format: text

text:
# 1 Standard model spectrum and 𝑈(1) charges

CAB-IB/ 2900802, FTUAM-02/7 IFT-UAM-02/6,SISSA Ref. 19/2002/EP

hep-th/0203129

In quest of “just” the Standard Model on D-branes at a singularity
L. F. Alday 1,2 and G. Aldazabal 3,4
1 Sissa, Triste, Italy
2 The Abdus Salam ICTP, Triste, Italy
3 Departamento de Física Teórica C-XI and Instituto de Física Teórica C-XVI,
Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Cantoblanco, 28049 Madrid, Spain
4 Instituto Balseiro and Centro Atómico Bariloche,
8400 S.C. de Bariloche, (CNEA and CONICET), Argentina
Abstract

In this note we explore the possibility of obtaining gauge bosons and fermionic spectrum as close as possible to the Standard Model content, by placing D3-branes at a $`𝐙_𝐍`$ orbifold-like singularity in the presence of D7-branes. Indeed, we find that this is plausible provided a sufficiently high $`N`$ is allowed for and the singular point is also fixed by an orientifold action. If extra charged matter is not permitted then the singularity should necessarily be non-supersymmetric. Correct hypercharge assignments require a dependence on some Abelian gauge D7-groups. In achieving such a construction we follow a recent observation made in Ref. about the possibility that, the three left handed quarks, would present different $`U(2)`$ transformation properties.

We encode under the name of String phenomenology  the different attempts to embed the Standard Model of fundamental interactions, or plausible extensions of it, into the framework of string theory. Activity in this area started in the middle eighties, especially in the so called perturbative heterotic string context, and many features have been understood since then. A lesson to recall is that, in spite of the enormous degeneracy of $`D=4`$ dimensional string vacua, leading to loss of predictability, not everything can be fitted into such a context. String theory imposes severe constraints indeed on model building. A neat example is provided, for instance, by the fact that, in heterotic string theory, the contribution to the mass of a state in a given representation of the gauge group is proportional to the dimension of the representation. Thus, high dimensional massless representations are not allowed for in perturbative heterotic string models 111This appears to be an important limitation to GUT like models .

Stringy constraints, related to the structure of anomaly cancellation, can also be found behind the failure to build exactly the Standard Model (SM) in a string theory framework. Despite the many models constructed with gauge and massless fermionic sector quite close to the SM one, such models generically possess extra visible fermionic matter. This is valid for heterotic perturbative constructions and also for other string constructions involving, for instance, Type II D-branes.

This may seem rather surprising since Standard Model, $`SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)_Y`$, generations already produce anomaly free combinations. String consistency requirements, like modular invariance in perturbative heterotic string or tadpole cancellation in open string models, certainly imply that such models are free of anomalies. However, we should notice that stringy constraints are generically stronger than anomaly cancellation conditions. These stronger requirements often manifest in the presence of extra gauge factors, and thus, of extra chiral fermions which must be generically present for canceling their anomalies. For instance, in D-brane models, $`U(2)`$ unitary groups appear, rather than $`SU(2)`$. As a consequence, doublets $`(2_1)`$ or anti-doublets $`2_1`$ are distinguished by their different $`U(1)`$ charges (indicated as 1 and -1 subscripts respectively) and tadpole cancellation requires the same number of both of them.

Hence, if the three left handed quark generations were just mere replications of each other, say $`3(3,2)`$, then 9 anti-doublets should also be present. Given that three of them can be identified with SM leptons, still six extra doublets will be required by stringy considerations. Nevertheless, if two left quarks were doublets (or anti-doublets) and the other one was an $`U(2)`$ anti-doublet (doublet) then no extra doublets would be needed.

It is by noticing this fact that, only very recently , string models with “just” the, non supersymmetric, SM gauge and fermionic content have been obtained. Such constructions were achieved by considering Type IIA D6-branes wrapping at angles on a six dimensional torus in the presence of orientifold planes and NS background fields. The relevant observation there is thus that quark doublets generations behave differently under $`U(2)`$ transformations.

We should notice that many Standard like models found in the literature contain, apart from extra doublets, extra vector like triplets in the spectrum. The origin of these triplets is somewhat different and is related to the singularity structure. For instance, they usually appear due to “$`mod`$ $`N`$” identifications in models with $`𝐙_𝐍`$ like singularities (see for instance D3-brane models in ). Once an extra triplet appears, apart from those of the SM, then a corresponding $`U(3)`$ anti-triplet is again required for tadpole cancellation to occur. Interestingly enough, for D3-brane models at $`𝐙_𝐍`$ singularities, $`𝐙_\mathrm{𝟑}`$ like singularities are the only supersymmetric ones leading to 3 (equivalent) generations  and they always lead to vector like triplets.

In this note we attempt, by invoking similar arguments as in Ref. related to anomaly cancellation, to build models as close as possible to the Standard Model, in the framework of configurations of D3-branes stuck on a $`\mathrm{IR}^6/𝐙_𝐍`$ and in the presence of D7- branes. By “as close as possible” we mean the Standard Model minimal content of 3 generations of quarks and leptons, without extra massless matter like, for example, $`SU(2)`$ doublets or $`SU(3)`$ triplets.

In order for the spectrum to contain left quarks doublets as well as anti-doublets of $`U(2)`$, the singularity point is also required to be invariant under an orientation reversal (orientifold) action. Moreover, in order to avoid extra charged matter, due to orbifold-orientifold identifications, non supersymmetric singularities with high values of $`N`$ must be considered.

Our analysis should be viewed as a first step, in the spirit of a bottom-up approach (see for instance ), in the construction of a full string model.

In fact, this partial structure should be further embedded into a globally consistent string model. Depending on the features of the singularity, this could be achieved, for instance, by considering Type IIB orientifold (a cristalographic singularity) or generically F-theory compactifications . It is important to notice that many phenomenological features will depend on the global structure.

An relevant difference with respect to the approach in , that should become clear from discussion below is that, in our proposal, hypercharge necessarily involves $`U(1)`$ generators coming from 77 branes sectors if correct hypercharge (free of anomalies) Standard model assignments are looked for. This means that such groups must be gauged and not merely global symmetries. Therefore, generically, states charged with respect to D7 groups will carry hypercharge. For the full construction to be consistent it should be ensured that hypercharge anomalies carried by D7 states could be canceled or that, such states, could be finally projected out.

We will not address this second step here, involving the full construction of the D7 brane sector. In this sense, our construction implies the identification of necessary conditions for plausibly having just the Standard Model content in this context. Nevertheless, we will argue that there seems to be enough freedom in the 77 brane sector for achieving full consistency.

An extensive treatment of D3-branes at singularities was presented in . We will closely follow the notation used there and borrow some of the results. Let us recall some facts.

The states corresponding to a set of $`n`$ D3-branes stuck at a $`\mathrm{IR}^6/𝐙_𝐍`$ singularity are obtained by keeping original fermionic and bosonic states invariant under the action of $`𝐙_𝐍`$ generator $`\theta `$. Recall that $`\theta `$ rotates string coordinates as well as Chan-Paton indices. The latter can be achieved by a general twist matrix given by

$`\gamma _{\theta ,3}=\mathrm{diag}(\mathrm{I}_{n_0},e^{2\pi i/N}\mathrm{I}_{n_1},\mathrm{},e^{2\pi i(N1)/N}\mathrm{I}_{n_{N1}})`$ (1)
where $`\mathrm{I}_{n_i}`$ is the $`n_i\times n_i`$ unit matrix, and $`_in_i=n`$. Twist information can be encoded into the vector

$`𝐕_3={\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}(0,\mathrm{},0,1,\mathrm{},1,\mathrm{},(N1),\mathrm{},(N1))`$ (2)
with $`n_0\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}^{}s,n_1\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}^{}s`$ etc.

For instance, the four fermionic states on the D3-brane world-volume, are described by Ramond states $`\lambda |s_1,s_2,s_3,s_4`$, with $`s_i=\pm \frac{1}{2}`$ and $`_is_i=\mathrm{odd}`$ where $`\lambda `$ is a Chan-Paton factor. By convention we choose $`s_4=\frac{1}{2}`$ to be left-handed fermions. $`𝐙_𝐍`$ rotation on Fock string states can be encoded in the vector $`(a_1,a_2,a_3,a_4)`$ with $`a_1+a_2+a_3+a_4=0\mathrm{mod}N`$, and it is represented by $`(\theta )|s_1,s_2,s_3,s_4=e^{2\pi ia_\alpha s_\alpha /N}|s_1,s_2,s_3,s_4`$. Invariant fermionic states are given by

$$\lambda =e^{2\pi ia_\alpha /N}\gamma _{\theta ,3}\lambda \gamma _{\theta ,3}^1$$
(3)
Similarly, the action on NS states, namely, gauge bosons $`\lambda \psi _{\frac{1}{2}}^\mu |0`$, with $`\mu `$ along the D3-brane, or complex scalars given by $`\lambda \mathrm{\Psi }_{\frac{1}{2}}^r|0`$ (with $`r=1,2,3`$ labeling a complex plane transverse to the D3-brane) can be encoded in a vector $`(b_1,b_2,b_3,0)`$ with $`b_1=a_2+a_3`$, $`b_2=a_1+a_3`$, $`b_3=a_1+a_2`$, where we have included a fourth space-time world volume coordinate with $`b_4=0`$. Thus, invariant NS states are given by

$`\lambda =e^{2\pi ib_r/N}\gamma _{\theta ,3}\lambda \gamma _{\theta ,3}^1`$ (4)
Spectra can be easily computed when Chan-Paton terms are written in a Cartan Weyl basis (details can be found in). Namely, CP generators are organized into Cartan algebra generators $`\lambda _I=H_I`$, $`I=1,\mathrm{},n`$ while charged generators are labeled by $`U(n)`$ root vectors $`\rho _3=(\underset{¯}{1},1,0\mathrm{}0)`$ where underlining indicates all possible permutations.

