text:
# Fractal Behavior of the Shortest Path Between Two Lines in Percolation Systems

## I Introduction

There has been considerable recent activity  analyzing $`P(\mathrm{}|r)`$, the probability distribution for the length of shortest path, $`\mathrm{}`$, between two points separated by Euclidean distance $`r`$ in a percolation system . This paper extends that work by determining the scaling form of the distribution of shortest paths between two lines of arbitrary position, relative orientation and lengths in 3-dimensional systems. These configurations are important because they much more accurately model the configurations used in oil recovery in which fluid is injected in one well (one of the lines in our configuration) and oil is recovered at a second well (the second line in our configuration); the wells may, in reality, be at arbitrary orientation and of different lengths.

The scaling form for the 2-points configuration in which the 2 points are located at $`((Lr)/2,L/2,L/2),((L+r)/2,L/2,L/2)`$ in a system of side $`L`$ has been found to be

$$P(\mathrm{}|r)\frac{1}{r^{d_{\text{min}}}}\left(\frac{\mathrm{}}{r^{d_{\text{min}}}}\right)^g_{\mathrm{}}f_1\left(\frac{\mathrm{}}{r^{d_{\text{min}}}}\right)f_2\left(\frac{\mathrm{}}{L^{d_{\text{min}}}}\right),$$
(1)
where

$$f_1(x)=e^{ax^\varphi }$$
(2)
and

$$f_2(x)=e^{bx^\psi }.$$
(3)
The exponents $`g_{\mathrm{}}`$, $`d_{\text{min}}`$, $`\varphi `$, and $`\psi `$ are universal and the constants $`a`$ and $`b`$ depend on lattice type. In 3D, the values of these exponents have previously been found to be  $`g_{\mathrm{}}=2.3\pm 0.1`$, $`d_{\text{min}}=1.39\pm 0.05`$, $`\varphi =2.1\pm 0.5`$, and $`\psi =2.5\pm 0.5`$. The first stretched exponential function, $`f_1`$, reflects the fact that the shortest path must always be at least equal to the distance $`r`$ between the two points; the second stretched exponential function, $`f_2`$, reflects the fact that the lengths of the shortest paths are bounded because of the finite size, $`L`$, of the system.

We find that the scaling form for the 2-lines configuration has the same form as that found for the shortest path distribution between two points with the exceptions that: (i) the power law regime of the distribution as represented by the term $`(\mathrm{}/r^{d_{\text{min}}})^g_{\mathrm{}}`$ in Eq. (1) is replaced with up to four different power law regimes (separated by cross-over regimes) with exponents depending on the relative orientations of the lines and (ii) the Euclidean distance, $`r`$, in Eq. (1) between the two points is replaced by the shortest Euclidean distance between the two lines. The lengths of the lines affect the sizes of the power law regimes.

## II Simulations

Monte Carlo simulations were performed using the Leath method and growing clusters from 2 sets of seeds—one for each line. The length of the shortest path between the two lines is the sum of the chemical distances from each set of seed sites to the point where a cluster started at one set of seeds meets a cluster started from the other set of seeds . The cluster growth for a given realization is terminated when the two clusters meet. For parallel line configurations, in which the probability distributions decay rapidly, we use the method of Ref. to obtain good statistics for shortest paths that have very low probabilities. We use the memory management technique described in  to perform simulations in which the growing clusters never hit a boundary of the system.

The clusters that are created and included in our analysis are of all sizes, not just the incipient infinite cluster.

## III Non-Parallel Wells

### A Co-Planar Lines

#### 1 Equal Length Symmetric Lines

We start by considering relatively simple configurations of the type shown in Fig. 1(a) in which the lines are co-planar, of equal length and are positioned symmetrically. We will study configurations in which the lines are of unequal length \[see Fig. 1(b)\] and/or are not positioned symmetrically \[see Fig. 1(c)\] in the following sections. In all of these configurations, $`r`$ is the shortest Euclidean distance between the two lines.

Figure 2 contains log-log plots of $`P(\mathrm{}|r)`$, the shortest path distribution for $`r=8`$ and various values of $`\theta `$. We have chosen $`r=8`$ so that the initial cutoff is present; for smaller values of r, lattice effects destroy this initial cutoff. Since the focus of this paper is the power law regimes, not the initial or final cutoffs, in all later figures we will choose configurations with $`r=1`$ so that the extent of the power law regimes is as long as possible. The exception to this will be cases in which $`\theta `$ is very small where small $`r`$ introduces other lattice effects.

We note that after the initial peak in each distribution, there is a power-law regime, the slope of which, $`g_{\mathrm{}}(\theta )`$, increases with increasing $`\theta `$. We will call this power law regime the “2-lines regime.” Simple scaling arguments imply that if the lengths of the lines were infinite, these 2-lines regimes would continue indefinitely. For finite line lengths, we would expect that, for large $`\mathrm{}`$, the distributions would exhibit a crossover to a power law regime with the same exponent as that for a configuration with two points—because for large $`\mathrm{}`$ the long paths travel far enough away from the lines that they appear to be points. In this regime, the power law exponent has the value of that of two points, 2.35 . For the plots in Fig. 2, in order to see the power regimes clearly, we have chosen the lengths of the lines long enough that this crossover occurs after the maximum value of $`\mathrm{}`$ in the plots.

In Fig. 3, we plot $`g_{\mathrm{}}(\theta )`$ versus $`\theta `$. The plot suggests that $`g_{\mathrm{}}(\theta )`$ diverges as $`\theta `$ goes to zero. We attempt to fit this function with a power of $`1/sin((\theta )/2)`$ and find the best fit with the function

$$f(\theta )=\frac{g_l(180^{})}{\mathrm{sin}(\theta /2)^{0.4}}.$$
(4)
This form is not based on any fundamental theory; it simply has the properties that $`f(\theta =180^{})=g_{\mathrm{}}(\theta =180^{})`$, it diverges as $`\theta `$ goes to zero and it fits the intermediate points reasonably well.

The crossover between the 2-line regime and the 2-point regime is illustrated in Fig. 4 where in each panel we plot $`P(\mathrm{}|r)`$ for fixed $`\theta `$, and various values of $`W`$. As expected, the larger the length of the lines, the higher the value of $`\widehat{\mathrm{}}`$, the value of $`\mathrm{}`$ at which the crossover occurs. Quantitative analysis of the crossover behavior is given in Section III.C.

#### 2 Point-Line Configurations

We next study configurations in which one line has zero length (i.e., a point) and the other is a line of finite length. This is the extreme case of the configuration in which the two lines have different length. We will study the case where both lines have finite length in the next section. We in fact study the three configurations shown in Figs. 5(a)–(c). The plots of $`P(\mathrm{}|r)`$ for these configurations are shown in Fig. 6. The plots have a power-law regime with exponent $`1.75`$ for the configurations of Fig. 5(a) and Fig. 5(c), and exponent $`2.2`$ for the configuration of Fig 5(b). We denote this regime the “point-line regime.” Fig. 7 shows the crossover from point-line behavior to 2-points behavior.

#### 3 Unequal Length Symmetric Lines

We can now study configurations of the type shown in Fig. 1(b) in which the lines are of different lengths, $`W_1`$ and $`W_2`$. For such a configuration we would expect three power-law regimes: (i) for small $`\mathrm{}`$ such that the two lines appear to be infinite, a 2-line regime, with slope dependent on $`\theta `$, (ii) a point-line regime, with slope $`1.75`$, for values of $`\mathrm{}`$ large enough that the shorter line appears to be a point, and (iii) a 2-point regime, for even larger values of $`\mathrm{}`$ where both lines appear to be points. Plots of $`P(\mathrm{}|r)`$ for such configurations are shown in Fig. 8 and are consistent with our expectations.

#### 4 Complex Configurations (Unequal Length Non-Symmetric Lines)

The last of the co-planar configurations is of the type shown in Fig. 1(c). In general, based on the reasoning above, for configurations of this type we would expect $`P(\mathrm{}|r)`$ to have four power-law regimes. For the configuration shown in Fig. 1(c), in which $`W_{1a}W_2W_{1b}`$, the power law regimes would be as follows: (i) a power law regime corresponding to the angle $`\theta `$ between the segments $`W_{1a}`$ and $`W_2`$, (ii) a power law regime corresponding to the angle $`\pi \theta `$ between segments $`W_2`$ and $`W_{1b}`$, (iii) a point-line power law regime entered when $`\mathrm{}W_{1b}`$, and (iv) the 2-points regime. Figure 9 is a plot of $`P(\mathrm{}|r)`$ which shows this behavior.

### B Non-Coplanar Lines

For non-coplanar lines, for $`lr`$, the fact that the lines are not co-planar should be irrelevant; what is relevant is the effective angle between the lines. This angle is obtained by sliding the lines toward each other along the line of shortest Euclidean distance between the lines (without changing their orientations) until they touch; the lines are then coplanar and the angle between them determines the behavior of $`P(\mathrm{}|r)`$. Figure 10 contains plots for two configurations which illustrate this: (i) two coplanar lines with $`r=1`$, $`\theta =90^{}`$, and $`W=256`$, and (ii) the same configuration with the second line translated out of the plane by distance 8. We see that while there is some difference in the plots for small $`l`$, the slope of the 2-lines regime is the same for the two plots.

### C Scaling of the Crossover Between Power Law Regimes

We define the value of $`\mathrm{}\widehat{\mathrm{}}`$ at which $`P(\mathrm{}|r)`$ crosses over from one power-law regime to another power-law regime as the value of $`\mathrm{}`$ where straight lines fit to the power law regimes ,between which the crossover takes place, cross. In Eq.(1) the values of $`\mathrm{}`$ at which the lower and upper cutoffs occur scale independently as $`r^{d_{\text{min}}}`$ and $`L^{d_{\text{min}}}`$, respectively. By extension, we would expect that all characteristic values of the distribution, including crossovers between different power-law regimes, would also scale as $`X^{d_{\text{min}}}`$ where X is the length in the system which controls the crossover. Thus, in analogy with the scaling of the most probable value of $`\mathrm{},\mathrm{}^{}`$,

$$l^{}=cr^{d_{\text{min}}},$$
(5)
we would, in fact, expect that the value of $`\mathrm{}`$, $`\widehat{\mathrm{}}`$ at which $`P(\mathrm{}|r)`$ crosses over from 2-lines behavior to 2-points behavior scales as

$$\widehat{\mathrm{}}=c_1(\theta )r_{\text{max}}^{d_{\text{min}}},$$
(6)
where

$$r_{\text{max}}=r+2W\mathrm{sin}(\theta /2)$$
(7)
is the maximum Euclidean distance between the two lines and $`c_1(\theta )`$ is a slowly varying function of $`\theta `$. In order for a 2-lines regime to exist, the 2-lines regime cutoff $`\widehat{\mathrm{}}`$ must be greater than $`\mathrm{}^{}`$, the maximum value of the distribution. That is,

$$c_1[r+2W\mathrm{sin}(\theta /2)]^{d_{\text{min}}}>cr^{d_{\text{min}}},$$
(8)
which implies

$$W>\frac{(c/c_1)^{1/d_{\text{min}}}r}{2\mathrm{sin}(\theta /2)}.$$
(9)
In Figs. 4(a), (b), and (c), the insets contain plots of $`\widehat{\mathrm{}}`$ vs. $`r_{\text{max}}`$. For $`\theta =3^{}`$, the scaling exponent is consistent with Eq.(6) but for $`\theta =29^{}`$ and 180 the scaling exponent is $`1.0\pm 0.1`$.

Using the same reasoning which led to Eq. (6), we would expect the crossover from point-line to 2-points behavior to scale as

$$\widehat{\mathrm{}}=c_2W^{d_{\text{min}}},$$
(10)
because $`W`$ is the length which controls this crossover; as seen in Fig. 7, the larger the value of $`W`$, the larger the value of $`\mathrm{}`$ at which the crossover from point-line to 2-points behavior occurs. However, as seen in the inset in Fig. 7, the crossover length scales with an exponent $`1.0\pm 0.1`$ not $`d_{\text{min}}`$.

Finally, we would expect that for different length lines, the crossover from 2-lines behavior to 2-point behavior would scale as

$$\widehat{\mathrm{}}=c_3(\theta )W_2^{d_{\text{min}}},(W_2<W_1)$$
(11)
because $`W_2`$ is the length which controls this crossover; as seen in Fig. 8, the larger the value of $`W_2`$, the larger the value of $`\mathrm{}`$ at which the crossover occurs. Again, the insets in Fig. 8 indicate that the crossover scales with exponent $`1.0\pm 0.1`$.

We cannot explain why sometimes the crossover scales with $`d_{\text{min}}`$ and sometimes it scales with an exponent about 1. It is, of course, possible that corrections-to-scaling are strong and that we are not seeing the true asymptotic behavior of the scaling of the crossover. If this is the case, the question still remains as to why the corrections to scaling are strong in some configurations and not in others. This area is a subject for further study.

