text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1  Introduction

Recently the idea of Penrose that “Any space-time has a plane wave a limit” has undergone a period of a “ Renaissance”. In Penrose’s own words, this limit is the adaptation to pseudo Riemannian manifolds of the well-understood procedure of taking tangent space limit. The main difference being that whether $`T_p`$ in essentially flat, the Penrose limit applied to a null geodesic results in curved space - a plane wave. The idea has been extended, generalized and applied to the study of string theories on the corresponding backgrounds. In particular several papers have been devoted to a detailed analysis of the application of the limit to supergravity backgrounds , and to explicitly solving the superstring theory defined on the ppw background as well as understanding the relation between the string spectrum and massless supergravity modes . A similar limit was explored also in . In  the string spectrum of a pp-wave background was shown to arise from the large N limit ( large $`g_{YM}^2N`$, fixed $`g_{YM}^2N/J^2`$) of $`𝒩=4`$ SYM theory in 4d. This was accomplished by summing a subset of planar diagrams. The work of Berenstein, Maldacena and Nastase is a very interesting extension of the original AdS/CFT correspondence  in that it considers massive string modes.

The goal of this paper is two folded: to apply the Penrose limit to other conformal and non conformal backgrounds and to examine the question of whether the procedure introduced in  can be used to identify a string spectrum in certain classes of operators of gauge theories which have $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetry and are non-conformal theories. We construct various limits of the $`AdS_5\times T^{1,1}`$ background. For one particular choice of a geodesic line the resulting Penrose-Güven limit coincides with the similar limit for $`AdS_5\times S^5`$. Another limit associated with a different geodesic yields a string theory resembling a particle in a magnetic field. We then analyze the limits of backgrounds that are not dual to conformal field theories: The Schwarzschild black hole in $`AdS_5`$, D3-branes on the small resolution of the conifold and the Klebanov-Tseytlin background.

We find that in all these cases there exist a limit which results in a string theory described by a worldsheet action that includes a mass term that depends on the worldsheet time. We make the first steps toward the identification of the field theory operators that correspond to the low lying string states.

While this paper was being prepared for publication two manuscripts  and  that discuss similar questions appeared on the net. These papers overlap with our discussions of the limits in the $`T^{1,1}`$ and $`T^{p,q}`$ models as well as the identification of the string spectrum in the field theory picture.

The paper is organized as follows. In section 2 various Penrose limits of conformal backgrounds are taken. In particular in the context of $`AdS_5\times T^{1,1}`$ we identify a limit which reproduce the exact geometry found in  for the $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ case and describe another limit which leads to a string background resembling a particle in a magnetic field. We then discuss the general $`T^{p,q}`$ background. Section 2 is devoted to the analysis of several non conformal cases. These include the AdS black hole, the small resolution of the conifold  and the Klebanov Tseytlin model . We then comment on the general structure of the Penrose limit of the non-conformal backgrounds. In the appendix we discuss the local nature of the limit we take in the context of conformal backgrounds.

## 2 Penrose limits in conformal backgrounds

The analysis of  is completely symmetric with respect to the choice of the $`U(1)`$ coordinate inside $`S^5`$ or equivalently the $`U(1)`$ subgroup of $`SU(4)`$ R-symmetry. In the case of $`AdS_5\times T^{1,1}`$ there is a clear difference between the three possible $`U(1)`$ coordinates; only one correspond to the $`U(1)`$ R-symmetry. To clarify this difference we next study various possibilities.

### 2.1 PP wave limit on $`AdS_5\times T^{1,1}`$

We consider various Penrose limits in the geometry of $`AdS_5\times T^{1,1}`$

$`R^2ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`dt^2\mathrm{cosh}^2\rho +d\rho ^2+\mathrm{sinh}^2\rho d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2`$ (2.1)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{9}}\left[d\psi +\mathrm{cos}\theta _1d\varphi _1+\mathrm{cos}\theta _2d\varphi _2\right]^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\left[d\theta _1^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _2d\varphi _1^2+d\theta _1^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _2d\varphi _1^2\right].`$
In analogy with  we concentrate on the motion of a particle that moves along a direction given by $`\psi +\varphi _1+\varphi _2`$ in a geodesic defined in a small neighborhood of $`\rho =0`$ and $`\theta _i=0`$. Technically this amounts to changing the metric to new coordinates

$`\stackrel{~}{x}^+`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[t+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}(\psi +\varphi _1+\varphi _2)\right],`$
$`\stackrel{~}{x}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[t{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}(\psi +\varphi _1+\varphi _2)\right],`$
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi _1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[t+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}(\psi +\varphi _1+\varphi _2)\right],`$
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi _2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[t+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}(\psi +\varphi _1+\varphi _2)\right],`$ (2.2)
and subsequently we take the $`R\mathrm{}`$ limit with

$$x^+=\stackrel{~}{x}^+,x^{}=R^2\stackrel{~}{x}^{},\rho =\frac{r}{R},\theta _i=\sqrt{6}\frac{r_i}{R}.$$
(2.3)
In this limit the metric becomes

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`4dx^+dx^{}\mu ^2(r^2+r_1^2+r_2^2)(dx^+)^2`$ (2.4)
$`+`$ $`dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2+dr_1^2+r_1^2d\mathrm{\Phi }_1^2+dr_2^2+r_2^2d\mathrm{\Phi }_2^2,`$
where we have introduced the mass parameter $`\mu `$ as a rescaling $`x^+\mu x^+`$ and $`x^{}x^{}/\mu `$. Since each pair $`(r_i,\mathrm{\Phi }_i)`$ parametrizes an $`R^2`$ we end up with a result exactly matching that of , that is, a background of the form

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`4dx^+dx^{}\mu ^2\stackrel{}{z}{}_{}{}^{2}(dx^+)_{}^{2}+d\stackrel{}{z}{}_{}{}^{2},`$
$`F_{+1234}`$ $`=`$ $`F_{+5678}\mu .`$ (2.5)
This background has been studied as an exactly solvable string theory in Ramond-Ramond background .

### 2.2 Other limits of $`AdS_5\times T^{1,1}`$, a magnetic case

The combination of variables that we took in the previous subsection was rather particular and was dictated by field theory considerations which we will discuss in more detail in section 4. It is also natural, from the geometrical point of view to consider other limits. In particular it is natural to consider a limit of particles moving along the $`\psi `$ or $`\varphi _i`$ directions. We will see that they look rather different. Introducing in (2.1) the following change of variable

$$\stackrel{~}{x}^+=\frac{1}{2}(t+\frac{1}{3}\psi ),\stackrel{~}{x}^{}=\frac{1}{2}(t\frac{1}{3}\psi )$$
(2.6)
and further taking the limit

$`x^+`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{x}^+,x^{}=R^2\stackrel{~}{x}^{},\rho ={\displaystyle \frac{r}{R}},`$
$`\theta _i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}+\sqrt{6}{\displaystyle \frac{y_i}{R}},\varphi _i=\sqrt{6}{\displaystyle \frac{x_i}{R}}.`$ (2.7)
we obtain the following metric resembling the motion of a particle in a magnetic field.

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`4dx^+(dx^{}+\mu y_1dx_1+\mu y_2dx_2)\mu ^2\stackrel{}{r}{}_{}{}^{2}(dx^+)_{}^{2}+d\stackrel{}{r}{}_{}{}^{2}+d\stackrel{}{y}{}_{}{}^{2}+d\stackrel{}{x}{}_{}{}^{2},`$
$`F_5`$ $`=`$ $`_5+_5,_5\mu dx^+dy^1dx^1dy^2dx^2,`$ (2.8)
where $`\stackrel{}{y}=(y_1,y_2)`$ and $`\stackrel{}{x}=(x_1,x_2)`$. This background can be transformed into (2.1) by means of an appropriate coordinate transformation. However, from the field theory point of view (see discussion in subsection 4.4) these two limits seem to be distinct.

The gauge fixed light-cone bosonic string action in this case is

$$S=\frac{1}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}d^2\sigma [\frac{1}{2}_\alpha \stackrel{}{r}^\alpha \stackrel{}{r}+\frac{1}{2}_\alpha \stackrel{}{y}^\alpha \stackrel{}{y}+\frac{1}{2}_\alpha \stackrel{}{x}^\alpha \stackrel{}{x}\frac{1}{2}\mu ^2\stackrel{}{r}^2+2\mu \stackrel{}{y}_\tau \stackrel{}{x}],$$
(2.9)
which is exactly solvable.

Finally we consider motion along the $`\varphi _1`$ coordinate, as before we introduce

$$\stackrel{~}{x}^+=\frac{1}{2}(t+\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}\varphi _1),\stackrel{~}{x}^{}=\frac{1}{2}(t\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}\varphi _1)$$
(2.10)
and further taking the limit

$`x^+`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{x}^+,x^{}=R^2\stackrel{~}{x}^{},\rho ={\displaystyle \frac{r}{R}},`$
$`\theta _i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}+\sqrt{6}{\displaystyle \frac{y_i}{R}},\varphi _2=\sqrt{6}{\displaystyle \frac{x_2}{R}},\psi =3{\displaystyle \frac{z}{R}}.`$ (2.11)
we obtain the following metric resembling the motion of a particle in a magnetic field.

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`4dx^+(dx^{}+\mu y_1dz)\mu ^2(\stackrel{}{r}{}_{}{}^{2}+2y_1^2)(dx^+)^2+d\stackrel{}{r}{}_{}{}^{2}+d\stackrel{}{y}{}_{}{}^{2}+dx_2^2+dz^2,`$
$`F_5`$ $`=`$ $`_5+_5,_5\mu dx^+dzdy^1dy^2dx^2,`$ (2.12)
where $`\stackrel{}{y}=(y_1,y_2)`$.

### 2.3 PP wave limit on $`AdS_5\times T^{p,q}`$

In this subsection we discuss the analogous problem for the motion of a particle in $`T^{p,q}`$ space. We thus consider a solution to the IIB equations of motion given by $`AdS_5\times T^{p,q}`$ where the metric on $`T^{p,q}`$ is given by

$`ds_{T^{p,q}}^2`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda _1^2(d\theta _1^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _1d\varphi _1^2)+\lambda _2^2(d\theta _2^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _2d\varphi _2^2)`$ (2.13)
$`+`$ $`\lambda ^2(d\psi +p\mathrm{cos}\theta _1d\varphi _1+q\mathrm{cos}\theta _2d\varphi _2)^2.`$
This space is Einstein provided:

$$\frac{1}{\lambda _1^2}\left[1\frac{\lambda ^2p^2}{2\lambda _1^2}\right]=\frac{1}{\lambda _2^2}\left[1\frac{\lambda ^2q^2}{2\lambda _2^2}\right]=\frac{\lambda ^2}{2}\left[\frac{p^2}{\lambda _1^4}+\frac{q^2}{\lambda _2^4}\right]$$
(2.14)
In this sense the metric considered in the previous section is a particular case of this more general space corresponding to $`p=q=1,\lambda _1^2=\lambda _2^2=1/6`$ and $`\lambda ^2=1/9`$. The element of this class of spaces that have attracted the most attention is precisely $`T^{1,1}`$ since it is the only space that provides a supersymmetric solution of IIB .

