text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The idea of Grand Unification  has been known in theoretical physics for years. One of its most important predictions is the gauge couplings unification at the GUT scale. In such a framework the parameters of the Standard Model (or of its supersymmetric version) are related to the parameters of the unified theory by means of the renormalization-group evolution from the assumed GUT scale down to the electroweak scale. Conversely, the idea of unification of the strong and electroweak forces can be effectively tested by extrapolating the three known gauge couplings of the SM up to the energy scale $`M_{GUT}`$. Similarly, since some of the GUTs predict that the Yukawa couplings should also unify, the extrapolation of these couplings to the GUT scale provides further test of specific unification scenarios. Requiring unification may in this case put some limits on the low energy parameters. In the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model exact $`b\tau `$ Yukawa coupling unification at the level of two-loop renormalization group equations is possible only for very small and very large values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, i.e. for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 1.7`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 50`$. Including supersymmetric one-loop correction one can enlarge the range of possible $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ values even to $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 2.1`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 10`$ .

The existence of any additional field in a theory has important consequences in the context of the unification. The renormalization-group equations are sensitive to the particle contents of the theory under study. For example, the precise gauge coupling unification does not hold in the Standard Model , while it becomes possible in the MSSM, where the superpartners of the ordinary particles are introduced.

Recent data, coming from the experiments measuring the neutrino oscillations (, , , ,) indicate that neutrinos have masses, yet still much smaller than the other fermions. In that connection, the Standard Model (or the MSSM) should be enlarged by the additional fields, describing the right-handed neutrinos. The most natural explanation of the smallness of the observed neutrino masses is to add $`\nu _R`$ with the mass $`M_RM_Z`$ to the particle spectrum. This is always possible in the framework of the SM or MSSM, since right-handed neutrinos are singlets under gauge group $`SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)`$. The effective neutrino mass is then generated through the see-saw mechanism

$$m_\nu \frac{M_Z^2}{M_R}.$$
(1)
Obtaining light (i.e. $`m_\nu 1`$ eV) neutrinos requires therefore the new scale $`M_R`$ to be very large, of the order of $`10^{14}`$ GeV.

The influence of the neutrino masses on the unification of the gauge couplings in the MSSM has been studied in paper of J. A. Casas et al . In the case of $`b\tau `$ unification similar analysis for small values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ (without supersymmetric one-loop correction) has been performed by M. Carena et al . They found that the presence of massive neutrinos above the Majorana scale may enlarge the range of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ consistent with the unification of the third generation Yukawa couplings, if there is large mixing in leptonic sector.

Encouraged by those results, in this paper we estimate the contribution of the neutrino Yukawa couplings to the running of gauge and Yukawa couplings for both small and large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ regimes, however we do not consider mixing in leptonic sector. We consider different neutrino mass hierarchies as well as different values of the Majorana scale and of the superparticle decoupling scale $`M_{SUSY}`$. We also take into account the finite supersymmetric one-loop correction to the bottom quark mass. We conclude that the presence of the right-handed neutrinos above $`M_R`$ can change $`Y_\tau /Y_b`$ ratio even by $``$12% and our results agree with those presented in  for small $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and with no mixing. This effect can be used to obtain $`b\tau `$ unification for other values of the MSSM parameters, like superparticle decoupling scale $`M_{SUSY}`$ or $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. However, the presence of massive neutrinos does not enlarge the range of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ values, consistent with the $`b\tau `$ unification.

## 2 Numerical results

All calculations are performed by means of the two-loop renormalization-group equations for the gauge and Yukawa couplings. Below the scale $`M_{SUSY}`$ we use the Standard Model $`\beta `$-functions of the gauge and Yukawa couplings . Between $`M_{SUSY}`$ and $`M_R`$ the RGEs of MSSM  are used. Above the Majorana scale $`M_R`$, running of the neutrino Yukawa coupling must be taken into account. The appropriate two-loop RGEs have been derived using the general expression for the two-loop $`\beta `$ functions of the superpotential parameter $`Y_i`$ given in . We present them in the Appendix (see also ).

We use the following input parameters :

$`m_t(M_t)=165GeVm_b(M_b)=4.69GeVm_\tau =1.78GeV`$
$`\alpha _3(M_Z)=0.1185\alpha _2(M_Z)=0.0338\alpha _1(M_Z)=0.0169.`$ (2)
The initial values of the Yukawa couplings are obtained from the relations

$`Y_t(M_t)=1.031\sqrt{1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{tan}^2\beta }}},Y_b(M_b)=0.018\sqrt{1+\mathrm{tan}^2\beta },`$
$`Y_\tau =0.01\sqrt{1+\mathrm{tan}^2\beta }.`$ (3)
Form the oscillation experiments only neutrino mass-squared splittings can be obtained, not the masses themselves. Therefore, different assumptions about neutrino mass hierarchy can explain the experimental data: degenerate neutrino eigenstates $`m_1m_2m_3`$ with masses of order 1 eV or large hierarchy of neutrino masses $`m_1m_2m_3`$ or $`m_1m_2m_3`$. In this connection we consider such different sets of effective neutrino masses:

* $`m_{\nu _\tau }=m_{\nu _\mu }=m_{\nu _e}=1`$ eV
* $`m_{\nu _\tau }=4.510^2`$ eV, $`m_{\nu _\mu }=10^3`$ eV, $`m_{\nu _e}=10^4`$ eV
* $`m_{\nu _\tau }=10^1`$ eV, $`m_{\nu _\mu }=8.810^2`$ eV, $`m_{\nu _e}=8.810^2`$ eV

### 2.1 Gauge couplings unification

In the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model exact unification of the gauge couplings at the energy $`M_{GUT}=1.5\times 10^{16}`$ GeV is obtained at the two-loop level for the supersymmetry breaking scale $`M_{SUSY}=1`$ TeV. Since the right-handed neutrinos are singlets under the MSSM gauge group, the unification of the gauge couplings is affected only by the presence of the Dirac neutrino Yukawa coupling at the two-loop level above the Majorana scale $`M_R`$. In Fig.1 we present the dependence of the ratios $`g_1/g_3`$ and $`g_1/g_2`$ in the MSSM at the GUT scale as a function of the Majorana mass for different sets of the neutrino masses at the electroweak scale. The effect is expected to be the stronger the larger is the initial value of $`Y_n`$, which is related through the see-saw mechanism to the light neutrino mass and the Majorana scale, $`Y_n\sqrt{m_\nu M_R}`$. The lines are interrupted when neutrino Yukawa couplings become non-perturbative, i.e. $`Y_n^2(M_R)/4\pi 1`$.

Unification of the gauge couplings is very weakly affected by the neutrino Yukawa couplings: the biggest effect is smaller than 1%. It is not a surprise since $`Y_n`$ arise in $`\beta (g)`$ functions only as a two-loop correction. Our results agree with those presented in .

### 2.2 $`b\tau `$ unification

In the absence of massive neutrinos and with the initial values (2), the $`b\tau `$ unification is obtained for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =2.1`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =44`$. For large values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ the finite supersymmetric one-loop correction to the bottom mass $`m_b(M_Z)`$  becomes very important. The effects of threshold corrections introduces the dependence on the spectrum of the MSSM, however the loop correction to $`m_b(M_Z)`$ is only weakly dependent on sparticle masses  and does not change after rescaling of masses of all SUSY particles.

Contrary to the case of the gauge couplings, neutrinos affect the RGEs of Yukawa couplings at one-loop. Hence one can expect that their influence on the $`b\tau `$ unification is much more significant. In Fig.2 we plot the ratio $`Y_\tau /Y_b(M_{GUT})`$ at the GUT scale as a function of $`M_R`$ for different values of the neutrino masses and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =2.1,44`$ respectively. We fix supersymmetric parameters so that the bottom-tau unification holds for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =44`$ and $`M_{SUSY}=1`$ TeV in the case of massless neutrinos. The lines are terminated when the neutrino Yukawa coupling reaches the non-perturbative region.

One observes that introduction of massive neutrinos can change the ratio $`Y_\tau /Y_b`$ even by 12%. As a result, the $`b\tau `$ unification can hold for those values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ for which $`Y_\tau /Y_b(M_{GUT})<1`$ in the case of the massless neutrinos with the chosen SUSY spectrum. To illustrate this effect, in Fig.3 we plot the ratio $`Y_\tau /Y_b(M_{GUT})`$ at the GUT scale as a function of $`M_R`$ for different values of the neutrino masses and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =3,4,30,50`$ and with the supersymmetric parameters as in the previous case.

With massive neutrinos the ratio $`Y_\tau /Y_b(M_{GUT})`$ increases, hence $`b\tau `$ unification can be possible for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 2.1`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 44`$ for the chosen set of supersymmetric parameters. With other choice of SUSY parameters, unification can hold in the range of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ given in . However, addition of massive neutrinos cannot assure unification for $`2.1\mathrm{tan}\beta 10`$.

For some parameters an extremum of the $`Y_\tau /Y_b`$ ratio is observed. Beyond this critical point the ratio $`Y_\tau /Y_b`$ decreases when the Majorana mass increases. This is due to the fact that the neutrino Yukawa coupling does not affect the bottom Yukawa $`\beta `$-function, but does enter the one of $`\tau `$ with positive sign. Therefore, the larger is the initial value of $`Y_n`$, the ’faster’ is the running of the $`\tau `$ Yukawa coupling. However, for fixed $`m_\nu `$, larger $`Y_n`$ implies larger Majorana scale i.e. shorter the interval of scales at which the neutrino Yukawa coupling affects the running of $`Y_\tau `$. Therefore, for $`M_R`$ close to the GUT scale it can happen that, though $`\tau `$ Yukawa coupling is stronger renormalized than in smaller $`M_R`$ case, the final value of $`Y_\tau `$ will be smaller.

The other possibility to obtain $`b\tau `$ unification in the presence of massive neutrinos is to keep $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ fixed while changing superparticle spectrum. The results of such an analysis are presented in Figs.4,5 for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =2.1`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =44`$. As usually, we plot the ratio $`Y_\tau /Y_b(M_{GUT})`$ as a function of the Majorana scale for different values of supersymmetric threshold $`M_{SUSY}`$ and neutrino masses as in the previous case.

In the large $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ case we have to pay attention to the one-loop correction to the bottom quark mass . Since it depends on the particles masses, its magnitude might depend strongly on the $`M_{SUSY}`$ scale. However, it has been emphasized  that this correction does not change after rescaling of masses of all SUSY particles, hence it only weakly depends on the superpartner masses.

One can see that for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =2.1`$ the $`b\tau `$ unification is possible only if the supersymmetry breaking scale is decreased. This is due to the fact that the Standard Model $`\beta `$-function of the $`\tau `$ Yukawa coupling decreases ’slower’ than its supersymmetric counterpart. Thus, the smaller $`M_{SUSY}`$ scale, the smaller is the finite value of $`Y_\tau `$. At the same time the $`b`$ Yukawa coupling is more strongly renormalized by the MSSM RGEs than by the SM ones. However, this effect is very weak for small $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, hence $`Y_b`$ is almost unchanged by moving the superparticle decoupling scale. This way one can decrease the $`Y_\tau /Y_b`$ ratio by decreasing $`M_{SUSY}`$.

