text:
# Formation and evolution of galaxy disks: what is wrong with CDM?

## 1. Introduction

According to the Cold Dark Matter (CDM) scenario, disk galaxies form within hierarchically growing dark halos. In the last years, high-resolution N-body simulations and semi-analytical approaches allowed to understand the structure, correlations, and evolution of the CDM halos in such a way that the properties of the disks formed within them can be now modeled in detail and compared with observations. Several of these properties agree with observations when detailed angular momentum conservation, smooth gas accretion (no mergers), and negligible disk-halo feedback are assumed (e.g., Firmani et al. 1997; Dalcanton et al. 1997; Mo et al. 1998; Avila-Reese et al. 1998; van den Bosch 2000,2001; Avila-Reese & Firmani 2000 (AF00); Firmani & Avila-Reese 2000 (FA00); Buchalter et al. 2001). Nevertheless, in more detail, potential difficulties seem to arise regarding e.g., the central luminous-to-dark matter ratios, the disk surface brightness profiles, and the zero-point of the Tully-Fisher relation.

Here we explore these issues by using semi-numerical models, where the coupled dynamics, hydrodynamics, SF and feedback of the dark/baryonic matter system are self-consistently solved under several simplifying assumptions (see e.g., AF00). The virtue of the semi-numerical approach is that enables to follow the overall evolution of the halo/disk/bulge system (as in the numerical simulations) and, at the same time, allows to predict correlations and statistical properties of the galaxy population (as in the semi-analytical models).

## 2. Density distribution of galaxy disks

The model. The disk is build up within the gravitational potential of a growing CDM halo. We use the extended Press-Schechter approach to generate the statistical mass aggregation histories (MAHs) of the CDM halos, and a generalized secondary infall model to calculate the virialization of the accreting mass shells (Avila-Reese et al. 1998). The mass shells are assumed to have aligned rotation axis and to be in solid body rotation, with specific angular momentum given by $`j_{sh}(t_v)=dJ(t_v)/dM(t_v)`$, where $`J=\lambda GM^{5/2}/\left|E\right|^{1/2}`$, $`J`$, $`M`$ and $`E`$ are the total angular momentum, mass and energy of the halo at the shell virialization time $`t_v`$. The spin parameter, $`\lambda `$, is assumed to be constant in time (FA00). As the result of the assembling of these mass shells, a present day halo ends with an angular momentum distribution close to the universal distribution found in the N-body simulations by Bullock et al. (2001). A fraction fd of the mass of each shell is assumed to cool down and form a disk in a dynamical time. The radial mass distribution of the infalling gas is calculated by equating its specific angular momentum to that of its final circular orbit in centrifugal equilibrium (detailed angular momentum conservation is assumed). The gravitational interaction of disk and halo is calculated using the adiabatic invariant formalism. The local SF within the growing disks is triggered by the Toomre gas gravitational instability criterion and self-regulated by a vertical disk balance between the energy input due to SNe and gas accretion and the turbulent energy dissipation in the ISM. The SF history in our models depends on the gas surface density determined mainly by $`\lambda `$, and on the gas accretion rate determined by the cosmological MAH. Finally, we consider the formation of a secular bulge using the Toomre criterion for a stellar disk.

Results. We obtain nearly exponential stellar surface density profiles, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}(r)`$, with scale radii R growing with time (inside-out formation). The question whether real disks grow with time as in the hierarchical scenario is matter of discussion currently. At $`z=0`$, the R of the modeled disk galaxy population for a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM cosmology are in agreement with observations in the luminosity-radius (L-R) and velocity-radius diagrams. The gaseous disks are also roughly exponential with R$`{}_{g}{}^{}34`$R. The predicted relation between gas fraction and surface brightness (SB) and its scatter are in good agreement with observations (FA00; AF00). The surface density of the disks is determined mainly by $`\lambda `$ (see e.g., Fig. 3b in FA00); the mass and the MAH play a minor role: the disks are slightly less dense for smaller masses and/or more extended MAHs.

In more detail, the $`z=0`$ density profiles are typically more concentrated in the center and with an excess at the periphery than the exponential distribution. Bullock et al. (2001) find that this is a direct consequence of the CDM halo $`J`$distribution. We also find that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}(r)`$ is mainly determined by the initial $`J`$distribution, but the sequential way in which the disk slabs aggregate (given by the halo MAH) and the way the gas is transformed in stars, also play a role. For the smoothed (averaged) MAHs with a given statistical significance (see Fig. 1b in FA00), $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}(r)`$ always presents a non-negligible core and tail excesses w.r.t. an exponential (Fig. 3a in FA00). However, when the individual realizations of the MAHs are used (Fig. 1a in FA00), in several cases the profiles result very close to an exponential law. The individual MAHs are discontinuous and some times “jump” from the high to the low accretion regimes and visceversa, so that using a simple parametrization for them (e.g., van den Bosch 2001), get to lose a significant fraction of possible MAHs. Note that $`j_{sh}`$ is a function of the time at which the mass shell is incorporated into the halo, i.e. it depends on the MAH.

In Fig. 1 we show the central surface density (brightness) excess w.r.t. the exponential fit in magnitudes, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0\mu _0\mu _{0,\mathrm{exp}}`$, vs. the bulge-to-disk mass (b/d) ratio that we obtain for disks formed within $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM halos using randomly selected MAHs and $`\lambda `$ (the latter taken from the usual lognormal distribution). The models are for a flat cosmology with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=h=0.7`$ and a disk mass fraction fd=0.05 (the same models as in FA00). The bulge mass is calculated as the mass where the Toomre instability criterion for a stellar disk is obeyed. This simple model is in line with the secular bulge formation scenario, which seems to be adequate for disk galaxies later than Sba type (see Avila-Reese & Firmani 1999 and the references therein). Gravitational instabilities in the disk produce bars which dissolve forming a bulge (Christodoulou et al. 1995; Norman et al. 1996; Valenzuela & Klypin 2002). Thus, according to the models, the region of core excess that disks formed within CDM halos present, is typically the region that will be transformed into a spherical component (AF00).

In Fig. 1, estimates of the average $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ from the high SB (HSB) sample of disk galaxies of de Jong (1996) and Verheijen (1997) and from the low SB (LSB) sample of the latter author are shown. These authors have decomposed the observed $`K`$-band SB profiles in (exponential) disk and bulge components. Solid and empty symbols in Fig. 1 are for models with disk central $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{,0}>200\text{M}\text{}`$ pc-2 and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{,0}200\text{M}\text{}`$ pc-2, respectively. Upon the understanding that the core excess $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ corresponds to a bulge, HSB models have in fact less concentrated SB profiles than observed HSB galaxies. Several processes could concentrate further the central disk/bulge region. For example, we did not take into account the mass inflow that will produce the bar before it dissolves into a bulge. High-resolution N-body simulations of a Milky Way disk within a CDM halo show that this process increases $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{,0}`$ by $`1.15`$ and 1.30 mag for disks with initial R of 3.5 and 3.0 kpc, respectively (Valenzuela & Klypin 2002). These factors are plotted in Fig. 1 (dashed arrows) for the average $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ of the models corresponding to b/d=0.1 and 0.2, which are the final values obtained by Valenzuela & Klypin.

The LSB galaxy models have typically small or nonexistent bulges (models without bulges were plotted in Fig. 1 with b/d ratios of $`10^3`$). In these cases, the SB core excess can not be interpreted at all as a bulge. Actually, there are LSB models with $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ below the observational average. Therefore, in some cases the pure disks formed within CDM halos may be well fitted by an exponential law. This is at odds with the strong conclusion of van den Bosch (2001) that LSB disks formed within CDM halos are much more concentrated than an exponential, in conflict with observations. Although he implemented a disk/bulge formation scheme similar to ours, he used only smoothed MAHs. When using these smoothed MAHs, we obtain core excesses typically larger than when the random MAHs are used. We also differ with van den Bosch (2001) in the way the SF is modeled: we use a physical self-consistent model of SF. The models predict a Schmidt law with index $`\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{_<}{^{}}2`$, which changes slighlty with radius.

Back to Fig. 1, one sees that the average $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ for the LSB models is larger than observations. As mentioned below, several pieces of evidence suggest shallow cores in dark halos. In Fig. 1b we show the same $`3.5\times 10^{11}\text{M}\text{}`$ models as in Fig. 1a, but with a shallow core in their halos. The disks formed within these halos are slightly less concentrated in the center than disks formed within cuspy halos. Regarding the tail excess of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}(r)`$ w.r.t. an exponential, again, using the random MAHs, there are cases when this excess is even reverted. The observed SB profiles also show a diversity of cases with tail excess or defect. Although a more quantitative comparison of models and observations is desirable, the density distributions of disks formed within CDM halos seem to be not in strong conflict with observations, in particular if the halos have a soft core.

## 3. Luminous-to-dark matter ratios

The shapes of the model rotation curves (RCs) are smooth, showing a weak conspiracy between the dark and luminous matter distributions. The higher the disk surface density (the smaller the $`\lambda `$), the steeper the declining shape of the RC (see Fig. 5 in FA00 and Fig. 3b here); this is in agreement with some observational evidence (Casertano & van Gorkom 1990; Verheijen 1997). The same trend is observed with the disk mass fraction fd. Regarding the RC decomposition, the dark component dominates even in the central regions for models with $`\lambda \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{_>}{^{}}0.035`$ and $`\text{f}\text{d}0.05`$. For $`\lambda \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{_<}{^{}}0.045`$, the models disks have large surface densities typically (HSB galaxies).

The disk-to-total rotation velocity ratio at 2.2 scale radii, $`\text{(V}{}_{d}{}^{}/\text{V}\text{t}\text{)}\text{2.2}`$ (Vd/Vt)max, offers a quantitative way to measure the model luminous-to-dark matter ratio. In Fig. 2 we plot (V$`{}_{d}{}^{}/`$Vt)2.2 vs. $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{,0}`$ for the 20 random realizations with $`M_v=3.5\times 10^{11}\text{M}\text{}`$ (solid symbols). The luminous-to-dark matter ratio of disk galaxies within CDM halos continuously decreases from HSB to LSB disks. Observations suggest that HSB galaxies tend to the maximum disk case (e.g., Corsini et al. 1998; Salucci & Persic 1999; Palunas & Williams 2000). Comparison of population synthesis models with the photometric properties of HSB galaxies also point to mass-to-luminosity ratios corresponding to the maximum disk case (e.g., Bell & de Jong 2001). Theoretical arguments as the swing amplifier constraints (Athanassoula et al. 1987) also suggest central luminous matter dominion in HSB galaxies. Regarding LSB galaxies, it is well known that they are dark matter dominated systems (de Blok & McGaugh 1997). A maximum disk solution for LSB galaxies demands too high mass-to-luminosity ratios from the stellar population point of view (de Blok et al. 2001).

Our results enable to interpret the problem of whether galaxies are maximum or sub-maximal disks: all the cases are possible, from maximum disk for the highest SB galaxies to Bottema and other sub-maximal solutions for the lower SB galaxies. However, for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM, fd=0.05 models we study here, the average value of (V$`{}_{d}{}^{}/`$Vt)2.2 is $`0.7`$ for a typical HSB galaxy ($`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{,0}400\text{M}\text{}`$ pc-2), while for the maximum disk solution that observations seem to favor at least in some cases, $`\text{(V}{}_{d}{}^{}/\text{V}\text{t}\text{)}\text{2.2}=0.85\pm 0.1`$. Therefore, HSB galaxies formed within CDM halos are too much dark matter dominated in the center so as to be maximum disks. This is because the inner mass distribution of the CDM halos is very concentrated. Observations of dark matter dominated galaxies (dwarfs and LSB) show that the halo inner density profile is indeed shallower than CDM predictions (see e.g., Bosma, this volume). We artificially flattened the inner density profiles of the growing CDM halos in such a way that at $`z=0`$ (taking into account the gravitational drag of the disk) the halos have shallow cores similar to those inferred for observed LSB galaxies. Results for these models are shown with empty circles in Fig. 3. Now, a typical HSB galaxy can be maximum disk. The scatter in Fig. 3 is due to the MAH.

The infrared Tully-Fisher relation (TFR) and its scatter. According to the models, this relation is a direct consequence of the mass-velocity relation of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM halos, which in the range of galaxy masses has a slope of $`3.2`$ (FA00). The zero-point of the model TFR is fainter by $`0.6`$ mag w.r.t. the Giovanelli et al. (1997) and Tully & Pierce (2000) $`I`$-band TFRs, but is in agreement with other observational determinations. In the N-body/hydrodynamical simulations, the zero-point is much fainter than the observed (Navarro, this volume). This is because in these simulations disks end much more concentrated than observed, producing highly peaked rotation curves, i.e. large Vm. Our models with a shallow core in the halos (see above) give a TFR only $`0.10.2`$ mag fainter than in the the two first observational works mentioned above.

The scatter in the model TFR is produced mainly by $`(i)`$ the scatter in the halo concentrations given by the stochastic nature of the MAHs, and $`(ii)`$ the scatter in the disk SBs given by the dispersion of $`\lambda `$. FA00 have found that the latter is reduced significantly due to the SF efficiency dependency on surface density. As is seen in Fig. 3a, for a given mass, Vm increases with SB (see also above). This introduces a large scatter in the total disk mass-Vm relation, even larger than the scatter due to the halo concentrations. However, the higher the disk surface density, the more efficient the gas transformation in stars, so that M or the infrared luminosity of disks of the same mass will be larger for the higher SB ones: the models shift along the main TFR! (Fig. 4, solid arrows). Therefore, the TFR of HSB and LSB galaxies is nearly the same, in agreement with observations. Neither does the disk mass fraction fd introduce significant scatter in the TFR: for larger (smaller) fd, the luminosity will be larger (smaller) but Vm will also be larger (smaller) in such a way, that the model shifts along the main TFR (Fig 3, dotted arrows). The average scatter in the model TFR is 0.36 mag, mainly produced by the dispersion in the halo concentrations (MAHs).

