text:
# Untitled Document

NSF-ITP-02-16

Gauge/gravity correspondence in accelerating universe

Alex Buchel

Institute for Theoretical Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-4030

Abstract

We discuss time-dependent backgrounds of type IIB supergravity realizing gravitation duals of gauge theories formulated in de Sitter space-time as a tool of embedding de Sitter in a supergravity. We show that only the gravitational duals to non-conformal gauge theories are sensitive to a specific value of a Hubble parameter. We consider two nontrivial solutions of this type: a gravity dual to six-dimensional $`(1,1)`$ little string theory, and to a four-dimensional cascading $`SU(N+M)\times SU(N)`$ supersymmetric gauge theory (related to fractional D3-branes on a singular conifold according to Klebanov et al), in accelerating universe. In both cases we argue that the IR singularity of the geometry is regulated by the expansion of the gauge theory background space-time.

03/02

1. Introduction

Gauge theory – gravity duality1 For reviews and references see, e.g., . relates a gauge theory on the world volume of large number of D-branes to purely supergravity backgrounds where the branes are replaced by the corresponding fluxes. In the simplest case the duality is realized  by a system of $`N`$ D3-branes in a flat type IIB string theory background. At small ’t Hooft coupling $`g_sN1`$, the system is best described by open strings and realizes $`SU(N)`$ $`𝒩=4`$ supersymmetric gauge theory. In the limit of strong ’t Hooft coupling this gauge theory has a perturbative description as type IIB supergravity compactified on $`AdS_5\times S^5`$, with $`N`$ units of the RR 5-form flux through the $`S^5`$. If this is a genuine equivalence, then phenomena observed on the gauge theory side should have dual description in string theory on $`AdS_5\times S^5`$. In particular, any deformation on the gauge theory visible in the large $`N`$ limit should have a counterpart in the dual gravitational description, and vice versa.

As in  we use “deformations” in a generalized sense. For example, Klebanov-Witten duality  describing regular D3-branes placed at a conical singularity in type IIB string theory can be thought of as a $`Z_2`$ orbifold of the original duality of Maldacena  along with a certain mass deformation that leaves only a quarter of the original supersymmetries unbroken. One could go a step further and consider deformations of a background space-time in which one formulates gauge dynamics. In  a gauge-gravity correspondence was considered in which Minkowski background space-time of the Klebanov-Strassler (KS)  cascading gauge theory was replaced with $`R\times S^3`$ or (in a Euclidean case) $`S^4`$. It was argued there that the curvature of the background geometry provided an infrared cutoff on the gauge theory dynamics and resolved the Klebanov-Tseytlin (KT)  naked singularity.

A natural extension to proposal of  is to ask the question: what the gauge-gravity duality of Maldacena would look like when the gauge theory space-time background is de Sitter? This is a perfectly valid “deformation” of the gauge theory background where one “turns on” a Hubble parameter. And thus, provided the original gauge-gravity correspondence was exact, one should be able to map this deformation onto the dual supergravity. In this paper we describe such a map. We would like to emphasize that much like in the original Maldacena correspondence, the gauge theory space-time is not dynamical on the gauge theory side of the correspondence. In other words, on the gauge theory side of the correspondence we completely neglect the backreaction of the gauge theory dynamics on the background, we ignore background fluctuations as well. The story on the gravity side of the correspondence is drastically different: here, as in the original Maldacena correspondence, what was the gauge theory background becomes a part of a dynamical type IIB supergravity background. Thus, finding a gravity dual to a gauge theory on a (decoupled) dS background would provide an embedding of this space-time into dynamical supergravity. Put differently: we want to view “cosmological” deformation of the gauge-gravity correspondence as a tool of embedding a de Sitter space-time into a supergravity2 Related ideas of realizing de Sitter gravity in warped compactifications of type IIB string theory were discussed in  . .

The paper is organized as follows. In the next section we describe a motivation for a time-dependent metric ansatz of type IIB supergravity background dual to a gauge theory in accelerating universe. We observe that de Sitter deformation applied to the $`𝒩=4`$ $`SU(N)`$ supersymmetric Yang-Mills gauge/gravity correspondence does not give rise to a different geometry on the dual supergravity side: all we get is a de Sitter slicing of the AdS factor in the original Maldacena duality. Nonetheless, we expect physically the deformed gauge theory to be rather different from the undeformed one. In particular, because of the conformal coupling of the gauge theory scalars to the scalar curvature, in the $`H0`$ ($`H`$ is the expansion rate of the universe) case the SYM would not have a moduli space3 A similar phenomenon for the $`R\times S^3`$ deformation of the $`𝒩=4`$ SYM was emphasized in  . ,4 It would be very interesting to study de Sitter deformations of gauge theories from purely field theoretical perspective. In this paper we focus on the supergravity part of the de Sitter deformed gauge-gravity correspondence.. We further show that conformal gauge theories are the only examples for which supergravity duals for nonzero Hubble parameter $`H`$ are related by some coordinate reparametrization to their $`H=0`$ supergravity duals.

We then move on to consider non-conformal examples in sections 3 and 4. In section 3 we present supergravity dual to $`(1,1)`$ little string theory (LST) in an inflationary patch of the $`dS_6`$. The $`H=0`$ solution reproduces the BPS system of $`N1`$ NS5-branes, and thus has curvature singularity (in the Einstein frame) at the branes core. From the dual gauge theory perspective this singularity is generated by the zero modes of the $`d=6`$ SYM theory, which is the infrared limit of $`(1,1)`$ LST. We explicitly demonstrate that de Sitter deformation of LST regulates this curvature singularity.

In section 4 we briefly discuss gravitational dual to Klebanov-Tseytlin/Klebanov-Strassler (KT/KS) cascading gauge theory \[6,,5\] in accelerating universe. We show that the KT deformation is related by a Wick rotation plus some scaling of the KT gauge theory on $`S^4`$ previously considered in  . Thus the infrared singularity of the extremal KT geometry is resolved for $`H0`$ as explained in  . We conclude in section 5.

2. Supergravity duals of gauge theories in accelerating universe

We mentioned in the introduction that given the original gauge-gravity duality of Maldacena there is a simple way to embed dS space-time into supergravity. The reason for this is that since we can deform a background space-time of the gauge theory from Minkowski to a flat Robertson-Walker universe by simply “turning on” a Hubble parameter, we should be able to do this in the supergravity dual to this gauge theory.