The situation is opposite for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =44`$ case. In this case one has to choose larger values of $`M_{SUSY}`$ to get exact $`b\tau `$ unification . It is possible even for supersymmetry breaking scale as high as 20 TeV. The mechanism is similar to the one in the previous case. However, this time the effects of changing $`M_{SUSY}`$ are stronger in the bottom quark Yukawa coupling case. The larger supersymmetric threshold, the larger is the final value of $`Y_b`$ which makes the ratio $`Y_\tau /Y_b`$ smaller.

## 3 Conclusions

In this paper we have investigated the influence of neutrino masses on the unification of the gauge and Yukawa couplings in the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model. Neutrinos effect on the unification of the gauge couplings turned out to be very weak, as one could expect for the second-order correction. The ratios $`g_1/g_2`$ and $`g_1/g_3`$ at the GUT scale are changed by less than 0.7%.

The effect of the neutrino Yukawa couplings is much larger in the case of the $`b\tau `$ unification. Generically the ratio $`Y_\tau /Y_b`$ increases in the presence of the right-handed neutrinos. The effect depends on the neutrino decoupling scale and on the light neutrino masses and can reach even 12%.

This mechanism can make the $`b\tau `$ unification possible for those values of the MSSM parameters which were previously disfavored. It allows the superparticle decoupling scale to be smaller (bigger) than 1 TeV for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =2.1`$ ($`\mathrm{tan}\beta =44`$). Moreover, it makes unification possible for those values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ for which $`Y_\tau /Y_b<1`$ at the GUT scale in the absence of massive neutrinos. However, this effect does not enlarge the range of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, consistent with $`b\tau `$ unification with the supersymmetric one-loop correction to the bottom quark mass included.

## 4 Appendix

Two-loop renormalization group equations of the Yukawa couplings above the Majorana scale:

$`\beta (𝐘_u)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2}}[Tr(3𝐘_u𝐘_u^{}+𝐘_n𝐘_n^{})+3𝐘_u^{}𝐘_u+𝐘_d^{}𝐘_d({\displaystyle \frac{16}{3}}g_3^2+3g_2^2+{\displaystyle \frac{13}{15}}g_1^2)]𝐘_u+`$
$`+({\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2}})^2[3Tr(3𝐘_u𝐘_u^{}𝐘_u𝐘_u^{}+𝐘_u𝐘_u^{}𝐘_d𝐘_d^{}+𝐘_n𝐘_n^{}𝐘_n𝐘_n^{})`$
$`𝐘_d^{}𝐘_dTr(3𝐘_d𝐘_d^{}+𝐘_e𝐘_e^{})3𝐘_u𝐘_u^{}Tr(3𝐘_u𝐘_u^{}+𝐘_n𝐘_n^{})`$
$`4𝐘_u𝐘_u^{}𝐘_u𝐘_u^{}2𝐘_d𝐘_d^{}𝐘_d𝐘_d^{}2𝐘_d^{}𝐘_d𝐘_u^{}𝐘_u+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{5}}g_1^2𝐘_d𝐘_d^{}+`$
$`+({\displaystyle \frac{2}{5}}g_1^2+6g_2^2)𝐘_u𝐘_u^{}+(16g_3^2+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{5}}g_1^2)Tr𝐘_u𝐘_u^{}{\displaystyle \frac{16}{9}}g_3^4+8g_3^2g_2^2+`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{136}{45}}g_3^2g_1^2+{\displaystyle \frac{15}{2}}g_2^4+g_2^2g_1^2+{\displaystyle \frac{2743}{450}}g_1^4]𝐘_u`$ (4)
$`\beta (𝐘_d)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2}}[Tr(3𝐘_d𝐘_d^{}+𝐘_e𝐘_e^{})+3𝐘_d^{}𝐘_d+𝐘_u^{}𝐘_u({\displaystyle \frac{16}{3}}g_3^2+3g_2^2+{\displaystyle \frac{7}{15}}g_1^2)]𝐘_d+`$
$`+({\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2}})^2[3Tr(3𝐘_d𝐘_d^{}𝐘_d𝐘_d^{}+𝐘_u𝐘_u^{}𝐘_d𝐘_d^{}+𝐘_e𝐘_e^{}𝐘_e𝐘_e^{})`$
$`3𝐘_d^{}𝐘_dTr(3𝐘_d𝐘_d^{}+𝐘_e𝐘_e^{})𝐘_u𝐘_u^{}Tr(3𝐘_u𝐘_u^{}+𝐘_n𝐘_n^{})`$
$`4𝐘_d𝐘_d^{}𝐘_d𝐘_d^{}2𝐘_u𝐘_u^{}𝐘_d𝐘_d^{}2𝐘_u^{}𝐘_u𝐘_u^{}𝐘_u+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{5}}g_1^2𝐘_u𝐘_u^{}+`$
$`+({\displaystyle \frac{4}{5}}g_1^2+6g_2^2)𝐘_d𝐘_d^{}+(16g_3^2{\displaystyle \frac{2}{5}}g_1^2)Tr𝐘_d𝐘_d^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{6}{5}}g_1^2Tr(𝐘_e𝐘_e^{})`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{16}{9}}g_3^4+8g_3^2g_2^2+{\displaystyle \frac{8}{9}}g_3^2g_1^2+{\displaystyle \frac{15}{2}}g_2^4+g_2^2g_1^2+{\displaystyle \frac{287}{90}}g_1^4]𝐘_d`$ (5)
$`\beta (𝐘_n)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2}}[Tr(3𝐘_u𝐘_u^{}+𝐘_n𝐘_n^{})+3𝐘_n^{}𝐘_n+𝐘_e^{}𝐘_e(3g_2^2+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{5}}g_1^2)]𝐘_n+`$
$`+({\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2}})^2[3Tr(3𝐘_u𝐘_u^{}𝐘_u𝐘_u^{}+𝐘_n𝐘_n^{}𝐘_n𝐘_n^{}+𝐘_n𝐘_n^{}𝐘_e𝐘_e^{})`$
$`3𝐘_n^{}𝐘_nTr(3𝐘_u𝐘_u^{}+𝐘_n𝐘_n^{})3𝐘_e𝐘_e^{}Tr(3𝐘_d𝐘_d^{}+𝐘_e𝐘_e^{})`$
$`4𝐘_n𝐘_n^{}𝐘_n𝐘_n^{}2𝐘_e𝐘_e^{}𝐘_n𝐘_n^{}2𝐘_e^{}𝐘_e𝐘_e^{}𝐘_e+`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{6}{5}}g_1^2Tr(Y_nY_n^{})+6g_2^2𝐘_n𝐘_n^{}+(16g_3^2+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{5}}g_1^2)Tr𝐘_u𝐘_u^{}+,`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{15}{2}}g_2^4+{\displaystyle \frac{9}{5}}g_2^2g_1^2+{\displaystyle \frac{207}{50}}g_1^4]𝐘_n`$ (6)
$`\beta (𝐘_e)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2}}[Tr(3𝐘_d𝐘_d^{}+𝐘_e𝐘_e^{})+3𝐘_e^{}𝐘_e+𝐘_n^{}𝐘_n(3g_2^2+{\displaystyle \frac{9}{5}}g_1^2)]𝐘_e+`$
$`+({\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2}})^2[3Tr(3𝐘_d𝐘_d^{}𝐘_d𝐘_d^{}+𝐘_u𝐘_u^{}𝐘_d𝐘_d^{}+𝐘_e𝐘_e^{}𝐘_e𝐘_e^{}+𝐘_e𝐘_e^{}𝐘_n𝐘_n^{})`$
$`3𝐘_e^{}𝐘_eTr(3𝐘_d𝐘_d^{}+𝐘_e𝐘_e^{})3𝐘_n𝐘_n^{}Tr(3𝐘_u𝐘_u^{}+𝐘_n𝐘_n^{})`$
$`4𝐘_e𝐘_e^{}𝐘_e𝐘_e^{}2𝐘_n𝐘_n^{}𝐘_e𝐘_e^{}2𝐘_n^{}𝐘_n𝐘_n^{}𝐘_n+`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{6}{5}}g_1^2Tr(Y_eY_e^{})+6g_2^2𝐘_e𝐘_e^{}+(16g_3^2{\displaystyle \frac{2}{5}}g_1^2)Tr𝐘_d𝐘_d^{}+`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{15}{2}}g_2^4+{\displaystyle \frac{9}{5}}g_2^2g_1^2+{\displaystyle \frac{27}{2}}g_1^4]𝐘_e`$ (7)


format: text

text:
# Chiral symmetry breaking and violation of the Wiedemann-Franz law in underdoped cuprates

## Abstract

We propose that the recently observed violation of the Wiedemann-Franz law in the normal state of underdoped cuprates is caused by spin-charge separation and dynamical chiral symmetry breaking in a (2+1)-dimensional system consisting of massless Dirac fermions, charged bosons and a gauge field. While the $`d`$-wave spinon gap vanishes at the Fermi points, the nodal fermions acquire a finite mass due to strong gauge fluctuations. This mass provides a gap below which no free fermions can be excited. This implies that there is not a residual linear term for the thermal conductivity, in good agreement with experiments. Other physical implications of the CSB are also discussed.

The Wiedemann-Franz (WF) law is one of the basic properties of Landau’s Fermi-liquid theory. It states that at very low temperatures, where elastic collisions dominate, quasiparticles have the same ability to transport heat and charge, leading to a universal relation between the thermal conductivity $`\kappa `$ and the electrical conductivity $`\sigma `$, $`\frac{\kappa }{\sigma T}=\frac{\pi ^2}{3}\left(\frac{k_B}{e}\right)^2`$. Although this law has been shown to be valid in a wide range of materials, recently Hill $`et`$ $`al.`$  reported a violation of the WF law in the normal state of a copper-oxide superconductor Pr2-xCexCuO4-y (PCCO) at $`T0`$. Later, it was verified that the violation happens only in the underdoped and optimally doped region . In particular, while the charge transport of PCCO at low temperatures is that of a fairly good metal, no residual linear term for the thermal conductivity is observed. This unrelationship between the charge and heat transporting behavior, together with other experiments , strongly suggest that the spin and charge degrees of freedom may be separated  in underdoped cuprate.

At low temperatures, scanning tunneling microscopy (STM) experiments  observed a pseudogap in the vortex core which scales as the superconducting (SC) gap. While it is difficult to account for the pseudogap inside the core in conventional weak coupling theories (for a review, see Ref.), these experiments can be understood within several spin-charge separation theories \[6-8\] that take strong correlations into account. This is another evidence for the existence of spin-charge separation. As the magnetic field increases, the vortices begin to overlap and eventually suppress the superconductivity completely at $`H_{c2}`$. In this state, the holons are not Bose condensed and have the same ability to transport charge as that of free electrons in metals. Their contribution to the thermal conductivity $`\kappa `$ at $`T0`$ is proportional to $`T^3`$ and hence can be neglected. The spinons all form stable pairs, which prevent single spinons from moving freely. However, the spinon gap of PCCO has a rather pure $`d_{x^2y^2}`$ symmetry  and vanishes at the four Fermi points $`𝐤=(\pm \pi /2,\pm \pi /2)`$. Owing to this peculiar symmetry, even at $`T0`$, a sizeable population of fermions, called nodal fermions, should exist and contribute a linear term to $`\kappa `$, as in the case of a $`d`$-wave superconductor . Thus, spin-charge separation alone can not explain the violation of the WF law. A residual linear term for the thermal conductivity $`\kappa `$ still exists after the spin and charge degrees of freedom are separated.

