $`n`$ real scalar fields, and obey the condition

$$𝒱=\frac{1}{6}C_{IJK}X^IX^JX^K=1.$$
(60)
The gauge and the scalar couplings are determined in terms of the homogeneous cubic polynomial $`𝒱`$ which defines a “very special geometry” . They are given by

$`G_{IJ}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_I_J\mathrm{log}𝒱|_{𝒱=1},`$ (61)
$`𝒢_{ij}`$ $`=_iX^I_jX^JG_{IJ}|_{𝒱=1},`$
where $`_i`$ and $`_I`$ refer, respectively, to partial derivatives with respect to the scalar field $`\varphi ^i`$ and $`X^I=X^I(\varphi ^i)`$.

For Calabi-Yau compactifications of M-theory, $`𝒱`$ denotes the intersection form, and $`X^I`$ and $`X_I\frac{1}{6}C_{IJK}X^JX^K`$ correspond to the size of the two- and four-cycles of the Calabi-Yau threefold respectively. Here $`C_{IJK}`$ are the intersection numbers of the threefold. In the Calabi-Yau cases, $`n`$ is given by the Hodge number $`h_{(1,1)}`$.

The general charged rotating supersymmetric solution of the theory (58) reads

$`ds^2`$ $`=g^2r^2e^{2U}dt^2e^{4U}\left(dt{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{r^2}}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi +{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{r^2}}\mathrm{cos}^2\theta d\psi \right)^2+e^{2U}\left({\displaystyle \frac{dr^2}{V(r)}}+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2\right),`$
$`A_\varphi ^I`$ $`=e^{2U}X^I{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{r^2}}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta ,A_\psi ^I=e^{2U}X^I{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{r^2}}\mathrm{cos}^2\theta ,A_t^I=e^{2U}X^I,`$ (62)
where

$$V(r)=1+g^2r^2e^{6U}\frac{g^2\alpha ^2}{r^4}.$$
(63)
As a particular case, one obtains for the $`STU=1`$ model555We apologize for using the same symbol for one of the moduli and the function appearing in the metric, but the meaning should be clear from the context. ($`X^0=S`$, $`X^1=T`$, $`X^2=U`$)

$$e^{6U}=H_1H_2H_3,H_I=h_I+\frac{q_I}{r^2},I=0,1,2,$$
(64)
and

$$X^I=e^{2U}H_I^1.$$
(65)
Taking all charges to be equal, $`q_I=q`$, and $`h_I=1`$ for $`I=0,1,2`$, the solution of the $`STU=1`$ model reduces to the Einstein-Maxwell solution (2) considered in the previous sections. Using Euler coordinates on the three-sphere and the vielbeins (2), the general metric (62) can be cast into the form

$$ds^2=g^2r^2e^{2U}dt^2e^{4U}\left(dt+\frac{\alpha }{2r^2}\sigma ^3\right)^2+e^{2U}\left(\frac{dr^2}{V(r)}+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2\right).$$
(66)
“Horizons” occur for $`r=r_+`$ with $`V(r_+)=0`$, while the VLS is located at the zero $`r_{VLS}`$ of the function $`\mathrm{\Delta }_L(r)`$, defined by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_L(r)=1\frac{\alpha ^2}{r^6e^{6U}}.$$
(67)
It is straightforward to show that $`V(r)>g^2r^2e^{6U}\mathrm{\Delta }_L(r)`$, from which it follows that the VLS is always external to the horizon, $`r_+<r_{VLS}`$, as in the Einstein-Maxwell case: there are always naked closed timelike curves.

### 6.1 Geodesic motion and Scalar field propagation

To see if the general solution represents a black hole, we have to study its maximal extension. The Hamilton-Jacobi equation for the geodesic motion is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_L}{V}}e^{4U}\left({\displaystyle \frac{S}{t}}\right)^2+Ve^{2U}\left({\displaystyle \frac{S}{r}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{4\alpha }{r^4V}}e^{2U}{\displaystyle \frac{S}{t}}\left(L_3S\right)+`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{r^2}}e^{2U}\left(\left(L_1S\right)^2+\left(L_2S\right)^2+\left(L_3S\right)^2\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{4g^2\alpha ^2}{r^6V}}e^{2U}\left(L_3S\right)^2=m^2.`$ (68)
Again, the Hamilton-Jacobi equation can be completely separated using the ansatz (34). The orbital motion is the same as for the Einstein-Maxwell case, while the radial equation of motion becomes

$$\left(\frac{dr}{d\lambda }\right)^2=e^{4U}\left[e^{6U}\mathrm{\Delta }_LE^2V\left(m^2e^{2U}+\frac{4j^2}{r^2}\right)\frac{4\alpha }{r^4}j_RE\frac{4g^2\alpha ^2}{r^6}j_R^2\right].$$
(69)
To see if the geodesics can cross the horizon, we compute the r.h.s. of Eq. (69) for $`r=r_+`$, with $`r_+`$ a zero of the function $`V(r)`$. This yields

$$\left(\frac{dr}{d\lambda }\right)^2|_{r_+}=\frac{e^{4U(r_+)}}{g^2r_+^2}\left(E+\frac{2g^2\alpha }{r_+^2}j_R\right)^20.$$
(70)
This is negative, and applying the argument of section 5 we can conclude that no geodesic can cross the $`r=r_+`$ hypersurface. Hence, the region $`r>r_+`$ is geodesically complete and non-singular.