Typically, in a gauge-gravity correspondence the dual supergravity metric5 We always work in the Einstein frame. can be written as

$$ds_{10E}=c_1^2(dM_d)^2+c_2^2dr^2+(d\mu _{9d})^2,$$

where $`M_d`$ is a $`d`$-dimensional Minkowski space-time, which is related to the space-time background of the dual gauge theory, and $`\mu _{9d}`$ (for a fixed $`r`$) is a compact $`(9d)`$-dimensional Riemannian manifold that encodes the gauge theory dynamics at energy scale $`E\rho `$ with $`c_2dr\frac{d\rho }{\rho }`$ as $`\rho \mathrm{}`$. From now on we consider only the cases where $`c_i`$ depend only on $`r`$6 This is not always the case, as for example in Polchinski-Strassler gauge-gravity correspondence  .. The metric on $`M_d`$ does not depend on the angles of $`\mu _{9d}`$ while $`(d\mu _{9d})^2`$ does not depend on the $`M_d`$ coordinates, though both $`M_d`$ and $`\mu _d`$ can have explicit $`r`$ dependence7 The examples where $`(dM_d)^2`$ has an $`r`$ dependence correspond to gauge theories formulated on compact manifolds as in \[9,,3\]. . It seems natural to assume that such “separation of variables” would hold even when we start deforming the gauge theory space-time $`M_d`$. Specifically, taking the $`d`$-dimensional gauge theory in an accelerating universe

$$(ds_d^H)^2=dt^2+e^{2Ht}d\overline{x}^2,$$

which for $`H=0`$ has a dual supergravity background with the metric (2.1) , we assume the metric ansatz of the dual supergravity for general $`H`$ to be

$$(dM_d)^2(dM_d^H)^2(ds_d^H)^2.$$

In the orthonormal frame

$$e^1=c_1dt,e^{i+1}=e^{Ht}c_1dx_i,i=1\mathrm{}d1,e^{d+1}=c_2dr,$$

$$e^j,j=d+2,\mathrm{},10\mathrm{such}\mathrm{that}e^je^j(d\mu _{9d})^2,$$

the ricci components of the metric are time independent; so in this frame the supergravity fluxes and the dilaton would be time-independent as well.

We begin explicit examples by considering the case of the $`H0`$ deformation of the gauge-gravity correspondence discussed in  where the gauge theory is conformal, namely D3 branes at a conical singularity8 There is an obvious generalization to $`AdS_5\times S^5`$, and other conformal cases.. We observe that the dual supergravity background for $`H0`$ still remains $`AdS_5\times S^5`$: the only difference is that now we are doing a de Sitter slicing of the AdS factor in the metric.

Type IIB equations of motion can be solved analytically in this case. We find

$$ds_{10}^2=\rho ^2\left(dt^2+e^{2Ht}d\overline{x}^2\right)+\frac{L^2d\rho ^2}{L^2H^2+\rho ^2}+L^2ds_{T^{1,1}}^2,$$

where $`(ds_{T^{1,1}})^2`$ is the standard metric on $`T^{1,1}=(SU(2)\times SU(2))/U(1)`$ and

$$L^4=4\pi g_sN(\alpha ^{})\frac{27}{16},$$

with $`N`$ being the number of D3 branes. The metric (2.1) is supported by the following 5-form flux

$$F_5=_5+_5,_5=L^4d\mathrm{vol}_{T^{1,1}}.$$

Above solution is related by a coordinate transformation to the extremal ($`H=0`$) D3 brane solution. Indeed, first introduce

$$\tau =\frac{1}{H}e^{Ht}.$$

Then the change of variables that do the job is

$$r=\frac{\rho }{H\tau }=\rho e^{Ht},$$

$$d\stackrel{~}{t}=\frac{\sqrt{L^2H^2+\rho ^2}}{\rho }d\tau \frac{L^2H^2\tau }{\sqrt{L^2H^2+\rho ^2}}\frac{d\rho }{\rho ^2},$$

where $`r`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{t}`$ are the radial and the time coordinates of the $`H=0`$ solution. Note that in (2.1) $`d^2\stackrel{~}{t}=0`$, so this equation can indeed be integrated

$$\stackrel{~}{t}=\frac{\sqrt{L^2H^2+\rho ^2}e^{Ht}}{H\rho }.$$

From the coordinate transformations (2.1) , (2.1) we see that de Sitter slicing of $`AdS_5`$, as in (2.1) , covers “half” ($`\stackrel{~}{t}0`$ region) of its Poincare patch. It is easy to see that this slicing can be obtained from the analytical continuation (along with some scaling limits) of the Euclidean $`AdS`$ in the “hyperboloid” parametrization9 This is a Euclidean $`AdS_{d+1}`$ parametrization where the constant radial slice is $`S^d`$. . Really, for the $`AdS_{d+1}`$ the metric in this parametrization is given by

$$ds_{AdS_{d+1}}^2=\mathrm{sinh}^2\rho \left(dS^d\right)^2+d\rho ^2=\mathrm{sinh}^2\rho \left(d\tau ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\tau \left(dS^{d1}\right)\right)^2+d\rho ^2.$$

Now Wick rotation of (2.1) $`\tau i\tau `$ and the “decompactification” limit of $`S^{d1}`$, $`(dS^{d1})^2(dR^{d1})^2`$, along with $`\tau 1`$ give

$$ds_{AdS_{d+1}}^2=\mathrm{sinh}^2\rho \left(d\tau ^2+e^{2\tau }\left(dR^{d1}\right)\right)^2+d\rho ^2$$

$$=r^2\left(d\tau ^2+e^{2\tau }\left(dR^{d1}\right)\right)^2+\frac{dr^2}{1+r^2},$$

where $`r\mathrm{sinh}\rho `$. Thus, coordinate transformations (2.1) , (2.1) must be represented by the (corresponding scaling limit of the) Wick rotation of local coordinate transformations relating Poincare and “hyperboloid” parametrizations of the Euclidean $`AdS`$.

In the rest of this section we address the question when does the $`H0`$ deformation of a given gauge-gravity duality is related to the original ($`H=0`$) correspondence by some change of variables, as in the case above. We will argue that this is so only when the gauge theory in the duality correspondence is conformal. Let

$$(ds_{10E}^0)^2=(c_1^0)^2\left(dt^2+d\overline{x}^2\right)+(c_2^0)^2dr^2+(d\mu _{9d}^0)^2$$

be a supergravity metric in the original10 That is a gauge theory is formulated in Minkowski space-time. gauge-gravity correspondence, and

$$(ds_{10E}^H)^2=(c_1)^2\left(d\tau ^2+e^{2H\tau }d\overline{x}^2\right)+(c_2)^2d\rho ^2+(d\mu _{9d})^2$$

is the metric corresponding to its $`H0`$ deformation. We want to know when (2.1) is related by some coordinate reparametrization to (2.1) . Replacing $`\tau \frac{1}{H}e^{H\tau }`$ in (2.1) we get

$$(ds_{10E}^H)^2=\frac{c_1^2}{H^2\tau ^2}\left(d\tau ^2+d\overline{x}^2\right)+c_2^2d\rho ^2+(d\mu _{9d})^2.$$