Thus, (3) and (4) select charged generators satisfying

$`\rho _3V_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{a_\alpha }{N}}\mathrm{mod}𝐙`$
$`\rho _3V_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{b_r}{N}}\mathrm{mod}𝐙`$ (5)
for fermionic and NS states respectively. Cartan generators are projected out whenever phases are non vanishing. The resulting spectrum in the 33 sector reads

$`\mathrm{Vectors}`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{N1}{}}}U(n_i)`$
$`\mathrm{Complex}\mathrm{Scalars}`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{N1}{}}}(n_i,\overline{n}_{ib_r})`$
$`\mathrm{Fermions}`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{4}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{N1}{}}}(n_i,\overline{n}_{i+a_\alpha })`$ (6)
where sub-indices are understood modulo $`N`$. Also, fundamental (anti-fundamental) representations of $`SU(n)`$ carry unit ($`1`$) charge with respect to the $`U(1)`$ factor in $`U(n)`$ .

D7-branes are generically required in order to achieve cancellation of RR charges. Take, for instance, $`7_3`$ branes, orthogonal to complex coordinate $`Y_3`$ and containing a set of D3-branes as considered above and choose $`b_3=\mathrm{even}`$. The Chan-Paton embedding can be defined as

$`\gamma _{\theta ,7_3}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{diag}(\mathrm{I}_{u_0},e^{2\pi i/N}\mathrm{I}_{u_1},\mathrm{},e^{2\pi i(N1)/N}\mathrm{I}_{u_{N1}})`$ (7)
with $`_iu_i=u`$ and a corresponding shift vector $`𝐕_{7_3}`$ can be assigned as in eq. (2). The massless $`\mathrm{𝟑𝟕}_\mathrm{𝟑}`$ spectrum is then found from the conditions

$`\rho ^{37_3}V_{37_3}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{b_3}{N}}\mathrm{mod}𝐙`$
$`\rho ^{37_3}V_{37_3}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(b_1+b_2)}{2N}}\mathrm{mod}𝐙`$ (8)
for left handed fermions and scalars respectively. Here $`V_{37_3}=(V_3,V_{7_3})`$ and $`\rho _{37_3}=(\underset{¯}{1,0\mathrm{}0};\underset{¯}{1,0\mathrm{}0})`$ are $`n+u`$ dimensional vectors.

The resulting 37+73 spectrum is

$`\begin{array}{cccc}& & \mathrm{Fermions}\hfill & _{i=0}^{N1}[(n_i,\overline{u}_{i+\frac{1}{2}b_3})+(u_i,\overline{n}_{i+\frac{1}{2}b_3})]\hfill \\ & & \mathrm{Complex}\mathrm{Scalars}\hfill & _{i=0}^{N1}[(n_i,\overline{u}_{i\frac{1}{2}(b_1+b_2)})+(u_i,\overline{n}_{i\frac{1}{2}(b_1+b_2)})]\hfill \end{array}`$ (11)
Similar results are obtained for other D7r-branes, transverse to the $`r^{th}`$ complex plane, just by replacing $`b_3b_r`$ etc.

Here we are concentrating in sectors containing the $`n`$ D3 at the singularity, since we pretend to place the SM on them. However, we must also take D7 branes into account. When non-compact configurations are considered D7 branes are non dynamical and the corresponding 77 groups are global symmetries. Nevertheless, when the above configuration is embedded in a compact space, 77 sector must be treated in an equal footing with the others. We will not address this computation here but we will comment on it below.

The above Chan-Paton twists, though consistent with a $`𝐙_𝐍`$ action, must be further constrained in order to ensure twisted RR fields charge cancellation. As is well known  for generic $`n_i,u_{}^{r}{}_{i}{}^{}`$ these are equivalent to non-Abelian $`SU(n_i)`$ gauge anomaly cancellation. Namely,

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{4}{}}}(n_{i+a_\alpha }n_{ia_\alpha })+{\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}}(u_{i+\frac{1}{2}b_r}^ru_{i\frac{1}{2}b_r}^r)=0`$ (12)
Notice (see (6-11)) that the term with a positive (negative) sign is the multiplicity of the $`𝐧_i`$ fundamental (anti-fundamental) representation of $`SU(n_i)`$. Thus, the same number of fundamental and anti-fundamental $`SU(n)`$ representations must be present in the spectrum. Equivalently, another way to read the above result is that the net $`U(1)`$ charge, for each $`U(n)`$, must vanish since a fundamental representation carries charge 1 while anti-fundamental $`1`$ . Interestingly enough we find constraints even when $`n_i`$ take specific values like $`n_i=0,1,2`$ which would lead, respectively to, no gauge group at all or $`U(1)`$ or $`U(2)`$ where non-abelian anomalies are not expected.

Recall that, since only fermions in bi-fundamental representations of the form $`(n_i,\overline{n}_{i+a_\alpha })`$ appear in the 33 spectrum, we could have $`(3,\overline{2})`$ left quarks (here $`\overline{2}=2_1`$) which are $`U(2)`$ anti-doublets (or $`(\overline{3},2)`$) but not $`(3,2)`$ doublets. Therefore, if we managed to obtain 3 generations of left handed quarks, we would always need six extra doublets as we have discussed above. 222 An alternative way, which deserves further investigation, to cancel extra doublets anomalies could be achieved by turning on $`B`$ and $`F`$ fluxes in the lines recently suggested in Ref.

The possibility of having different $`U(2)`$ transformations for left quark generations opens up when $`𝐙_𝐍`$ singularity is placed onto an orientifold plane. Indeed, orientifold identifications allow for the presence of $`(n,n)`$ and $`(\overline{n},\overline{n})`$ as well.

Invariance under an orientifold action $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ imposes further constraints on twists considered above . In particular $`\gamma _{\theta ,3}=(\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{\theta ,3},\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{\theta ,3}^{}{}_{}{}^{})`$. This twist leads to a replicated group with a spectrum invariant under conjugation of representations. Thus we see that ranks $`n_j=n_j`$ and factors $`U(n_j)`$ and $`U(n_j)`$ are exchanged and must be identified in the quotient by $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Similarly the fundamental representation $`n_j`$ goes over to the anti-fundamental representation $`\overline{n}_j`$, and vice-versa. When the two entries of some bi-fundamental are charged with respect to the same group in the quotient, the antisymmetric combination must be kept etc.. Again, an operative way to easily compute the spectrum is to work in a Cartan-Weyl basis. In particular, equations (5, 8) are still valid if a shift vector

$`𝐕_3={\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}(0,\mathrm{},0,1,\mathrm{},1,\mathrm{},P\mathrm{},P),`$ (13)
with $`N=2P(2P+1)`$, is assigned to $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_3`$ (and similarly a $`𝐕_{7_r}`$ to $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{7_3}`$ ) and by replacing $`+`$ and $``$ signs by $`\pm 1`$ in root vectors.

For instance $`\rho _{33}=(\underset{¯}{\pm 1,\pm 1,0\mathrm{},0})`$ should be used. Notice that these correspond to $`SO(2n)`$ charged generator roots, as expected, after orientifold projection. We will not write down the generic spectrum but rather concentrate on specific examples in order to illustrate our discussion.

Let us look for an explicit realization of the above ideas. Namely, we search for SM gauge group on D3 branes at the $`ZN`$ orientifold singularity, in the presence of D7 branes, with a basic structure of 3 left handed SM $`SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)_Y`$ quarks as

$$3(3,2,1/6)=2(3,\overline{2},1/6)_{1,1}+(3,2,1/6)_{(1,1)}$$
(14)
Subscripts indicate the charges corresponding to $`U(1)`$ factors in $`U(3)\times U(2)`$ .

Let us first notice that it is natural to place both $`SU(3)`$ and $`SU(2)`$ gauge groups on D3-branes. In fact, as can be seen already from the spectrum in eq.(11), multiplicity of $`7_r3`$ states is just one (due to second constraint in ( 8)) and therefore, it is not possible to get 3 left handed quark generations, for instance, by placing $`SU(2)`$ on a $`77`$ sector. Since, as can be seen from eq.(5), fermion multiplicity is given by the number equal twist eigenvalues, we must have a twist action on fermions of the form

$$(a_1,a_2,a_3,a_4)=(a,a,b,c)$$
(15)
with $`c=(b+2a)`$ $`mod`$ $`N`$. Moreover, $`bac`$ $`mod`$ $`N`$ in order to avoid three identical generations and also $`bc`$ $`mod`$ $`N`$.

A $`(3,\overline{2})`$ is represented by a 33 root vector $`=(\underset{¯}{1,0,0},\underset{¯}{1,0},\mathrm{})`$, while a $`(3,2)`$ corresponds to $`=(\underset{¯}{+,0,0},\underset{¯}{+,0},\mathrm{})`$, where the first three entries correspond to $`SU(3)`$ and the two others to $`SU(2)`$.