Correlation among the residuals of the TF and L-R relations. Because of the lack of correlation of the scatter in the TFR with SB, one also expects a lack of correlation among the residuals of the TF and L-R relations. Observations show indeed a very small correlation among these residuals (Courteau & Rix 1999). The last authors interpreted this result as an evidence of large dark halo dominion in disk galaxies. If dark matter dominates strongly, then variations in the disk density will not change significantly Vm for a given mass, therefore deviations from the main TFR in velocity will not be correlated with deviations from the main L-R relation. This interpretation is valid when one uses the total disk mass Md instead of M or L. We find that the average slope of the correlation among the residuals of the Md-Vm and Md-R relations for disks formed within the cuspy CDM halos is $`\delta `$lgVm/$`\delta `$lgR$`0.35`$. Therefore, according to the interpretation of Courteau & Rix, even CDM halos would then be in conflict with observations. If a shallow core is introduced, then the slope is even steeper, $`0.4`$ (this slope is $`0.5`$ for maximum disks). However, in order to compare it with observations, we have to use M or luminosity instead of Md. In this case the correlation disappears! (Fig. 8 in FA00). The explanation is the same as why the scatter of the TFR does not correlate with SB in spite of the fact that the RC shape does: the dependence of SF efficiency on surface density makes the difference (see above). In more detail, we predict that from the small to the large $`\delta `$lgR side (from HSB to LSB disks), $`\delta `$lgVm/$`\delta `$lgR is first negative, then becomes 0 (for most of the normal galaxies) and then increases for the lowest SB galaxies. A preliminary analysis from observations using the Verheijen (1997) sample confirms this trend (Fig. 8b in FA00).

## 4. Conclusions

Using self-consistent evolutionary models of disk galaxy formation within $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM halos, and under the assumption of detailed angular momentum conservation and $`\lambda =`$const in time, we find that the disk stellar and gas surface density profiles are in good agreement with observations. The core excess w.r.t. the exponential law that the models show corresponds to a bulge formed by disk gravitational instabilities (AF00). In the case of bulge-less LSB disks, although there are models presenting negligible core excess, most of them tend to show slightly more concentrated SB profiles than those observed. The introduction of shallow cores in the halos alleviates this problem. A key point to have in mind is the very discontinuous nature of the cosmological MAHs and the SF physics.

A potential shortcoming of disks formed within CDM halos is that dark matter dominates even for HSB galaxies. Again, the introduction of shallow cores in agreement with direct inferences from dwarf and LSB galaxies, solves this problem. The models show that the luminous-to-dark matter ratio in disk galaxies continuously decreases with SB: the highest SB galaxies are maximum disks while the lowest SB ones are close to minimal disks.

The slope, zero-point and scatter of the model infrared TFR for HSB and LSB galaxies are in good agreement with the observational reports of several authors. The introduction of shallow cores in the CDM halos improves the comparison. Even that the RC shape of the models correlates with the disk SB, a negligible correlation among the residuals of the TF and L-V relations is found, in agreement with observations. Therefore, the lack of this correlation should not be interpreted as a definitive evidence of sub-maximal disks, where the RC shape does not depend on SB. We conclude that $`z=0`$ disks formed within modified (shallow) CDM halos are realistic under the assumption of no major merger assembly and angular momentum conservation.

### Acknowledgments.

V.A. thanks the organizers for financial help and for having achieved an interesting and fruitful meeting, and O. Valenzuela for helpful comments. This work was supported by CONACyT grant 33776-E to V.A.

## References

Athanassoula, E., Bosma, A., Pappaioannou, S. 1987, A&A, 179, 23

Avila-Reese, V, & Firmani, C. 1999, ASP Conf. Series, 163, 243

\________., 2000, RevMexA&A, 36, 23 (AF00)

Avila-Reese, V., Firmani, C., & Hernández X. 1998, ApJ, 505, 37

Bell, E. & de Jong, R.S. 2001, ApJ, 550, 212

Buchalter, A., Jimenez, R. & Kamionkowski, M. 2001, MNRAS, 322, 43

Bullock, J. et al. 2001, ApJ, 555, 240

Casertano, S. & van Gorkom, J.H. 1991, AJ, 101, 1231

Christodoulou, D. M., Shlosman, I. & Tohline, J. E.ApJ, 443, 551

Corsini, E.M. et al., 1998, A&A, 342, 671

Courteau, S., & Rix, H-W. 1998, ApJ, 513, 561

Dalcanton J.J., Spergel D.N., Summers F.J., 1997, ApJ, 482, 659

de Jong, R.S. 1996, A&ASS, 118, 557

Firmani, C., Avila-Reese, V., Hernández, X. 1997, ASP Conf. Series, 117, 424

Firmani, C. & Avila-Reese, V. 2000, MNRAS, 315, 457 (FA00)

Giovanelli, R. et al. 1997, AJ, 113, 53

McGaugh S.S. & de Blok W.J.G., 1997, ApJ, 481, 689

Mo H.J., Mao S. & White S.D.M., 1998, MNRAS, 295, 319

Norman, C.A., Sellwood, J.A. & Hassan, H. 1996, ApJ, 462, 114

Palunas, P. & Williams, T.B. 2000, AJ, 120, 2884

Salucci P. & Persic M. 1999, A&A, 351, 442

Tully, R.B. & Pierce, J.P. 2000, ApJ, 533, 749

van den Bosch, F.C., 2000, ApJ, 530, 177; & \_____., 2001, MNRAS, 337, 1334

Valenzuela, O. & Klypin, A. 2002, in preparation

Verheijen, M.A.W., 1997, PhD. Thesis, Groningen University


format: text

text:
# Decoherence Sturdy Memories in the Presence of Quantum Dissipation

## 1 Introduction

The very same mechanism responsible for the potential improvements on computation speed using quantum mechanics, is the one which greatly hinders immediante technical implementation. Entanglement between different subsystems is essential for the production of the states used in information processing; at the same time it prevents these qubits to be completely isolated from its environment, producing undesired entanglement with the environmental degrees of freedom. The deleterious effect of this coupling is usually called decoherence. Therefore much effort has been devoted to finding ways around decoherence in quantum computation, such as error correcting codes, dynamical decoupling and computation in decoherence free subspaces. Experimental observations of decoherence free evolution have been reported. Many physical implementations have been proposed including cavity QED, ions traps , nuclear magnetic resonance  and semiconductor quantum dots. From the theoretical point of view, recent work has been mainly on proving the existence of DF subspaces. Much less work, however has been devoted to the dynamics. In general those models are highly idealized, and it is of interest at least to relax some of the stringent conditions, e.g. degeneracy of the free modes, and calculate such effects on the time evolution of the system. This could be considered as an important step towards realistic implementations of the models.

In the present work we consider the case of N independent oscillators linearly coupled to a single environment, and show that the existence of strict decoherence free subspaces can only be obtained under the following two conditions: degeneracy of the oscillators, and separability of the coupling with the environment. Both the exact form of the spectral density and the temperature of the environment are immaterial in what concerns the existence of DFS. A formal equation for the dynamics of the reduced density matrix of the oscillators is derived which resembles the corresponding master equation, but with time dependent coefficients. For two independent oscillators we solve the dynamics of the reduced density and construct the decoherence free subspace. Moreover under Markov approximation, and zero temperature, we are able to give an analytical expression for the time evolution of the system of interest, in the general case (i.e. non degenerate modes and nonseparable coupling). We study the effect of a slight breaking of the degeneracy and separability and show that the dynamics will in general produce a long lived and a short live components. The time scale for the duration of these components is derived in terms of the appropriate parameters.

## 2 The model

Let us consider a collection of N identical harmonic oscillators linearly coupled to a single environment, modelled as a large set of harmonic oscillators,

$$\widehat{𝐇}=\omega \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\widehat{𝐚}_𝐢^{}\widehat{𝐚}_𝐢+\underset{k}{}\omega _k\widehat{𝐛}_𝐤^{}\widehat{𝐛}_𝐤+\underset{i,k}{}(g_{ik}^{}\widehat{𝐚}_𝐢^{}\widehat{𝐛}_𝐤+g_{ik}\widehat{𝐚}_𝐢\widehat{𝐛}_𝐤^{})$$

If the coupling of the N oscillators to the environment does not depend on the particular oscillator, apart from an overall factor, the coupling constants $`g_{ik}`$ can be written as a product $`G_iD_k`$. In this case it is immediate to verify that there is a single collective mode which will remain coupled to the environment, while the other N-1 collective modes form a decoherent free (infinite) subspace. The collective mode can be easily visualized if we rewrite the hamiltonian as follows

$$\widehat{𝐇}=\omega \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\widehat{𝐚}_𝐢^{}\widehat{𝐚}_𝐢+\underset{k}{}\omega _k\widehat{𝐛}_𝐤^{}\widehat{𝐛}_𝐤+\underset{k}{}\left(D_k^{}(\underset{i}{}G_i^{}\widehat{𝐚}_𝐢^{})\widehat{𝐛}_𝐤+D_k(\underset{i}{}G_i\widehat{𝐚}_𝐢)\widehat{𝐛}_𝐤^{}\right),$$

where it is clear that the collective mode coupled to the environment has the following creation and annihilation operators

$$\widehat{𝐀}_\mathrm{𝟏}^{}=\frac{_iG_i^{}\widehat{𝐚}_𝐢^{}}{_i|G_i|^2},\widehat{𝐀}_\mathrm{𝟏}=\frac{_iG_i\widehat{𝐚}_𝐢}{_i|G_i|^2}.$$

This can be viewed as a N-dimensional rotation in the space of the original creation and annihilation operators, which maps the set $`\widehat{𝐚}_𝐢`$ onto the set $`\widehat{𝐀}_𝐢`$ in terms of which the hamiltonian is rewritten as

$$\widehat{𝐇}=\omega \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\widehat{𝐀}_𝐢^{}\widehat{𝐀}_𝐢+\underset{k}{}\omega _k\widehat{𝐛}_𝐤^{}\widehat{𝐛}_𝐤+\widehat{𝐀}_\mathrm{𝟏}^{}\underset{k}{}c_k\widehat{𝐛}_𝐤+\widehat{𝐀}_\mathrm{𝟏}\underset{k}{}c_k^{}\widehat{𝐛}_𝐤^{},$$

with $`c_k=_i|G_i|^2D_k^{}`$. The rotation leading to the equation above defines the relation between the new and old operators. This rotation is not unique except in the case of two identical operators. We show next that in contrast with other commonly studied models, in the present one we are able to introduce both decoherence and dissipation, for arbitrary environmental spectral densities (ohmic, subohmic, etc) and temperatures. A long but straighforward procedure leads to the following exact generalized master equation

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \frac{d\widehat{\rho }}{dt}=& \frac{1}{i\mathrm{}}[\widehat{𝐇}_\mathrm{𝟎},\widehat{\rho }]+(\lambda +ϵ)(2\widehat{𝐀}_\mathrm{𝟏}\widehat{𝐀}_\mathrm{𝟏}^{}\widehat{𝐀}_\mathrm{𝟏}^{}\widehat{𝐀}_\mathrm{𝟏}\widehat{𝐀}_\mathrm{𝟏}^{}\widehat{𝐀}_\mathrm{𝟏})\widehat{\rho }\hfill \\ & +ϵ(2\widehat{𝐀}_\mathrm{𝟏}^{}\widehat{𝐀}_\mathrm{𝟏}\widehat{𝐀}_\mathrm{𝟏}\widehat{𝐀}_\mathrm{𝟏}^{}\widehat{𝐀}_\mathrm{𝟏}\widehat{𝐀}_\mathrm{𝟏}^{})\widehat{\rho },\hfill \end{array}$$
(1)
where

$$\widehat{𝐇}_\mathrm{𝟎}=\mathrm{}\omega \underset{i=2}{\overset{N}{}}\widehat{𝐀}_𝐢^{}\widehat{𝐀}_𝐢+\mathrm{}(\omega +\delta )\widehat{𝐀}_\mathrm{𝟏}^{}\widehat{𝐀}_\mathrm{𝟏}.$$

The real functions $`\lambda ,\delta ,ϵ`$ are implicitly defined in terms of the auxiliary function $`\eta (t)`$

$$\eta (t)=\mathrm{exp}\left(_0^t\lambda (t^{})𝑑t^{}iwti_0^t\delta (t^{})𝑑t^{}\right)$$
(2)
which satisfies the integrodifferential equation

$$\dot{\eta }+i\omega \eta +_0^t𝑑\tau \underset{k}{}|c_k|^2\mathrm{e}^{i\omega _k(t\tau )}\eta (\tau )=0,$$
(3)
subject to the initial condition $`\eta (0)=1`$. Moreover we have

$$ϵ(t)=\frac{|\eta (t)|^2}{2}\frac{d}{dt}\left(\underset{k}{}\frac{|c_k|^2n_k(\beta )}{|\eta (t)|^2}\left|_0^t𝑑\tau e^{i\omega _k(t\tau )}\eta (\tau )\right|^2\right).$$

where $`n_k(\beta )`$ is the mean excitation number for the k-th mode of the environment at inverse temperature $`\beta =1/k_BT`$. If the usual Born-Markov approximations hold, then $`\delta (t)=0`$, $`\lambda (t)=_ik_i`$, and $`ϵ=_ik_i\overline{n}`$, where $`k_i`$ characterize the markovian evolution when the only the i-th original oscillator is coupled to the bath, and $`\overline{n}`$ is the environment mean number of thermal excitations. In this case the master equation simplifies to

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \frac{d\widehat{\rho }}{dt}=& i\omega \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}[\widehat{𝐀}_𝐢^{}\widehat{𝐀}_𝐢,\widehat{\rho }]+\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}k_i(\overline{n}+1)(2\widehat{𝐀}_\mathrm{𝟏}\widehat{𝐀}_\mathrm{𝟏}^{}\widehat{𝐀}_\mathrm{𝟏}^{}\widehat{𝐀}_\mathrm{𝟏}\widehat{𝐀}_\mathrm{𝟏}^{}\widehat{𝐀}_\mathrm{𝟏})\widehat{\rho }\hfill \\ & +\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}k_i\overline{n}(2\widehat{𝐀}_\mathrm{𝟏}^{}\widehat{𝐀}_\mathrm{𝟏}\widehat{𝐀}_\mathrm{𝟏}\widehat{𝐀}_\mathrm{𝟏}^{}\widehat{𝐀}_\mathrm{𝟏}\widehat{𝐀}_\mathrm{𝟏}^{})\widehat{\rho }.\hfill \end{array}$$
(4)
Note that the collective mode which couples to the environmental degrees of freedom decoheres much faster than any of the individual oscillators.