Let’s ignore for now the internal piece of the metric. Comparing $`d\overline{x}^2`$ pieces of the metric in (2.1) and (2.1) we see that

$$c_1^0(r)=\frac{c_1(\rho )}{H\tau },$$

so that

$$dr=\frac{[c_1(\rho )]^{}\tau d\rho c_1(\rho )d\tau }{H\tau ^2[c_1^0(r)]^{}}.$$

Taking the most general ansatz for $`dt`$

$$dt=g_1(\rho ,\tau )d\tau +g_2(\rho ,\tau )d\rho ,$$

and matching (2.1) and (2.1) we find

$$g_1(\rho ,\tau )=\frac{c_1(\rho )\sqrt{[c_2^0(r)]^2+\tau ^2[c_1^0(r)^{}]^2}}{c_1^0(r)H\tau ^2[c_1^0(r)]^{}},$$

$$g_2(\rho ,\tau )=\frac{[c_2^0(r)]^2[c_1(\rho )]^{}}{H\tau c_1^0(r)[c_1^0(r)]^{}\sqrt{[c_2^0(r)]^2+\tau ^2[c_1^0(r)^{}]^2}},$$

plus we have a constraint11 We are assuming that the $`c_1^0`$ warp factor in (2.1) is nontrivial, that is not a constant.

$$0=[c_2^0(r)]^2[c_1(\rho )^{}]^2+c_2(\rho )^2H^2[c_2^0(r)]^2+c_2(\rho )^2H^2\tau ^2[c_1^0(r)^{}]^2.$$

Since we should be able to integrate (2.1)

$$d^2t0.$$

It turns out, given above expressions we can rewrite (2.1) as

$$0=\frac{d}{dr}\left[\frac{[c_1^0(r)]^{}}{c_1^0(r)c_2^0(r)}\right].$$

Without loss of generality we can assume that in the original duality12 This fixes an arbitrary choice of a radial coordinate in (2.1) .

$$c_1^0(r)=r.$$

From (2.1) we find then

$$c_2^0=\frac{L}{r},$$

where $`L`$ is some constant. Finally, the only way $`(d\mu _{d9})^2`$ and $`(d\mu _{d9}^0)^2`$ could ever match is when they are independent of $`\rho `$ and $`r`$ correspondingly. Thus we conclude that the metric (2.1) is actually

$$(ds_{10E}^0)=(ds_{AdS_{d+1}})^2+(d\mu _{9d})^2,$$

where the metric on $`\mu _{9d}`$ does not depend on the $`AdS_{d+1}`$ radial coordinate. The AdS factor in (2.1) points to the conformal invariance of the dual gauge theory.

Above discussion suggests that for the embedding of a de Sitter space-time in supergravity we should look for deformations of gauge/gravity duality where the gauge theory is not conformal. We will present explicit examples of such deformations in the next two sections.

3. $`(1,1)`$ LST in accelerating universe and the IR singularity resolution by inflation

In this section we describe $`H0`$ deformations of the $`(1,1)`$ little string theory, realized on the world-volume of NS5 branes in type IIB string theory. The effective infrared description of the LST is in terms of $`d=6`$ $`𝒩=2`$ supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory. As this gauge theory is not conformal, we expect to get a nontrivial embedding of $`dS_6`$ from its $`H0`$ deformation.

In the extremal case, $`H=0`$, the supergravity approximation breaks down near the core of the branes. This curvature singularity can be thought of as being generated by the zero modes of the IR free $`d=6`$ SYM. Since a Hubble parameter provides an infrared cutoff on the dynamics of the theory, we expect that it should regulate the curvature singularity of the extremal background. We argue that this is indeed so.

We take the following ansatz for the metric of LST holographic dual in the inflationary patch of the $`dS_6`$

$$(ds_{10E})^2=c_1^2\left(dt^2+e^{2Ht}d\overline{x}^2\right)+c_2^2d\rho ^2+\frac{c_3^2}{4}\left(g_1^2+g_2^2+g_3^2\right),$$

where $`c_i=c_i(\rho )`$, and $`g_i`$ are the $`SU(2)`$ left-invariant one-forms

$$g_1=\mathrm{cos}\varphi d\theta +\mathrm{sin}\varphi \mathrm{sin}\theta d\psi ,$$

$$g_2=\mathrm{sin}\varphi d\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi \mathrm{sin}\theta d\psi ,$$

$$g_3=d\varphi +\mathrm{cos}\theta d\psi .$$

We assume the dilaton $`\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{ln}g_s`$ to be a function of $`\rho `$ only and the same NS-NS 3-form fluxes as in the extremal case

$$H_3=ng_1g_2g_3,$$

where $`n`$ is related to the number of NS5 branes. Solving type IIB supergravity equations we get

$$0=\left[\frac{g_s^{}c_1^6c_3^3}{g_sc_2}\right]^{}+\frac{32n^2c_1^6c_2}{c_3^3g_s},$$

$$0=\left[\frac{c_1^{}c_1^5c_3^3}{c_2}\right]^{}\frac{c_1^4c_2}{g_sc_3^3}\left(5H^2g_sc_3^6+8n^2c_1^2\right),$$

$$0=\left[\frac{c_3^{}c_3^2c_1^6}{c_2}\right]^{}\frac{2c_1^6c_2}{g_sc_3^3}\left(g_sc_3^412n^2\right),$$

along with the first order constraint

$$0=\frac{12g_s^2c_3^4}{c_1^4}\left[c_3c_1\right]^{}\left[c_1^5c_3\right]^{}c_3^6c_1^2\left(g_s^{}\right)^2+4g_sc_2^2\left(16n^2c_1^23g_sc_3^4\left[c_1^2+5H^2c_3^2\right]\right).$$

It is consistent with (3.1) - (3.1) to choose an ansatz for the warp factors $`c_i`$ similar to the extremal NS5 brane solution

$$c_1=fg_s^{1/4},c_2=c_3=2n^{1/2}g_s^{1/4}.$$

We will end up with the following equations for $`f,g_s`$

$$0=\left[\frac{g_s^{}f^6}{g_s^3}\right]^{}+\frac{2f^6}{g_s^2},$$

$$0=\left[\left(\frac{g_s}{f^4}\right)^{}\frac{f^{10}}{g_s^3}\right]^{}+\frac{2f^4(40H^2n+f^2)}{g_s^2},$$

along with a first order constraint

$$0=g_s^2\left(60H^2n+2f^2\right)\left(15g_s^2[f^{}]^212g_s^{}f^{}g_sf+2[g_s^{}]^2f^2\right).$$

Though we can not solve (3.1) - (3.1) analytically, it is straightforward to exhibit a smooth solution. Really, a smooth solution as $`\rho 0`$ is

$$g_s=g_0\left(1\frac{1}{7}\rho ^2+\frac{5}{378}\rho ^4+O(\rho ^6)\right),$$

$$f=2Hn^{1/2}\left(\rho \frac{1}{63}\rho ^3+\frac{1}{1470}\rho ^5+O(\rho ^7)\right),$$

where $`g_0`$ is an integration constant related to the string coupling. As $`\rho \mathrm{}`$ we rather find13 These asymptotics can also be verified by numerical integration.

$$g_sg_0\rho ^{3/4}e^\rho ,fHn^{1/2}\sqrt{20\rho }.$$

Note that curvature of (3.1) can be maintained arbitrarily small by taking $`g_0`$ small. Thus the $`H0`$ deformation indeed regulates the strong curvature region of the extremal NS5 brane background. On the other hand, from (3.1) we see that turning on a Hubble parameter induces a logarithmic correction to the asymptotically linear dilaton background of the extremal NS5 branes. This should be contrasted with the finite energy density regularization of this geometry where one still recovers asymptotically linear dilaton  .