Thus, we are lead to CP twists of the form

$$V=1/N(\frac{a+b}{2},\frac{a+b}{2},\frac{a+b}{2},\frac{ab}{2},\frac{ab}{2},d_1,d_2,\mathrm{})$$
(16)
It produces the desired states in eq.(14) if hypercharge is defined as $`Y=\frac{Q_3}{6}+0\frac{Q_2}{6}+\mathrm{}`$

Entries $`d_1,d_2`$ etc. allow for the presence of extra $`U(1)`$ factors that could be needed to accommodate the rest of the SM spectrum ( one such factor is added in model below).

We have stressed that $`Q_2`$ can not be part of hypercharge since $`U(2)`$ doublets and antidoublets, carrying opposite such charge, must give the same $`1/6`$ hypercharge contribution. This would, necessarily, lead to include $`U(1)`$ charges originated in D7-brane groups in the definition of $`Y`$. The reason is that, as it can be checked, it is not possible to accommodate all right quarks and left leptons in 33 sector for any $`N`$. Some of them must necessarily come from $`37_r`$ sectors. Since $`Q_3`$ normalization is already fixed in order to produce correct left quark assignements and $`Q_2`$ is not present in $`Y`$ correct charges for such states must include $`U(1)`$ generators from $`77`$ sectors (otherwise right quarks from $`37`$ sectors would carry $`Y=1/6`$ and/or leptons $`Y=0`$ hypercharge).

Therefore D7-branes must be embedded in a global compact manifold for the groups to become gauged. This differs from the approach in , where hypercharge appeared as the diagonal combination of D3-brane $`U(1)`$ groups.

Notice that $`b=2a`$ (mod $`N`$) would lead to a supersymmetric singularity. However, for the twist above, this value would produce extra $`(3,1,1/3)`$ representations (coming from conjugate antisymmetric representations of $`SU(3)`$ ). Since we are looking for a fermionic content as close as possible to the Standard Model one, this choice for $`b`$ must be forbidden. Let us point out that in supersymmetric models, extra doublets required by tadpole cancellation, could be interpreted as higgsinos and therefore, in such cases, there is no real need to have different $`U(2)`$ behaviours for left quarks (if we allow for several Higgs fields). However, in this situation, $`N=3`$ is needed in order to have three generations and this choice alway leads to extra matter. We conclude that it is not possible to obtain the, exactly, Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model from a D-brane at an orbifold or orientifold singularity.

Several other restrictions must be imposed on $`a_\alpha `$ and $`N`$ in order to avoid such kind of extra matter. For instance $`aa,b,c`$ in order to avoid $`(\overline{3},2)`$ states or $`\frac{ab}{2}+d_ia_\alpha `$ to forbid anti-doublets etc. Similar constraints do appear when 73 sectors are included. Observe that these restrictions are all “$`moduloN`$ and, therefore, will require $`N`$ to be sufficiently large in order to forbidd identifications.

In fact, it appears, as we indicate below, that $`N11`$.

Let us see how all this works in explicit examples:

Consider the action on fermions given by odd twists $`a_\alpha `$. Let us choose, for instance, $`(a_1,a_2,a_3,a_4)=(1,1,5,3)`$. Hence, the corresponding action on scalars is achieved by $`(b_1,b_2,b_3)=(4,4,2)`$.

The twist on Chan-Paton factors in (16) becomes $`V=1/N(\mathrm{},2,2,2,3,3,\mathrm{})`$ The constraints discussed above indicate already that $`N2,3,4,5,6,8`$ or $`10`$. $`N=7,9`$ can also be discarded by a more carefull analysis of $`37`$ spectra. We will choose $`N=12`$, for concreteness, and briefely discuss other possibilities afterwards.

A $`𝐙_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟐}}`$ example:

Even if generic features are shared with other $`N`$’s singularities, let us stress that $`𝐙_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟐}}`$ is a peculiar example since it corresponds to a cristalographic singularity. Let us briefely comment about this. Classification of cristalographic singularities  shows that only some $`𝐙_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟐}}`$, non factorizable, singularities are possible and that factorizable one’s are at most of $`𝐙_\mathrm{𝟔}`$ type. Actually, notice that this corresponds to our case. Eventhough the action on fermions is given by a $`𝐙_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟐}}`$ twist, the lattice is defined by the action on scalars which in the example at hand is given by $`\frac{1}{12}(4,4,2)=\frac{1}{6}(2,2,1)`$, namely, a product of three hexagonal ( $`SU(3)`$) lattices. Therefore, it would be possible, for instance, to achieve a full consistent orientifold compactification In particular, the possibility of having large extra dimensions  in order to lower the string scale, which is of phenomenological interest here since models are non supersymmetric, is open in this context.

Recall that $`b_i=even`$ as is required by modular invariance in the closed, torus, sector. Nevertheless, since the singularity is not supersymmetric, tachyons in the closed string sector must be taken care of (see for instance )).

As explained above, in order to ensure twisted tadpole cancellation, we must first write down the generic spectrum and then find the conditions for it to be free of anomalies. After that we may choose specific values for the number of given CP twist eigenvalues ($`n_i^{}s,u_i^{}s`$ etc.) satisfying such requirements, in order to build a specific model.

Thus, for the 33 sector we define a generic twist

$`V_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}(1,\mathrm{}1,2,\mathrm{}2,\mathrm{}6,\mathrm{}6)`$ (17)
Where there are $`n_i`$ entries equal to i on the D3-branes ($`n_0`$ is chosen to vanish) and similar vectors for $`D7_1`$,$`D7_2`$ and $`D7_3`$-branes with with $`u_i,v_i`$ and $`w_i`$ entries.

The spectrum reads

$`Sector33`$ (18)
$`2[(n_1,\overline{3})+(3,\overline{2})+(2,\overline{n}_4)+(n_4,\overline{n}_5)+(n_5,\overline{n}_6)+(n_5,n_6)]+`$
$`(n_1,\overline{n}_4)+(3,\overline{n}_5)+(2,\overline{n}_6)+(2,n_6)+(n_4,n_5)+(\overline{n}_1,\overline{3})+`$
$`(\overline{n}_1,\overline{n}_6)+(\overline{n}_1,n_6)+(n_1,n_4)+(3,2)+(\overline{3},\overline{n}_5)+(\overline{2},\overline{n}_4)`$
$`Sector37_3`$ (19)
$`(n_1,\overline{w}_2)+(3,\overline{w}_3)+(2,\overline{w}_4)+(n_4,\overline{w}_5)+(n_5,\overline{w}_6)+(n_5,w_6)+`$
$`(\overline{3},w_1)+(\overline{2},w_2)+(\overline{n}_4,w_3)+(\overline{n}_5,w_4)+(n_6,w_5)+(\overline{n}_6,w_5)`$
$`Sector37_1`$ (20)
$`(n_1,u_1)+(\overline{n}_5,\overline{u}_5)+(\overline{n}_4,\overline{u}_6)+(\overline{n}_4,u_6)+(n_6,\overline{u}_4)+(\overline{n}_6,\overline{u}_4)+`$
$`(\overline{n}_1,u_3)+(\overline{3},u_4)+(\overline{2},u_5)+(2,\overline{u}_1)+(n_4,\overline{u}_2)+(n_5,\overline{u}_3)`$
and similarly for sector $`37_2`$ by replacing $`uv`$. For the sake of clarity we have already chosen $`n_2=3`$ and $`n_3=2`$.

The twisted tadpole cancellation requirements read

$`3n_1+3n_3+w_3w_1u_4v_4=0`$ (21)
$`n2+n_4+2n_6+w_4w_2+u_1+v_1u_5v_5=0`$ (22)
$`n_2+2n_42n_6+w_2+u_1+v_1u_3v_3=0`$ (23)
$`3n_53n_3+w_5w_32u_62v_6+u_2+v_2=0`$ (24)
$`n_4+4n_62n_2+2w_6w_4+u_3+v_3u_5v_5=0`$ (25)
Clearly $`n_5=n_4=n_6=w_2=w_3=u_5=v_5=0`$ in order to avoid extra triplets or anti-doublets and $`n_1=1`$. Interestingly enough, since $`n_2=3`$ and $`n_3=2`$, we find that first equation becomes $`w_1+u_4+v_4=3`$ telling us, as expected, that 3 anti-triplets must be provided by $`37_r`$ sectors. Similarly second equation indicates that $`w_4+u_1+v_1=3`$ doublets must come from such sectors. $`3+u_1+v_1=u_3+v_3`$ requires the total number of $`1`$ and $`\overline{1}`$ to be the same. The other two equations come from cancellation of, generic, $`SU(n_4)\times SU(n_5)`$ anomalies even though here, $`n_4=n_5=0`$.