### 2.1 Two Identical Oscillators

For the sake of definiteness we restrict ourselves to the case of two identical oscillators. Let us see that in this case the collective mode $`\widehat{𝐀}_\mathrm{𝟏}`$ ($`\widehat{𝐀}_\mathrm{𝟐}`$) which couples (decouples) to the environment is given by

$$\widehat{𝐀}_\mathrm{𝟏}^{()}=\mathrm{cos}(\theta )\widehat{𝐚}_\mathrm{𝟏}^{()}+\mathrm{sin}(\theta )\widehat{𝐚}_\mathrm{𝟐}^{()},\widehat{𝐀}_\mathrm{𝟐}^{()}=\mathrm{sin}(\theta )\widehat{𝐚}_\mathrm{𝟏}^{()}+\mathrm{cos}(\theta )\widehat{𝐚}_\mathrm{𝟐}^{()},$$

with $`\mathrm{tan}(\theta )=G_2/G_1`$, which reduces to $`\mathrm{tan}(\theta )=\sqrt{k_2/k_1}`$ when the markovian approximation is valid. Let us see that the transformation above can be implemented as using an appsropriate rotation operator. The generalized master equation (1) for two identical oscillator can be exactly solved using the evolution superoperator $`𝒰(t)`$

$$𝒰(t)=e^{i\theta [i(\widehat{𝐚}_\mathrm{𝟏}\widehat{𝐚}_\mathrm{𝟐}^{}\widehat{𝐚}_\mathrm{𝟐}\widehat{𝐚}_\mathrm{𝟏}^{}),]}\mathrm{e}^{iwt[\widehat{𝐚}_\mathrm{𝟐}^{}\widehat{𝐚}_\mathrm{𝟐},]}v\mathrm{e}^{(1v)\widehat{𝐚}_\mathrm{𝟏}^{}\widehat{𝐚}_\mathrm{𝟏}}\mathrm{e}^{x\widehat{𝐚}_\mathrm{𝟏}^{}\widehat{𝐚}_\mathrm{𝟏}}\mathrm{e}^{x^{}\widehat{𝐚}_\mathrm{𝟏}^{}\widehat{𝐚}_\mathrm{𝟏}}\mathrm{e}^{z\widehat{𝐚}_\mathrm{𝟏}\widehat{𝐚}_\mathrm{𝟏}^{}}e^{i\theta [i(\widehat{𝐚}_\mathrm{𝟏}\widehat{𝐚}_\mathrm{𝟐}^{}\widehat{𝐚}_\mathrm{𝟐}\widehat{𝐚}_\mathrm{𝟏}^{}),]}$$
(5)
where the coefficients $`v(t)`$, $`x(t)`$ and $`z(t)`$ can be given in terms of the functions $`\eta (t)`$, eq. (2), and $`𝒩(t)`$,

$$𝒩(t)=_0^t𝑑\tau ϵ(\tau )\left|\frac{\eta (\tau )}{\eta (t)}\right|^2,$$

as follows

$$v(t)=\frac{1}{1+𝒩(t)},x(t)=\mathrm{ln}\frac{\eta (t)}{\sqrt{1+𝒩(t)}},z(t)=1\frac{\left|\eta (t)\right|^2}{1+𝒩(t)}.$$

In the markovian limit the preceding formulas reduce to

$$v=\frac{1}{1+\overline{n}(1e^{2(k_1+k_2)t})},x=\mathrm{ln}\frac{e^{(i\omega k_1k_2)t}}{\sqrt{1+\overline{n}(1e^{2(k_1+k_2)t})}},z=\frac{(\overline{n}+1)(1e^{2(k_1+k_2)t})}{1+\overline{n}(1e^{2(k_1+k_2)t)})}.$$

In eq. (5) the first and last terms of the rhs correspond to the rotation which leads to the coupled and uncoupled collective modes.

Since the second collective mode is effectively decoupled from the environment, any density operator in the Hilbert space of this mode, times the asymptotic density operator of the coupled collective mode, provided it exists, will experience a unitary evolution. For simplicity we will further on restrict ourselves to the zero temperature case. Any density operator of the form

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \widehat{\rho }& =\underset{n,m}{}\frac{\widehat{\rho }_{n,m}}{n!m!}(\widehat{𝐚}_\mathrm{𝟏}^{}\mathrm{sin}(\theta )+\widehat{𝐚}_\mathrm{𝟐}^{}\mathrm{cos}(\theta ))^n|0,00,0|(\widehat{𝐚}_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{sin}(\theta )+\widehat{𝐚}_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathrm{cos}(\theta ))^m\hfill \\ & =\underset{n,m,n_1,m_1}{}\widehat{\rho }_{n,m}\frac{\sqrt{n!m!}(\mathrm{sin}\theta )^{n+mn_1m_1}(\mathrm{cos}\theta )^{n_1+m_1}}{\sqrt{(nn_1)!n_1!(mm_1)!m_1!}}\hfill \\ & \times |n_1,nn_1m_1,mm_1|,\hfill \end{array}$$

will be protected against dissipation and decoherence. In fact, applying the evolution superoperator to an initial density matrix of this form, we obtain

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \widehat{\rho }(t)& =\underset{n,m,n_1,m_1}{}e^{i\omega t(nm)}\widehat{\rho }_{n,m}\frac{\sqrt{n!m!}(\mathrm{sin}\theta )^{n+mn_1m_1}(\mathrm{cos}\theta )^{n_1+m_1}}{\sqrt{(nn_1)!n_1!(mm_1)!m_1!}}\hfill \\ & \times |n_1,nn_1m_1,mm_1|,\hfill \end{array}$$

Now, we use the evolution superoperator on the initial operator density

$$\widehat{\rho }(0)=(\mathrm{cos}(\alpha )|1,0+\mathrm{sin}(\alpha )e^{i\varphi }|0,1)(\mathrm{cos}(\alpha )1,0|+\mathrm{sin}(\alpha )e^{i\varphi }0,1|),$$
(6)
to obtain the time dependent evolution, which can be given in closed form and corresponds to the limit where the frequencies are degenerate and coupling is separable, of the formulas given in the next section. For now we show the asymptotic limit,

$$\widehat{\rho }(t\mathrm{})=P|\psi \psi |+(1P)|0,00,0|$$

where the probability to go to the state $`|\psi `$,

$$|\psi =\frac{\sqrt{k_2}|1,0\sqrt{k_1}|0,1}{\sqrt{k_1+k_2}}$$

is given by

$$P=\frac{\sqrt{k_2}\mathrm{cos}(\alpha )\sqrt{k_1}e^{i\varphi }\mathrm{sin}(\alpha )}{\sqrt{k_1+k_2}}^2,$$

and the probability to go to the joint ground state is $`1P`$.

Observe that varying $`\alpha `$ and $`\varphi `$ we can go from total preservation to total leakage. For example, if we set $`\mathrm{tan}(\alpha )=\sqrt{k_1/k_2}`$, and $`\varphi =0`$ then the full state will leak to the ground state $`|0,0`$. On the other hand, if we set $`\mathrm{tan}(\alpha )=\sqrt{k_2/k_1}`$, and $`\varphi =0`$ then the initial state will be exactly equal to $`|\psi `$, and will persist at all times with probability 1. All other combinations will go to the asymptotic state $`|\psi `$ with probability $`P`$ and to the ground state $`|0,0`$ with probability $`1P`$. The asymptotic fidelity, $`F(\mathrm{})`$, which is the overlap between the initial and final density matrices, is given by

$$F(\mathrm{})=\frac{(\sqrt{k_2}\mathrm{cos}(\alpha )\sqrt{k_1}e^{i\varphi }\mathrm{sin}(\alpha ))(\sqrt{k_2}\mathrm{cos}(\alpha )\sqrt{k_1}e^{i\varphi }\mathrm{sin}(\alpha ))}{k_1+k_2}^2$$

## 3 Effects of more Realistic Modelling

We remark that the results above were obtained under a number of assumptions, which will be relaxed below. Notice that the use of the rotating wave approximation (RWA) is not essential in obtaining the decoupled mode: any interaction linear in the field operators would be as good (provided the other assumptions hold). Had we chosen an interaction linear in the identical oscillators but nonlinear on the environmental operators we would have obtained also a decoupled collective mode. In these cases, however, the complication would be only of technical nature leading to (much) more complex dynamics.

Another important hypothesis to obtain DFS is that of identical frequencies of the original main oscillators. Of course, any interaction between them would destroy the symmetry upon which the existence of DFS rests. On the other hand, we have assumed that the oscillator-environment coupling satisfies $`g_{ik}=G_iD_k`$, which amounts to a separable coupling. It is not an easy task to find realizations of such interactions in nature given its nonlocal character. However, it might be a good approximation in special circumstances, as e.g. optical cavities. A particular consequence of the separability hypothesis can be seen writing the master equation, in the zero temperature limit, in terms of the original oscillators (with different frequencies for generality)

$`_0`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{𝐚}_\mathrm{𝟏}^{}\widehat{𝐚}_\mathrm{𝟏}(i\omega _1k_1)+\widehat{𝐚}_\mathrm{𝟏}^{}\widehat{𝐚}(i\omega _1k_1)+2k_1\widehat{𝐚}_\mathrm{𝟏}\widehat{𝐚}_\mathrm{𝟏}^{}`$ (7)
$`+\widehat{𝐚}_\mathrm{𝟐}^{}\widehat{𝐚}_\mathrm{𝟐}(i\omega _2k_2)+\widehat{𝐚}_\mathrm{𝟐}^{}\widehat{𝐚}_\mathrm{𝟐}(i\omega _2k_2)+2k_2\widehat{𝐚}_\mathrm{𝟐}\widehat{𝐚}_\mathrm{𝟐}^{}`$
$`+k_3(2\widehat{𝐚}_\mathrm{𝟏}\widehat{𝐚}_\mathrm{𝟐}^{}\widehat{𝐚}_\mathrm{𝟏}^{}\widehat{𝐚}_\mathrm{𝟐}\widehat{𝐚}_\mathrm{𝟏}^{}\widehat{𝐚}_\mathrm{𝟐})+k_3(2\widehat{𝐚}_\mathrm{𝟐}\widehat{𝐚}_\mathrm{𝟏}^{}\widehat{𝐚}\widehat{𝐚}_\mathrm{𝟐}^{}\widehat{𝐚}_\mathrm{𝟏}\widehat{𝐚}_\mathrm{𝟐}^{}).`$
Notice that we have introduced a new quantity $`k_3`$, which is the environment induced coupling. When the separability condition holds the three dissipation constants, $`k_1,k_2,k_3`$ satisfy the relationship $`k_3^2=k_1k_2`$. Since these constants are given by the expressions

$`\left|g_{1k}\right|^2{\displaystyle \frac{k_1}{\pi }},\left|g_{2k}\right|^2{\displaystyle \frac{k_2}{\pi }},g_{1k}g_{2k}^{}(\omega ){\displaystyle \frac{k_3}{\pi }}`$ (8)
Schwarz inequality implies immediately that $`|k_3|^2k_1k_2`$ in the general (nonseparable) case. In what follows we present the general solution to eq. (7) and study, in particular, the dynamics for parameters which do not quite satisfy the condition for DFS, but both the frequency degeneracy and coupling separability are almost fulfilled.