In this paper we propose that the above inconsistency can be overcomed by the inherent chiral symmetry breaking (CSB) in a spin-charge separated system. Once CSB happens, the originally massless nodal fermions acquire a finite mass via strong gauge interaction. This finite mass is actually a gap below which no free fermions can be excited. In fact, due to the confining potential for the massive fermions, the fermions appear only in the form of stable fermion-antifermion pairs, which are composite Goldstone bosons arising from CSB. The low energy excitations are all bosons, which contribute a $`T^3`$ term to the thermal conductivity. Thus there is no residual linear term at $`T0`$, in agreement with experiments.

However, at present spin-charge separation in two dimensions is still an issue of great debate. To test whether it exists in underdoped cuprates, a vison-memory effect was proposed by Senthil and Fisher . In a recent experiment , no sign of such an effect was observed, which challenges all the spin-charge separation theories that predict the Senthil-Fisher effect . Instead of involving in the intricate details of this experiment, in this paper we choose to begin with the staggered flux phase of the SU(2) formulation of the $`t`$-$`J`$ model \[14-16\] because it does not exhibit the vison-memory effect  and naturally leads to a stable $`hc/2e`$ vortex inside which a finite pseudogap exists . In this phase, the spinon gap have a $`d_{x^2y^2}`$ symmetry and vanishes linearly at the Fermi points, so the low energy excitations from this condensate are massless Dirac fermions \[17-19\]. To describe the underdoped cuprates more quantitatively, the gauge fluctuations must be included. Of the three components of the SU(2) gauge fields, two become massive via the Higgs mechanism and hence are ignored, leaving a massless gauge field $`a_\mu `$ . Thus we finally arrive at an effective two-dimensional model that consists of massless Dirac fermions, charged bosons and a U(1) gauge field. As we will show below, CSB is an inherent phenomenon in this system.

In the absence of the holons, the effective Lagrangian  is

$$_F=\underset{\sigma =1}{\overset{N}{}}\overline{\psi }_\sigma v_{\sigma ,\mu }\left(_\mu ia_\mu \right)\gamma _\mu \psi _\sigma .$$
(1)
The Fermi field $`\psi _\sigma `$ is a $`4\times 1`$ spinor. The $`4\times 4`$ $`\gamma _\mu `$ matrices obey the algebra, $`\{\gamma _\mu ,\gamma _\nu \}=2\delta _{\mu \nu }`$, and for simplicity, we let $`v_{\sigma ,\mu }=1`$ ($`\mu ,\nu =0,1,2`$). The Lagrangian (1) is the (2+1)-dimensional massless QED (QED3), which is invariant under chiral transformations $`\psi \mathrm{exp}(i\theta \gamma _{3,5})\psi `$, with $`\gamma _3`$ and $`\gamma _5`$ two $`4\times 4`$ matrices that anticommute with $`\gamma _\mu `$ ($`\mu =0,1,2`$). A fermion mass term $`m\overline{\psi }\psi `$ will break the chiral symmetries. One of the most interesting properties of QED3 is that the massless fermions may develop a finite mass via the interaction with strong gauge field, called dynamical CSB \[20-22\]. CSB is a nonperturbative phenomenon and any calculations based on perturbation theory fail to obtain it. The standard approach to this problem is to solve the Dyson-Schwinger (DS) equation for the fermion self-energy. In general, the inverse fermion propagator is written as $`S^1(p)=i\gamma pA\left(p^2\right)+\mathrm{\Sigma }\left(p^2\right)`$, $`A(p^2)`$ the wave-function renormalization and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(p^2)`$ the fermion self-energy. If the DS equation has only trivial solutions, the fermions remain massless and the chiral symmetries are not broken. If the mass function develops a nontrivial solution, the fermions then acquire a finite mass, which breaks the chiral symmetries (As discussed below, this is not always true). Appelquist $`et`$ $`al.`$  found that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(p^2)`$ can have a nontrivial solution only for $`N<32/\pi ^2`$. In their calculations $`A(p^2)`$ was simply ignored, which leads to a gauge-dependent critical fermion number. Later, Nash  considered the DS equation for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(p^2)/A(p^2)`$, and obtained a gauge invariant $`N_c`$ which is very near to $`32/\pi ^2`$. In the case of cuprates, $`N=2<N_c`$; therefore, the massless fermions obtain a dynamically generated mass.

This critical behavior, however, might be changed by the holons. Generally, it is believed that CSB occurs only in the gauge theories those are asymptotically free, such as QCD and QED3. But an additional scalar field might destroy the asymptotic freedom and hence the CSB, as the Higgs fields do in the Standard Model. To examine whether CSB exists, we will reanalyze the DS equation in the presence of a scalar field. Unfortunately, the behavior of the holons are at present poorly understood and it is difficult to derive a microscopic theory for the holons; therefore, proper assumptions and approximations should be made. In practice, previous treatments  simply neglect the holons and consider the Lagrangian (1) only. In this paper, we assume that the effective Lagrangian for the holons is that of the (2+1)-dimensional scalar QED

$$_B=\left|\left(_\mu ia_\mu ieA_\mu \right)b\right|^2+m\left|b\right|^2,$$
(2)
where $`A_\mu `$ is the external gauge potential and $`m`$ is the mass of holons. $`b=(b_1,b_2)`$ is a doublet of scalar fields . The minimum of $`_B`$ is located at $`b=0`$, so the Bose condensation does not happen. Since spin-charge separation is supposed to exist there is no Yukawa-type coupling term.

Next we will show that CSB still happens in the presence of the holons  by considering the DS equation for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(p^2)/A(p^2)`$. To obtain a gauge invariant result, we use a nonlocal gauge propagator

$$D_{\mu \nu }(q)=\frac{1}{q^2\mathrm{\Pi }(q^2)}\left(\delta _{\mu \nu }(1\xi )\frac{q_\mu q_\nu }{q^2}\right)$$
(3)
with $`\xi `$ a gauge parameter and $`\mathrm{\Pi }(q^2)`$ the vacuum polarization. The one-loop vacuum polarization from the massless fermions is $`\mathrm{\Pi }_F(q^2)=N/8\left|q\right|`$. To the lowest order, we assume that the $`only`$ contribution of the holons to the DS equation is the one-loop correction to the vacuum polarization $`\mathrm{\Pi }(q^2)`$, and that the $`only`$ effect of $`A_\mu `$ is to suppress the Bose condensation. Simple Feynman diagram calculation gives

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_B(q^2)=\frac{1}{4\pi }\{\frac{2m}{q^2}+\frac{q^2+4m^2}{q^2\left|q\right|}\mathrm{arcsin}\left(\frac{q^2}{q^2+4m^2}\right)^{1/2}\}.$$
(4)
For calculational convenience, we set $`m=0`$; then, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_B(q^2)=1/8\left|q\right|`$. Using the fact that the total vacuum polarization $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ is the sum of $`\mathrm{\Pi }_F`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_B`$, we have

$$\mathrm{\Pi }(q^2)=\frac{N+1}{8\left|q\right|}.$$
(5)
This expression is rather simple, so it can lead us to an analytical result. After performing calculations parallel to that presented in , we find that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(p^2)/A(p^2)p^t`$ with $`t(t+1)=32/3\pi ^2(N+1)`$, from which we obtain a critical fermion number

$$N_c^{}=\frac{128}{3\pi ^2}1.$$
(6)
This critical number $`N_c^{}`$ is gauge invariant since it is independent of $`\xi `$. It is larger than the physical number $`2`$, so the DS equation has nontrivial solutions in the presence of holons. However, while CSB is described by nontrivial solutions of the DS equation, $`not`$ all nontrivial solutions lead to CSB. It is known that the breaking of a chiral symmetry is always accompanied by a Goldstone boson, which is a pseudoscalar bound state composed of a fermion and an antifermion. If CSB happens, there should be a nontrivial solution for the Bethe-Salpeter (BS) equation of this bound state. In addition, the bound state wave function must satisfy a normalization condition, which can be converted to a sufficient and necessary condition  for the nontrivial solutions of the DS equation to signal CSB. It gives a constraint on the form of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(p^2)/A(p^2)`$. In the case of QED3, the solutions found in  satisfy such a condition , so do our solutions since they have the same asymptotic form. Therefore, our $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(p^2)/A(p^2)`$ does correspond to CSB solutions. As a result, the nodal fermions become massive. This mass provides a finite gap that should be overcomed before free fermions are excited. At the same time, the BS equation develops a nontrivial solution corresponding to a truely bound state which is a fermion-antifermon pair. The absence of free fermions at low energy can also be seen from the potential for fermions, which behaves like

$$V(𝐱)\frac{\mathrm{ln}\left|𝐱\right|}{2\pi (1+\mathrm{\Pi }(0))}$$
(7)
in the infrared region. In the symmetric phase, $`\mathrm{\Pi }(0)\mathrm{}`$; so there is not a confining potential between the massless fermions. In the CSB phase, when the finite fermion mass is taken into account, $`\mathrm{\Pi }(0)`$ becomes finite, leading to a confining potential for the massive fermions which binds the massivie fermion into stable pairs. This striking result indicates that while the $`d`$-wave spinon gap vanishes at four nodes, there are no free fermions at low temperatures, in sharp contrast to the case of a $`d`$-wave superconductor . This can explain why there is not a residual linear term for the thermal conductivity of PCCO at $`T0`$.

In terms of spin-charge separation, other possibilities, such as the spinon localization and the existence of a complex order parameter ($`d_{x^2y^2}+id_{xy}`$ or $`d_{x^2y^2}+is`$) for the spinon pairs, may also explain the absence of the residual linear term for the thermal conductivity. However, we believe our proposal is more natural since it is intrinsic and material-independent, while the spinon localization depends on samples and a complex order parameter is inconsistent with experiments .

The CBS is generally interpreted as AF long-range order. Correspondingly, the Goldstone bosons associated to CBS are nothing but the spin waves associated to AF order , with spin waves the Goldstone bosons. This strongly suggests that the underlying ground state of the normal state of underdoped cuprates is actually an antiferromagnetism. But it is fundamentally different from the Néel state at half-filling. At half-filling, due to strong repulsive force the number of charge carriers at every lattice is exactly one and the sample is an insulator. While in the underdoped region, the holons are mobile and the sample has a metal-like electrical conductivity. This implies that AF order is not necessarily tied to insulating behaviour . However, thermal fluctuations in two-dimensional systems are strong enough to rapidly restore the chiral symmetry, so the AF order is not expected to persist in the normal state in weak magnetic fields.