By identifying the two anti-triplets $`2(n_1,\overline{3})`$ in 33 sector with $`U_R`$ quarks (and therefore $`(\overline{n}_1,\overline{3})`$ with $`D_R`$) and placing the third one in $`37_3`$ sector ( $`w_1=1`$) we must define the hypercharge as

$`Y`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Q_3}{6}}{\displaystyle \frac{Q_1}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{Q_a}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{Q_b}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{Q_c}{2}}+Q_{neutral}^7`$
with

$`Q_a`$ $`=`$ $`Q_4^{7_1}+Q_4^{7_2}Q_1^{7_3}`$ (26)
$`Q_b`$ $`=`$ $`Q_4^{7_3}`$ (27)
$`Q_c`$ $`=`$ $`Q_3^{7_2}+Q_3^{7_1}`$
where the sub-indices indicate the corresponding Chan-Paton twist eigenvalue. We have summarized in $`Q_{neutral}^7`$ the possibility of including other charges from 77 sectors. Even if SM massless fermions carry no such charge massless scalars could be charged.

Since the number of right handed leptons is given by $`u_3+v_3`$, then $`u_1=v_1=0`$ must be imposed.

We see that, due to the symmetry between $`7_1`$ and $`7_2`$ branes (see 8) there is still certain freedom to place some states in one or another sector leading to same spectrum.

As an example, let us choose to place three ($`u_3=3`$) right leptons in $`37_1`$ sector and two $`D_R`$ quarks ($`v_4=2`$) $`37_2`$. Therefore, vector shifts

$`V_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}(1,2,2,2,3,3)`$ (28)
$`V_{7_1}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}(2,\mathrm{}3,3,3,6,\mathrm{}6)`$ (29)
$`V_{7_2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}((2,\mathrm{}2,4,4,6,\mathrm{}6)`$ (30)
$`V_{7_3}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}(1,4,4,4,5\mathrm{}5,6,6,6)`$ (31)
with $`w_5+u_2+v_2=6+2(u_6+v_6)`$, lead to $`SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)_Y`$ spectrum

$`2(3,\overline{2},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}})+(3,2,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}})+3(\overline{3},1,{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}})+3(\overline{3},1,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}})`$ (32)
$`3(1,2,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})+3(1,1,1)`$
Results are summarized in Table 1

Notice that when above $`U(1)`$ charges are global symmetries they can be given a familiar physical meaning (see  and  for similar observations). In particular, $`Q_3=3B`$ where $`B`$ is the baryon number and $`L=Q_cQ_b`$ is the lepton number. Also $`I_R=\frac{1}{2}(Q_1Q_a)`$ corresponds to $`SU(2)_R`$ weak isospin in left-right models etc. Recall, however, that at this level all such symmetries are actually local symmetries.

Several comments are in order. A relevant observation is that, correct hypercharge assignments, ensuring that above $`SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)_Y`$ spectrum is anomaly free, unambiguously (up to some signs depending on which sector we chose to place right up or down quarks) define hypercharge $`Y`$ above (S0.Ex12). Therefore, $`Y`$ must involve generators of 77 sectors Abelian groups.

As stressed before this appears to be an unavoidable fact also for other $`N`$’s. There is no way to obtain the SM content from only the 33 sector without including extra matter.

A consequence is that $`7_r7_r`$ states, which are singlets under $`SU(3)\times SU(2)`$, will generically carry hypercharge. Hence, mixed anomalies of $`Y`$ with $`7_r7_r`$ groups should vanish in order for $`Y`$ to be truly free of anomalies.

A complete study of this fact is out of the scope of this note where we are looking for a set of necessary conditions to achieve a minimal SM content. Notice, however, a somewhat related fact. Quite plausibly, Wilson lines (WL) could be introduced in order to break $`U(N)`$ factors into products of abelian groups in 77 sectors (some of which will become massive). Thus, the dimension of 77 representations in 37 sectors will become true multiplicities for SM charged states as written down in eq.(32). Moreover, in this procedure, by suitably choosing WL, 77 states carrying hypercharge could be completely projected out of the spectrum thus leaving, at most, a certain number of SM singlets $`(1,1,0)`$ and/or hidden matter.

In order to indicate how this could work, let us turn on a discrete Wilson line on second complex plane . This WL must be embedded as a twist on $`7_1`$ and $`7_3`$ branes. For instance, we can choose the twist on $`7_1`$ -branes to be

$`W_{7_1}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}(3,\mathrm{},4\mathrm{},5\mathrm{},6,\mathrm{};0,1,2;3\mathrm{})`$ (33)
where the first (last) entries correspond to $`l_i`$ $`i^{}s`$ $`i0,1,2`$ ( $`m_i`$ $`i^{}s`$ $`i0,1,2`$ ) with $`l_i=u_2`$ ( $`m_i=u_6`$). Such a WL breaks $`U(3)_3`$ to $`U(1)^3`$ and also projects out all $`Y`$ charged states $`(u_2,\overline{u}_3)_{1/2}+(u_2,u_3)_{1/2}`$ as desired. Notice that there is plenty of freedom for choosing WL producing such effect (moreover, in this particular case we could have chosen $`u_2=0`$ without even needing to introduce a Wilson line).

We can proceed similarly with the twist on $`7_3`$ branes. The same goal can be achieved on $`7_27_2`$ sectors by adding a WL on first (or third) plane with a corresponding action on ,$`7_2`$ and $`7_3`$ ($`7_2`$ and $`7_1`$)-branes.

Unfortunately this is not the whole story. $`7_r`$ branes contain other four fixed points, apart from the origin. Twisted tadpoles are expected at such points and therefore extra D3’-branes must be placed there in order to cancel them. Again, among $`3^{}7_r`$ states, some of them will generically carry hypercharge. Since these are not fixed by the orientifold action, spectra and tadpole cancellation conditions will be of the form discussed in eq. (6\- 12). Moreover, such points will generically feel the presence of the Wilson lines.

Due to the freedom in choosing both Wilson lines and twists on D3’-branes we expect to be able to achieve such cancellation at each point, by forbidding (hyper)-charged $`3^{}7_r`$ states. For instance, fixed point $`P=(0,+1,0)`$ will feel a twist on $`7_1`$ branes of the form

$`V_P=(V_{7_1}+W_{7_1},V_{7_1}W_{7_1})`$ (34)
Tadpole cancellation at such point eq. (12) leads to twelve ($`N=12`$) equations. It can be checked that, in order to avoid (hyper) charged states $`n_1^{}=n_2^{}=n_3^{}=n_5^{}=n_6^{}=n_7^{}=0`$. However, even if this is very restrictive there is enough freedom in choosing $`n_4^{},n_8^{},n_9^{},n_{10}^{},n_{11}^{}`$, $`u_2`$ and $`u_6`$ WL entries above to solve the equations system.

Thus, by suitable introduction of Wilson lines, all (hyper)-charged 77 states could be projected out and relevant non-abelian groups broken down to Abel-Ian factors by leaving just gauge bosons and chiral fermions of the Standard Model (plus, presumably, SM singlets). Full consistent compactification will still require cancellation of untwisted tadpoles and twisted tadpoles proportional to inverse volume terms, not present in the infinite volume limit. In principle this could be achieved by following similar steps as in the compact models constructed in  and  for example. Certainly anti-branes will be needed etc.

Here we have concentrated in the fermionic spectrum. However, above twists predict also the presence of scalars, as can be seen from (6) and 11, charged under SM group. For instance, scalars $`2(3,1,1/3)`$ will always be present with a generic twist as in 16 in 33 sector etc.

In particular, the spectrum for the model presented above contains $`2(3,1,\frac{1}{3})+3(1,2,\frac{1}{2}))`$ in 33 sector and $`(u_2+v_2)[(1,2,)+(1,1,)]+3(3,1,\frac{1}{3})+2(1,2,1/2)`$ from $`37_1+37_2`$ sectors and $`(1,2,1/2)+w_5[(1,1,)+(1,2,)]+6(3,1,)`$ from $`37_3`$ sector. We have indicated by $``$ that $`Y`$ charge depends on the definition of $`Q_{neutral}^7`$ in (S0.Ex12).

We will not address a phenomenological study here. Let us say that we expect such scalars to become generically massive, since no symmetry that would keep them massless is operating here. They will contribute to the fermionic mass structure. Notice also that, among scalars, there are doublets with correct hypercharges to be identified with Higgs fields, which are required to break electroweak symmetry.

Twists defined above (28) correspond to a so called with vector structure twist  (roughly speaking $`\gamma ^N=1`$). However, twists without vector structure( $`\gamma ^N=1`$) could also be considered. We have looked at $`𝐙_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟐}}`$ examples with twist $`a_\alpha 1/12(1124)`$ (thus $`b=1/12(3,3,2)`$) and generic CP embeddings $`V_3=1/24(1\mathrm{}1,3\mathrm{}3,\mathrm{},11\mathrm{}11)`$. In such cases, twisted tadpole cancellation conditions appear to be much stronger than above (due essentially to the presence of antisymmetric representations, now allowed by $`\alpha _\alpha `$’s) and, as a consequence, extra matter is required in order to satisfy them.

Let us conclude with a brief summary of our results and some observations. We have identified a set of generic necessary conditions which appear to be required if a minimal Standard Model content is looked for in the context of D-branes at $`\mathrm{IR}^6/𝐙_𝐍`$ singularities. We have concluded that, $`𝐙_𝐍`$ must be an orientifold fixed point, $`N`$ must be large enough ($`N11`$ ) and singularity must be non-supersymmetric. Moreover, we have shown that hypercharge involves combinations of $`U(1)`$ generators which must include, necessarily, Abelian factors from 77 sectors. We argued that extra 77 or 73’ states carrying hypercharge could be projected out, for instance, by suitable introduction of Wilson lines. An explicit $`Z_{12}`$ example was presented to illustrate such issues. Further examples, with higher order singularities, can be treated in the same way 333The spectrum can be obtained from 18-20 by a straightforward generalization taking care of $`mod`$ $`N`$ identifications. However, since such cases are not cristalographic, they should be embedded in a more complicated generic Calabi- Yau compact space.