The evolution superoperator for eq.(7) is given by

$`\widehat{\rho }(t)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{j_1(t)\widehat{𝐚}_\mathrm{𝟏}\widehat{𝐚}_\mathrm{𝟏}^{}}e^{j_2(t)\widehat{𝐚}_\mathrm{𝟐}\widehat{𝐚}_\mathrm{𝟐}^{}}e^{z(t)\widehat{𝐚}_\mathrm{𝟐}\widehat{𝐚}_\mathrm{𝟏}^{}}e^{z^{}(t)\widehat{𝐚}_\mathrm{𝟏}\widehat{𝐚}_\mathrm{𝟐}^{}}e^{q(t)\widehat{𝐚}_\mathrm{𝟏}\widehat{𝐚}_\mathrm{𝟐}^{}}e^{q^{}(t)\widehat{𝐚}_\mathrm{𝟏}^{}\widehat{𝐚}_\mathrm{𝟐}}e^{m_2(t)\widehat{𝐚}_\mathrm{𝟐}^{}\widehat{𝐚}_\mathrm{𝟐}}e^{m_2^{}(t)\widehat{𝐚}_\mathrm{𝟐}^{}\widehat{𝐚}_\mathrm{𝟐}}`$ (9)
$`e^{m_1(t)\widehat{𝐚}_\mathrm{𝟏}^{}\widehat{𝐚}_\mathrm{𝟏}}e^{m_1^{}(t)\widehat{𝐚}_\mathrm{𝟏}^{}\widehat{𝐚}_\mathrm{𝟏}}e^{q(t)\widehat{𝐚}_\mathrm{𝟏}^{}\widehat{𝐚}_\mathrm{𝟐}}e^{q^{}(t)\widehat{𝐚}_\mathrm{𝟏}]e\widehat{𝐚}_\mathrm{𝟐}^{}}\widehat{\rho }_0`$
where

$`R={\displaystyle \frac{k_2+k_1}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{i\left(\omega _2+\omega _1\right)}{2}},c=k_2k_1+i\left(\omega _2\omega _1\right),r=\sqrt{c^2+4k_3^2},\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm =c\pm r`$
$`q(t)=2k_3\left(1e^{rt}\right)\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_+e^{rt}\mathrm{\Delta }_{}\right)^1\text{for}r0`$
$`e^{m_1(t)}={\displaystyle \frac{e^{Rt}}{2r}}e^{\frac{rt}{2}}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_+e^{rt}\mathrm{\Delta }_{}\right),e^{m_2(t)}=e^{2Rt}e^{m_1(t)}`$
$`j_2(t)=\left(1+|q(t)|^2\right)\left(\left|e^{m_2(t)}\right|^2\right)1`$
$`j_1(t)=\left|e^{m_1(t)}+q(t)^2e^{m_2(t)}\right|^2+\left(|q(t)|^2\right)\left(\left|e^{m_2(t)}\right|^2\right)1`$
$`z(t)=q(t)e^{\left(m_1^{}(t)+m_2(t)\right)}q^{}(t)\left(1+|q(t)|^2\right)\left|e^{m_2(t)}\right|^2.`$
Note that the neither the separability nor the degeneracy conditions have been used so far in obtaining the solution. For the sake of comparison we use the same initial condition of the precedent section (eq. (6)). In the general case its time evolution is given by

$$\widehat{\rho }(t)=P(t)|\psi (t)\psi (t)|+(1P(t))|0,00,0|$$

where the probability to go to the state $`|\psi (t)`$,

$$|\psi (t)=\frac{(\mathrm{cos}(\theta )M_{}(t)+\mathrm{sin}(\theta )e^{i\varphi }Q(t))|1,0+(\mathrm{sin}(\theta )e^{i\varphi }M_+(t)+\mathrm{cos}(\theta )Q(t))|0,1}{\sqrt{P(t)}}$$

is given by

$$P(t)=\mathrm{cos}(\theta )M_{}(t)+\mathrm{sin}(\theta )e^{i\varphi }Q(t)^2+\mathrm{sin}(\theta )e^{i\varphi }M_+(t)+\mathrm{cos}(\theta )Q(t)^2,$$

and the probability to go to the joint ground state is $`1P(t)`$. The functions $`M_\pm (t)`$ and $`Q(t)`$ are given by

$$M_\pm (t)=\frac{e^{Rt}}{2}\left(e^{rt/2}(1\frac{c}{r})+e^{rt/2}(1\pm \frac{c}{r})\right),Q(t)=\frac{k_3}{r}e^{Rt}\left(e^{rt/2}e^{rt/2}\right).$$

Now, we assume slight deviations from degeneracy and separability, that is, $`\omega _1=\omega \delta \omega `$, $`\omega _2=\omega +\delta \omega `$, $`k_3=\sqrt{k_1k_2}\delta k`$, with $`\delta \omega \omega `$, $`\delta k\sqrt{k_1k_2}`$. Then, the state $`|\psi (t)`$ can be approximated as

$$|\psi (t)=e^{i\omega t}\times \left(\frac{\zeta _1|1,0+\xi _1|0,1}{\sqrt{P(t)}}e^{(k_1+k_2)t}+\frac{\zeta _2|1,0+\xi _2|0,1}{\sqrt{P(t)}}e^{\frac{2\delta k\sqrt{k_1k_2}}{k_1+k_2}t}\right),$$

where $`\zeta _i,\xi _i`$ do not have any temporal dependence and are given by

$`\zeta _{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{1}{2}\right)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(k_{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{1}{2}\right)}i\delta \omega )\mathrm{cos}(\alpha )\pm \sqrt{k_1k_2}\mathrm{sin}(\alpha )e^{i\varphi }}{k_1+k_2}},`$ (10)
$`\xi _{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{1}{2}\right)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(k_{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{2}{1}\right)}\pm i\delta \omega )e^{i\varphi }\mathrm{sin}(\alpha )\pm \sqrt{k_1k_2}\mathrm{cos}(\alpha )}{k_1+k_2}}.`$ (11)
In the general case it is not possible to find initial conditions which are completely decoherence free. Nor it is possible to find to orthogonal subspaces with very different characters in what decoherence is concerned. However, we can choose the initial condition as to have a minimal component either in a strong decoherence (SD) or in a weak decoherence (WD) subspaces, by choosing, e.g.

$$tan(\alpha )_{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\text{SD}}{\text{WD}}\right)}=\pm \sqrt{\frac{k_{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{2}{1}\right)}}{k_{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{1}{2}\right)}}},\varphi _{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\text{SD}}{\text{WD}}\right)}=\pm \frac{\delta \omega }{k},$$

where $`k`$ is some average dissipation constant. The corresponding subspaces, apart from a phase, can be written as

$$|\psi _{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\text{SD}}{\text{WD}}\right)}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{k_1+k_2}}\left(\sqrt{k_{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{1}{2}\right)}}|1,0\pm \sqrt{k_{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{2}{1}\right)}}e^{\pm i\delta \omega /k}|0,1\right).$$
(12)
If $`\delta \omega k_1,k_2`$ the phase can be ignored. Moreover, if $`k_1=k_2`$ then we have $`k=k_1=k_2`$ and the phase can be unambigously determined. The weak decoherence wavefunction defines a space which is robust against decoherence with typical decoherence time scale of the order

$$\tau _{WD}=\frac{k_1+k_2}{2\delta k\sqrt{k_1k_2}},$$

which is to be compared with the strong decoherence time associated to $`|\psi _{SD}`$ given by

$$\tau _{SD}=\frac{1}{k_1+k_2}.$$

If $`k_1`$ and $`k_2`$ are of approximately the same order ($`k`$), then the weak decoherence time is about $`k/\delta k`$ times greater than the strong decoherence time. In all other cases (different from $`\delta \omega =0`$ or $`k_1=k_2`$ one always has, for any initial condition (of the form (6)), a term which decays slowly and one which decays rapidly comparatively. However, the forms given above may help one to choose the initial condition in such a way that the time evolution is robust against decoherence (it should be close to form (12) with $`k=(k_1+k_2)/2`$).

Had we chosen other Fock subspaces (for example those of $`m`$ total excitations), we would have obtained also an analytical solution showing both slowly and fast decaying components. Of course, the expressions get more involved.

## 4 Concluding Remarks

We have studied decoherence and dissipation free subspaces for systems involving N identical harmonic oscillators linearly coupled to a single environment. The conditions for the existence of such decoherent free subspaces are too stringent, and hardly implementable in practice. Therefore, we studied the dynamics of such systems when these conditions are slightly broken. This may serve as a guide for preparation of initial conditions wich are fairly robust against decoherence. To the extent that this model is adequate for the description of modes in a QED cavity, it would be possible to use it to generate good quantum memories in the presence of dissipation and decoherence.

## 5 Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge comments from A. N. Salgueiro. This work was partly funded by FAPESP, CNPq and PRONEX (Brazil), and Colciencias, DINAIN (Colombia). K.M.F.R. gratefully acknowledges the Instituto de Física, Universidade de São Paulo, for their hospitality and PRONEX for partial support.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

A rich class of supersymmetric solutions of $`D=10`$ and $`D=11`$ supergravity have recently been found that describe the near-horizon limits of branes wrapping supersymmetric cycles . These solutions are dual to the supersymmetric field theories arising on the branes. There are two key features of the construction of the supergravity solutions. First, they are initially constructed in a suitable gauged supergravity and then subsequently uplifted to $`D=10`$ or $`D=11`$. Secondly, the ansatz for the gauge fields in the gauged supergravity are determined by the geometry of the normal bundle of the supersymmetric cycle. This latter feature is a manifestation of the fact that the field theories arising on the wrapped branes are coupled to external R-symmetry currents, or “twisted”, in order to preserve supersymmetry  .

For almost all cases of M-fivebranes wrapping $`d`$-dimensional supersymmetric cycles, $`D=11`$ supergravity solutions were found that include an $`(7d)`$-dimensional anti-de Sitter factor . More precisely, the solutions are warped and twisted products of an anti-de Sitter factor, a cycle with an Einstein metric and a squashed four-sphere. The $`AdS`$ factor indicates that, in the infrared, at length scales much larger than the size of the cycle, the corresponding $`(6d)`$-dimensional field theory on the wrapped M-fivebranes is super-conformal, a fact which a priori was not at all clear.

Here we would like to report on a new class of solutions of $`D=11`$ supergravity with $`AdS`$ factors that preserve no supersymmetry. They are obtained in maximal $`D=7`$ gauged supergravity using exactly the same ansatz that was used to find the supersymmetric wrapped M5-brane solutions, and consequently they have a similar $`D=11`$ structure. In the supersymmetric $`AdS`$ solutions the Einstein metric on the cycle typically has negative curvature. In the new non-supersymmetric solutions we find a more democratic mixture of both negatively and positively curved cycles.

Our main interest in these solutions is that they might provide M-theory duals of new conformal field theories with no supersymmetry. Since the $`AdS`$ factors that appear range from $`n=5`$ to $`n=2`$, these would be dual to conformal field theories in dimensions ranging from four to one. The most interesting case could be the dualities between the $`AdS_5`$ solutions and four-dimensional field theories. In this context, to our knowledge, the only previously known solutions of this type are the compactifications on Kähler–Einstein six-dimensional manifolds given in . A necessary condition for the correspondence is that the solutions be stable. We have checked that certain perturbations of the scalar fields satisfy the Breitenlohner-Freedman bound  in most cases, but we will leave a full investigation of this issue to future work. We note that we do not know of any stability analysis that has been performed for the solutions in  just mentioned. Additional instabilities might arise because of the presence of massless fields . Furthermore, one also needs to establish that there are non-perturbative instabilities that could be of the general form discussed in . We shall not attempt to address these issues here. Assuming that the correspondence is valid, we note that the central charges of the conformal field theories would be proportional to $`N^3`$ as in the supersymmetric cases .

The plan of the paper is as follows. In section 2 we describe the essential aspects of the ansatz that we employ to find the new solutions in $`D=7`$ gauged supergravity. As noted, the ansatz includes a $`d`$-dimensional cycle with an Einstein metric and this is used to consistently truncate the theory, via Kaluza-Klein reduction on the cycle, to an effective $`(7d)`$-dimensional theory of gravity coupled to two scalar fields. (The exception is the case of five-cycles, i.e. $`d=5`$, where we find the solutions directly from the $`D=7`$ equations of motion.) Some general comments concerning the stationary points and their stability in this reduced theory then precedes a more detailed description of the different cases in the following sections. In section 3, 4, 5 and 6 we discuss the $`AdS_5`$, $`AdS_4`$, $`AdS_3`$ and $`AdS_2`$ solutions, respectively. The different cases are labelled by the kind of supersymmetric cycle that a fivebrane can wrap and for completeness we have included the supersymmetric $`AdS`$ solutions already found in . The paper concludes in section 7, where we have included a table summarising both the supersymmetric and non-supersymmetric solutions. We also comment on the possible connection between our new non-supersymmetric solutions and the supersymmetric conformal field theories arising on M5-branes wrapping supersymmetric cycles.

