text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Recently, much attention has been given to the study of domain wall solutions in (matter-coupled) supergravity theories. This is due to several reasons. First of all, the possibility of a supersymmetric RS scenario  relies on the existence of a special domain wall solution containing a warp factor with the correct asymptotic behaviour such that gravity is suppressed in the transverse direction. Secondly, domain wall solutions play an important role in the AdS/CFT correspondence . A domain wall in D dimensions may describe the renormalization group flow of the corresponding field theory in D–1 dimensions. The geometrical warp factor now plays the role of an energy scale. Finally, domain wall solutions have been applied to cosmology, for some recent papers see e.g. . In all these cases the properties of the domain wall crucially depend on the detailed properties of the scalar potential.

The highest-dimensional supergravity theory that allows a domain wall solution is the maximally supersymmetric D=10 massive IIA supergravity . This theory is a massive deformation, characterized by a mass parameter $`m_\mathrm{R}`$, of the massless IIA supergravity theory . The particular domain wall solution, the D8-brane, has been constructed in . In a supersymmetric theory both the scalar potential $`V`$ as well as the massive deformations in the supersymmetry transformations are often characterized by a superpotential $`W`$. In the IIA case the superpotential depends on just one scalar $`\widehat{\varphi }`$, the dilaton, and is of a simple exponential form:

$$W(\widehat{\varphi })=\frac{1}{4}e^{5\widehat{\varphi }/4}m_\mathrm{R}.$$
(1)
In general, the lower-dimensional supergravity theories contain more scalars and have correspondingly a more complicated superpotential which is difficult to investigate. In fact, the most general form of the superpotential is not always known explicitly. In view of this, it is instructive to consider maximally supersymmetric D=9 massive supergravity theories. These theories on one hand share some of the complications of the lower-dimensional supergravity theories and on the other hand are simple enough to study in full detail.

The most general Scherk-Schwarz reduction  of D=10 IIB supergravity has been considered in 111A Scherk-Schwarz reduction leading to two mass parameters has been considered in .. It leads to $`SL(2,\text{})`$–covariant222Since our analysis below is at the classical level we will work with $`SL(2,\text{})`$ instead of $`SL(2,\text{})`$. It is only in Section 5 that we will consider the breaking of $`SL(2,\text{})`$ to $`SL(2,\text{})`$ at the quantum level. D=9 massive supergravity theories with mass parameters $`m_1,m_2`$ and $`m_3`$. By $`SL(2,\text{})`$ transformations one can go to different mass parameters but the quantity $`m_1{}_{}{}^{2}+m_2{}_{}{}^{2}m_3^2`$ is always invariant. One therefore has three different theories depending on whether this quantity is positive, negative or zero corresponding to the three different conjugacy classes of $`SL(2,\text{})`$ . The supersymmetry transformations of these massive supergravities have been calculated recently . The theory contains three scalars $`(\varphi ,\chi ,\phi )`$ and we find that the superpotential is given by:

$$W_{\mathrm{IIB}}(\varphi ,\chi ,\phi )=\frac{1}{4}e^{2\phi /\sqrt{7}}\left(m_2\mathrm{sinh}(\varphi )+m_3\mathrm{cosh}(\varphi )+m_1e^\varphi \chi \frac{1}{2}(m_2m_3)e^\varphi \chi ^2\right).$$
(2)
The scalar potential is given in terms of this superpotential via the expression that follows from the positive energy requirement :

$$V=4\left(\gamma ^{AB}\frac{\delta W}{\delta \mathrm{\Phi }^A}\frac{\delta W}{\delta \mathrm{\Phi }^B}\frac{D1}{D2}W^2\right).$$
(3)
with $`D=9`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }^A=(\varphi ,\chi ,\phi )`$ in this case. Here $`\gamma ^{AB}`$ is the inverse of the metric $`\gamma _{AB}`$ occurring in the kinetic scalar term $`\gamma _{AB}\mathrm{\Phi }^A\mathrm{\Phi }^B`$.

In the IIA case, the situation is more subtle. We find that there are two possibilities. Either one performs an (ordinary) Kaluza-Klein reduction of D=10 massive IIA supergravity. This leads to a D=9 massive supergravity theory which is covered by the above superpotential for the following choice of mass parameters (for more details, see the next Section):

$$m_1=0,m_2=m_3=m_\mathrm{R}.$$
(4)
This is the massive T-duality of . The other possibility is to set $`m_\mathrm{R}=0`$ and perform a generalized Scherk-Schwarz reduction making use of the $`SO(1,1)`$ symmetry of the action . Since the $`SO(1,1)`$–symmetry is only valid for $`m_\mathrm{R}=0`$, i.e. the massive Romans deformation breaks the $`SO(1,1)`$–symmetry, one cannot perform both reductions at the same time. The Scherk-Schwarz reduction leads to an $`SO(1,1)`$–covariant D=9 massive supergravity containing a single mass parameter $`m_4`$. It turns out that in this case the massive deformations cannot be expressed in terms of a superpotential.

In this letter we study the domain wall solutions allowed by the $`SL(2,\text{})`$– and $`SO(1,1)`$–covariant D=9 massive supergravities333Domain wall solutions of one of the $`SL(2,\text{})`$–covariant theories have been discussed in . We will compare our results with those of  in Section 4.. We find that the $`SO(1,1)`$–covariant theory has no superpotential and does not allow domain wall solutions. The other three $`SL(2,\text{})`$-covariant theories have superpotentials that do allow half–supersymmetric domain wall solutions.

The uplifting of these domain walls to ten dimensions leads to three classes of half–supersymmetric type IIB 7–brane solutions. All solutions within each class are related by $`SL(2,\text{})`$ transformations and are characterized by two holomorphic functions. The two functions are restricted by the consistency requirement of yielding equal monodromy for the scalars and the Killing spinors. We have explicitly checked that the solutions of our three classes satisfy this requirement. These solutions give rise to all possible 7–brane charges. One class contains the well-known D7–brane solution and its $`SL(2,\text{})`$–related partners. We provide the previously unknown explicit solutions for the two other classes. For each class we show which solutions survive the quantization of $`SL(2,\text{})`$ to $`SL(2,\text{})`$.

We find a special domain wall solution, corresponding to a zero potential but non–zero superpotential. This half–supersymmetric domain wall uplifts to either a fully supersymmetric Minkowski space-time or to half–supersymmetric conical type IIB solutions with deficit angle $`3\pi /2`$ or $`5\pi /3`$ and without scalars. The conical solutions have non-trivial monodromy due to the fermionic sector.

This paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we review the IIA theory in 10 and 9 dimensions and give the domain wall, or D8-brane, solution of D=10 massive IIA supergravity. In Section 3 we discuss the IIB theory in 10 and 9 dimensions and give the class of half–supersymmetric 7–brane solutions with two holomorphic functions. In Section 4 we discuss the three classes of D=9 domain wall solutions and their uplifting to ten dimensions. The quantization conditions on the charges of the 7-branes and mass parameters of the domain walls are discussed in Section 5. We will summarize and discuss our results in the Conclusions. Our conventions are given in Appendix A.

## 2 IIA Supergravity in 10 and 9 Dimensions

### 2.1 D=10 Massive IIA Supergravity

We first consider D=10 massive IIA supergravity. This theory contains one scalar, the dilaton $`\widehat{\varphi }`$. For our purposes, it is enough to consider only the kinetic terms for the graviton, dilaton and R-R vector plus the mass term. In Einstein frame this part of the Lagrangian reads:

$`_{\text{mIIA}}`$ $`=\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\widehat{g}}\left[\widehat{R}\frac{1}{2}(\widehat{\varphi })^2\frac{1}{4}e^{3\widehat{\varphi }/2}(\widehat{A})^2V\right]`$ (5)
with the potential $`V`$ given by a superpotential:

$`V=8(\frac{\delta W}{\delta \widehat{\varphi }})^2\frac{9}{2}W^2=\frac{1}{2}e^{5\widehat{\varphi }/2}m_\mathrm{R}^2\text{ with }W=\frac{1}{4}e^{5\widehat{\varphi }/4}m_\mathrm{R}.`$ (6)
The corresponding supersymmetry transformations of the fermions are

$`\delta \widehat{\psi }_{\widehat{\mu }}`$ $`=\left(D_{\widehat{\mu }}+\frac{1}{64}e^{3\widehat{\varphi }/4}(\widehat{A})^{\widehat{\nu }\widehat{\rho }}(\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\widehat{\mu }\widehat{\nu }\widehat{\rho }}14\widehat{g}_{\widehat{\mu }\widehat{\nu }}\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\widehat{\rho }})\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}\frac{1}{8}W\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\widehat{\mu }}\right)\widehat{ϵ},`$ (7)
$`\delta \widehat{\lambda }`$ $`=\left(\overline{)}\widehat{\varphi }+\frac{3}{8}e^{3\widehat{\varphi }/4}(\widehat{A})^{\widehat{\mu }\widehat{\nu }}\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\widehat{\mu }\widehat{\nu }}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}+4\frac{\delta W}{\delta \widehat{\varphi }}\right)\widehat{ϵ},`$
where $`D_{\widehat{\mu }}\widehat{ϵ}=(_{\widehat{\mu }}+\widehat{\omega }_{\widehat{\mu }})\widehat{ϵ}`$ with the spin connection $`\widehat{\omega }_{\widehat{\mu }}=\frac{1}{4}\widehat{\omega }_{\widehat{\mu }}{}_{}{}^{\widehat{a}\widehat{b}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\widehat{a}\widehat{b}}^{}`$. All spinors $`\widehat{\psi }_{\widehat{\mu }},\widehat{\lambda },\widehat{ϵ}`$ are real Majorana spinors. The above transformation rules are the Einstein-frame version of  and coincide with those of  up to rescalings. Note that all $`m_\mathrm{R}`$-dependent terms in both the Lagrangian and transformation rules can be expressed in terms of the superpotential (1).

For $`m_\mathrm{R}=0`$ the Lagrangian is invariant under $`SO(1,1)`$–transformations with weights as given in Table 1 (we include all IIA fields and use Einstein frame metric). For $`m_\mathrm{R}0`$ the Lagrangian is invariant if one also scales the mass parameter $`m_\mathrm{R}`$ as indicated in Table 1.

The massive IIA supergravity theory has the D8-brane solution

$`\text{D8: }\widehat{d}s^2=H^{1/8}ds_9{}_{}{}^{2}+H^{9/8}dy^2,e^{\widehat{\varphi }}=H^{5/4},\text{with }H=1+m_\mathrm{R}y.`$ (8)
where we only consider $`y`$ such that $`1+m_\mathrm{R}y`$ is strictly positive in order to have a well-behaved metric. By patching this solution at e.g. $`y=0`$ with an other solution having $`H=1m_\mathrm{R}y`$ a two-sided domain wall positioned at $`y=0`$ can be obtained. In this letter we will always restrict to one side. The D8-brane solution has the following non-zero spin connections $`(\widehat{\mu }=(\mu ,y))`$ (for our conventions of underlined indices, see the Appendix):

$$\widehat{\omega }_\mu =\frac{1}{32}H^{25/16}\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\mu \underset{¯}{y}}m_\mathrm{R},\widehat{\omega }_y=0.$$
(9)
It satisfies the Killing spinor equations (7) for

$`(1\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{y}})\widehat{ϵ}=0\text{ with }\widehat{ϵ}=H^{1/32}\widehat{ϵ}_0,\widehat{ϵ}_0\mathrm{constant}.`$ (10)
Thus the D8-brane solution describes a 1/2 BPS state.