From the above analysis it appears that given the Hubble parameter $`H`$, and for a fixed number of NS5 branes, there is a one parameter family of the LST de Sitter deformations, characterized by $`g_0`$. Furthemore, it is $`g_0`$ and not $`H`$ that controlls curvature of the geometry (3.1) . This is suprising, as LST does not have any continuous coupling constant. Also, physically, we expect that supergravity approxiation describing deformed LST should break down for sufficiently small $`H`$ (in string units), as this theory should still be weakly coupled at low energies. This suggests that $`g_0`$ can not be a free parameter. In what follows we argue that this is indeed so. We find that

$$g_01/H^4,$$

so that small $`g_0`$ (necessary for the validity of the supergravity description) corresponds to a large Hubble parameter in string units, and thus the full picture is consistent with the general lore for the absense of a dual supergravity description to a weakly coupled gauge theory. Before we proceed with an argument for (3.1) we would like to mention that a somewhat similar phenomenon occurs in the near extremal deformation of the NS5 branes  . Really, the near extremal deformation of LST is characterized by a single parameter14 Classically, the temperature of the LST is independent of the energy density., namely the energy density $`\mu `$. On the other hand, its holographic dual naively has two parameters: $`r_0`$ (the location of the black five-branes horizon) and $`g_h`$ (the value of the string coupling at the horizon). It turns out that by a simple change of a radial coordinate the background geometry of the near extremal NS5 branes can be shown to depend only on a combination $`r_0^2/g_h^2`$, which can be further identified with the energy density above the extremality in string units $`\mu `$  . In our case, though we described a two-parameter family $`\{g_0,H\}`$ of the regular solutions of (3.1) -(3.1) , $`H`$ dependence of the geometry can also be eliminated by redefining the time coordinate $`t\tau 1/He^{Ht}`$. This is not very illuminating, as in doing so we are changing the reference energy scale from the LST perspective. Rather, we continue measuring all energies in string units. To relate $`g_0`$ and $`H`$ we study propagation of a minimally coupled scalar in the background (3.1) and on the NS5 brane probe. Specifically, consider a massless scalar $`\chi `$ minimally coupled to the Einstein metric (3.1) with zero angular momentum on $`S^3`$. The corresponding wave equation is

$$0=_t\left[e^{5Ht}_t\chi \right]+e^{3Ht}_i^2\chi +\frac{e^{5Ht}g_s^2(\rho )}{4nf^4(\rho )}_\rho \left[\frac{f^6(\rho )}{g_s^2(\rho )}_\rho \chi \right],$$

where $`i`$ denotes the spatial directions of the NS5 brane. The last term in (3.1) can be interpreted as a $`\rho `$-dependent mass term operator on the LST space-time. Using (3.1) -(3.1) we can explicitly factor out $`\{g_0,H\}`$ dependence of this operator

$$\frac{e^{5Ht}g_s^2(\rho )}{4nf^4(\rho )}_\rho \left[\frac{f^6(\rho )}{g_s^2(\rho )}_\rho \mathrm{}\right]e^{5Ht}H^2𝒪(\rho )[\mathrm{}].$$

Assuming the factorized dependence of $`\chi `$ on $`\rho `$

$$\chi (t,\overline{x};\rho )=\kappa (\rho )\stackrel{~}{\chi }(t,\overline{x}),$$

we get from (3.1)

$$0=_t\left[e^{5Ht}_t\stackrel{~}{\chi }\right]+e^{3Ht}_i^2\stackrel{~}{\chi }+e^{5Ht}H^2\lambda (\rho )\stackrel{~}{\chi },$$

where $`\lambda (\rho )1/\kappa (\rho )𝒪(\rho )[\kappa (\rho )]`$. As in the original gauge-gravity correspondence of Maldacena we would like to interpret $`\rho `$ as a (measured in string units) holographic RG scale. Thus the dynamics of $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$ should be qualitatively similar to the dynamics of the generically massive scalar $`\eta `$ propagating along a probe NS5 brane oriented along $`\{t,\overline{x}\}`$, and sitting at a fixed radial coordinate $`\rho `$. With a scalar $`\eta `$ minimally coupled to the induced Einstein frame metric on the probe we find it’s wave equation to be

$$0=_t\left[e^{5Ht}_t\eta \right]+e^{3Ht}_i^2\eta +e^{5Ht}m^2g_s^{1/2}(\rho )\eta ,$$

where $`m`$ is a constant mass of $`\eta `$. Extracting the $`g_0`$ dependence of the last term in (3.1) and comparing with (3.1) we are led to the identification (3.1)

$$g_0^{1/2}H^2.$$

We believe that above arguments relating $`g_0`$ and $`H`$ are qualitatively correct, and apparently lead to the expected physical picture. It is important to find a more precise understanding of this relation, or in other words the map between the supergravity parameters $`\{g_0,H\}`$ and their LST dual. This will likely require an understanding of how to measure energies in non-static, asymptotically non-flat supergravity backgrounds. Finally, it is well known that string propagation in the throat geometry of the near extremal NS5 branes corresponds to an exact conformal field theory15 See, for example,  . . It would be interesting to see whether there is a CFT description of the (1,1) LST in the de Sitter background presented here.

4. de Sitter deformations of the KT/KS backgrounds

Our aim in this section will be to explore dS embedding in the supergravity in the context of the corresponding deformation of the KT model  . Here, the conformal invariance of the gauge theory on the D3 branes at a conical singularity  is broken by adding fractional D3 branes  . We also comment on the de Sitter deformation of the KS background  .

We will start with the same ansatz as in \[6\] and simply replace 1+3 “longitudinal” directions by the Robertson-Walker metric with flat spacelike hypersurfaces

$$(dM_4^H)^2=dt^2+e^{2Ht}d\overline{x}^2.$$

As we show16 I would like to thank Arkady Tseytlin for pointing this out., there will be a direct relation to the KT model on $`S^4`$ considered in \[3\].