## IV Parallel Wells

### A Simple Configurations

As with non-parallel wells we first consider the simple configurations shown in Fig. 11(a) in which the parallel wells are of the same length. Figure 12(a) plots $`P(\mathrm{}|r)`$ vs $`\mathrm{}`$ for $`r=1`$ and various $`W`$. The initial decay of the plots increases with increasing W because the longer the wells, the lower the probability for long shortest paths. Eventually, all plots cross over to a power-law regime with slope consistent with that for two points. To see if this initial decay is a lattice effect, Fig. 13 plots of the scaled distributions $`r^{d_{\text{min}}}P(\mathrm{}/r^{d_{\text{min}}}|W)`$ for various $`r`$ and $`W`$ where the aspect ratio,

$$R=\frac{W}{r},$$
(12)
is fixed at $`R=32`$. Changing $`r`$ and $`W`$ but keeping $`R`$ fixed results in scaling all lengths in the geometry by the same factor and the plots collapse as expected. Again, we note the initial strong decay of the distribution followed by a 2-point power-law regime. The good collapse for small $`x=1/r^{d_{min}}`$ indicates that the strong initial decay is not a lattice effect.

Because of the small values of $`\mathrm{}`$ at which the crossover to the 2-point regime occurs it is difficult to differentiate between a power-law and (stretched) exponential decay. We will proceed as if the decay were either a power law with slope $`\overline{g}(R)`$ or equivalently an exponential with “effective slope” $`\overline{g}(R)`$.

One might argue as follows that the initial decay for power parallel lines must be exponential: Since the 2-lines regime of the probability distribution for a parallel well configuration must always decay faster than the 2-lines regime of a configuration with small but non-zero $`\theta `$ and since we believe $`g_{\mathrm{}}(\theta )`$ goes to infinity as $`\theta `$ goes to zero, the decay for parallel lines must be exponential (i.e., faster than any power law decay). This, however, need not be the case. In order for a 2-lines regime to exist, Eq. (9) must hold. So as we decrease $`\theta `$, we must increase $`W`$, increasing the aspect ratio $`R`$, to maintain a 2-lines regime. But since the effective slope for parallel wells, $`\overline{g}(R)`$ increases with increasing $`R`$, the decay can be a power law and still always have a greater slope than the configuration with small but non-zero $`\theta `$.

### B Complex Configurations

The treatment of the more complex configurations shown in Figs. 11(b) and (c) follows that of non-parallel wells. $`P(\mathrm{})`$ for configurations of the type in Fig. 11(b) would contain an initial 2-line regime with slope $`\overline{g}(R=W_2/r)`$, a point-line regime, and finally a two-point regime. $`P(\mathrm{})`$ for configurations of the type in Fig. 11(c), with $`W_{1b}W_2W_{1a}`$ would contain an initial 2-line regime with slope $`\overline{g}(R=W_{1b}/r)`$, a 2-line regime with slope $`g_{\mathrm{}}(\theta =\pi )`$, a point-line regime, and a 2-point regime.

### C Quasi-Euclidean Regime

When the length of the wells is very large and the distance between the wells is small the behavior of the most probable shortest path between the wells is the same as in a Euclidean space where p=1 and all bonds are occupied. This can be seen in Fig. 14 in which we plot $`\mathrm{}^{}`$, the most probable value of the shortest path, versus $`r`$ for various lengths $`W`$. For long enough wells, there is a regime of $`r`$ in which

$$\mathrm{}^{}=r,$$
(13)
as one would expect in Euclidean space in which the shortest path is a straight line path of occupied bonds. As also seen in Fig 14., for a given well length, as $`r`$ increases, there is a value of $`r`$, $`r^{}`$, at which the behavior crosses over to that of 3D percolation. We can develop a simple expression for $`r^{}`$ as follows: The probability that all bonds in a straight line path between two wells separated by distance $`r`$ are occupied is $`p_c^r`$. The probability that one or more bonds in the straight line path is not occupied is thus $`1p_c^r`$ and the probability that one or more bonds in the $`W`$ straight line paths between the wells are not occupied is $`(1p_c^r)^W`$. The probability that at least one straight line path has all bonds occupied is then

$$P(r,W)=1(1p_c^r)^W.$$
(14)
The shortest path will exhibit Euclidean behavior, i.e., $`\mathrm{}^{}=r`$ when $`P(r,W)`$ is of the order unity. Setting $`P(r^{},W)=a`$ in Eq. (14), we find

$$r^{}=\frac{\mathrm{ln}(1a^{1/W})}{\mathrm{ln}p_c}.$$
(15)
In Fig. 15 we plot the observed values of $`r^{}`$ and the values predicted by Eq. (15) with a value of $`a=0.55`$ which gives the best fit to the observed values.

## V Relationship between Parallel Wells and “Close to Parallel” Wells

For a given $`r`$, we expect that a configuration with small but non-zero angle will have a power-law regime slope very close to the (effective) power-law regime slope of a configuration of parallel lines with the same $`W`$. This at first leads to a seeming paradox: if we increase or decrease $`W`$, but keep the angle of the non-parallel wells fixed, the slope of the 2-lines regime of the non-parallel well configuration doesn’t change as discussed in Section III.A.1. However, if we consider this configuration as a parallel configuration, changing W changes the aspect ratio which changes the power-law regime slope as discussed in Section IV.A. This seeming inconsistency is resolved as follows: on the one hand, for a 2-lines regime to exist, W must be at least as large as the value given by Eq. (9. If $`W`$ is too small, there will be no 2-lines regime and both the parallel and small angle configurations will look like the configuration for 2 points. On the other hand, if $`W`$ is increased, keeping $`r`$ and $`\theta `$ fixed, the greater the deviation from parallel lines and there is no reason why the parallel and small-angle configurations should have the same slopes in their power-law regimes.

Thus, only for the very small range of W for which the power-law regime exists and for which the configuration with small but non-zero $`\theta `$ is “close to parallel”(i.e. the difference between the values of $`r`$ and $`r_{max}`$ is small) should the slopes of the parallel configuration and the configuration with small but non-zero $`\theta `$ be equal. That is,

$$\overline{g}[W/r]g_{\mathrm{}}(\theta ),$$
(16)
where $`\overline{g}(R)`$ is defined in Section IV.A.

## VI Discussion and Summary

Motivated by the need to more realistically model the geometries found in oil recovery activities, we have determined the scaling form for the distribution of shortest paths between two lines in 3 dimensional percolation systems. Using simple scaling arguments we explained the rich fractal behavior of the shortest path in these systems. A number of open questions, however, remain:

* From first principles, can one develop an expression for $`g_{\mathrm{}}(\theta )`$? An exact expression for $`g_{\mathrm{}}`$ for two points in 2-dimensions was obtained by Ziff using conformal invariance arguments. Possibly this approach could be extended to find $`g_{\mathrm{}}`$ for point-line and 2-line configurations, at least in 2-dimensions.
* How is the fact that the crossover from one power-law regime to another does not scale with the exponent $`d_{\text{min}}`$ explained? Is this simply an artifact of corrections-to-scaling which would disappear if we could simulate much larger systems or is the scaling of the crossover actually anomalous in certain configurations?

## Acknowledgements

We thank Sergey Buldyrev, Nikolay Dokholyan, Youngki Lee, Eduardo Lopez, Peter King, and Luciano da Silva for helpful discussions and BP-Amoco for financial support.


format: text

text:
# Experimental investigation of flux motion in exponentially shaped Josephson junctions

## I Introduction

In recent years, there have been some theoretical studies concerning the possibility to influence the flux motion in long Josephson junctions by mean of geometry-induced or field-induced potentials. The most known example is the annular junction embedded in a spatially homogeneous magnetic field. As it is known Nie2 , in this case a cosinusoidal potential is experienced by a flux quantum trapped in the junction when a spatially homogeneous magnetic field is applied parallel to the junction barrier. The origin of the potential is caused by the spatial variation of the radial component of the magnetic field that in this special geometry becomes sinusoidal. A field-induced sawtooth-like potential has been recently considered Cara  for experimental demonstration Cara1  of ratchet effect in annular junctions. Currently, modifications of the annular geometry, as the heart-shaped geometry Ustin  are used to achieve a field-induced double-well potential for demonstration of fluxon quantum-bit and macroscopic quantum coherence phenomena.

To achieve potentials without the help of a magnetic field, the case of a nonuniform junction width has been theoretically addressed in recent years for linear Sakai ; Sergio ; Scott ; Ben  as well as for annular Gol  geometries. Theoretically, a geometry-induced potential related to the spatial variation of the junction width is expected. This potential corresponds to a force acting on the fluxons in the direction of the shrinking width. Recently, Koshe  ordinary Josephson flux-flow oscillators Giap ; Koshelets  have been modified adding to the classical overlap geometry Barone  unbiased pointed tails. This is expected to enhance the annichilation of the fluxons at the edges of the oscillator, with consequent reduction of fine structures in the ordinary velocity-matching step Giap ; Koshelets ; Cirillo .

In this paper we experimentally address the existence of the geometrical force in nonuniform width junctions. To do this, we consider an exponentially shaped overlap junction with lateral current injection. The lateral current injection acts as a flux quanta generator, also in the absence of a magnetic field, while the unbiased shaped region should act as an accelerating region for both fluxons or antifluxons injected at one edge of the junction. If really present, the geometric force should allow to achieve a quite regular unidirectional flux flow motion in the junction, without the help of a magnetic field. This dynamical regime should be accounted for a branch in the current-voltage curve of the shaped junction. The demonstration of such branches in the current-voltage curves of shaped junctions we fabricated suggests that such a geometrical force is really experencied by the flux quanta.

The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II we specialize the general model Sergio ; Scott  for a long junction with nonuniform width to our exponentially shaped junction with lateral current injection. In Sec. III the experimental results both in the absence of magnetic field and in the presence of magnetic field are presented and discussed with the help of numerical simulations. Finally, main results are summarized in the Conclusions.

## II Theory

Under some simplificative hypotheses Sergio , the model for a long overlap junction with nonuniform width $`W(x)=f_1(x)f_2(x)`$ was found as Sergio ; Scott

$$\varphi _{xx}\varphi _{tt}=\mathrm{sin}\varphi +\alpha \varphi _t\frac{W^{}(x)}{W(x)}\varphi _x+\eta _y\frac{W^{}(x)}{W(x)}\mathrm{\Gamma }(x),$$
(1)
with

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(x)=\frac{\eta _x|_{f_2}\eta _x|_{f_1}}{W(x)}.$$
(2)
In Eq. (1) $`\varphi `$ is the Josephson phase, $`\alpha `$ is the dissipation parameter, $`\eta _x`$ and $`\eta _y`$ are the normalized magnetic fields in the $`x`$ and $`y`$ directions, respectively. Space is normalized to the Josephson penetration length $`\lambda _J`$ and time to the inverse of the plasma frequency $`\omega _J=\overline{c}/\lambda _J,`$ with $`\overline{c}`$ the velocity of electromagnetic waves in the junction. For the geometry we report here (see Fig. 1) the total physical

length of the junction is $`L=L_0+L_S+L_L\lambda _J`$, while the width is chosen as

$$W(x)=\{\begin{array}{c}W_00<xL_0,\hfill \\ W_0\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1}{L_S}\mathrm{ln}(\frac{W_L}{W_0})(xL_0)\right]L_0<xL_S+L_{0,}\hfill \\ W_LL_S+L_0<xL,\hfill \end{array}$$
(3)
The bias current $`I`$ can be fed into the left or into the right edge, as shown in Fig. 1. The bias term $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(x)`$ in Eq. (2) becomes

$$\gamma _A(x)=\{\begin{array}{c}\frac{IL}{J_0L_0W_0L}\gamma \frac{L}{L_0}0<xL_{0,}\hfill \\ 0L_0<xL,\hfill \end{array}$$
(4)
for left edge current injection, and

$$\gamma _B(x)=\{\begin{array}{c}00<xL_S+L_0,\hfill \\ \frac{IL}{J_0L_LW_LL}\gamma \frac{L}{L_L}L_S+L_0<x<L,\hfill \end{array}$$
(5)
for right edge current injection. The lengths $`L_0,`$ $`L_L,W_0,`$and $`W_L`$ are chosen to be shorter than $`\lambda _J`$ and such that $`L_LW_L=L_0W_0,`$ to have equal biased areas.