Next we would like to discuss the robustness of our $`N_c^{}`$. First of all, we consider the influence of a finite mass for gauge field $`a_\mu `$. Although Bose condensation is completely suppressed above $`H_{c2}`$, $`a_\mu `$ may acquire a finite mass $`\eta `$ via the instanton effect . Moreover, CSB in QED3 is known to be an essentially low-energy phenomenon because only in the infrared region the gauge interaction is strong enough to cause fermion condensation. This effective asymptotic freedom requires fermions be apart from each other. But when the instanton effect is significant the massive gauge field is unable to mediate a long range interaction. Using the propagator, $`D_{\mu \nu }(q)=\frac{8}{(N+1)(\left|q\right|+\eta )}\left(\delta _{\mu \nu }\frac{q_\mu q_\nu }{q^2}\right)`$, we obtain the following DS equation

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }(p^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{(N+1)\pi ^2p}}{\displaystyle 𝑑k\frac{k\mathrm{\Sigma }(k^2)}{k^2+\mathrm{\Sigma }^2(k^2)}}`$ (8)
$`\times \left(p+k\left|pk\right|\eta \mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{p+k+\eta }{\left|pk\right|+\eta }}\right)\right).`$
Here, for simplicity, we set $`A(p^2)=1`$ (Note this will lead to a gauge-dependent $`N_c`$; however, since this $`N_c`$ is very near to the gauge invariant one , equation (8) is expected to be a good approximation). In the strong coupling limit the instanton effect gives $`a_\mu `$ a very large mass, say $`\eta \mathrm{\Lambda }`$ with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ the ultraviolet cutoff. In this limit, the DS equation becomes

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{arctan}\left(\frac{N+1}{8\mathrm{\Sigma }}\right)=\frac{N+1}{8}\left(1\pi ^2\eta \right).$$
(9)
Obviously, this equation has no physical solutions; thus, a large mass of $`a_\mu `$ can suppress the CSB. The large $`\eta `$ also causes spin-charge recombination . Fortunately, as we discussed above, extensive experiments suggest that spinons and holons are actually well separated. Based on this, we expect the system is actually in the weak coupling limit, implying a very small $`\eta `$ if it is indeed present. Then the last term in the kernel of (8) can be dropped safely, leaving a DS equation which has a critical number very near to our $`N_c^{}`$. So the instanton effect does not significantly change our result.

There are several other corrections that could modify $`N_c^{}`$ than $`\eta `$. In general, $`v_{\sigma ,1}v_{\sigma ,2}`$; actually, the ratio between them is larger than $`10`$. Recently, this issue was addressed  in a physically different but mathematically related model. The result is that a weak velocity anisotropy does not change the critical number, which suggests a stability of our conclusion against the velocity anisotropy. In addition, the holons may have a noticeable mass $`m`$. For very large $`m`$, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_B0`$, then the critical number $`N_c`$ maintains its value in the absence of holons. Next we assume $`m\left|p\right|`$ in (4), now the vacuum polarization from holons becomes $`\mathrm{\Pi }_B0.1/8\left|p\right|`$, leaving $`N_c`$ essentially unchanged. Since CSB is a low energy phenomenon, the integral over the momentum in the DS equation is within a small interval. Therefore, it is very reasonable to conclude that our result is entirely independent of the holon mass, even if we do not know its exact value. Finally, in this paper we consider only the one-loop contribution to the vacuum polarization from fermions and bosons. Higher-order corrections were shown  have only minor influence on $`N_c`$. But these calculations said nothing about the higher-order corrections from the holons, which will be discussed in the future.

In conclusion, in a spin-charge separated system, we showed that the massless nodal fermions acquire a finite mass, which breaks the chiral symmetries and provides a finite gap that should be overcomed for free fermions to be excited. This implies that while the $`d`$-wave spinon gap vanishes at the nodes, at $`T0`$ there are no free fermions. Thus no residual linear term for the thermal conductivity can be observed. Our result reveals a very interesting underlying ground state for the pseudogap region of underdoped cuprates where AF order coexists with metal-like electrical conductivity. Till now, no such observations are reported. We expect elaborate experiments, including neutron scattering and STM, would determine whether such a state exists.

$`Notes`$ $`added`$: After our work was completed, we noted that Houghton $`et`$ $`al.`$  also studied the breakdown of the WF law in terms of spin-charge separation. Their work made a mean-field treatment of the $`t`$-$`J`$ model in the large-N limit. In our work, however, strong gauge fluctuation plays an essential role and leades to CSB which was not mentioned in Ref.. We believe CSB is necessary in explaining the violation of the WF law because if it does not occur there should be a residual linear term for the thermal conductivity caused by the low energy fermions excited from the nodes of the $`d_{x^2y^2}`$ spinon gap .

G.Z.L. thanks P. A. Lee and M. Reenders for helpful communications. This work is supported by National Science Foundation in China No.10175058.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The study of string/M-theory backgrounds with special holonomy groups is receiving much attention lately. One application of special holonomy manifolds is in constructing gravity duals of field theories with reduced supersymmetry, and the analysis of the field theories on brane probes in such backgrounds.

In this letter we will consider two-brane probes in $`Spin(7)`$ and $`G_2`$ holonomy backgrounds. Specifically, we will concentrate on two special manifolds with $`Spin(7)`$ holonomy that were constructed in ; the $`A_8`$ and $`B_8`$ manifolds. These non-compact manifolds have two distinct features. While they have different topologies, they admit the same metric up to a sign of a parameter. Asymptotically, this metric is the same in both cases, and is locally conical.

We will analyze the dynamics of a system of M2-branes in these $`Spin(7)`$ holonomy manifolds. We will describe the flow from the theory of D2-branes on a $`G_2`$ holonomy background to M2-branes in these $`Spin(7)`$ holonomy backgrounds. We will consider in detail the UV and IR regimes, and the effect of topology change (from $`A_8`$ to $`B_8`$) on the field theory.

The letter is organized as follows. In the next section we will briefly review the $`A_8`$ and $`B_8`$ backgrounds. In section 3 we will consider M2-branes in these backgrounds. We will take the field theory limit, study the phase structure of the systems, and compute the two-point function of the stress-energy tensor. In section 4 we will construct the UV field theory and conjecture a non-Abelian $`𝒩=1`$ mirror symmetry. In section 5 we will discuss some aspects of the IR regime.

## 2 $`Spin(7)`$ holonomy manifolds: $`A_8`$ and $`B_8`$

Consider the following general ansatz for an eight-dimensional metric

$$ds_8^2=h^2(r)dr^2+a^2(r)\sigma ^2+b^2(r)(D\mu _i)^2+c^2(r)d\mathrm{\Omega }_4^2.$$
(2.1)
We denote by $`(\psi ,\theta ,\varphi )`$ the Euler angles, and $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_4^2`$ is the metric on the unit 4-sphere. Then $`\sigma `$ is given by

$$\sigma d\varphi +𝒜_1=d\varphi +\mathrm{cos}\theta d\psi \mu _iA_i,$$
(2.2)
where

$$\mu _1=\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\psi ,\mu _2=\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\psi ,\mu _3=\mathrm{cos}\theta ,$$
(2.3)
and $`A_i`$ is the gauge connection of an $`SU(2)`$ instanton on $`S^4`$. We define the covariant derivative, and instanton field strength as

$$D\mu _i=d\mu _i+ϵ_{ijk}A_j\mu _k,F_i=dA_i+ϵ_{ijk}A^jA^k.$$
(2.4)
In the following we will consider a special case of the general metric ansatz that has $`Spin(7)`$ holonomy  (which is a special case of a family of $`Spin(7)`$ metrics )

$$ds_8^2=\frac{(r+l)^2dr^2}{(r+3l)(rl)}+\frac{l^2(r+3l)(rl)\sigma ^2}{(r+l)^2}+\frac{1}{4}(r+3l)(rl)(D\mu _i)^2+\frac{1}{2}(r^2l^2)d\mathrm{\Omega }_4^2.$$
(2.5)
$`l`$ is a real parameter whose significance will be discussed shortly. When $`l>0`$ the radial coordinate $`r`$ is in the range $`lr<\mathrm{}`$. This manifold is denoted as $`A_8`$. When $`l<0`$ the radial coordinate is in the range $`3lr<\mathrm{}`$. This manifold is denoted as $`B_8`$.

In the large $`r`$ region, both $`A_8`$ and $`B_8`$ have the same asymptotic form $`\times S^1`$, where $`S^1`$ is parametrized by $`\sigma `$ with $`g_{\sigma \sigma }l^2`$, and $``$ is a cone over $`CP^3`$ with a $`G_2`$ holonomy metric

$$ds_7^2=dr^2+r^2\left(\frac{1}{4}(D\mu _i)^2+\frac{1}{2}d\mathrm{\Omega }_4^2\right).$$
(2.6)
If we dimensionally reduce the asymptotic $`\times S^1`$ geometry along the $`S^1`$ direction, we get the seven-dimensional background (2.6) and a 2-form KK field strength

$$_2d𝒜_1=\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{ijk}\mu ^kD\mu ^iD\mu ^j\mu _iF_i.$$
(2.7)
The dilaton is asymptotically constant. The geometric symmetries of this background were analyzed in . The base of the cone $``$ is the coset space

$$\frac{Sp(2)}{SU(2)\times U(1)}.$$
(2.8)
Therefore, it is invariant under $`Sp(2)`$ action from the left, and $`SU(2)\times U(1)\times Z_2`$ from the right. The $`SU(2)\times U(1)`$ acts trivially, and $`Z_2`$ acts as $`\mu _i\mu _i`$. These symmetries extend to the cone $``$. These are not the symmetries of $`_2`$. It is clear that $`_2`$ is not invariant under the $`Z_2`$ action. An $`SU(2)`$ instanton solution on $`S^4`$ has an $`SU(2)\times U(1)`$ symmetry group, and there is an additional $`SO(3)SU(2)`$ symmetry from acting on the $`i`$ index. Therefore, the type IIA background is only invariant under $`SU(2)\times SU(2)\times U(1)`$ transformations.

The first correction to the asymptotic geometry in the $`l/r`$ expansion is linear in $`l`$ and distinguishes between the two manifolds

$$\delta ds^2=\pm \frac{1}{2}|l|r(D\mu _i)^2,$$
(2.9)
where the $`+`$ sign is for $`A_8`$, and the $``$ sign for $`B_8`$. The correction (2.9) is non-normalizable, $`\delta g\mathrm{}`$, which implies that $`l`$ is a parameter in the dual field theory. The geometry of the two manifolds in the small $`r`$ region is quite different. Near $`r=l`$ the $`A_8`$ metric reads

$$ds_8^2=d\rho ^2+\frac{1}{4}\rho ^2\left(\sigma ^2+(D\mu _i)^2+d\mathrm{\Omega }_4^2\right)d\rho ^2+\rho ^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_7^2,$$
(2.10)
where $`\rho ^2=4l(rl)`$ and $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_7^2`$ is the metric on the unit 7-sphere. Thus, $`A_8`$ is topologically $`R^8`$, and near $`\rho =0`$ also geometrically. Near $`r=3l`$ the $`B_8`$ metric reads

$$ds_8^2=d\rho ^2+\rho ^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2+4l^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_4^2,$$
(2.11)
where $`\rho ^2=4l(r+3l)`$, and $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2`$ and $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_4^2`$ are the metrics on the unit 3-sphere and 4-sphere respectively. Thus, the $`B_8`$ manifold is topologically an $`R^4`$ bundle over $`S^4`$. We see that as we vary the parameter $`l`$ from positive to negative values we change the topology of the manifold.