Next we perform the following coordinate transformation

$`\stackrel{~}{x}^+`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[t+\mathrm{\Lambda }\lambda (\psi +\varphi _1+\varphi _2)\right],`$
$`\stackrel{~}{x}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[t\mathrm{\Lambda }\lambda {\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}(\psi +\varphi _1+\varphi _2)\right],`$
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi _1{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda p}{4\mathrm{\Lambda }\lambda _1^2}}\left[t+\mathrm{\Lambda }\lambda (\psi +\varphi _1+\varphi _2)\right],`$
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi _2{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda q}{4\mathrm{\Lambda }\lambda _2^2}}\left[t+\mathrm{\Lambda }\lambda (\psi +\varphi _1+\varphi _2)\right].`$ (2.15)
Here we have introduced a constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ which is used to match the radii of $`AdS_5`$ and $`T^{p,q}`$. Taking the large $`R`$ limit in the form

$$x^+=\stackrel{~}{x}^+,x^{}=R^2\stackrel{~}{x}^{},\rho =\frac{r}{R},\theta _i=\frac{r_i}{\mathrm{\Lambda }\lambda _iR}.$$
(2.16)
we obtain

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`4dx^+dx^{}\mu ^2(r^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^2p^2}{4\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\lambda _1^4}}r_1^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^2q^2}{4\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\lambda _2^4}}r_2^2)(dx^+)^2`$ (2.17)
$`+`$ $`dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2+dr_1^2+r_1^2d\varphi _1^2+dr_2^2+r_2^2d\varphi _2^2.`$
Note that each pair $`(r_i,\varphi _i)`$ parametrizes an $`𝐑^2`$. At the string theory level we can identify, in principle, three different masses for the eight transverse coordinates. Although here we are considering a conformal background, this splitting is characteristic in nonconformal situations, where different coordinates get different masses due to the introduction of nonconformality as will be shown in the next section.

## 3 Nonconformal Cases

One of the most striking features of the AdS/CFT is that it allows to go beyond its original statement about the duality between IIB string theory in $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ and $`𝒩=4`$ large $`N`$ super Yang-Mills. From phenomenological perspective backgrounds that are not conformal invariant play a very important role. In this section we consider the Penrose limit of three different types of nonconformal backgrounds. Namely, we consider the Schwarzschild black hole in $`AdS_5`$ complemented by $`S^5`$ and a nontrivial 5-form; in this case the scale in the problem is provided by the mass of the Schwarzschild black hole. We also consider the Maldacena limit of D3-branes placed at the origin of the small resolution of the conifold, which is a natural deformation of the $`AdS_5\times T^{1,1}`$ solution considered before. Finally in this section we consider the simplest of the theories with varying 5-form flux - the Klebanov-Tseytlin solution . As oppose to the conformal cases discussed before non of this deformation allows for exact solvability at the string theory level due to an explicit dependence on the metric on the $`x^+`$ coordinate. However, it is possible to extract some information about the field theory side.

### 3.1 Penrose Limit of the Schwarzschild Black Hole in AdS

In this section we consider the Penrose limit for the Schwarzschild black hole in AdS. This deformation of the AdS/CFT, when analytically continued to Euclidean time is related to a nonzero temperature deformation in the field theory side. However, here we consider strictly the Lorentzian signature since it is a requirement for the implementation of the Penrose limit . The metric we consider in this subsection is

$$R^2ds^2=r^2(1\frac{r_0^4}{r^4})dt^2+\frac{dr^2}{r^2(1\frac{r_0^4}{r^4})}+r^3d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2+d\psi ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\psi d\mathrm{\Omega }_4^2.$$
(3.1)
Before applying to Penrose limit we bring the metric into a convenient form following ,. We study the null geodesic determined by the following effective Lagrangian

$$=r^2(1\frac{r_0^4}{r^4})\dot{t}^2+\dot{\psi }^2+\frac{\dot{r}^2}{r^2(1\frac{r_0^4}{r^4})},$$
(3.2)
where dot represents derivative respect to the affine parameter. Since the effective Lagrangian does not depend explicitly on the coordinates $`t`$ and $`\psi `$ we have two integrals of motion:

$$\dot{\psi }=\mu ,\dot{t}=\frac{E}{r^2(1\frac{r_0^4}{r^4})}.$$
(3.3)
For null geodesics $`=0`$ we obtain an equation for $`r`$

$$\dot{r}^2+\mu ^2r^2(1\frac{r_0^4}{r^4})=E^2.$$
(3.4)
We choose the affine parameter $`u`$ as part of a new coordinate system $`(u,v,\varphi )`$ in which we can enforce $`g_{uu}=g_{u\varphi }=0`$ and $`g_{uv}=1`$. In these coordinates the metric takes the form

$`R^2ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`2dudv+2\mu ^2r^2(1{\displaystyle \frac{r_0^4}{r^4}})dvd\varphi r^2(1{\displaystyle \frac{r_0^4}{r^4}})dv^2+\left[1(1{\displaystyle \frac{r_0^4}{r^4}})\right]d\varphi ^2`$ (3.5)
$`+`$ $`r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2+\mathrm{sin}^2(\varphi +\mu u)d\mathrm{\Omega }_4^2,`$
with

$$\frac{dr}{du}=\sqrt{1\mu ^2r^2(1\frac{r_0^4}{r^4})}.$$
(3.6)
We now perform the Penrose limit by sending $`R\mathrm{}`$ with

$$uu,v\frac{v}{R^2},Y^i\frac{y^i}{R},$$
(3.7)
where $`Y^i`$ represent a subset of the rest of the coordinates. We find the Penrose limit for the Schwarzschild black hole in AdS to be

$$ds^2=2dudv+(1\mu ^2\rho ^2(u))d\varphi ^2+r^2(u)ds^2(𝐑^3)+\mathrm{sin}^2(\mu u)ds^2(𝐑^4),$$
(3.8)
where

$$\rho ^2=r^2(1\frac{r_0^4}{r^4}).$$
(3.9)
As noted in  for $`(r_0=0)`$ the Penrose limit is flat space if $`\mu 0`$; for $`r_0=0`$ we recover the result corresponding to the Penrose limit in $`AdS_5\times S^5`$. The above result is presented in Rosen coordinates we can transform the metric into the usual Brinkman coordinates in which case we obtain:

$$ds^2=4dx^+dx^{}\mu ^2\left[(1\frac{3r_0^4}{r^4})\varphi ^2+(1+\frac{r_0^4}{r^4})z_3^3+z_4^2\right](dx^+)^2+d\varphi ^2+dz_3^2+dz_4^2,$$
(3.10)
where $`z_3`$ parametrizes $`𝐑^3`$ and $`z_4`$ parametrizes $`𝐑^4`$. In this coordinate system

$$x^+=\frac{1}{2\mu }\mathrm{arctan}\left[\frac{2\mu ^2r^21}{2\mu \sqrt{r^2\mu ^2r^4+\mu ^2r_0^4}}\right].$$
(3.11)
Note that the coordinates parametrizing $`𝐑^4`$ originate from the $`S^5`$ and are not affected by the nonconformality introduced by the Schwarzschild-AdS black hole. The masses of the bosons that have been affected are to those directions lying within AdS.

### 3.2 The small resolution of the conifold

In this subsection we consider a very different type of nonconformality from the previous section. Namely, we consider the Maldacena limit of regular D3 branes on the small resolution of the conifold. A natural scale is introduced in the problem by the radius (minimal volume) of the nonvanishing $`S^2`$. The field theory interpretation of this solution was discussed by Klebanov and Witten in , the supergravity construction was presented in . The near horizon limit is of the standard D3-brane form

$$ds^2=h^{1/2}\eta _{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu +h^{1/2}ds_6^2,$$
(3.12)
where $`ds_6^2`$ is the metric of the small resolution of the conifold

$`ds_6^2`$ $`=`$ $`\kappa ^1dr^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{9}}\kappa r^2e_\psi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}r^2\left(e_{\theta _1}^2+e_{\varphi _1}^2\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}(r^2+6a^2)\left(e_{\theta _2}^2+e_{\varphi _2}^2\right),`$
$`\kappa `$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{r^2+9a^2}{r^2+6a^2}},e_{\theta _i}=d\theta _i,e_{\varphi _i}=\mathrm{sin}\theta _id\varphi _i.`$ (3.13)
As usual the warp factor is a harmonic function on the transverse 6-d space:

$$h=\frac{R^4}{9a^2r^2}\left[1\frac{r^2}{9a^2}\mathrm{ln}(1+\frac{9a^2}{r^2})\right].$$
(3.14)
Proceeding as in the previous cases, we study the geodesic line along $`(r,t,\psi )`$ in order to find a natural transformation into coordinates $`(u,v,x)`$ convenient to perform the Penrose limit. Namely, we consider the null geodesic described by

$$=\frac{3ar}{\sqrt{1\frac{r^2}{9a^2}\mathrm{ln}(1+\frac{9a^2}{r^2})}}\dot{t}^2+\frac{\sqrt{1\frac{r^2}{9a^2}\mathrm{ln}(1+\frac{9a^2}{r^2})}}{3ar}\kappa ^1\dot{r}^2+\frac{\sqrt{1\frac{r^2}{9a^2}\mathrm{ln}(1+\frac{9a^2}{r^2})}}{3a}\kappa r\dot{\psi }^2.$$
(3.15)
The equations following from this Lagrangian are:

$`\dot{t}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{1\frac{r^2}{9a^2}\mathrm{ln}(1+\frac{9a^2}{r^2})}}{3ar}},`$
$`\dot{\psi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3a\mu }{\kappa r\sqrt{1\frac{r^2}{9a^2}\mathrm{ln}(1+\frac{9a^2}{r^2})}}},`$
$`\dot{r}^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{r^2+9a^2}{r^2+6a^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{9a^2\mu ^2}{1\frac{r^2}{9a^2}\mathrm{ln}(1+\frac{9a^2}{r^2})}}.`$ (3.16)
We take the Penrose-Güven limit as

$$u=u,v\frac{v}{R^2},x\frac{x}{R},\theta _i=\sqrt{6}\frac{r_i}{R},$$
(3.17)
resulting in

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`2dudv+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa \mathrm{\Lambda }}{3a}}\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{9a^2\mu ^2}{\kappa \mathrm{\Lambda }^2}}\right]dx^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }r}{3a}}ds^2(𝐑_1^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }r}{3a}}(1+{\displaystyle \frac{6a^2}{r^2}})ds^2(𝐑_2^2),`$
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{1{\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{9a^2}}\mathrm{ln}(1+{\displaystyle \frac{9a^2}{r^2}})},`$ (3.18)
where $`𝐑_i^2`$ represents the $`𝐑^2`$ parametrize by $`(r_i,\varphi _i)`$. This metric can be brought to Brinkman coordinates following the prescription of . As in the previous case this metric smoothly goes to the maximally supersymmetric pp-wave as the conformality parameter goes to zero $`(a0)`$.