Hence, the model for our exponentially shaped junction becomes

$`\varphi _{xx}\varphi _{tt}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}\varphi +\alpha \varphi _t+\lambda \varphi _x\eta \lambda \gamma _{A,B}(x),`$ (6a)
$`\phi _x(0)`$ $`=`$ $`\eta ,`$ (6b)
$`\phi _x(l)`$ $`=`$ $`\eta ,`$ (6c)
where $`l=L/\lambda _J,`$ $`\lambda =\lambda _J\mathrm{ln}(W_0/W_L)/L_S`$, and $`\eta `$ accounts for an external magnetic field applied in the $`y`$ direction. We remark that the chosen geometry reduces to the exponentially shaped in-line geometry Scott ; Ben  in the case of left current injection with injection length $`L_0`$ much lower than $`\lambda _J.`$ In such a limit, the model becomes

$`\varphi _{xx}\varphi _{tt}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}\varphi +\alpha \varphi _t+\lambda \varphi _x\eta \lambda ,`$ (7a)
$`\phi _x(0)`$ $`=`$ $`\eta \gamma l,`$ (7b)
$`\phi _x(l)`$ $`=`$ $`\eta .`$ (7c)
As first noted in Ref. Sergio, , a force that drags fluxons or antifluxons in the direction of the narrowing width is expected for our geometry. In fact, in the absence of magnetic field ($`\eta =0`$), for a soliton

$$\varphi (x)=4\mathrm{arctan}\left[\mathrm{exp}\left[\sigma \frac{xut}{\sqrt{1u^2}}\right]\right]$$

in the unbiased region \[$`\gamma _{A,B}(x)=0]`$, the following equation of motion can be found from Eqs. (6) in the framework of the perturbative approach Scottve

$$(1u^2)^{3/2}\frac{du}{dt}=\alpha \frac{u}{\sqrt{1u^2}}+\frac{\lambda }{\sqrt{1u^2}}.$$
(8)
This indicates that, if present, both a fluxon or an antifluxon will experience a force proportional to the shaping parameter $`\lambda `$ and will be accelerated in the narrowing width direction, i.e. from the left to the right in our geometry. From Eq. (8) the stationary velocity of the motion will be $`u=\lambda /\alpha `$ for $`\lambda /\alpha <1`$ or the limit velocity $`u=1`$ for $`\lambda /\alpha >1.`$

## III Numerical and experimental results

We realized Nb/Al2O3/Nb junctions with the geometry shown in Fig. 1. The physical dimensions of the junctions were $`L=L_0+Ls+L_L=(10+560+40)`$ $`\mu `$m, $`W_0=40`$ $`\mu `$m, $`W_L=10`$ $`\mu `$m. For the two junctions we report here the normalized lengths were $`l20,`$ and $`l17,`$ with shaping parameters $`\lambda 0.07`$ and $`\lambda 0.08`$, respectively. In the following the behavior of the junctions in the absence of magnetic field as well as the response to a magnetic field applied along the $`y`$ direction is discussed.

### III.1 Behavior in the absence of magnetic field

The current-voltage curve for the junction with $`l20`$ is reported in Fig. 2. No external magnetic field is applied to the junction. Panel (a) of this figure refers to the case of current injected into the left edge, while

the panel (b) refers to the case of current injected into the right edge. In both cases an almost linear branch starting from a certain critical current and extending for a given current range is observed, but some qualitative differences exist between the two cases. As better seen in Fig. 2(c), when current is injected into the left edge the branch starts to a lower critical current and is more regular than the branch achieved with current injected to the right edge. The observed behavior seems to be consistent with the idea that a geometrical force is effectively experienced by the fluxons in this geometry. When current of positive (negative) polarity is injected into the left edge, antifluxons (fluxons) will enucleate at this edge after a critical current value has been reached. From Eq. (8) these antifluxons are expected to be accelerated toward the other edge because of the geometrical force, so realizing a regular unidirectional flux motion. Conversely, if the current is injected into the right edge, the antifluxons enucleated a this edge should overcome a force to travel toward the left edge. This should result in an irregular or chaotic flux motion. Moreover, in the left current injection the geometrical force helps to start an antifluxon (or fluxon) motion, corresponding to a voltage in the I-V curve beyond a critical current value. In the right current injection such a force opposes the starting of the flux motion, so resulting in a larger critical current.

We should remark that the quasi-linear branches reported in Fig. 2 could remind the Displaced Linear Slope branches sometimes reported for rectangular in-line or overlap geometries Barone1 ; Scott1 ; Pace ; Usthen ; Cirillo1 . However here the branches are rather regular, quite noiseless, and are obtained in the absence of magnetic field.

In the following we will focus on the left current injection. In Fig. 3(a) same data of Fig. 2(a) are replotted on a larger scale. As better seen in

the inset, the flux flow branch exhibits a series of small steps spaced of a voltage $`\mathrm{\Delta }V15`$ $`\mu `$V. The curve reminds the numerically predicted curve for an exponential shaped asymmetric in-line junction Ben . The observed voltage spacing is consistent with the spacing of cavity mode resonances expected from physical dimensions of our junction, $`\mathrm{\Delta }V`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0\overline{c}/L.`$ This is to be expected due to the open boundary condition at the edges. The antifluxons in the chain moving toward the right edge will be reflected as fluxons. If the dissipation $`\alpha `$ is not too large, the antifluxons can have enough energy to travel toward the left edge as fluxons after the reflection, despite of the geometrical force opposing the motion. This mechanism can excite cavity mode resonances. However, for quite large dissipation one expect that the reflected motion would be more and more damped, and the excitation of cavity modes should be consequently damped. In Fig. 3(b) the I-V curve of the junction with $`l17`$ is plotted for three different temperatures, corresponding to three different $`\alpha `$ values. As expected, the small steps accounting for the cavity mode resonances are more and more damped as the dissipation (temperature) is increased.

To gain further insight in the flux motion dynamics in the absence of magnetic field, we integrated the model Eqs. (6) with $`\eta =0`$ and forcing term $`\gamma _A(x)`$ defined in Eq. (4). In Fig. 4(a) we show the calculated current voltage curve for a junction with left edge current injection and of uniform width \[$`\lambda =0`$ in Eqs. (6)\]. This is equivalent to the asymmetric in-line rectangular geometry Barone . As seen in the snapshot showing the instantaneous

voltage distribution in the junction, antifluxons are created at the biased edge. However, due to the absence of a force in the unbiased region, the flux motion is not very regular. Here it is only the repulsion between flux quanta that tends to drive the flux toward the right edge. The resulting motion is quite noisy, as well as the calculated ac voltage at the right edge.

In Fig. 4(b) the case of an exponentially shaped width ($`\lambda =0.07`$) is considered. In the simulation we used parameters similar to the ones estimated for the experimental curve in Fig. 3(b). As it seen in the snapshot, now the presence of a force in the unbiased region makes the flux motion toward the right edge more regular, as well as the voltage signal at the right edge. In the snapshot four moving antifluxon are counted as present in the mean in the junction for the chosen bias point. By increasing the bias current, more and more antifluxons can be injected in the junction, and the chain becomes more and more dense. Correspondly, the voltage signal at the right edge becomes less impulsive and approaches a sinusoidal form. When the junction is completelly filled with antifluxons, a transition to a new dynamical regime, similar to a laminar phase flow Ben  is achieved. In the current-voltage curve, this transition corresponds to the switch from the flux flow branch toward the other resistive branch, beyond a critical current value. As in the experimental curve, the small steps in the calculated flux flow branch are spaced of $`\pi /l`$, the spacing (in normalized units) expected from cavity mode resonances excited from reflecting boundary conditions at the edges.

As said above, the resonances can be damped by increasing the dissipation $`\alpha .`$ However, another mean to achieve this is to match the impedance of the fluxon chain with a load $`z`$ at the right edge. The matching is found possible Scott ; Ben  for this geometry, conversely to the rectangular asymmetric in-line geometry. For our exponentially shaped junction the wave impedance is just the stationary velocity we have found above, $`\varphi _t/\varphi _x=u=\lambda /\alpha .`$ This should be matched with a load of impedance $`z=\varphi _t(l)/\varphi _x(l).`$ Numerical results for the case of a matched load are shown in Fig. 4(c). As a result of the absence of reflections, the small steps typical of the unmatched case of Fig. 4(b) are now absent and the flux chain exhibits a very regular motion, as well as the voltage signal at the matched edge. This characteristic makes the exponentially shaped junction interesting as zero-magnetic field flux flow oscillator.

In Fig. 5 there are shown numerical results for a junction with $`\lambda /\alpha >1.`$ For the unmatched case shown in Fig. 5(a) the used parameters can account for the current-voltage curve at T=4.2 K in Fig. 3(b). In both cases $`\lambda /\alpha >1`$. As said above, in such a case the antifluxons are accelerated toward the asymptotic velocity $`u=1,`$ so the matching condition is now $`z=1.`$ In the snapshots shown in Fig. 5(a) and (b) we show also the

instantaneous magnetic field. Antifluxons in the chain are accelerated and, due to their relativistic nature, they are Lorentz-contracted as the asymptotic velocity is approached. As for the case $`\lambda /\alpha <1,`$ the matched junction exhibits a smooth flux-flow branch and the voltage signal at the right edge is very regular.

### III.2 Behavior in the presence of magnetic field

Due to the lateral current injection and due to the existence of a preferred direction of motion, our exponentially shaped junction is expected to show a behavior in magnetic field even more strongly asymmetric with respect to the asymmetric rectangular in-line geometry. The calculated critical current as a function of the magnetic field is shown in Fig. 6(a) for a junction with $`l=20`$ and $`\lambda =0.07`$. The pattern was obtained integrating Eqs. (6) with $`\eta 0.`$ A quite abrupt decrease of the critical current around $`\eta =2`$ is recovered. In normalized units, for this value of

magnetic field a fluxon is enucleated in the junction. The almost complete absence of secondary lobes in the pattern means the almost complete absence of trapped flux in this kind of junction, an indication that the geometrical force helps to move fluxons just after their enucleation.

Figure 6(b) shows a global representation of calculated resonant steps achieved for normalized magnetic field values slightly larger than the critical value $`\eta =2.`$ Such a plot is obtained superimposing the curves corresponding to different values of magnetic field. Two families of steps with two characteristic voltage spacing are recovered. The lower voltage spacing is the one expected for Fiske mode resonances, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\pi /l`$, the larger one is about $`2\pi /l=2\mathrm{\Delta }`$. The family of steps with larger voltage spacing appears in the same current range where the

flux flow branch is achieved in the absence of magnetic field. From numerical simulation it is seen that these steps with larger voltage spacing consists of cavity mode resonances excited by a fluxon chain and an antifluxon chain moving in opposite directions. In fact, for positive bias current an antifluxon chain moving toward the rigth edge is generated, while a positive magnetic field generate fluxons. These fluxons are pulled toward the left edge by the Lorentz force associated to the positive bias current a this edge. Antifluxons travelling toward the right generate a voltage with positive polarity that adds to the voltage of the fluxons traveling toward left. This accounts for the larger voltage spacing observed for the steps of this family.

For negative bias currents, the fluxons generated by the positive magnetic field are pushed toward the right edge by the Lorentz force associated to the negative bias current. Moreover, also the fluxon chain injected at the left edge by the bias current moves toward the right, under the action of the geometrical force. The result is that an unidirectional motion toward the right edge tends to be achieved, with consequent damping of resonant steps accounting for cavity mode resonances. As seen in the inset of Fig. 6(b), resonant steps are in fact virtually absent for negative current values. This peculiarity is observed also for larger magnetic values. For negative magnetic fields values, the current-voltage curve show steps for negative bias current values, and no steps for positive bias values. In other words, the current-voltage curve reflects with respect to the origin when the sign of the magnetic field is inverted.

Predicted strongly asymmetric magnetic field behavior summarized in Fig. 6 is fully recovered in the experiment, as shown in Fig. 7. Experimental data refer to the junction with $`l20`$. In Fig. 7(b) the steps are achieved for magnetic field values slightly larger than $`B_c=1.75`$ G, the critical field of the junction. In Fig. 8(a) we reported the modification of the flux flow branch induced by a low magnetic field, i.e., lower than $`B_c.`$ An asymmetric tunning of the branch is recovered . This can be easily understood as follows. We are using strongly left-edge-peaked current injection. In this case our junction can be also described as a shaped aysmmetric in-line junction, i.e., with model Eqs. (7). Looking at the vortex generator term $`\varphi _x(0)=\eta \gamma l,`$ it is easily understood that a positive magnetic field cooperates with a negative bias current to inject fluxons in the junctions, while such a positive magnetic field opposes a positive current injecting antifluxons in to the junction. The result is that, for a given absolute value of the bias current, more solitons are present at negative polarities than at positive polarities, resulting in a voltage at negative polarity larger than the voltage at positive polarity, as it is in fact observed in the experimental curves of Fig. 8(a).

