format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

There are many explicit examples of Ricci-flat metrics with Kähler or hyper-Kähler special holonomy that are defined on regular non-compact manifolds. There are far fewer analogous examples of Ricci-flat metrics with the exceptional holonomies $`G_2`$ in $`D=7`$ or Spin(7) in $`D=8`$. In fact three explicit non-compact $`G_2`$ examples and one explicit Spin(7) example are known . In this paper we obtain new eight-dimensional metrics of Spin(7) holonomy, and show how they can be defined on two topologically inequivalent regular non-compact manifolds. The new metrics are all asymptotically locally conical (ALC), locally approaching $`\times S^1\times ^3`$. The radius of the $`S^1`$ is asymptotically constant, so the metric approaches an $`S^1`$ bundle over a cone with base $`^3`$. However, the Einstein metric on the $`^3`$ at the base of the cone is not the Fubini-Study metric, but instead the “squashed” metric described as an $`S^2`$ bundle over $`S^4`$. The new solutions can have very different short-distance behaviours, with one approaching flat $`^8`$ whilst the others approach $`^4\times S^4`$ locally. The global topology is that of $`^8`$ in the first case and the bundle of positive (or negative) chirality spinors over $`S^4`$ for the others. An intriguing feature of two of the new metrics, one on each of the inequivalent topologies, is that locally they are actually the same. This metric is complete on a manifold of $`^8`$ topology if the radial coordinate is taken to be positive, whilst in the region with negative $`r`$ it is instead complete on the manifold $`𝕊(S^4)`$ of the bundle of chiral spinors over $`S^4`$. We shall denote the new Spin(7) manifold with $`^8`$ topology by $`𝔸_8`$, and the new related manifold with $`𝕊(S^4)`$ topology by $`𝔹_8`$. In appendix A we construct the general solution of the first-order equations that follow by requiring Spin(7) holonomy in our metric ansatz, and we show that these lead to further more general classes of regular metrics111This appendix with the general solution and the further complete Spin(7) metrics extends the results in an earlier version of this paper. defined on complete manifolds $`𝔹_8^\pm `$ that are again topologically the bundle of chiral spinors over $`S^4`$.

Our construction is a generalisation of the one that leads to the previously-known metric of Spin(7) holonomy. That example is given by

$$ds_8^2=\left(1\frac{\mathrm{}^{10/3}}{r^{10/3}}\right)^1dr^2+\frac{9}{100}r^2\left(1\frac{\mathrm{}^{10/3}}{r^{10/3}}\right)h_i^2+\frac{9}{20}r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_4^2,$$
(1)
where

$$h_i\sigma _iA_{\left(1\right)}^i,$$
(2)
the $`\sigma _i`$ are left-invariant 1-forms on $`SU(2)`$, $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_4^2`$ is the metric on the unit 4-sphere, and $`A_{\left(1\right)}^i`$ is the $`SU(2)`$ Yang-Mills instanton on $`S^4`$. The $`\sigma _i`$ can be written in terms of Euler angles as

$$\sigma _1=\mathrm{cos}\psi d\theta +\mathrm{sin}\psi \mathrm{sin}\theta d\phi ,\sigma _2=\mathrm{sin}\psi d\theta +\mathrm{cos}\psi \mathrm{sin}\theta d\phi ,\sigma _3=d\psi +\mathrm{cos}\theta d\phi .$$
(3)
The principal orbits are $`S^7`$, described as an $`S^3`$ bundle over $`S^4`$. The solution (1) is asymptotic to a cone over the “squashed” Einstein 7-sphere, and it approaches $`^4\times S^4`$ locally at short distance (i.e. $`r\mathrm{}`$). Globally the manifold has the same topology $`𝕊(S^4)`$, the bundle of chiral spinors over $`S^4`$, as the new Spin(7) manifolds $`𝔹_8`$ and $`𝔹_8^\pm `$ that we obtain in this paper.

## 2 Ansatz, Einstein equation and superpotential for Spin(7) metrics

The generalisation that we shall consider involves allowing the $`S^3`$ fibres of the previous construction themselves to be “squashed.” In particular, this encompasses the possibility of having an asymptotic structure of the “Taub-NUT type,” in which the $`U(1)`$ fibres in a description of $`S^3`$ as a $`U(1)`$ bundle over $`S^2`$ approach constant length while the radius of the $`S^2`$ grows linearly. The appropriate squashing along the $`U(1)`$ fibres can be implemented using a description given in , where it was observed that if one defines

$$\mu _1=\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\psi ,\mu _2=\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\psi ,\mu _3=\mathrm{cos}\theta ,$$
(4)
then $`h_i`$ can be written (after adapting some conventions) as

$$h_i=ϵ_{ijk}\mu ^jD\mu ^k+\mu ^i\sigma ,$$
(5)
where

$$D\mu ^id\mu ^i+ϵ_{ijk}A_{\left(1\right)}^j\mu ^k,\sigma d\phi +𝒜_{\left(1\right)},𝒜_{\left(1\right)}\mathrm{cos}\theta d\psi \mu ^iA_{\left(1\right)}^i.$$
(6)
It also follows that

$$\underset{i}{}h_i^2=\underset{i}{}(D\mu ^i)^2+\sigma ^2,$$
(7)
In terms of the coordinates $`(\theta ,\psi )`$ on $`S^2`$, we have

$`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}(D\mu ^i)^2`$ $`=`$ $`(d\theta A_{\left(1\right)}^1\mathrm{cos}\psi +A_{\left(1\right)}^2\mathrm{sin}\psi )^2`$ (8)
$`+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta (d\psi +A_{\left(1\right)}^1\mathrm{cot}\theta \mathrm{sin}\psi +A_{\left(1\right)}^2\mathrm{cot}\theta \mathrm{cos}\psi A_{\left(1\right)}^3)^2.`$
Finally, one can show that the field strength $`_{\left(2\right)}=d𝒜_{\left(1\right)}`$, which follows from (6), is given by

$$_{\left(2\right)}=\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{ijk}\mu ^kD\mu ^iD\mu ^j\mu ^iF_{\left(2\right)}^i.$$
(9)
Since $`\mu ^i\mu ^i=1`$, we see that (7) expresses the metric on the $`S^3`$ fibres as a $`U(1)`$ bundle over $`S^2`$, with fibre coordinate $`\phi `$. Note that $`\phi `$ has period $`4\pi `$, while $`\psi `$ has period $`2\pi `$. This reversal of the periods by comparison to those for the left-invariant 1-forms (3) is associated with the fact that we effectively transformed from a left-invariant basis to a right-invariant one, in passing to the metric (7) on $`S^3`$ . The same transformation, expressed somewhat differently, was used recently in .

With these preliminaries, we can now present our more general ansatz for 8-dimensional metrics of Spin(7) holonomy:

$$d\widehat{s}_8^2=dt^2+a^2(D\mu ^i)^2+b^2\sigma ^2+c^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_4^2.$$
(10)
Here $`a`$, $`b`$ and $`c`$ are functions of the radial variable $`t`$. The metric has cohomogeneity one, with principal orbits that are homogeneously-squashed $`S^7`$. The previous Spin(7) example (1) has $`a=b`$.

A convenient way to obtain the conditions for Ricci-flatness for the ansatz (10) is to perform a Kaluza-Klein dimensional reduction on the $`U(1)`$ fibres parameterised by the $`\phi `$ coordinate. This reduction can be written as

$$d\widehat{s}_8^2=e^{\frac{1}{\sqrt{15}}\varphi }ds_7^2+e^{\sqrt{\frac{5}{3}}\varphi }(d\phi +B_{\left(1\right)})^2,$$
(11)
where $`ds_7^2`$, $`B_{\left(1\right)}`$ and $`\varphi `$ are all independent of the fibre coordinate $`\phi `$. The conditions for Ricci flatness of the eight-dimensional metric (11) are then equivalent to the seven-dimensional Einstein-Maxwell-Dilaton equations that follow from the dimensional reduction of the Einstein-Hilbert Lagrangian, which in $`D=7`$ gives

$$e^1_7=R\frac{1}{2}(\varphi )^2\frac{1}{4}e^{2\sqrt{\frac{3}{5}}\varphi }G_{\left(2\right)}^2,$$
(12)
where $`G_{\left(2\right)}=dB_{\left(1\right)}`$. The seven-dimensional equations are

$`R_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}_\mu \varphi _\nu \varphi +\frac{1}{2}e^{2\sqrt{\frac{3}{5}}\varphi }(G_{\mu \nu }^2\frac{1}{10}G_{\left(2\right)}^2g_{\mu \nu }),`$
$`\text{   }\text{ }\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\frac{3}{5}}e^{2\sqrt{\frac{3}{5}}\varphi }G_{\left(2\right)}^2,`$ (13)
$`d\left(e^{2\sqrt{\frac{3}{5}}\varphi }G_{\left(2\right)}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$
Comparing (10) and (11), we see that

$`B_{\left(1\right)}=𝒜_{\left(1\right)},e^{\sqrt{\frac{5}{3}}\varphi }=b^2,`$
$`ds_7^2=b^{2/5}(dt^2+a^2(D\mu ^i)^2+c^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_4^2).`$ (14)
It is easily verified that the field equation for $`G_{\left(2\right)}`$ given in (13) is automatically satisfied. The metric $`ds_7^2`$ lies within the class whose Ricci tensor was calculated in , and so using those results it is now a straightforward to obtain the equations for the functions $`a`$, $`b`$ and $`c`$ that follow from imposing eight-dimensional Ricci-flatness.

It is convenient to express the equations for $`a`$, $`b`$ and $`c`$ as a Lagrangian system. We find that the equations can be derived from varying $`LTV`$ where

$`T`$ $`=`$ $`2\alpha _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+12\gamma _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+4\alpha ^{}\beta ^{}+8\beta ^{}\gamma ^{}+16\alpha ^{}\gamma ^{},`$
$`V`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}b^2c^4(4a^6+2a^4b^224a^4c^24a^2c^4+b^2c^4),`$ (15)
together with the constraint $`T+V=0`$. Here a prime denotes a derivative with respect to a new radial variable $`\eta `$, defined by $`dt=a^2bc^4d\eta `$, and we have also defined $`\alpha =\mathrm{log}a`$, $`\beta =\mathrm{log}b`$, $`\gamma =\mathrm{log}c`$.

We find that the potential $`V`$ can be derived from a superpotential $`W`$. Writing $`T=\frac{1}{2}g_{ij}(d\alpha ^i/d\eta )(d\alpha ^j/d\eta )`$, where $`\alpha ^i=(\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma )`$, we have $`V=\frac{1}{2}g^{ij}(W/\alpha ^i)(W/\alpha ^j)`$, where

$$W=bc^2(4a^3+2a^2b+4ac^2bc^2).$$
(16)
From this we can obtain the first-order equations $`d\alpha ^i/d\eta =g^{ij}W/\alpha ^j`$. Expressed back in terms of the original radial variable $`t`$ introduced in (10), these equations are

$$\dot{a}=1\frac{b}{2a}\frac{a^2}{c^2},\dot{b}=\frac{b^2}{2a^2}\frac{b^2}{c^2},\dot{c}=\frac{a}{c}+\frac{b}{2c},$$
(17)
where a dot denotes a derivative with respect to $`t`$.

Before proceeding to find new solutions to these first-order equations, we can first easily verify that the previous Spin(7) metric (1) is indeed a solution. Also, we may observe that one of the seven-dimensional metrics of $`G_2`$ holonomy has principal orbits that are $`^3`$, written as an $`S^2`$ bundle over $`S^4`$, and is given by

$$ds_7^2=(1\frac{\mathrm{}^4}{r^4})^1dr^2+\frac{1}{4}r^2(1\frac{\mathrm{}^4}{r^4})(D\mu ^i)^2+\frac{1}{2}r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_4^2.$$
(18)
This is a solution of the seven-dimensional equations (13) with $`B_{\left(1\right)}=0`$ and $`\varphi =0`$, and therefore gives a solution in $`D=8`$ of the form $`d\widehat{s}_8^2=ds_7^2+d\phi ^2`$. This can be described within the framework of our first-order equations (17) by first rescaling $`b\lambda b`$, and then sending $`\lambda `$ to zero, so that the gauge potential $`B_{\left(1\right)}`$ disappears and $`b=`$constant is allowed as a solution.222In appendix A we show how this $`_7\times S^1`$ metric arises as a limit of a general class of Spin(7) manifolds.

One can also see the specialisations to the previous results described above at the level of the first-order equations themselves. Setting $`a=b`$ gives a consistent truncation of (17), yielding $`\dot{a}=\frac{1}{2}a^2c^2`$, $`\dot{c}=\frac{3}{2}ac^1`$, which are indeed the first-order equations for the original Spin(7) metrics. On the other hand, sending $`b0`$ in (17) yields a consistent truncation to $`\dot{a}=1a^2c^2`$, $`\dot{c}=ac^1`$, which are the first-order equations for the metrics of $`G_2`$ holonomy whose principal orbits are $`S^2`$ bundles over $`S^4`$. (The first-order equations for these two cases can be found, for example, in .)