### 2.2 IIA Reduction to 9 Dimensions

We first consider the ordinary Kaluza-Klein reduction of the massive IIA theory, i.e. $`m_\mathrm{R}0`$, to 9 dimensions. We use the following reduction rules for the bosons (with $`a=\frac{1}{8}`$, $`b=\frac{3}{8\sqrt{7}}`$, $`c=\frac{3}{4}`$, $`d=\frac{\sqrt{7}}{4}`$):

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \widehat{g}_{\mu \nu }& =e^{a\varphi +b\phi }g_{\mu \nu },\hfill \\ \hfill \widehat{g}_{xx}& =e^{7(a\varphi +b\phi )},\hfill \end{array}\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \widehat{\varphi }& =c\varphi +d\phi ,\hfill \\ \hfill \widehat{A}_x& =2\chi .\hfill \end{array}$$
(11)
The reduction rules of the fermions are given by

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \widehat{\psi }_\mu & =e^{(a\varphi +b\phi )/4}(\psi _\mu +\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu (a\lambda +b\stackrel{~}{\lambda })),\hfill \\ \hfill \widehat{\psi }_{\underset{¯}{x}}& =\frac{7}{4}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{x}}e^{(a\varphi +b\phi )/4}(a\lambda +b\stackrel{~}{\lambda }),\hfill \end{array}\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \widehat{\lambda }& =e^{(a\varphi +b\phi )/4}(c\lambda +d\stackrel{~}{\lambda }),\hfill \\ \hfill \widehat{ϵ}& =e^{(a\varphi +b\phi )/4}ϵ.\hfill \end{array}$$
(12)
The scalar dependence is put in such that we obtain the conventional form of the D=9 supersymmetry rules corresponding to a standard kinetic term for the D=9 graviton and gravitini. This also explains the mixing between $`\psi _\mu `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }`$ in the first line, which implies that only $`\delta \stackrel{~}{\lambda }`$ contains $`\phi `$ terms. Thus the massive IIA theory (5) reduces to the D=9 massive Lagrangian

$``$ $`=\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{g}[R\frac{1}{2}(\varphi )^2\frac{1}{2}(\phi )^2\frac{1}{2}e^{2\varphi }(\chi )^2V]`$ (13)
with the potential $`V`$ given by a superpotential:

$`V=8(\frac{\delta W}{\delta \varphi })^2+8(\frac{\delta W}{\delta \phi })^2\frac{32}{7}W^2=\frac{1}{2}e^{2\varphi +4\phi /\sqrt{7}}m_\mathrm{R}^2\text{ with }W=\frac{1}{4}e^{\varphi +2\phi /\sqrt{7}}m_\mathrm{R},`$ (14)
The supersymmetry rules (7) reduce to

$`\delta \psi _\mu `$ $`=(D_\mu +\frac{1}{4}e^\varphi _\mu \chi \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{x}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}\frac{1}{7}W\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu )ϵ,`$ (15)
$`\delta \lambda `$ $`=(\overline{)}\varphi e^\varphi \overline{)}\chi \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{x}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}+4\frac{\delta W}{\delta \varphi })ϵ,`$
$`\delta \stackrel{~}{\lambda }`$ $`=(\overline{)}\phi +4\frac{\delta W}{\delta \phi })ϵ.`$
Note that the massive deformations of both the Lagrangian and supersymmetry rules can be given in terms of a superpotential, as in 10 dimensions. Later, in Section 3, we will see that the above Lagrangian and transformation rules can also be obtained via a particular Scherk–Schwarz reduction of D=10 IIB supergravity.

There is another massive 9D theory that can be obtained from reducing IIA supergravity. To obtain this 9D theory one has to use the $`SO(1,1)`$ scale symmetry of the 10D theory . This symmetry implies the consistency of the generalized reduction rules with a specific $`x`$-dependence of the 10D fields, depending on their $`SO(1,1)`$ weights. This introduces a new mass parameter, which we call $`m_4`$, upon reduction to 9 dimensions. Since the $`SO(1,1)`$ symmetry is broken by nonzero $`m_\mathrm{R}`$ (unless one scales it), the generalized reduction is only applicable to massless 10D IIA supergravity. The generalized reduction rules read

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \widehat{g}_{\mu \nu }& =e^{a\varphi +b\phi }g_{\mu \nu },\hfill \\ \hfill \widehat{g}_{xx}& =e^{7(a\varphi +b\phi )},\hfill \end{array}\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \widehat{\varphi }& =c\varphi +d\phi +m_4x,\hfill \\ \hfill \widehat{A}_x& =2e^{3m_4x/4}\chi ,\hfill \end{array}$$
(16)
with $`a,b,c,d`$ as above and with the fermionic reduction rules as in the previous case, independent of $`x`$. Thus we find the following $`SO(1,1)`$–covariant D=9 massive Lagrangian444Strictly speaking, the Lagrangian below is only $`SO(1,1)`$–invariant for $`m_4=0`$. To obtain manifest $`SO(1,1)`$–invariance one should replace $`m_4`$ by a scalar field via a Lagrange multiplier, see the Conclusions. The same remark applies to the $`SL(2,\text{})`$–covariant massive supergravity theory of Section 4.:

$``$ $`=\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{g}\left[R\frac{1}{2}(\varphi )^2\frac{1}{2}(\phi )^2\frac{1}{2}e^{2\varphi }(\chi )^2\frac{1}{2}e^{\varphi 3\phi /\sqrt{7}}m_4^2\right]`$ (17)
with the supersymmetry rules

$`\delta \psi _\mu `$ $`=(D_\mu +\frac{1}{4}e^\varphi _\mu \chi \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{x}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11})ϵ,`$ (18)
$`\delta \lambda `$ $`=(\overline{)}\varphi e^\varphi \overline{)}\chi \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{x}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}+\frac{3}{4}m_4e^{\varphi /23\phi /2\sqrt{7}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{x}})ϵ,`$
$`\delta \stackrel{~}{\lambda }`$ $`=(\overline{)}\phi +\frac{\sqrt{7}}{4}m_4e^{\varphi /23\phi /2\sqrt{7}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{x}})ϵ.`$
A peculiar feature of this massive 9D theory is that the potential does not have a corresponding superpotential.

## 3 IIB Supergravity in 10 and 9 Dimensions

### 3.1 D=10 IIB Supergravity

We next consider D=10 IIB supergravity. This theory has two scalars, a dilaton $`\widehat{\varphi }`$ and an axion $`\widehat{\chi }`$. We truncate to the gravity-scalar part. This part of the Lagrangian reads in Einstein frame:

$`_{\text{IIB}}`$ $`=\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\widehat{g}}[\widehat{R}\frac{1}{2}(\widehat{\varphi })^2\frac{1}{2}e^{2\widehat{\varphi }}(\widehat{\chi })^2]`$ (19)
$`=\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\widehat{g}}[\widehat{R}+\frac{1}{4}\text{Tr}(\widehat{}\widehat{}^1)].`$
The two scalars $`\widehat{\varphi }`$ and $`\widehat{\chi }`$ parametrize a $`SL(2,\text{})/SO(2)`$ coset space as follows:

$$\widehat{}=e^{\widehat{\varphi }}\left(\begin{array}{cc}|\widehat{\tau }|^2& \widehat{\chi }\\ \widehat{\chi }& 1\end{array}\right)\text{with}\widehat{\tau }=\widehat{\chi }+ie^{\widehat{\varphi }}.$$
(20)
The SL(2,) duality acts in the following way:

$$\widehat{}\mathrm{\Omega }\widehat{}\mathrm{\Omega }^T,\text{or }\widehat{\tau }\frac{a\widehat{\tau }+b}{c\widehat{\tau }+d},\text{with }\mathrm{\Omega }=\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ c& d\end{array}\right)SL(2,\text{}).$$
(21)
For later use we give the two elements whose products span $`SL(2,\text{})`$:

$`S=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right),T=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 1\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right).`$ (26)
The Einstein frame metric is $`SL(2,\text{})`$–invariant. The corresponding truncated supersymmetry variations of the fermions read

$`\delta \widehat{\psi }_{\widehat{\mu }}`$ $`=(D_{\widehat{\mu }}+\frac{1}{4}ie^{\widehat{\varphi }}_{\widehat{\mu }}\widehat{\chi })\widehat{ϵ},`$ (27)
$`\delta \widehat{\lambda }`$ $`=(\overline{)}\widehat{\varphi }+ie^{\widehat{\varphi }}\overline{)}\widehat{\chi })\widehat{ϵ}^{},`$
where $`D_{\widehat{\mu }}\widehat{ϵ}=(_{\widehat{\mu }}+\widehat{\omega }_{\widehat{\mu }})\widehat{ϵ}`$ with $`\widehat{\omega }_{\widehat{\mu }}=\frac{1}{4}\widehat{\omega }_{\widehat{\mu }}{}_{}{}^{\widehat{a}\widehat{b}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\widehat{a}\widehat{b}}^{}`$ the spin connection. All spinors $`\widehat{\psi }_{\widehat{\mu }},\widehat{\lambda },\widehat{ϵ}`$ are complex Weyl spinors. The fermions transform under the SL(2,) transformation (21) as 555Note that the duality transformations of both the scalars and the fermions do not change if we replace $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ by $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Therefore these fields transform under $`PSL(2,\text{})`$. From now on we will only consider group elements $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ that are continuously connected to the unit element.

$`\widehat{\psi }_{\widehat{\mu }}`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{c\widehat{\tau }^{}+d}{c\widehat{\tau }+d}}\right)^{1/4}\widehat{\psi }_{\widehat{\mu }},\widehat{\lambda }\left({\displaystyle \frac{c\widehat{\tau }^{}+d}{c\widehat{\tau }+d}}\right)^{3/4}\widehat{\lambda },\widehat{ϵ}\left({\displaystyle \frac{c\widehat{\tau }^{}+d}{c\widehat{\tau }+d}}\right)^{1/4}\widehat{ϵ}.`$ (28)
In particular, they are invariant under the shift symmetry $`\widehat{\chi }\widehat{\chi }+b`$ which has $`a=d=1`$ and $`c=0`$ and the scale symmetry $`\widehat{\tau }a^2\widehat{\tau }`$ which has $`d=a^1`$ and $`b=c=0`$.

### 3.2 Half–supersymmetric 7–brane Solutions

The D=10 IIB supergravity theory allows for a family of 1/2–supersymmetric seven–brane solutions containing two functions $`f`$ and $`g`$, which are seperately (anti-)holomorphic. For notational clarity we will always take both $`f`$ and $`g`$ to be holomorphic. In these solutions the scalar $`\widehat{\tau }`$ is given by the function $`f`$ . This function determines the monodromy of the scalars. The second function $`g`$ appears only in the metric and in the Killing spinor. The monodromy of the Killing spinor is determined by $`f`$ and $`g`$. The requirement that the monodromies of the scalars and the Killing spinor coincide puts restrictions on $`f`$ and $`g`$. The function $`g`$ can always be transformed away by a holomorphic coordinate transformation666This and related issues have been discussed independently by Tomás Ortín in unpublished notes. and only affects global issues like monodromy and deficit angle. The occurance of this function in the metric was already considered in . The general solution with two holomorphic functions reads777The solutions we consider generically do not have finite energy. To obtain a globally well-defined, finite-energy, solution one should use the so-called $`j(\tau )`$-function as explained in .

$`\widehat{ds}^2`$ $`=ds_8{}_{}{}^{2}+\text{Im}(f)e^{\text{Re}(g)}dzd\overline{z},\widehat{\tau }=f,`$ (29)
with the holomorphicity conditions $`_{\overline{z}}f=_{\overline{z}}g=0`$. The general seven-brane solution (29) has the spin connection $`(\widehat{\mu }=(\mu ,z,\overline{z}))`$:

$$\widehat{\omega }_\mu =0,\widehat{\omega }_i=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{ij}}\left(\text{Im}(f)^1_i\text{Im}(f)_i\text{Re}(g)\right)i,j=(z,\overline{z}).$$
(30)
The solution (29) satisfies the Killing spinor equations (27) for

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{z}}\widehat{ϵ}=0\text{ with }\widehat{ϵ}=e^{i\text{Im}(g)/4}\widehat{ϵ}_0.`$ (31)
Thus the general 7-brane solution preserves 1/2 of supersymmetry. The special case that $`_i\text{Im}(f)=0`$ (thus implying that $`f`$ is constant) can lead to an enhancement of supersymmetry. This case will be treated at the end of this Section.

The holomorphic function $`g(z)`$ can be eliminated locally from the general 7–brane solution (29) via the holomorphic coordinate transformation

$`z^{}={\displaystyle _{z_0}^{z_0+z}}𝑑\stackrel{~}{z}e^{\xi (\stackrel{~}{z})/2}`$ (32)
for $`\xi (z)=g(z)`$. This also transforms the Killing spinor (31) to a space-time independent constant spinor $`\widehat{ϵ}_0`$. More generally, given a 7–brane solution with functions $`f(z),g(z)`$ the holomorphic coordinate transformation (32) gives us an equivalent 7–brane solution with $`f^{}(z^{})=f(z)`$ and $`g^{}(z^{})=g(z)\xi (z)`$. Note that although the holomorphic function $`g`$ can be transformed away locally it may have implications on global issues like the monodromy and the deficit angle. We note that the choice $`g=2B_1\mathrm{log}(z)`$ leads to the 7–brane solutions of .