### 3.3 The Klebanov-Tseytlin solution

The Klebanov-Tseytlin solution describes the geometry of a collection of regular and fractional branes on the conifold . It contains a naked singularity in the IR where it must be replaced by the Klebanov-Strassler solution corresponding to the replacement of the conifold by the deformed conifold . Although not completely accurate, the KT geometry provides a simple description of the supergravity dual of the breaking of conformal invariance in the field theory by the introduction of fractional branes, it is also computationally a lot more manageable than the corresponding background for the deformed conifold metric. We thus proceed, with caution, to study the Penrose limit in the KT solution.

In this section we will use the Poincare coordinates of $`AdS`$ that are naturally related to the standard D3-brane solution. This approach in principle obscures the relation of the time coordinate to the global time coordinate that we used in the previous sections and that was used in . However, as was explicitly shown in , the end result is the same limit and this completely shows the equivalence of both routes. The metric of the KT solution is

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`h^{1/2}\eta _{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu +h^{1/2}\left[dr^2+r^2ds_{T^{1,1}}^2\right],`$
$`h`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{R^4}{r^4}}(1+P\mathrm{ln}({\displaystyle \frac{r}{r_0}})).`$ (3.19)
For the precise normalizations we refer the reader to . For us it will be important the $`P`$ is proportional to the number of fractional D3-branes and that it is natural to consider it small with respect to the number of regular D3-branes which is proportional to $`R^4`$. After a rescaling of the radial coordinate, and similarly $`r_0`$, we bring the metric to the form

$$R^2ds^2=\frac{r^2\eta _{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu }{\sqrt{1+P\mathrm{ln}(\frac{r}{r_0})}}+r^2\sqrt{1+P\mathrm{ln}(\frac{r}{r_0})}dr^2+\sqrt{1+P\mathrm{ln}(\frac{r}{r_0})}ds_{T^{1,1}}^2.$$
(3.20)
As in the case of $`AdS_5\times T^{1,1}`$ we concentrate on motion along a geodesic given by $`\psi +\varphi _1+\varphi _2`$ in a small neighborhood of $`\theta _i=0`$. The effective Lagrangian from which the geodesic equation follows is

$$=\frac{r^2\dot{t}^2}{\sqrt{1+P\mathrm{ln}(\frac{r}{r_0})}}+r^2\sqrt{1+P\mathrm{ln}(\frac{r}{r_0})}\dot{r}^2+\sqrt{1+P\mathrm{ln}(\frac{r}{r_0})}\dot{\psi }^2,$$
(3.21)
where dot represents derivative with respect to the affine parameter u. Since the Lagrangian does not explicitly depend on $`t`$ and $`\psi `$ we have two integral of motion:

$$\dot{t}=\frac{E}{r^2}\sqrt{1+P\mathrm{ln}(\frac{r}{r_0})},\dot{\psi }=\mu /\sqrt{1+P\mathrm{ln}(\frac{r}{r_0})}.$$
(3.22)
From these two relations we find that

$$\dot{r}^2+\frac{\mu ^2r^2}{1+P\mathrm{ln}(\frac{r}{r_0})}=E^2.$$
(3.23)
Our aim is, following , to find new coordinates $`(u,v,x)`$ satisfying $`g_{uu}=0,g_{uv}=1`$ and $`g_{ux}=0`$, in which the Penrose-Güven limit is naturally taken. A simple solution satisfying this transformation was given in  and can be naturally extended to the case under consideration

$$_u=\dot{r}_r+\dot{t}_t+\dot{\psi }_\psi ,_v=\frac{1}{E}_t,_x=\mu _t+E_\psi .$$
(3.24)
From now on we set $`E=1`$, as in the previous cases. This system can be integrated. After taking the Penrose limit following

$$uu,v\frac{v}{R^2},\theta _i=\sqrt{6}\frac{r_i}{R},x\frac{x}{R},$$
(3.25)
we obtain the following metric

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`2dudv+{\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{\sqrt{1+P\mathrm{ln}(\frac{r}{r_0})}}}dx_3^2+\sqrt{1+P\mathrm{ln}({\displaystyle \frac{r}{r_0}})}\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2r^2}{1+P\mathrm{ln}(\frac{r}{r_0})}}\right]dx^2`$ (3.26)
$`+`$ $`\sqrt{1+P\mathrm{ln}({\displaystyle \frac{r}{r_0}})}\left[dr_1^2+r_1^2d\varphi _1^2+dr_2^2+r_2^2d\varphi _2^2\right],`$
where $`r`$ and $`u`$ are related according to

$$u=\frac{dr}{\sqrt{1\mu ^2r^2/(1+P\mathrm{ln}(\frac{r}{r_0}))}}.$$
(3.27)
Note that in the particular case of $`P=0`$ we find that the above expression can be explicitly integrated $`(r=\mu ^1\mathrm{sin}\mu u)`$ giving the pp-wave in Rosen coordinates . One of the most interesting characteristics of the KT-type backgrounds is the dependence on the 5-form on the radius, associated with the RG-cascade. In the present context this feature remains

$$F_5=_5+_5,_5(1+P\mathrm{ln}(\frac{r}{r_0}))\dot{\psi }dudr_1r_1d\varphi _1dr_2r_2d\varphi _2.$$
(3.28)
Similarly some of the components of the 3-form fields survive the Penrose-Güven limit

$`B_2`$ $``$ $`P\mathrm{ln}({\displaystyle \frac{r}{r_0}})(dr_1r_1d\varphi _1dr_2r_2d\varphi _2),`$
$`F_3`$ $``$ $`P\dot{\psi }du(dr_1r_1d\varphi _1dr_2r_2d\varphi _2)`$ (3.29)
### 3.4 Comments on the general structure of the Penrose limit in nonconformal backgrounds

We have seen that in all the three examples that we discussed the nonconformality parameters appear naturally as a perturbation of the metric away from the exactly solvable pp-wave limit discussed in

$$ds^2=4dx^+dx^{}+d\stackrel{}{z}{}_{}{}^{2}\mu ^2\left[\underset{i}{}(1+ϵf_i(x^+))z_i^2\right](dx^+)^2,$$
(3.30)
where $`ϵ`$ is the nonconformality parameter. The collection of functions $`f_i(x^+)`$ characterize the form of the “mass” deformation for the coordinate $`z_i`$; in the case of the Schwarzschild black hole we note that $`f_i=0`$ for the directions within the $`S^5`$, as expected. From the string theory point of view we have that since the equation of motion for $`x^{}`$ implies that $`\mathrm{}x^+=0`$ we can fix the world sheet diffeomorphism invariance by choosing the light cone $`x^+=p^+\tau `$. The resulting gauge fixed string theory action will then be interpreted as a theory of eight massive fields with time-dependent mass.

An interesting observation is that the fields $`z_i`$ can not appear to order higher than two, that is to say, the action is always quadratic in the field $`z_i`$. This can be seen by recalling that in the Penrose-Güven limit one rescales $`z_iz_i/R`$ and then multiplies the metric by $`R^2`$.

The near horizon limit of nonconformal Dp-branes has been discussed in , their Penrose-Güven limit has been presented in . It is interesting to note that they also fall into the general form discussed here, in the sense that they have and $`x^+`$-dependent mass function.

## 4 $`𝒩=1`$ Super Conformal Field Theory interpretation

In this section we attempt to find a field theory interpretation to the limits taken in section 1 for the conifold geometry of $`AdS_5\times T^{1,1}`$. We follow closely the procedure used in , in the Penrose limit of section (1.1), namely, we first identify the field theory operators that correspond to the ground state with large $`p^+`$ and to the first excited level. We then make some preliminary observations about the possibility to have a perturbative expansion that will reproduce the string Hamiltonian. We end by discussing the operator identifications of the magnetic cases of section (1.2). It is crucial for us to relate isometries of the $`T^{1,1}`$ space with charges of the operators of the CFT. To make that connection completely transparent we start with reviewing the construction of the conifold metric following Candelas and De la Ossa  and some facts about the superconformal field theory discussed by Klebanov and Witten  (we will also rely on the analysis of ).

### 4.1 Review of the the conifold and the superconfomal theory of D3 branes at the conifold singularity

The conifold is defined by the following quadric in $`𝐂^4`$:

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}w_i^2=0.$$
(4.1)
This equation can be written as

$$\text{det}𝒲=0,\mathrm{i}.\mathrm{e}.Z_1Z_2Z_3Z_4=0,$$
(4.2)
$$𝒲=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}w_3+iw_4& w_1iw_2\\ w_1+iw_2& w_3+iw_4\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}Z_1& Z_3\\ Z_4& Z_2\end{array}\right).$$
(4.3)
Equation (4.1) has an $`SO(4)`$ symmetry that is usually treated as an $`SU(2)\times SU(2)`$. There is also a $`U(1)`$ symmetry given by

$$w_ie^{i\alpha }w_i.$$
(4.4)
This last symmetry was identified with the $`U(1)_R`$ in the gauge theory side based on the fact that the holomorphic 3-form can be written as

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=\frac{dw_1dw_2dw_3}{w_4},$$
(4.5)
and therefore has charge two under this $`U(1)`$ symmetry. Moreover, since the chiral superspace coordinate transform as $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{1/2}`$ we obtain that it naturally has charge one.

To write an explicit metric on the conifold we need to find a general solution to equation (4.3) and assume that the Kähler potential depends only on the radial coordinate which is defined as: $`r^2=\text{tr}(𝒲^{}𝒲)`$. The most general solution can be found by acting on a particular solution with elements of $`SU(2)\times SU(2)`$. Namely, given a particular solution $`Z_0`$ we construct $`𝒲`$ as

$$\frac{𝒲}{r}=LZ_0R^{}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& \overline{b}\\ b& \overline{a}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}\overline{k}& \overline{l}\\ l& k\end{array}\right)$$
(4.6)
where $`|a|^2+|b|^2=|a|^2+|b|^2=1`$ and they can be parametrize as $`a=\mathrm{cos}\frac{\theta _1}{2}\mathrm{exp}\frac{i}{2}(\psi _1+\varphi _1),b=\mathrm{sin}\frac{\theta _1}{2}\mathrm{exp}\frac{i}{2}(\psi _1\varphi _1)`$ and similarly for $`k`$ and $`l`$. With this choice of parametrization of $`SU(2)`$ we find

$`Z_1`$ $`=`$ $`r\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{\theta _1}{2}}\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{\theta _2}{2}}\mathrm{exp}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}(\psi +\varphi _1\varphi _2),`$
$`Z_2`$ $`=`$ $`r\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{\theta _1}{2}}\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{\theta _2}{2}}\mathrm{exp}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}(\psi \varphi _1+\varphi _2),`$
$`Z_3`$ $`=`$ $`r\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{\theta _1}{2}}\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{\theta _2}{2}}\mathrm{exp}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}(\psi +\varphi _1+\varphi _2),`$
$`Z_4`$ $`=`$ $`r\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{\theta _1}{2}}\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{\theta _2}{2}}\mathrm{exp}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}(\psi \varphi _1\varphi _2),`$ (4.7)
where $`\psi =\psi _1+\psi _2`$. Looking at equation (4.3) we see that the $`Z^{}s`$ are linear combinations of the $`w^{}s`$ and thus in order for the latter to have $`R`$-charge one we must identify that symmetry with shifts of $`\psi =2\beta `$, precisely as in .