Another specialisation of the metric ansatz (10) that makes contact with previous results is to set $`a=c`$, in which case the $`S^2`$ bundle over $`S^4`$ becomes precisely the usual $`^3`$ Einstein manifold, with its $`SU(4)`$-invariant metric. This is incompatible with the first-order equations (17), but it is easily verified that it is consistent with the second-order Einstein equations following from (15). Solutions to these second-order equations then include the 8-dimensional Taub-NUT and Taub-BOLT metrics. The incompatibility with the first-order equations is understandable, since the Taub-NUT and Taub-BOLT 8-metrics do not have special holonomy. Another previously-seen solution of the second-order equations with $`a=c`$ is the Ricci-flat Kähler metric on the complex line-bundle over $`^3`$. Although this can arise from a first-order system, it is an inequivalent one that is not related to a specialisation of (17). Its superpotential is $`W=2a^6+6a^4b^2`$ , with $`T`$, $`V`$ and $`g_{ij}`$ following from setting $`a=c`$ in (15). (Other examples of this kind of phenomenon were exhibited recently in .)

## 3 Solving the Ricci-flat equations

In order to obtain new solutions of the first-order equations (17) we first introduce a new radial coordinate $`r`$, defined in terms of $`t`$ by $`dr=bdt`$. After also defining $`fc^2`$, we find by taking further derivatives of the first-order equations (17) that $`f`$ must satisfy the third-order equation

$$2f^2f^{\prime \prime \prime }+2f(f^{}3)f^{\prime \prime }(f^{}+1)(f^{}1)(f^{}3)=0.$$
(19)
The remaining metric functions are then given by solving

$$a^{}=\frac{f^{}2}{2a}\frac{(f^{}1)a}{2f},b^2=\frac{4a^2}{(f^{}1)^2}.$$
(20)
Naively there now appear to be four constants of integration in total rather than the expected three, but the extra one is eliminated by substituting the solutions back into (17).

We have found two simple independent non-trivial solutions333The general solution is constructed in appendix A. It gives further inequivalent regular metrics, complete on manifolds $`𝔹_8^\pm `$. These solutions are more complicated, but still fully explicit (up to quadratures). to (19), which can be reduced to $`f=3r`$ and $`f=r+r^2/(2\mathrm{}^2)`$. The solution with $`f=3r`$ implies $`a^2=b^2=\frac{3}{5}r+kr^{2/3}`$, and after performing the coordinate transformation $`r3r^2/20`$ this gives precisely the previously-known Spin(7) solution (1), with $`\mathrm{}=k^{3/10}(20/3)^{1/5}`$.

Our new simple solutions of Spin(7) holonomy arise from the second solution, $`f=r+r^2/(2\mathrm{}^2)`$. After making the coordinate transformation $`r\mathrm{}(r+\mathrm{})`$, this solution leads to the metric

$$ds_8^2=\frac{(r+\mathrm{})^2dr^2}{(r+3\mathrm{})(r\mathrm{})}+\frac{\mathrm{}^2(r+3\mathrm{})(r\mathrm{})}{(r+\mathrm{})^2}\sigma ^2+\frac{1}{4}(r+3\mathrm{})(r\mathrm{})(D\mu ^i)^2+\frac{1}{2}(r^2\mathrm{}^2)d\mathrm{\Omega }_4^2,$$
(21)
Assuming that the constant $`\mathrm{}`$ is positive, it is evident that $`r`$ should lie in the range $`r\mathrm{}`$. We can analyse the behaviour near $`r=\mathrm{}`$ by defining a new radial coordinate $`\rho `$, where $`\rho ^2=4\mathrm{}(r\mathrm{})`$. Near $`\rho =0`$ the metric approaches

$$ds_8^2d\rho ^2+\frac{1}{4}\rho ^2\left[\sigma ^2+(D\mu ^i)^2+d\mathrm{\Omega }_4^2\right].$$
(22)
The quantity $`\frac{1}{4}(\sigma ^2+(D\mu ^i)^2+d\mathrm{\Omega }_4^2)`$ is precisely the metric on the unit 7-sphere, and so we see that near $`r=\mathrm{}`$ the metric $`ds_8^2`$ smoothly approaches flat $`^8`$. At large $`r`$ the function $`b`$, which is the radius in the $`U(1)`$ direction $`\sigma `$, approaches a constant, and so the metric approaches an $`S^1`$ bundle over a 7-metric. This 7-metric is of the form of a cone over $`^3`$ (described as the $`S^2`$ bundle over $`S^4`$) in this asymptotic region. The manifold of this new Spin(7) metric, which we are denoting by $`𝔸_8`$, is topologically $`^8`$.

We shall use the acronym AC to denote asymptotically conical manifolds. Thus asymptotically our new metrics behave like a circle bundle over an AC manifold in which the length of the $`U(1)`$ fibres tends to a constant. The acronym ALF is already in use to describe metrics which tend to a $`U(1)`$ bundle over an asymptotically Euclidean or asymptotically locally Euclidean metric with the length of the fibres tending to a constant. We shall therefore adopt the acronym ALC to denote manifolds where the base space of the circle bundle is asymptotically conical.

Ricci-flat ALC metrics, although not with special holonomy, have already been encountered. For example, the higher-dimensional Taub-NUT metric is defined on $`^{2n}`$ for all $`n`$ and it is ALC with the base of the cone being $`^{n1}`$. A closely related example is the Taub-BOLT metric which has the same asymptotics but is defined on a line bundle over $`^{n1}`$. However, as we shall see later, the metric on the base of the cone differs in this case (with $`n=4`$) from that in our new metrics. An discussion of ALE Spin(7) manifolds based on the idea of blowing up orbifolds has been given in . As far as we are aware, no explicit examples of this kind have yet been found.

We get a different complete manifold, which we are denoting by $`𝔹_8`$, if we take $`r`$ to be negative. It is easier to discuss this by instead setting $`\mathrm{}=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}`$, where $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`r`$ are taken to be positive. Thus instead of (21) we now have

$$ds_8^2=\frac{(r\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}})^2dr^2}{(r3\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}})(r+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}})}+\frac{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}^2(r3\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}})(r+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}})}{(r\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}})^2}\sigma ^2+\frac{1}{4}(r3\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}})(r+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}})(D\mu ^i)^2+\frac{1}{2}(r^2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}^2)d\mathrm{\Omega }_4^2,$$
(23)
This time, we have $`r3\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}`$. Defining $`\rho ^2=4\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}(r3\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}})`$, we find that near $`r=3\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}`$ the metric has the form

$$ds_8^2d\rho ^2+\frac{1}{4}\rho ^2[\sigma ^2+(D\mu ^i)^2]+4\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_4^2.$$
(24)
The quantity $`\frac{1}{4}[\sigma ^2+(D\mu ^i)^2]`$ is the metric on the unit 3-sphere, and so in this case we find that the metric smoothly approaches $`^4\times S^4`$ locally, at small distance. The large-distance behaviour is the same as for the previous case (21).

Again we have a complete non-compact ALC metric with Spin(7) holonomy with the same base. At short distance, it has the same structure as the previously-known metric of Spin(7) holonomy, obtained in . Thus globally the manifold $`𝔹_8`$ is the bundle of chiral spinors over $`S^4`$.

We can think of the new manifold $`𝔸_8`$ as providing a smooth intepolation between Euclidean 8-space at short distance, and $`_7\times S^1`$ at large distance, while $`𝔹_8`$ provides an interpolation between the previous Spin(7) manifold of  at short distance and $`_7\times S^1`$ at large distance. Here $`_7`$ denotes the 7-manifold of $`G_2`$ holonomy that is the $`^3`$ bundle over $`S^4`$ .

In appendix A we construct the general solution of the first-order equations (17). From this, we find additional classes of regular metrics of Spin(7), which are complete on manifolds $`𝔹_8^\pm `$ that are similar to $`𝔹_8`$. These additional metrics have a non-trivial integration constant $`k`$ that parameterises inequivalent solutions.

It is worth remarking that we would obtain identical equations to solve if we were to replace the $`S^4`$ metric $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_4^2`$ in (10) by the Fubini-Study metric on $`^2`$, scaled so that it has the same cosmological constant as the unit 4-sphere. (In fact the first-order equations in this case are contained within those obtained in .) The Yang-Mills connection $`A_{\left(1\right)}^i`$ would now be the right-handed projection of the spin connection on $`^2`$. However, the analogue of the $`𝔸_8`$ manifold would now have power-law singularities in the Riemann tensor at $`r=\mathrm{}`$, since the principal orbits that collapse to a point would be $`SU(3)/U(1)`$ instead of $`S^7`$. The analogue of the $`𝔹_8`$ manifold would not have power-law curvature singularities at $`r=3\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}`$, but it would have an orbifold singularity there, approaching $`(^4/_2)\times ^2`$ locally. The reason for this is that the Yang-Mills connection on $`^2`$ is in $`SO(3)`$ rather than $`SU(2)`$, and so the collapsing 3-surfaces at $`r=3\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}`$ will be $`^3`$ rather than $`S^3`$.

## 4 Proof of Spin(7) holonomy

Our procedure for solving the condition of Ricci-flatness for the eight-dimensional metric ansatz (10) involved establishing that there exists a superpotential for the potential in the Lagrangian formulation of the Einstein equations, and hence obtaining the first-order equations (17). The fact that such a first-order system exists provides a strong indication that there is an underlying special holonomy, since such systems of equations typically arise from the conditions for the covariant constancy of a spinor. However, it is still necessary to make a more thorough investigation in order to establish definitively that our new solutions have Spin(7) holonomy.

A convenient way to study this question is by again making use of the Kaluza-Klein reduction (11), so that the equation $`\widehat{D}\eta =0`$ for a covariantly-constant spinor in $`D=8`$ can be reformulated in $`D=7`$. (Here $`\widehat{D}d+\frac{1}{4}\widehat{\omega }_{AB}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{AB}`$ is the Lorentz-covariant exterior derivative that acts on spinors in eight dimensions, where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{AB}\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_A\mathrm{\Gamma }_B\mathrm{\Gamma }_B\mathrm{\Gamma }_A)`$, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_A`$ are the Dirac matrices that generate the Clifford algebra in eight dimensions.) The advantage of doing this is that we can then make use of results derived in  for the spin connection for 7-metrics of the type given in (14). Specifically, we find that under Kaluza-Klein reduction we have

$`\widehat{D}`$ $`=`$ $`D+\frac{1}{4\sqrt{15}}_a\varphi \mathrm{\Gamma }_{ab}e^b\frac{1}{8}_{ab}e^{2\sqrt{\frac{3}{5}}\varphi }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ab}(d\phi +𝒜_{\left(1\right)})`$ (25)
$`\frac{1}{4}\sqrt{\frac{5}{3}}e^{\sqrt{\frac{3}{5}}\varphi }_a\varphi \mathrm{\Gamma }_{a8}(d\phi +𝒜_{\left(1\right)})\frac{1}{4}e^{2\sqrt{\frac{3}{5}}\varphi }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{a8}e^b,`$
where $`Dd+\frac{1}{4}\omega _{ab}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ab}`$ is the Lorentz-covariant exterior derivative that acts on spinors in seven dimensions, and $`\omega _{ab}`$ can be read off from .

Using the results in  for the spin connection for 7-metrics of the form appearing in (14), we eventually find that if and only if the metric functions $`a`$, $`b`$ and $`c`$ satisfy the the first-order equations (17), then the eight-dimensional equation $`\widehat{D}\eta =0`$ has exactly one solution. The solution for the covariantly-constant spinor $`\eta `$ can be written as

$$\eta =e^{\frac{1}{2}\theta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{71}}e^{\frac{1}{2}\psi \mathrm{\Gamma }_{12}}\eta _0,$$
(26)
where $`\eta _0`$ is independent of $`(r,\theta ,\psi ,\phi )`$, and satisfies projection conditions that are all implied by

$$(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{78})\eta _0=0,(F_{\alpha \beta }^3\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta }+4\mathrm{\Gamma }_{78})\eta _0=0,(F_{\alpha \beta }^1\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta }+4\mathrm{\Gamma }_{71})\eta _0=0.$$
(27)
Here the tangent-space indices 1 and 2 lie in the $`S^2`$ directions, $`(\alpha ,\beta )`$ lie in the $`S^4`$ directions, 7 is in the radial direction, and 8 is in the $`U(1)`$ fibre direction. In our conventions, the Yang-Mills instanton fields $`F_{\left(2\right)}^i`$ on $`S^4`$ are given by

$$F_{\left(2\right)}^1=(e^4e^5+e^3e^6),F_{\left(2\right)}^2=(e^5e^3+e^4e^6),F_{\left(2\right)}^3=(e^3e^4+e^5e^6),$$
(28)
where $`e^\alpha =(e^3,e^4,e^5,e^6)`$ is the basis of tangent-space 1-forms on the unit $`S^4`$. The spinor $`\eta _0`$ satisfies the equations for the zero-mode of the Dirac equation on $`S^4`$ in the Yang-Mills instanton background.