Let us emphasize that this is just a first step in the construction of a fully consistent model. In particular, since singularities are non supersymmetric, closed string tachyons will be generically present. They could completely ruin the viability of these non-susy singularities or, more hopefully, they could be the signal of a transition towards more stable configurations as in the situations analised in . Let us notice that, depending on the $`\theta `$ action on scalars,$`(b_1,b_2,b_3)`$, just closed twisted tachyons, associated to orbifold fixed points can be present or also closed tachyons propagating in the bulk (this is the case for the $`𝐙_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟐}}`$ example above).

Another relevant point refers to the possible couplings of closed twisted RR fields to $`U(1)`$ field strengths . Such couplings, through a generalized Green -Schwarz  mechanism, will ensure cancellation of $`U(1)`$ charges combinations possessing triangle anomalies. Corresponding $`U(1)`$ become massive. This should be the case, for instance, for $`Q_1`$ or $`Q_2`$ anomalous combinations.

Notice, however, that RR fields could couple to some (or all) anomaly free combinations, and render the corresponding gauge bosons massive. Further investigation of couplings is required in order to ensure that $`Y`$ remains effectively a gauge symmetry. Assuming that this is indeed the case, let us recall that, for other $`U(1)`$’s becoming massive, original gauge symmetries remain as global symmetries  in the effective field theory. This leads to relevant phenomenological consequences. For instance, conservation of baryon number will protect proton from decaying etc. As stressed, we will not pursue a phenomenological study of models presented above. Nevertheless, notice that the kind of analysis made in Ref. (see also ), in the context of D6-branes at angles referring to such global symmetries, can be paralleled here. In fact, this appears to be generic to SM built up from D-branes where originally $`U(n)`$ factors rather than $`SU(n)`$ are present.

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to D. Badagnani and especially to L.E. Ibáñez and A. Uranga for stimulating discussions and suggestions. G.A. thanks U.A.M for hospitality. G.A work is partially supported by ANPCyT grant 03-03403.


text:
# Range of the first three eigenvalues of the planar Dirichlet Laplacian

## 1 Introduction

Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ be a bounded domain in $`^n`$, $`n2`$. We consider the eigenvalue problem for the Dirichlet Laplacian,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }u=\lambda u\text{in }\mathrm{\Omega },$$
(1.1)
$$u|_\mathrm{\Omega }=0.$$
(1.2)
Let us denote the eigenvalues by $`\lambda _1(\mathrm{\Omega })`$, $`\lambda _2(\mathrm{\Omega })`$, …, (we will sometimes omit explicit dependence on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ when speaking about a generic domain), where $`0<\lambda _1<\lambda _2\lambda _3\mathrm{}`$. The corresponding orthonormal basis of real eigenfunctions will be denoted $`\{u_j\}_{j=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$.

For the last fifty years, the problem of obtaining a priori estimates of the eigenvalues and their ratios has attracted a substantial attention. The existing results can be roughly divided into two groups — universal estimates, valid, as the name suggests, for all eigenvalues and all the domains in $`^n`$, which do not take into account any geometric information, and isoperimetric estimates for low eigenvalues. We briefly survey some known results below; the reader is referred to the very detailed survey paper \[Ash\] and references therein for a full discussion.

### Universal estimates

Probably the first, and best known, estimate of this type is the Payne-Pólya-Weinberger inequality \[PPW\],

$$\lambda _{m+1}\lambda _m+\frac{4}{mn}\underset{j=1}{\overset{m}{}}\lambda _j.$$
(PPW)
This was subsequently improved by Hile and Protter \[HiPr\], and, in 1990’s, by Hong Cang Yang \[Yan\], whose implicit estimate

$$\underset{j=1}{\overset{m}{}}\left(\lambda _{m+1}\lambda _j\right)\left(\lambda _{m+1}\left(1+\frac{4}{n}\right)\lambda _j\right)0,$$
(HCY)
remains the best universal estimate so far for the eigenvalues of the Dirichlet Laplacian.

The general method of obtaining (PPW) and (HCY), as well as of similar estimates for a variety of other operators, has been the use of variational principles with some ingenious choices of trial functions, see \[Ash\]. Recently, an alternative abstract scheme, based on the so-called commutator trace identities, which easily implies, in particular, (PPW) and (HCY), has been developed in \[LevPar\], see also \[HarStu\].

By their very nature, the universal estimates are generically non-sharp.

### Isoperimetric estimates

Both (PPW) and (HCY) give, for $`m=1`$, the estimate

$$\frac{\lambda _2}{\lambda _1}1+\frac{4}{n}.$$

This upper bound cannot, in fact, be attained. Already, Payne, Pólya, and Weinberger conjectured that the actual optimal upper bound on the ratio of the first two eigenvalues of the Dirichlet Laplacian is

$$\frac{\lambda _2}{\lambda _1}(\mathrm{\Omega })\frac{\lambda _2}{\lambda _1}|_{n\text{-dimensional ball}}=\frac{j_{n/2,1}^2}{j_{n/21,1}^2}=:K_n\text{for }\mathrm{\Omega }^n$$
(AB0)
(here $`j_{p,q}`$ stands for the $`q`$-th zero of the Bessel function $`J_p(\rho )`$, so, in a planar case $`n=2`$, $`K_22.5387`$ compared with (PPW) bound $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _2}{\lambda _1}}(\mathrm{\Omega })|_{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}3`$).

Conjecture (AB0) was eventually proved, only in the early 1990s, by Ashbaugh and Benguria \[AshBen1, AshBen3\], using, in particular, symmetrization techniques going back to the Faber-Krahn inequality,

$$\lambda _1(\mathrm{\Omega })\lambda _1(\mathrm{\Omega }^{}),$$

where $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ is an $`n`$-dimensional ball of the same volume as $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

We would like to mention, in this context, extensive computational experiments designed to verify (AB0) by Haeberly \[Hae, HaeOve\].

### Statement of the problem

As mentioned, (AB0) gives the full description of the range of the possible values of ratio of the first two eigenvalues of the Dirichlet Laplacian, $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _2}{\lambda _1}}`$ for domains in the Euclidean space (the obvious lower bound is $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _2}{\lambda _1}}1`$). In fact, similar results were also obtained for domains in $`𝕊^n`$ and $`^n`$. A natural extension would be to find optimal upper bounds on the range of the ratios of the first three eigenvalues of the Dirichlet Laplacian, $`({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _2}{\lambda _1}},{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _3}{\lambda _1}})`$, in particular for planar domains. In other words, we would like to find, for $`x:={\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _2}{\lambda _1}}`$ and $`y:={\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _3}{\lambda _1}}`$, the function

$$y^{}(x):=\underset{\mathrm{\Omega }^2:\frac{\lambda _2}{\lambda _1}(\mathrm{\Omega })=x}{\mathrm{max}}\frac{\lambda _3}{\lambda _1}(\mathrm{\Omega })$$
(1.3)
and the number

$$Y^{}:=\underset{x[1,K_2]}{\mathrm{max}}y^{}(x)=\underset{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{\mathrm{max}}\frac{\lambda _3}{\lambda _1}(\mathrm{\Omega })$$
(1.4)
or their best possible estimates. We will use notation (1.3) and (1.4) when looking for maxima in particular classes of domains as well.

Despite an apparent simplicity of this problem, and a wide attention it has attracted, it turned out to be rather difficult. In \[AshBen5, AshBen6\], Ashbaugh and Benguria proved a complicated upper bound for $`y^{}(x)`$ and also demonstrated that

$$3.1818\frac{35}{11}Y^{}3.83103.$$
(1.5)
Their estimates improve upon previous results due to Payne, Pólya, and Weinberger, Brands, de Vries, Hile and Protter, Marcellini, Chiti, Hong Cang Yang, and themselves; see \[AshBen5, AshBen6\] and their earlier papers \[AshBen2, AshBen4\] for extensive bibliography and details of proofs. We present their estimates and other known facts in the next Section; just note at the moment that the lower bound in (1.5) is attained when $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the rectangle $`R_a:=[0,1]\times [0,a]`$ with $`a=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}}`$.

In the current paper, we describe extensive numerical experiments aimed at improving (1.5). We also show, using perturbation techniques, that the rectangle $`R_{\sqrt{\frac{8}{3}}}`$ does not maximize the ratio $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _3}{\lambda _1}}`$ and indicate a class of domains among which a possible maximizer could be found.

### Acknowledgements

The original suggestion to conduct numerical experiments on the range of $`({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _2}{\lambda _1}},{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _3}{\lambda _1}})`$ for planar domains came from Brian Davies; we would like to thank him, as well as Mark Ashbaugh and Leonid Parnovski, for valuable discussions and advice. It is the authors, nevertheless, who take full responsibility for the realization of this idea, and any criticism for possible shortcomings of this realization should be addressed to them.