Figure 8(b) shows the steps recorded in the junction for magnetic fields

quite larger than $`B_c.`$ The fine structures accounting for Fiske modes are completely smeared out at $`B9`$ G and a smooth step, similar to the velocity-matching step Giap ; Koshelets ; Cirillo , with asymptotic voltage strictly proportional to $`B`$ is achieved. The proportionality between the voltage and the magnetic field is shown in the inset for a given biasing current. The velocity-matching step is found to exist beyond the current-voltage range of existence of the linear flux flow branch in zero field, i.e., beyond $`V=`$600 $`\mu `$V (and up to 1500 $`\mu `$V) and $`I=9.5`$ mA. This is consistent with the observation Cirillo  that the velocity matching step originates from a quasi-linear waves regime in the junction. In our case such a quasi-linear background is the laminar phase flow Ben  achieved beyond the current range typical of the zero-field flux-flow branch.

## IV Conclusions

Summarizing, we have experimentally investigated the occurence of dynamical states in exponentially shaped overlap junctions with lateral current injection. In zero magnetic field, the lateral current injection acts as a fluxon or antifluxon chain generator and these chains can be accelerated by the geometrical force originating from the nonuniform width of the junction. The result is that a quite regular flux-flow motion, corresponding to a quasi-linear branch in the I-V curve of the junction, can be achieved in this kind of junction without the help of an external magnetic field. Moreover, numerical simulations show that this kind of motion can be precisely matched to a load, a peculiarity that makes the zero field flux flow branch interesting for zero-field flux flow oscillators. In the presence of a magnetic field a rather asymmetric behavior is exhibited by the junction. For low magnetic fields an asymmetric tuning of the flux-flow branch is observed, for moderated magnetic field ordinary Fiske modes steps are mixed with nonlinear cavity modes steps, and for quite large magnetic fields a single step similar to the velocity-matching step known for uniform width geometries is recovered.

## Acknowledgments

We acknowledge Professor M. Cirillo for providing us with the photolithographic masks we used to fabricate the devices. Fruitful discussions with S. Pagano and C. Nappi, as well as the financial support of MURST COFIN00 are also acknowledged.


text:
# Semileptonic 𝐷 decay into scalar mesons: a QCD sum rule approach

## I Introduction

Low lying scalar mesons are an old problem in hadron physics, see the review by Spanier and Törnqvist on scalar mesons in  and the literature quoted there. In a recent analysis  of $`D`$\- and $`D_s`$-meson nonleptonic decays distinct signals for strong enhancements in $`S`$-wave $`\pi \pi `$ and $`K\pi `$ channels have been observed, reviving the interest for these states. In the following we shall refer to the signal in the $`\pi \pi `$ channel as $`\sigma `$ and in the $`K\pi `$ chanel as $`\kappa `$. The enhancements can be well described by a Breit-Wigner-type resonance form, with the correct threshold behaviour

$$\rho _{X,BW}(s)=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_X(s)m_X}{(sm_X^2)^2+m_X^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_X(s)^2},$$
(1)
where the subscript $`X`$ stands for $`\sigma `$ or $`\kappa `$ . The correct threshold behaviour is guaranteed through the $`s`$-dependent width

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_X(s)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{0X}\frac{\lambda ^{1/2}(s,m_a^2,m_b^2)}{\lambda ^{1/2}(m_X^2,m_a^2,m_b^2)}\frac{m_X^2}{s}.$$
(2)
Here $`m_a`$ and $`m_b`$ are the masses of the mesons in the decay channel and $`\lambda (x,y,z)=x^2+y^2+z^22xy2xz2yz`$. In  the following parameters were found:
1) for the $`S`$-wave $`\pi \pi `$ channel, $`m_a=m_b=m_\pi `$,

$$m_\sigma =0.478\pm 0.024\pm 0.017\text{GeV};\mathrm{\Gamma }_{0\sigma }=0.324\pm 0.042\pm 0.021\text{GeV}.$$
(3)
2) for the $`S`$-wave $`K\pi `$ channel, $`m_a=m_K,m_b=m_\pi `$,

$$m_\kappa =0.797\pm 0.019\pm 0.042\text{GeV};\mathrm{\Gamma }_{0\kappa }=0.410\pm 0.043\pm 0.085\text{GeV}.$$
(4)
A theoretical analysis  of the non-leptonic decay $`D\sigma \pi `$ is in agrement with the experimental data. The semileptonic $`D`$-decays offer, in principle, much cleaner samples than the nonleptonic decays since there occur no problems connected with the presence of a third strongly interacting particle. In the non-strange channel important experimental information comes indeed from the analysis of the final state interaction of the pions from leptonic $`K`$-decays. For the case of strange mesons, the analysis of $`D`$ decays can play a similarly important role. In a recent paper by the FOCUS collaboration  clear evidence was found that in the semileptonic decay $`D^+K^{}\pi ^+\mu ^+\nu `$ the $`D`$-meson does not decay exclusively into the hadronic vector channel, but that there is interference with a scalar contribution. In this paper we estimate the decay rates of semileptonic $`D`$-decays into the scalar $`K\pi `$ and $`\pi \pi `$ channels. We use the method of QCD sum rules  which has been successfully applied to several semileptonic decay processes. For a recent review see  and the literature quoted there.

Even if (broad) resonances in the hadronic decay channels exist, it is not clear whether they are due to interactions on the quark level, or if they are rather an effect of interactions in the purely hadronic channel, see for instance . Here a theoretical analysis can be very helpful. The semileptonic decay is supposed to occur on the quark level and therefore the decay rate should depend crucially on the direct coupling of the resonances to the quark currents. We consider two limiting cases

* the observed two-meson final state couples to the corresponding quark-antiquark state only through the $`\sigma `$ or $`\kappa `$ resonance.
* the quark antiquark state couples to uncorrelated final mesons in an $`S`$-wave.

Since the signals we investigate in this paper are very broad the finite width has to be taken into account. Otherwise our analysis is based on the same principles and assumptions as the used in the sum-rule analysis of other semileptonic $`D`$-decays . We therefore refer to this paper for details and clarifications.

## II Kinematics

We investigate the semileptonic decays

$$DX\mathrm{}\overline{\nu }_{\mathrm{}},$$
(5)
where $`X`$ might be the $`\sigma ,\kappa `$ or an uncorrelated $`\pi \pi `$ or $`K\pi `$ pair in the $`S`$-state, as depicted in Fig. 1.

The semileptonic decay of a $`D`$-meson with momentum $`p_D`$ into a scalar state with total momentum $`p_X`$ and invariant mass $`\sqrt{s}=\sqrt{p_X^2}`$ is described by the two form factors of the matrix element of the weak current

$$X|j_\mu |D=(p_D+p_X)_\mu f_{+X}(t)+(p_Dp_X)_\mu f_X(t),$$
(6)
where $`t=(p_Dp_X)^2`$. In the decay rate the form factor $`f_X`$ is multiplied by the difference of the lepton masses and hence is negligible for both $`e`$ and $`\mu `$ decays.

The differential semileptonic decay rate is given by

$$\frac{d^2\mathrm{\Gamma }(s,t)}{dsdt}=\frac{G_F^2|V_{cq_2}|^2}{192\pi ^3m_D^3}\lambda ^{3/2}(m_D^2,s,t)f_{+X}^2(t)\frac{\rho _X(s)}{\pi },$$
(7)
where $`G_F`$ is the Fermi coupling constant and $`V_{cq_2}`$ the CKM transition element from the charmed quark to the quark $`q_2`$. The total width is

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=_{(m_a+m_b)^2}^{m_D^2}𝑑s_0^{(m_D\sqrt{s})^2}𝑑t\frac{d^2\mathrm{\Gamma }(s,t)}{dsdt}.$$
(8)
The spectral distribution in the invariant mass $`\sqrt{s}`$ of the hadronic final state is given by

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Gamma }}{d\sqrt{s}}=2\sqrt{s}_0^{(m_D\sqrt{s})^2}𝑑t\frac{d^2\mathrm{\Gamma }(s,t)}{dsdt}.$$
(9)
## III Sum rules

The $`D`$ meson in the initial state is interpolated by the pseudoscalar current

$$j_D(x)=\overline{c}(x)i\gamma _5q_1(x),$$
(10)
where $`c`$ is the field of the charmed quark and $`q_1`$ that of an up or down quark, summation over spinor and colour indices being understood but not indicated explicitly. The final hadronic state $`X`$ is interpolated by the scalar current

$$j_X(x)=\overline{q}_1(x)q_2(x),$$
(11)
where $`q_2`$ represents a light quark field for $`X=\sigma `$, and a strange quark field for $`X=\kappa `$. The semileptonic decay rate is obtained from the time ordered product of the two interpolating fields in Eqs. (10) and (11) and the weak current $`j_\mu ^W=\overline{q}_2\gamma _\mu (1\gamma _5)c`$

$$T_{\mu X}(p_D^2,p_X^2,t)=i^2d^4xd^4y0|\mathrm{T}[j_D(x)j_\mu ^W(0)j_X(y)]|0e^{i(p_D.xp_X.y)}.$$
(12)
In order to select the semileptonic decay rates into the lowest lying hadrons we insert intermediate states and obtain the following double dispersion relation in the phenomenological side

$`T_{\mu X}^{phen}(p_D^2,p_X^2,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑s_D𝑑s_X0|j_D(0)|DD|j_\mu ^W(0)|XX|j_X(0)|0}`$ (14)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{s_Dp_D^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{s_X^2m_X^2}}\text{ + contributions of higher resonances}.`$
Introducing

$`0|j_D(0)|D`$ $`=`$ $`A_D\rho _D(s_D);p_D^2=s_D,`$ (15)
$`X|j_X(0)|0`$ $`=`$ $`A_X\rho _X(s_X);p_X^2=s_X,`$ (16)
and using Eq. (6) we obtain

$`T_{\mu X}^{phen}(p_D^2,p_X^2,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑s_D𝑑s_XA_DA_X\frac{\rho _D(s_D)}{s_Dp_D^2}\frac{\rho _X(s_X)}{s_Xp_X^2}}`$ (19)
$`\times \left(f_{+X}(t,s_D,s_X)(p_D+p_X)_\mu +f_X(t,s_D,s_X)(p_Dp_X)_\mu \right)`$
$`+\text{ contributions of higher resonances}.`$
In the following we concentrate on the relevant form factor $`f_+`$ and introduce the factor $`T_+`$ which multiplies the vector $`(p_D+p_X)_\mu `$

$`T_{+X}^{phen}(p_D^2,p_X^2,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑s_D𝑑s_XA_DA_X\frac{\rho _D(s_D)}{s_Dp_D^2}\frac{\rho _X(s_X)}{s_Xp_X^2}f_{+X}(t,s_D,s_X)}`$ (21)
$`+\text{ contributions of higher resonances}.`$
For the $`D`$-meson the density $`\rho _D(s_D)`$ introduced in Eq. (15) is given by

$$\rho _D(s_D)=\pi \delta (s_Dm_D^2),$$
(22)
and we obtain

$$A_D=f_Dm_D^2/m_c,$$
(23)
$`f_D`$ being the $`D`$-meson decay constant in the conventional notation.

For the density $`\rho _X`$ we use the two extreme ansätze mentioned above:

* The quark-antiquark current $`j_X`$ in the $`J=0^+`$ state couples to the $`\sigma `$ or $`\kappa `$-resonance described by the Breit-Wigner distribution (1)

$$\rho _X(s)=\rho _{X,BW}(s).$$
(24)
* The quark-antiquark current $`j_X`$ couples to an uncorrelated meson pair, the density being described by the density of two-particle phase space

$$\rho _X(s)=\frac{\pi }{16\pi ^2}\frac{\lambda (s,m_a^2,m_b^2)^{1/2}}{s},$$
(25)
where $`m_a`$, $`m_b`$ are the masses of the mesons in the final state.

The three-point function can be evaluated by perturbative QCD if the external momenta are in the deep Euclidean region

$$p_D^2(m_c+m_1)^2,p_X^2(m_1+m_2)^2,t(m_c+m_2)^2.$$
(26)
In order to approach the not-so-deep-Euclidean region and to get more information on the nearest physical singularities, nonperturbative power corrections are added to the perturbative contribution

$$T_{+X}^{theor}(p_D^2,p_X^2,t)=\frac{1}{\pi ^2}_{s_{D,th}}𝑑s_D_{s_{X,th}}𝑑s_X\frac{\sigma _{+X}(s_D,s_X,t)}{(s_Dp_D^2)(s_Xp_X^2)}+\underset{ij}{}\frac{C_{ij}}{(p_D^2)^i(p_X^2)^j}O_{ij}.$$
(27)
The perturbative contribution is contained in the double spectral function $`\sigma _{+X}`$. The Wilson coefficients $`C_{ij}`$ multiplying the power corrections can be evaluated in perturbative QCD. The operators $`O_{ij}`$ occur in the operator expansion of the time ordered product Eq. (12); their vacuum expectation values, the condensates $`O_{ij}`$, are introduced as phenomenological parameters.