With these results, we have established that the first-order equations (17) are indeed the integrability conditions for the existence of a single covariantly-constant spinor in the 8-metric (10). This establishes that for any solution of (17), we obtain an 8-metric (10) that has Spin(7) holonomy. The existence of the covariantly-constant spinor $`\eta `$ immediately implies the existence of a covariantly-constant self-dual 4-form $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, with components given by $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{ABCD}=\overline{\eta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ABCD}\eta `$. The covariant constancy of $`\eta `$ implies that $`\overline{\eta }\eta `$ is constant, and so we may choose a normalisation so that $`\overline{\eta }\eta =1`$. We then find that the 4-form is given by

$`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{e}^1\widehat{e}^2\widehat{e}^7\widehat{e}^8\widehat{e}^3\widehat{e}^4\widehat{e}^5\widehat{e}^6+(\widehat{e}^1\widehat{e}^2+\widehat{e}^7\widehat{e}^8)\widehat{Y}_{\left(2\right)}`$ (29)
$`+(\widehat{e}^1\widehat{e}^8+\widehat{e}^2\widehat{e}^7){\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{Y}_{\left(2\right)}}{\theta }}(\widehat{e}^1\widehat{e}^7\widehat{e}^2\widehat{e}^8){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}\theta }}{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{Y}_{\left(2\right)}}{\psi }},`$
where $`\widehat{Y}_{\left(2\right)}c^2Y_{\left(2\right)}`$ and $`Y_{\left(2\right)}\mu ^iF_{\left(2\right)}^i`$, and so

$$\widehat{Y}_{\left(2\right)}=\frac{1}{2}[\mathrm{sin}\theta (\mathrm{cos}\psi F_{\alpha \beta }^1+\mathrm{sin}\psi F_{\alpha \beta }^2)+\mathrm{cos}\theta F_{\alpha \beta }^3]\widehat{e}^\alpha \widehat{e}^\beta ,$$
(30)
where as usual $`\widehat{e}^\alpha =ce^\alpha `$.

The covariantly-constant self-dual 4-form $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, known as the Cayley form, provides a calibration of the Spin(7) manifold. Thus we have

$$|\mathrm{\Phi }(X_1,X_2,X_3,X_4)|1,$$
(31)
where $`(X_1,X_2,X_3,X_4)`$ denotes any quadruple of orthonormal vectors. This can be seen from (29), or else from the expression $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{ABCD}=\overline{\eta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ABCD}\eta `$. A calibrated submanifold, or Cayley submanifold, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, is one where for each point of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$

$$|\mathrm{\Phi }(X_1,X_2,X_3,X_4)|=1,$$
(32)
where the orthonormal vectors $`X_i`$ are everywhere tangent to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. By inspecting (29) we therefore see that the $`S^4`$ zero section of the bundle of chiral spinors is a Cayley submanifold, and hence it is volume minimising in its homology class. Physically, a Cayley submanifold corresponds to a supersymmetric cycle .

## 5 $`L^2`$-normalisable harmonic 4-forms

In this section, we obtain $`L^2`$ normalisable harmonic 4-forms for each of the new Spin(7) 8-manifolds $`𝔸_8`$ and $`𝔹_8`$. Specifically, we obtain one such 4-form, which is anti-self-dual, for the manifold $`𝔸_8`$ that is topologically $`^8`$, and two such 4-forms, one of each duality, for the manifold $`𝔹_8`$ of the chiral spin bundle over $`S^4`$.

We start from the following ansatz for the harmonic 4-forms,

$`G_{\left(4\right)}`$ $`=`$ $`u_1(ha^2bdr\sigma X_{\left(2\right)}\pm c^4\mathrm{\Omega }_{\left(4\right)})+u_2(hbc^2dr\sigma Y_{\left(2\right)}\pm a^2c^2X_{\left(2\right)}Y_{\left(2\right)})`$ (33)
$`+u_3(hac^2drY_{\left(3\right)}bac^2\sigma X_{\left(3\right)}),`$
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\left(4\right)}`$ is the volume form of the unit $`S^4`$, and

$`X_{\left(2\right)}\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{ijk}\mu ^iD\mu ^jD\mu ^k,X_{\left(3\right)}D\mu ^iF_{\left(2\right)}^i,`$
$`Y_{\left(2\right)}\mu ^iF_{\left(2\right)}^i,Y_{\left(3\right)}ϵ_{ijk}\mu ^iD\mu ^jF_{\left(2\right)}^k.`$ (34)
The upper and lower sign choices in (33) correspond to self-dual and anti-self-dual 4-forms respectively. The various 2-forms and 3-forms defined in (34) satisfy

$$d\sigma =X_{\left(2\right)}Y_{\left(2\right)},dX_{\left(2\right)}=X_{\left(3\right)}=dY_{\left(2\right)},dY_{\left(3\right)}=2X_{\left(2\right)}Y_{\left(2\right)}+4\mathrm{\Omega }_{\left(4\right)}.$$
(35)
Note that in (33) we have introduced a radial coordinate $`r`$ that is related to $`t`$ by $`dt=hdr`$.

$`G_{\left(4\right)}`$ will be harmonic if $`dG_{\left(4\right)}=0`$. This implies that

$`(c^4u_1)^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\pm 2(hbc^2u_2+2hac^2u_3),`$
$`(a^2c^2u_2)^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\pm (ha^2bu_1+hbc^2u_2+2hac^2u_3),`$ (36)
$`(abc^2u_3)^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\pm (ha^2bu_1+hbc^2u_2).`$
The $`\pm `$ signs correspond to self-dual and anti-self-dual respectively, and a prime denotes a derivative with respect to $`r`$. In the remainder of this section, we shall for convenience set the scaler parameters $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}`$ in the metrics (21) and (23) to unity.444Care must be exercised when taking the square roots of $`a^2`$, $`b^2`$ and $`c^2`$ in the metrics (21) and (23), if one wants the functions $`a`$, $`b`$ and $`c`$ to solve precisely the first-order equations (17), since these equations are sensitive to the signs of $`a`$, $`b`$ and $`c`$. (Of course there are equivalent first-order equations that differ by precisely these sign factors, and which also imply solutions of the Einstein equations.) We are assuming here that the signs are chosen so that precisely (17) are satisfied. This can be achieved by taking all square roots to be positive, except for $`b`$ in the case of (21) on $`𝔸_8`$.

For the metric (21) on the manifold $`𝔸_8`$ that is topologically $`^8`$, we find that there is a normalisable harmonic 4-form that is anti-self-dual, i.e., the lower choice of the sign is used in (33) and (36). The solution is given by

$$u_1=\frac{2}{(r+1)^3(r+3)},u_2=\frac{r^2+10r+13}{(r+1)^3(r+3)^3},u_3=\frac{2}{(r+1)^2(r+3)^3}.$$
(37)
The norm of the harmonic anti-self-dual 4-form is then given by

$`|G_{\left(4\right)}|^2`$ $`=`$ $`48(u_1^2+2u_2^2+4u_3^2)`$ (38)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{96(3r^4+44r^3+242r^2+492r+339)}{(r+1)^6(r+3)^6}}.`$
Clearly $`G_{\left(4\right)}`$ is $`L^2`$-normalisable, and in fact we have $`_1^{\mathrm{}}\sqrt{g}|G_{\left(4\right)}|^2𝑑r=9/4`$. We have chosen the integration constants from (36) appropriately in order to select the solution in $`L^2`$. (There also exists a solution for a self-dual harmonic 4-form. It can be made square integrable at small distance, but there is no choice of integration constants for which it is $`L^2`$ normalisable, owing to its large distance behaviour.)

For the metric (23) on $`𝔹_8`$, the bundle of chiral spinors over $`S^4`$, we find that there exists a normalisable harmonic 4-form that is anti-self-dual, i.e., the lower choice of sign is used in (33) and (36). The solution is given by

$`u_1={\displaystyle \frac{2(r^4+8r^3+34r^248r+21)}{(r1)^3(r+1)^5}}u_2={\displaystyle \frac{r^4+4r^318r^2+52r23}{(r1)^3(r+1)^5}},`$
$`u_3={\displaystyle \frac{2(r^2+14r11)}{(r1)^2(r+1)^5}}.`$ (39)
The square of the anti-self-dual 4-form is given by

$$|G_{\left(4\right)}|^2=\frac{96(3r^8+40r^7+252r^6+1064r^5+2506r^412936r^3+18284r^210824r+2379)}{(r1)^6(r+1)^{10}},$$
(40)
and its $`L^2`$-normalisability can be seen by noting that $`_3^{\mathrm{}}\sqrt{g}|G_{\left(4\right)}|^2𝑑r=189/16`$.

Both of the above harmonic anti-self-dual 4-forms (37) and (39) on $`𝔸_8`$ and $`𝔹_8`$ satisfy the linear relation

$$u_1+2u_24u_3=0.$$
(41)
This observation will prove useful later, for showing the supersymmetry of resolved brane solutions.

We also find a second $`L^2`$-normalisable harmonic 4-form in the new Spin(7) manifold $`𝔹_8`$. This 4-form is self-dual, and is given by

$`u_1={\displaystyle \frac{2(5r^39r^2+15r3)}{(r1)^3(r+1)^4}},`$
$`u_2={\displaystyle \frac{(r3)(5r^22r+1)}{(r1)^3(r+1)^4}},u_3={\displaystyle \frac{2(r3)}{(r1)^2(r+1)^4}}.`$ (42)
In contrast to the previous harmonic 4-forms, there is no linear relation between the functions $`u_1`$, $`u_2`$ and $`u_3`$ here. The magnitude of $`G_{\left(4\right)}`$ is given by

$$|G_{\left(4\right)}|^2=\frac{96(75r^6350r^5+829r^4932r^3+885r^2414r+99)}{(r1)^6(r+1)^8}.$$
(43)
It integrates to give $`_3^{\mathrm{}}\sqrt{g}|G_{\left(4\right)}|^2𝑑r=189/4`$.

It is interesting to note that for the anti-self-dual harmonic 4-form on $`𝔸_8`$, given by (37), we can write it in terms of a globally-defined potential, $`G_{\left(4\right)}=dB_{\left(3\right)}`$. Specifically, we find that $`B_{\left(3\right)}`$ can be written as

$$B_{\left(3\right)}=(r1)^2\left[\frac{1}{8(r+1)^2}\sigma X_{\left(2\right)}+\frac{(r+5)}{8(r+1)(r+3)^2}\sigma Y_{\left(2\right)}\frac{1}{16(r+3)^2}Y_{\left(3\right)}\right].$$
(44)
One can see from (21) that this has a vanishing magnitude $`|B_{\left(3\right)}|^2`$ at $`r=1`$. On the other hand the analogous expressions for the potential $`B_{\left(3\right)}`$ for the two harmonic 4-forms (39) and (42), which are similarly expressible as functions of $`r`$ times the three 3-form structures in (44), turn out to have a diverging magnitude at $`r=3`$. In all three cases the $`r`$-dependent prefactors tend to constants at infinity.

## 6 Comparison with Taub-NUT and Taub-BOLT metrics

As mentioned above, the new 8-metrics of Spin(7) holonomy that we have obtained in this paper have an asymptotic large-distance behaviour that is similar to the one seen in the 8-dimensional Taub-NUT and Taub-BOLT metrics. Unlike those metrics, however, ours admit a covariantly-constant spinor, and so they have special holonomy Spin(7).

It is worthwhile looking at the comparison with the Taub-NUT and Taub-BOLT 8-metrics in a little more detail. The 8-dimensional Taub-NUT metric can be written as (see, for example, )

$$ds_8^2=\frac{5(r+\mathrm{})^3}{8(r\mathrm{})(r^2+4\mathrm{}r+5\mathrm{}^2)}dr^2+\frac{8(r\mathrm{})(r^2+4\mathrm{}r+5\mathrm{}^2)}{5(r+\mathrm{})^3}\sigma ^2+(r^2\mathrm{}^2)d\mathrm{\Sigma }_3^2,$$
(45)
where $`d\mathrm{\Sigma }_3^2`$ is the Fubini-Study metric on the “unit” $`^3`$, and $`\sigma =d\phi +A_{\left(1\right)}`$, where $`dA_{\left(1\right)}=2J`$ and $`J`$ is the Kähler form on $`^3`$. The Taub-BOLT metric can be written as

$$ds_8^2=\frac{dr^2}{F(r)}+F(r)\sigma ^2+(r^2\mathrm{}^2)d\mathrm{\Sigma }_3^2,$$
(46)
where

$$F=\frac{8(r^65\mathrm{}^2r^4+15\mathrm{}^4r^210mr+5\mathrm{}^6)}{5(r^2\mathrm{}^2)^3},$$
(47)
and we choose the integration constant $`m=\frac{8}{5}\mathrm{}^5`$. This choice means that $`F`$ vanishes at $`r=4\mathrm{}`$, which is a smooth 6-dimensional fixed point set (geometrically a $`^3`$) of the $`U(1)`$ action.