## 2 Known results for the range of $`({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _2}{\lambda _1}},{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _3}{\lambda _1}})`$ for planar domains

### Explicit solutions

The spectral problem (1.1), (1.2) admits a full solution by separation of variables when $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is, for example, a disjoint union of a number of rectangles or circles. For a reference, we collect below the results on the range of $`({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _2}{\lambda _1}},{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _3}{\lambda _1}})`$ in these cases.

Let $`R_a:=[0,1]\times [0,a]`$ be a rectangle with the side ratio $`a`$; without loss of generality $`a1`$. Then

$$\frac{\lambda _2}{\lambda _1}(R_a)=\frac{a^2+4}{a^2+1}$$

and

$$\frac{\lambda _3}{\lambda _1}(R_a)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{a^2+9}{a^2+1}\text{for}a\sqrt{\frac{8}{3}},\hfill & \\ \frac{4a^2+1}{a^2+1}\text{for}1a\sqrt{\frac{8}{3}}.\hfill & \end{array}$$

Thus, for rectangles, in notation (1.3) and (1.4),

$$y(x)=y^{}(x)|_{\text{rectangles}}=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{8}{3}x\frac{5}{3}\text{for}1x\frac{20}{11},\hfill & \\ 5x\text{for}\frac{20}{11}x\frac{5}{2},\hfill & \end{array}$$
(2.1)
and the maximum value of $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _3}{\lambda _1}}`$ is

$$Y^{}|_{\text{rectangles}}=\frac{35}{11},$$

attained when $`a=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}}`$. Note that for this particular rectangle $`\lambda _3`$ is a degenerate eigenvalue: $`\lambda _3(R_{\sqrt{\frac{8}{3}}})=\lambda _4(R_{\sqrt{\frac{8}{3}}})`$, and it is the only $`a`$ for which $`\lambda _3(R_a)`$ is not simple.

In the $`(x,y)`$-plane, (2.1) corresponds to the two straight lines intersecting at the point $`({\displaystyle \frac{20}{11}},{\displaystyle \frac{35}{11}})`$.

For a single circle, $`x=y=K_2`$. As easily checked, for a union of more than one disjoint circles of arbitrary radii,

$$y^{}(x)|_{\text{circles}}K_2,\text{for}1xK_2.$$
(2.2)
Its graph in the $`(x,y)`$-plane is a straight line parallel to the $`x`$-axis.

The following easily checked fact shows that one cannot obtain higher values of $`y^{}(x)`$ by considering disjoint unions of sets from two different classes. Namely, let $`𝒞_j`$ be two arbitrary classes of domains, with corresponding functions $`y^{}(x)|_{𝒞_j}`$ (not necessarily defined for all $`x[1,K_2]`$). Then, for any domain $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{\Omega }_1\mathrm{\Omega }_2`$ with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_j𝒞_j`$, we have, for $`x={\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _2}{\lambda _1}}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ and $`y={\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _3}{\lambda _1}}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$, the inequality $`y\mathrm{max}(y^{}(x)|_{𝒞_1},y^{}(x)|_{𝒞_2},K_2)`$.

There are other domains, like sectors of the annuli, ellipses, etc., for which the problem of funding the eigenvalues is reduced by separation of variables to the problem of solving some transcendental equations. However, the latter one is often not easier than the numerical solution of the original problem, so we do not treat these cases here.

The graphs of $`y(x)=y^{}(x)|_{\text{rectangles}}`$ and $`y^{}(x)|_{\text{circles}}`$ are shown in Figure 1.

### Ashbaugh-Benguria estimates

In \[AshBen6\], Ashbaugh and Benguria proved, using a wide variety of methods, the following upper bounds for $`y^{}(x)`$:

$$y^{}(x)<K_2x\text{for}1<x1.396^{},$$
(AB1)
$$y^{}(x)1+x+\sqrt{2x(1+x^2)/2}\text{for}1.396^{}x1.634^{},$$
(AB2)
$$y^{}(x)F(x)\text{for}1.634^{}x1.676^{},$$
(AB3)
$$y^{}(x)H(x)x\text{for}1.676^{}x2.198^+,$$
(AB4)
and

$$y^{}(x)G(x)\text{for}2.198^+x2.539^{},$$
(AB5)
where the functions $`H(x),F(x)`$ and $`G(x)`$ are defined by

$$H(x)=\{\begin{array}{cc}& 6\text{for}x=1\hfill \\ & \underset{1\eta ,\xi <x}{\mathrm{min}}\left(2\eta +\frac{4\beta (\beta +\gamma )^2(x1)(x\beta \gamma /(\beta +\gamma 1))^2}{(2\beta 1)(2\gamma 1)(x\eta )(x\xi )(4x2\eta \xi )}\right)\hfill \\ & \text{for}x>1\hfill \end{array}$$

with $`\beta =\eta +\sqrt{\eta ^2\eta }`$ and $`\gamma =\xi +\sqrt{\xi ^2\xi }`$, $`F(x)`$ is the middle root of the cubic

$$2xy^32(5x^2+3x+1)y^2+(6x^3+39x^2+2x1)y(24x^3+11x^24x1)=0$$

and

$$G(x)=\underset{\beta >1/2}{inf}\left(\frac{\beta ^2}{2\beta 1}+\frac{x\beta ^2/(2\beta 1)}{C_2(\beta )(x\beta ^2/(2\beta 1))1}\right)$$

with the infimum taken over values of $`\beta `$ satisfying $`x>\beta ^2/(2\beta 1)+1/C_2(\beta )`$ and with

$$C_2(\beta )=\frac{2\beta 1}{\beta }\frac{{\displaystyle _0^{j_{0,1}}}t^3J_0^{2\beta }(t)𝑑t}{{\displaystyle _0^{j_{0,1}}}tJ_0^{2\beta }(t)𝑑t}$$

We remind that $`J_0(t)`$ denotes the standard Bessel function of order zero and $`j_{0,1}`$ is its first positive zero. For the derivation of the bound (AB4) and more discussion of it, see \[AshBen5\]. The other bounds given above are due to Hong-Cang Yang (see \[Yan\] for (AB2)) and Ashbaugh and Benguria (see \[AshBen2\], \[AshBen4\] for (AB1), \[AshBen5\] for (AB5), and \[AshBen6\] for (AB3)).

The admissible region for $`({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _2}{\lambda _1}},{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _3}{\lambda _1}})`$ defined by (AB0), obvious bounds $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _2}{\lambda _1}}1`$ and $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _3}{\lambda _1}}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _2}{\lambda _1}}`$, and inequalities (AB1)–(AB5), is shown in Figure 1.

We make two remarks following \[AshBen6\]:

###### Remark 2.1.

The inequalities (AB1)–(AB5) all apply on broader intervals of $`x`$-values than the intervals specified explicitly with them; the given intervals indicate the range for which the corresponding inequality gives the best bound yet found.

###### Remark 2.2.

The absolute maximum of the right-hand sides of (AB1)–(AB5) occurs at the point where $`F(x)`$ has a maximum within the interval where it is the best bound. That happens at the point $`(x,y)(1.65728,3.83103)`$, and imply the best upper bound (1.5) yet proven for $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _3}{\lambda _1}}`$.

## 3 Numerical analysis of random domains

To the best of our knowledge, there have been no large scale numerical experiments on low eigenvalues of the Dirichlet Laplacian for planar domain. In an attempt to improve the existing estimates on the range of $`({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _2}{\lambda _1}},{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _3}{\lambda _1}})`$, we conducted such experiments for a variety of domain classes.

### General method

For each particular domain, the calculation of the first three eigenvalues has been conducted using a standard finite element method implementation via PDEToolbox \[PDETool\] and FEMLAB \[FEMLAB\] in Matlab, with two or three mesh refinements. For simple domains with relatively “high” values of the ratio $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _3}{\lambda _1}}`$, optimization with respect to the parameters describing domains of the particular class was performed in order to maximize this ratio. The results of calculations for some classes of domains are described below and summarized at the end of this Section.

For each class of the domains we represent the results in the following graphical form. The range $`[1,K_2]`$ of possible values of $`x={\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _2}{\lambda _1}}`$ is split into subintervals of length $`\delta x`$ (normally $`0.05`$). In each subinterval we choose, if it exists, a domain with maximal $`y={\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _3}{\lambda _1}}`$ and plot the corresponding point $`(x,y)`$. For comparison, the graphs of $`y(x)=y^{}(x)|_{\text{rectangles}}`$ and/or $`y^{}(x)|_{\text{circles}}`$ are shown.

### Triangles, quadrilaterals and ellipses

We start with cyclic calculations for all triangles, with angle step $`2.5^{}`$. For the triangles with relatively high ratio of $`\lambda _3/\lambda _1`$ we repeat the procedure in the local neighbourhood with angle step $`0.5^{}`$. The results are shown in Fig. 3.

The computational procedure for quadrilaterals is essentially the same as the one for triangles, with parameters $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$, $`\gamma `$ and $`\delta `$ in the region $`(0,\pi )`$ (see Fig. 2).

We choose an angle step of $`2.5^{}`$. Note that quadrilaterals with negative $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$, or $`\gamma `$ and $`\delta `$ do not have to be considered separately — they fit into the scheme above by choosing another diagonal as a starting point and re-scaling. In case of relatively high ratio $`\lambda _3/\lambda _1`$ ($`3`$) we repeated the calculation with an angle step $`0.5^{}`$ in the local neighbourhood of that quadrilateral. The results are shown in Fig. 3.