As in  we will impose the requirement that the background has abelian symmetry associated with the $`U(1)`$ fiber of $`T^{1,1}`$ as we will consider a phase where chiral symmetry is restored17 Much like in the case of the LST on the de Sitter space-time, we expect the Hubble scale to realize an IR cutoff on the gauge theory dynamics. Thus for sufficiently high $`H`$ (which we take to be the case in this section) we expect restoration of the chiral symmetry in the dual gauge theory.. Our general ansatz for a 10-d Einstein-frame metric will involve 3 functions $`y,z`$ and $`w`$ of radial coordinate $`u`$ 18 For $`H=0`$ this metric can be brought into a more familiar form $`ds_{10E}^2=h^{1/2}(r)(dM_4^{H=0})^2+h^{1/2}(r)[dr^2+r^2ds_5^2],`$ where $`h=e^{4z},r=e^{y+w},e^{10y}du^2=dr^2.`$ When $`w=0`$ and $`e^{4y}=r^4=\frac{1}{4u}`$, the transverse 6-d space is the standard conifold with $`M_5=T^{1,1}`$. Small $`u`$ thus corresponds to large distances in 5-d and vice versa. In the $`AdS_5`$ region large $`u`$ is near the origin of $`AdS_5`$ space, while $`u=0`$ is its boundary.

$$ds_{10E}^2=e^{2z}(dM_4^H)^2+e^{2z}[e^{10y}du^2+e^{2y}(dM_5)^2].$$

Here $`M_5`$ is a deformation of the $`T^{1,1}`$ metric

$$(dM_5)^2=e^{8w}e_\psi ^2+e^{2w}\left(e_{\theta _1}^2+e_{\varphi _1}^2+e_{\theta _2}^2+e_{\varphi _2}^2\right),$$

$$e_\psi =\frac{1}{3}(d\psi +\mathrm{cos}\theta _1d\varphi _1+\mathrm{cos}\theta _2d\varphi _2),e_{\theta _i}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}d\theta _i,e_{\varphi _i}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}\mathrm{sin}\theta _id\varphi _i.$$

As for the matter fields, we will assume that the dilaton $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ may depend on $`u`$, and our ansatz for the $`p`$-form fields will be exactly as in the extremal KT case  and in \[13,,3\]:

$$F_3=Pe_\psi (e_{\theta _1}e_{\varphi _1}e_{\theta _2}e_{\varphi _2}),B_2=f(u)(e_{\theta _1}e_{\varphi _1}e_{\theta _2}e_{\varphi _2}),$$

$$F_5=+,=K(u)e_\psi e_{\theta _1}e_{\varphi _1}e_{\theta _2}e_{\varphi _2},K(u)=Q+2Pf(u),$$

where, as in , the expression for $`K`$ follows from the Bianchi identity for the 5-form. The constants $`Q`$ and $`P`$ are proportional to the numbers of standard and fractional D3-branes.

We could now directly derive the corresponding system of type IIB supergravity equations of motion describing the radial evolution of the five unknown functions of $`u`$: $`y,z,w,K,\mathrm{\Phi }`$. A better approach is to notice that the background we consider here could be obtained from the KT model on $`S^4`$ discussed in  . Really, the only difference of our case with the $`S^4`$ compactification of  is the replacement of the “longitudinal” directions (4.1) with $`(dS^4)^2`$

$$(dM_4^H)^2(dM_4)^2(dS^4)^2=d\alpha ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha [d\beta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\beta (d\gamma ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\gamma d\delta ^2)].$$

Now, Wick rotation of (4.1) $`\alpha i\alpha `$ and the scaling limit on $`S^3`$ parameterized by $`\beta ,\gamma ,\delta `$ $`(dS^3)^2d\overline{x}^2`$ along with $`\alpha 1`$ gives

$$(dS^4)^2da^2+e^{2\alpha }d\overline{x}^2,$$

which is precisely (4.1) with $`H=1`$. Thus, the resulting equations19 We also obtained these equations directly in the background (4.1) . are just the straightforward modification of (4.7)-(4.12) of

$$10y^{\prime \prime }8e^{8y}(6e^{2w}e^{12w})30H^2e^{10y4z}+\mathrm{\Phi }^{\prime \prime }=0,$$

$$10w^{\prime \prime }12e^{8y}(e^{2w}e^{12w})\mathrm{\Phi }^{\prime \prime }=0,$$

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^{\prime \prime }+e^{\mathrm{\Phi }+4z4y4w}(\frac{K^2}{4P^2}e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }+8y+8w}P^2)=0,$$

$$4z^{\prime \prime }K^2e^{8z}e^{\mathrm{\Phi }+4z4y4w}(\frac{K^2}{4P^2}+e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }+8y+8w}P^2)12H^2e^{10y4z}=0,$$

$$(e^{\mathrm{\Phi }+4z4y4w}K^{})^{}2P^2Ke^{8z}=0,$$

with the first order constraint

$$5y^22z^25w^2\frac{1}{8}\mathrm{\Phi }^2\frac{1}{4}e^{\mathrm{\Phi }+4z4y4w}\frac{K^2}{4P^2}$$

$$3H^2e^{10y4z}e^{8y}(6e^{2w}e^{12w})+\frac{1}{4}e^{\mathrm{\Phi }+4z+4y+4w}P^2+\frac{1}{8}e^{8z}K^2=0.$$

Lacking the exact solution of the above system, it was nonetheless demonstrated in  the existence of a smooth interpolation (in radial coordinate only) between (i) a non-singular short-distance region where the 10-d background is approximately $`AdS_5\times T^{1,1}`$ written in the coordinates where the $`u=\mathrm{const}`$ slice is $`S^4`$, and (ii) a long-distance region where the 10-d background approaches the KT solution. This was shown by starting with the short-distance ($`u=\mathrm{}`$ or $`\rho =0`$) region, i.e. $`AdS_5\times T^{1,1}`$ space (with the radius determined by the effective charge $`K_{}`$) and demonstrating that by doing perturbation theory in the small parameter $`\frac{P^2}{K_{}}1`$ one can match it onto the KT asymptotics at large distances ($`u0`$ or $`\rho \mathrm{}`$). The crucial point was that $`O(\frac{P^2}{K_{}})`$ perturbations were regular at small distances. One can literally repeat this analysis of  in our case to argue that for large enough Hubble parameter $`H`$ the naked singularity of the KT geometry will be resolved. Here the short distance region is a direct product of approximately a de Sitter slicing of $`AdS_5`$ (as in section 2) and a $`T^{1,1}`$ coset.