In order to suppress the condensates of higher dimension and at the same time reduce the influence of higher resonances, the series in Eq. (27) is Borel improved, leading to the mapping

$$f(p^2)\widehat{f}(M^2),\frac{1}{(p^2m^2)^n}\frac{(1)^n}{(n1)!}\frac{e^{m^2/M^2}}{(M^2)^n}.$$
(28)
Furthermore, we make the usual assumption that the contributions of higher resonances are well approximated by the perturbative expression

$$\frac{1}{\pi ^2}_{s_{0D}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑s_D_{s_{0X}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑s_X\frac{\sigma _{+X}(s_D,s_X,t)}{(s_Dp_D^2)(s_Xp_X^2)},$$
(29)
with appropriate continuum thresholds $`s_{0D}`$ and $`s_{0X}`$. By equating the Borel transforms of the phenomenological expression in Eq.(21) and that of the “theoretical expression”, Eq. (27), we obtain the sum rule

$`f_{+X}(t,m_D^2,\overline{s}_X)f_D{\displaystyle \frac{m_D^2}{m_c}}e^{m_D^2/M_D^2}{\displaystyle \frac{A_X}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _{(m_a+m_b)^2}^{s_{0X}}}𝑑s_X\rho _X(s_X)e^{s_X/M_X^2}`$ (32)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _{s_{D,th}}^{s_{0D}}}𝑑s_D{\displaystyle _{s_{X,th}}^{s_{0X}}}𝑑s_X\sigma _{+X}(s_D,s_X,t)e^{s_D^2/M_D^2}e^{s_X/M_X^2}`$
$`+\widehat{K}_{+X}(M_D^2,M_X^2,t)+\widehat{K}_{+I}(M_D^2,M_X^2,t),`$
where $`\overline{s}_X`$ is some value below $`s_{0X}`$. In the zero width approximation we have of course $`\overline{s}_X=m_X^2`$. $`\widehat{K}_{+X}`$ are the Borel transforms of the nonperturbative expressions due to the condensates and $`\widehat{K}_I`$ is an approximation to the instanton contributions, which might be important in the scalar channel .

The decay constant $`f_D`$ and the coupling $`A_X`$ defined in Eqs. (15), (16), and(23) can also be determined by sum rules obtained from the appropriate two-point functions. Using the same procedure as described above we arrive at

$$\frac{m_D^4}{m_c^2}\left(f_D^{theor}(M^2)\right)^2e^{m_D^2/M^2}=_{m_c^2}^{s_{0D}}𝑑s\sigma _D(s)e^{s/M^2}+\widehat{K}_D(M^2),$$
(33)
and

$`\left(A_X^{theor}(M^2)\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _{(m_a+m_b)^2}^{s_{0X}}}𝑑s\rho _X(s)e^{s/M^2}\right)=`$ (35)
$`{\displaystyle _{m_{q_2}^2}^{s_{0X}}}𝑑s\sigma _X(s)e^{s/M^2}+\widehat{K}_X(M^2)+\widehat{K}_I(M^2).`$
The analysis of the two-point function for the scalar mesons, and the explicit expressions for the functions occuring in Eqs. (32), (33) and (35) are given in Appendices A and B respectively.

The final sum rule for the form factor is obtained from Eq. (32) by inserting for $`f_D`$ and $`A_X`$ the expressions $`f_D^{theor}`$ and $`A_X^{theor}`$ of Eqs. (33) and (35)

$`f_{+X}(t,m_D^2,\overline{s}_X)=`$ (37)
$`e^{m_D^2/M_D^2}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_D^2}{m_c}}f_D(M_{D}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})A_X(M_{X}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _{(m_a+m_b)^2}^{s_{0X}}}𝑑s_X\rho _X(s_X)e^{s_X/M_X^2}\right)^1`$
$`\times `$ $`({\displaystyle _{s_{D,th}}^{s_{0D}}}ds_D{\displaystyle _{s_{X,th}}^{s_{0X}}}ds_X\sigma _{+X}(s_D,s_X,t)e^{s_D^2/M_D^2}e^{s_X/M_X^2}`$ (38)
$`+`$ $`\widehat{K}_{+X}(M_D^2,M_X^2,t)+\widehat{K}_{+I}(M_D^2,M_X^2,t)).`$ (39)
The radiative corrections for the scalar and pseudoscalar channels are known to be large . They are expected to be large in the three-point function too. By inserting the sum rule expressions for the two-point functions, Eqs. (33) and (35), in the denominator of the sum rule for the three-point function, Eq. (39), we expect, at least, a partial cancellation of these corrections .

## IV Evaluation of the sum rules and results

The sum rule Eq. (39) is evaluated in the same way as described in , and we only sketch the main steps of this evaluation. In the complete theory, the right hand side of Eq. (39) should not depend on the Borel variables $`M^2`$. However, in a truncated treatment there will always be some dependence left. Therefore, one has to work in a region where the approximations made are supposedly acceptable and where the result depends only moderately on the Borel variables . To decrease the dependence of the results on the Borel variables $`M^2`$ , we take them in the two-point functions at half the value of the corresponding variables in the three-point sum rules, i.e., in Eq.(39) we put

$$M_{D}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=M_D^2/2\mathrm{and}M_{X}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=M_X^2/2.$$
(40)
We furthermore choose

$$\frac{M_X^2}{M_D^2}=\frac{m_X^2}{m_D^2m_c^2}.$$
(41)
We have checked that the results do not depend crucially on this particular choice. If the momentum transfer $`t`$ to the lepton pair is larger than a critical value $`t_{cr}`$, non-Landau singularities have to be taken into account . Since anyhow we have to stay away from the physical region , i.e. we must have $`t(m_c+m_1)^2`$, we limit our calculation to the region $`0<t<t_{cr}`$. In this range the t-dependence can be obtained from the sum rule (39) directly. It can be fitted by a monopole, and extrapolated to the full kinematical region.

Since we do not take into account radiative corrections we choose the QCD parameters at a fixed renormalisaton scale of about $`1\text{GeV}^2`$: the strange and charm mass $`m_s=0.16\text{GeV}`$, $`m_c=1.3\text{GeV}`$, the up and down quark masses are put to zero. We take for the non-strange quark condensate $`\overline{q}q=(0.24)^3\text{GeV}^3`$ , for the strange quark condensate $`\overline{s}s=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.8}\overline{q}q`$, and for the mixed quark-gluon condensate $`\overline{q}\sigma Gq\overline{q}q=m_0^2\overline{q}q`$ with $`m_0^2=0.8\text{GeV}^2`$.

For the continuum threshold in the $`D`$-channel we take from  $`s_{0D}=6\text{GeV}^2`$. The standard value in the $`X`$ channel would be $`s_{0X}(m_X+0.5\text{GeV})^2`$, yielding $`s_{0\sigma }1\text{GeV}^2`$ and $`s_{0\kappa }1.6\text{GeV}^2`$. As an additional condition we use the mass constraint from the two-point function, as described in Appendix A.

We start with the decay $`D\kappa \mathrm{}\overline{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}`$ and first consider the case where the scalar quark current (11) couples directly to the $`\kappa `$-signal through a Breit-Wigner distribution (24). In Fig. 2 we show the different contributions to the form factor $`f_{+\kappa }(0)`$ in Eq. (39), as a function of the Borel variable $`M_D^2`$, using the continuum threshold $`s_{0\kappa }=1.6\text{GeV}^2`$. As the lower limit for the fiducial region in $`M_D^2`$ we take that value of $`M_D^2`$ where the perturbative contribution is one half of the total contribution. As upper limit we take the value $`M_D^2=15\text{GeV}^2`$, which is motivated in Appendix A. For such a high value of the Borel parameter the result is very stable but it is largely determined by the choice of the continuum model. The instanton contribution in the fiducial region is completely negligible; the five dimensional mixed condensate is strongly suppressed compared to the three dimensional quark condensate. In the Borel variable of the $`X`$-channel the fiducial region corresponds approximately to the range $`1.7\text{GeV}^2M_X^25\text{GeV}^2`$.

In the range $`0t0.5\text{GeV}^2`$ no non-Landau singularities occur for our choices of the continuum thresholds. The momentum dependence of $`f_{+\kappa }`$ can, in this $`t`$-range, be very well approximated by a monopole expression

$$f_{+\kappa }(t)=\frac{f_{+\kappa }(0)}{1\frac{t}{M_P^2}},$$
(42)
and extrapolated to the full physical region.

For $`1.4\text{GeV}^2s_{0\kappa }1.8\text{GeV}^2`$ and for values of $`M_D^2`$ discussed above, we find for the form factor at $`t=0`$

$$0.48f_{+\kappa }(0)0.55,$$
(43)
and for the pole mass,

$$1.9\text{GeV}M_P2.2\text{GeV}.$$
(44)
The pole mass is considerably smaller than the mass of the charmed pseudovector-meson $`D_{s1}(2536)`$ which would fit into the $`t`$-channel. In the $`DK\mathrm{}\nu `$ decay the pole mass also came out to be smaller  than the mass of the strange vector meson $`D_s^{}(2114)`$.

In the limits of the Borel variables and the continuum thresholds discussed above we obtain for the total semileptonic decay width

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(D\kappa \mathrm{}\nu )=(5.5\pm 1.0)\times 10^{15}\mathrm{GeV},$$
(45)
where we have used $`V_{cs}=0.97`$. The same calculation done in an – unjustified – zero width approximation would yield a total semileptonic decay width which is about 20 % larger.

The spectral distribution $`d\mathrm{\Gamma }/d\sqrt{s}`$, Eq. (9), where $`\sqrt{s}`$ is the invariant mass of the $`\pi K`$ state, is given in Fig. 3, solid line.

Next we investigate the same decay under the assumption that the scalar current in Eq. (11) does not couple to a resonance, but to an uncorrelated $`\pi K`$ pair in an $`S`$-state, i.e., we use the ansatz (25) for $`\rho _\kappa (s)`$ entering the sum rules. In Fig. 4 we show the dependence on the Borel variable $`M_D^2`$ of the decay form factor $`f_{+\kappa }(0)`$ for $`s_{0\kappa }=1.6\text{GeV}^2`$. Note that now the density (25) describes a two-particle phase space and therefore the dimension of $`f_{+\kappa }`$ is different from the previous case.

The masses of the pole fit to the $`t`$-dependence are practically the same as for the resonance case; for the form factor at $`t=0`$ we obtain

$$5.0\text{GeV}^1f_{+\kappa }(0)7.1\text{GeV}^1.$$
(46)
The total width comes out for the case of an uncorrelated $`\pi K`$ pair in an $`S`$ state as

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(D(K\pi )_S\mathrm{}\overline{\nu }_{\mathrm{}})=(3.7\pm 1.1)\times 10^{15}\mathrm{GeV}.$$
(47)
The spectral distribution for this case is also shown in Fig. 3, with a dotted line. Although there is no resonance formation the resulting distribution shows a maximum at approximately the mass of the $`\kappa `$, which is an effect of the decrease of the total phase space near the kinematical limits.

The evaluation of the decay $`D\sigma \mathrm{}\nu `$ follows exactly the same lines. Here the fiducial range in $`M_D^2`$ is chosen according to the same criteria as before and goes approximately from $`M_D^2=8\text{GeV}^2`$ to $`18\text{GeV}^2`$ corresponding approximately to a range $`1\text{GeV}^2M_\sigma ^22.3\text{GeV}^2`$. The continuum limit $`s_{0\sigma }`$ was chosen between 1 and 1.6 $`\text{GeV}^2`$. The resulting form factors and total decay width are, in the case of a resonance formation with a Breit-Wigner width

$$0.42f_{+\sigma }(0)0.57,$$
(48)
$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(D\sigma \mathrm{}\overline{\nu }_{\mathrm{}})=(8.0\pm 2.5)\times 10^{16}\mathrm{GeV},$$
(49)
and for the case of two uncorrelated $`\pi `$-mesons in an $`S`$-state

$$5\text{GeV}^1f_{+\sigma }(0)6\text{GeV}^1$$
(50)
and

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(D(\pi \pi )_S\mathrm{}\overline{\nu }_{\mathrm{}})=(4.5\pm 1.0)\times 10^{16}\mathrm{GeV}.$$
(51)
The spectral distributions for both ans̈atze are shown in Fig. 5.

## V Summary and conclusions

The semileptonic decays of $`D`$-mesons into scalar hadrons are very similar to those into pseudoscalars. The same role played by the vector part in the pseudoscalar case is played by the weak pseudovector for the decay into scalars. Therefore, the theoretical expressions are very similar, only terms proportional to the mass of the strange quark change sign. This leads to a small reduction of the form factors compared to the decay into a pseudoscalar state. The main difference of the semileptonic decay rates into $`K`$ and $`\kappa `$ is due to the different phase space. The decay into $`\sigma `$ mesons is suppressed by the small value of the weak $`(c,d)`$ matrix element $`V_{cd}0.225`$. The spectral distributions of the invariant masses of the $`K\pi `$ and $`\pi \pi `$ sytems are given in Figs. 3 and 5. Their maxima are well below the masses of the $`\kappa `$ and the $`\sigma `$, and also the forms are quite different from Breit-Wigner distributions. The increase of the spectral ditributions is steeper and the fall-off substantially faster than for the corresponding Breit-Wigner forms. This is an effect of the total phase space in the semileptonic decay.