The results of cyclic calculations for the ellipses, with axis ratio varying between $`1`$ and $`5`$ with step $`0.1`$ ($`0.001`$ in the vicinity of the ellipse with highest $`\lambda _3/\lambda _1`$), are also shown in Fig. 3.

###### Remark 3.1.

Rather surprisingly, Fig. 3 suggests that

$$y^{}(x)|_{\text{quadrilaterals}}y^{}(x)|_{\text{rectangles}}$$
(3.1)
We give a partial explanation of this fact in the next Section, see Remark 4.6.

### Annuli and random sectors of annuli

The calculations for annuli with with inner radius $`1`$ and outer radius $`r`$ demonstrated that the corresponding value $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _3}{\lambda _1}}(r)`$ is monotonically increasing from $`1`$ to $`K_2`$ as $`r`$ changes from $`1`$ to $`\mathrm{}`$ (although convergence, for large $`r`$, is very slow — just logarithmic). These results are not very informative and we do not include them in the graphs or the summary table below.

In calculations for sectors of the annuli of angle $`\theta `$, we choose $`r`$ randomly in the interval $`(1,20)`$ and $`\theta `$ randomly in the interval $`(0.01\pi ,1.99\pi )`$. The results of calculations are shown in Fig. 4

### Pseudo-random polygons

For polygons with more than four vertices, cyclic calculations through all possible values of the geometric parameters with some reasonable step become impractical due to the time constraints. Instead, we choose to perform calculations for randomly generated polygons. We employ the following simple procedure for generating a pseudo-random polygon with $`N`$ vertices $`𝐯_1,\mathrm{},𝐯_N`$ lying inside a square $`[0,1]^2`$.

are chosen randomly using any pseudo-random generator.

We choose a possible vertex at random. If the interval $`[𝐯_{j_1},𝐯_j]`$ intersects any of previously constructed sides $`[𝐯_{k1},𝐯_k]`$, $`k=1,\mathrm{},j2`$, then we make another random choice.

is constructed in the same manner, but we additionally check that the interval $`[𝐯_N,𝐯_1]`$ does not intersect any of the existing sides.

To avoid infinite loops, we abort the construction if the number of attempts at some stage exceeds some sufficiently big number (say, 200). We also put in place a restriction forbidding very small angles (which require special efforts in mesh generation).

The collated results of calculations for pseudo-random pentagons, hexagons and decagons are shown in Fig. 4. These results also include experiments on random perturbations of the rectangles constructed in the following way: $`N`$ points were randomly chosen on the sides of the rectangle $`R_a`$, with $`a(1,5)`$, and $`1N8`$, and these points and the four vertices of the original rectangle were randomly moved by a distance not exceeding $`0.1a`$ to form an $`(N+4)`$-gon.

### Star-shaped domains (simply and non-simply connected)

The procedure described above for the polygons does not work very effectively for polygons with large number of vertices — it often takes a long time to generate a suitable vertex $`𝐯_j`$ with $`j10`$. Thus, in these cases we restrict ourselves to star-shaped polygonal domains which are much easier to construct. Namely, for the vertices $`𝐯=re^{i\theta }`$, we choose the angles $`\theta `$ randomly between $`0`$ and $`2\pi `$, and the radii $`r`$ randomly between given numbers $`r_1`$ and $`r_2`$. We conducted a series of experiments with a fixed number of vertices (13, 17 and 23), as well as a series of runs where the number of vertices was chosen randomly between four and thirty.

Additionally, we conducted a series of experiments of non-simply connected domains of the types $`R_{\sqrt{\frac{8}{3}}}S_1`$, $`S_2R_{\sqrt{\frac{8}{3}}}`$, and $`S_1S_2`$, where $`S_j`$ are random star-shaped polygons such that $`S_1R_{\sqrt{\frac{8}{3}}}S_2`$, and $`R_{\sqrt{\frac{8}{3}}}`$ is the rectangle with the maximum $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _3}{\lambda _1}}`$.

The results for pseudo-random star-shaped domains are collated in Fig. 5.

### Dumbbells and Jigsaw pieces

By a dumbbell we understand a domain of the type

$$([0,l]\times [h,h])C((0,0),r_1)C((l,0),r_2),$$
(3.2)
where $`l,h,r_1,r_2`$ are positive parameters, and $`C(𝐯,r)`$ denotes a circle with radius $`r`$ centred at $`𝐯`$. By a jigsaw piece we understand a domain of the type $`RC`$, where $`R`$ is a rectangle, and $`C`$ is a circle with a centre “near” the boundary of the rectangle. Typical dumbbell and jigsaw piece domains are shown in Fig. 6.

The results of numerical experiments on dumbbells and jigsaw pieces, with cyclical/random choice of the parameters, is shown in Fig. 7. For dumbbells, we also optimized over the parameters for domains with $`\lambda _3/\lambda _13.2`$, allowing additionally the centres of the circles to move in the vertical direction along the sides of rectangles. However, this did not lead to the improvement of the results.

### Summary of the numerical experiments

We summarize the results of our numerical experiments in the following table.

As seen in the last column of Table 1, in each class of domains the maximum of the ratio $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _3}{\lambda _1}}`$ is attained, within the accuracy of computations, on a domain with degenerate eigenvalue $`\lambda _3\lambda _4`$. The same, of course, holds for rectangles, see (2.1). This allows us to conjecture that the absolute maximum and any local maxima of $`\lambda _3\lambda _4`$ are also attained on domains with degenerate $`\lambda _3`$. We give a partial proof of this conjecture in the next Section.

The computed absolute maximum ratio $`Y^{}3.202`$ is attained on the dumbbell-shaped domain (3.2) with $`l=1`$, $`h=1.4510`$, $`r_1=0.7814`$, and $`r_2=0.7818`$, see Fig. 9. Note that the maximum value $`Y^{}`$ is only slightly higher than the corresponding value $`Y^{}|_{\text{rectangles}}3.1818`$.

###### Remark 3.2.

Additional experiments were conducted in order to check whether a maximizer is likely to be a simply connected domain. Namely, for the dumbbell-shaped domain $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ described above, we computed the eigenvalues for a number of domains obtained by removing a small hole from $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. In all the cases, the ratio of the third and the first eigenvalue for a perturbed problem was quite significantly less than that for $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

The graph of the function $`y^{}(x)`$ built on the basis of all numerical experiments is shown in Fig. 8.

## 4 Asymptotic results

In this Section, using standard perturbation techniques, we establish several results which, although don’t give the full answer to the question of maximizing the ratio $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _3}{\lambda _1}}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ among all planar domains $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, give some indication which of the domains may or may not be a maximizer. We first proof the following

###### Theorem 4.1.

The rectangle $`R_{\sqrt{\frac{8}{3}}}`$ does not maximize the $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _3}{\lambda _1}}`$ among all planar domains.***We were informed by Niculae Mandrache that he had independently obtained a similar result.

This should be compared, however, with Remark 4.6 below.

We also give a proof of the following more general result, which justifies the remark made at the end of last Section.

###### Theorem 4.2.

Suppose that $`\mathrm{\Omega }^2`$ is a local maximizer of $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _3}{\lambda _1}}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ among planar domains with sufficiently smooth boundary. Then $`\lambda _3(\mathrm{\Omega })=\lambda _4(\mathrm{\Omega })`$.

We should emphasize here that neither the statement not the proof (found below) of Theorem 4.2 is fully rigorous. In the former, we do not discuss the requirements on the smoothness of the boundary and the concept of a local maximizer; we also do not prove that maximizers actually exist. In the latter, we rely on the following unproven, although very plausible, conjecture.

###### Conjecture 4.3.

Let $`\lambda _3`$ be a simple eigenvalue of the Dirichlet Laplacian on a planar connected domain. Then not all nodal lines of the corresponding eigenfunction are closed.

Such a conjecture is not unreasonable since, in general, it is quite difficult to construct domains for which even one nodal line of a low eigenfunction is closed, see \[HoHoNa\].

Before giving the proofs of Theorems 4.1 and 4.2, we recall, without proof, some classical results from the domain perturbation theory. The details can be found, e.g., in \[Rel, SHSP\].

### Domain perturbations

For simplicity, we restrict ourselves to domains in $`^2`$; all the results stated here hold in any dimension.

Consider, for small values of real parameter $`|\epsilon |`$, a family of bounded domains $`\mathrm{\Omega }^\epsilon `$ in $`^2`$ of variable $`\stackrel{~}{𝐱}=(\stackrel{~}{x}_1,\stackrel{~}{x}_2)`$, which are transformed by the change of coordinates

$$𝐱=\stackrel{~}{𝐱}+\epsilon 𝐒(𝐱)$$
(4.1)
into the domain $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{\Omega }^0`$ in $`^2`$ of variable $`𝐱`$. We assume that the boundary $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and the vector-function $`𝐒`$ are sufficiently smooth.

Let $`𝐧`$ be the outer unit normal to $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, and denote

$$f=𝐒𝐧$$

(in fact, $`\epsilon f`$ is a smooth function on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ which gives, up to the leading order for small $`\epsilon `$, the normal distance between $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }^\epsilon `$).