## 3 M2-branes in $`A_8`$ and $`B_8`$

In the following we will consider M2-branes in the $`A_8`$ and $`B_8`$ backgrounds. We will first analyze the phase diagram of the system, as done for D2/M2-branes in flat space in . The background of $`N`$ M2-branes takes the usual form

$$ds^2=H^{2/3}dx_{012}^2+H^{1/3}ds_8^2,C_3=dx_0dx_1dx_2H^1,$$
(3.1)
where $`H(r)`$ obeys the Laplace equation on $`A_8`$. In the $`B_8`$ case, the asymptotics is the same, but near the origin there is a subtlety, which we will address later. $`H(r)`$ reads

$$H=1+Q_r^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dx}{(xl)^4(x+3l)^2},$$
(3.2)
where $`Ql_p^6N/l`$.

We consider the low-energy limit $`l_p0`$, with $`r`$ and $`l`$ also taken to zero such that

$$U\frac{lr}{l_p^3},LN\frac{l^2}{l_p^3}N,$$
(3.3)
are kept fixed. The ten-dimensional string coupling is

$$g_s=\left(\frac{l}{l_p}\right)^{2/3}=\frac{l}{l_s},$$
(3.4)
and the three-dimensional gauge coupling is $`g_{YM}^2g_sl_s^1`$. In terms of these parameters, (3.3) reads

$$U=\frac{r}{l_s^2},LN=\frac{l}{l_s^2}N,$$
(3.5)
which are fixed as $`l_s0`$. Note that $`Lg_{YM}^2`$.

Consider the phase diagrams for two-branes in the $`A_8`$ and $`B_8`$ backgrounds. On the supergravity (string) side there are two dimensionless expansion parameters: the effective string coupling $`e^\varphi `$ and the curvature in string units $`l_s^2`$. On the field theory side, the expansion in string coupling and the curvature expansion correspond to the $`1/N`$ expansion and strong coupling expansion in $`(g_{YM}^2NE^1)^{1/2}`$ respectively, with $`E`$ being an energy scale. On the supergravity side there is an additional dimensionless parameter $`L/U`$. On the field theory side it corresponds to $`g_{YM}^2E^1`$.

### 3.1 The $`A_8`$ case

For large $`U`$, it can be seen from (3.2) that the radius of the M-theory circle parametrized by $`\sigma `$ vanishes, and we need to dimensionally reduce to the type IIA description. The asymptotic form of $`H`$ is given by

$$H=\frac{g_{YM}^2N}{l_s^4U^5}\left(\frac{1}{5}\frac{1}{3}\frac{L}{U}+\frac{13}{7}\frac{L^2}{U^2}+O\left(\frac{L^3}{U^3}\right)\right),$$
(3.6)
The asymptotic (large $`U`$) background is

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`l_s^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{U^{5/2}}{\sqrt{g_{YM}^2N}}}dx_{012}^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{g_{YM}^2N}}{U^{5/2}}}ds_7^2\right),e^{2\varphi }=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{g_{YM}^{10}N}{U^5}}},`$
$`_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ_{ijk}\mu ^iD\mu ^jD\mu ^k\mu ^iF_i,_4=dx_0dx_1dx_2dH^1.`$ (3.7)
This background is the near-horizon limit of $`N`$ D2-branes transverse to the $`G_2`$ holonomy background (2.6), with a 2-form KK field strength.

We define the dimensionless expansion parameter $`g_{eff}^2=g_{YM}^2NU^1`$. The curvature $`l_s^2`$ and the effective string coupling of the background (3.1) read

$`l_s^2`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g_{eff}}}=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{U}{g_{YM}^2N}}},`$
$`e^\varphi `$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_{eff}^{5/2}}{N}}.`$ (3.8)
In this notation $`L/Ug_{eff}N^1`$.

To leading order in $`L/U`$ the phase diagram is the standard one . When $`g_{eff}1`$ we can use the perturbative field theory description. This is the high energy regime and the field theory has $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetry. The transition to the type IIA supergravity description is at $`g_{eff}1`$. This occurs at $`Ug_{YM}^2N`$. We can use the type IIA description as long as the effective string coupling is small $`e^\varphi 1`$. The metric describes a system of $`N`$ D2-branes transverse to a $`G_2`$ holonomy manifold. When $`e^\varphi 1`$ we have to use the eleven dimensional description. This occurs at energy $`Ug_{YM}^2N^{1/5}`$. In the extreme IR the uplifted metric approaches the $`AdS_4\times S^7`$ metric and we have the $`𝒩=8`$ SCFT description.

This picture is not precise when the corrections in $`L/U`$ are taken into account. The leading correction to the asymptotic geometry in $`L/U`$ is non-normalizable, $`\delta g\mathrm{}`$. This means that in the dual field theory description $`L`$ should be understood as a parameter rather than as a vev of a field. This is indeed the case, $`Lg_{YM}^2`$. Near $`U=L`$ the harmonic function has the following expansion in $`(UL)/L`$

$$H=\frac{N}{l_p^3U^3}\left(1\frac{3}{4}\frac{U}{L}+\frac{9}{16}\frac{U^2}{L^2}+O\left(\frac{U}{L}\right)^3\right),$$
(3.9)
where we redefined $`UL`$ as $`U`$. At $`U=0`$ the metric (3.1) becomes $`AdS_4\times S^7`$, with $`R_{sphere}=2R_{AdS}l_pN^{1/6}`$. This is the same background as the near horizon limit of M2-branes in flat space with corrections in $`U/L`$. Note, however, that the expansion in $`U/L`$ is not really useful since it requires $`UL`$ in order to be valid.

As we noted before, changing the sign of $`L`$ ($`l`$ before taking the field theory limit) implies a topology change in the supergravity background. On the field theory side it corresponds to $`g_{YM}^2g_{YM}^2`$, which is a sign of a phase transition. In particular the singularity of the supergravity background at $`L0`$ corresponds to a free field theory $`g_{YM}^20`$. Note in comparison that M-theory on $`G_2`$ holonomy background yields a theory with four supercharges where holomorphy can be used to argue for smooth interpolation between different geometrical backgrounds . Here we consider theories with two supercharges where holomorphy cannot be used, and indeed the process of moving from one background to the other is not smooth.

### 3.2 The $`B_8`$ case

Consider the phase diagram of M2-branes on the $`B_8`$. The asymptotic form of $`B_8`$ is the same as that of $`A_8`$ to leading order in the $`L/U`$ expansion. Thus, we expect the supergravity approximation to hold up to $`Ug_{YM}^2N`$ as in the $`A_8`$ case. The IR is quite different. If we change the sign of $`L`$ in (3.2) the point $`U=3L`$ is a singularity. This singularity is of the “good” kind  in the sense that the time component of the metric, $`g_{00}`$, is decreasing as we approach the singular point. The harmonic function near $`U=3L`$ reads

$$H=\frac{N}{l_p^3L^2U}\left(1\left(\frac{13}{12}\mathrm{ln}4+\mathrm{ln}\frac{L}{U}\right)\frac{U}{L}+\mathrm{}\right),$$
(3.10)
where we shifted $`U3L`$ to $`U`$. From the type IIA point of view the dilaton is not monotonic. It peaks at some intermediate point and then decreases as we approach the singularity, where it vanishes. Therefore, near the singular point we should use the ten-dimensional description.

The dimensional reduction of the $`B_8`$ manifold to ten dimensions describes a D6-brane wrapped on an $`S^4`$ coassociative cycle in the seven-dimensional $`G_2`$ holonomy manifold (2.6). Adding D2-branes implies that we should describe this regime using the D2-D6 system wrapping $`S^4`$. Note that the type IIA background is that of D2-branes smeared on the $`S^4`$. This system does not have a decoupling limit. Technically, this is because the power of $`U`$ in $`H`$ is not the same as in the $`A_8`$ case. Following , we should use the solution of localized D2-branes, which does have a decoupling limit, in which we also hold fixed $`N_2/N_6`$. For small $`r`$ the $`B_8`$ is geometrically $`R^4\times S^4`$. The volume of the $`S^4`$ is proportional to $`N_2/N_6`$. Therefore, we expect that for $`N_2N_6`$ we can treat the $`B_8`$ manifold as $`R^8`$ with good accuracy in this small $`r`$ region. This will re-produce the phase diagram of the flat D2-D6 system in . Specifically, we will have a background of the form $`AdS_4\times X^7`$, where $`X^7`$ is the $`Z_{N_6}`$ orbifold of $`B_8`$. We can also reduce this background to ten dimensions, which will result in a fibered $`AdS`$ background. In section 5 we will outline some features of the field theory that governs the IR of this D2-D6 system.

### 3.3 Two-point function

In the following we will use the supergravity description in order to compute the two-point function of the stress-energy tensor. We will be interested, in particular, in the $`L`$ dependent corrections. The computation requires the solution of the graviton equation. However, for certain polarization and momentum vector, the graviton equation reduces to the minimally coupled scalar equation. A similar computation in the supergravity background of D2-branes has been done in . The minimally coupled scalar equation is

$$\frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}_\mu \left(\sqrt{g}g^{\mu \nu }_\nu \right)\varphi (U,x)=0.$$
(3.11)
We take

$$\varphi (U,x)=f(U)\mathrm{exp}(ikx).$$

and we impose the boundary condition $`f(U_ϵ)=1`$ at the UV cut-off $`U_ϵ`$. The two-point function is given by

$$T(k)T(k)=\frac{N^2}{\lambda ^2}_T\frac{N^2}{\lambda ^2}f(U)\sqrt{g}g^{UU}_Uf(U)|_{U_0}^{U_ϵ},$$
(3.12)
where $`\lambda =g_{YM}^2N`$ is the ’t Hooft parameter, and $`U_0=L`$ for the $`A_8`$ manifold and $`U_0=3L`$ for the $`B_8`$ manifold. It is convenient to change variables to $`z=(\lambda k^2)^{1/3}U^1`$, and re-scale $`L`$ as $`L(\lambda k^2)^{1/3}L`$. Since we will only need to know the small $`z`$ behavior of $`f(z)`$ we can solve (3.11) order by order. After expanding the coefficients in (3.11) we get

$$f^{\prime \prime }(z)+\frac{1}{z}\left(4+2(Lz)22(Lz)^2+\mathrm{}\right)f^{}(z)+z\left(\frac{1}{5}\frac{(Lz)}{3}+\frac{93(Lz)^2}{35}+\mathrm{}\right)f(z)=0.$$
(3.13)
The solution of (3.13) after imposing the boundary condition is given by

$$f(z)=Cz^5\left(1\frac{5}{3}Lz+O(z^2)\right)\frac{4}{105}L^2z^5\mathrm{ln}(z)\left(1+O(z)\right)+1+\frac{1}{30}z^3+O(z^4),$$
(3.14)
where $`C`$ is an integration constant. It is fixed by the condition that at $`U=U_0`$ the solution is smooth, $`f^{}(U_0)=0`$.