## 2 Effective actions and obtaining AdS solutions

### 2.1 Maximal $`D=7`$ gauged supergravity and ansatz

The Lagrangian for the bosonic fields of maximal gauged supergravity in $`D=7`$ is given by

$``$ $`=\sqrt{g}[R+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m^2(T^22T_{ij}T^{ij})P_{\mu ij}P^{\mu ij}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\mathrm{\Pi }_{A}^{}{}_{}{}^{i}\mathrm{\Pi }_{B}^{}{}_{}{}^{j}F_{\mu \nu }^{AB}\right)^2`$ (2.1)
$`m^2\left(\mathrm{\Pi }_{}^{1}{}_{i}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{A}S_{\mu \nu \rho ,A}\right)^2]6m\delta ^{AB}S_AF_B`$
$`+\sqrt{3}ϵ_{ABCDE}\delta ^{AG}S_GF^{BC}F^{DE}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8m}}\left(2\mathrm{\Omega }_5[B]\mathrm{\Omega }_3[B]\right)`$
Here $`A,B=1,\mathrm{},5`$ denote indices of the $`SO(5)_g`$ gauge-group, while $`i,j=1,\mathrm{},5`$ denote indices of the $`SO(5)_c`$ local composite gauge-group, which are raised and lowered with $`\delta ^{ij}`$ and $`\delta _{ij}`$. The 14 scalar fields $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{A}^{}{}_{}{}^{i}`$ are given by the coset $`SL(5,\text{})/SO(5)_c`$ and transform as a $`\mathrm{𝟓}`$ under both $`SO(5)_g`$ (from the left) and $`SO(5)_c`$ (from the right). The term that gives the scalar kinetic term, $`P_{\mu ij}`$, and the $`SO(5)_c`$ composite gauge field, $`Q_{\mu ij}`$, are defined as the symmetric and antisymmetric parts of $`(\mathrm{\Pi }^1)_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{A}(\delta _{A}^{}{}_{}{}^{B}_\mu +2mB_{\mu A}{}_{}{}^{B})\mathrm{\Pi }_{B}^{}{}_{}{}^{k}\delta _{kj}`$, respectively. Here $`B_A^B`$ are the $`SO(5)_g`$ gauge fields with field strength $`F^{AB}=\delta ^{AC}F_{C}^{}{}_{}{}^{B}`$, and note that the gauge coupling constant is given by $`2m`$. The four-form field strength $`F_A`$ for the three-form potential $`S_A`$, is given by the covariant derivative $`F_A=dS_A+2mB_A{}_{}{}^{B}S_{B}^{}`$. The potential terms for the scalar fields are expressed in terms of $`T_{ij}=\mathrm{\Pi }_{}^{1}{}_{i}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{A}\mathrm{\Pi }_{}^{1}{}_{j}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{B}\delta _{AB}`$ with $`T=\delta ^{ij}T_{ij}`$. Finally, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_3[B]`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_5[B]`$ are Chern-Simons forms for the gauge fields $`B`$ that will not play a role in this paper. We use a “mostly plus” signature convention for the metric. The supersymmetry transformations of the fermions in these conventions were given in .

The new solutions we find here are obtained from the same ansatz used in  and . The geometry is taken to be a product of a $`(7d)`$-dimensional space with a $`d`$-dimensional cycle $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_d`$, so that

$$ds^2=e^{2d\varphi }ds_{7d}^2+e^{2(5d)\varphi }d\overline{s}^2(\mathrm{\Sigma }_d)$$
(2.2)
where $`ds_{7d}^2`$ is the metric on the uncompact space, and $`d\overline{s}_d^2`$ is the metric on the $`d`$-cycle, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_d`$. The scalar field $`\varphi `$ is assumed to depend on the coordinates on $`ds_{7d}^2`$ and the exponents are chosen so that the reduced $`(7d)`$-dimensional effective action has a conventional Einstein term. (Note that in section 5.6 where we discuss the geometry arising from fivebranes wrapped on a product of cycles this metric ansatz is generalised slightly, to allow for a different conformal factor for each cycle. However, it is still precisely the same ansatz used in .) Ultimately, we will be interested in solutions where $`\varphi `$ is a constant and the $`(7d)`$-dimensional space is $`AdS`$. For each case we will present the $`AdS`$ radius for the line element $`ds_{7d}^2`$ without the conformal factor, as this is proportional to the central charge of the putative dual conformal field theory. Our definition of the radius $`R`$ of $`AdS_n`$ is given by

$$R_{\mu \nu }=\frac{n1}{R^2}g_{\mu \nu }$$
(2.3)
Again following the ansatz for supersymmetric solutions, the metric on the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_d`$ is assumed to be at least Einstein, satisfying

$$\overline{R}_{ab}=lm^2\overline{g}_{ab}$$
(2.4)
where we can always rescale so that $`l=0,\pm 1`$. (In fact, we will only find $`AdS`$ solutions for the cases $`l=\pm 1`$.) The Einstein condition implies that the Riemann tensor can be written

$$\overline{R}_{abcd}=\overline{C}_{abcd}+\frac{2lm^2}{d1}\overline{g}_{a[c}\overline{g}_{d]b}$$
(2.5)
where $`\overline{C}`$ is the Weyl tensor and is only present for $`d4`$. The additional conditions that are placed on $`\overline{C}`$ will be discussed case by case later. Note that, for comparison with conventions used in , we have $`e^{2(5d)\varphi }=m^2e^{2g}`$.

The ansatz for the $`SO(5)`$ gauge fields incorporates the twisting required for supersymmetric solutions and is specified by the spin connection with respect to the metric on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_d`$. In general, we will decompose the $`SO(5)`$ symmetry into $`SO(p)\times SO(q)`$ with $`p+q=5`$, and excite the gauge fields in the $`SO(p)`$ subgroup. The precise form was given in  and will be summarized case by case below.

In order to respect the $`SO(p)\times SO(q)`$ decomposition, the ansatz for the scalar fields, is restricted to a single scalar mode:

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{A}^{}{}_{}{}^{i}=\mathrm{diag}(e^{q\lambda },\mathrm{},e^{q\lambda },e^{p\lambda },\mathrm{},e^{p\lambda })$$
(2.6)
where we have $`p`$ followed by $`q`$ entries. This implies that the composite gauge field $`Q`$ is then determined by the gauge fields via $`Q^{ij}=2mB^{ij}`$.

The form of the three-form potentials $`S_A`$ and four-form field strengths $`F_A`$, is, in general, determined by the gauge fields and scalar fields, via the $`S_A`$ equation of motion. As discussed case by case in , there are two distinct classes of ansatz. For $`d3`$ and two cases with $`d=4`$, one can always set $`S_A=F_A=0`$. For the remaining cases with $`d=4`$ and for $`d=5`$, it is consistent to take $`F_A=0`$, but now $`S_A`$ is non-zero. In particular, for the $`d=4`$ cases we always have $`p=4`$ and $`q=1`$, so that the $`SO(5)`$ index $`A`$ is naturally labelled via the split $`A=(m,5)`$ where $`m=1,\mathrm{},4`$. We then have $`S_m=0`$ while

$$S_5=\frac{1}{2\sqrt{3}}ce^{8\lambda 4\varphi }e^0e^1e^2$$
(2.7)
where $`(e^0,e^1,e^2)`$ are an orthonormal frame for $`ds_{7d}^2`$, and the constant $`c`$ is given by

$$c=\frac{1}{8m^2}ϵ^{abcd}ϵ_{mnpq}F_{ab}^{mn}F_{cd}^{pq}$$
(2.8)
where $`a,b=1,\mathrm{},4`$ denote coordinates on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. (Note the normalisation of $`c`$ is slightly different from that used in .) The value of $`c`$ depends, through $`F^{mn}`$, on the ansatz for the gauge fields, and so changes case by case. The $`d=5`$ case will be discussed separately in section 6.

Note that much of the structure of this ansatz , following , arose from requiring the solutions to be supersymmetric. Given this is no longer a requirement, there are, of course, a number of generalisations one might consider. One very simple possibility when $`q>1`$, is to break the $`SO(q)`$ symmetry in the scalar field space so that we now have a set of scalars $`\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _q`$ with

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{A}^{}{}_{}{}^{i}=\mathrm{diag}(e^{{\scriptscriptstyle \lambda _i}},\mathrm{},e^{{\scriptscriptstyle \lambda _i}},e^{p\lambda _1},\mathrm{},e^{p\lambda _q})$$
(2.9)
Actually, this possibility could a priori be consistent with supersymmetry as it does not destroy the twisting. We note that we did, in fact, consider generalisations of this type. We find that this leads to one new $`AdS`$ solution beyond those found using the simpler ansatz (2.6). Note that this analysis revealed that a solution presented in  is not in fact a solution to the equations of motion.

The solutions of $`D=7`$ gauged supergravity containing $`AdS`$ factors that we obtain via this ansatz can then be used to obtain solutions to $`D=11`$ supergravity using the uplifting formulae given in . In particular the $`D=11`$ metric takes the form

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill ds_{11}^2& =\mathrm{\Delta }^{2/5}\left[e^{2d\varphi }ds_{7d}^2+e^{2(5d)\varphi }d\overline{s}^2(\mathrm{\Sigma }_d)\right]\hfill \\ & +m^2\mathrm{\Delta }^{4/5}\left[e^{2q\lambda }DY^aDY^a+e^{2p\lambda }dY^idY^i\right]\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.10)
where

$`DY^a`$ $`=dY^a+2mB^{ab}Y^b`$ (2.11)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }^{6/5}`$ $`=e^{2q\lambda }Y^aY^a+e^{2p\lambda }Y^iY^i`$
The indices run over $`a=1,\mathrm{},p`$ and $`i=p+1,\mathrm{},5`$, and $`(Y^a,Y^i)`$ are constrained coordinates on $`S^4`$ satisfying $`Y^aY^a+Y^iY^i=1`$. The presence of non-zero $`\lambda `$ and $`B^{ab}`$ mean that the sphere is squashed and twisted. The four-form field strength of the eleven-dimensional supergravity is proportional to the volume form on the squashed $`S^4`$ together with additional terms due to the gauging. Its precise form is given in .

### 2.2 Truncated effective theory

In all but the $`d=5`$ case which will be dealt with separately in section 6, our procedure for finding solutions is as follows. Using the fact that in our ansatz the $`(7d)`$-metric and the two scalars $`\varphi `$ and $`\lambda `$ do not depend on the co-ordinates of the cycle $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_d`$, we first truncate the seven-dimensional gauged supergravity to obtain an effective $`(7d)`$-dimensional theory based on these fields. We then look for stationary points of the effective potential for the scalar fields, which in all cases turn out to be at points where $`V`$ is negative. Thus these correspond to solutions where the $`(7d)`$-dimensional space is $`AdS`$.

To be explicit, after truncation, the effective Lagrangian in $`7d`$ dimensions is given by

$$=\sqrt{g}\left[R5d(5d)\left(\varphi \right)^25pq\left(\lambda \right)^2V(\varphi ,\lambda )\right]$$
(2.12)
where $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ is the metric for the $`(7d)`$-dimensional line element $`ds_{7d}^2`$ appearing in (2.2). The first two terms arise from the reduction of the seven-dimensional curvature $`R`$ and scalar kinetic $`P^2`$ terms in (2.1). The effective potential $`V`$ comes from the seven-dimensional curvature $`R`$ and the remaining terms and is given by

$`m^2V(\varphi ,\lambda )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^{2d\varphi }\left[p(p2)e^{4q\lambda }+2pqe^{2(pq)\lambda }+q(q2)e^{4p\lambda }\right]`$ (2.13)
$`dle^{10\varphi }+ke^{4q\lambda +2(d10)\varphi }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}c^2e^{8\lambda 16\varphi }`$
where

$$k=\frac{1}{2m^2}\overline{g}^{ac}\overline{g}^{bd}F_{ab}^{mn}F_{cd}^{mn}$$
(2.14)
and so depends on the ansatz for the gauge fields. The effective potential depends on the integers $`d`$, $`p`$ and $`q=5p`$, the sign $`l`$ of the curvature of the Einstein metric on the cycle, as well as the constants $`c`$ and $`k`$, all of which vary case by case. It is useful to distinguish between those cases with $`c=0`$ and those with $`c0`$. Calculating $`k`$ in each case, one can show that, in general,

if $`d=4`$ and $`p=4`$: $`c`$ $`0,`$ $`k`$ $`=c`$ (2.15)
otherwise: $`c`$ $`=0,`$ $`k`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{d(2d+2pdp)}{8p}}`$
Note that, as usual, one must derive this action via substitution of the ansatz into the equations of motion. Substitution directly into the action can lead to the wrong equations of motion. In particular, here one would obtain the wrong sign for the final term in (2.13). More generally we have in fact shown that this reduction is in fact consistent. In other words, that any solution to the equations of motion of the reduced theory give rise to a solution of $`D=7`$ gauged supergravity.

Before turning to the general problem of finding the stationary points of $`V`$, note that, since we know that the ansatz admits supersymmetric solutions, we might expect that the effective action has a simple supersymmetric generalisation. In particular, it may well be possible to extend the ansatz we are considering to obtain a consistently truncated supersymmetric theory. We shall leave such an investigation to future work, but let us note that we can recast the effective potential in terms of a putative superpotential $`W`$ as follows:

$$\frac{1}{2}V=K^{ab}\left(_aW_aW\right)\beta ^2W^2$$
(2.16)
where $`a`$ and $`b`$ label scalar fields $`A^a=(\lambda ,\varphi )`$, $`K^{ab}`$ is the inverse of the sigma-model metric for the scalar kinetic terms $`2K_{ab}A^aA^b=5d(5d)(\varphi )^2+5pq(\lambda )^2`$ and the constant $`\beta ^2`$ depends on the dimension of the effective theory and is given by

$$\beta ^2=\frac{2(6d)}{5d}$$
(2.17)
Explicitly, we have

$$W=\frac{1}{4}me^{d\varphi }\left(pe^{2q\lambda }+qe^{2p\lambda }\right)+\frac{1}{8}mdle^{2q\lambda +(d10)\varphi }\frac{1}{4}mce^{4\lambda 8\varphi }$$
(2.18)
provided that $`k`$ and $`c`$ are given as in (2.15). For the four-dimensional case, where $`d=3`$, in the supersymmetric extension we must have two additional bosonic fields to partner $`\varphi `$ and $`\lambda `$ to form two chiral multiplets. The form (2.16), can be derived from $`N=1`$ supergravity coupled to two chiral superfields truncated to the $`\varphi `$ and $`\lambda `$ sector. In other dimensions, the form naturally generalises that obtained in, for example,  for the case a single scalar field.