Under an $`SL(2,\text{})`$–transformation a 7–brane solution (29) is transformed into another member of the same class (29). In particular, under the $`SL(2,\text{})`$–transformations (21) the holomorphic functions transform as

$`f{\displaystyle \frac{af+b}{cf+d}},gg2\mathrm{log}(cf+d).`$ (33)
This relates for example the D7-brane solution to its S-dual partner, the Q7-brane  via an S–transformation (26):

$`\text{D7: }\begin{array}{c}f=im\mathrm{log}(iz)\hfill \\ g=0\hfill \end{array}\stackrel{𝑆}{}\text{Q7: }\begin{array}{c}f=(im\mathrm{log}(iz))^1\hfill \\ g=2\mathrm{log}(im\mathrm{log}(iz))\hfill \end{array}.`$ (38)
It is conventional to use polar coordinates for 7-branes: $`z=re^{i\theta }`$ with $`0<r<\mathrm{}`$ and $`0\theta <2\pi `$. The D7-brane given above is an example of this. The 7-brane is located at $`r=0`$ and therefore the monodromy is determined by going round in the $`\theta `$ direction . The deficit angle can be determined by going to Minkowski space-time locally . For the purpose of dimensional reduction we find it more convenient to use cylindrical coordinates: $`z=x+iy`$ with $`xx+2\pi R`$. The monodromy is then determined by the relation between the fields at $`x`$ and at $`x+2\pi R`$. The cylindrical coordinates $`z`$ are related to the polar coordinate $`z^{}`$ by the holomorphic coordinate transformation (32) where $`\xi (z)=2iz/R+2\mathrm{log}(R)`$. Thus the cylindrical D7-brane scalars $`f^{}(z^{})=im^{}\mathrm{log}(iz^{})`$ read in polar coordinates $`f(z)=mz`$ with $`m=m^{}/R`$ . From now on we will use cylindrical coordinates unless explicitly indicated otherwise.

The $`SL(2,\text{})`$ monodromy of the scalars and the Killing spinors corresponding to the general solution (29) can be inferred from the relation between the fields at $`x`$ and $`x+2\pi R`$. From the transformations (21) and (28) we can read off the relations

$`\widehat{\tau }(x+2\pi R)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{a\widehat{\tau }(x)+b}{c\widehat{\tau }(x)+d}},\widehat{ϵ}(x+2\pi R)=\left({\displaystyle \frac{c\widehat{\tau }(x)^{}+d}{c\widehat{\tau }(x)+d}}\right)^{1/4}\widehat{ϵ}(x).`$ (39)
It is convenient to parametrise the monodromy matrix $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ by

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ $`=\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ c& d\end{array}\right)=e^{2\pi RC}\text{with}C=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}m_1& m_2+m_3\\ m_2m_3& m_1\end{array}\right),`$ (44)
where $`2\pi RC`$ is a linear combination of the three generators of $`SL(2,\text{})`$. The constants $`\stackrel{}{m}=(m_1,m_2,m_3)`$ can be seen as the different charges of the 7-brane solution in some basis . These charges are determined by the monodromy of the function $`f(z)`$. For example the cylindrical D7-brane with $`f(z)=mz`$ leads to the monodromy relations

$`f(z+2\pi R)=f(z)+2\pi mR\mathrm{\Lambda }=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 2\pi mR\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)\stackrel{}{m}=(0,m,m).`$ (47)
using (21) and (44).

Acting with an $`SL(2,\text{})`$–transformation (21) on the scalars amounts to the transformation of the monodromy matrix

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Omega }^1,\text{or }C\mathrm{\Omega }C\mathrm{\Omega }^1.`$ (48)
Note that this leaves $`\alpha ^2=det(C)=\frac{1}{4}(m_1{}_{}{}^{2}+m_2{}_{}{}^{2}m_3{}_{}{}^{2})`$ invariant. Thus all $`SL(2,\text{})`$ related 7–brane solutions have the same value of $`\alpha ^2`$. Thus for the D7-brane and for all other 7–branes related to the D7–brane via an $`SL(2,\text{})`$–transformation we find $`\alpha ^2=0`$. In Section 4 we will see that the uplifting of certain D=9 domain wall solutions will give us examples of 7–brane solutions with $`\alpha ^2`$ positive and negative as well.

Let us finally comment on the case of constant scalars, i.e. constant $`f`$. The solution (29) then becomes purely gravitational and has a second Killing spinor given by

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{\underset{¯}{z}}}\widehat{ϵ}=0\text{ with }\widehat{ϵ}=e^{i\text{Im}(g)/4}\widehat{ϵ}_0.`$ (49)
The two Killing spinors build up a full $`N=2`$ spinor. However, for the gravitational solution with constant $`f`$ to have unbroken supersymmetry one must require equal monodromies for the two Killing spinors. The gravitational solution can be related locally to a Minkowski space-time via the coordinate transformation (32) with $`\xi (z)=g(z)`$ but global issues may prevent the identification with Minkowski space-time. This depends on the boundary conditions on $`g`$. We will see an explicit example of this in Section 6 where we will encounter a half–supersymmetric conical space-time solution.

### 3.3 IIB Reduction to 9 Dimensions

We now derive the relevant part of the $`SL(2,\text{})`$-covariant N=2, D=9 massive supergravity theories by performing a generalized Scherk-Schwarz reduction of the truncated IIB supergravity Lagrangian (19). For more details, see . To be specific, we make the following IIB reduction Ansätze $`(\widehat{\mu }=(\mu ,x))`$:

$`\widehat{g}_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=e^{\sqrt{7}\phi /14}g_{\mu \nu },`$ (50)
$`\widehat{g}_{xx}`$ $`=e^{\sqrt{7}\phi /2},`$
$`\widehat{}`$ $`=\mathrm{\Omega }(x)\mathrm{\Omega }(x)^T,`$
where we have given the D=10 dilaton $`\widehat{\varphi }`$ and axion $`\widehat{\chi }`$ an $`x`$-dependence via the $`SL(2,\text{})`$-element888The precise rule for assigning the $`x`$-dependence is: (i) replace $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ by $`\mathrm{\Omega }(x)`$ in the D=10 $`SL(2,\text{})`$–transformation rule and (ii) replace the D=10 fields occurring in the transformation rule by $`x`$–independent D=9 fields.

$`\mathrm{\Omega }(x)`$ $`=e^{xC}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cosh}(\alpha x)+\frac{m_1}{2\alpha }\mathrm{sinh}(\alpha x)& \frac{m_2+m_3}{2\alpha }\mathrm{sinh}(\alpha x)\\ & \\ \frac{m_2m_3}{2\alpha }\mathrm{sinh}(\alpha x)& \mathrm{cosh}(\alpha x)\frac{m_1}{2\alpha }\mathrm{sinh}(\alpha x)\end{array}\right)`$ (54)
with $`\alpha `$ and $`C`$ defined in the previous subsection. Note that this reduction Ansatz implies the identification of the monodromy matrix of 7-brane solutions in 10D with the mass matrix of domain walls in 9D. Thus the charges of the 7-branes provide the masses of the domain walls upon reduction .

These reduction Ansätze lead to the following truncated N=2, D=9 $`SL(2,\text{})`$-covariant massive supergravity Lagrangian999 Strictly speaking the D=9 Lagrangian is also covariant under an additional $`SO(1,1)`$ which acts on the scalars as $`\phi ^{}=\phi +c`$ for constant $`c`$. Therefore the full symmetry group is $`GL(2,\text{})=SL(2,\text{})SO(1,1)`$.:

$`_{\text{9D}}=\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{g}[R+`$ $`\frac{1}{4}\text{Tr}(^1)\frac{1}{2}(\phi )^2V(\varphi ,\chi ,\phi )].`$ (55)
The potential $`V(\varphi ,\chi ,\phi )`$ is given by

$`V(\varphi ,\chi ,\phi )`$ $`=\frac{1}{2}e^{4\phi /\sqrt{7}}\text{Tr}(C^2+C^1C^T),`$ (56)
$`=8(\frac{\delta W}{\delta \varphi })^2+8e^{2\varphi }(\frac{\delta W}{\delta \chi })^2+8(\frac{\delta W}{\delta \phi })^2\frac{32}{7}W^2,`$
with the superpotential $`W(\varphi ,\chi ,\phi )`$:

$$W(\varphi ,\chi ,\phi )=\frac{1}{4}e^{2\phi /\sqrt{7}}\left(m_2\mathrm{sinh}(\varphi )+m_3\mathrm{cosh}(\varphi )+m_1e^\varphi \chi \frac{1}{2}(m_2m_3)e^\varphi \chi ^2\right).$$
(57)
The supersymmetry transformations corresponding to the D=9 massive action (55) follow from reducing the massless D=10 supersymmetry rules (27) with the reduction Ansätze

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \widehat{\psi }_\mu & =e^{\sqrt{7}\phi /56}\left(\frac{c\tau ^{}+d}{c\tau +d}\right)^{1/4}(\psi _\mu +\frac{1}{8\sqrt{7}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu \stackrel{~}{\lambda }^{}),\hfill \\ \hfill \widehat{\psi }_{\underset{¯}{x}}& =\frac{\sqrt{7}}{8}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{x}}e^{\sqrt{7}\phi /56}\left(\frac{c\tau ^{}+d}{c\tau +d}\right)^{1/4}\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^{},\hfill \end{array}\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \widehat{\lambda }& =e^{\sqrt{7}\phi /56}\left(\frac{c\tau ^{}+d}{c\tau +d}\right)^{3/4}\lambda ,\hfill \\ \hfill \widehat{ϵ}& =e^{\sqrt{7}\phi /56}\left(\frac{c\tau ^{}+d}{c\tau +d}\right)^{1/4}ϵ.\hfill \end{array}$$
(58)
We have given the D=10 fermions an $`x`$-dependence via the same $`SL(2,\text{})`$ element (54), i.e. the values of $`c`$ and $`d`$ in (58) are given by

$$c=\frac{m_2m_3}{2\alpha }\mathrm{sinh}(\alpha x),d=\mathrm{cosh}(\alpha x)\frac{m_1}{2\alpha }\mathrm{sinh}(\alpha x).$$
(59)
The same considerations concerning the $`e^\phi `$-dependence and mixing of $`\psi _\mu `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^{}`$ apply as in the IIA case (12). The $`x`$-dependence via $`c`$ and $`d`$ is put in to ensure that the 9D theory is independent of $`x`$. With these reduction Ansätze we obtain the following D=9 massive supersymmetry rules

$`\delta \psi _\mu `$ $`=(D_\mu +\frac{i}{4}e^\varphi _\mu \chi +\frac{i}{7}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \underset{¯}{x}}W)ϵ,`$ (60)
$`\delta \lambda `$ $`=(\overline{)}\varphi +4i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{x}}\frac{\delta W}{\delta \varphi }+ie^\varphi (\overline{)}\chi +4i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{x}}e^{2\varphi }\frac{\delta W}{\delta \chi }))ϵ^{},`$
$`\delta \stackrel{~}{\lambda }`$ $`=(\overline{)}\phi +4i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{x}}\frac{\delta W}{\delta \phi })ϵ^{},`$
with the superpotential given by (57). These were also derived by .