The general Taub-BOLT and Taub-NUT metrics are thus constructed as metrics of cohomogeneity one with principal orbits that are $`^3`$ with its standard $`SU(4)`$-invariant Fubini-Study metric. By contrast, although our new metrics are again of cohomogeneity one with $`^3`$ principal orbits, the metric on $`^3`$ is “squashed,” and is constructed as an $`S^2`$ bundle over $`S^4`$, with isometry group $`SO(3)\times SO(5)`$. At large distance our new solutions are ALC, i.e. of the form of an $`S^1`$ bundle over the cone with base the “squashed” Einstein metric on $`^3`$. By contrast, the $`D=8`$ Taub-NUT and Taub-BOLT metrics are asymptotically cylindrical, having the form of an $`S^1`$ bundle over the cone with base the “round” Fubini-Study metric on $`^3`$.

At short distance, our solution approaches either $`^8`$ or $`^4\times S^4`$ locally, depending on whether the parameter $`\mathrm{}`$ in (21) is taken to be positive or negative. The manifold $`𝔸_8`$ that approaches $`^8`$ is very similar in its short-distance behaviour to the 8-dimensional Taub-NUT metric, and indeed both metrics are defined on $`^8`$. On the other hand, the 8-dimensional Taub-BOLT locally approaches $`^2\times ^3`$ at short distance. Thus while our solution on $`𝔹_8`$, given in (23), which approaches $`^4\times S^4`$ locally at short distance, could be thought of as somewhat analogous to $`D=8`$ Taub-BOLT, it is of a quite different structure. In four dimensions the terms NUT and BOLT were originally defined  as zero-dimensional and two-dimensional fixed point sets of a $`U(1)`$ action. They are not infrequently extended to cover the more general case of the degenerate orbits of a higher-dimensional isometry group $`G`$, say. These are the orbits which are smaller in dimension than the generic or principal orbits. However a subtlety now arises because (even in four dimensions) such degenerate orbits may or may not be the fixed point sets of a $`U(1)`$ subgroup of the isometry group $`G`$. In the present cases the degenerate orbit is also the fixed point set of a circle action, and so the original and the extended meaning both apply. In all the cases we consider, the circle action is generated by the Killing field $`\frac{}{\phi }`$, and since its length squared is $`g(\frac{}{\phi },\frac{}{\phi })=b^2=F`$, it has a fixed point set when $`b`$ or $`F`$ vanishes.

A further point of interest concerns the feature of our new Spin(7) metric obtained in section 3 that it can be defined on two inequivalent regular non-compact manifolds, depending on whether $`r`$ is positive or negative. (We equivalently presented the choice in terms of an $`r`$ that is always positive, but with opposite signs for the scale parameter $`\mathrm{}`$.) In fact although this feature is somewhat unusual, it does also occur in at least one other previously-known metric. Specifically, the 6-dimensional Taub-NUT metric can be written as

$$ds_6^2=\frac{(r+\mathrm{})^2}{2(r\mathrm{})(r+3\mathrm{})}dr^2+\frac{2(r\mathrm{})(r+3\mathrm{})}{(r+\mathrm{})^2}\sigma ^2+(r^2\mathrm{}^2)d\mathrm{\Sigma }_2^2,$$
(48)
where $`d\mathrm{\Sigma }_2^2`$ is the Fubini-Study metric on the unit $`CP^2`$, and $`\sigma =d\phi +A`$ with $`dA=2J`$ (see, for example, ). If one takes $`\mathrm{}`$ to be positive, then this metric is defined for $`r\mathrm{}`$, and near $`r=\mathrm{}`$ it approaches $`^6`$. This can be seen by letting $`\rho ^2=2\mathrm{}(r\mathrm{})`$, so that near $`\rho =0`$ we have $`ds_6^2d\rho ^2+\rho ^2(\sigma ^2+d\mathrm{\Sigma }_2^2)`$, and $`\sigma ^2+d\mathrm{\Sigma }_2^2`$ can be recognised as the metric on the unit $`S^5`$ described as a $`U(1)`$ bundle over $`^2`$, provided that $`\phi `$ has period $`4\pi `$.

If, on the other hand, we set $`\mathrm{}=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}`$, so that the metric becomes

$$ds_6^2=\frac{(r\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}})^2}{2(r+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}})(r3\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}})}dr^2+\frac{2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}^2(r+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}})(r3\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}})}{(r\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}})^2}\sigma ^2+(r^2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}^2)d\mathrm{\Sigma }_2^2,$$
(49)
then we now have $`r3\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}`$. Near to $`r=3\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}`$ we can introduce a new radial coordinate such that $`\rho ^2=2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}(r3\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}})`$, and so the metric approaches

$$d\widehat{s}_6^2d\rho ^2+\rho ^2\sigma ^2+8\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}^2d\mathrm{\Sigma }_2^2.$$
(50)
Regularity at $`\rho =0`$ requires that the coordinate $`\phi `$ should have period $`\mathrm{\Delta }\phi =2\pi `$. The period that would be needed for the $`U(1)`$ bundle over $`CP^2`$ to be $`S^5`$ is $`\mathrm{\Delta }\phi =4\pi `$. Therefore the level surfaces of the principal orbits are $`S^5/_2`$. The metric smoothly approaches $`^2\times ^2`$ locally at short distance, and has the usual cylindrical Taub-NUT form at large $`r`$. Somewhat surprisingly, we find that this is in fact precisely the $`D=6`$ Taub-BOLT solution. Thus we have the remarkable result that in $`D=6`$ the Taub-BOLT metric is nothing but the Taub-NUT metric, seen from the other side of $`r=0`$.

This feature of the 6-dimensional Taub-NUT solution, of admitting a different global interpretation for the opposite sign of $`r`$ or the scale parameter $`\mathrm{}`$, does not appear to extend to the Taub-NUT metrics in $`D8`$. For example, in (45) there is no additional real root of the radial function multiplying $`\sigma ^2`$, analogous to the $`(r+3\mathrm{})`$ factor in (48). Although a Taub-BOLT solution exists in $`D=8`$, it is given by the quite different metric (46). In $`D=10`$ there does exist another real root, but it corresponds to an un-removable conical singularity since it would require that the fibre coordinate $`\phi `$ have an irrational period. As with all the higher-dimensional cases there does also exist a Taub-BOLT solution, but it has a quite different form. It seems likely that the feature of a Taub-NUT metric having a second regular manifold corresponding to the negative-$`r`$ region is peculiar to the six-dimensional case, and it happens neither in $`D=4`$ nor in $`D8`$. Only for $`D=6`$ is Taub-NUT its own Taub-BOLT.

## 7 Applications in M-theory and string theory

The new Spin(7) manifolds have a variety of applications in M-theory and string theory. For the present purposes, these can be discussed as the level of the classical low-energy effective supergravity field theories. The bosonic Lagrangian for the $`D=11`$ supergravity limit of M-theory is

$$_{11}=R\text{1}\mathrm{l}\frac{1}{2}F_{\left(4\right)}F_{\left(4\right)}+\frac{1}{6}F_{\left(4\right)}F_{\left(4\right)}A_{\left(3\right)},$$
(51)
where $`F_{\left(4\right)}=dA_{\left(3\right)}`$. The low-energy limit for type IIA string theory follows by performing a Kaluza-Klein dimensional reduction of (51) on a circle.

### 7.1 D6-branes as Spin(7) manifolds

The new Spin(7) manifolds $`𝔸_8`$, $`𝔹_8`$ and $`𝔹_8^\pm `$ provide new supersymmetric vacua in $`D=11`$ M-theory, simply by taking the direct product with a three-dimensional Minkowski spacetime $`M_3`$, and setting $`F_{\left(4\right)}=0`$. We can then dimensionally reduce the solution on the $`\phi `$ fibre coordinate, using the $`1110`$ analogue of (11), to give a wrapped D6-brane in type IIA string theory:

$`ds_{\mathrm{str}}^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{b}{N}}\left(dt^2+dx_1^2+dx_2^2+c^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_4^2+h^2dr^2+a^2D\mu ^iD\mu ^i\right),`$
$`e^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{4}{3}}\varphi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{b^2}{N^2}},_{\left(2\right)}=N\left(\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{ijk}\mu ^kD\mu ^iD\mu ^j\mu ^iF_{\left(2\right)}^i\right).`$ (52)
Here $`ds_{\mathrm{str}}^2`$ is the string-frame metric in $`D=10`$, related to the Einstein-frame metric $`ds_{10}^2`$ by $`ds_{\mathrm{str}}^2=e^{\frac{1}{2}\varphi }ds_{10}^2`$. The string coupling constant is given by $`g=e^{\varphi _0}`$, where $`\varphi _0`$ is the asymptotic value of $`\varphi `$ at large distance; $`g=(\mathrm{}/N)^{3/2}`$. We have introduced an integer $`N`$ which is the number of D6-branes. This corresponds to the $`D=11`$ solution with the $`\phi `$ fibre coordinate having a period of $`4\pi /N`$. (There will be an orbifold singularity at the origin if $`N1`$.) The solution can be viewed as D6-branes wrapped around the 4-sphere. At small distance, the wrapping 4-sphere either collapses or stablises to a fixed radius, depending on which of our two manifolds is used. Using the $`𝔸_8`$ manifold we have an interpolation from $`M_{11}`$ at short distance to $`M_3\times S^1\times _\mathcal{7}`$ at large distance, while for $`𝔹_8`$ or $`𝔹_8^\pm `$ the interpolation is from $`M_3\times _8`$ at short distance to $`M_3\times S^1\times _7`$ at large distance. Here $`M_n`$ denotes $`n`$-dimensional Minkowski spaectime, $`_7`$ is the manifold of $`G_2`$ holonomy on the $`^3`$ bundle overe $`S^4`$, and $`_8`$ is the previously-known manifold of Spin(7) holonomy on the $`^4`$ bundle over $`S^4`$. The world volume at large distance becomes

$$M_3\times S^1,$$
(53)
with the string coupling constant being $`g_{\mathrm{str}}=R^{3/2}`$, where $`R`$ is the radius of $`S^1`$. Taking $`g_{\mathrm{str}}`$ large implies a decompactification of $`S^1`$, thus rendering the world-volume theory to be effectively a Poincaré invariant $`M_4`$. Therefore, this limit may provide an M-theory realisation of a four-dimensional field theory with a zero cosmological constant and infinite Bose-Fermi mass splitting , i.e. these properties are a consequence  of the underlying $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetry of the three-dimensional field theory on $`M_3`$. (Note however, that in the limit of large radius for the $`S^1`$, the size of the non-compact manifold $`_7`$ of $`G_2`$ holonomy also grows, and so the decoupling of the degrees of freedom associated with $`_7`$ from those on the effective $`M_4`$ has to be addressed. In fact for the more general Spin(7) metrics (85) obtained in appendix A, the presence of the additional non-trivial parameter $`k`$ allows us to find a limit (95) where the $`S^1`$ and the $`_7`$ do fully decouple. The manifold $`_7`$ can then be viewed as a blow-up of an orbifold point in a compact manifold of $`G_2`$ holonomy, while the $`S^1`$ effectively decompactifies.)

There are several differences between this wrapped D6-brane and the D6-brane that comes from the $`S^1`$ reduction of the manifold $`G_2`$ holonomy with $`S^3\times S^3`$ principal orbits, which was discussed in .555Some related ideas have also been discussed in . See also the talk by E. Witten at the Santa Barbara “David Fest,” and forthcoming work by Atiyah and Witten. Since in our case the radius of the $`U(1)`$ fibres becomes constant at infinity, the D6-brane solution asymptotically approaches a product of $`M_3`$ and the cone metric of the $`S^2`$ bundle over $`S^4`$. The value of the dilaton stabilises at large distance. This situation is analogous to the unwrapped D6-brane in the maximally-supersymmetric theory, where it lifts to $`D=11`$ to become a product of $`M_7`$ with a four-dimensional Taub-NUT. On the other hand the dilaton becomes singular at short distance, where the $`U(1)`$ fibres shrink to zero. The D6-brane in  has the opposite behaviour: the radius diverges at large distance but stabilises to a fixed value at small distance.

### 7.2 M2-branes

Another application of metrics with Spin(7) holonomy is in the construction of eleven-dimensional Lorentzian metrics that solve the equations of eleven-dimensional supergravity theory, with the 4-form $`F_{\left(4\right)}`$ in (51) non-zero. Metrics representing M2-branes are given locally by

$$ds^2=H^{\frac{2}{3}}(dt^2+dx_1^2+dx_2^2)+H^{\frac{1}{3}}ds_8^2,$$
(54)
where $`H`$ is a harmonic function on the 8-manifold with metric $`ds_8^2`$. Taking the metric $`ds_8^2`$ to be of holonomy Spin(7) guarantees that the eleven-dimensional solution (including the 4-form $`F_{\left(4\right)}=dtdx_1dx_2dH^1)`$ admits at least one Killing spinor. In the present case the simplest example to consider is when $`H`$ depends only on the radial variable $`r`$. For the case of $`𝔸_8`$, with metric (21), one then has

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`1+Q{\displaystyle _r^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{(x\mathrm{})^4(x+3\mathrm{})^2}}`$ (55)
$`=`$ $`1+{\displaystyle \frac{Q(3r^33\mathrm{}r^211\mathrm{}^2r+27\mathrm{}^3)}{192\mathrm{}^4(r\mathrm{})^3(r+3\mathrm{})}}+{\displaystyle \frac{Q}{256\mathrm{}^5}}\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{r\mathrm{}}{r+3\mathrm{}}}\right).`$
In the case that $`\mathrm{}`$ and the constant are both positive, $`H`$ and will be bounded and positive for $`r>\mathrm{}`$. Near $`r=\mathrm{}`$ we have

$$H(r\mathrm{})^3.$$
(56)
This corresponds to the horizon of the M2-brane, which becomes AdS$`\left(4\right)\times S^7`$. Thus we see that the M2-brane interpolates between M$`{}_{3}{}^{}\times `$ALC8 at infinity and AdS$`{}_{4}{}^{}\times S^7`$. This solution represents an $`𝒩=1`$ dual supersymmetric gauge theory in three dimensions that flows from the UV region (large distance) to the maximally supersymmetric conformal IR region (small distance).