### 2.3 Stationary points and stability

For solutions with constant $`ds_{7d}^2`$ curvature, and in particular $`AdS`$ space, the scalars $`\varphi `$ and $`\lambda `$ are constant. Thus we need to find the stationary points of the potential $`V`$. Let us introduce the variables

$`x`$ $`=e^{10\lambda }`$ (2.19)
$`y`$ $`=le^{2(d5)\varphi +2(qp)\lambda }`$
The conditions for a stationary point of $`V`$ imply, in all cases, that

$$x=\frac{2y+p}{(4k/d)y^2+(p3)}$$
(2.20)
together with, when $`d=p=4`$ (so $`c0`$),

$$\left(y+1\right)\left(cy^2+1\right)\left(cy^3+3cy^22y3\right)=0$$
(2.21)
while otherwise, i.e. when $`d4`$ or $`p4`$ (so $`c=0`$),

$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill \left(y+1\right)\left(k(dp2p4d+4)y^3k(dp10p+24)y^2d(p3)(2y+3)\right)=0\end{array}$$
(2.22)
Note that in every case (except when $`d=2p`$) there is a solution

$`y`$ $`=1`$ (2.23)
$`x`$ $`=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{2p}{2pd}\hfill & \text{if }d4\text{ or }p4\hfill \\ \frac{2}{c+1}\hfill & \text{if }d=p=4\hfill \end{array}`$
As we will see, these solutions correspond to the supersymmetric fixed points as found in . Note that, since by definition, $`y/l>0`$ and $`x>0`$, these cases always have $`l=1`$ so the cycle has negative curvature. In general, since $`c>0`$, the remaining non-supersymmetric solutions come from roots of the cubic factors in (2.21) and (2.22). In turns out that in all cases, the value of the potential at the stationary point $`V_0`$ is negative. Thus all our solutions correspond to $`AdS`$ fixed points. In general, the radius $`R`$ of $`AdS_n`$ (here $`n=7d`$) is given by

$$R^2=\frac{(n1)(n2)}{V_0}$$
(2.24)
One important question is whether these $`AdS`$ solutions are stable to fluctuations. In the following, we do not make a full stability analysis for fluctuations in all possible modes in the seven-dimensional supergravity theory (2.1). Instead, we concentrate on the scalar modes $`\lambda `$ and $`\varphi `$ which already have non-trivial values in the solutions. In particular, we calculate the mass eigenvalues of the $`(\lambda ,\varphi )`$ fluctuations about the fixed points. It is important to recall that in $`AdS`$ space, instability is characterised not by simply a negative mass-squared $`M^2`$, but rather a negative mass-squared violating the Breitenlohner–Freedman (BF) bound . For $`AdS_n`$ we have

$$M^2R^2\frac{1}{4}\left(n1\right)^2$$
(2.25)
In fact, we actually considered more general fluctuations. In particular, allowing a set of supergravity scalars $`\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _q`$ as in (2.9), breaking the $`SO(q)`$ symmetry in the scalar field space. We showed that this is again a consistent truncation and that it does in fact lead to instabilities in three cases.

## 3 $`AdS_5\times \mathrm{\Sigma }_2`$ solutions

We start by considering the $`AdS`$ solutions with $`d=2`$, when $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_d`$ is a two-cycle. The $`D=7`$ gauged supergravity metric (2.2) in the solutions is then given by

$$ds^2=\frac{e^{4\varphi }R^2}{r^2}\left[ds^2(\text{}^{1,3})+dr^2\right]+e^{6\varphi }d\overline{s}^2(\mathrm{\Sigma }_2)$$
(3.1)
where $`e^{6\varphi }`$ and $`R^2`$ are constants. Since the two-cycle has an Einstein metric it is either an $`S^2`$, $`\text{}^2`$, $`H^2`$ or a quotient of these spaces by a discrete group of isometries. Here and throughout we will not find any $`AdS`$ solutions based on flat-cycles, so we will not mention them further. There are two cases to be considered: the first uses the ansatz used to obtain the supersymmetric solutions corresponding to the near horizon limits of M5-branes wrapping Kähler two-cycles in Calabi–Yau two-folds , while the second uses the ansatz corresponding to M5-branes wrapping Kähler two-cycles in Calabi–Yau four-folds . Let us discuss each case in turn. For the stability analysis, note that in this case the BF bound is $`M^2R^24`$, where $`M^2`$ is the mass-squared of the fluctuation.

### 3.1 Kähler two-cycle in $`CY_2`$

For this case we take $`p=2,q=3`$, so the scalar field ansatz (2.6) reads

$$\mathrm{\Pi }=\mathrm{diag}(e^{3\lambda },e^{3\lambda },e^{2\lambda },e^{2\lambda },e^{2\lambda })$$
(3.2)
The $`SO(5)`$ gauge fields are decomposed into $`SO(2)\times SO(3)`$ and the $`SO(3)`$ gauge fields are set to zero. The $`SO(2)`$ gauge fields, denoted by $`B^{12}`$, are determined by the $`SO(2)`$ spin-connection of the two-cycle so that

$$B^{12}=\frac{1}{4m}\overline{\omega }_{ab}J^{ab}$$
(3.3)
where $`J`$ is the Kähler structure of the two-cycle. This implies $`k=1/2`$. As noted above $`c=0`$ for this example.

We find that the effective potential has two minima. The first occurs when $`l=1`$ and gives rise to the $`AdS_5\times H^2`$ supersymmetric solution found in

$`e^{10\lambda }`$ $`=2`$ (3.4)
$`e^{6\varphi }`$ $`=e^{2\lambda }1.1487`$
$`m^2R^2`$ $`=2^{4/3}2.5198`$
The second solution on the other hand is new and has $`l=+1`$. Thus it is an $`AdS_5\times S^2`$ solution and has

$`e^{10\lambda }`$ $`6.6056`$ (3.5)
$`e^{6\varphi }`$ $`1.1197`$
$`m^2R^2`$ $`1.4623`$
This solution breaks all supersymmetry.

It is straightforward to determine the masses of the two scalar fields about these solutions. After diagonalising the mass matrix we find that $`\varphi `$, $`\lambda `$ give rise to fluctuations with mass-squared $`M^2`$ satisfying:

$$M^2R^2=4,12$$
(3.6)
for the supersymmetric solution, and

$$M^2R^25.58,22.1$$
(3.7)
for the non-supersymmetric solution. Note that the BF bound is not violated for the supersymmetric solution, as expected, but is violated for the non-supersymmetric solution (3.5). This instability implies that this solution cannot be the dual of a new non-supersymmetric CFT.

For this case, one can generalise the ansatz to include two additional scalar fields as in (2.9). However, we have checked that this leads to no further $`AdS_5`$ solutions.

### 3.2 Kähler two-cycle in $`CY_3`$

We now have $`p=4,q=1`$, so the scalar field ansatz is given by

$$\mathrm{\Pi }=\mathrm{diag}(e^\lambda ,e^\lambda ,e^\lambda ,e^\lambda ,e^{4\lambda })$$
(3.8)
For the gauge fields we first decompose $`SO(4)U(2)U(1)\times SU(2)`$ and then let the $`U(1)`$ factor be determined by the spin connection of the two-cycle. In other words we can choose a basis such that the only non-zero components are given by

$$B^{12}=B^{34}=\frac{1}{8m}\overline{\omega }_{ab}J^{ab}$$
(3.9)
This gives $`k=1/4`$ and we have $`c=0`$.

We again find that there are two solutions. The first is $`AdS_5\times H^2`$, that is $`l=1`$, with

$`e^{10\lambda }`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}`$ (3.10)
$`e^{6\varphi }`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}e^{4\lambda }0.84147`$
$`m^2R^2`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{9}{4}}=2.25`$
We thus recover the supersymmetric $`AdS_5\times H^2`$ fixed point first presented in . The second solution on the other hand is again new and has $`l=1`$ so the space is $`AdS_5\times H^2`$, with

$`e^{10\lambda }`$ $`1.5536`$ (3.11)
$`e^{6\varphi }`$ $`0.84824`$
$`m^2R^2`$ $`2.2496`$
This solution does not preserve any supersymmetry.

The masses of the $`(\varphi ,\lambda )`$ fluctuations about these solutions are given by

$$M^2R^21.29,9.29$$
(3.12)
for the supersymmetric solution, and

$$M^2R^21.40,9.38$$
(3.13)
and for the non-supersymmetric solution, so that in all cases the BF bound is satisfied.

## 4 $`AdS_4\times \mathrm{\Sigma }_3`$ solutions

These solutions are obtained when $`d=3`$ so $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_d`$ is a three-cycle. The $`D=7`$ gauged supergravity metric for $`AdS`$ solutions is given by

$$ds^2=\frac{e^{6\varphi }R^2}{r^2}\left[ds^2(\text{}^{1,2})+dr^2\right]+e^{4\varphi }d\overline{s}^2(\mathrm{\Sigma }_3)$$
(4.1)
where $`e^{4\varphi }`$ and $`R^2`$ are constants. Being Einstein, the three-cycle has constant curvature and for $`l=1`$ is $`S^3`$ and for $`l=1`$ is $`H^3`$, or a quotient of these spaces by a discrete group of isometries. There are two cases to be considered: the first uses the ansatz used to obtain the supersymmetric solutions corresponding to M5-branes wrapping SLAG three-cycles in Calabi–Yau three-folds  (see also ), while the second uses the ansatz corresponding to M5-branes wrapping associative three-cycles in manifolds with $`G_2`$ holonomy . We discuss each case in turn and note that the BF bound now reads $`M^2R^29/4`$.

### 4.1 SLAG three-cycle in $`CY_3`$

In this example we have $`p=3,q=2`$ so the scalar field ansatz (2.6) reads

$$\mathrm{\Pi }=\mathrm{diag}(e^{2\lambda },e^{2\lambda },e^{2\lambda },e^{3\lambda },e^{3\lambda })$$
(4.2)
The $`SO(5)`$ gauge fields are decomposed into $`SO(3)\times SO(2)`$. The $`SO(2)`$ gauge fields are set to zero while the $`SO(3)`$ gauge fields are determined by the $`SO(3)`$ spin-connection of the three-cycle. Thus if we denote the non-zero fields by $`B^{ab}`$ with $`a,b=1,2,3`$ we have

$$B^{ab}=\frac{1}{2m}\overline{\omega }^{ab}$$
(4.3)
This implies $`k=3/8`$ and again $`c=0`$ for this example.

We find that the effective potential has two minima, both with $`l=1`$. The first is the supersymmetric $`AdS_4\times H^3`$ solution of :

$`e^{10\lambda }`$ $`=2`$ (4.4)
$`e^{4\varphi }`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^{8\lambda }0.87055`$
$`m^2R^2`$ $`=\sqrt{2}1.4142`$
The second $`AdS_4\times H^3`$ solution is non-supersymmetric and was in fact first found in :

$`e^{10\lambda }`$ $`=10`$ (4.5)
$`e^{4\varphi }`$ $`1.0516`$
$`m^2R^2`$ $`1.3608`$
The masses of the $`(\varphi ,\lambda )`$ fluctuations about the supersymmetric solution are given by

$$M^2R^21.12,7.12$$
(4.6)
while for the non-supersymmetric solution they are

$$M^2R^20.555,8.64$$
(4.7)
These all satisfy the BF bound.

For this example we can consider adding additional scalar fields via (2.9). In particular one can take

$$\mathrm{\Pi }=\mathrm{diag}(e^{2\lambda },e^{2\lambda },e^{2\lambda },e^{3\lambda +\alpha },e^{3\lambda \alpha })$$
(4.8)
We have checked that the claim of  that this leads to an additional $`AdS`$ fixed point is not correct. In particular $`\alpha `$ is not real. It is interesting to note that the extra scalar field $`\alpha `$ does not violate the BF bound. In particular we find

$$M^2R^2=4,68$$
(4.9)
for the supersymmetric and non-supersymmetric fixed points, respectively.

### 4.2 Associative three-cycle in a manifold of $`G_2`$ holonomy

For this case we have $`p=4,q=1`$ and the scalar field ansatz (2.6) is given by

$`\mathrm{\Pi }=\mathrm{diag}(e^\lambda ,e^\lambda ,e^\lambda ,e^\lambda ,e^{4\lambda })`$ (4.10)
The non-zero $`SO(5)`$ gauge fields are taken to lie in an $`SU(2)_LSU(2)_L\times SU(2)_RSO(5)`$ subgroup. If we denote the non-vanishing gauge fields by $`B^{mn}`$, with $`m,n=1,2,3,4`$, they satisfy $`B^+=0`$, and $`B^{}`$ is determined by the $`SO(3)`$ spin-connection of the three-cycle:

$`B^{23}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4m}}\overline{\omega }^{23}`$ (4.11)
$`B^{31}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4m}}\overline{\omega }^{31}`$
$`B^{12}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4m}}\overline{\omega }^{12}`$
This implies $`k=3/16`$ and again $`c=0`$ for this example.

We find that the effective potential has two minima, both with $`l=1`$. The first gives the supersymmetric $`AdS_4\times H_3`$ solution of  with

$`e^{10\lambda }`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{8}{5}}`$ (4.12)
$`e^{4\varphi }`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{5}{8}}e^{4\lambda }0.75427`$
$`m^2R^2`$ $`=2^{11/2}5^{5/2}1.2353`$
while the second gives a new non-supersymmetric $`AdS_4\times H_3`$ solution with

$`e^{10\lambda }`$ $`1.2839`$ (4.13)
$`e^{4\varphi }`$ $`0.75049`$
$`m^2R^2`$ $`1.2362`$
The masses of the $`(\varphi ,\lambda )`$ fluctuations satisfy

$$M^2R^2=1.55,6.45$$
(4.14)
for the supersymmetric solution and

$$M^2R^2=1.38,6.40$$
(4.15)
for the non-supersymmetric solution and all satisfy the BF bound.