The inclusion of the three mass parameters breaks the $`SL(2,\text{})`$ invariance. Rather the duality transformation now maps between theories with different mass parameters:

$`C(\mathrm{\Omega }^T)^1C\mathrm{\Omega }^T.`$ (61)
It is in this sense that the theory is covariant under $`SL(2,\text{})`$ transformations. Note that the relation is of the same form as (48): in fact the duality relations between 7–branes in 10D and domain walls in 9D is identical. Again this transformation preserves $`\alpha ^2=\frac{1}{4}(m_1{}_{}{}^{2}+m_2{}_{}{}^{2}m_3{}_{}{}^{2})`$. Thus one must distinguish three different theories depending on whether $`\alpha ^2`$ is positive, negative or zero corresponding to the three different conjugacy classes of $`SL(2,\text{})`$ . For each class it is convenient to make a specific choice of basis for $`\stackrel{}{m}=(m_1,m_2,m_3)`$. For later use we give the explicit form of the potential in each class:

$`\mathrm{Class}\mathrm{I}:`$ $`\alpha ^2=0,\stackrel{}{m}=(0,m,m):`$ (62)
$`V(\varphi ,\phi ,\chi )=\frac{1}{2}e^{4\phi /\sqrt{7}+2\varphi }m^2,`$
$`\mathrm{Class}\mathrm{II}:`$ $`\alpha ^2>0,\stackrel{}{m}=(m,0,0):`$
$`V(\varphi ,\phi ,\chi )=\frac{1}{2}e^{4\phi /\sqrt{7}}(1+e^{2\varphi }\chi ^2)m^2,`$
$`\mathrm{Class}\mathrm{III}:`$ $`\alpha ^2<0,\stackrel{}{m}=(0,0,m):`$
$`V(\varphi ,\phi ,\chi )=\frac{1}{2}e^{4\phi /\sqrt{7}}\left(\mathrm{sinh}^2(\varphi )+\chi ^2(2+e^{2\varphi }(2+\chi ^2))\right)m^2.`$
Comparing with the IIA results one finds that for the values $`\stackrel{}{m}=(0,m_\mathrm{R},m_\mathrm{R})`$ (class I) the reduction of IIB supergravity equals the reduction of massive IIA supergravity. Also the superpotentials and hence the supersymmetry transformations are equal for these values of the mass parameters. This corresponds to the massive T-duality between the D8-brane solution (8) and the D7-brane solution . The other massive deformation of IIA, coming from the $`SO(1,1)`$ scale symmetry, can not be reproduced by the IIB reduction. This is obvious from the lack of a superpotential at the IIA side. Thus one can construct four different massive deformations of D=9, N=2 supergravity from considering both its IIA and IIB origin.

## 4 Domain Wall Solutions and their Upliftings

We are now ready to investigate domain wall solutions for the three classes of nine-dimensional massive supergravity theories coming from the IIB side (class I-III) and the massive supergravity theory coming from the IIA side (class IV). We do not consider seperately the theory obtained by reducing 10D massive IIA supergravity since, as mentioned above, this 9D theory coincides with class I if we set $`m_2=m_3=m_R`$ and $`m_1=0`$.

We will start by constructing half-supersymmetric solutions to the Killing spinor equations in 9 dimensions that follow from the supersymmetry rules (60) and (18). Our only input will be a domain wall Ansatz, i.e. we assume a diagonal $`8+1`$ split of the metric with all fields depending only on the single transverse $`y`$–direction. These solutions automatically define half–supersymmetric domain wall solutions to the full equations of motion. After that we will uplift these solutions to 10 dimensions. We find that all 10D 7–branes fall in the general class (29) with two holomorphic functions, as indicated in Table 2 101010 For clarity we have taken the constants $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$ which appear later equal to $`C_1=1`$ and $`C_2=0`$.. The D=9 domain walls correspond to the potential (56) with mass parameters $`\stackrel{}{m}=(m_1,m_2,m_3)`$. These mass parameters automatically define the charge of the D=10 7-brane solutions .

We find that there are three independent 7–brane solutions carried by scalars: D7, R7 and T7. These cannot be related by $`SL(2,\text{})`$–transformations since their charges give rise to different $`SL(2,\text{})`$–invariants $`\alpha ^2`$. Unlike the well-studied D7-brane solution and its $`SL(2,\text{})`$–related partners, the R7- and T7-branes are new solutions which in the present context occur on the same footing as the D7-brane. We also find a G7 domain wall solution which has vanishing potential but non-vanishing superpotential. It can be uplifted to a half–supersymmetic conical space-time without scalars but with Killing spinors, giving rise to a non-trivial monodromy.

In this Section we will present the explicit form of the solutions, both in D=9 and D=10, corresponding to the charges given in Table 2.

### 4.1 Class I : $`\alpha ^2=0`$

We find the following half-supersymmetric domain wall solution

$$\text{DW}_\text{I}\text{}\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill ds^2& =(C_1my)^{1/7}ds_8{}_{}{}^{2}+(C_1my)^{8/7}dy^2,\hfill \\ \hfill e^\varphi & =(my)^1,e^\phi =(C_1my)^{2/\sqrt{7}},\chi =C_2,\hfill \end{array}$$
(63)
where the constant $`C_2`$ is arbitrary while $`C_1`$ is strictly positive. The range of $`y`$ is such that $`my`$ is strictly positive in order to have a well-behaved metric. We have used here the freedom of making a re-parameterization in the transverse direction in order to make the solution fall into the general class of seven-branes (29) after uplifting to 10 dimensions. We can also solve for the Killing spinor giving

$$ϵ=(my)^{1/28}ϵ_0,$$
(64)
where $`ϵ_0`$ is a constant spinor satisfying111111The chirality is determined by our convention that we choose the transverse vielbein to be positive. $`(1i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{xy}})ϵ_0=0`$.

Uplifting the above domain wall solution to 10 dimensions yields (with $`x`$ being the reduction direction)

$$\text{D7: }\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \widehat{d}s^2& =ds_8^2+C_1my\left(dx^2+dy^2\right),\hfill \\ \hfill e^{\widehat{\varphi }}& =(my)^1,\hfill \\ \hfill \widehat{\chi }& =mx+C_2.\hfill \end{array}$$
(65)
The uplifted Killing spinor is constant and still satisfies $`(1i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{xy}})\widehat{ϵ}=0`$. The scalars and spinors satisfy the monodromy requirement (39) with $`a=1,b=2\pi mR,c=0`$ and $`d=1`$. We find that this solution is a special case of the general seven-brane solution (29) with

$$f=mz+C_2,g=\mathrm{log}(C_1),$$
(66)
We can thus identify the two free parameters $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$ in the solution as coming from scalings (while keeping $`mz`$ fixed) and shifts of the coordinates respectively.

### 4.2 Class II : $`\alpha ^2>0`$

In this class we find the following half-supersymmetric domain wall solution

$$\text{DW}_{\text{II}}\text{}\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill ds^2& =\left(C_1\mathrm{cos}(my)\right)^{1/7}ds_8{}_{}{}^{2}+\left(C_1\mathrm{cos}(my)\right)^{8/7}dy^2,\hfill \\ \hfill e^\varphi & =\left(e^{C_2}\mathrm{cos}(my)\right)^1,\chi =e^{C_2}\mathrm{sin}(my),\hfill \\ \hfill e^\phi & =\left(C_1\mathrm{cos}(my)\right)^{2/\sqrt{7}},\hfill \end{array}$$
(67)
where $`C_2`$ is arbitrary, $`C_1`$ is strictly positive and the range of $`y`$ has to be restricted so that $`\mathrm{cos}(my)`$ is strictly positive. The Killing spinor corresponding to the present solution is given by

$$ϵ=\left(C_1\mathrm{cos}(my)\right)^{1/28}e^{imy/4}ϵ_0,$$
(68)
where $`(1i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{xy}})ϵ_0=0`$.

Note that in this class there is no solution with constant axion. This is consistent with the fact that for zero axion the potential corresponding to class II reads

$$V(\phi )=\frac{1}{2}m^2e^{4\phi /\sqrt{7}},$$
(69)
which, using the terminology of , is a $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$ potential for which the standard domain wall solution does not work.

The uplifting of this solution to 10 dimensions is given by

$$\text{R7: }\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \widehat{d}s^2& =ds_8^2+C_1\mathrm{cos}(my)\left(dx^2+dy^2\right),\hfill \\ \hfill e^{\widehat{\varphi }}& =e^{mxC_2}\left(\mathrm{cos}(my)\right)^1,\hfill \\ \hfill \widehat{\chi }& =e^{mx+C_2}\mathrm{sin}(my),\hfill \end{array}$$
(70)
where the Killing spinor is now given by

$$\widehat{ϵ}=e^{imy/4}\widehat{ϵ}_0.$$
(71)
The scalars and spinors satisfy the monodromy requirement (39) with $`a=e^{m\pi R},b=0,c=0`$ and $`d=e^{m\pi R}`$. This solution falls in our general class of seven-branes (29) with

$$f=ie^{mz+C_2},g=mz+C_2\mathrm{log}(C_1).$$
(72)
Thus the constants $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$ have the same origin as in the Class I solution: scalings and shifts of the coordinates.

### 4.3 Class III : $`\alpha ^2<0`$

In this class we have to divide into two subclasses depending on whether the dilaton $`\varphi `$ is non-zero (Class IIIa) or zero (Class IIIb).

#### 4.3.1 Class IIIa : $`\alpha ^2<0`$ and $`\varphi 0`$

For non-zero dilaton we find the following half-supersymmetric domain wall solution

$$\text{DW}_{\text{IIIa}}\text{}\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill ds^2& =\left(C_1\mathrm{sinh}(my)\right)^{1/7}ds_8{}_{}{}^{2}+\left(C_1\mathrm{sinh}(my)\right)^{8/7}dy^2,\hfill \\ \hfill e^\varphi & =\frac{\mathrm{cos}(C_2)+\mathrm{cosh}(my)}{\mathrm{sinh}(my)},\chi =\frac{\mathrm{sin}(C_2)}{\mathrm{cos}(C_2)+\mathrm{cosh}(my)},\hfill \\ \hfill e^\phi & =\left(C_1\mathrm{sinh}(my)\right)^{2/\sqrt{7}},\hfill \end{array}$$
(73)
where $`C_2`$ is an arbitrary angle between121212It is of course possible to extend the domain of $`C_2`$, but with the choice of $`\pi /2`$ to $`\pi /2`$ no solutions are related via $`SL(2,\text{})`$ and in this sense $`C_2`$ covers the space of solutions exactly once. $`\pi /2`$ and $`\pi /2`$, $`C_1`$ is a strictly positive constant and the range of $`y`$ is restricted by the requiring $`\mathrm{sinh}(my)`$ to be strictly positive. The Killing spinor for this solution is given by

$$ϵ=\left(C_1\mathrm{sinh}(my)\right)^{1/28}e^{i\beta }ϵ_0,\beta =\frac{1}{4}\text{arccot}\left(\frac{1+\mathrm{cos}(C_2)\mathrm{cosh}(my)}{\mathrm{sin}(C_2)\mathrm{sinh}(my)}\right),$$
(74)
where $`(1i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{xy}})ϵ_0=0`$.

Lifting the solution (73) to 10 dimensions gives

$$\text{T7: }\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \widehat{d}s^2& =ds_8^2+C_1\mathrm{sinh}(my)\left(dx^2+dy^2\right),\hfill \\ \hfill e^{\widehat{\varphi }}& =\frac{\mathrm{cos}(mx+C_2)+\mathrm{cosh}(my)}{\mathrm{sinh}(my)},\hfill \\ \hfill \widehat{\chi }& =\frac{\mathrm{sin}(mx+C_2)}{\mathrm{cos}(mx+C_2)+\mathrm{cosh}(my)}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(75)
The Killing spinor can also be lifted using (58) yielding

$$\widehat{ϵ}=e^{i\beta }\widehat{ϵ}_0,\beta =\frac{1}{2}\text{arctan}\left(\text{tan}(\frac{1}{2}(mx+C_2))\text{tan}(\frac{1}{2}my)\right).$$
(76)
Note that here the Killing spinor acquires non-trivial $`x`$–dependence. We have explicitly checked that the monodromy requirement (39) is satisfied with $`a=\mathrm{cos}(m\pi R),b=\mathrm{sin}(m\pi R),c=\mathrm{sin}(m\pi R)`$ and $`d=\mathrm{cos}(m\pi R)`$. We note that also this class falls into the general class of seven-brane solutions (29) with

$`f=\mathrm{tan}\left(\frac{1}{2}(mz+C_2)\right),g=2\mathrm{log}\left(\mathrm{cos}(\frac{1}{2}(mz+C_2))\right)\mathrm{log}(C_1).`$ (77)
#### 4.3.2 Class IIIb : $`\alpha ^2<0`$ and $`\varphi =0`$

For the case with vanishing dilaton we find the following half–supersymmetric domain wall solution131313This solution is related by a coordinate transformation to that of , where, contrary to our result, it was claimed that in order to preserve a fraction of the supersymmetry $`m`$ should be zero, reducing the solution to Minkowski space-time with arbitrary constant scalars.:

$$\text{DW}_{\text{IIIb}}\text{}\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill ds^2& =e^{my/7}ds_8{}_{}{}^{2}+e^{8my/7}dy^2,\hfill \\ \hfill e^\phi & =e^{2my/\sqrt{7}},\varphi =\chi =0,\hfill \end{array}$$
(78)
where the range of $`y`$ is unrestricted. The corresponding Killing spinor reads

$`ϵ=e^{my/28}ϵ_0,`$ (79)
with $`(1i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{xy}})ϵ_0=0`$.