### 4.2 Identification of lowest “ string modes” of the KW model

The lowest components of the chiral superfields of the KW model are related to the conifold parameters in the following way

$$Z_1=A_+B_+,Z_2=A_{}B_{},Z_3=A_+B_{}Z_4=A_{}B_+.$$
(4.8)
where $`(A_{},A_+)`$ and $`(B_{},B_+)`$ are doublets of $`SU(2)_A`$ and $`SU(2)_B`$ global symmetries respectively and carry a $`U(1)_R`$ charge of $`1/2`$. The question now is how to characterize these fields in the sector that corresponds to the Penrose limit. In  the light-cone Hamiltonian was taken to be $`2P^{}=\mathrm{\Delta }J`$ where $`J`$ is the generator of rotations in the $`\psi `$ direction, $`J=i_\psi `$. Following (2.1) and the discussion above about the identification of $`\psi =2\beta `$, it is natural to identify $`J`$ for the $`T^{1,1}`$ case as follows

$$J=i[1/2_\psi +_{\varphi _1}+_{\varphi _2}].$$
(4.9)
In the following table we classify the fields of the KW theory with respect to their gauge transformations, their $`U(1)_A\times U(1)_B\times U(1)_R`$ charges, where $`U(1)_A`$ and $`U(1)_B`$ associate with the $`T_3`$ generators of $`SU(2)_A`$ and $`SU(2)_B`$ respectively, their $`J=1/2U(1)_R+U(1)_A+U(1)_B`$ charges and their conformal dimension. In addition the table contain composite operators that carry $`\mathrm{\Delta }J=0,1`$.

|  | $`SU_L(N)`$ | $`SU_R(N)`$ | $`U_A(1)`$ | $`U_B(1)`$ | $`U_R(1)`$ | $`J`$ | $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ | $`\mathrm{\Delta }J`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`(A_+,\psi _+^A)`$ | $`N`$ | $`\overline{N}`$ | $`1/2`$ | 0 | $`(1/2,1/2)`$ | $`(3/4,1/4)`$ | $`(3/4,5/4)`$ | $`(0,1)`$ |
| $`(A_{}\psi _{}^A)`$ | $`N`$ | $`\overline{N}`$ | $`1/2`$ | 0 | $`(1/2,1/2)`$ | $`(1/4,3/4)`$ | $`(3/4,5/4)`$ | $`(1,2)`$ |
| $`(B_+\psi _+^B)`$ | $`\overline{N}`$ | $`N`$ | $`0`$ | $`1/2`$ | $`(1/2,1/2)`$ | $`(3/4,1/4)`$ | $`(3/4,5/4)`$ | $`(0,1)`$ |
| $`(B_{}\psi _{}^B)`$ | $`\overline{N}`$ | $`N`$ | $`0`$ | $`1/2`$ | $`(1/2,1/2)`$ | $`(1/43/4)`$ | $`(3/4,5/4)`$ | $`(1,2)`$ |
| $`\lambda _L`$ | $`adj`$ | $`1`$ | $`0`$ | $`0`$ | $`1`$ | $`1/2`$ | $`3/2`$ | $`1`$ |
| $`\lambda _R`$ | $`1`$ | $`adj`$ | $`0`$ | $`0`$ | $`1`$ | $`1/2`$ | $`3/2`$ | $`1`$ |
| $`ZA_+B_+`$ | $`adj1`$ | $`adj1`$ | $`1/2`$ | 1/2 | $`1`$ | $`3/2`$ | $`3/2`$ | $`0`$ |
| $`\varphi _1A_+B_{}`$ | $`adj1`$ | $`adj1`$ | $`1/2`$ | -1/2 | $`1`$ | $`1/2`$ | $`3/2`$ | $`1`$ |
| $`\varphi _2A_{}B_+`$ | $`adj1`$ | $`adj1`$ | $`1/2`$ | +1/2 | $`1`$ | $`1/2`$ | $`3/2`$ | $`1`$ |
| $`\psi _1A_+\psi _+^B`$ | $`adj1`$ | $`adj1`$ | $`1/2`$ | -1/2 | $`0`$ | $`1`$ | $`2`$ | $`1`$ |
| $`\psi _2B_+\psi _+^A`$ | $`adj1`$ | $`adj1`$ | $`1/2`$ | +1/2 | $`0`$ | $`1`$ | $`2`$ | $`1`$ |

From the table it is clear that in a similar manner to the $`𝒩=4`$ case , the natural candidate in the KW model for the operator that corresponds to the light-cone ground state is

$$\frac{1}{\sqrt{J}N^{J/2}}Tr[(A_+B_+)^J]$$
(4.10)
The bosonic operators associated with $`\mathrm{\Delta }J=1`$ are the $`D_iZ`$ and $`\varphi _1`$ and $`\varphi _2`$ defined in the table. The missing 2 bosonic operators are associated with non chiral operators composed from complex conjugates of the basic bosonic fields as was pointed out in  <sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1 We thank O. Aharony for pointing this out to us. As for the fermionic operators at “level”one we have the operators defined in the table as $`\psi _1`$ and $`\psi _2`$ and in addition there are the gauginos and the missing operators aren again associated with the corresponding non chiral operators.

### 4.3 On the “strings” of the KW model

Since the Penrose limit of the $`AdS_5\times T^{1,1}`$ is identical to that of the $`AdS_5\times S^5`$, it is clear that the bosonic part of the light-cone string action associated with the former limit takes the form

$$S=\frac{1}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}d^2\sigma [\frac{1}{2}_\alpha \stackrel{}{z}^\alpha \stackrel{}{z}\mu ^2\stackrel{}{z}^2]$$
(4.11)
The question now is whether one can show that the KW field theory in the Penrose limit admits a string bit picture  which is governed by a discretized Hamiltonian that flows in the continuum limit to the Hamiltonian associated with (4.11). The Penrose limit now associates with

$$g_s^2N\mathrm{}\frac{g_s^2N}{J^2}fixed\mathrm{\Delta }Jfixed,$$
(4.12)
Note that it is $`g_s`$ and not $`g_{YM}^2`$ which is involved in the limit since the later becomes large at the IR fixed point. $`g_s`$ maps in the field theory language, in a manner that is not completely understood to $`\lambda `$ the coupling of the superpotential which is given by

$$W=\frac{\lambda }{2}ϵ^{ij}ϵ^{kl}Tr[A_iB_kA_jB_l]$$
(4.13)
with $`i=+,`$. The corresponding scalar potential takes the form

$$V=G^{r\overline{s}}_rW_{\overline{s}}\overline{W}=Tr[G^{A_+^{}A_+}(B_+A_{}B_{})(B_+^{}A_{}^{}B_{}^{})]+\mathrm{}$$
(4.14)
where the … corresponds the other terms in $`G^{r\overline{s}}`$. The kähler metric  can be rewritten in terms of the $`A_i`$ and $`B_i`$ fields, inverted and inserted in the expression for the potential (which has total dimension four).

A key issue is obviously whether one can find a perturbative expansion of this interaction potential. It is hard to believe that such a perturbation is possible especially since the theory is at strong gauge coupling. On the other hand as stayed above the final answer should converge to a free light-cone “massive” string. The resolution of the puzzle how such a complicated potential can lead to the same continuum result as for the $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ may involve some non-trivial map that will transform the interaction potential into $`Tr[\widehat{Z}\widehat{\varphi }\overline{\widehat{Z}}\overline{\widehat{\varphi }}]`$ where $`\widehat{Z}`$ and $`\widehat{\varphi }`$ are dimension one operators of $`\mathrm{\Delta }J`$ equal to $`0`$ and $`1`$ respectively, like for instance $`\widehat{Z}=Z^{2/3},\widehat{\varphi }=\varphi /Z^{1/3}`$. This type of construction is under current investigation.

### 4.4  String modes in the magnetic limit

In spite of the fact that the Penrose limits of (2.1) and (2.2) are related by coordinate transformation we will argue that the corresponding light-cone Hamiltonians are different and therefore determine different projections in the space of operators. In analogy to using $`H_{lc}=2P^{}=\mathrm{\Delta }\left[(1/2)U(1)_R+U(1)_A+U(1)_B\right]`$ for the Penrose limit of subsection 2.1 we identify $`J=\alpha U_R(1)`$, where $`\alpha `$ is some numerical constant for the limit where $`\stackrel{~}{x}^+=\frac{1}{2}(t+\frac{1}{3}\psi )`$. It is thus clear that all the $`A_i`$ and $`B_i`$ will have the same eigenvalue of $`2P^{}`$. In particular for $`\alpha =3/2`$ we have that $`\mathrm{\Delta }J=0`$ for all the scalar fields and the gauginos. In this case the vacuum state will be highly degenerate since there will be many operators that are analogous to $`Tr[Z^J]`$. This high degeneracy may be related to the degeneracy of the corresponding Landau levels. The fermions $`\psi _\pm ^A`$ and $`\psi _\pm ^B`$ have $`\mathrm{\Delta }J=2`$

For the case that $`\varphi _i`$ is replacing $`\psi `$ in the definition of $`x^+`$ then naturally $`J=\alpha U(1)_A`$. In this case there is less degeneracy since $`J`$ distinguishes between $`A_+`$ and $`A_{}`$ but since the $`B_i`$ carry zero $`J`$ charge there is still some degeneracy. For instance for $`\alpha =3`$ both $`Tr[A_+B_+]`$ and $`Tr[A_+B_{}]`$ correspond to the string ground state.

A similar situation is also encountered in $`AdS_5\times S^5`$. Using different linear combinations of the $`U(1)`$’s, implies using different $`J`$’s and therefore different light-cone Hamiltonians $`H_{lc}`$. In particular, it is possible to get the magnetic case by taking the sum of the three $`U(1)`$’s inside $`SU(4)`$.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank D. Berenstein, J. Maldacena, S. Mukhi and C. Thorn for conversations; we also thank J. Gomis, G. Papadopoulos and A. Tseytlin for comments on a previous version of the manuscript. We are especially grateful to O. Aharony for very useful discussions. The research of JS was supported in part by the US-Israel Binational Science Foundation, by GIF – the German-Israeli Foundation for Scientific Research, and by the Israel Science Foundation.