The de Sitter deformation of the KT model above and of the LST in the previous section are similar in that as one turns off a Hubble parameter (or rather sufficiently lower it), one ends up with a singular geometry. A way to turn on small (vanishingly small) de Sitter deformation is to start with a gauge-gravity correspondence for a confining gauge theory like, say, the KS model  . It is straightforward to repeat above analysis for the deformed KS background and obtain a consistent system of equations. We do not present this system here due to its complexity and the fact that we could not find analytical solution. The added difficulty (compare to the extremal KS background) comes from the fact that it is inconsistent (on the level of equations of motion) to demand $`H0`$ along with a constant dilaton. A similar phenomenon has been observed in studies of the near extremal deformation of the KS background  : it was shown there that a black hole with a regular Schwarzschild horizon in the KS geometry necessarily has nonconstant dilaton. This observation has a simple physical interpretation. In the extremal KS solution the string coupling $`g_s`$ was an exact modulus of the cascading gauge theory, dual to the sum of the individual gauge couplings

$$\frac{1}{g_s}=\frac{4\pi }{g_1^2}+\frac{4\pi }{g_2^2}=\mathrm{const}.$$

As both the finite temperature and the Hubble parameter breaks supersymmetry, this modulus is expected to be lifted, thus developing a nontrivial radial dependence in the dual supergravity.

5. Concluding remarks

In this paper we presented a simple framework how one can embed an accelerating universe in the supergravity. The idea is to start with a gauge-gravity duality of Maldacena, and consider deformations of this duality where Minkowski background space-time of the gauge theory is replaced with a de Sitter space-time.

We argued that to get nontrivial time-dependent solutions (i.e. unrelated by coordinate reparametrization to a static solution) the starting point for the deformation must be a gravitational dual to a non-conformal gauge theory. We discussed two examples of such deformations: the little string theory and the KT model. In the both cases conformal invariance is broken by considering (adding) NS5 (D5) branes. We argued that the expansion of the background geometry on the gauge theory side serves as an infrared cutoff in the dual supergravity. In particular, for a sufficiently high expansion rate this resolves a naked singularity of the KT solution  .

There are several interesting future directions. The vacuum state in an accelerating universe has a nonzero Gibbons-Hawking temperature $`T_{GH}=H/2\pi `$, analogous to the Hawking temperature of a black hole. The KT deformation discussed here is very similar to the finite temperature deformation of the KT solution considered in \[13,,15\]. By comparing a critical expansion rate for the $`H0`$ deformation of the KT model with the critical temperature for its finite temperature deformation, one should be able to relate the Gibbons-Hawking temperature of the expanding universe with the temperature of the gauge theory in the standard near extremal deformation.

Another interesting question is a dynamical stability of the deformed backgrounds discussed here. Since de Sitter deformation breaks supersymmetry one has to worry about potential tachyons. The similarity of this deformation with the near-extremal one suggests that the KT model is likely to be stable, while there could be a tachyon in the LST deformation, in analogy with  . It would be nice to explicitly verify these conjectures. In the case of the KS deformation, at least for small values of the Hubble parameter, we expect to get a stable nonsupersymmetric background. The argument is identical to the one given in  : the original supergravity background had a mass gap, and thus a small deformation should not produce a tachyon.

In this paper we only constructed de Sitter backgrounds in supergravity. It is important to understand the spectrum of density fluctuations and the physics of D-brane probes in these geometries.

Recently Giddings, Kachru and Polchinski  studied embedding of the KS model in the type IIB string compactifications in the context of moduli stabilization and generation of large hierarchies of physical scales. It would be very interesting to explore de Sitter deformation of these models.

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Gary Horowitz, Amanda Peet, Joe Polchinski and Erich Poppitz for useful discussions. I am especially grateful to Arkady Tseytlin for valuable comments and reading the manuscript. This work is supported in part by the NSF under Grant No. PHY97-22022 and PHY99-07949.

References

relax O. Aharony, S. S. Gubser, J. Maldacena, H. Ooguri and Y. Oz, “Large N field theories, string theory and gravity,” Phys. Rept.  323, 183 (2000), hep-th/9905111. I. R. Klebanov, “Introduction to the AdS/CFT correspondence,” hep-th/0009139. relax J. M. Maldacena,”The Large N Limit of Superconformal Field Theories and Supergravity,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2 231 (1998), hep-th/9711200. relax A. Buchel and A. A. Tseytlin, “Curved space resolution of singularity of fractional D3-branes on conifold,” hep-th/0111017. relax I. R. Klebanov and E. Witten, “Superconformal field theory on threebranes at a Calabi-Yau singularity,” Nucl. Phys. B 536, 199 (1998) hep-th/9807080. relax I. R. Klebanov and M. J. Strassler, “Supergravity and a Confining Gauge Theory: Duality Cascades and $`\chi `$SB-Resolution of Naked Singularities,” JHEP 0008 (2000) 052, hep-th/0007191. relax I. R. Klebanov and A. A. Tseytlin, “Gravity Duals of Supersymmetric $`SU(N)\times SU(N+M)`$ Gauge Theories,” Nucl. Phys. B578 (2000) 123, hep-th/0002159. relax P. Berglund, T. Hubsch and D. Minic, “de Sitter Spacetimes from Warped Compactifications of IIB String Theory,” hep-th/0112079. relax J. Polchinski and M. J. Strassler, “The string dual of a confining four-dimensional gauge theory,” hep-th/0003136. relax E. Witten, “Anti-de Sitter space, thermal phase transition, and confinement in gauge theories,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2 (1998) 505, hep-th/9803131. relax J. M. Maldacena and A. Strominger, ”Semiclassical decay of near extremal fivebranes,” JHEP 9712, (1997) 008, hep-th/9710014. relax D. Kutasov and D. A. Sahakyan, ”Comments on the Thermodynamics of Little String Theory,” JHEP 0102, (2001) 021, hep-th/0012258. relax I. R. Klebanov and N. A. Nekrasov, “Gravity duals of fractional branes and logarithmic RG flow,” Nucl. Phys. B 574, 263 (2000), hep-th/9911096. relax A. Buchel, C. P. Herzog, I. R. Klebanov, L. Pando Zayas and A. A. Tseytlin, “Non-extremal gravity duals for fractional D3-branes on the conifold,” JHEP 0104, 033 (2001), hep-th/0102105. relax A. Buchel and A. A. Tseytlin, unpublished notes. relax S. S. Gubser, C. P. Herzog, I. R. Klebanov and A. A. Tseytlin, “Restoration of chiral symmetry: A supergravity perspective,” JHEP 0105, 028 (2001), hep-th/0102172. relax O. Aharony, E. Schreiber and J. Sonnenschein, “Stable Non-Supersymmetric Supergravity Solutions from Deformations of the Maldacena-Nunez Background,” hep-th/0201224. relax S. B. Giddings, S. Kachru and J. Polchinski, “Hierarchies from Fluxes in String Compactifications,” hep-th/0105097.


format: text

text:
# A Point’s Point of View of Stringy Geometry

## 1 Introduction

One might view the central philosophy of string theory as trying to avoid basing our interpretation of spacetime on the notion of a point. Having said that, all our concepts of geometry do appear ultimately to remain firmly wedded to points. It hard not to begin any discussion of spacetime without a topological space, i.e., a set of points.