If the scalar current does not couple directly to the resonance but only to an uncorrelated meson pair, the decay rate is reduced by a factor two compared with the decay into resonances, but nevertheless an enhancement near 0.8 and 0.5 GeV is visible due to the total final state phase space (see Figs. 3 and 5). With good statistics a discrimination between the two extreme cases should be possible. This would add valuable information on the nature of the intriguing low lying scalar resonances. In reality things might be complicated by a coupling of the interpolating current 11 on the quark level to a resonance as well as to a uncorrelated meson pair. In this case on has to construct a new density $`\rho _X`$ and use it instead of the densities in Eqs. (24) or (25), in order to calculate the form factors $`f_X(t)`$.The procedure that follows is the same.

Acknowledgements: We would like to thank I. Bediaga for fruitful discussions. This work has been supported by CNPq, FAPERJ, FAPESP (Brazil), and DAAD (Fed. Rep. Germany).

## A Evaluation of the two-point sum rules

In Fig. 6 we display the different contributions to $`A_\kappa `$, as a function of the Borel variable $`M_{\kappa }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$ using the ansatz in Eq. (24) for $`\rho _\kappa (s)`$ and $`s_{0\kappa }=1.4\text{GeV}^2`$. As expected the instanton contribution is particularly important for small values of the Borel variable. In spite of the weak dependence of the sum rule results on $`M_{\kappa }^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$, it is well known that radiative corrections could be large in this case. Therefore, we do not attach great significance to the high stability of our results.

In the zero width approximation one can obtain a sum rule for the mass by performing the logarithmic derivative of the right and left-hand sides of Eq. (33) with respect to $`M^2`$, assuming that $`f_D`$ is independent of $`M^2`$. In Fig. 7 we display the logarithmic derivative of the left and right-hand sides of the sum rule (35), again assuming that $`A_\kappa `$ is independent of the Borel variable.

For $`s_{0\kappa }=1.4\text{GeV}^2`$ there is a reasonable overlap between the two sides of the sum rule in the Borel window $`0.9M^22\text{GeV}^2`$, and this defines the range for the Borel variable $`M_X^{}_{}{}^{}2`$ in Eq. (39). Since all Borel variables are related by Eqs. (40) and (41), we obtain from the above range approximately $`5M_D^215\text{GeV}^2`$.

In the case of $`\sigma `$, similar results are obtained and in Fig. 8 we show (for $`s_{0\sigma }=1.2\text{GeV}^2`$ and the ansatz in Eq. (24) for $`\rho _\sigma (s)`$) that the instanton contribution (dotted line) is even more important in this case, giving a very stable result as a function of the Borel mass. The quark condensate and mixed condensate contributions (dashed line) are zero since they are now proportional to the light quark mass, which we take equal to zero.

In Fig. 9 we show the lhs and the rhs of the sum rule generated by the logarithmic derivative of Eq. (35) with respect to $`M^2`$, as a function of the Borel mass, using the ansatz in Eq. (24) for $`\rho _\sigma (s)`$ and $`s_{0\sigma }=1.2\text{GeV}^2`$. We see that there is again a good overlap between the two sides of the sum rule in the Borel window $`1.0M^22.5\text{GeV}^2`$. Since the mass of the particle is related with the square root of the lhs of this sum rule, from this figure we see that our result is compatible with $`m_\sigma =0.5\text{GeV}`$ found in .

## B Perturbative and nonperturbative Contributions to the two- and three-point functions

In all this work we take into account the mass of the strange quark at most squared and neglect the mass of the light quarks. For the scalar meson $`X`$, we consider the particular case of $`\kappa `$, since the $`\sigma `$ can be easily obtained from it by neglecting the strange quark mass. The perturbative contributions for the two-point functions defined in Sec. III are:

$$\sigma _D(s)=\frac{3}{8\pi ^2}\frac{(sm_c^2)^2}{s}$$
(B1)
and

$$\sigma _\kappa (s)=\frac{3}{8\pi ^2}(s2m_s^2).$$
(B2)
The nonperturbative contributions including the quark and mixed condensates are

$$\widehat{K}_D(M^2)=m_c\overline{q}qe^{m_c^2/M^2}\left[1+\frac{m_0^2}{2M^2}\left(1\frac{m_c^2}{2M^2}\right)\right]$$
(B3)
and

$$\widehat{K}_\kappa (M^2)=m_se^{m_s^2/M^2}\left(\overline{q}q+\frac{\overline{s}s}{2}+\frac{m_0^2}{2M^2}\overline{q}q\right),$$
(B4)
where we have defined $`\overline{q}g_s\sigma .Gq=m_0^2\overline{q}q`$. The instanton induced contribution is given by

$$\widehat{K}_I(M^2)=\frac{\overline{n}}{2\overline{m}_s\overline{m}_q}M^2z^2_{z^2/4}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑x\frac{x^2}{(xz^2/4)^2}e^{\frac{x^2}{xz^2/4}},$$
(B5)
where $`z=M\overline{\rho }`$, and we have introduced the average instanton size, $`\overline{\rho }`$, and the instanton number density, $`\overline{n}`$, given by

$$\overline{n}\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{fm}^4,\overline{\rho }\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{fm}.$$
(B6)
In Eq. (B5) $`\overline{m}_s`$ and $`\overline{m}_q`$ are the effective quark masses which we take to be $`\overline{m}_s=400\text{MeV}`$ and $`\overline{m}_q=300\text{MeV}`$.

The perturbative double spectral function is obtained by using the Cutkosky rules and, in the case of the meson $`\kappa `$, is given by

$`\rho _{+\kappa }(s_D,s_X,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8\pi ^2\lambda ^{3/2}}}[2s_Ds_Xt+m_c^2s_X(s_Ds_X+t)+m_s^2s_D(s_Xs_D+t)+m_cm_s`$ (B7)
$`\times `$ $`(m_c^2(s_Ds_Xt)+m_s^2(s_Xs_Dt)(s_Ds_X)^2+t(s_D+s_X))]`$ (B8)
$`\times `$ $`\mathrm{\Theta }(s_Dm_c^2)\mathrm{\Theta }(s_Xs_{Xmin})\mathrm{\Theta }(s_{Xmax}s_X),`$ (B9)
where

$$s_{Xmin}=\frac{m_c^2(m_c^2+m_s^2+s_D+t)+m_s^2s_Ds_Dt+(m_c^2s_D)\sqrt{\lambda (m_c^2,m_s^2,t)}}{2m_c^2}$$
(B10)
and

$$s_{Xmax}=\frac{m_c^2(m_c^2+m_s^2+s_D+t)+m_s^2s_Ds_Dt(m_c^2s_D)\sqrt{\lambda (m_c^2,m_s^2,t)}}{2m_c^2}.$$
(B11)
The nonperturbative contributions, including the quark and mixed condensates, which survive the double Borel transformation in $`p_D^2`$ and $`p_X^2`$ are

$`\widehat{K}_{+\kappa }(M_D^2,M_X^2,t)`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{q}qe^{m_c^2/M_D^2}[{\displaystyle \frac{m_cm_s}{2}}m_0^2(m_c^2{\displaystyle \frac{m_cm_s}{8M_D^4}}`$ (B12)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2m_cm_s}{6M_D^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(4m_c^2+m_cm_s2t)(m_cm_s)}{24M_D^2M_X^2}}`$ (B13)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_c2m_s}{6M_D^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(m_cm_s2t)(m_cm_s)}{24M_D^2M_X^2}})],`$ (B14)
and the instanton induced contribution is given by

$`\widehat{K}_{+I}(M_D^2,M_X^2,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8\overline{\rho }^4t}{\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{n}}{\overline{m}_s\overline{m}_q}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑r𝑑s𝑑u𝑑\gamma {\displaystyle \frac{(\gamma M_D^21)M_X^4}{(1+4\gamma s)^2(\gamma sM_D^24M_X^2)^2\gamma s^2}}`$ (B15)
$`\times `$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{ru}{(sr)(A_0u)}}}e^{\overline{\rho }^2(r+u)}e^{\gamma m_c^2}e^{\alpha _0\overline{\rho }^2}e^{\frac{tA_0}{sM_D^2}},`$ (B16)
where

$$A_0=\frac{s(\gamma M_D^21)}{1+4s\gamma }$$
(B17)
and

$$\alpha _0=\frac{s+(1+4s\gamma )t)M_X^2}{s+(1+4s\gamma )t)4M_X^2}.$$
(B18)


text:
# Dp-brane Tension from Tachyons and B-field in Vacuum String Field Theory

## 1 Introduction

Vacuum String Field Theory  is believed to represent Witten’s cubic open string field theory  (see also ) near the tachyon vacuum. Sen conjectured that unstable D-brane configurations may collapse into other stable configurations via condensation of the tachyon . In particular, the D25-brane background of open bosonic string theory is expected to condense into a non-perturbative tachyon vacuum . In VSFT the usual BRST operator $`Q`$, whose cohomology classes represent physical states in the full theory, is replaced by a new operator $`𝒬`$ which operates only on ghost degrees of freedom and has trivial cohomology. Therefore there are no perturbative physical states in VSFT, and moreover due to this simplification it is possible to find classical solutions to the string-field equation of motion . In Witten’s original notation , the action is given by

$$S[\mathrm{\Psi }]=\frac{1}{2}\left(\mathrm{\Psi }Q\mathrm{\Psi }+g\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }\right),$$

so that the equation of motion for the string-field $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is $`Q\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }`$.

The problem of tachyon fluctuations and the resulting D25-brane tension in the context of VSFT was first considered by Hata and Kawano , and by Rastelli, Sen and Zwiebach . In the former paper the D25-brane tension did not seem to be compatible with the standard result, and in the latter doubt was expressed as to the validity of the linearised equations of motion for the tachyon perturbation, when the BPZ-product with the perturbation state (which is slightly outside the Fock-space) is taken. The analysis by two of the present authors in  clarified the limiting procedure involved when taking star- and BPZ-products, and showed that the linearised equation of motion is indeed valid in the ‘strong’ sense, obtaining a result for the D25-brane tension compatible with the assertion that the sliver solution represents a single D25-brane.

Here we consider tachyon fluctuations about a D$`p`$-brane solution for arbitrary $`p`$ and in this way evaluate the tension of the D-brane. We make use of boundary condition-changing twist operators, as suggested in , in the ‘geometrical’ conformal field theory approach. We find the correct ratios of tensions between branes of differing dimension. Our results may be compared to those found in the recent paper  which were obtained using the algebraic (oscillator)  approach. We also investigate the effect of a $`B`$-field and again obtain the expected ratios of tensions.

This paper is organised as follows. In section 2 we discuss the construction of perturbative states around a D-brane solution, in particular focussing our attention on the tachyon field. Next, in section 3 we construct this perturbative tachyon state around a D$`p`$-brane configuration and evaluate the resulting tension. Section 4 contains an analysis of the effect of a $`B`$-field background, and we again obtain the standard expression for the tension of a non-commutative D-brane. We conclude with some comments in section 5.

## 2 D$`p`$-brane

In Fock-space notation, as used in the geometrical approach of Rastelli, Sen and Zwiebach , the action is given by

$$S[\mathrm{\Psi }]=\kappa \left[\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Psi }|𝒬\mathrm{\Psi }+\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{\Psi }|\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }\right],$$
(1)
and the equation of motion is written

$$𝒬|\mathrm{\Psi }=|\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }.$$
(2)
In VSFT the operator $`𝒬`$ affects only the ghost sector of the theory; the equation of motion thus factorises and the matter part becomes

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_m=|\mathrm{\Psi }_m\mathrm{\Psi }_m.$$
(3)
It is conjectured that the ghost part of the solution is universal .

One solution $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ to the matter equation of motion, called the sliver state, is believed to correspond to a D25-brane. This state is defined by

$$\mathrm{\Xi }|\varphi =\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}𝒩f\varphi (0)_{C_n}$$
(4)
where on the RHS the brackets denote a correlation function in the matter BCFT on the space $`C_n`$. $`C_n`$ is taken to be the semi-infinite cylinder obtained by identifying $`\mathrm{}ez\mathrm{}ez+n\pi /2`$ in the complex $`z`$ upper half plane. $`\varphi `$ is an operator representing an arbitrary state in the Fock space and $`|\varphi `$ is the corresponding state obtained by inserting $`\varphi `$ at $`z=0`$ in the ‘local patch’ $`\pi /4<\mathrm{}ez<\pi /4`$. We refer the reader to  for details of this construction.