We note that for this solution, since $`\chi =0`$, the potential and superpotential read

$$V(\varphi ,\phi )=\frac{1}{2}m^2e^{4\phi /\sqrt{7}}\mathrm{sinh}^2(\varphi ),W(\varphi ,\phi )=\frac{1}{4}me^{2\phi /\sqrt{7}}\mathrm{cosh}\varphi .$$
(80)
The above potential has occurred recently, see eq. (77) of , in the context of a possible inflation along flat directions. An interesting feature of this case is that the flat direction, $`\varphi =0`$, corresponds to a vanishing potential, $`V(\phi )=0`$, despite a non–vanishing superpotential, $`W=\frac{1}{4}me^{2\phi /\sqrt{7}}`$. Such a situation has occurred recently in the context of quintessence in N=1 supergravity, see Section 3 of .

Lifting this solution to 10 dimensions leads to the following purely gravitational solution141414Other examples of domain walls that lift up to purely gravitational solutions have been given in .:

$$\text{G7: }\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \widehat{d}s^2& =ds_8^2+e^{my}\left(dx^2+dy^2\right),\hfill \\ \hfill \widehat{\varphi }& =\widehat{\chi }=0.\hfill \end{array}$$
(81)
For the lifted Killing spinor we find

$$\widehat{ϵ}=e^{imx/4}ϵ_0.$$
(82)
Again, this solution falls in the class of purely gravitational solutions discussed in Section 3.1 with the identifications

$`f=i,g=imz.`$ (83)
As discussed in section 3.2, the holomorphic function $`g`$ can be transformed away: the coordinate transformation (32) takes the form $`r=\frac{2}{m}e^{my/2}`$ and $`\theta =\frac{1}{2}(\pi mx)`$. The compactness of $`x`$ translates into $`\theta \theta +m\pi R`$.

We can now impose three different quantization conditions (to be discussed in Section 5). The condition $`m=1/(2R)`$ implies that this solution describes a conical space-time with deficit angle $`3\pi /2`$. In other words, this is a half–supersymmetric $`\text{Mink}_8\times /_4`$ space-time with non-trivial monodromy, the bosonic part of which was also mentioned in . The second quantization condition $`\stackrel{~}{m}=1/(3\sqrt{3}R)`$ can only be applied to an $`SL(2,)`$–related partner of the G7-brane and gives rise to a deficit angle of $`5\pi /3`$. This is a half–supersymmetric $`\text{Mink}_8\times /_6`$ space-time with non-trivial monodromy. The third quantization condition $`m=2/R`$ yields the identification $`\theta \theta +2\pi `$ and indeed this is fully supersymmetric $`\text{Mink}_{10}`$ space-time. The monodromy is trivial and there is a second Killing spinor $`\widehat{ϵ}=e^{imx/4}ϵ_0`$ with opposite chirality. For the previous two quantization conditions this second Killing spinor had a different monodromy and was therefore not consistent.

### 4.4 Class IV : $`m_4`$

We first substitute the domain wall Ansatz in the Killing spinor equations, which are in this class given by (18). We find that we can not construct a projector, yielding a 1/2 supersymmetric domain wall, out of the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-matrices appearing in the supersymmetry rules unless the scalars have a time-dependence, i.e. the transverse direction has to be the time direction. In this respect class IV is fundamentally different from class I-III. For time-dependent solutions we cannot assume that a solution to the Killing spinor equations is automatically a solution to the full equations of motion. A counter-example is provided by considering a scalar $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ that does only occur in the transformations of the spin-1/2 fermions as $`(\overline{)}\mathrm{\Phi })ϵ`$. Clearly the Killing spinor equations can be solved for a flat metric and $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }(u),\gamma _vϵ=0`$ where we use lightcone coordinates $`u=x+t,v=xt`$. The non-zero scalar leads to a nonzero $`uu`$-component of the energy-momentum tensor and the Einstein equations are not solved.

On the other hand, examples of time–dependent 1/2 supersymmetric BPS solutions are known. An example is the gravitational wave solution. For the present case, however, we find that it is not possible to construct a domain wall solution, time-dependent or not, preserving any fraction of the supersymmetry.

## 5 Quantization Conditions

It is well-known that at the quantum level the classical $`SL(2,\text{})`$ symmetry of IIB supergravity is broken to $`SL(2,\text{})`$151515A similar quantization condition does not apply to the $`SO(1,1)`$ symmetry of IIA supergravity.. We would like to consider the effect of this on the solutions discussed in the previous sections. In particular, it implies that the monodromy matrix must be an element of the arithmetic subgroup of $`SL(2,\text{})`$:

$`\widehat{}(x+2\pi R)=\mathrm{\Lambda }\widehat{}(x)\mathrm{\Lambda }^T\text{with }\mathrm{\Lambda }=e^{2\pi RC}SL(2,\text{}).`$ (84)
This will imply a charge quantisation of the 7–brane solutions in 10D. Since these charges give rise to the mass parameters upon reduction, at the same time this requirement therefore implies a mass quantisation.

We will apply the following procedure. The mass parameters will be parameterized by $`\stackrel{}{m}=\stackrel{~}{m}(p,q,r)`$. Then, given the radius of compactification $`R`$ and the relative coefficients $`(p,q,r)`$ of the mass parameters, one should choose the overall coefficient $`\stackrel{~}{m}`$ such that the monodromy lies in $`SL(2,\text{})`$. This is not always possible; a necessary requirement in all but one cases will be that $`(p,q,r)`$ are integers and satisfy a diophantic equation. Furthermore we must require $`q`$ and $`r`$ to be either both even or both odd. Only in Class III will it be possible to quantize for non-integer $`(p,q,r)`$. Thus we get all $`SL(2,\text{})`$ monodromies that can be expressed as products of $`S`$ and $`T`$ (and their inverses) as defined in (26). These $`SL(2,\text{})`$ conjugacy classes have been classified in . The ones corresponding to class I and class III have also been discussed in . The situation is summarized in Table 3. Below the Table we consider each of the three classes separately.

* For class I with $`\alpha ^2=0`$ the monodromy matrix reads

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1+m_1\pi R& (m_2+m_3)\pi R\\ & \\ (m_2m_3)\pi R& 1m_1\pi R\end{array}\right).$$
(85)
We find that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is an element of $`SL(2,\text{})`$ provided we have

$`\text{Class I: }\stackrel{~}{m}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi R}}\text{ and }p^2+q^2r^2=0.`$ (86)
All the solutions of the diophantic equation are related via $`SL(2,\text{})`$ to the D7-brane solutions with $`(p,q,r)=(0,n,n)`$ with $`n`$ an arbitrary integer , which is the explicit choice we have used for Class I. This gives rise to the monodromy $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=T^n`$. The quantization on $`\stackrel{~}{m}`$ is the same charge quantisation condition as found in .
* For class II with $`\alpha ^2>0`$ the monodromy matrix reads

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cosh}(\alpha 2\pi R)+\frac{m_1}{2\alpha }\mathrm{sinh}(\alpha 2\pi R)& \frac{1}{2\alpha }(m_2+m_3)\mathrm{sinh}(\alpha 2\pi R)\\ & \\ \frac{1}{2\alpha }(m_2m_3)\mathrm{sinh}(\alpha 2\pi R)& \mathrm{cosh}(\alpha 2\pi R)\frac{m_1}{2\alpha }\mathrm{sinh}(\alpha 2\pi R)\end{array}\right).$$
(87)
We find that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is an element of $`SL(2,\text{})`$ provided we have

$`\text{Class II: }\stackrel{~}{m}={\displaystyle \frac{\text{arccosh}(n/2)}{\pi R\sqrt{n^24}}}\text{ and }p^2+q^2r^2=n^24,`$ (88)
for some integer $`n3`$. This has solutions $`(p,q,r)=(\pm n,0,\pm 2)`$ with monodromy $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=(ST^n)^{\pm 1}`$ but not all other solutions are related by $`SL(2,\text{})`$ . Note that the explicit choice we have made for Class II with $`(p,q,r)=(p,0,0)`$ does not solve the diophantic equation. Thus the R7-brane is not consistent at the quantum level but particular $`SL(2,\text{})`$ partners are.
* For class III with $`\alpha ^2<0`$ the monodromy matrix reads (using $`\alpha =im`$)

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}(m2\pi R)+\frac{m_1}{2m}\mathrm{sin}(m2\pi R)& \frac{1}{2m}(m_2+m_3)\mathrm{sin}(m2\pi R)\\ & \\ \frac{1}{2m}(m_2m_3)\mathrm{sin}(m2\pi R)& \mathrm{cos}(m2\pi R)\frac{m_1}{2m}\mathrm{sin}(m2\pi R)\end{array}\right).$$
(89)
Here we find that there are three distinct possibilities for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ to be an element of $`SL(2,\text{})`$. For the first possibility we must have

$`\text{Class III: }\stackrel{~}{m}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4R}}\text{ and }p^2+q^2r^2=4.`$ (90)
This is the explicit choice we have made for the T7- and G7-brane solution with $`(p,q,r)=(0,0,\pm 2)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=S^{\pm 1}`$. In fact all other solutions to the diophantic equation are related by $`SL(2,\text{})`$ . For the second possibility one must require

$`\text{Class III: }\stackrel{~}{m}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3\sqrt{3}R}}\text{ and }p^2+q^2r^2=3.`$ (91)
We have not explicitly considered this case but one solution is $`(p,q,r)=(\pm 1,0,\pm 2)`$ with monodromy $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=(T^1S)^{\pm 1}`$. Again all other solutions are related by $`SL(2,\text{})`$ . If neither of these two possibilities applies one can always choose

$`\text{Class III: }\stackrel{~}{m}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{R}}\text{ and }p^2+q^2r^2=4,(p,q,r)\text{},`$ (92)
where $`(p,q,r)`$ are not required to be integer-valued. This gives rise to trivial monodromy $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{𝟙}`$.

## 6 Conclusions

One of the aims of this letter is to study domain wall solutions in a 9–dimensional setting. The advantage of picking out 9 dimensions is that it is simple enough to investigate in full detail but also shares some of the complications of the lower–dimensional supergravities. In Section 4 we constructed several half–supersymmetric domain wall solutions and we gave their uplifting to 10 dimensions. This uplifting introduces a nontrivial dependence of the D=10 solution on the compact coordinate.

In the IIB case we thus found three classes of 7–brane solutions in 10 dimensions, which are all characterized by two holomorpic functions (29). One class contains the D7-brane and its $`SL(2,\text{})`$–related partners but the R7–brane and T7–brane solutions we found for the other two classes are not related to the D7–brane by $`SL(2,\text{})`$–duality. It would be interesting to see what their interpretation is terms of the type IIB superstring theory. Together the solutions provide a set of half-supersymmetric 7–branes with arbitrary charges that are consistent in the sense that the monodromies of the scalars and Killing spinors coincide. Our method of uplifting domain walls also leads to half–supersymmetric conical G7–brane solutions with deficit angles $`3\pi /2`$ or $`5\pi /3`$, not carried by any scalars. The nontrivial monodromies sit in the fermionic sector. The G7–brane solution can also be uplifted to Minkowski space-time, in which case we have supersymmetry enhancement upon uplifting. It would be interesting to further study the properties of the D=9 domain wall solutions and their D=10 7–brane origins and to see whether some of the features we find also occur for $`D<9`$ domain walls.

The three distinct massive supergravities corresponding to the IIB case are $`SL(2,\text{})`$ covariant and characterized by the $`SL(2,\text{})`$ invariant $`\alpha ^2`$. One of them, with $`\alpha ^2=0`$, has a singular mass matrix and therefore, following a similar statement made in , does not seem to correspond to a gauged supergravity theory. The class with $`\alpha ^2<0`$ has been shown to be an $`SO(2)`$-gauged supergravity . We conjecture that the remaining class with $`\alpha ^2>0`$ is an $`SO(1,1)`$-gauged supergravity. Interestingly, in a recent paper it is stated that both the $`\alpha ^2=0`$ and the $`\alpha ^2>0`$ cases correspond to $`SO(1,1)`$-gauged supergravities . The distinction between the different theories does not occur in the compact case, i.e. when the symmetry group would be $`SU(2)`$ rather than $`SL(2,\text{})`$. Such a situation occurs for instance when gauging the $`U(1)SU(2)`$ R–symmetry group in N=2, D=5 supergravity coupled to vector multiplets. Here all choices for the mass parameters are physically equivalent leading to a single gauged supergravity theory, see e.g. .