## Appendix A  Local versus global existence of geodesic congruence

In this appendix we explain the intrinsically local character of some of the limits taken in the main body of the test. Consider the construction of null geodesic in the plane given by $`(t,\rho ,\psi )`$ in any of the geometries discussed previously of for that matter even in $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ we concentrate on the part of the metric having the following form:

$$ds^2=dt^2\mathrm{cosh}^2\rho +d\rho ^2+d\psi ^2.$$
(A.1)
The equation of the geodesic in this coordinates follows from the Lagrangian

$$=\dot{t}^2\mathrm{cosh}^2\rho ^2+\dot{\rho }^2+\dot{\psi }^2,$$
(A.2)
where the dot means derivatives with respect to the affine parameter $`u`$. Since there is not explicit dependence on $`\psi `$ or $`t`$ we have two integral of motion:

$$\dot{\psi }=\mu ,\dot{t}=E/\mathrm{cosh}^2\rho .$$
(A.3)
substituting in the condition of null geodesic $`=0`$ we get

$$\dot{\rho }^2+\mu ^2=\frac{E^2}{\mathrm{cosh}^2\rho }.$$
(A.4)
This equation shows the local character of such geodesic. Namely, in a neighborhood of $`\rho =0`$ there is always a solution to this equation with nonzero $`\mu `$ and therefore including $`\psi `$. However if we allow $`\rho `$ to be very large we find that the above equation can always be falsified unless we take $`\mu 0`$ in which case the solution is

$$\mu 0,\mathrm{sinh}\rho =Eu,t=\mathrm{arctan}Euv/E.$$
(A.5)
which shows that away from a neighborhood of $`\rho =0`$ the geodesic line is completely independent of $`\psi `$ and lies wholly within $`AdS_5`$. Further, is was shown in , explicitly and using the hereditary properties of Penrose limits, that the Penrose limit on $`AdS`$ always results in flat space. The key point exploited in the body of the paper is that we can set the size of the small neighborhood of $`\rho =0`$ by rescaling by $`R`$ and up to fourth order in $`1/R`$ there is a null geodesic nontrivially including a dependence on $`\psi `$, which is precisely the one used in the body of the paper.


format: text

text:
# References

Neutrino Spin Evolution in Presence

of General External Fields

M.Dvornikov 111e-mail: maxim\_dvornikov@aport.ru A.Studenikin 222e-mail: studenik@srd.sinp.msu.ru

Department of Theoretical Physics, Moscow State University,

119992 Moscow, Russia

Abstract

The derivation of the quasiclassical Lorentz invariant neutrino spin evolution equation taking into account general types of neutrino non-derivative interactions with external fields is presented. We discuss the constraints on the characteristics of matter and neutrino under which this quasiclassical approach is valid. The application of the obtained equation for the case of the Standard Model neutrino interactions with moving and polarized background matter is considered.

It is commonly believed that neutrino physics provides strong evidence for physics beyond the Standard Model. In different extensions of the Standard Model new types of interactions are predicted for massive neutrinos. The problem of neutrino propagation in matter in the case of a general set of interactions with the background fermions has attracted considerable attention (see, for example ). Recently, we have developed the Lorentz invariant formalism for description of neutrino spin-flavor and flavor oscillations with the Standard Model vector and axial-vector interactions in moving matter under the influence of an arbitrary electromagnetic fields . In particular, we have derived, within general assumption like Lorentz invariance and linearity over neutrino spin vector $`S^\mu `$ and also over such characteristics of matter like fermions currents and polarizations, the evolution equation for the neutrino spin. We have used this evolution equation for description of neutrino oscillations in electromagnetic fields accounting for neutrino vector and axial-vector interactions with background fermions that corresponds to the case of the Standard Model weak interactions. Note that quasiclassical approach to the problem of neutrino spin relaxation in stochastic electromagnetic fields was used in ref.. However, the problem of the neutrino spin evolution equation accounting also for more general new types of neutrino interactions is still remained open.

We discuss below neutrino spin evolution in background matter in the case of a new physics model that admits a general set of new neutrino interactions. The goal of this paper is to derive the neutrino spin evolution equation starting directly from the neutrino interaction Lagrangian. We suppose that the neutrino interaction Lagrangian includes not only the Standard Model vector and axial-vector terms, but also non-derivative scalar, pseudoscalar, tensor and pseudotensor interactions.

The derivation of the neutrino spin evolution equation presented here is based on general spin evolution equation in the Heisenberg representation. This approach allows us to analyse more attentively contributions to the neutrino spin evolution of different mentioned above external fields.

To derive the neutrino quasiclassical spin evolution equation we start with the quantum equation in the Heisenberg representation which describes spin evolution of a fermion having an energy $`E_\nu `$, momentum $`\stackrel{}{p}`$ and mass $`m_\nu `$ (see, for instance, )

$$\dot{\stackrel{}{O}}=i[,\stackrel{}{O}]_{}.$$
$`(1)`$
The spin operator is determined as

$$\stackrel{}{O}=\rho _3\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}+\rho _1\frac{\stackrel{}{p}}{E_\nu }\rho _3\frac{\stackrel{}{p}(\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Sigma }})}{E_\nu (E_\nu +m_\nu )},$$
$`(2)`$
where $`\rho _1=\gamma ^5`$, $`\rho _3=\gamma ^0`$, $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}=\gamma ^0\gamma ^5\stackrel{}{\gamma }`$. Note that here we take $`\mathrm{}=c=1`$. The Hamiltonian $``$ in eq.(1) describes time behavior of four-component neutrino wave function $`\nu (x)`$.

The Lagrangian $``$ accounting for general types of neutrino non-derivative interactions with external fields is chosen in following form,

$$\begin{array}{c}=g_ss(x)\overline{\nu }\nu +g_p\pi (x)\overline{\nu }\gamma ^5\nu +g_vV^\mu (x)\overline{\nu }\gamma _\mu \nu +g_aA^\mu (x)\overline{\nu }\gamma _\mu \gamma ^5\nu +\\ +\frac{g_t}{2}T^{\mu \nu }\overline{\nu }\sigma _{\mu \nu }\nu +\frac{g_t^{}}{2}\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mu \nu }\overline{\nu }\sigma _{\mu \nu }\gamma _5\nu ,\end{array}$$
$`(3)`$
where $`s,\pi ,V^\mu =(V^0,\stackrel{}{V}),A^\mu =(A^0,\stackrel{}{A}),T_{\mu \nu }=(\stackrel{}{a},\stackrel{}{b}),\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }=(\stackrel{}{c},\stackrel{}{d})`$ are the scalar, pseudoscalar, vector, axial-vector, tensor, pseudotensor fields, respectively, and $`g_i`$ $`(i=a,p,v,a,t,t^{})`$ are corresponding coupling constants, $`\sigma _{\mu \nu }=\frac{i}{2}(\gamma _\mu \gamma _\nu \gamma _\nu \gamma _\mu )`$. With the use of the Lagrangian of eq.(3) the expression for the Hamiltonian $``$ is straightforward:

$$\begin{array}{c}=g_ss\rho _3ig_p\pi \rho _2+g_v(V^0(\stackrel{}{\alpha }\stackrel{}{V}))g_a(\rho _1A^0(\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}\stackrel{}{A}))\\ g_t(\rho _3(\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}\stackrel{}{b})+\rho _2(\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}\stackrel{}{a}))ig_t^{}(\rho _3(\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}\stackrel{}{c})\rho _2(\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}\stackrel{}{d})),\end{array}$$
$`(4)`$
where $`\stackrel{}{\alpha }=\gamma ^0\stackrel{}{\gamma }`$, $`\rho _2=i\rho _1\rho _3`$. Then, from eq.(1) we obtain:

$$\begin{array}{c}\dot{\stackrel{}{O}}=2g_ss\frac{\stackrel{}{p}}{E_\nu }+2ig_p\pi \left\{\rho _1\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}\rho _3\frac{\stackrel{}{p}}{E_\nu }\rho _1\frac{\stackrel{}{p}(\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Sigma }})}{E_\nu (E_\nu +m_\nu )}\right\}\\ 2g_v\rho _2\left\{\stackrel{}{V}\frac{\stackrel{}{p}(\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{V})}{E_\nu (E_\nu +m_\nu )}\right\}\\ 2g_a\left\{A^0\rho _2\left(\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}\frac{\stackrel{}{p}(\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Sigma }})}{E_\nu (E_\nu +m_\nu )}\right)\rho _3\left(\stackrel{}{A}\times \stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}+\frac{\stackrel{}{p}(\stackrel{}{A}[\stackrel{}{p}\times \stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}])}{E_\nu (E_\nu +m_\nu )}\right)\right\}+\\ +2g_t\left\{[\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}\times \stackrel{}{b}]+\rho _2\frac{\stackrel{}{p}}{E_\nu }(\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}\stackrel{}{b})+\frac{\stackrel{}{p}(\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}[\stackrel{}{p}\times \stackrel{}{b}])}{E_\nu (E_\nu +m_\nu )}+\rho _1\left(\stackrel{}{a}\frac{\stackrel{}{p}(\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{a})}{E_\nu (E_\nu +m_\nu )}\right)\rho _3\frac{\stackrel{}{p}}{E_\nu }(\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}\stackrel{}{a})\right\}+\\ +2ig_t^{}\left\{[\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}\times \stackrel{}{c}]+\rho _2\frac{\stackrel{}{p}}{E_\nu }(\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}\stackrel{}{c})+\frac{\stackrel{}{p}(\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}[\stackrel{}{p}\times \stackrel{}{c}])}{E_\nu (E_\nu +m_\nu )}\rho _1\left(\stackrel{}{d}\frac{\stackrel{}{p}(\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{d})}{E_\nu (E_\nu +m_\nu )}\right)+\rho _3\frac{\stackrel{}{p}}{E_\nu }(\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}\stackrel{}{d})\right\}.\end{array}$$
$`(5)`$
In getting this equation we suppose that all external fields are independent of spatial coordinates.

It should be noted that the equation obtained does not seem to have classical interpretation because of the zitterbewegung . To eliminate this phenomenon we extract, following the recipe of the ref., an even part from eq.(5):

$$\{\dot{\stackrel{}{O}}\}=\frac{1}{2E_\nu }\{\dot{\stackrel{}{O}},_0\}_+,$$
$`(6)`$
where $`_0=\stackrel{}{\alpha }\stackrel{}{p}+\rho _3m_\nu `$.