In order to extend this to the case of a D$`p`$-brane, we need to introduce boundary condition-changing twist operators . These are $`\sigma ^+`$ and $`\sigma ^{}`$ and are inserted at $`z=\pm \pi /4\pm ϵ`$. This effectively imposes Neumann boundary conditions on $`\pi /4<z<\pi /4`$ and Dirichlet conditions on the rest of the boundary, $`\pi /4<z<(2n1)\pi /4`$. The correlator in eqn. (4) is taken over the 26 independent conformal fields $`X^\mu `$. In this case, we define

$$\text{D}p|\varphi =\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}𝒩f\varphi (0)_{C_n}^\sigma ,$$
(5)
where the superscript indicates the presence of the $`\sigma `$ operators in the 25$`p`$ Dirichlet directions, while the $`p+1`$ Neumann directions are unchanged. The state $`|\text{D}p`$ so defined represents a D$`p`$-brane  and it satisfies the equation of motion (2), provided that it is renormalised as follows. When we take the star-product of the sliver with itself, we will obtain a short-distance singularity from the proximity of $`\sigma ^+`$ from one sliver, and $`\sigma ^{}`$ from the other. As noted in , the leading term of the operator expansion will have no operator content, and so this singularity will only contribute $`(1/2ϵ)^h`$ to the product, where $`h`$ depends on the conformal dimensions of the $`\sigma `$-operators. This divergent factor may simply be absorbed into the definition of the sliver state.

## 3 VSFT Perturbations and D$`p`$-brane Tension

We wish to start with a background string-field solution $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0=\mathrm{\Phi }_{\text{ghost}}\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and consider perturbations parametrised by fields. We follow here the procedure used in , generalised to a the case of a D$`p`$-brane. As in , we use the perturbative expansion

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }=|\mathrm{\Phi }_g\left\{|\mathrm{\Phi }+|T+\mathrm{}\right\},$$
(6)
where $`|T`$ is a tachyon excitation and terms corresponding to vector and higher excitations follow. The tachyon perturbation is

$$|T=\text{d}kn^{k_{}^2}T(k)|\chi (k),$$
(7)
with $`T(k)`$ the momentum-space tachyon field. We use $`k_{}`$ to refer to directions longitudinal to the D-brane, and $`k_{}`$ for transverse directions.

We may insert this expansion for $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ into the action (1) to obtain

$$S[T]=S[\mathrm{\Phi }_g\mathrm{\Phi }]\mathrm{\Phi }_g|𝒬\mathrm{\Phi }_g\left[\frac{1}{2}T|T\mathrm{\Phi }|TT+\frac{1}{3}T|TT\right]$$
(8)
whence the linearised equation of motion for $`|T`$ can be obtained;

$$|\chi (k)=|\chi (k)\mathrm{\Phi }+|\mathrm{\Phi }\chi (k).$$
(9)
In this section we take as the background solution the D$`p`$-brane state $`|\mathrm{\Phi }=|\text{D}p`$. It was shown in  that the linearised equation of motion for a perturbation $`\chi (k)`$ about the sliver state holds even when the BPZ-product with another solution $`\chi (k^{})`$ is taken, that is

$$\chi (k)|\chi (k^{})=\chi (k)\mathrm{\Xi }+\chi (k)\mathrm{\Xi }|\chi (k^{}).$$
(10)
Equation (9) has been referred to as the ‘weak’ equation of motion, with eqn. (10) being a stronger version, since $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ and thus $`\chi `$ are not quite Fock space states.

The linearised equation of motion (9) for a tachyon perturbation $`\chi (k)`$ about the sliver state $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ was solved in  and this solution was expressed in the CFT language in . In the present case of a D$`p`$-brane, the solution may be written

$$\chi (k)|\varphi =\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}𝒩n^{2k_{}^2}f\varphi (0)e^{ikX}(n\pi /4)_{C_n}^\sigma ,$$
(11)
so that the momentum degrees of freedom are carried by a tachyon vertex operator inserted diametrically opposite the $`\varphi `$-insertion puncture. The factor $`n^{2k_{}^2}`$ is inserted to compensate for a factor $`n^{2k_{}^2}`$ which will come from the correlator.

Let us now show that the state in eqn. (11) satisfies the equation of motion (10). Computing first the LHS, we find

$$\chi (k)|\chi (k^{})=𝒩^2\underset{n,m\mathrm{}}{lim}n^{2k_{}^2}m^{2k_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}e^{ikX}(0)e^{ik^{}X}\left((n+m2)\frac{\pi }{4}\right)_{C_m+n2}^\sigma .$$
(12)
This is calculated in the appendix and is given by eqn. (A-6),

$$\chi (k)|\chi (k^{})=𝒦\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}n^{2k_{}^2}2^{2k_{}^2}(2\pi )^{26}\delta (k_{}+k_{}^{})e^{ix_0(k_{}+k_{}^{})}.$$
(13)
Shifting our attention to the RHS of eqn. (10), we may express either of the two terms as

$$\mathrm{\Xi }\chi (k)|\chi (k^{})=𝒩^2\underset{n_1,n_2,n_3\mathrm{}}{lim}n_2^{2k_{}^2}n_3^{2k_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}e^{ikX}(0)e^{ik^{}X}\left((n_2+n_32)\frac{\pi }{4}\right)_{C_{n_1+n_2+n_33}}^\sigma .$$
(14)
Evaluating this correlator in the same way we find

$$\mathrm{\Xi }\chi (k)|\chi (k^{})=𝒦\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}n^{2k_{}^2}2^{k_{}^2}(2\pi )^{26}\delta (k_{}+k_{}^{})e^{ix_0(k_{}+k_{}^{})}.$$
(15)
Substituting eqn. (13) and eqn. (15) into the equation of motion (10), it reduces to

$$k_{}^2=1.$$
(16)
We see that the tachyon living on the D$`p`$-brane satisfies the strong equation of motion, provided that it is on-shell. This is to be compared with the case of a D25-brane . Off-shell we have

$$2^{1k_{}^2}\chi (k)|\chi (k^{})=\chi (k)\mathrm{\Xi }+\chi (k)\mathrm{\Xi }|\chi (k^{}).$$
(17)
To calculate the D$`p`$-brane tension, we first examine the quadratic term $`S^{(2)}`$ of the action (8) to fix the normalisation of the tachyon field $`T(k)`$. Using eqn. (17) we may write

$$S^{(2)}=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Psi }_g|𝒬\mathrm{\Psi }_g\text{d}k\text{d}k^{}T(k)T(k^{})\left(12^{1k_{}^2}\right)\chi (k)|\chi (k^{}).$$
(18)
After substituting the product from eqn. (13), we have

$`S^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Psi }_g|𝒬\mathrm{\Psi }_g𝒦{\displaystyle \text{d}^{p+1}k_{}\text{d}^{p+1}k_{}^{}\left(12^{1k_{}^2}\right)2^{k_{}^2}(2\pi )^{26}\delta (k_{}+k_{}^{})}`$ (19)
$`\left\{{\displaystyle \text{d}^{25p}k_{}\text{d}^{25p}k_{}^{}e^{ix_0(k_{}+k_{}^{})}T(k)T(k^{})}\right\}`$
Taking $`T(k)`$ near on-shell, $`k_{}^21`$, we may write the $`k_{}`$-dependent factor as $`(k_{}^21)4\mathrm{log}2`$. We see that a re-definition of the tachyon field

$$T_{\text{D}p}(k_{})\sqrt{𝒦(2\pi )^{25p}\mathrm{\Psi }_g|𝒬\mathrm{\Psi }_g4\mathrm{log}2}\text{d}^{25p}k_{}e^{ix_0k_{}}T(k)$$
(20)
would cast $`S^{(2)}`$ into the canonical form

$$S^{(2)}=\frac{1}{2}(2\pi )^{p+1}\text{d}^{p+1}k_{}(k_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}1)T_{\text{D}p}(k_{})T_{\text{D}p}(k_{}).$$
(21)
The cubic term in the action involves

$`\chi (k_1)|\chi (k_2)\chi (k_3)`$
$`=e^{ik_1X}(0)e^{ik_2X}\left((n_1+n_22){\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{4}}\right)e^{ik_3X}\left((n_1+n_32){\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{4}}\right)_{C_{n_1+n_2+n_33}}^\sigma .`$ (22)
Once again mapping to the unit disc, we may use Wick’s theorem and the tachyon correlator from eqn. (A-4) to find

$$\chi (k_1)|\chi (k_2)\chi (k_3)=\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}2n^{{\scriptscriptstyle k_{}^2}}(2\pi )^{26}e^{ix_0({\scriptscriptstyle k_{}})}\delta \left(k_{}\right)$$
(23)
Substituting this result into the action, the cubic term $`S^{(3)}`$ is

$`S^{(3)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\mathrm{\Psi }_g|𝒬\mathrm{\Psi }_g𝒦{\displaystyle \text{d}k_{1,2,3}(2\pi )^{26}\delta \left(k_{}\right)}`$ (24)
$`\left\{{\displaystyle \text{d}k_{1,2,3}T(k_1)T(k_2)T(k_3)e^{ix_0({\scriptscriptstyle k_{}})}}\right\},`$
which we can write in terms of the D-brane tachyon field (20) as

$`S^{(3)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{2(2\pi )^{p+1}}{(4\mathrm{log}2)^{3/2}\sqrt{𝒦(2\pi )^{p25}\mathrm{\Psi }_g|𝒬\mathrm{\Psi }_g}}}`$ (25)
$`{\displaystyle \text{d}k_{1,2,3}T_{\text{D}p}(k_1)T_{\text{D}p}(k_2)T_{\text{D}p}(k_3)\delta \left(k_{}\right)}.`$
The three-tachyon coupling can be read off;

$$g_T=\frac{2}{(4\mathrm{log}2)^{3/2}\sqrt{𝒦(2\pi )^{p25}\mathrm{\Psi }_g|𝒬\mathrm{\Psi }_g}}.$$
(26)
Following , the D$`p`$-brane tension is given by

$$𝒯=\frac{1}{2\pi ^2g_T^2},$$
(27)
so that using eqn. (26) we can recover the standard formula for the ratio of D-brane tensions,

$$\frac{𝒯_{p+1}}{𝒯_p}=\frac{1}{2\pi \sqrt{\alpha ^{}}},$$
(28)
where we have restored $`\alpha ^{}`$.

## 4 Background $`B`$-field

Here we investigate the effect of a constant background $`B`$-field, and compute the tension as in the previous section. The worldsheet CFT is given by the action

$$S=\frac{1}{2}\text{d}^2z\left(g_{\mu \nu }_\alpha X^\mu _\beta X^\nu h^{\alpha \beta }B_{ij}_\alpha X^i_\beta X^jϵ^{\alpha \beta }\right),$$
(29)
where $`\mu `$ and $`\nu `$ run from $`0`$ to $`25`$, while for simplicity $`i`$ and $`j`$ will take only the values $`24`$ and $`25`$. That is, the $`B`$-field has non-zero components only in these two directions. This action leads us to the usual Neumann boundary conditions for the first $`24`$ directions, while for the last two, we have

$$\left(\delta _{ij}_n+B_{ij}_t\right)X^j(z)|_\mathrm{\Sigma }=0.$$
(30)
In the following, we concentrate on these two directions and often omit explicit indices. The Green function on the unit disc is given by

$$X(z)X(w)_{\text{Disc}}=\mathrm{log}|zw|\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{1+B}{1B}\right)\mathrm{log}(z\frac{1}{\overline{w}})\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{1B}{1+B}\right)\mathrm{log}(\overline{z}\frac{1}{w}).$$
(31)
This can be written  in terms of the open-string metric $`G`$ and the non-commutativity parameter $`\theta `$. These are related to the $`B`$-field by

$$\theta =\frac{1}{1+B}B\frac{1}{1B}\text{and}G=\frac{1}{1+B}1\frac{1}{1B}.$$
(32)
On the boundary, $`|z|=1`$, the correlator (31) becomes

$$X^i(e^{i\varphi })X^j(e^{i\varphi ^{}})_\text{D}=G^{ij}\mathrm{log}\left(2\mathrm{sin}\frac{\varphi \varphi ^{}}{2}\right)^2+\frac{i}{2}\theta ^{ij}ϵ(\varphi \varphi ^{}).$$
(33)
### 4.1 $`(B,g)`$-Parametrisation

In section 3, to define the D-brane state $`|\text{D}p`$ in eqn. (5) and the tachyon perturbation $`|\chi (k)`$ in eqn. (11), we inserted operators $`\sigma ^\pm `$ to change the boundary condition to Dirichlet on part of the cylinder $`C_n`$. We can accommodate the new boundary condition (30) by instead inserting new operators $`\beta ^\pm `$ at the same positions. Thus on the cylinder $`C_n`$, we have effectively a Neumann boundary condition on the region $`\pi /4<z<\pi /4`$, and eqn. (30) will apply to the rest of the boundary. We will again absorb the various singular factors due to coincident $`\beta ^+`$ and $`\beta ^{}`$ operators into the states.