In the IIA case we performed two reductions, one leading to the $`m_4`$–deformation and one leading to class I. In the case of the $`m_4`$–deformation we find that there is no domain wall solution preserving any supersymmetry. The reason that we could not perform both IIA reductions at the same time was that the $`SO(1,1)`$–symmetry is only valid for $`m_\mathrm{R}=0`$. One might change this situation by replacing $`m_\mathrm{R}`$ by a scalar field $`M(x)`$ and a 9–form Lagrange multiplier $`A^{(9)}`$  via:

$$(m_\mathrm{R})(M(x))+M(x)A^{(9)}.$$
(93)
Unfortunately, the reduction of the second term leads to an additional term in 9 dimensions containing a 9–form Lagrange multiplier. The equation of motion of this Lagrange multiplier leads to the constraint $`M(x)m_4=0`$ which brings us back to the previous situation. A similar thing happens in 11 dimensions if one tries to use the same trick to convert the scale symmetry of the equations of motion to a symmetry of the action by replacing the gravitational constant by a scalar field. The elimination of the Lagrange multiplier brings us back to the analysis of .

Let us finally comment on the relation between the different massive deformations of N=2 D=9 supergravity and T-duality. The massless theory can be obtained from the reduction of both IIA and IIB massless supergravity . This follows from the T–duality between the underlying IIA and IIB string theories. However, the Scherk–Schwarz reductions of IIA and IIB supergravity to nine dimensions give rise to four different massive deformations of the unique massless theory. Only one of these deformations (Class I) can be reproduced by both IIA and IIB supergravity. It is not clear what the IIA or M-theory origin is of the other two deformations (class II and class III)161616We do not consider here the use of Killing vectors in the Lagrangian. Assuming that the IIA theory has such explicit Killing vectors a massive T-duality map can be constructed . We neither consider a further reduction to D=8 dimensions .. Similarly, it is not clear what the IIB origin is of the class IV deformation.

To understand massive T-duality it might be necessary to explicitly include massive winding multiplets171717The inclusion of the full tower of (massive) multiplets of higher Fourier and winding number has been discussed in . (while in supergravity reduction one only keeps the states without winding). Massive T-duality suggests the existence of a maximally supersymmetric massive supergravity theory containing all four mass parameters $`(m_1,m_2,m_3,m_4)`$. The existence of such a theory is not implied by the massive supergravities with seperate deformations $`(m_1,m_2,m_3)`$ and $`m_4`$. This massive supergravity has already been suggested for different reasons in  and it would be interesting to see whether it can be constructed .

## Acknowledgments

We thank Jisk Attema, Gabriele Ferretti, Chris Hull, Roman Linares, Bengt E.W. Nilsson, Tomás Ortín and Tim de Wit for useful discussions. D.R. would also like to thank Per Sundell for interesting and useful discussions in the early stages of the work. E.B. would like to thank the Newton Institute for Mathematical Sciences in Cambridge, where part of this work was done, for hospitality. This work is supported in part by the European Community’s Human Potential Programme under contract HPRN-CT-2000-00131 Quantum Spacetime, in which E.B., U.G. and D.R. are associated to Utrecht University. The work of U.G. is part of the research program of the “Stichting voor Fundamenteel Onderzoek der Materie” (FOM).

## Appendix A Conventions

We use mostly plus signature $`(+\mathrm{}+)`$. Hatted fields and indices are ten-dimensional while unhatted ones are nine-dimensional. Greek indices $`\widehat{\mu },\widehat{\nu },\widehat{\rho }\mathrm{}`$ denote world coordinates and Latin indices $`\widehat{a},\widehat{b},\widehat{c}\mathrm{}`$ represent tangent spacetime. They are related by the vielbeins $`\widehat{e}_{\widehat{\mu }}^{\widehat{a}}`$ and inverse vielbeins $`\widehat{e}_{\widehat{a}}^{\widehat{\mu }}`$. Explicit indices $`x,y`$ are underlined when flat and non-underlined when curved. We antisymmetrize with weight one, for instance $`(\widehat{A})_{\widehat{\mu }\widehat{\nu }}=\frac{1}{2}(_{\widehat{\mu }}\widehat{A}_{\widehat{\nu }}_{\widehat{\nu }}\widehat{A}_{\widehat{\mu }})`$. Omitted indices are contracted without numerical factors, e.g. $`(\widehat{A})^2=(\widehat{A})_{\widehat{\mu }\widehat{\nu }}(\widehat{A})^{\widehat{\mu }\widehat{\nu }}`$. The covariant derivative on fermions is given by $`D_{\widehat{\mu }}=_{\widehat{\mu }}+\widehat{\omega }_{\widehat{\mu }}`$ with the spin connection $`\widehat{\omega }_{\widehat{\mu }}=\frac{1}{4}\widehat{\omega }_{\widehat{\mu }}{}_{}{}^{\widehat{a}\widehat{b}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\widehat{a}\widehat{b}}^{}`$.

We have chosen all $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-matrices real. Curved indices of hatted $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-matrices $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_\mu `$ refer to the ten-dimensional metric while curved indices of unhatted $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-matrices $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu `$ refer to the nine-dimensional metric. Furthermore

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}=\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\underset{¯}{0}\mathrm{}\underset{¯}{9}},\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}{}_{}{}^{2}=1.`$ (94)
In the IIA theory we have real Majorana spinors of indefinite chirality. In the IIB theory we have complex spinors of definite chirality. To switch between Majorana and Weyl fermions in nine dimensions one must use

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \frac{1}{2}(1+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11})\psi _\mu ^M& =\text{Re}(\psi _\mu ^W),\hfill \\ \hfill \frac{1}{2}(1+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11})\lambda ^M& =\text{Im}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{x}}\lambda ^W),\hfill \\ \hfill \frac{1}{2}(1+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11})\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^M& =\text{Im}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{x}}\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^W),\hfill \\ \hfill \frac{1}{2}(1+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11})ϵ^M& =\text{Re}(ϵ^W),\hfill \end{array}\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \frac{1}{2}(1\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11})\psi _\mu ^M& =\text{Im}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{x}}\psi _\mu ^W),\hfill \\ \hfill \frac{1}{2}(1\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11})\lambda ^M& =\text{Re}(\lambda ^W),\hfill \\ \hfill \frac{1}{2}(1\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11})\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^M& =\text{Re}(\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^W),\hfill \\ \hfill \frac{1}{2}(1\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11})ϵ^M& =\text{Im}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\underset{¯}{x}}ϵ^W),\hfill \end{array}$$
(95)
for positive ($`\psi _\mu ^W,ϵ^W`$) and negative ($`\lambda ^W,\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^W`$) chirality Weyl fermions.


format: text

text:
# Temporal and spatial persistence of combustion fronts

\[

## Abstract

The spatial and temporal persistence, or first-return distributions are measured for slow-combustion fronts in paper. The stationary temporal and (perhaps less convincingly) spatial persistence exponents agree with the predictions based on the front dynamics, which asymptotically belongs to the KPZ universality class. The stationary short-range and the transient behavior of the fronts are non-Markovian, and the observed persistence properties thus do not agree with the predictions based on Markovian theory. This deviation is a consequence of additional time and length scales, related to the crossovers to the asymptotic coarse-grained behavior. PACS 05.40+j,81.10Aj,02.50-r

\]

Nonequilibrium systems present a wide range of questions. One can try to define necessary conditions for the existence of a stationary state and then proceed to a characterization of that state. If the dynamics is of an inherently transient character, more complicated scenarios arise. Unlike in the stationary state, in which the behavior of the order parameter is described by some probability distribution, one encounters concepts such as aging and coarsening which reflect the correlations .

A particularly concise and topical approach in nonequilibrium dynamics is persistence, often defined as the probability $`P(t)`$ that, at a point in space, a fluctuating nonequilibrium field (such as a diffusion field) does not change sign upto time $`t`$ . This probability may decay algebraically, $`P(t)t^\theta `$, with a persistence exponent $`\theta `$. In some cases $`\theta `$ may be unrelated to any of the other exponents that characterize the system, in particular those describing the critical decay of the temporal and spatial correlation functions. Of special interest in this respect are non-Markovian random processes, for the extra challenges they present.

Due to the statistical nature of the problem, clear experimental demonstrations of persistence are still quite rare . In the present Letter, we consider persistence as observed in the experiments on the propagation of slow-combustion fronts in paper sheets. We have earlier  shown that at long spatial and temporal scales the dynamics of these fronts follows the universality class of the 1+1-dimensional Kardar-Parisi-Zhang (KPZ) equation

$$\frac{h}{t}=\nu ^2h+\frac{\lambda }{2}(h)^2+\eta ,$$
(1)
where $`h=h(x,t)`$ is the height of the interface at point $`x`$ and time $`t`$, $`\nu `$ is the surface tension parameter, $`\lambda `$ is the strength of the nonlinearity, and $`\eta =\eta (x,t)`$ is Gaussian white noise. We have also shown that at short scales the short-range correlations in the effective noise prevent the system from displaying true scaling behavior.

We consider here the first-return properties of the experimentally observed fronts, $`h(x,t)`$, in spatial and temporal domains, at both stationary and transient stages, and compare them with various theoretical predictions. For short time and length scales, the correlations in the noise in our experiments are relevant, and the dynamics is non-Markovian. We study the implications of this on persistence.

A complete description of our experimental setup is given in Ref. . We have chosen to analyze data for the 80 gm<sup>-2</sup> copier paper as a typical case, and also since it presents the best statistics. In Fig. 1 we show the height-fluctuation field observed in a typical sample “burn”.

In the absence of nonlinearity ($`\lambda =0`$), the long-range dynamics would be described by a linear diffusion equation with thermal noise, the Edwards-Wilkinson (EW) equation. This case was analyzed in the temporal domain by Krug et al. in the context of linear growth equations  and by Bray and Majumdar in terms of the spatial return characteristics . In the stationary state one finds $`\theta _s=1/2`$, which for these linear equations is the same as for the transient behavior.

For $`\lambda 0`$ the stochastic process, the KPZ height fluctuations, is non-Gaussian, and the stationary and transient temporal persistences are theoretically difficult to analyze. Kallabis and Krug observed, starting from a numerical growth model, that the persistence behavior can be characterized by considering the scaling functions of the general persistence probability $`P(t_0,t)`$, where $`t`$ is measured beginning from time $`t_0`$ after the start of the kinetics from a flat initial profile . This has two limiting behaviors, the transient behavior for $`t_0`$ before saturation and the stationary-state behavior for $`t_0`$ after it, thus defining two persistence exponents. The numerical results  follow the general conjecture that for the stationary state

$$\theta _s=1\beta ,$$
(2)
where $`\beta `$ describes the temporal two-point correlation function of the interface fluctuations (to be defined below), which can be justified by the self-affine nature of the process. For the transient regime, Kallabis and Krug observed, e.g., that persistence depends on the up-down asymmetry of the dynamics, in their model with values 1.2 and 1.6 for the transient temporal persistence exponents for fluctuations in the up and down directions, respectively . In the stationary state the asymmetry was reflected only as different normalizations of the persistence probability for fluctuations in the up and down directions.

One may likewise consider any particular front at a fixed time $`t`$ and look at the interface profile as a stochastic process as discussed by Bray and Majumdar , who studied first-passage properties in space. In analogy with the temporal case, the probability that the interface stays above or below a given reference level may have a power-law decay. Moreover, depending on whether the configuration represents the stationary state or whether it has essentially finite fluctuations, one again has two different exponents. In terms of the interface morphology, they can be related to the roughness exponent $`\chi `$ (see below).

To characterize persistence, we consider $`f_\pm ^{\mathrm{temp}}(\tau )`$, the first-return distributions, i.e., the distributions of return time $`\tau `$, defined as the time a variable stays above ($`+`$) or below ($``$) a given reference level. The persistence exponents $`\theta _\pm ^{\mathrm{temp}}`$ and $`\theta _\pm ^{\mathrm{spat}}`$ describe the decay of the related temporal and spatial persistence probabilities, respectively, and are defined via

$`P_\pm ^{\mathrm{temp}}(\tau )\tau ^{\theta _\pm ^{\mathrm{temp}}}\mathrm{and}P_\pm ^{\mathrm{spat}}(\mathrm{})\mathrm{}^{\theta _\pm ^{\mathrm{spat}}},`$ (3)
where $`\tau `$ and $`\mathrm{}`$ denote the persistent time- and lengthscales. In the transient regime these quantities are computed by sampling within a suitably chosen time window (see below), and denoted by a tilde, e.g., $`\stackrel{~}{\theta }_\pm ^{\mathrm{temp}}`$.