It is convenient to write

$$H=\frac{G}{(r\mathrm{})^3},$$
(57)
where $`G`$ is a positive smooth function for $`r>a`$, and $`a`$ is a constant that is less than $`\mathrm{}`$. Substitution in (54) shows that the apparent singularity at $`r=\mathrm{}`$ is a coordinate singularity and represents a degenerate event horizon. Near $`r=\mathrm{}`$, the metric tends to the direct product AdS4 times $`^3`$, where AdS4 is four-dimensional anti-de-Sitter spacetime, i.e. $`SO(3,2)/SO(3,1)`$ with its standard Lorentzian metric. It is possible to extend the Lorentzian metric to $`r<\mathrm{}`$, but $`r=\mathrm{}`$ represents a spacetime singularity.

In the case that $`\mathrm{}=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}`$ is negative, the harmonic function blows up near $`r=3\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}`$, and this appears to represent a spacetime singularity. In particular it does not seem to be possible to construct a spactime in which one pass between the positive and negative $`r`$ regions along a smooth timelike (or indeed, as far as we can see, spacelike) curve. A similar analysis can be given for the more general manifolds $`𝔹_8^\pm `$ found in appendix A.

### 7.3 Resolved M2-branes

Since both the Spin(7) manifolds $`𝔸_8`$ and $`𝔹_8`$ admit $`L^2`$-normalisable harmonic 4-forms, we can construct resolved M2-branes, whose metrics take the identical form as the regular M2-brane (54), but with the 4-form $`F_{\left(4\right)}`$ having an additional contribution

$$F_{\left(4\right)}=dtdx_1dx_2dH^1+mG_{\left(4\right)}.$$
(58)
Instead of being harmonic, as in section 7.2, the function $`H`$ now satisfies

$$\text{    }\text{ }H=\frac{1}{48}m^2|G_{\left(4\right)}|^2$$
(59)
on the Ricci-flat 8-dimensional space.

For the manifold $`𝔸_8`$, we have one harmonic normalisable harmonic 4-form, and its magnitude is given in (38). It follows that

$`H=1+{\displaystyle \frac{m^2(3r^2+26r+63)}{20(r+1)^2(r+3)^5}}.`$ (60)
The solution is smooth everywhere; it interpolates between eleven-dimensional Minkowski spacetime at small distance and $`M_3\times S^1\times _7`$ at large distance. Here $`_7`$ is the 7-manifold of $`G_2`$ holonomy that is the $`^3`$ bundle over $`S^4`$.

For the manifold $`𝔹_8`$, we have two harmonic normalisable 4-forms, whose magnitudes are given by (40) and (43). It follows that the function $`H`$ is given by

$$H=1+\frac{m^2(1323r^6+9786r^5+32937r^4+64428r^3+52237r^2136934r+29983)}{1680(r+1)^9(r1)^2},$$
(61)
and

$$H=1+\frac{m^2(63r^480r^3+114r^2+63)}{20(r+1)^7(r1)^2},$$
(62)
respectively.

The additional $`G_{\left(4\right)}`$ term added to the 4-form field strength (58) has the possibility of breaking the supersymmetry of the original unresolved brane solution. The citerion for preserving the supersymmetry is that the covariantly-constant spinor $`\eta `$ in the Ricci-flat 8-manifold should be such that

$$G_{abcd}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{bcd}\eta =0.$$
(63)
Using our results for the covariantly-constant spinor in $`𝔸_8`$ or $`𝔹_8`$, we find that the supersymmetry will remain unbroken provided that the functions $`u_i`$ in the harmonic 4-form (33) satisfy precisely the linear relation given in (41). Thus our resolved M2-branes with anti-self-dual harmonic 4-forms in both the $`𝔸_8`$ and $`𝔹_8`$ manifolds are supersymmetric. By contrast, the resolved M2-brane using the self-dual harmonic 4-form in $`𝔹_8`$ is not supersymmetric.

Resolved M2-branes in various manifolds were also constructed in the previous papers . One important difference is that in all three of the new resolved M2-brane solutions obtained above, the 4-form $`F_{\left(4\right)}`$ carries a magnetic M5-brane charge in addition to the electric M2-brane charge. The magnetic charge is given by

$$Q_m=\frac{1}{\omega _4}F_{\left(4\right)}=qm,$$
(64)
where $`\omega _4`$ is the volume of the unit 4-sphere, and $`q=\frac{1}{2}`$, $`\frac{1}{2}`$ and $`\frac{5}{2}`$ for the three solutions respectively. Thus our resolved M2-brane solutions describe fractional magnetic M2-branes as wrapped M5-branes, together with the usual electric M2-brane. This generalises the fractional D3-branes  of type IIB theory to the case of M-theory. It was argued in  that there should be no supersymmetric fractional M2-branes in asymptotically conical manifolds. Thus our fractional M2-branes do not contradict the no-go theorem, since the $`𝔸_8`$ and $`𝔹_8`$ Spin(7) manifolds are not asymptocally conical, but instead have the ALC structure with an $`S^1`$ whose radius tends to a constant at infinity.

In , a supergravity solution of an ordinary D2-brane together with a fractional D2-brane from the wrapping of a D4-brane around the $`S^2`$ in a manifold of $`G_2`$ holonomy was obtained. It was conjectured  that this D2-brane should be related to the resolved M2-brane with a transverse 8-space of Spin(7) holonomy. Here we have provided a concrete realisation. In our 2-brane solution, in addition to the regular D2-brane (coming from the double dimensional reduction of the M2-brane) and fractional D2-branes as wrapped D4-branes (coming from the vertical reduction of the M5-brane), we also have wrapped D6-brane charges. This connection between D2-branes and M2-branes is rather different from the one in a flat transverse space that was discussed in , where the D2-brane was viewed as a periodic array of M2-branes in the eleventh direction.

All the M-theory solutions we discussed in this section can be reduced on the principal orbits to give rise to four-dimensional domain walls, given by

$$ds_4^2=a^4b^2c^8(H^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{5}{3}}}(dt^2+dx_1^2+dx_2^2)+H^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{8}{3}}}h^2dr^2).$$
(65)
## 8 Conclusions

In this paper, we have constructed new explicit complete non-compact 8-metrics of Spin(7) holonomy. Our procedure involved writing down the ansatz (10) for metrics of cohomogeneity one, for which the principal orbits are $`S^7`$, described as a homogeneous manifold with $`S^4`$ base and $`S^3`$ fibres that are themselves Hopf fibred over $`S^2`$ and squashed along the $`U(1)`$. This provides a more general ansatz than the one that led to the previous complete non-compact metric of Spin(7) holonomy obtained in . We then showed that there exists a first-order system of equations whose solutions yield Ricci-flat metrics. We first found simple solutions that give rise to two new complete non-compact metrics.666It would be interesting also to study these solutions using the methods developed in . One is complete on the manifold that we denote by $`𝔸_8`$, which is topologically $`^8`$. The other is complete on a manifold that we denote by $`𝔹_8`$, which is topologically the bundle of chiral spinors over $`S^4`$. Both the new metrics are asymptotically locally conical (ALC), approaching $`S^1\times _7`$ locally at infinity, where $`_7`$ is the manifold of $`G_2`$ holonomy defined on the $`^3`$ bundle over $`S^4`$. Thus the new manifolds have an asymptotically cylindrical structure that is rather like Taub-NUT or Taub-BOLT. This is quite different from the asymptotically conical structure of the previously-known Spin(7) example found in . At short distance $`𝔸_8`$ approaches Euclidean $`^8`$ locally, while $`𝔹_8`$ approaches $`^4\times S^4`$ locally. We also obtained the general solution to the first order equations (17) in Appendix A, and showed that there exist further classes of regular metrics of Spin(7) holonomy, complete on manifolds which we denote by $`𝔹_8^\pm `$, with the same topology as $`𝔹_8`$. These have a non-trivial parameter $`k`$, with the earlier simple solutions corresponding to the limit where $`k=0`$.

We exhibited the Spin(7) holonomy of the new metrics by constructing the covariantly-constant spinor associated with the special holonomy. From this, we also constructed the calibrating covariantly-constant self-dual 4-form $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. We then showed that the manifolds $`𝔸_8`$ and $`𝔹_8`$ both admit an $`L^2`$-normalisable anti-self-dual harmonic 4-form, and that $`𝔹_8`$ also admits a second $`L^2`$-normalisable harmonic 4-form, which is self-dual.

The new Spin(7) manifolds have a variety of applications in M-theory and string theory. We discussed the eleven-dimensional solutions obtained by taking the product of the Spin(7) metrics with 3-dimensional Minkowski spacetime, and the ten-dimensional solutions obtained by reducing on the $`U(1)`$ fibres in the Spin(7) manifolds. These give higher-dimensional analogues of the relation between charged black holes in $`D=4`$ (Kaluza-Klein monopoles) and a product of time and Taub-NUT in $`D=5`$. In the limit where the string coupling is strong, the world volume geometry $`M_3\times S^1`$ corresponds to the large-radius limit of $`S^1`$, and thus it is effectively the Poincaré invariant $`M_4`$. This feature of M-theory compactified on these Spin(7) manifolds may provide a concrete realisation of the proposal in  for explaining the vanishing cosmological constant, the absence of Fermi-Bose mass degeneracy, and the absence of a massless dilaton in four-dimensional field theory.

We also discussed M2-brane solutions, in which the $`𝔸_8`$, $`𝔹_8`$ or $`𝔹_8^\pm `$ Spin(7) manifold replaces the usual flat 8-space transverse to the membrane. These solutions can be “resolved” by adding an extra contribution to the 4-form in $`D=11`$, proportional to a harmonic 4-form on the 8-manifold. We showed that for each of the $`𝔸_8`$ and $`𝔹_8`$ manifolds there is a resolved M2-brane solution that preserves the single supersymmetry of the unresolved solution. The second $`L^2`$-normalisable harmonic 4-form in the $`𝔹_8`$ manifold gives a resolved M2-brane that breaks supersymmetry. The additional contributions to $`F_{\left(4\right)}`$ in the resolved solutions give rise to non-vanishing magnetic M5-brane fluxes in the system, and hence our solutions are the supergravity duals of fractional M2-branes.

## Acknowledgements

We should like to thank Michael Atiyah, Andrew Dancer, Nigel Hitchin, Dominic Joyce and Matthew Strassler for useful discussions. H.L. and C.N.P. are grateful to UPenn for hospitality and financial support during the course of this work. M.C. is supported in part by DOE grant DE-FG02-95ER40893 and NATO grant 976951; H.L. is supported in full by DOE grant DE-FG02-95ER40899; C.N.P. is supported in part by DOE DE-FG03-95ER40917. G.W.G. acknowledges partial support from PPARC through SPG#613.

## Appendix A General solution of the first-order equations

Here, we obtain expressions that yield the general solution of the first-order equations (17). Specifically, we show how the third-order equation for $`f`$ given in (19) may be solved. From this, one can then solve for $`a`$ and $`b`$ as in (20), and eliminate the spurious fourth constant of integration resulting from this procedure by substituting the results back into the first-order equations (17). Before presenting the general solution of (19), we may note that it can be written in the “factorised” form

$$fQ^{}(f^{}+1)Q=0,$$
(66)
where $`Q2fW^{}+(f^{}3)W`$ and $`Wf^{}1`$. In fact for a generic solution, where $`Q`$ itself is non-zero, the solutions for $`a`$ and $`b`$ can be written entirely algebraically in terms of $`f`$, as

$$a^2=\frac{(f^{}1)(f^{}3)f}{Q},b^2=\frac{2a^2}{(f^{}1)^2}.$$
(67)
Thus for a solution where $`Q0`$ the three integration constants for the first-order system (17) are simply the three integration constants for the third-order equation (19), and no further substitution back into (19) is necessary. As we shall see below, $`Q`$ is non-vanishing for all but one degenerate solution of (19).