Compactification produces an excellent laboratory for studying the stringy geometry of space and, in particular, allows us to evade all the thorny issues associated with time. For example, one takes a type II string and compactifies on some Calabi–Yau threefold $`X`$ to produce an effective theory with four-dimensional spacetime. The geometry of the Calabi–Yau dictates the properties of the conformal field theory associated to the non-linear sigma model of the compactification, which in turn effects the physics in four dimensions. Thus the geometry of $`X`$ can be analyzed in an inherently stringy way from the uncompactified dimensions. By including boundaries on the worldsheet we may analyze D-branes (at least near the zero-coupling limit of string theory). We can then look at “0-branes”, i.e., D-branes which span zero dimensions of $`X`$.

It is these 0-branes which form the bridge between the intrinsically stringy notion of the worldsheet and the more classical notion of a point. In this note we discuss a couple of properties of 0-branes to highlight how they are key in describing the topology of the target space.

This idea is far from new. Using 0-branes to probe the target space has been used frequently in the past. To name just a couple of examples, the SYZ conjecture  relies on this concept, and in  it was used to analyze orbifolds. We refer the reader to  for further discussion and references. Reconstructing the target space using D-branes was also recently discussed in a different context in . In this note we will discuss 0-branes in the context of the derived category point of view . We do this because we believe it is the most intrinsically “stringy” way of thinking about a D-brane. The derived category point of view springs directly from topological field theory. It is therefore superior to, say, using an effective D-brane world-volume action which presupposes a geometrical interpretation of the D-brane as a subspace. As the derived category picture highlights, this latter notion is awkward in many situations.

The basic question which emphasizes the rôle of 0-branes is the following. If I gave you all the intrinsic worldsheet information about a field theory based on a sigma model (with boundaries), could you construct the topology of the target space? Using the ideas of Bondal and Orlov  we will discuss to what extent this is true. Of course, the question should really be asked with “the target space” replaced by “a target space” as it is known that frequently two different target spaces can produce the same worldsheet theory. The central idea is to find which D-brane-like objects can be used as 0-branes. Unfortunately we will not find an answer to this important question but we can give some partial criteria.

In  it was shown that a flop between two topologically inequivalent target spaces $`X`$ and $`X^{}`$ is barely noticeable from the worldsheet point of view. As one passes through the flop, the worldsheet theory is generically smooth even though the target space acquires singularities. In this sense it seems much more natural to talk about birational classes of target spaces rather than topological classes. This is all in line with the general principle that a conformal field theory is an algebraic construction and so algebraic geometry should be the natural setting for stringy geometry.

In this note we will show how the behaviour of 0-branes does jump discontinuously as one passes through the flop. This is based on the ideas of Bridgeland  and the notion of $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$-stability . This issue was also noted in . In addition the flop has been analyzed from the point of view of the D-brane world-volume in . This example vividly illustrates how 0-branes put the topology back into stringy geometry.

For a particular choice of $`B`$ field the conformal field theory becomes singular as one passes through the flop. It turns out that the derived category description of the flop depends on which side of this special point one passes. To fully understand this we will discuss monodromy around this point. This will also produce many more candidate 0-branes further complicating the picture.

## 2 Building a Topological Space

The data we choose to analyze is that of the topological B-model with boundaries. That is, we pretend that we have somehow extracted from the worldsheet data a knowledge of all possible boundaries (consistent with the topological field theory) and the corresponding topological field theory of open strings stretched between these boundaries. This data amounts to a knowledge of the bounded derived category of coherent sheaves on $`X`$ .111We are ignoring the effects of string field theory. It is quite likely that the complete picture requires an $`A_{\mathrm{}}`$ category as discussed in .

Although using the derived category might at first be seen as an unnecessary foray into obscure mathematics, it is in fact a very natural construction from the point of view of topological field theory. No matter how much one might try to avoid the derived category, anyone wishing to describe the topological sector of D-branes and type II strings would be forced to reinvent the subject or something very similar.

The basic data we have at our disposal consists of the following:

1. Objects: Classification of all possible topological B-type D-branes222We refer to  for a full discussion of what is meant exactly by “B-type D-branes”. associated with worldsheet boundaries.
2. Morphisms: The finite-dimensional “Hilbert Space” of open strings (with ghost number zero) with given D-branes at each end.

We will use the letters $`𝖠,𝖡,\mathrm{}`$ to refer to objects and $`\mathrm{Hom}(𝖠,𝖡)`$ etc. to refer to the spaces of morphisms. The joining of open strings along a common boundary gives the multiplication law in the operator algebra for open strings. In category language this corresponds to composition of morphisms:

$$\mathrm{Hom}(𝖠,𝖡)\times \mathrm{Hom}(𝖡,𝖢)\mathrm{Hom}(𝖠,𝖢).$$
(1)
As explained in , the ghost number of the topological field theory can be extended to the D-branes. We may take an object $`𝖠`$ and produce a new object $`𝖠[n]`$ by shifting the ghost numbers associated to $`𝖠`$ by $`n`$. In terms of complexes, $`𝖠[n]`$ is the complex $`𝖠`$ shifted, or “translated”, left $`n`$ places. The open strings of ghost number $`n`$ with boundaries $`𝖠`$ and $`𝖡`$ are then given by $`\mathrm{Hom}^n(𝖠,𝖡)=\mathrm{Hom}(𝖠,𝖡[n])=\mathrm{Hom}(𝖠[n],𝖡)`$.

For the raw category, this is the only information we have. A D-brane is just an object in the category. The only information we have about it is the vector space of morphisms from it to any other D-brane. How then might we decide which D-branes correspond to 0-branes?

This question was answered by Bondal and Orlov  in some cases where $`X`$ is not a Calabi–Yau. Suppose the canonical divisor $`K`$ of $`X`$ is such that $`K.C>0`$ for every algebraic curve $`CX`$, or alternatively suppose $`K.C<0`$ for every algebraic curve $`CX`$. Let us call an $`X`$ satisfying either of these constraints an “anti-Calabi–Yau”.

The open strings in Witten’s B-model  on which the derived category construction is based are oriented. In particular $`\mathrm{Hom}(𝖠,𝖡)`$ need not equal $`\mathrm{Hom}(𝖡,𝖠)`$. Having said that, one might try to look for a symmetry which reverses the orientation of the strings. This would be given by a functor $`S`$ such that

$$\mathrm{Hom}(𝖠,𝖡)\mathrm{Hom}(𝖡,S𝖠)^{}$$
(2)
for all pairs $`𝖠,𝖡`$. We also demand that these isomorphisms preserve the structure of the category (we refer to  for details). Such a functor was called a “Serre functor” by Bondal and Orlov and shown to be unique if it exists.

Given an algebraic variety $`X`$ as a target space, the derived category $`𝐃(X)`$ will have a Serre functor given by Serre duality:

$$S𝖠=𝖠K[d],$$
(3)
where $`d`$ is the dimension of $`X`$.