Since a combustion front propagates with a finite average velocity $`v`$, we look at the fluctuations $`\delta h(x,t)`$, at a fixed point $`x=x_0`$ and time $`t`$, in the front $`h(x,t)`$ around its average height,

$$\delta h(x,t)h(x,t)\overline{h}(t).$$
(4)
Here overbar denotes a spatial average at time $`t`$. For practical purposes we define the return times as follows: $`\tau _+`$ is the length of the time interval between $`t_1`$ and $`t_2`$ such that $`\delta h(x_0,t_1)=0=\delta h(x_0,t_2)`$, and $`\delta h(x_0,t)>0`$ for all $`t]t_1,t_2[`$. The return time $`\tau _{}`$ is defined analogously for $`\delta h(x_0,t)<0`$. For discrete sampling times we determine the crossing times by using linear interpolation.

The temporal persistence probabilities  are related to the corresponding first-return distribution via

$`P_\pm ^{\mathrm{temp}}(\tau )P(\tau _\pm \tau )=1{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^\tau }f_\pm ^{\mathrm{temp}}(\tau ^{})𝑑\tau ^{}.`$ (5)
As explained in Ref. , in discrete time (and also in discrete space) sampling, one misses very short excursions, and correct normalization of $`P_\pm ^{\mathrm{temp}}`$ and $`P_\pm ^{\mathrm{spat}}`$ is difficult. Therefore, we prefer to use the distributions $`f_\pm ^{\mathrm{temp}}`$ and $`f_\pm ^{\mathrm{spat}}`$, instead of their integrals, for the determination of the persistence exponents. In the limit of long time and length scales ($`\tau `$ and $`\mathrm{}`$), the problems in these functions due to discrete sampling should disappear.

The corresponding spatial quantities  at fixed times are defined analogously. $`P_\pm ^{\mathrm{spat}}(\mathrm{})`$ is the probability that the front stays above ($`+`$) or below ($``$) the reference level over a distance $`\mathrm{}`$, and $`f_\pm ^{\mathrm{spat}}(\mathrm{})`$ denotes the corresponding return-length distribution.

The conjecture of Eq. (2) for the temporal persistence, and the arguments of Bray and Majumdar, make it necessary to outline the behavior of the two-point correlation functions. These, and the associated critical exponents are defined in the usual way as

$`C^{\mathrm{temp}}(\tau )=\overline{|\delta h(x,t)\delta h(x,t+\tau )|}\tau ^\beta `$ (6)
$`C^{\mathrm{spat}}(\mathrm{})=\overline{|\delta h(x,t)\delta h(x+\mathrm{},t)|}\mathrm{}^\chi ,`$ (7)
in which the overbar denotes spatial and the brackets disorder averaging . In our earlier works, the long-range scaling of the correlation functions was shown to be described by the KPZ asymptotics with $`\chi 1/2`$ and $`\beta 1/3`$ .

In Fig. 2 we show our experimental results for temporal persistence in the stationary state. Above a cross-over scale $`\tau _c`$ of the order of 10 seconds (corresponding to fronts that have propagated, on the average, by about 45 mm, see Fig. 1 again), this figure indicates agreement with the theoretical expectation, $`\theta _\pm ^{\mathrm{temp}}=1\beta `$. The dashed line in Fig. 2(a) follows Eq. (2). Below $`\tau _c`$ the data in Fig. 2(a) show no real scaling regime, in analogy to the curvature visible in $`C_\pm ^{\mathrm{temp}}(\tau )`$ shown Fig. 2(b). We find no difference between the first-return distributions in the positive and negative directions since our distributions are separately normalized to one, so the anisotropy does not appear in the plots.

The measured first-return distributions for spatial persistence in the stationary state are shown in Fig. 3. Now the asymptotic behavior is roughly consistent with $`\theta _\pm ^{\mathrm{spat}}=1\chi `$. The rather long crossover regions  in the correlation functions $`C(\tau )`$ and $`C(\mathrm{})`$ in Figs. 2(b) and 3(b), which precede the long-range regimes, are directly visible in the persistence data as well. The crossover is here located at about 10 mm, which is less than the scale $`\tau _c/v`$ would indicate.

The expected persistence behavior takes place only on long enough scales, where the physics is coarse-grained so as to obey the KPZ equation. There are correlations in the effective noise (local height increments), with decay scales of a few seconds and a few millimeters . In the short-range regime of the stationary-state data, the spatial and temporal statistics are quite far from the scaling conjecture “$`\theta =1\beta `$”. This agrees with the fact that the dynamics becomes Markovian only asymptotically. The short-range persistence does not result from an effectively stationary process that would differ from the long-range dynamics only by the fact that the two-point exponents are not defined. The deviation is greatest in the case of the temporal behavior, for which persistence decays slower than expected from the correlation function.

The first-return distributions for the transient-time regime of the dynamics are shown in Fig. 4 for a time window from the beginning of the burn to just below the saturation time. In the temporal case the simulation result for the model of Ref.  was $`\stackrel{~}{\theta }_\pm ^{\mathrm{temp}}1.2\mathrm{}1.6`$ . In our temporal transient distribution shown in Fig 4(a), the asymptotics beyond the crossover from short-range behavior shows a steeper decay than in the saturated distribution, but the length of this asymptotic part is so short that definitive conclusions cannot be made. It may as well be related to some kind of cutoff behavior. No indications of an up-down anisotropy can be seen. In the spatial transient distribution the asymptotics is better defined, and it is interesting to notice that it is given by $`\mathrm{}^{(2\chi )}`$ with $`\chi =1/2`$ as in the saturated regime (see Fig 4(b)).

The main features of the observed transient persistences can be summarized in two findings: First, in our data the spatial long-range scaling is reminiscent of the stationary state. Second, there is no simple short-range behavior below the cross-over scales. In some cases the short-range scalings resemble power-law ones, albeit over rather short ranges, but the effective persistence exponents are never in agreement with those related to the decay of correlations.

In principle, for a time window above the cross-over time $`\tau _c`$ but below the saturation time some “expected” (KPZ) temporal transient behavior could be observed. However, the typically wide  cross-over region around $`\tau _c`$ would interfere with it, unless the saturation time could be made long enough by, e.g., considerably increasing the system size. Recall that the origin of the temporal transient exponents in KPZ-type dynamics, as seen in Ref. , is the asymmetric interface (valleys and hilltops). In our case, these features can be visible only for $`\tau >\tau _c`$ and $`\mathrm{}>\mathrm{}_c`$ .

To summarize, we have studied the persistence properties of fluctuating combustion fronts in paper. Asymptotically both temporal and spatial persistence follow the theoretical expectations for the stationary case. For the short-range behaviors the KPZ physics is irrelevant, and the first-return distributions deviate from those based on a stationary Markovian stochastic process . Instead, the physics indicates the presence of memory effects. Our results have theoretical implications also for problems, where the KPZ scaling is seen only asymptotically .

We wish to acknowledge discussions on stochastic dynamics with Otto Pulkkinen and on kinetic roughening with Tapio Ala-Nissila. This work has been in part supported by the Academy of Finland under the Center of Excellence Program (Project No. 44875).


text:
# The Quantum Universe

(Abstract:
On the basis that the universe is a closed quantum system with no external observers, we propose a paradigm in which the universe jumps through a series of stages. Each stage is defined by a quantum state, an information content, and rules governing temporal evolution. Only some of these rules are currently understood; we can calculate answers to quantum questions, but we do not know why those questions have been asked in the first place. In this paradigm, time is synonymous with the quantum process of information extraction, rather than a label associated with a temporal dimension. We discuss the implications for cosmology.)

The exact nature of the universe is still uncertain at this time, with a variety of incompatible paradigms, and models based on them, being assumed. We believe that a unique paradigm for the universe can be found once certain specific and reasonable answers to some standard questions are accepted.

The first important question is this: is the universe a complete quantum system or not? By *complete* we mean that there are no external observers or classical agencies not subject to the laws of quantum mechanics.

The observation of Bell-type correlations and violations of Bell-type inequalities together with a vast amount of empirical evidence for the universal correctness of quantum principles strongly suggests that the answer to the first question is *yes.* This answer excludes from further discussion all paradigms and models based on any sort of classical hidden variables. We assume henceforth that the entire universe is a vast, self-contained quantum automaton .

An immediate and unavoidable corollary following from this assumption is that there are no semi-classical observers standing outside the universe or any part of it. This seems at odds with the notion of observer in the traditional formulation of quantum mechanics (also associated with the so-called measurement problem), but should be reconciled with it in terms of *emergence*, i.e., the appearance of classicity from a fully quantum universe.

From this corollary follows another unavoidable corollary, which is that the universe must always be in a pure state, there being no global meaning to the concept of a mixed state when discussing the entire universe. There can be no intrinsic classical uncertainty as to which state the universe is in at a given time. Mixed states can be discussed in our paradigm but only under certain circumstances to do with emergence, when the notion of a semi-classical observer can be invoked. This will be discussed elsewhere.

In a fully quantum universe, physicists who perform experiments and act as observers with free will must themselves be quantum processes and part of the very systems they appear to be monitoring. Accounting for them within a pure state formulation is another aspect of emergence.

Given that there are no external observers, the conclusion is that somehow the universe organizes its own observation. This is not as strange as it may seem at first sight. Sophisticated computers, for example, can run diagnostic checks on themselves and repair problems in their software. In the case of the universe, the question is: what does this observation mean?

The concepts of observation and measurement are meaningless without the concept of *time,* which is intrinsically associated with the process of *information extraction,* and it is only in these terms that we understandthe dynamics of the universe.In the standard formulation of quantum mechanics, Schrödinger evolution occurs precisely in the absence of information extraction, and it is only when information about a system is extracted that state reduction occurs. Therefore, we are driven to the conclusion that time is no more nor less than a marker of a constant process of state reduction in the universe which accompanies information extraction. We differ from the multiverse paradigm on a number of counts, the principal one being that we take state reduction as a physically relevant process.

Given that time is a reflection of discontinuous quantum processes, then it is at root a discrete phenomenon and not continuous. Therefore we may use integers to represent time. According to our paradigm, at any given time $`n`$ the universe will be in a unique state $`\mathrm{\Psi }_n,`$ the *state of the universe.* This state cannot be regarded as either a Schrödinger picture state or a Heisenberg picture state. Exactly what it is is bound up with the concept of a *stage,* discussed below.

The state $`\mathrm{\Psi }_n`$ of the universe at a given time $`n`$ cannot by itself represent the universe at that time in a complete way. In the conventional formulation of quantum mechanics, for example, we would need to add to our knowledge of the wave-function a statement of what the Hamiltonian was and also, what sort of experiment or measurement we were going to perform. All of this represents *information* $`I`$ and *rules* $``$ (laws of physics), effectively telling us how the wave-function evolves. This leads us to define the concept of a *stage* as follows.

To a given time $`n`$ we associate a unique stage $`\mathrm{\Omega }_n`$ of the universe, representing all possible attributes of the universe at that time. A stage consists of three things: the current state of the universe $`\mathrm{\Psi }_n`$, the current information content $`I_n`$ of the universe, and the current rules $`_n`$ governing what happens next. We may write $`\mathrm{\Omega }_n=\mathrm{\Omega }(\mathrm{\Psi }_n,I_n,_n)`$ and assume that $`\mathrm{\Psi }_n`$ is a vector in some fundamental Hilbert space $``$.

We refer now to Peres’ discussion of the concept of quantum state preparation, test and outcome  as the template for how the quantum universe runs, meaning, how stages evolve.

First of all, contrary to Schrödinger evolution, there can be no deterministic sequence of stages. Given stage $`\mathrm{\Omega }_n`$, we cannot in general say with certainty what stage $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{n+1}`$ will be. This is a fundamental feature of our paradigm and marks the difference between the notion of process time and block universe (or manifold) time. The principles of quantum mechanics should apply at the level of the universe as well as for subsystems. It is not that we cannot extract information about the future. The future is not there until it happens and this is the correct way to understand the uncertainty principle. The Kochen-Specker theorem  supports Bohr’s view that we are not interfering with a pre-existing momentum when we measure particle position, and vice-versa. Neither attribute of a particle system exists before we have specified the experiment testing the state of the particle. This is perhaps the hardest implication of quantum mechanics to accept.