## 5 $`AdS_3\times \mathrm{\Sigma }_4`$ solutions

These solutions are obtained when $`d=4`$ so that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_d`$ is a four-cycle. The $`D=7`$ gauged supergravity metric for $`AdS`$ solutions is given by

$$ds^2=\frac{e^{8\varphi }R^2}{r^2}\left[ds^2(\text{}^{1,1})+dr^2\right]+e^{2\varphi }d\overline{s}^2(\mathrm{\Sigma }_4)$$
(5.1)
where $`e^{2\varphi }`$ and $`R^2`$ are constants. There are now a number of different possibilities for the Einstein metric on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_4`$ depending on which case we are considering. In all but the case corresponding to a M5-branes wrapping a co-associative cycle in a $`G_2`$-holonomy manifold, we have $`k=c`$, again with a value depending on the particular case. Note that we do not give details of the case analogous to the M5-brane wrapping a Kähler four-cycle in a Calabi–Yau three-fold as we do not find any $`AdS_3`$ solution, even after adding in extra scalar fields. Note that the BF bound now reads $`M^2R^21`$.

### 5.1 Co-associative four-cycle in a manifold of $`G_2`$ holonomy

For this case we have $`p=3`$, $`q=2`$ so the scalar ansatz (2.6) is given by

$$\mathrm{\Pi }=\mathrm{diag}(e^{2\lambda },e^{2\lambda },e^{2\lambda },e^{3\lambda },e^{3\lambda })$$
(5.2)
The non-zero gauge fields are taken to lie in $`SO(3)SO(5)`$. We denote them by $`B^{mn}`$, with $`m,n=1,2,3`$ and they are determined by the anti-self-dual part of the spin connection of the four-cycle $`\omega ^{}`$. Explicitly we let

$`B^{23}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}\overline{\omega }^{12}`$
$`B^{31}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}\overline{\omega }^{13}`$
$`B^{12}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}\overline{\omega }^{14}`$ (5.3)
This implies $`k=1/3`$ and we have still have $`c=0`$. The four-cycle is Einstein and also conformally half-flat, so that the Weyl tensor is self-dual. Note that for $`l=1`$ this means that it is either $`S^4`$ or $`CP^2`$ if it is compact. For $`l=1`$ we denote these spaces by $`C_{}^4`$.

We find that the effective potential has only one minima with $`l=1`$. This is the supersymmetric $`AdS_3\times C_{}^4`$ fixed fixed point found in :

$`e^{10\lambda }`$ $`=3`$ (5.4)
$`e^{2\varphi }`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}e^{8\lambda }0.80274`$
$`m^2R^2`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{4}{9}}=0.44444`$
The masses of the $`(\varphi ,\lambda )`$ fluctuations are given by

$$M^2R^2=0,40/9$$
(5.5)
and so satisfy the BF bound.

We also can consider the more general ansatz for the scalar fields

$$\mathrm{\Pi }=\mathrm{diag}(e^{2\lambda },e^{2\lambda },e^{2\lambda },e^{3\lambda +\alpha },e^{3\lambda \alpha })$$
(5.6)
However, we find no new $`AdS`$ fixed points. In addition we checked that the mass of the scalar field $`\alpha `$ is given by

$$M^2R^2=8$$
(5.7)
and so again these modes do not destabilise the solution.

### 5.2 SLAG four-cycle in $`CY_4`$

We now have $`p=4,q=1`$ so the scalar ansatz (2.6) takes the form

$$\mathrm{\Pi }=\mathrm{diag}(e^\lambda ,e^\lambda ,e^\lambda ,e^\lambda ,e^{4\lambda })$$
(5.8)
The non-zero gauge fields, denoted by $`B^{ab}`$ with $`a,b=1,2,3,4`$, are taken to lie in an $`SO(4)`$ subgroup of $`SO(5)`$ and are determined by the $`SO(4)`$ spin connection:

$$B^{ab}=\frac{1}{2m}\overline{\omega }^{ab}$$
(5.9)
From (2.14) and (2.15) we then have $`k=c=1/3`$. The four-cycle is Einstein and now the Weyl tensor must vanish. In other words $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_4`$ is $`S^4`$ for $`l=1`$ and $`H^4`$ for $`l=1`$ or, as usual, a quotient of these spaces by a finite group of discrete isometries.

We now find three minima of the effective potential. For $`l=1`$, we find the supersymmetric $`AdS_3\times H^4`$ fixed point of :

$`e^{10\lambda }`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}`$ (5.10)
$`e^{2\varphi }`$ $`=e^{6\lambda }0.78405`$
$`m^2R^2`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{4}{9}}0.44444`$
and also a non-supersymmetric $`AdS_3\times H^4`$ solution

$`e^{10\lambda }`$ $`1.2592`$ (5.11)
$`e^{2\varphi }`$ $`0.78367`$
$`m^2R^2`$ $`0.44474`$
For $`l=1`$ we find the non-supersymmetric $`AdS_3\times S^4`$ solution

$`e^{10\lambda }`$ $`3.3694`$ (5.12)
$`e^{2\varphi }`$ $`0.23488`$
$`m^2R^2`$ $`0.00080517`$
For supersymmetric solution the masses of the $`(\varphi ,\lambda )`$ fluctuations are given by

$$M^2R^20.697,4.30$$
(5.13)
while for the non-supersymmetric solutions, with $`l=1`$ we have

$$M^2R^20.628,4.31$$
(5.14)
and for $`l=1`$ we get

$$M^2R^25.24,9.12$$
(5.15)
In all cases the BF bound is satisfied.

### 5.3 Kähler four-cycle in $`CY_4`$

We again have $`p=4,q=1`$ with the scalar ansatz (2.6) of the form

$$\mathrm{\Pi }=\mathrm{diag}(e^\lambda ,e^\lambda ,e^\lambda ,e^\lambda ,e^{4\lambda })$$
(5.16)
The only non-vanishing $`SO(5)`$ gauge fields are in the $`U(1)`$ given by the decomposition $`U(1)\times SU(2)U(2)SO(5)`$. In this case the cycle must be Einstein and Kähler, denoted by $`K_+`$ and $`K_{}`$ depending on whether $`l=1`$ or $`1`$. Note that $`CP^2`$ and $`CP^1\times CP^1`$ provide examples of compact $`K_+`$. The gauge fields are determined by the $`U(1)`$ part of the $`SO(4)`$ spin connection of the four-cycle via the decomposition $`U(1)\times SU(2)U(2)SO(4)`$. Explicitly, we take

$$B^{12}=B^{34}=\frac{1}{8m}\overline{\omega }_{ab}J^{ab}$$
(5.17)
with all other gauge fields zero, where $`J^{ab}`$ is the Kähler-form of the four-cycle. We then have $`k=c=1/2`$.

We find that the effective potential has two minima. For $`l=1`$ we recover the $`AdS_3\times K_{}`$ supersymmetric fixed point:

$`e^{10\lambda }`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}`$ (5.18)
$`e^{2\varphi }`$ $`=e^{6\lambda }0.84147`$
$`m^2R^2`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{9}{16}}=0.5625`$
and for $`l=1`$ we find the non-supersymmetric $`AdS_3\times K_+`$ solution

$`e^{10\lambda }`$ $`3.0972`$ (5.19)
$`e^{2\varphi }`$ $`0.30836`$
$`m^2R^2`$ $`0.0027879`$
For the supersymmetric solution the masses of the $`(\varphi ,\lambda )`$ fluctuations are given by

$$M^2R^2=0,40/9$$
(5.20)
and for the non-supersymmetric solutions they are given by

$$M^2R^25.16,8.72$$
(5.21)
All satisfy the BF bound.

### 5.4 Cayley four-cycle in a manifold of $`Spin(7)`$ holonomy

Again we have $`p=4,q=1`$ with the scalar ansatz (2.6)

$$\mathrm{\Pi }=\mathrm{diag}(e^\lambda ,e^\lambda ,e^\lambda ,e^\lambda ,e^{4\lambda })$$
(5.22)
Now, however, we retain only the anti-selfdual part of the $`SO(4)SO(5)`$, so that the non-zero gauged fields, denoted by $`B^{ab}`$ with $`a,b=1,..,4`$, satisfy $`B^+=0`$ together with

$$B^{ab}=\frac{1}{2m}\overline{\omega }^{ab}$$
(5.23)
Thus, they are determined by the anti-self dual part of the $`SO(4)`$ spin connection, $`\omega ^{}`$, of the four-cycle. This gives $`k=c=1/6`$. In addition to being Einstein, the four-cycle must now be conformally half-flat, which means that the Weyl tensor is self-dual. For $`l=1`$ this means that it is either $`S^4`$ or $`CP^2`$ if it is compact. For $`l=1`$ we denote these spaces by $`C_{}^4`$.

We find three minima of the effective potential. For $`l=1`$ we find the supersymmetric $`AdS_3\times C_{}^4`$ solution found in

$`e^{10\lambda }`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{12}{7}}`$ (5.24)
$`e^{2\varphi }`$ $`=e^{6\lambda }0.72369`$
$`m^2R^2`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{49}{144}}=0.34028`$
as well as the non-supersymmetric $`AdS_3\times C_{}^4`$ solution

$`e^{10\lambda }`$ $`1.1547`$ (5.25)
$`e^{2\varphi }`$ $`0.72346`$
$`m^2R^2`$ $`0.34328`$
While with $`l=1`$ we find the non-supersymmetric $`AdS_3\times C_+^4`$ solution where $`C_+^4`$ is either $`S^4`$ or $`CP^2`$,

$`e^{10\lambda }`$ $`=4`$ (5.26)
$`e^{2\varphi }`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}e^{6\lambda }0.14509`$
$`m^2R^2`$ $`=2^43^68.5734\times 10^5`$
The masses of the $`(\varphi ,\lambda )`$ fluctuations about the supersymmetric solution are given by

$$M^2R^21.89,4.15$$
(5.27)
while for the non-supersymmetric solutions, with $`l=1`$ we find

$$M^2R^21.50,4.15$$
(5.28)
and for $`l=1`$ we find

$$M^2R^25.33,9.78$$
(5.29)
All satisfy the BF bound.

### 5.5 Complex-Lagrangian four-cycle in $`HK_8`$

Once more we have $`p=4,q=1`$ and the scalar ansatz (2.6) takes the form

$$\mathrm{\Pi }=\mathrm{diag}(e^\lambda ,e^\lambda ,e^\lambda ,e^\lambda ,e^{4\lambda })$$
(5.30)
The non-zero $`SO(5)`$ gauge fields lie in an $`U(2)`$ subgroup and are given by the $`U(2)`$ spin connection of the four-cycle which must be Kähler. Denoting the non-zero fields by $`B^{ab}`$ with $`a,b=1,2,3,4`$ we have

$$B^{ab}=\frac{1}{2m}\overline{\omega }^{ab}$$
(5.31)
This gives $`k=c=1/6`$. In fact the Einstein Kähler cycle must actually have constant holomorphic sectional curvature. This means for $`l=1`$ we have $`CP^2`$ and for $`l=1`$ we have the Bergmann metric $`B`$ on a bounded domain in $`\text{}^2`$. As usual we can take quotients of these spaces and in particular for $`l=1`$ we can have compact spaces.

The effective potential has three minima. For $`l=1`$ we find the supersymmetric $`AdS_3\times B`$ solution found in

$`e^{10\lambda }`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{6}{5}}`$ (5.32)
$`e^{2\varphi }`$ $`=e^{6\lambda }0.89638`$
$`m^2R^2`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{25}{36}}0.69444`$
and a non-supersymmetric $`AdS_3\times B`$ solution:

$`e^{10\lambda }`$ $`1.3890`$ (5.33)
$`e^{2\varphi }`$ $`0.89582`$
$`m^2R^2`$ $`0.69422`$
For $`l=1`$ we find a non-supersymmetric $`AdS_3\times CP^2`$ solution:

$`e^{10\lambda }`$ $`2.9378`$ (5.34)
$`e^{2\varphi }`$ $`0.37238`$
$`m^2R^2`$ $`0.0065244`$
The masses of the $`(\varphi ,\lambda )`$ fluctuations for the supersymmetric solution are given by

$$M^2R^20.419,4.58$$
(5.35)
and for the non-supersymmetric solutions, for $`l=1`$

$$M^2R^20.462,4.55$$
(5.36)
and for $`l=1`$

$$M^2R^25.10,8.44$$
(5.37)
All satisfy the BF bound.

### 5.6 SLAG four-cycle in $`CY_2\times CY_2`$

Again we take $`p=4,q=1`$ and the scalars are given by

$$\mathrm{\Pi }=\mathrm{diag}(e^\lambda ,e^\lambda ,e^\lambda ,e^\lambda ,e^{4\lambda })$$
(5.38)
We first assume that the four-cycle is the product of two Einstein two-metrics each satisfying (2.4), since in this case the four-cycle is also Einstein. Being Einstein, each two-cycle has constant curvature and hence we are considering four-cycles of the form $`H^2\times H^2`$ for $`l=1`$ and $`S^2\times S^2`$ for $`l=+1`$, or a quotient thereof. The twisting is obtained by first decomposing $`SO(5)SO(4)SO(2)\times SO(2)`$ (with $`\mathrm{𝟒}(\mathrm{𝟐},\mathrm{𝟏})+(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐})`$ in the last step) and identifying the $`SO(2)`$ factors with the spin connections on each two cycle. Thus the only non-zero gauge fields are given by

$$B^{12}=\frac{1}{2m}\overline{\omega }^{12}B^{34}=\frac{1}{2m}\overline{\omega }^{34}$$
(5.39)
This then gives $`k=c=1`$.