The Klein-Gordon equation for a neutral, minimally coupled scalar field of mass $`m`$ propagating in the background of the general solution (66) reads

$`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{2U}}{r^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{r}}\left(r^3V{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{r}}\right)=`$ $`m^2\mathrm{\Phi }e^{4U}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_L}{V}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2\mathrm{\Phi }}{t^2}}e^{2U}{\displaystyle \frac{4\alpha }{r^4V}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}\left(L_3\mathrm{\Phi }\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{4e^{2U}}{r^2}}\left(L_1^2+L_2^2+L_3^2\right)\mathrm{\Phi }+{\displaystyle \frac{4g^2\alpha ^2}{r^6V}}e^{2U}L_3^2\mathrm{\Phi }.`$ (71)
Making the ansatz (49), the variables separate, leaving the radial wave equation

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dr}}\left(r^3V{\displaystyle \frac{dF}{dr}}\right)=`$ (72)
$`\left[e^{6U}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_L}{V}}E^2m^2e^{2U}{\displaystyle \frac{4j(j+1)}{r^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{4\alpha }{r^4V}}Ej_R{\displaystyle \frac{4g^2\alpha ^2}{r^6V}}j_R^2\right]F.`$
Using the Regge-Wheeler coordinate $`r_{}`$ defined in (53), we obtain the differential equation

$$\frac{d^2F}{dr_{}^2}+P(r_{})F=0,$$
(73)
describing a classical particle moving in the potential

$$P(r_{})=r^6\left[e^{6U}\mathrm{\Delta }_LE^2V\left(m^2e^{2U}+\frac{4j(j+1)}{r^2}\right)\frac{4\alpha }{r^4}Ej_R\frac{4g^2\alpha ^2}{r^6}j_R^2\right].$$
(74)
For $`r=r_+`$ ($`r_{}\mathrm{}`$), the potential converges to the finite value $`P_0`$,

$$P_0\underset{r_{}\mathrm{}}{lim}P(r_{})=\frac{r_+^4}{g^2}\left(E+\frac{2g^2\alpha }{r_+^2}j_R\right)^2,$$
(75)
which is always negative. Hence, as shown previously, the total flux across the $`r=r_+`$ hypersurfaces is zero, and the total absorption cross section vanishes, $`\sigma _{abs}=0`$. These results suggest to assign zero temperature and entropy also to the general solution (66).

## 7 Lifting to type IIB supergravity

Let us now focus on the $`STU=1`$ model, with scalar potential (59) and gauge couplings $`G_{IJ}`$ (61) given by 666We assumed $`h_I=1`$, yielding $`𝒲_I=\frac{1}{3}`$ .

$`𝒲`$ $`=2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{U}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{T}}+TU\right),`$ (76)
$`G_{IJ}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}T^2U^2& 0& 0\\ 0& \frac{1}{T^2}& 0\\ 0& 0& \frac{1}{U^2}\end{array}\right).`$ (80)
In  it was shown that this model can be obtained from type IIB supergravity in ten dimensions by the Kaluza-Klein reduction ansatz

$$ds_{10}^2=\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}ds_5^2+\frac{1}{g^2\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}}\underset{I=0}{\overset{2}{}}(X^I)^1\left(d\mu _I^2+\mu _I^2(d\varphi _I+gA^I)^2\right),$$
(81)
where the three quantities $`\mu _I`$ are subject to the constraint $`_I\mu _I^2=1`$. The standard metric on the unit five-sphere can be written in terms of these as

$$d\mathrm{\Omega }_5^2=\underset{I}{}(d\mu _I^2+\mu _I^2d\varphi _I^2).$$
(82)
The $`\mu _I`$ can be parametrized in terms of angles on a two-sphere, e. g. as

$$\mu _0=\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta },\mu _1=\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Psi },\mu _2=\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Psi }.$$
(83)
$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ is given by

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}=\underset{I=0}{\overset{2}{}}X^I\mu _I^2.$$
(84)
The ansatz for the reduction of the 5-form field strength is $`F_{(5)}=G_{(5)}+G_{(5)}`$, where

$`G_{(5)}=`$ $`2g{\displaystyle \underset{I}{}}\left((X^I)^2\mu _I^2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}X^I\right)ϵ_{(5)}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2g}}{\displaystyle \underset{I}{}}(X^I)^1\overline{}dX^Id(\mu _I^2)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2g^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{I}{}}(X^I)^2d(\mu _I^2)(d\varphi _I+gA^I)\overline{}dA^I,`$ (85)
here $`ϵ_{(5)}`$ is the volume form of the five-dimensional metric $`ds_5^2`$, and $`\overline{}`$ denotes the Hodge dual with respect to the five-dimensional metric $`ds_5^2`$.