Performing anticommutations in eq.(6) we get the following expression:

$$\begin{array}{c}\{\dot{\stackrel{}{O}}\}=2g_a\left(\frac{A^0}{E_\nu }[\stackrel{}{O}\times \stackrel{}{p}]\frac{m_\nu }{E_\nu }[\stackrel{}{O}\times \stackrel{}{A}]\frac{1}{E_\nu (E_\nu +m_\nu )}(\stackrel{}{A}\stackrel{}{p})[\stackrel{}{O}\times \stackrel{}{p}]\right)+\\ +2g_t\left([\stackrel{}{O}\times \stackrel{}{b}]\frac{1}{E_\nu (E_\nu +m_\nu )}(\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{b})[\stackrel{}{O}\times \stackrel{}{p}]+\frac{1}{E_\nu }[\stackrel{}{O}\times [\stackrel{}{a}\times \stackrel{}{p}]]\right)+\\ +2ig_t^{}\left([\stackrel{}{O}\times \stackrel{}{c}]\frac{1}{E_\nu (E_\nu +m_\nu )}(\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{c})[\stackrel{}{O}\times \stackrel{}{p}]\frac{1}{E_\nu }[\stackrel{}{O}\times [\stackrel{}{d}\times \stackrel{}{p}]]\right).\end{array}$$
$`(7)`$
In the quasiclassical approximation ($`\mathrm{}0`$) for any operator $`\widehat{F}`$ one has $`\dot{\widehat{F}}=\{\dot{\widehat{F}}\}`$ . That is why in order to obtain the quasiclassical equation for the neutrino spin evolution we substitute $`\{\dot{\stackrel{}{O}}\}`$ for $`\dot{\stackrel{}{O}}`$. Then, averaging the relevant equation over the stationary neutrino wave function and taking into account that

$$<\stackrel{}{O}>=\stackrel{}{\zeta }_\nu ,<\stackrel{}{p}>=\stackrel{}{\beta }E_\nu ,$$

where $`\stackrel{}{\beta }`$ is the neutrino velocity, we obtain the relativistic equation for the neutrino spin vector $`\stackrel{}{\zeta }_\nu `$ in the form

$$\begin{array}{c}\dot{\stackrel{}{\zeta }}_\nu =2g_a\left\{A^0[\stackrel{}{\zeta }_\nu \times \stackrel{}{\beta }]\frac{m_\nu }{E_\nu }[\stackrel{}{\zeta }_\nu \times \stackrel{}{A}]\frac{E_\nu }{E_\nu +m_\nu }(\stackrel{}{A}\stackrel{}{\beta })[\stackrel{}{\zeta }_\nu \times \stackrel{}{\beta }]\right\}+\\ +2g_t\left\{[\stackrel{}{\zeta }_\nu \times \stackrel{}{b}]\frac{E_\nu }{E_\nu +m_\nu }(\stackrel{}{\beta }\stackrel{}{b})[\stackrel{}{\zeta }_\nu \times \stackrel{}{\beta }]+[\stackrel{}{\zeta }_\nu \times [\stackrel{}{a}\times \stackrel{}{\beta }]]\right\}+\\ +2ig_t^{}\left\{[\stackrel{}{\zeta }_\nu \times \stackrel{}{c}]\frac{E_\nu }{E_\nu +m_\nu }(\stackrel{}{\beta }\stackrel{}{c})[\stackrel{}{\zeta }_\nu \times \stackrel{}{\beta }][\stackrel{}{\zeta }_\nu \times [\stackrel{}{d}\times \stackrel{}{\beta }]]\right\}.\end{array}$$
$`(8)`$
It is worth to be noted that in agreement with  neither scalar nor pseudoscalar nor vector interaction contributes to the neutrino spin evolution.

The Lorenz invariant form of eq.(8) can be obtained using the four-dimensional spin vector $`S^\mu `$ which is determined by the three-dimensional spin vector $`\stackrel{}{\zeta }_\nu `$ in accordance with the relation:

$$S^\mu =(\frac{(\stackrel{}{\zeta }_\nu <\stackrel{}{p}>)}{m_\nu },\stackrel{}{\zeta }_\nu +\frac{<\stackrel{}{p}>(\stackrel{}{\zeta }_\nu <\stackrel{}{p}>)}{m_\nu (m_\nu +E_\nu )}).$$
$`(9)`$
Thus, we get the Lorentz invariant form for the neutrino spin $`S^\mu `$ evolution equation accounting for the general interactions with external fields

$$\frac{dS^\mu }{d\tau }=2g_t(T^{\mu \nu }S_\nu u^\mu T^{\lambda \rho }u_\lambda S_\rho )+2ig_t^{}(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}^{\mu \nu }S_\nu u^\mu \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}^{\lambda \rho }u_\lambda S_\rho )+2g_aG^{\mu \nu }S_\nu ,$$
$`(10)`$
where $`G^{\mu \nu }=\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }A_\alpha u_\beta `$, $`u^\mu =\frac{E_\nu }{m_\nu }(1,\stackrel{}{\beta })`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}^{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{2}\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }\mathrm{\Pi }_{\alpha \beta }`$. The tensor $`G_{\mu \nu }`$ can be expressed through two vectors $`G_{\mu \nu }=(\stackrel{}{P},\stackrel{}{M})`$ which are presented in the form,

$$\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{}{M}=\gamma (A^0\stackrel{}{\beta }\stackrel{}{A}),\\ \stackrel{}{P}=\gamma [\stackrel{}{\beta }\times \stackrel{}{A}],\end{array}$$
$`(11)`$
where $`\gamma =\frac{E_\nu }{m_\nu }.`$ The derivation in the left-handed side of eq.(10) is taken over the neutrino proper time $`\tau =\frac{m_\nu }{E_\nu }t`$, where $`t`$ is the time in the laboratory frame of reference.

The neutrino spin evolution equation (10) can be used for any theoretical model in which neutrino has mentioned above general interactions. Let us consider now the case of the Standard Model neutrino interactions which are sure to be one of the possible applications of the approach concerned and suppose that matter is composed of electrons, neutrons and protons. Then, the coupling constants entering in the Lagrangian of eq.(3) are $`g_i=0`$ (for $`i=s,p,t^{}`$), $`g_v=g_a=\frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}`$, $`g_t=\mu `$, where $`G_F`$ is the Fermi constant and $`\mu `$ is the neutrino magnetic moment. The vector and axial-vector fields are expressed in the form (see, for instance )

$$A^\mu =V^\mu =\underset{f=e,p,n}{}j_f^\mu q_f^{(1)}+\lambda _f^\mu q_f^{(2)}$$
$`(12)`$
where

$$\begin{array}{c}q_f^{(1)}=(I_{3L}^{(f)}2Q^{(f)}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W+\delta _{ef}),q_f^{(2)}=(I_{3L}^{(f)}+\delta _{ef}),\\ \delta _{ef}=\{\begin{array}{cc}\text{1}\hfill & \text{f=e}\hfill \\ \text{0}\hfill & \text{f=n, p}\hfill \end{array}\end{array}$$
$`(13)`$
and $`I_{3L}^{(f)}`$ is the value of the isospin third component of a fermion $`f`$, $`Q^{(f)}`$ is the value of its electric charge and $`\theta _W`$ is the Weinberg angle. In the case of the Standard Model the tensor field corresponds to the electromagnetic interaction and

$$T_{\mu \nu }=F_{\mu \nu }=(\stackrel{}{E},\stackrel{}{B}),$$
$`(14)`$
where $`\stackrel{}{E}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{B}`$ are the electric and magnetic fields respectively. The summation in eq.(12) is performed over the background electrons, protons and neutrons. Eq.(12) for external field $`A^\mu `$ depends upon fermions currents $`j_f^\mu `$ and polarizations $`\lambda _f^\mu `$ which are related with the matter components number densities $`n_f`$, speeds $`\stackrel{}{v}_f`$ of the reference frames in which the mean momentum of each of the fermions $`f=e,p,n`$ equals zero and the mean value of the fermions polarization vectors $`\stackrel{}{\zeta }_f`$:

$$\begin{array}{c}j_f^\mu =(n_f,n_f\stackrel{}{v}_f)\\ \lambda _f^\mu =(n_f(\stackrel{}{\zeta }_f\stackrel{}{v}_f),n_f\stackrel{}{\zeta }_f\sqrt{1v_f^2}+\frac{n_f\stackrel{}{v}_f(\stackrel{}{\zeta }_f\stackrel{}{v}_f)}{1+\sqrt{1v_f^2}}).\end{array}$$
$`(15)`$
The details of the averaging procedure over the background fermions are discussed in ref. .

The covariant neutrino spin evolution equation with the external fields defined by eqs.(10 - 15) enables one to describe the neutrino spin precession in the case of the Standard Model in the arbitrary moving and polarized matter, with the neutrino mass accounted exactly.333Our approach also does not imply the use of the assumption $`E_\nu m_\nu `$. On the base of the eq.(10) (see also (8)) let us now consider the equation for the neutrino spin vector $`\stackrel{}{\zeta }_\nu `$,

$$\dot{\stackrel{}{\zeta }}_\nu =\frac{2\mu }{\gamma }[\stackrel{}{\zeta }_\nu \times \stackrel{}{B}_0]+\frac{\sqrt{2}G_F}{\gamma }[\stackrel{}{\zeta }_\nu \times \stackrel{}{M}_0],$$
$`(16)`$
where

$$\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{}{M}_0=\gamma \stackrel{}{\beta }\left(A^0\frac{E_\nu }{E_\nu +m_\nu }(\stackrel{}{A}\stackrel{}{\beta })\right)\stackrel{}{A},\\ \stackrel{}{B}_0=\gamma \left\{\stackrel{}{B}+[\stackrel{}{E}\times \stackrel{}{\beta }]\frac{E_\nu }{E_\nu +m_\nu }\stackrel{}{\beta }(\stackrel{}{\beta }\stackrel{}{B})\right\},\end{array}$$
$`(17)`$
are the quantities determined in the neutrino rest frame. The derived eqs.(16-17) reproduce the spin evolution equations for neutrinos propagating in the background electrons (the electron plasma) which were received in ref.  on the base of the generalization of the Bargmann-Michel-Telegdi equation. We underline that the approach considered here implies the use as a starting point the Lorentz invariant neutrino interaction Lagrangian for derivation of the Lorentz invariant spin evolution equation.

It is worth mentioning that neutrino spin evolution problem in presence of the background fermions can be considered using kinetic equations approach . The analog of the eqs.(16-17) for the specific cases of nonmoving $`(\stackrel{}{v}_f=0)`$ and unpolarized $`(\stackrel{}{\zeta }_f=0)`$ medium was shown to be derived from the more general kinetic equation for the very important case of the ultrarelativistic neutrino. However our approach, as it was mentioned above, is valid in cases of arbitrary speed of neutrino and arbitrary moving and polarized background matter.