The effective potential has three minima. For $`l=1`$ we find the supersymmetric $`AdS_3\times H^2\times H^2`$ solution found in

$`e^{10\lambda }`$ $`=1`$ (5.40)
$`e^{2\varphi }`$ $`=1`$
$`m^2R^2`$ $`=1`$
as well as a non-supersymmetric $`AdS_3\times H^2\times H^2`$ solution:

$`e^{10\lambda }`$ $`1.4678`$ (5.41)
$`e^{2\varphi }`$ $`0.99497`$
$`m^2R^2`$ $`0.99531`$
For $`l=1`$ we find a non-supersymmetric $`AdS_3\times S^2\times S^2`$ solution:

$`e^{10\lambda }`$ $`2.7523`$ (5.42)
$`e^{2\varphi }`$ $`0.48274`$
$`m^2R^2`$ $`0.020723`$
The masses of the $`(\varphi ,\lambda )`$ fluctuations are now given by

$$M^2R^20.828,4.83$$
(5.43)
for supersymmetric solution, while for the non-supersymmetric solutions, for $`l=1`$

$$M^2R^21.09,4.70$$
(5.44)
and for $`l=1`$

$$M^2R^25.02,8.07$$
(5.45)
Again all satisfy the BF bound.

For this case we can consider a more general ansatz than we have considered so far. For the metric we take

$$ds^2=\frac{e^{8\varphi }R^2}{r^2}\left[ds^2(\text{}^{1,1})+dr^2\right]+e^{2\varphi }\left[e^{2h}d\overline{s}^2(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{1})+e^{2h}d\overline{s}^2(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})\right]$$
(5.46)
where have introduced a new function $`e^{2h}`$ which again only depends on the coordinates on the three-space. We also allow the signs of the curvature of the two two-cycles, $`l_1`$ and $`l_2`$ to be in general unequal. The scalar field ansatz is also generalised to include an extra scalar field

$$\mathrm{\Pi }=\mathrm{diag}(e^{\lambda +\alpha },e^{\lambda +\alpha },e^{\lambda \alpha },e^{\lambda \alpha },e^{4\lambda })$$
(5.47)
The gauge fields and the three-forms are determined as before. We have checked that this again leads to a consistently truncated three-dimensional theory of gravity coupled to four scalar fields. Let us record the effective three-dimensional Lagrangian:

$$=\sqrt{g}\left[R20\left(\varphi \right)^220\left(\lambda \right)^24\left(h\right)^24\left(\alpha \right)^2V(\varphi ,\lambda )\right]$$
(5.48)
where the effective potential is now given by

$`m^2V(\varphi ,\lambda )=`$ $``$ $`2e^{10\varphi }\left(l_1e^{2h}+l_2e^{2h}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^{8\varphi }\left(8e^{4\lambda }+8e^{6\lambda }\mathrm{cosh}(2\alpha )e^{16\lambda }\right)`$ (5.49)
$`+`$ $`e^{4\lambda 12\varphi }\mathrm{cosh}4(\alpha h)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^{16\varphi 8\lambda }`$
In addition to the solutions found above we find one more, with $`l_1=1`$, $`l_2=1`$, i.e. $`AdS_3\times S^2\times H^2`$, with

$`e^{10\lambda }`$ $`2.4453`$ (5.50)
$`e^{2\alpha }`$ $`2.1367`$
$`e^{2\varphi }`$ $`0.73162`$
$`e^{2h}`$ $`1.3430`$
$`m^2R^2`$ $`0.17815`$
It is also interesting to determine the masses of the fluctuations of the scalar fields $`\alpha `$ and $`h`$ for the solutions (5.40), (5.41) and (5.42). For these cases we find a block-diagonal mass matrix when combined with $`\varphi ,\lambda `$. After diagonalising the new block, for the supersymmetric $`AdS_3\times H^2\times H^2`$ solution (5.40) we find:

$$M^2R^2=0.828,4.83$$
(5.51)
for the non-supersymmetric $`AdS_3\times H^2\times H^2`$ solution (5.41) we find

$$M^2R^2=1.18,5.45$$
(5.52)
which violates the BF bound, and for the non-supersymmetric $`AdS_3\times S^2\times S^2`$ solution (5.42) we find

$$M^2R^2=1.49,8.33$$
(5.53)
which again violates the BF bound. For the non-supersymmetric case (5.50), we find after diagonalising the non-block diagonal $`(\varphi ,\lambda ,\alpha ,h)`$ mass matrix, the following masses:

$$M^2R^2=9.56,5.04,4.33,1.89$$
(5.54)
which again violates the BF bound. Hence, of the product cycle cases, it is only the supersymmetric one that does not violate the BF bound, which is perhaps expected.

## 6 $`AdS_2\times \mathrm{\Sigma }_5`$ solutions

Unlike the previous cases, the new solutions with $`AdS_2`$ factors were found directly from the $`D=7`$ equations of motion without deriving an effective two-dimensional theory. There are two cases to consider.

### 6.1 SLAG five-cycle in $`CY_5`$

The metric for this case is taken to be

$$ds^2=\frac{R^2}{r^2}\left[dt^2+dr^2\right]+e^{2g}d\overline{s}^2(\mathrm{\Sigma }_5)$$
(6.1)
The scalar fields are taken to be trivial

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{A}^{}{}_{}{}^{i}=\delta _{A}^{}{}_{}{}^{i}$$
(6.2)
in order to keep the full $`SO(5)`$ symmetry, and the $`SO(5)`$ gauge fields are given by the $`SO(5)`$ spin-connection of the five-cycle:

$$B_{ab}=\frac{1}{2m}\overline{\omega }_{ab}$$
(6.3)
The five-cycle is taken to be not only Einstein, but to have constant curvature. In other words $`S^5`$ for $`l=1`$ and $`H^5`$ for $`l=1`$. All five three-forms are now active and we find

$$S_a=\frac{\sqrt{3}e^{4g}}{32}e^0e^re^a$$
(6.4)
With this ansatz we only find two $`AdS_2`$ solutions, both are supersymmetric and were found in . The first has $`l=1`$, i.e., $`AdS_2\times H^5`$, with

$`e^{2g}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}`$ (6.5)
$`m^2R^2`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{9}{16}}=0.5625`$
The second has $`l=+1`$, i.e., $`AdS_2\times S^5`$, with

$`e^{2g}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}`$ (6.6)
$`m^2R^2`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}=0.0625`$
### 6.2 SLAG five-cycle in $`CY_3\times CY_2`$

For this case we consider an $`AdS`$ metric ansatz of the form

$$ds^2=\frac{R^2}{r^2}\left[dt^2+dr^2\right]+e^{2g_1}d\overline{s}^2(\mathrm{\Sigma }_3)+e^{2g_2}d\overline{s}^2(\mathrm{\Sigma }_2)$$
(6.7)
The metric on the three-cycle and the two-cycle are both Einstein with the signs of the curvature denoted by $`l`$ and $`k`$ respectively. The ansatz for the scalar fields preserves $`SO(3)\times SO(2)`$ symmetry and is given by

$$\mathrm{\Pi }=\mathrm{diag}(e^{2\lambda },e^{2\lambda },e^{2\lambda },e^{3\lambda },e^{3\lambda })$$
(6.8)
The $`SO(5)`$ gauge fields are split via $`SO(5)SO(3)\times SO(2)`$ and the $`SO(3)`$ piece $`B^{ab}`$, with $`a,b=1,2,3`$, is determined by the spin connection on the three-cycle, while the $`SO(2)`$ piece $`B^{\alpha \beta }`$, with $`\alpha ,\beta =4,5`$, is determined by the spin connection on the two-cycle. Explicitly:

$$B_{ab}=\frac{1}{2m}\overline{\omega }_{ab}B_{\alpha \beta }=\frac{1}{2m}\overline{\omega }_{\alpha \beta }$$
(6.9)
The $`S`$ equation of motion is solved by setting

$$S_a=\frac{kl}{4\sqrt{3}}e^{4\lambda 2g_12g_2}e^0e^re^a$$
(6.10)
with $`S_\alpha =0`$.

It is useful to define

$`4y`$ $`=`$ $`e^{2g_12\lambda }`$
$`4z`$ $`=`$ $`e^{2g_22\lambda }`$
$`x`$ $`=`$ $`e^{10\lambda }`$ (6.11)
We then find that the equations of motion for the above ansatz are solved providing

$`40lyx`$ $`=`$ $`28x^2y^216z^2312x+64y^2z^2x^2`$
$`40kzx`$ $`=`$ $`12x^2y^2+64z^2312x+384y^2z^2x^2`$
$`0`$ $`=`$ $`x1+8z^24x^2y^232x^2y^2z^2`$ (6.12)
and we find the following three solutions. The first has $`k=l=1`$, i.e. $`AdS_2\times H^3\times H^2`$, and is the supersymmetric solution found in

$`e^{10\lambda }`$ $`=2`$ (6.13)
$`e^{2g_1}=e^{2g_2}`$ $`=e^{2\lambda }0.87055`$
$`m^2R^2`$ $`0.43528`$
On the other hand for $`k=l=1`$, i.e. $`AdS_2\times H^3\times S^2`$, we get

$`e^{10\lambda }`$ $`=2`$ (6.14)
$`e^{2g_1}=3e^{2g_2}`$ $`=e^{2\lambda }0.87055`$
$`m^2R^2`$ $`0.14509`$
or

$`e^{10\lambda }`$ $``$ $`0.22921`$
$`e^{2g_1}`$ $``$ $`0.45751`$
$`e^{2g_2}`$ $``$ $`0.95097`$
$`m^2R^2`$ $``$ $`0.30432`$ (6.15)
## 7 Summary

We have found a large class of new solutions to $`D=7`$ gauged supergravity that are products of $`AdS_{7d}`$ space with an Einstein space $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_d`$. These can be uplifted to obtain new solutions in $`D=11`$ supergravity. We have summarised the solutions found here, as well as the supersymmetric solutions found previously in  in table 1.

It would be very interesting to determine which of our new solutions are stable, as this is a necessary condition for them to be dual to non-supersymmetric conformal field theories. Our preliminary analysis involving a small number of perturbations in $`D=7`$ gauged supergravity only found that four of the sixteen new solutions were unstable in the sense that the masses of the perturbations violate the Breitenlohner-Freedman bound . Of course further instabilities might be found when including further perturbations of the gauged supergravity or more general perturbations of $`D=11`$ supergravity.

Assuming that at least some of the new solutions are stable, further insight into the putative dual conformal field theories could be found by connecting them to other supersymmetric conformal field theories by gravitational flows. Recall that in  supergravity solutions were found that flowed from an $`AdS_7`$-type region to the $`AdS_{7d}\times \mathrm{\Sigma }_d`$ fixed points. The $`AdS_7`$ region, which in Poincare-type co-ordinates has $`\text{}^{6d}\times \mathrm{\Sigma }_d`$ slices, corresponds to the UV limit describing the $`(2,0)`$ superconformal field theory on the wrapped fivebranes on $`\text{}^{6d}\times \mathrm{\Sigma }_d`$. The $`AdS_{7d}\times \mathrm{\Sigma }_d`$ fixed point at the end of the flow describes the IR physics in $`6d`$ dimensions, where one is considering length scales much larger than the size of the cycle.

It seems likely that there could also be supergravity solutions that flow from the same kind of $`AdS_7`$ type region to the new $`AdS_{7d}\times \mathrm{\Sigma }_d`$ fixed points. By considering the fall-off of the various fields, one would then be able to interpret the $`AdS_{7d}\times \mathrm{\Sigma }_d`$ fixed points as the IR physics arising from the $`(2,0)`$ superconformal field theory on wrapped fivebranes on $`\text{}^{6d}\times \mathrm{\Sigma }_d`$ with certain supersymmetry breaking operators switched on. Unlike the supersymmetric flows in , which were found by analysing first-order BPS equations, these new flows would be non-supersymmetric and would have to be found by solving second-order equations.

It might also be possible to find gravity flows to or from the supersymmetric $`AdS\times \mathrm{\Sigma }`$ IR fixed points and the new non-supersymmetric $`AdS\times \mathrm{\Sigma }`$ solutions, each with the same $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. By assuming a c-theorem, the direction of these flows are determined from the $`AdS`$ radii as this is proportional to the central charge of the conformal field theory. For example, from table 1, one might look for a flow from the supersymmetric $`AdS_5\times H^2`$ fixed point to the non-supersymmetric $`AdS_5\times H^2`$ solution. On the other hand one might look for a flow from the non-supersymmetric $`AdS_4\times H^3`$ solution to the supersymmetric $`AdS_4\times H^3`$ fixed point.

Finally we note that it would also be straightforward to apply the techniques used in this paper to find new non-supersymmetric fixed points and flows in other supergravity duals. In particular, one expects a variety of $`AdS_2\times \mathrm{\Sigma }_2`$ fixed point solutions for the M2-brane based on the supersymmetric ansatz in , similarly $`AdS_3\times \mathrm{\Sigma }_2`$ and $`AdS_2\times \mathrm{\Sigma }_3`$ for the D3-brane following  (we understand that this is being investigated in ), and also new non-supersymmetric solutions for the NS5-brane based on the ansatze in  and . Note that solutions based on different non-supersymmetric deformations of  have recently be considered in .

## Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Ofer Aharony, Gary Gibbons and Paul Townsend for helpful discussions. NK and SP would like to thank the Isaac Newton Institute for hospitality. All authors are supported in part by PPARC through SPG $`\mathrm{\#}`$613. DW thanks the Royal Society for support. NK is supported by DFG.