Denote by $`\lambda _1<\lambda _2\mathrm{}\lambda _j\mathrm{}`$ the eigenvalues of the Dirichlet Laplacian on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and by $`\{u_j\}`$ the corresponding basis of normalized orthogonal eigenfunctions (which are chosen real). Also, denote by $`\lambda _j^\epsilon `$ the eigenvalues of the Dirichlet Laplacian on $`\mathrm{\Omega }^\epsilon `$. For sufficiently small $`|\epsilon |`$, the $`\lambda _j^\epsilon `$ are continuous functions of $`\epsilon `$ and tend to $`\lambda _j`$ as $`\epsilon 0`$.

The following two results go back to Rellich.

###### Proposition 4.4.

Let $`\lambda _j`$, $`j1`$, be a simple eigenvalue of the Dirichlet Laplacian on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Then $`\lambda _j^\epsilon `$ has the asymptotic expansion

$$\lambda _j^\epsilon =\lambda _j+\epsilon \stackrel{~}{\lambda }_{j,1}+\epsilon ^2\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_{j,2}+\mathrm{},$$
(4.2)
as $`\epsilon 0`$, where

$$\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_{j,1}=_\mathrm{\Omega }f\left|\frac{u_j}{n}\right|^2𝑑\sigma .$$
(4.3)
The situation is slightly more complicated when $`\lambda _j=\mathrm{}=\lambda _{j+m}`$ is an eigenvalue of multiplicity $`m+1`$. For simplicity, we consider just the case $`m=1`$.

###### Proposition 4.5.

Let $`\lambda _k=\lambda _{k+1}`$ be a double eigenvalue of the Dirichlet Laplacian on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Then, as $`\epsilon 0`$, $`\lambda _k^\epsilon `$ and $`\lambda _{k+1}^\epsilon `$ still have the asymptotic expansions (4.2) ($`j=k,k+1`$) with

$$\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_{k,1}=\frac{1}{\epsilon }\mathrm{min}(\epsilon \mu _1,\epsilon \mu _2),\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_{k+1,1}=\frac{1}{\epsilon }\mathrm{max}(\epsilon \mu _1,\epsilon \mu _2),$$
(4.4)
where $`\mu _1`$, $`\mu _2`$ are two real roots of the quadratic equation

$$(F_{k,k}+\mu )(F_{k+1,k+1}+\mu )F_{k,k+1}^2=0$$
(4.5)
and

$$F_{p,q}=_\mathrm{\Omega }f\frac{u_p}{n}\frac{u_q}{n}𝑑\sigma .$$
(4.6)
We will be in fact interested in the asymptotic expansion of $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _j^\epsilon }{\lambda _1^\epsilon }}`$, which follows from (4.2):

$$\frac{\lambda _j^\epsilon }{\lambda _1^\epsilon }=\frac{\lambda _j}{\lambda _1}+\frac{\epsilon }{(\lambda _1)^2}(\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_{j,1}\lambda _1\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_{1,1}\lambda _j)+O(\epsilon ^2),$$
(4.7)
### Proof of Theorem 4.1

Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }=R_{\sqrt{\frac{8}{3}}}`$ be the rectangle $`\{(x_1,x_2):0<x_1<1,0<x_2<\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}}\}`$. We shall construct an explicit perturbation $`\mathrm{\Omega }^\epsilon `$ using (4.1) such that the first correction term in the asymptotic formula (4.7) is positive for $`\epsilon >0`$, and therefore $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _3^\epsilon }{\lambda _1^\epsilon }}>{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _3}{\lambda _1}}`$ for sufficiently small positive $`\epsilon `$.

Let

$$\mathrm{\Omega }^\epsilon =\{(x_1,x_2):0<x_1<1,0<x_2<\sqrt{\frac{8}{3}}+\epsilon g(x_1)\},$$

where

$$g(x_1)=c_0+\underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\sqrt{2}c_l\mathrm{cos}(\pi lx_1).$$

We will choose the coefficients $`c_l`$ later.

The corresponding function $`f`$ appearing in the asymptotic formulae above is

$$f(x_1,x_2)=\{\begin{array}{cc}g(x_1),\hfill & \text{if}x_2=\sqrt{\frac{8}{3}},0x_11,\hfill \\ 0,\hfill & \text{if}(x_1,x_2)\mathrm{\Omega },x_2\sqrt{\frac{8}{3}}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Note that we shall use (4.3) for computing $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_{1,1}`$ and (4.4) for computing $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_{3,1}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_{4,1}`$, since $`\lambda _3=\lambda _4`$ is a double eigenvalue of the unperturbed problem. Elementary but tedious calculations show that the correction terms $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_{k,1}`$, $`k=1,2,3,4`$, depend only upon the parameters $`c_j`$ with $`j=0,\mathrm{},4`$. For brevity, we omit the explicit expressions.

Let us choose the parameters $`c_0,\mathrm{},c_4`$ in such a way that $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_{3,1}=\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_{4,1}`$ (i.e., $`\lambda _3^\epsilon `$ remains a double eigenvalue up to the linear terms in $`\epsilon `$). This, by Proposition 4.5, happens when $`F_{3,3}=F_{4,4}`$ and $`F_{3,4}=0`$, which in turn leads to the following conditions on coefficients $`c_j`$:

$$c_3=c_1,c_4=9c_28\sqrt{2}c_0.$$
(4.8)
Under conditions (4.8), asymptotic formula (4.7) simplifies dramatically, and becomes

$$\frac{\lambda _3^\epsilon }{\lambda _1^\epsilon }\frac{\lambda _3}{\lambda _1}=\frac{96\sqrt{3}}{121}(c_2\sqrt{2}c_0)\epsilon +O(\epsilon ^2),$$

and we can choose $`c_0`$ and $`c_2`$ in such a way that its right-hand side is positive for sufficiently small positive $`\epsilon `$. This proves Theorem 4.1.

###### Remark 4.6.

Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }=R_a`$ be any rectangle and consider the perturbations $`\mathrm{\Omega }^\epsilon `$ as above but with function $`f`$ linear in $`x_1,x_2`$ (and, naturally, $`a`$ replacing $`\sqrt{\frac{8}{3}}`$ throughout). Thus, we are considering quadrilaterals $`\mathrm{\Omega }^\epsilon `$ which are small perturbations of the rectangle $`R_a`$. The same elementary calculations then imply that, for $`x^\epsilon :={\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _2}{\lambda _1}}(\mathrm{\Omega }^\epsilon )`$ and $`y^\epsilon :={\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _3}{\lambda _1}}(\mathrm{\Omega }^\epsilon )`$, we obtain, up to and inclusive of the terms of order $`\epsilon `$, that

$$y^\epsilon =y^{}(x^\epsilon )|_{\text{rectangles}},$$

where $`y^{}(x)|_{\text{rectangles}}`$ is given by the right-hand side of (2.1). In other words, up to the terms of order $`\epsilon `$ the rectangles are local maximizers among all quadrilaterals which are sufficently “close” to them, cf. Remark 3.1.

### Proof of Theorem 4.2

Suppose that $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a planar domain with sufficiently smooth boundary which locally maximizes the ratio $`\frac{\lambda _3}{\lambda _1}`$ in the following sense: for any sufficiently smooth perturbation $`\mathrm{\Omega }^\epsilon `$ determined by (4.1) we have

$$\frac{\lambda _3^\epsilon }{\lambda _1^\epsilon }\frac{\lambda _3}{\lambda _1}.$$
(4.9)
Assume additionally that $`\lambda _3`$ is a *s*imple eigenvalue of the Dirichlet Laplacian in the unperturbed domain $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. We shall show that this assumption leads to the contradiction with Conjecture 4.3.

Since both $`\lambda _1`$ and $`\lambda _3`$ are simple eigenvalues, the asymptotic formula (4.7) becomes, in accordance with Proposition 4.4,

$$\frac{\lambda _3^\epsilon }{\lambda _1^\epsilon }\frac{\lambda _3}{\lambda _1}=\frac{\epsilon }{(\lambda _1)^2}_\mathrm{\Omega }f\left(\lambda _3\left|\frac{u_1}{n}\right|^2\lambda _1\left|\frac{u_3}{n}\right|^2\right)𝑑\sigma +O(\epsilon ^2).$$

Now, as $`\epsilon `$ can be chosen both positive and negative, (4.9) can hold only if

$$_\mathrm{\Omega }f\left(\lambda _3\left|\frac{u_1}{n}\right|^2\lambda _1\left|\frac{u_3}{n}\right|^2\right)𝑑\sigma =0,$$

and since $`f`$ is an arbitrary smooth function, this requires

$$\lambda _3\left|\frac{u_1}{n}\right|^2=\lambda _1\left|\frac{u_3}{n}\right|^2$$

everywhere on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. But the normal derivative of the first eigenfunction of the Dirichlet Laplacian is non-zero everywhere on the boundary, so the last formula implies that the third eigenfunction has the same property, and therefore all its nodal lines are closed, in contradiction with Conjecture 4.3.

## 5 Final Remarks

On the basis of the numerical computations and the results proven above we make the following conjecture, most of which is still to be established (or disproved) rigorously:

The domain maximizing the ratio $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _3}{\lambda _1}}`$ for planar domains is close in shape to the optimal computed dumbbell-shaped domain shown in Fig. 9, is simply-connected, and has a smooth boundary. The maximal admissible value $`Y^{}`$ is approximately equal to or is slightly greater than $`3.202`$.