The first stage in solving (19) is to let

$$f(r)=e^{^xg(s)𝑑s},$$
(68)
where the new radial variable $`x`$ is defined implicitly in terms of $`r`$ by

$$\frac{df}{dr}=\frac{1}{x}.$$
(69)
Using $`f^{}`$ to denote $`df/dr`$, we therefore have

$$f^{}=\frac{1}{x},f^{\prime \prime }=\frac{1}{fgx^3},f^{\prime \prime \prime }=\frac{1}{f^2}\left[\frac{3}{g^2x^5}+\frac{1}{gx^4}+\frac{1}{g^3x^4}\frac{dg}{dx}\right].$$
(70)
Substituting into the original 3’rd-order equation (19) gives the first-order equation

$$2x\frac{dg}{dx}+6g+6x^2g^2x^2(x^21)(3x1)g^3=0.$$
(71)
Note that $`f`$ no longer appears explicitly; this is a consequence of the scaling symmetry $`f\lambda f`$, $`r\lambda r`$ of the original equation (19). A further simplification can be achieved by setting $`g=1/(\gamma (x)x^3)`$, and also defining $`x=1/\rho `$. Then, we find

$$2\gamma \frac{d\gamma }{d\rho }+6\gamma =(1\rho ^2)(3\rho ).$$
(72)
We may first note that two specific solutions are

$$\gamma =\frac{1}{2}(1\rho ^2),\gamma =\frac{1}{2}(\rho 1)(\rho 3).$$
(73)
The first of these leads back to our new solution in this paper. The second also gives a solution for $`f`$ (with an arbitrary multiplicative constant of integration). However, in this latter case it turns out that after solving for $`a`$ and $`b`$ and plugging back into the original first-order equations, this arbitrary constant of integration has to be zero and so the second solution in (73) is trivial. In fact it corresponds to solutions of (19) which, in the factorised form (66), have $`Q=0`$.

The next step in obtaining the general solution is to change variable once again, from $`\gamma `$ to $`z`$, defined by

$$z\frac{(1\rho )^2}{2(1\rho \gamma )}.$$
(74)
In terms of this new variable, (72) becomes

$$\frac{dz}{d\rho }=\frac{2z(1z^2)}{\rho +2z1}.$$
(75)
It turns out that the solution to this equation cannot be given explicitly in the form of $`z`$ expressed as a function of $`\rho `$, but it can be explicitly solved in the form of $`\rho `$ expressed as a function of $`z`$. To do this, it is convenient to characterise this relation in the equivalent form

$$u(z^2)+\frac{1\rho }{2z}(1z^2)^{1/4}=0,$$
(76)
for some function $`u`$ to be determined.

Differentiating (76) with respect to $`\rho `$, using (75) to substitute for $`dz/d\rho `$, and using (76) itself to substitute for $`\rho `$, we find that $`u(y)`$ satisfies

$$4y\frac{du(y)}{dy}+u(y)=(1y)^{3/4},$$
(77)
where $`y=z^2`$. The solution to this equation is

$$u(y)=\stackrel{~}{k}y^{1/4}+{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}[\frac{1}{4},\frac{3}{4};\frac{5}{4};y],$$
(78)
where $`\stackrel{~}{k}`$ is an arbitrary constant. Thus we conclude that the general solution of (72) for $`\gamma (\rho )`$ is given by

$${}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}[\frac{1}{4},\frac{3}{4};\frac{5}{4};z^2]=\frac{\stackrel{~}{k}}{\sqrt{z}}\frac{1\rho }{2z}(1z^2)^{1/4},$$
(79)
where $`z`$ is given by (74) and $`\stackrel{~}{k}`$ is an arbitrary constant.

The first special solution $`\gamma =\frac{1}{2}(1\rho ^2)`$ in (73) corresponds to $`z=1`$. It is easily seen that this is indeed a special case of (79), with $`\stackrel{~}{k}=[\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{1}{4})]^2/(4\sqrt{\pi })`$. The second special solution $`\gamma =\frac{1}{2}(\rho 1)(\rho 3)`$ in (73) corresponds to $`z=1`$. Again, this is seen to be a special case of (79), now with $`\stackrel{~}{k}=\mathrm{i}[\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{1}{4})]^2/(4\sqrt{\pi })`$.

Using identities for hypergeometric functions, another way to write the general solution (79) is

$$(1z^2)_2^{1/4}F_1[1,\frac{1}{2};\frac{5}{4};1z^2]=\frac{k}{\sqrt{z}}+\frac{(1\rho )}{2z}(1z^2)^{1/4}.$$
(80)
(Here, the arbitrary constant $`k`$ is zero for the solutions with $`z=\pm 1`$.) We may write the general solution as $`\rho 1=v(z)`$, where

$$v(z)=\frac{2k\sqrt{z}}{(1z^2)^{1/4}}2z_2F_1[1,\frac{1}{2};\frac{5}{4};1z^2].$$
(81)
Note that from (77) it follows that

$$2z(1z^2)\frac{dv}{dz}=v+2z.$$
(82)
The general solution can now be presented explicitly, in the sense that it is reduced to quadratures. It is convenient in general to take $`z`$ to be the radial coordinate in the metric. Retracing the steps of the various redefinitions, we eventually obtain

$$c^2=f=\mathrm{exp}\left[^z\frac{[v(z^{})+1]dz^{}}{v(z^{})(1z_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})}\right],a^2=\frac{[v(z)2]zf}{v(z)(1+z)},b^2=\frac{4a^2}{v(z)^2}.$$
(83)
The coordinate $`r`$ is given in terms of $`z`$ by

$$dr=\frac{fdz}{v(z)(1z^2)}.$$
(84)
Thus the general solution for the metric can be written as

$$ds_8^2=\frac{vfdz^2}{4z(1z^2)(1z)(v2)}+\frac{(v2)zf}{(1+z)v}(D\mu ^i)^2+\frac{4(v2)zf}{(1+z)v^3}\sigma ^2+fd\mathrm{\Omega }_4^2.$$
(85)
Note that from (83) we may express $`f`$ as

$$f=\left(\frac{1+z}{1z}\right)^{1/2}\mathrm{exp}\left[^z\frac{dz^{}}{v(z^{})(1z_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})}\right].$$
(86)
Of the three expected constants of integration for the first-order system (17) two are “trivial,” in the sense that they correspond to a constant shift and rescaling of the radial coordinate. The non-trivial third constant of integration is associated with $`k`$ in (81).

In order to recognise the solutions that give rise to regular metrics on complete manifolds, it is helpful to study the phase-plane diagram for the first-order equation (82), which can be expressed as

$$\frac{dz}{d\tau }=2z(1z^2),\frac{dv}{d\tau }=v+2z,$$
(87)
where $`\tau `$ is an auxiliary “time” parameter. The solutions can be studied by looking at the flows generated by the 2-vector field $`\{dz/d\tau ,dv/d\tau \}=\{2z(1z^2),v+2z\}`$ in the $`(z,v)`$ plane. For any such flow, it is then necessary to investigate the global structure of the associated metric (85) for regularity. We find that regular solutions can arise in the following four cases, namely

$`(\mathrm{𝟏}):`$ $`z=1\text{(fixed)};v=2\text{to}v=\mathrm{},`$
$`(\mathrm{𝟐}):`$ $`z=1\text{(fixed)};v=+2\text{to}v=+\mathrm{},`$
$`(\mathrm{𝟑}):`$ $`z_0z1;v=+2\text{to}v=+\mathrm{},(0<z_0<1),`$
$`(\mathrm{𝟒}):`$ $`1zz_0;v=+2\text{to}v=+\mathrm{},(1<z_0<\mathrm{}).`$ (88)
Note that $`v=\pm \mathrm{}`$ corresponds to the asymptotic large-distance region, and in all four cases the metrics have similar asymptotic structures, precisely as we have already seen in the $`𝔸_8`$ and $`𝔹_8`$ cases. $`v=2`$ corresponds to the short-distance behaviour of the $`𝔸_8`$ metric, approaching Euclidean $`^8`$ at the origin where the $`S^7`$ principal orbits degenerate to a point. $`v=2`$ on the other hand corresponds to the short-distance behaviour seen in the $`𝔹_8`$ metric, approaching $`^4\times S^4`$ locally. In fact solution (1) is the metric (21) on $`𝔸_8`$ found in section 3, and solution (2) is the metric (23) on $`𝔹_8`$ found there also. These both have $`k=0`$ in (81).

Solution (3) arises when $`k`$ is any positive number, with $`z_0`$ being the corresponding value of $`z`$, with $`0<z_0<1`$, for which $`v(z_0)=2`$. The value of $`z_0`$ is correlated with the value of $`k`$, ranging from $`z_0=0`$ for $`k=\mathrm{}`$, to $`z_0=1`$ for $`k=0`$.777For the case $`k=0`$, for which the regular solution is $`\gamma =\frac{1}{2}(1\rho ^2)`$ in (73), and which leads to the metrics (21) and (23), the quantity $`z`$ is not a good choice for the radial coordinate, since it is fixed at $`z=1`$. This case can be regarded as a singular limit within the general formalism we are using here. Specifically, if we let $`z=116ϵ^4\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}^4(r+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}})^4`$, $`k=2^{1/4}ϵ`$, and choose the integration constant in (86) so that $`f=\frac{1}{2}(r^2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}^2)`$, then upon sending $`ϵ`$ to zero we recover the metric (23). Near $`z=1`$ it follows from (81) that we shall have

$$v=2^{3/4}k(1z)^{1/4}2+\mathrm{},f=c_0(1z)^{1/2}+\mathrm{},$$
(89)
where $`c_0`$ is an arbitrary constant of integration. Defining $`y(2c_0)^{1/2}(1z)^{1/4}`$, we see that as $`z1`$ we shall have $`y\mathrm{}`$ and

$$ds_8^2dy^2+\frac{1}{4}y^2(D\mu ^i)^2+\frac{1}{2}y^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_4^2+\frac{c_0}{k^2\sqrt{2}}\sigma ^2,$$
(90)
and so this more general metric has the same large-distance asymptotic form as do $`𝔸_8`$ and $`𝔹_8`$. Near $`z=z_0`$ we shall have $`v(z)=2+v^{}(z_0)(zz_0)+\mathrm{}`$, and defining a new radial coordinate $`R`$ by $`(zz_0)=\frac{1}{4}R^2`$ near $`z=z_0`$, we shall have

$$ds_8^2\frac{f_0}{2z_0(1z_0^2)(1z_0)v^{}(z_0)}\left[dR^2+\frac{1}{4}v^{}(z_0)^2z_0^2(1z_0)^2R^2[(D\mu ^i)^2+\sigma ^2]\right]+f_0d\mathrm{\Omega }_4^2,$$
(91)
where $`f_0`$ is the value of $`f`$ at $`z=z_0`$. From (82) we have that $`z_0(1z_0)v^{}(z_0)=1`$, and so we see from (91) that at short distance the metric (91) approaches $`^4\times S^4`$ locally. Thus these more general solution (3) in (88) with $`k>0`$ is complete on a manifold that is very similar to the manifold $`𝔹_8`$ of the solution (23), with an $`S^4`$ BOLT at $`z=z_0`$. We shall denote it by $`𝔹_8^{}`$, where the superscript indicates that $`z`$ starts from a value $`z_0<1`$ at short distance, flowing to $`z=1`$ asymptotically.

Solution (4) arises in the region where $`z1`$, and again the flow runs from an $`S^4`$ BOLT at $`z_0`$ (now $`>1`$) at which $`v(z_0)=2`$, to the asymptotic region as $`z`$ approaches 1. It follows from (81) that in this case we should first introduce a new constant $`\kappa `$ such that

$$v(z)=\frac{2\kappa \sqrt{z}}{(z^21)^{1/4}}2z_2F_1[1,\frac{1}{2};\frac{5}{4};1z^2].$$
(92)
Since $`v`$ has the asymptotic form

$$v2\kappa \frac{2\sqrt{\pi }\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{5}{4})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{3}{4})}+\frac{1}{z}+𝒪(z^2)$$
(93)
at large $`z`$, one can show that we shall only be able to find the required regular starting-point with $`v(z_0)=2`$ if $`\kappa `$ is bounded by

$$0\kappa 1+\frac{\sqrt{\pi }\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{5}{4})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{3}{4})}.$$
(94)
(The lower limit corresponds to $`z_0=1`$, while the upper limit corresponds to $`z_0=\mathrm{}`$.) Under these circumstances we can find the necessary $`z_0`$ which corresponds to an $`S^4`$ BOLT at short distance. We shall denote this solution by $`𝔹_8^+`$. Note that the simple solution $`𝔹_8`$ in (23) can be viewed as a $`k0`$ or $`\kappa 0`$ limit of the more complicated $`𝔹_8^{}`$ or $`𝔹_8^+`$ solutions.

The arguments in section 4 show that in common with $`𝔸_8`$ and $`𝔹_8`$ of section 3, the additional solutions $`𝔹_8^{}`$ and $`𝔹_8^+`$ also have Spin(7) holonomy.

We observed at the end of section 2 that a particular example of a solution of the first-order equations (17) is the direct product metric $`ds_8^2=ds_7^2+d\phi ^2`$, where $`ds_7^2`$ is the Ricci-flat 7-metric of $`G_2`$ holonomy on the $`^3`$ bundle over $`S^4`$ , and $`\phi `$ is a coordinate on a circle. We are now in a position to see how this solution can arise as a limit of our new Spin(7) metrics. Specifically, it arises as the $`k\mathrm{}`$ limit of Solution (3) listed in (88). This is the limit where the constant $`z_0`$, which sets the lower limit for the range $`z_0z1`$ for $`z`$, becomes zero.