Let us discuss in some details approximations which we use in deriving the neutrino spin evolution equation. First we have neglected spatial coordinate dependence of all external fields. To analyze the adequacy of this approximation we now consider the opposite case. For simplicity, we shall discuss the Standard Model neutrino interactions in the case of nonmoving and unpolarized background matter. Then, the Hamiltonian (4) takes the form,

$$=\frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}n_{eff}(1+\gamma _5),$$
$`(18)`$
where $`n_{eff}=\underset{f=e,p,n}{}n_fq_f^{(1)}`$ is an effective density of the background matter which is now supposed to depend on spatial coordinates. To study corrections to eq.(8) induced by the spatial dependence of $`n_{eff}`$ we must take into account the commutation relation, $`[n_{eff},\stackrel{}{p}]_{}=i\mathrm{}\stackrel{}{}n_{eff}`$. Contrary to the used above agrement here we set $`\mathrm{}1`$. Thus, holding the first order corrections in expansion over $`\mathrm{}`$ we obtain an analog of eq.(8),

$$\begin{array}{c}\dot{\stackrel{}{\zeta }}_\nu =\frac{\sqrt{2}G_F}{\mathrm{}}\{n_{eff}[\stackrel{}{\zeta }_\nu \times \stackrel{}{\beta }]\\ \frac{\mathrm{}}{2(E_\nu +m_\nu )}\left[[[\stackrel{}{\beta }\times \stackrel{}{}n_{eff}]\times \stackrel{}{\zeta }_\nu ]+(\stackrel{}{}n_{eff}\stackrel{}{\beta })\left(\frac{E_\nu }{E_\nu +m_\nu }(\stackrel{}{\beta }\stackrel{}{\zeta }_\nu )1\right)\right]\\ \frac{i\mathrm{}}{2E}[\stackrel{}{}n_{eff}\times <\rho _3\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}>]\},\end{array}$$
$`(19)`$
where the average in the last form $`<\rho _3\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}>=d^3𝐱\nu ^+\rho _3\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}\nu `$. It follows that for the relativistic neutrinos $`(E_\nu m_\nu )`$ the additional quantum terms ($`\mathrm{}`$) vanish if the following constrained is fulfilled

$$\frac{\mathrm{}}{E_\nu }\left|\frac{\stackrel{}{}n_{eff}}{n_{eff}}\right|1.$$
$`(20)`$
This condition implies very slow effective density variation along the neutrino wave package width $`L=\frac{\mathrm{}}{E_\nu }`$.

Let us discuss the second approximation made in the derivation of eq.(8) which enables us to perform calculations in the quasiclassical limit. In order to neglect the zitterbewegung we must satisfy the condition :

$$\frac{\mathrm{}}{2E_\nu }|<\dot{\stackrel{}{O}}>|1.$$
$`(21)`$
In application to the case of the Standard Model interactions it can be rewritten as

$$\frac{G_F}{E_\nu }n_{eff}1.$$
$`(22)`$
Here again the background matter is taken to be nonmoving and unpolarized. This condition means that quantum effects are not important in the neutrino scattering off the background matter. Indeed, if, for simplicity, we consider only electron component of the background matter (the electron plasma) the constraint (22) is expressed in the following way:

$$L^2\lambda \sqrt{\sigma },$$
$`(23)`$
where $`\sigma `$ is the neutrino-electron cross section, $`\lambda \frac{1}{n_e\sigma }`$ is the mean free path of neutrino in this medium, $`n_e`$ is the electrons density. If the condition (23) is satisfied, the characteristic dimensions, $`\lambda `$ and $`\sigma `$, corresponding to the scattering process are much larger than neutrino wave package width $`L`$. In the opposite case the neutrino-electron scattering have to be treated within the substantially quantum approach.

In summary we have derived the quasiclassical Lorentz invariant equation for the neutrino spin evolution in the case when neutrinos interact with external fields through a set of the most general non-derivative interactions starting from the neutrino Lagrangian that accounts for the scalar, pseudoscalar, vector, axial-vector, tensor, pseudotensor terms. The advantage of the suggested new method for derivation of the neutrino spin evolution equation is manifested by the applicability to any theoretical model which predicts the mentioned above neutrino interactions. Furthermore the approach used enables us to examine the constraints for the characteristics of matter and neutrino under which the quasiclassical approach to the neutrino spin evolution is valid. As an example we have obtained the neutrino spin evolution equation for the Standard Model neutrino interactions in the case of moving and polarized matter.


text:
# Nonequilibrium dynamical mean-field theory of a strongly correlated system

## Abstract

We present a generalized dynamical mean-field approach for the nonequilibrium physics of a strongly correlated system in the presence of a time-dependent external field. The Keldysh Green’s function formalism is used to study the nonequilibrium problem. We derive a closed set of self-consistency equations in the case of a driving field with frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and wave vector $`𝐪`$. We present numerical results for the local frequency-dependent Green’s function and the self-energy for different values of the field amplitude in the case of a uniform external field using the iterated perturbation theory. In addition, an expression for the frequency-dependent optical conductivity of the Hubbard model with a driving external field is derived.

The study of nonequilibrium many-body phenomena is a field of great and still growing interest in today’s condensed matter physics. Recent pump-probe experiments on transition metal oxides show unusual effects, e.g. a dramatic change in the optical transmission , which require a theoretical description of driven quantum systems. A basic model for theoretical investigations of strongly correlated fermion systems is the Hubbard model. Within the scope of the dynamical mean-field theory (DMFT) , a very detailed analysis of the spectral properties of the Hubbard model became possible. The DMFT approach takes into account local correlations as well as high energy excitations and provides a useful tool for calculating linear response functions of strongly correlated fermion systems .

In this paper, we present a generalization of the DMFT using the Keldysh formalism to study a Hubbard model under the influence of a periodic external perturbation.

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{ij\sigma }{}}t_{ij}\left(c_{i\sigma }^{}c_{j\sigma }+c_{j\sigma }^{}c_{i\sigma }\right)+U{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}n_in_i`$ (2)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{i\sigma }{}}V_i(t)c_{i\sigma }^{}c_{i\sigma },`$
where $`c_{i\sigma }^{}(c_{i\sigma })`$ creates (annihilates) a fermion with spin $`\sigma `$ at site $`i`$ and $`n_{i\sigma }=c_{i\sigma }^{}c_{i\sigma }`$ is the local density operator. The bare half-filled single-band Hubbard model describes nearest-neighbor hoppings of electrons on a lattice, interacting with each other through the on-site Coulomb interaction. The additional explicitly time-dependent term in the Hamiltonian describes the external driving field with frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, wave vector $`𝐪=(q,\mathrm{},q)`$ and arbitrary field amplitude $`A`$.

$$V_i(t)=A\mathrm{cos}\left(\mathrm{\Omega }t\mathrm{𝐪𝐑}_i\right)$$
(3)
In particular we are interested in the small-$`q`$ limit. This Hamiltonian describes photodoping of a strongly correlated material, since the photon wavelength is large compared to the lattice spacing. For a uniform external field ($`q=0`$) the time-dependent perturbation term commutes with the Hubbard Hamiltonian, and this problem can be solved quite easily, as we will see later.

For large commensurate wave vectors, e.g. $`q=\pi `$, the $`d`$-dimensional lattice can be divided into cluster of $`N=2\pi /q`$ sites. The local properties depend on the chosen site $`𝐑`$ of this cluster. Performing the limit of a small wave vector is numerically limited by the increasing number of sites in the cluster. A theory which systematically includes nonlocal correlations to the DMFT is the dynamical cluster approximation (DCA) , where the original model is mapped onto a self-consistent embedded cluster instead of a single impurity.

The main technique for the treatment of nonequilibrium effects is the Keldysh Green’s function formalism . The usual time-ordering is replaced by a contour-ordering along the Keldysh contour, which follows the real-time axis from $`\mathrm{}`$ to $`+\mathrm{}`$ and back to $`\mathrm{}`$. The resulting Green’s functions matrix $`G^{\alpha \beta }`$, where $`\alpha ,\beta \{\pm 1\}`$ specifies which time argument lies on the upper $`(+)`$, respectively lower $`()`$ branch of the Keldysh contour, defines three linearly independent components which provide information about the quantum states of the system (retarded/advanced Green’s function) as well as about their occupation out of equilibrium within a density matrix formulation (Keldysh component).

The external field is periodic in time and in each spatial coordinate. Thus, according to a generalized Floquet theorem , energy and momentum are conserved up to multiples of the external frequency and wave vector, respectively. We define a double Fourier transformation, expanding the Green’s function in its Floquet modes

$`G_{ij}^{\alpha \beta }(t,t^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤,n}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\omega }{2\pi }e^{i\omega t}e^{i\left(\omega n\mathrm{\Omega }\right)t^{}}}`$ (4)
$`\times `$ $`e^{i\mathrm{𝐤𝐱}_i}e^{i\left(𝐤n𝐪\right)𝐱_j}G_{0n}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐤,\omega ).`$ (5)
In the noninteracting case ($`U=0`$) and for small $`q`$, it is possible to calculate the Green’s function analytically by solving the equation of motion. The weighting coefficient of the $`n`$-th energy sideband turns out to be the Bessel function $`J_n\left(A/\mathrm{\Omega }_q(𝐤)\right)`$ with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_q(𝐤)=\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{𝐪𝐯}_𝐤`$. Thus, the noninteracting retarded/advanced Green’s function is given by

$`g_{0n}^{\text{ret/av}}(𝐤,\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{J_m(A_q(𝐤))J_{mn}(A_q(𝐤))}{\omega ϵ_𝐤m\mathrm{\Omega }_q(𝐤)\pm i0^+}}`$ (6)
where $`A_q(𝐤)=A/\mathrm{\Omega }_q(𝐤)`$. The noninteracting Keldysh component reads

$`g_{0n}^{\text{keld}}(𝐤,\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi i{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}\left(12f\left(ϵ_{𝐤m𝐪}\right)\right)`$ (10)
$`\times J_m(A_q(𝐤))J_{mn}(A_q(𝐤))`$
$`\times \delta \left(\omega ϵ_𝐤m\mathrm{\Omega }_q(𝐤)\right).`$
The diagrammatic expansion of the Keldysh Green’s function matrix in the Coulomb parameter $`U`$ is mainly identical to Feynman theory . The only difference arises from the summation over the two time branches.

We solve the driven Hubbard model using the dynamical mean-field approximation. Within DMFT the original lattice problem is mapped onto an effective impurity problem, which can be solved numerically, using e.g. quantum-Monte-Carlo simulations or iterated perturbation theory (IPT) . The local dynamics at a specific site $`𝐑`$ can be regarded as the interaction of the degrees of freedom at this site with an external bath created by all other degrees of freedom on other sites. Due to the spatial fluctuations for nonzero external wave vector the local properties depend on the chosen site $`𝐑`$ of the cluster.