We use (3.12) to calculate the flux factor, and extract the cut-off independent piece

$$_T=\frac{N^2}{\lambda ^2}\left(5C\lambda ^{5/3}k^{10/3}\frac{8}{63}L^2k^2\lambda \mathrm{ln}(k)+\text{analytic in }k\right).$$
(3.15)
In coordinate space the two-point function that follows from (3.12) reads

$$T(0)T(x)\frac{N^2}{\lambda ^2}\left(\frac{\lambda ^{5/3}}{|x|^{19/3}}+\frac{\lambda L^2}{|x|^5}\right).$$
(3.16)
The first term in (3.16) has been obtained in  for the D2-branes in flat space. The second term is the $`L/U`$ correction.

At the crossover regime between the supergravity description and the field theory description $`g_{YM}^2N|x|1`$ we get

$$T(0)T(x)\frac{N^2}{|x|^6},$$
(3.17)
which matches to a field theory with $`N^2`$ degrees of freedom.

Note that in this computation we did not find an odd power of $`L`$ dependence that will be different in the $`A_8`$ and $`B_8`$ cases. However, the computation is valid only in the UV regime. As we noted and will also discuss later, the IR dynamics of M2-branes on the two manifolds is quite different.

## 4 The UV field theory

The field theory in the UV is a three-dimensional $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetric gauge theory. Let us first briefly review some aspects of $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetry in three dimensions. The supersymmetry algebra reads

$$\{Q_\alpha ,\overline{Q}_\beta \}=2\gamma _{\alpha \beta }^\mu P_\mu ,\mu =0,1,2,\alpha =1,2.$$
(4.1)
$`Q_\alpha `$ are two real spinor supercharges, and $`\gamma ^0=\sigma _2,\gamma ^1=i\sigma _3,\gamma ^2=i\sigma _1`$. Superspace is described by three space-times coordinates, and by two real anti-commuting variables $`\theta _\alpha `$. A scalar superfield $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ takes the form

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\varphi +\overline{\theta }\chi +\frac{1}{2}\theta \overline{\theta }F,$$
(4.2)
where $`\varphi `$ is a real scalar, $`\chi _\alpha `$ is a real spinor and $`F`$ is an auxiliary field. A vector multiplet can be written as a real spinor superfield $`V_\alpha `$ (in the Wess-Zumino gauge)

$$V_\alpha =i(\gamma ^\mu A_\mu \theta )_\alpha +\frac{1}{2}\overline{\theta }\theta \lambda _\alpha .$$
(4.3)
The field strength tensor is

$$F_\alpha =\lambda _\alpha i(\gamma ^\mu B_\mu \theta )_\alpha \frac{1}{2}\overline{\theta }\theta (\gamma ^\mu _\mu \lambda )_\alpha ,$$
(4.4)
where $`B_\mu =\frac{1}{2}\epsilon _{\mu \nu \lambda }F^{\nu \lambda }`$. The supersymmetric action is

$$S=d^3xd^2\theta \left(\frac{1}{2}F_\alpha F_\alpha +\frac{1}{2}(𝒟\mathrm{\Phi })(𝒟\mathrm{\Phi })+W(\mathrm{\Phi })\right),$$
(4.5)
where $`𝒟_\alpha =D_\alpha ieV_\alpha `$ is the super-covariant derivative. The action (4.5) contains kinetic terms for the scalar, vector and spinor fields, Yukawa couplings and a scalar potential

$$V=\frac{1}{2}g^{ij}_iW_jW,$$
(4.6)
where $`g^{ij}`$ is the kinetic term metric.

As we discussed in the previous section, at large $`r`$ the metrics of $`A_8`$ and $`B_8`$ have the asymptotic form $`\times S^1`$, where $``$ is a cone over $`CP^3`$. Let us look for an $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetric gauge theory that has this space as its classical moduli space of vacua. Consider a supersymmetric $`U(1)\times U(1)`$ gauge theory with an $`𝒩=1`$ vector multiplet and four $`𝒩=2`$ chiral (eight $`𝒩=1`$ scalar) superfields $`A_i,B_i,i=1,2`$ with $`U(1)\times U(1)`$ charges $`(1,1)`$ for $`A_i`$ and $`(1,1)`$ for $`B_i`$. As reviewed above, there is no D-term for $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetry in three dimensions. Thus, the classical moduli space of vacua is given by the space parametrized by the scalar components of $`A_i,B_i`$ modulo the $`U(1)\times U(1)`$ action.

With the above charges, $`A_i`$ and $`B_i`$ are neutral under the diagonal $`U(1)`$. We define

$$w_1=a_1,w_2=a_2,w_3=b_1^{},w_4=b_2^{},$$
(4.7)
where $`a_i,b_i`$ are the scalar components of $`A_i,B_i`$. The classical moduli space of vacua is

$$(w_1,w_2,w_3,w_4)\lambda (w_1,w_2,w_3,w_4),|\lambda |=1,$$
(4.8)
which is a cone over $`CP^3`$. In three dimensions the gauge field $`A_\mu `$ is dual to a compact real scalar $`q`$, $`dq=dA`$. The scalar $`q`$ parameterizes a circle $`S^1`$. Thus, the classical moduli space of the theory is $`\times S^1`$.

A generalization to $`N`$ D2-branes requires that as we separate the branes we get $`N`$ copies of the above moduli space. Consider a $`U(N)\times U(N)`$ $`𝒩=1`$ vector multiplets with $`A_i,B_i,i=1,2`$, $`𝒩=2`$ chiral superfields in the $`(N,\overline{N}),(\overline{N},N)`$ representations of the gauge groups, respectively. When $`A_i,B_i`$ are diagonal with distinct eigenvalues, the gauge group is broken to $`U(1)^N\times U(1)^N`$. This is the case where all the D2-branes are separated. In this case we will get $`N`$ copies of $`\times S^1`$. However, we have to make the off-diagonal fields massive. A superpotential that is compatible with the symmetries and gives mass to the off-diagonal fields via the Higgs mechanism is

$$W\epsilon ^{ij}\epsilon ^{kl}\text{Tr}\left(A_iB_kA_jB_l\right).$$
(4.9)
Thus, we propose this as the UV field theory for $`N`$ D2-branes in the background $``$.

We note that the field theory is very similar to the four-dimensional $`𝒩=1`$ field theory on the world-volume of D3-branes placed at the tip of the conifold . Compactification of that theory on a circle would give $`𝒩=2`$ three dimensional gauge theory with four supercharges. The theory considered here has only two supercharges, since the vector superfields are $`𝒩=1`$ multiplets and not $`𝒩=2`$.

It has been proposed in  that theory on the world-volume of one D2-brane in the background $``$ (theory $`B`$) is mirror to another $`𝒩=1`$ three-dimensional gauge theory (theory $`A`$), whose Coulomb branch is $``$. Theory $`A`$ is constructed by placing a D2-branes in the ten-dimensional background obtained by the reduction of $``$ on $`S^1S^4`$. The ten-dimensional background corresponds to D6-branes intersecting at angles. The field theory of one D2-brane in the intersecting D6-branes background is an $`𝒩=1`$ $`U(1)`$ gauge theory with three $`𝒩=2`$ chiral superfields $`\mathrm{\Phi }^i`$ (from the 2-2 strings) and two $`𝒩=2`$ hypermultiplets (from the 2-6 strings).

One expects the generalization of theory $`A`$ to $`N`$ D2-branes to be an $`𝒩=1`$ $`U(N)`$ gauge theory with three $`𝒩=2`$ chiral superfields $`\mathrm{\Phi }^i`$ in the adjoint and two $`𝒩=2`$ hypermultiplets in the fundamental representation. We also expect a superpotential of the form

$$W\epsilon _{ijk}\text{Tr}\left(\mathrm{\Phi }^i\mathrm{\Phi }^j\mathrm{\Phi }^k\right).$$
(4.10)
When $`\mathrm{\Phi }^i`$ are diagonal with distinct eigenvalues the $`N`$ D2-branes are separated and their positions are given by the eigenvalues. The gauge group is broken to $`U(1)^N`$. The scalars together with the duals to the $`N`$ photons parameterize a $`7N`$-dimensional space, made of $`N`$ copies of a seven-dimensional space that admits a metric of $`G_2`$ structure.

It is tempting to conjecture a non-Abelian version of the $`𝒩=1`$ mirror symmetry, and suggest that the non-Abelian theories $`A`$ and $`B`$ are mirror in the sense that the Coulomb branch of $`A`$ matches the Higgs branch of $`B`$.

## 5 The IR regime

In this section we discuss some aspects of the IR regime.

### 5.1 The $`A_8`$ case

As we saw, in the $`A_8`$ case there is a single IR fixed point where supersymmetry is enhanced back to $`𝒩=8`$. The irrelevant operators that deform the $`S^7`$ are dual to scalars in $`AdS_4`$. The question is how many irrelevant operators are turned on, and what are their conformal dimensions and representation under $`SO(8)`$. Fortunately, some of the work was already carried out in , where a more symmetric deformation of $`S^7`$ was analyzed.

Our starting point will be the one dimensional Lagrangian, from which one can derive the equations that define the $`A_8`$ manifold .

$`L`$ $`=`$ $`2\alpha ^2+12\gamma ^2+4\alpha ^{}\beta ^{}+8\beta ^{}\gamma ^{}+16\alpha ^{}\gamma ^{}`$ (5.1)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}b^2c^4(4a^6+2a^4b^224a^4c^24a^2c^24a^2c^4+b^2c^4),`$
where $`a,b,c`$ are as in (2.1), $`h(r)=1`$, and $`\alpha ^{}=_r\mathrm{ln}(a)`$ and the same for $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$. We shall now modify this Lagrangian to include the $`N`$ M2-branes. Note that the original Lagrangian was derived for an eight-dimensional space, and in order to describe the supergravity solution of the M2-branes we should first add three flat directions, and then multiply by the appropriate factors of $`H(r)`$. The potential term $`V(a,b,c)`$ must be added with the contribution of the 4-form field strength

$$\mathrm{\Delta }V=a^8b^4c^{12}Q^2.$$
(5.2)
We can change to a more familiar set of variables , which will make the geometric picture more clear. (For $`a=b`$ we should get the Lagrangian of .) We define:

$`a`$ $`=`$ $`2^{1/6}\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}u2v+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}w),`$
$`b`$ $`=`$ $`2^{1/6}\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}u2v{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}w),`$
$`c`$ $`=`$ $`2^{1/6}\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}u+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}v),`$ (5.3)
and denote the four-dimensional metric by $`g_{ij}`$. With the new variables the new Lagrangian is

$`L`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{g}(_g{\displaystyle \frac{63}{2}}(u)^221(v)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}(w)^22Q^2e^{21u}`$ (5.4)
$``$ $`e^{9u10v}(8e^{2w/3}+4e^{4w/3})48e^{9u3v}+e^{9u+4v}(2e^{8w/3}8e^{2w/3})).`$
The geometric meaning of each of the three functions in now clear. Let us for the moment set $`w=0`$ ($`a=b`$) identically (not just at $`r=0`$). In this case (5.2) is the action that governs deformations of $`S^7`$ that preserve an $`SO(5)\times SO(3)`$ isometry . In particular, the potential has two critical points, that correspond to Einstein manifolds. One is the round $`S^7`$ and the other is the squashed $`S^7`$. The round $`S^7`$ is the solution given by

$$v_0=w_0=0,u_0=\frac{\mathrm{ln}(Q^2/9)}{12},$$
(5.5)
and corresponds to an IR fixed point. The squashed $`S^7`$ solution, that will not be of interest here, has $`v0`$, and corresponds to a UV fixed point.