At the same time as sending $`k`$ to infinity, we can rescale the fibre coordinate $`\phi `$ appearing the in definition (6) for $`\sigma =d\phi +𝒜_{\left(1\right)}`$, according to $`\phi k\phi `$. From (81) and (86) we see that when $`k`$ becomes very large we shall have

$$v\frac{2k\sqrt{z}}{(1z^2)^{1/4}},f\left(\frac{1+z}{1z}\right)^{1/2},$$
(95)
and so in the limit of infinite $`k`$ the metric (85) becomes

$$ds_8^2=\frac{dz^2}{4z(1z)^2(1z^2)^{1/2}}+\frac{z}{(1z^2)^{1/2}}(D\mu ^i)^2+\left(\frac{1+z}{1z}\right)^{1/2}d\mathrm{\Omega }_4^2+d\phi ^2.$$
(96)
Defining a new radial coordinate $`r`$ by $`r^4=(1+z)(1z)^1`$, we see that this becomes $`ds_8^2=ds_7^2+d\phi ^2`$, where

$$ds_7^2=\frac{2dr^2}{1r^4}+\frac{1}{2}r^2(1r^4)(D\mu ^i)^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_4^2.$$
(97)
This can be recognised as the metric of $`G_2`$ holonomy on the manifold $`_7`$ of the $`^3`$ bundle over $`S^4`$, which was constructed in .888If we had not rescaled the fibre coordinate $`\phi `$ by a factor of $`k`$ before taking the limit $`k\mathrm{}`$, the radius of the $`S^1`$ would have tended to zero. This limit is known as the Gromov-Hausdorff convergence . Thus the family of new Spin(7) manifolds that we are denoting by $`𝔹_8^{}`$ has a non-trivial parameter $`k`$ such that the $`k=\mathrm{}`$ limit degenerates to $`_7\times S^1`$, while the $`k=0`$ limit reduces to the case $`𝔹_8`$ given by (23).

Finally, we should stress that the analysis in this appendix assumes that $`f`$ is not solely linearly dependent on $`r`$, since if it is, we see from (69) that $`x`$ is then a constant. This case is easily analysed separately, and the conclusion is that the only additional solution is the previous metric of Spin(7) holonomy found in  (corresponding to $`f=3r`$, as we saw in section 3).


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

### Data

The four LEP collaborations ALEPH, DELPHI, L3 and OPAL have taken data at energies above the Z resonance from 1995, starting at 130 GeV, until November 2000, culminating at energies close to 209 GeV. For the first time we have results on the full LEP2 data set, giving a flavor of the expected final experimental precision and sensitivity to physics beyond the Standard Model (SM). With minor exceptions, the data up to 189 GeV centre-of-mass energy are final, and the data collected in 1999 and 2000 at energies between 192–209 GeV preliminary. The luminosity accumulated above the Z pole in a single experiment is summarized in Table 1.

In the same table the statistical error on the hadronic cross section is given in %. The combined error for the total sample is $`0.4`$%, and for the most interesting non-radiative (or genuine high energy) sample $`0.8`$%. If we combine the measurements of the four experiments the statistical error is reduced by a factor of two. Clearly LEP2 has reached the phase of high precision, putting additional requirements on the careful study of systematic effects and on matchingly accurate theory predictions.

### Fermion-pair Production

In the Standard Model the production of a fermion-pair in $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$ collisions is described by the exchange of $`\gamma `$ or Z in the $`s`$-channel, and if the final state is identical to the initial one, also in the $`t`$-channel (cf. Figure 1).

The differential cross section has the form:

$$\frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }}=|\gamma _s+Z_s+elec(\gamma _t+Z_t)+NewPhysics\mathrm{?}!|^2$$
(1)
where the contributing amplitudes are denoted symbolically by $`\gamma _s`$, $`Z_s`$, $`\gamma _t`$ and $`Z_t`$.

As an illustration the hadron cross is given in Figure 2 as a function of the centre-of-mass energy. The contributions from photon or Z exchange are shown separately together with the total cross section, which includes also interference effects. We can observe that at 200 GeV the contribution from photon exchange has a size similar to the one coming from Z exchange. For leptonic final states, due to the higher electric charges, the photon exchange dominates. In the same figure the forward-backward asymmetry for muons is shown. Here the contributions from photon or Z exchange show up as straight lines close to zero, and the large positive asymmetry above the Z pole is totally dominated by the interference term.

The interest in studying fermion-pair final states at LEP2 is driven by the fact that many types of new physics scenarios can contribute to these processes, as shown by the last amplitude in Equation (1). For this to happen, the couplings to the initial and final states should be different from zero. In this case, even if the Standard Model extension operates at an energy scale much higher than the accessible centre-of-mass energy for a direct observation, it can still give measurable effects by modifying the differential cross section through interference with the SM amplitudes.

### Contact Interactions

Contact interactions offer a general framework for describing a new interaction with typical energy scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\sqrt{s}`$. The presence of operators with canonical dimension $`N>4`$ in the Lagrangian gives rise to effects $`1/M^{N4}`$. Such interactions can occur for instance, if the SM particles are composite, or when new heavy particles are exchanged.

For fermion- or photon-pair production the contact interactions are described by the diagrams shown in Figure 3. In the fermion case, the lowest order flavor-diagonal and helicity-conserving operators have dimension six . For photons the lowest order operators have dimension eight, leading to suppression of the interference terms as the inverse forth power of the relevant energy scale.

The differential cross section takes the form

$$\frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }}=SM(s,t)+\epsilon C_{Int}(s,t)+\epsilon ^2C_{NewPh}(s,t)$$
(2)
where the first term is the Standard Model contribution, the second comes from interference between the SM and the contact interaction, and the third is the pure contact interaction effect. The Mandelstam variables are denoted as $`s`$, $`t`$ and $`u`$.

Usually the coupling is fixed, and the structure of the interaction is parametrized by coefficients for the helicity amplitudes:

| g | coupling (by convention $`\frac{g^2}{4\pi }=1`$) |
| --- | --- |
| $`|\eta _{ij}|1`$ | helicity amplitudes ($`i,j=\mathrm{L},\mathrm{R}`$) |
| $`\epsilon `$ | $`\frac{g^2}{4\pi }\frac{sign(\eta )}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}`$ for $`f\overline{f}`$; $`\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^4}`$ for $`\gamma \gamma `$ |

Some often investigated models are summarized in Table 2. The models in the second half of the table are parity conserving, and hence not constrained by the very precise measurements of atomic parity violation at low energies. The results presented in this contribution cover the models in the table and, as we will see in a moment, have connection to the recent searches for extra spatial dimensions.

As an illustration the effects of contact interactions for one particular model are shown in Figure 4.

### Low Scale Gravity

The fastest progress in physics comes when we deepen our understanding of space-time. The development of string theory points to the existence of up to seven additional dimensions, which are compactified at very small distances, initially estimated to be $`10^{32}`$ m, and hence far below the scales probed at high energy colliders. Recently, a radical proposal  has been put forward for the solution of the hierarchy problem, which brings close the electroweak scale $`m_{EW}1\mathrm{TeV}`$ and the Planck scale $`M_{Pl}\frac{1}{\sqrt{G_N}}10^{15}\mathrm{TeV}`$. In this framework the effective four-dimensional $`M_{Pl}`$ is connected to a new $`M_{Pl(4+n)}`$ scale in a (4+n) dimensional theory:

$$M_{Pl}^2M_{Pl(4+n)}^{2+n}R^n$$
(3)
where there are n extra compact spatial dimensions of radius $`R`$, which could be as large as 1 mm. This can explain the observed weakness of gravity at large distances. At the same time, quantum gravity becomes strong at a scale M of the order of few TeV and could have observable signatures at present and future colliders. The attractiveness of this proposal is enhanced by the plethora of expected phenomenological consequences described by just a few parameters.

In the production of fermion- or boson-pairs in $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$ collisions this class of models can be manifested through virtual effects due to the exchange of gravitons (Kaluza-Klein excitations), depicted in Figure 5. As discussed in , the exchange of spin-2 gravitons modifies in a unique way the differential cross sections for fermion pairs, providing clear signatures. These models introduce an effective scale (cut-off), denoted as $`M_s`$ in , as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_T`$ in  and again as $`M_s`$ in . The first two scales are connected by the relation $`M_s=(2/\pi )^{1/4}\mathrm{\Lambda }_T`$, which gives numerically $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_T=1.1195M_s`$. They do not depend on the number of extra dimensions. In the third case the scale exhibits such a dependence; the relation to the other scales is given by $`M_s^{HLZ}|_{n=4}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_T`$ for four extra dimensions. As the majority of LEP experiments has decided to use the scale $`M_s`$ of , we will stick to this notation throughout this paper, and convert the experimental results when necessary to facilitate the comparison. The cut-off scale is supposed to be of the order of the fundamental gravity scale M in 4+n dimensions. The results are model-dependent, which is usually expressed by the introduction of an additional parameter

$$\frac{\lambda }{M_s^4}.$$
(4)
The value of $`\lambda `$ is not known exactly, the usual assumption is $`\lambda =\pm 1`$ to allow for both constructive and destructive interference effects.

### String Models

The ideas outlined in the previous subsection have triggered new developments, which propose concrete string realizations of the large extra dimensions scenario. We will discuss two models of this type.

As noted in , the low-energy effective theory that we are dealing with is derived from an underlying theory of quantum gravity. And the only known consistent framework for the description of quantum gravity is superstring theory. In string models the SM particles are extended structures, represented by massless modes of open strings on a set of branes. In this model massive string mode oscillations (called TeV strings) give rise to dimension-8 operators which modify the SM amplitudes and are expected to dominate over the effects coming from Kaluza-Klein excitations. The model has two basic parameters: the dimensionless Yang-Mills coupling constant $`g_{YM}`$ and the string scale - $`M_S`$ 111 The effective gravity cut-off scale with subscript small s from the previous subsection should not be confused with the string scale $`M_S`$, studied here.. The relation to the fundamental gravitational scale M is depending on the coupling

$$\frac{M}{M_S}=\left(\frac{1}{\pi }\right)^{1/8}\alpha ^{1/4};LSGscaleM1.63.0M_S$$
(5)
where $`\alpha =g_{YM}^2/4\pi `$, and the values 3.0 (1.6) correspond to $`\alpha =1/137(\alpha _s(1\mathrm{TeV}))`$ respectively.

In this model the tree-level open string four-point amplitudes are multiplied by a string form factor (first introduced by G. Veneziano )

$$𝒮(s,t)=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\frac{s}{M_S^2})\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\frac{t}{M_S^2})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\frac{s}{M_S^2}\frac{t}{M_S^2})}.$$
(6)
For $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$ the differential cross section is modified:

$$\frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{cos}\theta }=\left(\frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{cos}\theta }\right)_{SM}|𝒮(s,t)|^2.$$
(7)
For $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\gamma \gamma `$ one can use Drell’s parametrization (QED cut-off, cf. next subsection)

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_+^{QED}=\left(\frac{12}{\pi ^2}\right)^{1/4}M_S=1.05M_S.$$
(8)
In a new D-brane model , the Standard Model matter fields are identified with massless modes of open strings stretched between two sets of branes - D3 and D7 branes (37 strings). In this scenario we can have dimension-6 operators due to contact interactions induced by massive string oscillators. These effects can be stronger than the ones coming from Kaluza-Klein states or winding modes and will dominate the dimension-8 operators coming from TeV strings.

### Photon-pair Production

The production of photon pairs in $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$ collisions is described by the $`t`$\- and $`u`$-channel QED diagrams depicted in Figure 6.

The differential cross section has the following simple form

$$\frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }}=|e_t+e_u+NewPhysics\mathrm{?}!|^2$$
(9)
$$\left(\frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }}\right)_{QED}=\frac{\alpha ^2}{2s}\left[\frac{t}{u}+\frac{u}{t}\right]=\frac{\alpha ^2}{s}\frac{1+\mathrm{cos}^2\theta }{1\mathrm{cos}^2\theta }.$$
(10)
The experiments have investigated many proposed deviations from QED:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }}}\right)_{QED}\left(1\pm {\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\mathrm{\Lambda }_\pm ^{QED})^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{s^2}{2}}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \right)`$ (11)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }}}\right)_{QED}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{\pi \alpha (M_s)^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{s^2}{2}}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta +\mathrm{}\right)`$ (12)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }}}\right)_{QED}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{12(M_S)^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{s^2}{2}}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \right)`$ (13)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }}}\right)_{QED}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{(\eta _L+\eta _R)}{2(\mathrm{\Lambda }^{CI})^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{s^2}{2}}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta +\mathrm{}\right)`$ (14)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }}}\right)_{QED}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\alpha (\mathrm{\Lambda }_6)^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{s^2}{2}}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta +\mathrm{}\right)`$ (15)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }}}\right)_{QED}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{s^3}{32\pi \alpha ^2(\mathrm{\Lambda }^{})^6}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }{1+\mathrm{cos}^2\theta }}+\mathrm{}\right).`$ (16)
The QED cut-off - Equation (11), is the basic form of possible deviations from quantum electrodynamics. If we ignore higher order terms (given by $`\mathrm{}`$), all equations except Equation (16) predict the same form of deviations in the differential cross section. Equation (12) is the low scale gravity case , and Equation (13) appears in the TeV strings model. The others are variations of contact interactions. I have chosen to compile the deviations in a similar form, which makes it particularly easy to compare the results from different searches by transforming the relevant parameters.