The other bosonic fields of the type IIB theory are zero in this $`U(1)^3`$ truncated reduction.

Using (81), we can lift our charged rotating supersymmetric solutions (66), with $`U`$ given by (64), to ten dimensions, obtaining

$`ds_{10}^2=`$ $`\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}\left[g^2r^2e^{2U}dt^2e^{4U}\left(dt+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2r^2}}\sigma ^3\right)^2+e^{2U}\left({\displaystyle \frac{dr^2}{V(r)}}+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2\right)\right]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g^2\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}}}{\displaystyle \underset{I=0}{\overset{2}{}}}(X^I)^1\left(d\mu _I^2+\mu _I^2(d\varphi _I+gH_I^1(dt+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2r^2}}\sigma ^3))^2\right).`$ (86)
(86) represents a D3-brane rotating both in directions transverse and longitudinal to the world volume.

Note that in five dimensions, the norm squared of the Killing vector $`_\gamma `$ is

$$(_\gamma ,_\gamma )_{(5)}=e^{2U}\frac{r^2}{4}\mathrm{\Delta }_L(r),$$
(87)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_L(r)`$ is given by Eq. (67). As we said, for $`r<r_{VLS}`$ (87) becomes negative, so we have closed timelike curves. We would like to see whether these CTCs still occur in ten dimensions. A straightforward calculation shows that the norm squared of $`_\gamma `$ computed with the ten-dimensional metric (86) reads

$$(_\gamma ,_\gamma )_{(10)}=\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}e^{2U}\frac{r^2}{4},$$
(88)
which is always positive. Thus in the ten-dimensional metric $`_\gamma `$ is always spacelike, and the CTCs present in five dimensions disappear upon lifting. However, new CTCs show up. Consider e. g. the vector

$$v:=\frac{e^{2U}\alpha g}{2r^2}\underset{I=0}{\overset{2}{}}_{\varphi _I}+_\gamma ,$$
(89)
which has closed orbits, and norm

$$v^2=e^{2U}\frac{r^2}{4}\mathrm{\Delta }_L(r),$$
(90)
that becomes negative for $`r<r_{VLS}`$. Thus in our case we have no resolution of causal anomalies in higher dimensions, in contrast to the BMPV black hole .
The naively computed Bekenstein-Hawking entropy of the rotating D3 brane (86) reads

$$S=\frac{V_3V_5}{4g^5G_{10}}\sqrt{e^{6U(r_+)}r_+^6\alpha ^2},$$
(91)
where $`V_3`$ and $`V_5`$ denote the volume of the unit $`𝒮^3`$ and $`𝒮^5`$ respectively. (91) is clearly imaginary and thus makes no sense.

## 8 Final remarks

The solutions (2) and (62) that we studied in this paper are BPS states preserving half of the supersymmetry of $`𝒩=2`$, $`D=5`$ gauged supergravity. The fact that we obtained a vanishing Hawking temperature $`T_H`$ due to the non-existence of near-horizon oscillating modes is in agreement with the supersymmetry considerations. Note that we obtained $`T_H=0`$ also for solutions with a simple root $`r_+`$ of the function $`V(r)`$. One would expect for such solutions a bifurcated horizon, and a finite Hawking temperature. The resolution of this puzzle is related to the bad causal behaviour of the spacetimes under consideration.

Another question to settle, is whether it is possible to construct and use such time machines. For example, one could take (for simplicity) the solution with $`q=0`$ and $`a=0`$, which is AdS5, and try to add angular momentum by turning on $`a`$. This leads to CTCs outside the horizon. But this process, which is similar to accelerating a particle beyond the speed of light , should be impossible due to Hawking’s chronology protection conjecture . We expect furthermore, in analogy with the ungauged case , that these causality-violating solutions should be forbidden, because they would correspond to states which violate the unitarity bound of the dual $`𝒩=4`$, $`D=4`$ SYM theory. In such a way, the AdS/CFT correspondence would provide us with a nice implementation of the chronology protection conjecture in AdS spacetimes.

This effect already shows up for the uncharged nonextremal Kerr-AdS5 black holes found in , where CTCs appear outside the horizon if the two rotation parameters are equal, and if the mass parameter $`M`$ is sufficiently negative. From the dual CFT point of view, it is clear that these CTCs are related to loss of unitarity. The reason is that the classification of unitary representations of superconformal algebras typically implies inequalities on the conformal weights and R-charges. These inequalities thus yield lower bounds on the black hole mass $`M`$, and therefore the unitarity bound of the superconformal algebra is violated if $`M`$ becomes too negative. It remains to be shown that this unitarity bound exactly coincides with the point in parameter space where CTCs develop.

###### Acknowledgments.

D. K. was partially supported by MURST and by the European Commission RTN program HPRN-CT-2000-00131, in which he is associated to the University of Torino. The authors would like to thank Klaus Behrndt for useful discussions.