In our case the symmetry group is smaller, since $`w0`$ ($`ab`$) except at $`r=0`$. We consider fluctuations of $`u,v,w`$ around the round $`S^7`$ solution.

In eleven dimensional supergravity compactified on $`AdS_4\times S^7`$ there are 3 scalar KK towers denoted by $`S_1,S_2,S_3`$. Their $`SO(8)`$ representations and 4 dimensional masses are given by

$`S_1`$ $`(n+2,0,0,0)`$ $`m^2=(n2)^29`$
$`S_2`$ $`(n2,0,0,0)`$ $`m^2=(n+7)^29`$
$`S_3`$ $`(n2,2,0,0)`$ $`m^2=(n+3)^29.`$ (5.6)
There are also 2 pseudo-scalar KK towers denoted by $`P_1`$ and $`P_2`$

$`P_1`$ $`(n,0,2,0)`$ $`m^2=(n+1)^29`$
$`P_2`$ $`(n2,0,0,2)`$ $`m^2=(n+5)^29.`$ (5.7)
Following the calculations in , the masses of the the 3 scalars in (5.4) are given by (in $`AdS_4`$ mass units)

$$M_{ij}^2=\frac{1}{2}_{i,j}^2V(u,v,w)|_{u_0,v_0,w_0},$$
(5.8)
after rescaling the fields so that the kinetic terms are canonically normalized. Specifically we get that

$$M_{uu}^2=M_{vv}^2=M_{ww}^2=+16.$$
(5.9)
By the AdS/CFT correspondence these 3 scalars are dual to irrelevant operators of dimensions $`\mathrm{\Delta }=4`$ . The first scalar $`u`$ is just the over-whole volume of $`S^7`$, and is identified with $`n=7`$ of $`S_1`$ . The second scalar $`v`$ can be identified as $`n=2`$, of $`S_3`$ transforming as the $`\mathrm{𝟑𝟎𝟎}`$ of $`SO(8)`$ . The third scalar $`w`$ is actually a pseudo-scalar $`n=4`$, of $`P_1`$, and is responsible for deforming the $`S^3`$ fibers. It transforms as the $`\mathrm{𝟓𝟕𝟕𝟓}`$ of $`SO(8)`$. With all three irrelevant perturbations turned on there is no second non-trivial fixed point, which means that in the UV the system should be described by perturbative field theory as is indeed the case.

### 5.2 The $`B_8`$ case

As discussed before, the $`B_8`$ manifold reduced to ten dimensions describes the background of a D6-brane wrapped on an $`S^4`$ supersymmetric 4-cycle ($`Vol(S^4)l^4`$) in a $`G_2`$ holonomy manifold . The manifold is the bundle of anti-self-dual two-forms over $`S^4`$. Note that to get $`N_6`$ D6-branes one should consider a $`Z_{N_6}`$ orbifold of the $`S^1`$ on which we reduce.

Let us consider the D-branes field theory when adding D2-branes in this background. At energies $`El^1`$ the effective theory on the D6-brane world-volume is a $`U(1)`$ $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetric gauge theory with a Chern-Simons term

$$L=\frac{1}{4g_6^2}d^3x(^2+i\overline{\psi }\mathrm{\Gamma }D\psi )+\frac{i(k+\frac{1}{2})}{4\pi }(𝒜d𝒜+\overline{\psi }\psi ).$$
(5.10)
The gauge coupling $`g_6^2g_sl_s^3l^4`$. The Chern-Simons term arises from the WZ term, when taking into account the half integral $`G_4`$ flux required for the consistency of the compactification on $`B_8`$ . Since the $`S^4`$ is rigid there are no massless scalars to parameterize its embedding in the seven-dimensional space.

Adding $`N_2`$ D2-branes to the system means an additional $`𝒩=1`$ $`U(N)`$ vector multiplet with gauge coupling $`g_2^2g_sl_s^1`$. There is one $`𝒩=2`$ hypermultiplet that parameterizes the motion of the D2-branes in $`S^4`$, and three scalar superfields that parameterize the three directions normal to the $`S^4`$. We need to study the system at low energies $`Eg_2^2,g_6^2`$. At these energies the kinetic terms are irrelevant. Since a D2-brane in D6-branes wrapping $`S^4`$ can be viewed as an instanton on $`S^4`$, it is plausible to expect the the IR theory will be a conformal field theory on the Higgs branch, which is the moduli space of $`N_2`$-instantons of $`U(N_6)`$ on $`S^4`$ <sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1 For a somewhat similar discussion in another context see .. This is consistent with the fact that the supergravity background for small $`U`$ has an $`AdS_4`$ factor, as noted in section 3.2.

## Acknowledgements

We would like to thank O. Aharony, H. Ita, O. Kenneth and T. Sakai for valuable discussions. This research is supported by the US-Israel Binational Science Foundation.


text:
# REDUCTION OF THE GEOMETRICAL MASS OF THE REISSNER-NORDSTRÖM SPACETIME

## 1 Introduction

For a bounded spherically symmetric static distribution of matter the total mass is well defined. We know that outside of the distribution the spacetime must be described by the Schwarzschild spacetime, therefore it follows from the junction conditions  that the total mass of the system is equal to the Schwarzschild mass parameter . However the definition of the total mass content within a given spherical surface inside a non vacuum spacetime is not unique. This ambiguity has been the subject of long discussions, giving rise to different definitions of energy (see  and references therein).

Our aim in this article is to revisit the question of mass in the Reissner-Nordström (RN) spacetime.

The study of charged bodies in Einstein’s theory contributes to a better understanding of the structure of spacetime, as it is showed by many new solutions recently studied for electrovacuum (see  and references therein) and different charged sources (see  and references therein). For the spherically symmetric static spacetime the solution of the coupled Einstein and Maxwell equations is the RN solution. This solution is the unique black hole solution with a regular event horizon and assymptotically flat behaviour. The RN spacetime provides a more general framework to study the structure of Schwarzschild spacetime. The fact that RN solution has two horizons, an external event horizon and an internal Cauchy horizon, provides a convenient bridge to the study of the Kerr solution, as pointed out by Chandrasekhar . Furthermore, the RN field can be used as a simple model of the electron, as suggested by Bonnor and Cooperstock  and further discussed by Herrera and Varela . We point out too, that the study of the mass in the RN spacetime might help to find the corresponding one in the Kerr spacetime. On the Kerr horizon mass  is similarly characterized as in RN spacetime which we remark in the next section.

To study the mass in RN spacetime we determine the corresponding Schwarzschild spacetime, henceforth, the Schwarzschild mass parameter, thus obtained, corresponds to the so called geometrical mass in the RN spacetime. In order to obtain this correspondence we study a class of solutions where we impose that the metric component $`g_{tt}`$ is functionally related to the electrostatic potential $`\varphi `$. This technique of determining solutions of Einstein and Maxwell equations is not new. It started with a remarkable paper by Weyl in 1917 , where he found a class of electrostatic axially symmetric solutions by imposing that $`g_{tt}(\varphi )`$. Majumdar in 1947  generalized this result to systems without spatial symmetry. The inclusion of solutions with magnetostatic fields came through the works of Papapetrou in 1947  and Bonnor in 1954 . But in 1955 Ehlers  gave a new approach to generate solutions of Einstein and Maxwell equations by starting from given vacuum solutions. Later, in the same vein, other solutions were found by Bonnor in 1961  and Janis, Robinson and Winicour in 1967 . However, all these solutions have the handicap of not switching back, in a simple way, to its original vacuum solution. This difficulty was overcome in 1976 by Teixeira, Wolk and Som (TWS). By using the operation of duality rotation they were able to introduce simultaneously electrostatic and magnetostatic fields, having the feature that by a proper choice of the constants, the original vacuum solution emerged in a straightforward way. This work generalizes the previous results . In 1977 Som, Santos and Teixeira  applied the TWS method to obtain the RN solution from the Schwarzschild solution. This result was reobtained recently .

The plan of the paper is as follows. In section 2 we derive the method developed by TWS  in its inverse form, i.e., given a solution of the Einstein and Maxwell equations how to find its corresponding vacuum solution. Next, we apply the inverse method to obtain the corresponding Schwarzschild spacetime to the RN spacetime. By doing this we deduce the geometrical mass in the RN spacetime. In sections 3 and 4 we obtain the active gravitational mass and mass function in the RN spacetime and compare them to the results of section 2. There is a discussion in the last section.

## 2 The geometrical mass

Here we present a method for deriving a class of vacuum solutions of Einstein’s equations out of a given solution of Einstein and Maxwell equations. The class of solutions that we search for is when we impose that the $`g_{tt}`$ metric component of the vacuum solution be functionally related to the same component of the electrovacuum solution. This method is the inverse of the TWS method . Then we apply this method to deduce the Schwarzschild solution from the RN solution.

### 2.1 The inverse of the TWS method

We consider the static line element corresponding to the electrovac solution

$$ds^2=e^{2\psi }dt^2e^{2\psi }h_{ij}dx^idx^j,$$
(1)
where $`\psi `$ and $`h_{ij}`$ are functions of the spatial components $`x^k`$ (latin indices run from 1 to 3). The Maxwell’s equations in empty space read

$`F_{}^{\mu \nu }{}_{;\mu }{}^{}=0,`$ (2)
$`ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }F_{\mu \nu ;\rho }=0,`$ (3)
with $`ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }`$ the totally antisymmetric tensor (greek indices run from 0 to 3) with convention $`ϵ^{0123}=1`$. From (1) and (3) the electromagnetic field tensor $`F_{\mu \nu }`$ can be written with the static non-null components

$$F_{0i}=\varphi _{,i},$$
(4)
where $`\varphi `$ is the electrostatic potential. Substituting (1) and (4) into (2) we obtain

$$(h^{1/2}e^{2\psi }h^{ij}\varphi _{,i})_{,j}=0,$$
(5)
with $`h`$ being the determinant of the spatial metric $`h_{ij}`$. Einstein electrovac equations read

$$G_{\mu \nu }=\kappa E_{\mu \nu }=\kappa \left(g^{\alpha \beta }F_{\alpha \mu }F_{\beta \nu }\frac{1}{4}g_{\mu \nu }F_{\alpha \beta }F^{\alpha \beta }\right),$$
(6)
where $`G_{\mu \nu }`$ is the Einstein tensor and $`E_{\mu \nu }`$ is the electromagnetic energy tensor. Substituting (1) and (4) into (6) gives

$`e^{2\psi }h^{1/2}(h^{1/2}h^{ij}\psi _{,i})_{,j}=h^{km}\varphi _{,k}\varphi _{,m},`$ (7)
$`H_{ij}+2\psi _{,i}\psi _{,j}=2e^{2\psi }\varphi _{,i}\varphi _{,j},`$ (8)
where $`H_{ij}`$ is the Ricci tensor in the 3 dimensional space.