Analogous to eqn. (5) we define the sliver state in the presence of a $`B`$-field as

$$\mathrm{\Xi }_B|\varphi =\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}𝒩f\varphi (0)_{C_n}^\beta ,$$
(34)
where now the superscript indicates that we have inserted the operators $`\beta ^\pm `$ in the $`24`$\- and $`25`$-directions.

We now define a tachyon perturbation in the presence of the $`B`$-field as

$$|T_B=\text{d}kn^{k_{\mathrm{}}^2k_{\mathrm{}}\frac{1}{1B^2}k_{\mathrm{}}}T_B(k)|\chi _B(k),$$
(35)
where $`k_{\mathrm{}}`$ refers to the first 24 directions, and $`k_{\mathrm{}}`$ contains the last two components of $`k`$. $`T_B(k)`$ is the tachyon field, and we have used the notation

$$k_{\mathrm{}}\frac{1}{1B^2}k_{\mathrm{}}k_{\mathrm{}}^\mu \left(\frac{1}{1B^2}\right)_{\mu \nu }k_{\mathrm{}}^\nu .$$
(36)
As in the previous section, we can write down the solution to the linearised equation of motion for the perturbation $`\chi _B(k)`$;

$$\chi _B(k)|\varphi =\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}𝒩n^{2k_{\mathrm{}}+2k_{\mathrm{}}\frac{1}{1B^2}k_{\mathrm{}}}f\varphi (0)e^{ikX}(n\pi /4)_{C_n}^\beta ,$$
(37)
where this time we have inserted the operators $`\beta ^\pm `$ to impose the $`B`$-field boundary condition. Exactly analogously to the case of the D$`p`$-brane, this state can be shown to satisfy the following,

$`\chi _B(k)|\chi _B(k^{})`$ $`=`$ $`𝒦\sqrt{det(1+B)}\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}n^{2k_{\mathrm{}}^2+2k_{\mathrm{}}\frac{1}{1B^2}k_{\mathrm{}}}2^{2k_{\mathrm{}}^2+2k_{\mathrm{}}\frac{1}{1B^2}k_{\mathrm{}}}`$ (38)
$`(2\pi )^{26}4\delta (k_{\mathrm{}}+k_{\mathrm{}}^{})det{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1B^2}}\delta \left((k_{\mathrm{}}+k_{\mathrm{}}^{})det{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1B^2}}\right)`$
$`\mathrm{\Xi }_B\chi _B(k)|\chi _B(k^{})`$ $`=`$ $`𝒦\sqrt{det(1+B)}\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}n^{2k_{\mathrm{}}^2+2k_{\mathrm{}}\frac{1}{1B^2}k_{\mathrm{}}}2^{k_{\mathrm{}}^2+k_{\mathrm{}}\frac{1}{1B^2}k_{\mathrm{}}}`$ (39)
$`(2\pi )^{26}4\delta (k_{\mathrm{}}+k_{\mathrm{}}^{})det{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1B^2}}\delta \left((k_{\mathrm{}}+k_{\mathrm{}}^{})det{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1B^2}}\right),`$
so that off-shell

$$\chi _B(k)|\chi _B(k^{})=2^{k_{\mathrm{}}^2+k_{\mathrm{}}\frac{1}{1B^2}k_{\mathrm{}}1}\chi _B(k)\mathrm{\Xi }_B+\chi _B(k)\mathrm{\Xi }_B|\chi _B(k^{}).$$
(40)
We see that the on-shell condition is now

$$k_{\mathrm{}}^2+k_{\mathrm{}}\frac{1}{1B^2}k_{\mathrm{}}=1,$$
(41)
to be compared with eqn. (16). In the limit of a large $`B`$-field, $`1/(1B^2)0`$, and we recover the case of a D23-brane with on-shell tachyon condition $`k_{\mathrm{}}^2=k_{(23)}^2=1`$. In the $`B0`$ limit, $`1/(1B^2)1`$ and a D25-brane obtains, with $`k_{\mathrm{}}^2+k_{\mathrm{}}^2=k_{(25)}^2=1`$. Substituting eqn. (38) into the quadratic part of the action as before, and considering the large-$`B`$ limit we are led to define a 24-dimensional tachyon field by

$$\stackrel{~}{T_B}(k_{\mathrm{}})\sqrt{𝒦(2\pi )^2\mathrm{\Psi }_g|𝒬\mathrm{\Psi }_g4\mathrm{log}2\sqrt{det(1+B)}}\text{d}^{25p}k_{\mathrm{}}T_B(k).$$
(42)
The tension of the resulting D$`p`$-brane (now taking $`k_{\mathrm{}}`$ to represent $`25p`$ dimensions rather than two) is thus given by

$$\frac{𝒯_p^B}{𝒯_{25}}=\sqrt{det(1+B)}(2\pi )^{(25p)}\alpha _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{(25p)/2}.$$
(43)
### 4.2 $`(G,\theta )`$-Parametrisation

Defining the tachyon, in the presence of the open-string metric $`G`$, we write

$$|T_{NC}=\text{d}kn^{k^2}T_{NC}(k)|\chi _{NC}(k),$$
(44)
where since $`G`$ is the effective metric, it is understood that $`k^2k^\mu G_{\mu \nu }k^\nu `$. Looking at eqn. (32), we see that this normalisation is the same as that used in eqn. (35).

The perturbation is now of the form

$$\chi _{NC}(k)|\varphi =\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}𝒩n^{k^2}f\varphi (0)e^{ikX}(n\pi /4)_{C_n}^\beta ,$$
(45)
and the correlators are found to be

$`\chi _{NC}(k)|\chi _{NC}(k^{})`$ $`=`$ $`𝒦\sqrt{detG}\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}n^{k^2}2^{k^2}(2\pi )^{26}4\delta (k+k^{})`$ (46)
$`\mathrm{\Xi }_{NC}\chi _{NC}(k)|\chi _{NC}(k^{})`$ $`=`$ $`𝒦\sqrt{detG}\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}n^{2k^2}2^{k^2}(2\pi )^{26}4\delta (k+k^{}),`$ (47)
with off-shell equation of motion

$$\chi _{NC}(k)|\chi _{NC}(k^{})=2^{k^21}\chi _{NC}(k)\mathrm{\Xi }_{NC}+\chi _{NC}(k)\mathrm{\Xi }_{NC}|\chi _{NC}(k^{}).$$
(48)
We now have a ‘non-commutative’ on-shell condition

$$k^\mu G_{\mu \nu }k^\nu =1,$$
(49)
where we have written $`G`$ explicitly. We substitute eqn. (46) into the quadratic part of the action and re-define the tachyon field $`T_{NC}`$;

$$\stackrel{~}{T_{NC}}\sqrt{𝒦\mathrm{\Psi }_g|𝒬\mathrm{\Psi }_g\sqrt{detG}4\mathrm{log}2}T_{NC}.$$
(50)
With this, the tachyon action becomes

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`S^{(2)}+S^{(3)}`$ (51)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(2\pi )^{26}{\displaystyle \text{d}k(k^21)\stackrel{~}{T_{NC}}(k)\stackrel{~}{T_{NC}}(k)}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{2(2\pi )^{26}}{(4\mathrm{log}2)^{3/2}\sqrt{𝒦\mathrm{\Psi }_g|𝒬\mathrm{\Psi }_g\sqrt{detG}}}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \text{d}k_{1,2,3}\stackrel{~}{T_{NC}}(k_1)\stackrel{~}{T_{NC}}(k_2)\stackrel{~}{T_{NC}}(k_3)\delta \left(k\right)}`$
where $``$ represents the Moyal product. We identify the cubic tachyon coupling to find the tension of this non-commutative D25-brane

$$𝒯_{25}^{NC}=\sqrt{detG}𝒯_{25}.$$
(52)
Finally, we identify the ratio

$$\frac{𝒯_{23}^B}{𝒯_{25}^{NC}}=(2\pi )^2\alpha ^{}\sqrt{\frac{det(1+B)}{detG}}=\frac{(2\pi )^2\alpha ^{}}{(detG)^{1/4}},$$
(53)
as demonstrated in the papers  and .

## 5 Discussion

In  it was proposed that in Vacuum String Field Theory a D-brane of arbitrary dimension may be represented by inserting boundary condition-changing twist operators into the CFT description of the sliver state in the directions transverse to the D-brane. We have calculated the ratio of tensions of D-branes using this approach and obtain eqn. (28), in agreement with standard string theory. Similar calculations in VSFT have recently been done in  and , using the algebraic oscillator approach.

Additionally, in section 4 turning on a constant $`B`$-field in some directions can be represented in similar fashion, by the insertion of operators $`\beta ^\pm `$ which suitably modify the boundary condition. In this way, we have shown that a non-commutative D-brane solution can also be constructed from the sliver state, for generic constant $`B`$-field.

Of course, for the case of vanishing $`B`$-field, we recover the D25-brane solution, while in the large-$`B`$ limit, the boundary conditions become Dirichlet, and we find agreement with our tension calculations for the lower-dimensional D-brane in section 3. Although for finite $`B`$ there is no clear way to re-define the tachyon field, in the D25-brane case we calculated the tension of a non-commutative D25-brane.

There was some discussion in ,  and  as to whether the sliver state represents a single or multiple D-brane state. Although the quantities calculated here do not shed light on this question since they are ratios of tensions, they do provide further evidence that we are in fact dealing with a D-brane state, and that the proposals of  describe the correct way to represent D-branes in VSFT.

## Acknowledgements

P.M. and Y.Y. are grateful to Simon Fraser University for Graduate Fellowship support. R.R. would like to thank Simon Fraser University for kind hospitality. This work was supported in part by an operating grant from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.

## Appendix

Here we show the method of calculation of the correlators used in the main text; specifically, we make an example of eqn. (13). The other correlators used in the main text may be calculated in a similar way, and the details of the limiting procedure may be found in .

Starting with eqn. (12), we map $`C_{m+n2}`$ to the unit disc using $`ze^{\frac{4iz}{m+n2}}`$. We note that since the zero mode of the expansion for $`X(z)`$ contributes to the conformal dimension of the tachyon vertex operator, and this is absent in the Dirichlet case, the conformal dimension of $`e^{ikX}`$ (which is of course normal-ordered) is $`k_{}^2/2`$. On the disc, then,

$$\chi (k)|\chi (k^{})=𝒩^2\underset{n,m\mathrm{}}{lim}n^{2k_{}^2}m^{k_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}\left(\frac{4i}{m+n2}\right)^{k_{}^2}\left(\frac{4i}{m+n2}\right)^{k_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}e^{ikX}(1)e^{ik^{}X}(1)_{\text{Disc}}^\sigma .$$
(A-1)
The zero mode we mentioned above also produces a $`\delta `$-function in the correlator,  giving

$$e^{ikX}(z)e^{ik^{}X}(w)_\text{D}^\sigma =e^{ikk^{}X(z)X(w)}\delta (k_{}+k_{}^{})e^{ix_0(k_{}+k_{}^{})}$$
(A-2)
for the tachyon propagator. The $`X`$-propagator is given by

$$X(z)X(w)_D=\mathrm{log}|zw|\pm \mathrm{log}\left|z\frac{1}{\overline{w}}\right|$$
(A-3)
where for Dirichlet and Neumann directions the $`+`$ and $``$ sign is used, respectively. The tachyon correlator on the boundary is thus

$$e^{ikX}(e^{i\theta })e^{ik^{}X}(e^{i\theta ^{}})_{\text{Disc}}^\sigma =\frac{1}{(2ϵ)^{2h}}\left(2\mathrm{sin}\frac{\theta \theta ^{}}{2}\right)^{2k_{}k_{}^{}}\delta (k_{}+k_{}^{})e^{ix_0(k_{}+k_{}^{})}$$
(A-4)
where $`x_0`$ is the Dirichlet boundary condition. Substituting this into eqn. (A-1) we have (We absorb factors of $`\frac{1}{(2ϵ)^{2h}}`$ into the state $`\chi (k)`$.)

$`\chi (k)|\chi (k^{})`$ $`=`$ $`𝒩^2\underset{n,m\mathrm{}}{lim}n^{2k_{}^2}m^{2k_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}2^{2k_{}^2}\left({\displaystyle \frac{4i}{m+n2}}\right)^{k_{}^2}\left({\displaystyle \frac{4i}{m+n2}}\right)^{k_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}`$ (A-5)
$`\delta (k_{}+k_{}^{})e^{ix_0(k_{}+k_{}^{})}.`$
Taking the $`m\mathrm{}`$ limit, we end up with the result

$$\chi (k)|\chi (k^{})=𝒦\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}n^{2k_{}^2}2^{2k_{}^2}(2\pi )^{26}\delta (k_{}+k_{}^{})e^{ix_0(k_{}+k_{}^{})}.$$
(A-6)