## 2 Fermion-pair production: $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}f\overline{f}(\gamma )`$

### $`f\overline{f}`$ \- Signal Definition

The large data samples accumulated at LEP2 have propelled the measurements of several final states in the precision area, where many tiny theoretical details or experimental systematic effects start to grow in importance. For instance, the signal definition for fermion pairs is complicated by several factors:

* Interplay between two-fermion and four-fermion final states: the radiative corrections include not only effects due to vector bosons, but also contributions from real and virtual fermion pairs, cf. Figure 7. For example, low mass (secondary) fermion pairs are part of the signal, like photons. The situation is ambiguous if the two final state fermion pairs carry the same flavor or roughly the same energy. Fortunately these corrections are negligible for the non-radiative (genuine high energy) sample, which is the main search field for physics beyond the SM 222For an early review of searches above the Z pole see e.g. ..
* The definition of the effective (propagator in Figure 1) energy $`\mathrm{s}^{}`$ is not unique due to interference between initial- and final-state radiation:

+ the interference changes the cross-sections: for $`\sqrt{\mathrm{s}^{}}/\sqrt{s}>0.85`$ by $``$ 1.5% for $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ and $``$ 0.5% for $`\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}}`$ in order $`𝒪(\alpha )`$ (the experimental efficiency is changed by $``$ 50% of this)
    + the experiments either apply a correction by subtracting the interference contribution, rendering the $`\sqrt{\mathrm{s}^{}}`$ definition unique, or define $`\sqrt{\mathrm{s}^{}}`$ as the effective mass of the outgoing fermion pair after final state radiation; there is no unanimity about the “best” definition, requiring the minimal amount of theoretical corrections; for a detailed discussion we refer the reader to .
* Rising four-fermion background: LEP2 is the kingdom of double (or single) weak boson production like W+W-, ZZ, Z$`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$, We$`\nu `$, …

### Fermion Pairs - Selection

The event selection for the different final states is illustrated on Figure 8. For $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$ it is ‘quite easy’, and consists of requiring an identified electron-positron pair (typically tracks matched to electromagnetic energy deposits). The huge peak at electron (or positron) energy in the vicinity of the beam energy is due to the large contribution form $`t`$-channel photon exchange. The backgrounds are tiny. For $`\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}}`$ the selection is ‘easy’, and asks for high multiplicity relatively balanced events with substantial visible energy. The high energy peak is accompanied by a huge peak due to radiative ‘Z returns’, favored by the large hadron cross section at the Z pole. For $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ the selection is ‘still easy’, asking for two muons identified as tracks in the muon chambers or as minimum ionizing objects in the calorimeters. The ratio of the muon and beam momenta clearly separates the signal from various backgrounds peaking at low energies. Cosmic muons complicate the picture, and are typically suppressed by imposing space-time constrains on the tracks to originate from beam interactions.

For $`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ the selection is ‘far from easy’, and consists typically of requiring two narrow low multiplicity jets. The ratio of jet to beam energy suppresses low energy backgrounds, and the peak at one is absent due to the neutrinos from $`\tau `$ decays. Bhabha backgrounds are dangerous, especially if there are problems with energy measurements in the endcaps.

### LEP2 $`f\overline{f}`$ Group

Following the LEP tradition, a Fermion-pair Subgroup of the LEP Electroweak Working Group has been established in 1999 in order to combine the measurements of total and differential cross sections $`\sigma _{tot}`$ and $`\frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{cos}\theta }`$, of forward-backward asymmetries $`\mathrm{A}_{\mathrm{FB}}`$, and of the ratios of heavy flavor to total hadronic cross sections for beauty and charmed quarks $`R_b`$ and $`R_c`$. In this way the statistical error of the combined measurements is reduced by a factor of two, and several types of correlated systematic errors, e.g. in one experiment between different centre-of-mass energies or between all experiments, can be properly taken into account. The group also provides a very useful forum for exchange of ideas and facilitates the convergence of the signal definitions used by the different collaborations, making the task of combining the measurements much easier.

At the moment of this writing we have succeeded to combine the published results  and preliminary measurements  for the following final states: $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$, $`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$, $`\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}}`$, $`\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}`$ and $`\mathrm{c}\overline{\mathrm{c}}`$. The results  are shown in the next subsection. They are used to perform combined fits searching for contact interactions or for Z.

The future plans of the group include combining the measurements of the $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$ and $`\gamma \gamma `$ final states. In the absence of LEP–wide combined measurements, for the purpose of this talk I have followed a top-down approach and extracted limits on models beyond the Standard Model by fitting directly the preliminary results of the four LEP collaborations for $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$, or by using as input the results of the fits for the QED cut-off of the individual experiments for $`\gamma \gamma `$.

### Results

The combined results for the total cross section $`\sigma _{tot}`$ and for the forward-backward asymmetry $`\mathrm{A}_{\mathrm{FB}}`$ are shown in Figure 9. In the same figure the measurements for $`\mathrm{b}`$ and $`\mathrm{c}`$ quarks are shown. They agree well with the SM expectations above the Z resonance. A special case is the hadron cross section, which shows the tendency to lie above the SM line, computed with ZFITTER . The averaged cross section is between 2 and 3 standard deviations away from the expectation, depending on the assigned normalization uncertainty. The high precision of the measurements requires improvements in the theoretical uncertainty and independent cross-checks.

## 3 Photon-pair production: $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\gamma \gamma (\gamma )`$

The event selection is similar to the one for $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$, with the major difference that here the (absence of) tracking information is used to veto tracks associated with the electromagnetic clusters, and there is no need to recognize the electric charge. Measurements of total and differential cross sections for $`\gamma \gamma `$ final states  are shown in Figure 10. The results include the 2000 data up to 209 GeV (for ALEPH they are up to 202 GeV). Good agreement with the SM expectations is observed.

## 4 Searches for New Phenomena: Contact Interactions and Extra Dimensions

The LEP measurements show no statistically significant deviations from the SM predictions. In their absence we present limits at 95 % confidence level on several new physics proposals. The LEP2 $`f\overline{f}`$ group has derived limits on contact interactions  for $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$, $`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ and the two channels combined (Table 3, Figure 11a), for $`\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}}`$, $`b\overline{b}`$ (Figure 11b) and $`c\overline{c}`$.

For many models the limits are in the 10–20 TeV range. It is interesting to compare them with the expectations back in 1988 . The actual limits are typically a factor two better, mainly due to the successful running of LEP above the anticipated maximum energy of 190 GeV. Another factor is the combination of the results from the four collaborations.

The values for $`\epsilon `$ from Table 3 are maximally 1.5 standard deviations away from the Standard Model value $`\epsilon =0`$. The recent measurement from the E821 experiment at BNL  on the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon shows a 2.6 standard deviations discrepancy with theory. As pointed out in , if the experimental result is ascribed to muon substructure, the model-independent limit on the energy scale is $`1.2\mathrm{TeV}<\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu <3.2\mathrm{TeV}`$ at 95 % CL. The LEP limits from $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ are based on the assumption of a common energy scale for electrons and muons: $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_e\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu `$. While there is no a priori reason for the first- and second-generation lepton substructure scales to be close, the 10–20 TeV range of the LEP limits implies a very high scale for electrons if the new experimental result is originating from muon compositeness.

Some experiments  have updated their limits on the low gravity or TeV string scales, using the most sensitive channel at LEP2 - Bhabha scattering . The measurements are compared to the SM or to theories with large extra dimensions in Figure 12. The results are:

$$\mathrm{L3}:M_s^+>1.06\mathrm{TeV}M_s^{}>0.98\mathrm{TeV}TeVStrings:M_S>0.57\mathrm{TeV}$$
(17)
$$\mathrm{OPAL}:M_s^+>1.00\mathrm{TeV}M_s^{}>1.15\mathrm{TeV}.$$
(18)
The reaction $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\gamma \gamma `$ is a sensitive “QED laboratory”. The limits obtained by the LEP experiments  are compiled in Table 4. In the last column of the table I have combined the limits, using as input the results of the fits for the QED cut-off of the individual collaborations. Here the assumption that the log-likelihood curve in the variable $`1/\mathrm{\Lambda }^4`$ can be approximated with one coming from the normal distribution is made. Then it is straightforward to combine the measurements and to extract LEP-wide limits. The individual results are very close to this behaviour, and the resulting uncertainty in the limits is only a few %. This is used further as input to translate the limits in the language of low scale gravity and TeV strings, taking into account also the sign conventions.

The need to obtain combined limits on the low gravity scale has been recognized early , and LEP results are shown in Table 5, together with the new L3 and OPAL limits presented for this conference. In the last part of the table the results of combined fits to the preliminary measurements of $`\sigma _{tot}`$ and $`\mathrm{A}_{\mathrm{FB}}`$ for Bhabha scattering are shown. Here I have updated the analysis , applying the same technique. The highest energy LEP data on $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$ and $`\gamma \gamma `$ clearly improve the sensitivity of the first combined analyses, which used data up to 189 GeV. Applying the method for combining the $`\gamma \gamma `$ limits, described above, a LEP–wide limit, shown in the last row of Table 5, is extracted from the two most sensitive channels.

It is interesting to compare the newest LEP limits with the results from other colliders. The D$`\overline{)}\mathrm{O}`$ collaboration at FNAL has performed an analysis  using events containing a pair of electrons or photons, which turn out to give the highest sensitivity at the TEVATRON. The two-dimensional distribution in invariant mass and polar angle is fitted. The result is:

$$\mathrm{D}\overline{)}\mathrm{O}:M_s^+>1.1\mathrm{TeV}M_s^{}>1.0\mathrm{TeV}.$$
(19)
It is interesting to note that in spite of the low statistics at high mass, the extended energy coverage of the hadron collider is helpful, and the limits are pretty close to the most stringent lower limits to date, coming from LEP - cf. Table 5. Run II at the TEVATRON can improve substantially the results , especially by accumulating events at high mass.

The H1 collaboration has presented limits  from deep inelastic scattering at HERA:

$$\mathrm{H1}:M_s^+>0.43\mathrm{TeV}M_s^{}>0.64\mathrm{TeV}.$$
(20)
These limits are somewhat lower than those from LEP or the TEVATRON, and the next run is expected to improve the sensitivity.

The L3 collaboration has updated the limit on the TeV strings scale, as shown in Table 6. In this table also the combined limit extracted from the latest results for the $`\gamma \gamma `$ final state is shown. The limits are still below the result from the first combined analysis .

The last model investigated here is contact interaction coming from two sets of D-branes . In the case of muons and taus we can use directly the limits obtained by the LEP2 $`f\overline{f}`$ group for the VV model with positive interference. The scales are connected as:

$$\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{},\tau ^+\tau ^{}:\eta _{\mathrm{LL}}=\eta _{\mathrm{RR}}=\eta _{\mathrm{LR}}=\eta _{\mathrm{RL}}=1$$
(21)
$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{VV}^+\sqrt{\frac{4\pi }{0.59g_S}}M_S.$$
(22)
The value of the coupling constant $`g_S`$ is not known exactly, and the results are given for $`g_S=g_{YM}^2\frac{1}{2}`$, with $`g_{YM}`$ the gauge coupling, and for the extreme choice $`\frac{g_S}{4\pi }=\frac{1}{128}`$.

For electrons the D-brane model predicts a novel type of helicity structure:

$$\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}:0.75\eta _{\mathrm{LL}}=0.75\eta _{\mathrm{RR}}\eta _{\mathrm{LR}}=\eta _{\mathrm{RL}}=1$$
(23)
so we can not use directly limits provided by the individual experiments. A dedicated analysis is performed, using as input the preliminary measurements of $`\sigma _{tot}`$ and $`\mathrm{A}_{\mathrm{FB}}`$ for Bhabha scattering from the four LEP collaborations. The results are summarized in Table 7. They show a significant improvement compared to the limits in , due to the inclusion of the electron channel and the 2000 data.

## 5 Outlook

A short summary:

* the Standard Model has no difficulty to describe the full set of precise LEP2 measurements from 130-209 GeV (results at 192–209 GeV are preliminary)
* the extra dimensions remain hidden so far …
in spite of sensitive searches!
* many new limits (some deep in the TeV scale!) for physics
beyond the Standard Model
* let us hope that some of the future speakers will be more lucky and will announce

$$𝒞𝒩𝒲𝒮:𝒮𝒯𝒩𝒢𝒟𝒮𝒞𝒪𝒱𝒴\mathrm{?}$$

## Acknowledgements

The author is grateful to the four LEP collaborations for providing their latest results. Special thanks go to the members of the LEP2 $`f\overline{f}`$ group for the constructive work being done together. I would like to thank I. Antoniadis, K. Benakli, G. Giudice, S. Mele, M. Peskin and F. Schrempp for valuable discussions.