The key approximation of the DMFT is the assumption of a local self-energy, which can be justified in the limit of large lattice connectivity . For the bare Hubbard model momentum conservation can be disregarded at each internal interaction vertex in the limit of infinite connectivity. An analogous argument for the driven Hubbard model yields that at internal vertices momentum conservation is automatically fulfilled up to multiples of $`𝐪`$. Thus, each internal propagator $`G_{n_1n_2}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐤,\omega )=G_{𝐤n_1𝐪,𝐤n_2𝐪}^{\alpha \beta }(\omega n_1\mathrm{\Omega },\omega n_2\mathrm{\Omega })`$ can be replaced by $`G_{0n}^{\alpha \beta }(\omega )=_𝐤G_{q,0n}^{\alpha \beta }(𝐤,\omega )`$ which is a “staggered” average over the lattice sites $`𝐑`$ in the cluster: $`_𝐑e^{in\mathrm{𝐪𝐑}}G_𝐑(\omega )`$. The resulting Dyson equation reads

$`G_{q,0n}^{\alpha \beta }\left(\omega \right)`$ $`=`$ $`g_{q,0n}^{\alpha \beta }\left(\omega \right)`$ (11)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\gamma \delta ,lm}{}}\gamma \delta g_{q,0l}^{\alpha \gamma }\left(\omega \right)\mathrm{\Sigma }_{q,lm}^{\gamma \delta }\left(\omega \right)G_{q,mn}^{\delta \beta }\left(\omega \right).`$ (12)
The mean-field description of the driven Hubbard model is determined by the effective Weiss field $`𝒢_𝐑(t_\alpha ,t_\beta ^{})`$, depending on the chosen site $`𝐑`$ of the cluster. The self-consistency condition is obtained by integrating out all degrees of freedom except those of the selected site $`𝐑`$. Assuming a semicircular bare density of states (Bethe lattice) one obtains the self-consistency condition for the Fourier transformed Weiss field, which is a matrix equation in energy and momentum sidebands and also in Keldysh space

$`\left[𝒢_q^1\right]_{nm}^{\alpha \beta }(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha \delta _{\alpha \beta }[(\omega n\mathrm{\Omega })\delta _{nm}.`$ (16)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{A}{2}}(\delta _{nm+1}+\delta _{nm1})]`$
$`\alpha \beta t^2\mathrm{cos}((nm)q)G_{q,nm}^{\alpha \beta }(\omega ).`$
We used the iterated perturbation theory (IPT)  to solve the mean-field equations numerically for the half-filled driven Hubbard model. The basic idea of the IPT method is to perform a skeleton expansion of the self-energy up to second order in the interaction $`U`$:

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{q,0n}^{\gamma \delta }(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma \delta U^2{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\omega _1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\omega _2}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{ml}{}}𝒢_{q,l,0}^{\delta \gamma }\left(\omega _1\right)`$ (17)
$`\times `$ $`𝒢_{q,0,n+m+l}^{\gamma \delta }\left(\omega _1+\omega _2\right)𝒢_{q,0,m}^{\gamma \delta }\left(\omega \omega _2\right).`$ (18)
The matrix $`G_{q,nm}`$ is then obtained from the Dyson equation (11) with the noninteracting $`g_{q,nm}`$ replaced by the Weiss field $`𝒢_{q,nm}`$. The self-consistency loop is closed by calculating a new Weiss field from equation (16).

In our numerical calculation, we consider the special case of a uniform external field $`(q=0)`$, where the time-dependent perturbation term commutes with the bare Hubbard Hamiltonian and therefore the weighting coefficients of the energy sidebands are Bessel functions in the interacting case, too.

For $`A=1`$ and $`A=2`$ (we set $`\mathrm{\Omega }=1`$), we restricted our considerations to the main energy band and the first three sidebands, i.e. we calculated the Fourier components $`G_{0n}(\omega )`$ with $`n=3,..,3`$ (see Fig. 1). For $`A=3`$, we considered five sidebands: $`n=5,..,5`$. These limitations of the number of sidebands are reasonable, since for a given $`A`$ the Bessel functions $`J_n(A)`$ fall off very fast with increasing $`n`$. This property strongly depends on the magnitude of the field: we have to take into account an increasing number of sidebands while enhancing the field amplitude.

As an example, the Fourier components of the spectral density for $`A=1`$ are given in Fig. 1. From an inverse Fourier transformation of the advanced Green’s function, we obtained that the time-dependent advanced function satisfies the usual causality condition.

In the presence of the uniform external field, we define an effective spectral density, given by

$$\rho ^{\text{eff}}(ϵ)=\frac{1}{\pi }\text{Im}G_{00}^{\text{av}}(\omega )=\underset{l}{}J_l^2(A)\frac{1}{\pi }\text{Im}\stackrel{~}{G}(\omega l\mathrm{\Omega }),$$
(19)
where $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ is the local Green’s function for $`A=0`$. Fig. 2 shows how the effective spectral density depends on the field amplitude. In comparison with the usual three peak structure in the case of no external field (lower and upper Hubbard band and the quasiparticle peak), this function exhibits a more complex structure for $`A0`$ due to the sidebands, weighted by the Bessel functions. The number of occuring sidebands depends strongly on $`A`$: with increasing $`A`$, more sidebands become significant in the effective spectral density. An additional phenomenon is the strong suppression of the main quasiparticle peak for certain field amplitudes.

The effect of the external field on the imaginary part of the advanced self-energy on the field amplitude is shown in Fig. 3. For $`A0`$, we observe the sidebands of the typical two-peak structure in the equilibrium case.

Finally, we consider the Keldysh component of the Green’s function, which contains information about the occupation of the states. From $`G_{00}^{\text{keld}}`$ we define an effective distribution function:

$$G_{00}^{\text{keld}}(\omega )=2\pi i(12f^{\text{eff}}(\omega ))\rho ^{\text{eff}}(\omega )$$
(20)
For zero temperature and $`A=0`$, $`f^{\text{eff}}`$ is the usual Heaviside function. The effective distribution functions for $`A=1,2,3`$ are shown in Fig. 4. The modifications due to the external field at the energy sidebands of the Fermi edge correspond to emission and absorption processes of energy quanta $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Experiments to measure the energy distribution function in a stationary out-of-equilibrium situation in metallic wires connected to two reservoir electrodes with an applied bias voltage have been done by Pothier et al. .

The time-dependent DMFT also provides a useful method for calculating the optical conductivity of the driven Hubbard model. Consider electrons described by the driven Hubbard model, which couple to an additional external classical vector potential with wave vector $`𝐩`$. Linear-response theory for nonequilibrium systems can be formulated quite simple in terms of Keldysh propagators. The paramagnetic current response in $`\widehat{𝐞}`$direction is given by

$`J_{\widehat{𝐞}}^{\text{param}}(𝐩,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{et}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤\sigma }{}}v_{\widehat{e}}(𝐤+𝐩,𝐤)G_{𝐤+\mathrm{𝐩𝐤}\sigma }^{\text{keld}}(t,t)`$ (21)
with the vertex factor

$$v_{\widehat{𝐞}}(𝐤+𝐩,𝐤)=e^{i(𝐤+𝐩)\widehat{𝐞}}e^{i𝐤\widehat{𝐞}}.$$
(22)
Just as in the case of the bare Hubbard Hamiltonian, all vertex corrections in the ladder decomposition of the current response function vanish in the limit of infinite dimensions . Thus, the optical conductivity is determined by the elementary particle-hole bubble as in the equilibrium case. Assuming isotropic spatial conditions, we obtain for the paramagnetic contribution

$`\sigma ^{\text{param}}(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{2\omega d}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤\sigma m}{}}𝐯_𝐤^2{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d\omega ^{}}{2\pi }}[G_{𝐤\sigma 0m}^{(0),\text{keld}}(\omega ^{}+\omega )`$ (23)
$`\times `$ $`G_{𝐤\sigma m0}^{(0),\text{av}}(\omega ^{})+G_{𝐤\sigma 0m}^{(0),\text{ret}}(\omega ^{}+\omega )G_{𝐤\sigma m0}^{(0),\text{keld}}(\omega ^{})],`$ (25)
where $`G^{(0)}`$ denotes the zeroth order contribution in the classical vector potential, $`\tau _1`$ is the first Pauli matrix and $`𝐯_𝐤=_𝐤ϵ_𝐤`$. Using the spectral representation of the Green’s functions, the optical conductivity can be expressed in terms of the Fourier components of the spectral density $`\rho _{0n}^l(ϵ)=J_l(\frac{A}{\mathrm{\Omega }})J_{ln}(\frac{A}{\mathrm{\Omega }})\text{Im}\stackrel{~}{G}^{\text{av}}(ϵl\mathrm{\Omega })/\pi `$ and the free density of states $`D(ϵ)`$ (the diamagnetic term cancels the $`1/\omega `$-divergence of the paramagnetic part in the optical conductivity).

$`\sigma (\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi e^2t^2}{\omega }}{\displaystyle \underset{l_1,l_2,m}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}𝑑ϵ{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}𝑑\omega ^{}D(ϵ)`$ (29)
$`\times \rho _{0m}^{l_1}(ϵ,\omega ^{}+\omega )\rho _{m0}^{l_2}(ϵ,\omega ^{})`$
$`\times \left(f\left(\omega ^{}l_2\mathrm{\Omega }\right)f\left(\omega ^{}+\omega l_1\mathrm{\Omega }\right)\right)`$
This final result for $`\sigma (\omega )`$ significantly shows the appearance of the energy sidebands due to the external driving field, and for zero driving field it reduces to the well-known expression for the optical conductivity of the bare Hubbard model.

We have generalized the DMFT equations using the Keldysh formalism to study a Hubbard model under the influence of a strong periodic external perturbation with arbitrary frequency and amplitude. We found that the Green’s functions were matrices in the energy and momentum sidebands due to quasi-energy and momentum conservation modulo the external frequency respectively wave vector.

We have derived a closed set of self-consistency equations for the driven Hubbard model wave vector numerically in the special case of a uniform field using IPT. We obtained an effective spectral density and distribution function for different values of the field amplitude. In addition, we have derived the frequency-dependent optical conductivity of the driven Hubbard model.

Solving the problem for a nonzero commensurate $`𝐪`$ would require an even larger numerical effort. One has to consider cluster of $`N=2\pi /q`$ sites and perform time-dependent DMFT for all sites $`𝐑`$ of this cluster. This is basically the same as using dynamical cluster approximation (DCA)  in combination with the Keldysh formalism. The original driven Hubbard model is mapped onto a self-consistent embedded cluster given by the periodic form of our Hamiltonian instead of a single impurity. Decreasing the wave vector requires solving cluster problems of increasing size, which is numerically limited because of an exponentially growing Hilbert space.

We are currently working on an application of the time-dependent DMFT to describe the local nonequilibrium physics of excitonic insulators and Mott insulators under laser excitation. This method shows great promise for being suitable to explain recent pump-probe experiments on transition metal oxides where unusual effects, e.g. a dramatic change in the optical transmission , have been observed. The real-time development of the DOS and the gap after the impact of a short intense laser pulse is under investigation.