If we consider now the static line element representing a solution of the Einstein equations in the vacuum (as opposed to the electrovacuum):

$$ds^2=e^{2V}dt^2e^{2V}h_{ij}dx^idx^j,$$
(9)
with $`V`$ a function of $`x^k`$, the corresponding Einstein equations read:

$`(h^{1/2}h^{ij}V_{,i})_{,j}=0,`$ (10)
$`H_{ij}+2V_{,i}V_{,j}=0.`$ (11)
We can then formulate the inverse of the TWS problem. Starting from a static solution $`(\psi ,h_{ij},\varphi )`$ of Maxwell equations (5) and Einstein electrovac equations (7) and (8), we want to obtain the corresponding Einstein vacuum solution $`(V,h_{ij})`$. We then search for a class of solutions where $`V`$ is functionally related to $`\psi `$.

From (5) and (10), we obtain

$$aV_{,i}=e^{2\psi }\varphi _{,i},$$
(12)
where $`a`$ is an integration constant. Substituting (11) into (8) and considering (12), we get

$$V_{,i}=\left(1+a^2e^{2\psi }\right)^{1/2}\psi _{,i}.$$
(13)
By integration, (13) leads to

$$e^{2V}=e^{2\psi }\left[\frac{1+(1+a^2)^{1/2}}{1+(1+a^2e^{2\psi })^{1/2}}\right]^2,$$
(14)
where we have chosen the integration constant such that when $`a=0`$, the electric field is zero and the electrovac solution (1) reduces to the vacuum solution (9). Introducing (12) into (7) with (13) yields

$$h^{1/2}(h^{1/2}h^{ij}\psi _{,i})_{,j}=\frac{a^2e^{2\psi }}{1+a^2e^{2\psi }}h^{km}\psi _{,k}\psi _{,m},$$
(15)
which means that the constant $`a`$ is determined by the parameters involved in $`\psi `$ and $`h_{ij}`$.

### 2.2 Schwarzschild solution from a RN solution

We now apply the preceding method to determine the Schwarzschild solution associated with a RN metric. First, substituting the RN line element,

$$ds^2=\left(1\frac{2M}{r}+\frac{Q^2}{r^2}\right)dt^2\left(1\frac{2M}{r}+\frac{Q^2}{r^2}\right)^1dr^2r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2,$$
(16)
into (15) we find for $`a`$

$$aM_S=Q,$$
(17)
where

$$M_S=(M^2Q^2)^{1/2}.$$
(18)
We see from (17) that when $`a=0`$ then $`Q=0`$, reducing the RN spacetime (16) to the vacuum Schwarzschild spacetime. The term $`e^{2\psi }`$ in (1) can be expressed from (16), with the aid of (18), as

$$e^{2\psi }=\frac{(rM_SM)(r+M_SM)}{r^2}.$$
(19)
Substituting (17) and (19) into (14) we obtain

$$e^{2V}=1\frac{2M_S}{r+M_SM}.$$
(20)
Considering (20), the vacuum solution (9) becomes

$$ds^2=\left(1\frac{2M_S}{R}\right)dt^2\left(1\frac{2M_S}{R}\right)^1dR^2R^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2,$$
(21)
where $`R`$ is given by

$$R=r+M_SM.$$
(22)
Hence, the corresponding vacuum solution to the RN spacetime is the Schwarzschild spacetime (21) with geometrical mass $`M_S=(M^2Q^2)^{1/2}`$ and with a scale shift (22) in the radial coordinate $`R`$.

The event horizon $`r_{eh}`$ and the Cauchy horizon $`r_{Ch}`$ for the RN spacetime (16) are then

$$r_{eh}=M+M_S,r_{Ch}=MM_S,$$
(23)
while for the corresponding Schwarzschild spacetime (21) these two surfaces represent, respectively, the event horizon $`R_{eh}`$ and singularity $`R_0`$,

$$R_{eh}=r_{eh}+M_SM=2M_S,R_0=r_{Ch}+M_SM=0.$$
(24)
We observe that the Kerr spacetime effective mass $`M_{eff}`$, as obtained in , on its event horizon is

$$(M_{eff})_{eh}=(M_K^2a^2)^{1/2},$$
(25)
where $`M_K`$ is the Kerr mass and $`a`$ its specific angular momentum. From (18) and (25) we have that the effective Kerr mass resembles the geometric RN geometrical mass at least on the event horizon, thus suggesting some similarity between both spacetimes.

## 3 The active gravitational mass

The active gravitational mass density $`\mu `$, given by Tolman  and Whittaker , is for the field equations (6)

$$\mu =E_{}^{0}{}_{0}{}^{}E_{}^{i}{}_{i}{}^{},$$
(26)
and the total active gravitational mass within a volume $`V`$, coming out from the work of Whittaker  reads

$$M_a=_V\mu (g)^{1/2}𝑑x^1𝑑x^2𝑑x^3,$$
(27)
where $`g`$ is the four dimensional determinant of the metric. Applying (27) to the RN spacetime (16) we find

$$M_a(\mathrm{})M_a(r)=_r^{\mathrm{}}\frac{Q^2}{r^2}𝑑r,$$
(28)
which, assuming that $`M_a(\mathrm{})=M`$, leads to

$$M_a(r)=M\frac{Q^2}{r}.$$
(29)
The active mass is positive or null for $`rr_0=Q^2/M`$ with $`r_{Ch}r_0r_{eh}`$. It can take negative values for $`r<r_0`$ and this possibility has been discussed in a number of papers . The existence of negative energies comes from the fact  that since the electrostatic energy of a point charge is infinite, then to have its total energy finite there must be an infinite amount of negative energy at its center of symmetry. The active gravitational mass (29) for the event horizon and Cauchy horizon are, respectively,

$$M_a(r_{eh})=M_S,M_a(r_{Ch})=M_S.$$
(30)
The spacetime external to $`r=r_{eh}`$ is very similar to the Schwarzschild spacetime external to the surface $`r=2M_S`$ (see discussion in  p. 209). Hence the surface $`r=r_{eh}`$ is an event horizon in the same sense that $`r=2M_S`$ in Schwarzschild spacetime. However, the spacetime internal to $`r=r_{eh}`$ has a completely different structure as compared to the Schwarzschild spacetime (refer again to ). It is interesting that the active gravitational mass (29) measures in RN spacetime the corresponding Schwarzschild mass at $`r=r_{eh}`$.

The electric field $`E`$ due to (16) is

$$E=\frac{Q}{r^2},$$
(31)
and from (5) the corresponding non-relativistic Maxwell energy, $`M_E(r,\mathrm{})`$, entrapped outside the spherical surface of radius $`r`$ is given by

$$M_E(r,\mathrm{})=\frac{1}{2}_r^{\mathrm{}}E^2r^2𝑑r.$$
(32)
Using (31) and (32), the active gravitational mass (29) can be rewritten

$$M_a(r)=M2M_E(r,\mathrm{}).$$
(33)
From (33) we have that $`M_a(r)`$ is the total active gravitational mass minus twice the mass equivalent to the non-relativistic energy stored by the electric field $`E`$ outside the spherical surface of radius $`r`$.

Calculating the circular geodesics in the equatorial plane and the radial geodesics  of RN spacetime for a chargeless particle we obtain, respectively, from (16) and (29),

$$\frac{d^2r}{d\tau ^2}=\frac{1}{r^2}\left(M\frac{Q^2}{r}\right)=\frac{M_a(r)}{r^2},\left(\frac{d\varphi }{d\tau }\right)^2=\frac{1}{r^3}\left(M\frac{Q^2}{r}\right)=\frac{M_a(r)}{r^3},$$
(34)
where $`\tau `$ is the proper time. The motion of a chargeless particle will then be affected by the charge of the black hole eventually producing repulsive forces for sufficiently small values of $`r`$. The active gravitational mass casts locally the equations of motion in a Newtonian like form.

## 4 The mass function

There exists a further different way to define the gravitational mass of a system. If we match a spherical distribution of matter to the exterior Schwarzschild spacetime we obtain at the surface of discontinuity the Schwarzschild mass being equal to $`rR_{\theta \varphi \theta }^\varphi /2`$ where $`R_{\theta \varphi \theta }^\varphi `$ is a Riemann tensor component. The interpretation of this mass as the total mass inside the sphere suggests that the total mass entrapped inside a sphere of radius $`r`$, called the mass function, may be defined by

$$M_f(r)=\frac{1}{2}rR_{}^{\varphi }{}_{\theta \varphi \theta }{}^{}.$$
(35)
This definition has been first considered by Lemaître  and since currently used in gravitational collapse . For RN spacetime (16) we have for (35)

$$M_f(r)=M\frac{Q^2}{2r},$$
(36)
where

$$M=\frac{1}{2}rC_{}^{\varphi }{}_{\theta \varphi \theta }{}^{},$$
(37)
$`C_{}^{\varphi }{}_{\theta \varphi \theta }{}^{}`$ being a Weyl tensor component. $`M`$ is called the pure gravitational mass, since it arises only from the Weyl tensor. The mass function is always positive or null for $`rr_1=Q^2/2M`$ with $`r_1=r_0/2`$ inside the event horizon. Negative values for $`M_f(r)`$ for $`r<r_1`$ are considered in . Here applies the same remark about (33) concerning negative energies. The mass function (36) at the event horizon and Cauchy horizon (23) are, respectively,

$$M_f(r_{eh})=\frac{1}{2}(M+M_S),M_f(r_{Ch})=\frac{1}{2}(MM_S).$$
(38)
Considering (31) and (32) we have

$$M_f(r)=MM_E(r,\mathrm{}).$$
(39)
The fact that in (33) $`M_E(r,\mathrm{})`$ is multiplied by 2 reflects that in (27) not only pure gravitational energy produced by the charge is considered like in (35).

## 5 Discussion

We have presented the TWS method  in its inverse form and applied it to obtain the vacuum Schwarzschild solution from the electrovacuum RN solution. The vacuum metric thus derived has a geometrical mass $`M_S`$ (17). We observe that the structure of $`M_S`$ is similar to the Kerr effective mass $`M_{eff}`$ (25) obtained in  on its event horizon. Then we calculate for RN spacetime its active gravitational mass (29) and mass function (36). Both results are equal to $`M`$ asymptotically but, in general, differ. This illustrates the ambiguity in the localization of energy. We compare $`M_a(r)`$ and $`M_f(r)`$ with $`M_S`$ at the horizons, respectively (30) and (38), and obtain that $`M_a(r_{eh})=M_S`$. This result is not so surprising because of the following reasons. The structure of the event horizon for RN spacetime and Schwarzshild spacetime are similar . The equations of motion (34) are cast in a locally Newtonian like form with the aid of the active gravitational mass. Furthermore, by analysing the energy content of a slowly collapsing gravitating sphere, Herrera and Santos  conclude that the active gravitating mass grasps better the physical content of matter than the mass function. Hence we can say that our results give further support the physical meaningfulness of $`M_a(r)`$.

## Acknowledgment

We thank Fred Cooperstock for kindly helping to improve the presentation of the paper. NOS gratefully acknowledges financial assistance from CNPq, Brazil.