The quantum dynamics of the universe runs as follows. At time $`n`$, the current stage of the universe $`\mathrm{\Omega }_n`$ contains enough information $`I_n`$ for the rules $`_n`$ to imply a generalized $`test`$ (in the sense discussed by Peres ) $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{n+1}`$. This test is represented by some self-adjoint operator $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{n+1}`$in $``$. It is not clear at this time whether the rules should determine $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{n+1}`$ classically, that is, in an algorithmic, deterministic way, or whether $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{n+1}`$ is determined by (say) a form of quantum test itself. If $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{n+1}`$ is determined classically then it is some function $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_n`$ and we may write $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{n+1}=\mathrm{\Sigma }\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_n\right).`$

The state of the universe $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{n+1}`$ in the next stage is now postulated to be one of the eigenstates of $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{n+1}`$ with some eigenvalue $`\lambda _{n+1}`$ (or set of eigenvalues if $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{n+1}`$ factorizes into parts or if $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{n+1}`$ is represented by more than one operator).

The tests associated with stages will be extremely complex in principle, because the Hilbert space $``$ is expected to be vast. A simple estimate of the minimum dimensionality of $``$ may be based on the idea of associating one qubit with each Planck volume in the visible universe. This gives $`dim2^{2\times 10^{180}}`$for three spatial dimensions and we expect it to be much bigger, if not infinite. In principle the number of potential tests will be of the order ($`dim)^2`$ , which is where the rules $`_n`$ come in. These will effectively pick out of this vast number of potential tests just one, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{n+1},`$ and then the universe will jump into one if its eigenstates.

The number of potential eigenstates may be vast, but one and only one of these occurs when the Universe jumps from stage $`\mathrm{\Omega }_n`$ to stage $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{n+1}`$, and this eigenstate is denoted by $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{n+1}`$. The eigenvalues $`\lambda _{n+1},`$ test $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{n+1},`$ state $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{n+1}`$and indeed $`\mathrm{\Omega }_n`$ are then convoluted with the old information content $`I_n`$ to form the new information content $`I_{n+1}`$. Likewise, the outcome $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{n+1}`$ and new information content $`I_{n+1}`$ are convoluted with the old rules $`_n`$ to give a new set of rules $`_{n+1}`$, and then the new stage $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{n+1}`$ becomes the new reality. The old stage $`\mathrm{\Omega }_n`$ now becomes unphysical and not even a memory. Any form of memory associated with the past resides in the new information content $`I_{n+1}`$ alone. This may include discrete topological information relating various factor states in $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{n+1}`$ and how they originated.

Which one of the possible eigenstates of $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{n+1}`$ occurs cannot be predicted, as this is the nature of the quantum process at work. However, a probability estimate can be given, assuming that the computational principles of quantum mechanics apply to the universe as well as to subsystems. The conditional probability $`P\left(\mathrm{\Psi }_{n+1}=\mathrm{\Theta }|\mathrm{\Psi }_n\right)`$ that the state of the universe $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{n+1}`$ at time $`n+1`$ is eigenstate $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ of $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{n+1}`$, given that the state at time $`n`$ is $`\mathrm{\Psi }_n,`$is given by

$$P\left(\mathrm{\Psi }_{n+1}=\mathrm{\Theta }|\mathrm{\Psi }_n\right)=|(\mathrm{\Theta },\mathrm{\Psi }_n)|^2,$$
(1)
assuming that all potential outcome states are normalized to unity. This probability estimate is valid only at time $`n`$, i.e. *before* the jump, and we may use it to discuss the potential future in terms of mixed states. Once the universe has jumped from $`\mathrm{\Omega }_n`$ to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{n+1}`$, however, all probabilities alter and have to be revised.

The dynamics is such that total probability always sums to unity, but it is not reversible. The apparent time reversal symmetry in $`\left(\text{1}\right)`$ is more readily seen to be an artefact of the traditional Hilbert space notation if instead we write $`P\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_{n+1}|\mathrm{\Omega }_n\right)|(\mathrm{\Psi }_{n+1},\mathrm{\Psi }_n)|^2.`$ The direction of time is from $`\mathrm{\Omega }_n`$ to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{n+1}`$ and not vice-versa. $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{n+1}`$ is an outcome of test $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{n+1}`$, which is determined by $`\mathrm{\Omega }_n`$, whereas $`\mathrm{\Omega }_n`$ cannot be an outcome of any test determined by $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{n+1}`$. In fact, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_n`$ was an outcome of some test $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_n`$, which was determined by $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{n1}`$.

The direction of time is intrinsically that of information acquisition and information loss. Stage $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{n+1}`$ has information content $`I_{n+1}`$which need not contain $`I_n`$, and there is no algorithm which guarantees that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{n+1}`$ could be used to deduce what $`\mathrm{\Omega }_n`$ was, except in the exceptional circumstance that the universe were reversible, which is believed not to be the case on account of the second law of thermodynamics.

The stages paradigm permits further refinement relevant to cosmology. There has been much speculation over the years concerning the discretization of space and time on Planck scales. It has been pointed out by various authors  that starting from discrete set models, the dimensions of emergent space in a continuum limit may be dynamically determined by, for example, the scale chosen. This raises the possibility that current speculations concerning brane universe dynamics are consistent with the stages paradigm, in that strings and branes, higher dimensional space and indeed general relativity are but emergent approximations to a completely quantum universe. The programme of quantizing gravity is from our perspective the wrong direction to come, as has been suggested recently .

In the stages paradigm, the quantum process of test and outcome gives a natural reason why time should be discrete. We might expect space also to be discrete, but a straightforward discretization of emergent continuous space would logically be the wrong thing to do without an analogous quantum mechanism. In fact, a natural “lattice” structure does exist within the stages paradigm. In any quantum theory, states in the Hilbert space may be either fully entangled or products of factor states. In standard quantum mechanics, factorization is a measure of *classicity*. To describe a state $`\psi `$ combining an identifiable apparatus and an identifiable system under observation, we write $`\psi =\mathrm{\Theta }\phi `$, where $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is the state of the apparatus and $`\phi `$ is the state of the system. Without such a factorization, a classical distinction between apparatus and system cannot be made. The origin of spatial discreteness may be indirectly associated with the degree of factorization of the state $`\mathrm{\Psi }_n`$ of the universe at any given time. Information relating factor states in successive stages gives a mechanism for the generation of “family trees”, from which causal set structures can arise, and ultimately, emergent space.

We propose the following schema for the cosmological history of the universe. Assume that the Hilbert space $``$ of the universe has some enormous dimensionality, consisting of a direct product of a vast number of fundamental qubits. Qubits are reasonable to assume because fermions can be constructed from systems of qubits in the manner of Jordan and Wigner  and fermions can be used to build up all types of particles. In addition, qubits represent the most elementary yes/no kind of quantum information, and information processing is at the heart of our paradigm. Suppose further that the stages paradigm holds, and that the universe jumps from stage to stage in the quantum way discussed above. Imagine now that the state of the universe had once been completely entangled, i.e., consisted of one factor, and had stayed like that over an enormous number of jumps. During this epoch, which may be regarded as pre-big bang, there would have been no possibility whatsoever of any classical structures such as space emerging, and would truly have been a time of chaos in the original, ancient world sense of the word.

It is not unreasonable to imagine that a non-zero probability existed that the universe would sooner or later jump into a state which was the product of two or more factors. Factorizable states belong to a subset of measure zero in the set of all states, and therefore, a jump from complete entanglement to a factorizable state would be highly improbable, except if the rules $`_n`$ at a given stage made it more likely. The empirical fact is that the current state of the universe does appear to be factorizable, and so we may assume that this process occurred. Moreover, it is possible to imagine that the rules and information content would then change in such a way as to make the number of factors in succeeding stages increase monotonically. This would signal the start of a quantum big bang, and indirectly, the expansion of space.

In such a scenario, we may imagine that the onset of factorization was followed by an epoch in which the number of factors in successive states $`\mathrm{\Psi }_n`$ of the universe increased exponentially with jump time $`n`$, which would be a period analogous to inflation. However, there need not be any notion of Planck scale in this picture. The conventional Big Bang has to be understood as something associated with emergence, which would occur only long after the original quantum big bang. The individual factor states in the factorizable state of the universe during inflation could themselves be perhaps highly entangled states of vast numbers of qubits.

Further, entangled states can exhibit non-local correlations, the EPR paradox being a good example. Such correlations within states in the early universe might resolve the horizon problem in cosmology, accounting for the observed isotropy and homogeneity of the current epoch.

A feature of this paradigm is that there is never any singularity associated with the quantum big bang. The possibility arises of having many quantum big bangs and quantum big crunches (a return to total entanglement), and also many separate expanding universes, each regarded as an isolated set of factors in the state of the universe. Each of these sub-universes would be associated with its own emergent spacetime and there might be no reason to link them. If indeed the current information content $`I_n`$ contained no information linking sub-universes at time $`n`$ then they would remain separate ever after, there being no mechanism (by definition) for re-entangling them at any future time. This is the quantum analogue of the heat death of the universe.

The variable number of factors in the state $`\mathrm{\Psi }_n`$ of the universe at time $`n`$ gives a time dependent lattice $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_n`$ called the *factor lattice*. An element $`\mathrm{\Psi }_n^i`$ of this lattice should not be identified with any discrete point in physical space, as might be thought. The relationship between the factor lattice and conventional spacetime is more subtle on a number of counts, which we will discuss elsewhere. An important feature here is that the factor lattice can easily encode the sort of quantum non-locality observed in violations of Bell inequalities, and this should manifest itself in the emergent limit in such a way that it did not appear ubiquitous in classical spacetime, but only evident when looked for in careful and sophisticated experiments.

Given that $`\mathrm{\Psi }_n=\mathrm{\Psi }_n^1\mathrm{\Psi }_n^2\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Psi }_n^{N_n},`$ where $`N_n`$ is the current number of factors, one way of defining the *current* *classicity* $`\kappa _n`$ of the universe would be $`\kappa _n\mathrm{ln}N_n/\mathrm{ln}N,`$ where $`N`$ is the number of qubits, assumed finite. Then clearly $`0\kappa _n1.`$ The lower bound zero corresponds to a fully entangled, non-classical universe, whilst $`\kappa _n=1`$ corresponds to total classicity with no quantum entanglements whatsoever. The current epoch of the universe appears to be one for which $`\kappa _n`$ is close to, but not yet, unity. The evidence for this is the existence of a stable (and expanding) classical emergent space, but with a residuum of quantum processes and correlations still active in the universe.

Given a high level of classicity, we may discuss quantum fields in terms analogous to those used by Jordan and Wigner to construct fermions. Consider some vast but finite subspace $`^{}\left\{_1_2\mathrm{}_{N_n}\right\}`$ of factor qubit spaces in stage $`\mathrm{\Omega }_n`$, which are not linked via the information content $`I_n`$ to other factor qubit spaces in $``$ at time $`n`$. Then to all intents and purposes $`^{}`$ represents some isolated sub-universe within the total universe associated with $``$. We may now construct fully anticommuting (fermionic) quantum field operators acting on states in $`^{}`$ in the fashion of Jordan and Wigner , and thence construct relativistic quantum field operators on the emergent energy-momentum space and emergent spacetime associated with $`^{}`$. The details will be given in forthcoming papers.

Some final comments: the stages paradigm presupposes the existence of a cosmic time in the universe, because quantum information acquisition is inherently incompatible with closed timelike curves. However, this time is “multi-fingered”, in that different factors in a given state $`\mathrm{\Psi }_n`$ may jump to new factors in $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{n+1}`$ which are uncorrelated with each other, and indeed, some factor states might not change from one stage to the next. The overall picture is one of a quantum cellular automaton network structure with ever changing topology predicated on quantum outcomes , leading to a causal set structure . The information content $`I_n`$ is a form of memory which tracks over time the possibility of correlations between various factor states, from which emergent structures such as continuous space with a metric can be generated. The rules $`_n`$ are currently not understood in any significant way. How they might change in time is related to the question of how the laws of physics might change in time, and understanding them is a challenge for the future, as is the difficult problem of emergence.

Finally, the stages paradigm is based on the notion of process time. Therefore, only one stage (known as the present) can be assumed certain in any discussion. Relative to a given present, both the past and future do not exist.

Acknowledgement: J.E. thanks the EPSRC (UK) for a research studentship.