Following Bondal and Orlov we define an object $`𝖯`$ in $`𝐃(X)`$ to be a “BO-point” object of codimension $`s`$ if there is a Serre functor $`S`$ and

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{i})& S𝖯𝖯[s]\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{ii})& \mathrm{Hom}^{<0}(𝖯,𝖯)=0\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{iii})& \mathrm{Hom}^0(𝖯,𝖯)=.\hfill \end{array}$$
(4)
The idea is that if we know $`X`$, then sky-scraper sheaves $`\mathrm{O}_\mathrm{x}`$ are indeed BO-points in $`𝐃(X)`$. Furthermore, if $`X`$ is an anti-Calabi–Yau then all BO-point objects must be of the form $`\mathrm{O}_\mathrm{x}[\mathrm{n}]`$ for some $`xX`$ and $`n`$. The codimension $`s`$ is equal to the dimension of $`X`$. Thus one can identify the points of $`X`$ purely from their categorical description. This identification will fail for the case of Calabi–Yau’s but for the meantime let us assume that we have determined these “point objects” for $`X`$.

Not only can we determine the set of points on $`X`$ but we may also determine $`X`$ as a topological space. To do this it is necessary to describe the set of open sets on $`X`$. The first step in this process is to identify elements of $`𝐃(X)`$ which correspond to (a complex with a single nonzero term given by) a line bundle. If we have already identified the points as above then this is easy. An object $`𝖫`$ is a “line-bundle object” if there is an $`s`$ (which may depend on $`𝖯`$) such that

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{i})& \mathrm{Hom}^s(𝖫,𝖯)=\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{ii})& \mathrm{Hom}^t(𝖫,𝖯)=0\text{for }ts\text{,}\hfill \end{array}$$
(5)
for all point objects $`𝖯`$. Again Bondal and Orlov showed that if $`X`$ exists then such line bundle objects correspond exactly to line bundles possibly translated in the complex by an arbitrary integer.

It is useful to fix the arbitrary translation symmetry in $`𝐃(X)`$. Choose a point object $`𝖯_0`$. Next choose any line bundle object $`𝖫_0`$ which satisfies (5) for $`s=0`$ with respect to $`𝖯_0`$. A point object $`𝖯`$ will then be called an “absolute” point object if $`\mathrm{Hom}^0(𝖫_0,𝖯)=`$. This effectively restricts attention to point objects corresponding to sky-scraper sheaves at a fixed position in the complex. The set of absolute point objects is now in one-to-one correspondence with points on $`X`$. One may similarly define “absolute” line bundle objects as line bundle objects $`𝖫`$ satisfying $`\mathrm{Hom}^0(𝖫,𝖯_0)=`$.

Consider now a morphism $`\alpha \mathrm{Hom}(𝖫_1,𝖫_2)`$ for an arbitrary pair $`𝖫_1,𝖫_2`$ of absolute line bundle objects. This induces a map

$$\alpha _𝖯^{}:\mathrm{Hom}(𝖫_2,𝖯)\mathrm{Hom}(𝖫_1,𝖯)$$
(6)
for any object $`𝖯`$ in the obvious way. Let $`U_\alpha `$ be the set of absolute point objects in $`𝐃(X)`$ such that $`\alpha _𝖯^{}0`$. The geometrical meaning of $`U_\alpha `$ is as follows. $`\alpha `$ is a global map from $`𝖫_1`$ to $`𝖫_2`$ and is thus equivalent to a section of $`𝖫_1^{}𝖫_2`$. A divisor $`D_\alpha `$ can be associated to the zeroes of this section in the usual way. If $`\alpha `$ is chosen suitably, this divisor corresponds to a codimension one subspace of $`X`$. $`U_\alpha `$ is then the open set in $`X`$ given be the complement of $`D_\alpha `$. These open sets $`U_\alpha `$ can be used to generate a topology (namely the Zariski topology) for $`X`$.

## 3 Hunting the 0-Brane

If we could do the same when $`X`$ is a Calabi–Yau then we would be done. The Serre functor in this case is given by $`S𝖠=𝖠[d]`$, where $`d`$ is the dimension of $`X`$. This may be seen directly at the worldsheet level. One can change the orientation of the open strings by reversing the sign of the ghost number. Then use a spectral flow argument along the lines of  to shift the ghost numbers by $`d`$. This gives the desired Serre functor as claimed.

The problem for the Calabi–Yau case is that condition i) in (4) is trivial thus weakening the criteria. There are many objects in $`𝐃(X)`$ which satisfy the BO-point condition without being sky-scraper sheaves. We therefore need a more stringent condition for being called a “point object”. If $`x`$ and $`y`$ are points in $`X`$ then one may show that333For this and many subsequent calculations the following spectral sequence is useful. Let $`i:ZX`$ be a smooth embedding with $`N`$ the normal bundle. Then if $`\mathrm{A},\mathrm{B}`$ are sheaves on $`Z`$
$$E_2^{p,q}=\mathrm{Hom}_{\mathrm{O}_\mathrm{Z}}^p(\mathrm{A},\mathrm{B}\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mathrm{q}\mathrm{N})\mathrm{Hom}_{𝐃(\mathrm{X})}^{\mathrm{p}+\mathrm{q}}(\mathrm{i}_{}\mathrm{A},\mathrm{i}_{}\mathrm{B}).$$
(7)

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill dim\mathrm{Hom}^q(\mathrm{O}_\mathrm{x},\mathrm{O}_\mathrm{x})& =\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d}{q}\right)\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{Hom}^q(\mathrm{O}_\mathrm{x},\mathrm{O}_\mathrm{y})& =0\text{for }xy\text{.}\hfill \end{array}$$
(8)
This motivates the following. An object $`𝖠`$ in $`𝐃(X)`$ satisfying $`dim\mathrm{Hom}^q(𝖠,𝖠)=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d}{q}\right)`$ will be called a “pre-point object”. Two non-isomorphic pre-point objects $`𝖠`$ and $`𝖡`$ will be called “mutually consistent” if they satisfy $`dim\mathrm{Hom}^q(𝖠,𝖡)=0`$ for any $`q`$.

Unfortunately there are many more pre-point objects in $`𝐃(X)`$ than there are points. It is not hard to see in any example that many pairs of pre-point objects will not be consistent in the above sense. Let us consider how we can further restrict the conditions on a object being declared a point.

As an example consider the case where $`X`$ is a quintic hypersurface in $`^4`$. Monodromy around loops in the moduli space of complexified Kähler forms is believed to induce autoequivalences of $`𝐃(X)`$ in accordance with Kontsevich’s homological mirror symmetry conjecture. See , for example, for an account of this. In particular monodromy around the “conifold” point in the case of the quintic is obtained from an autoequivalence given by a particular Fourier–Mukai transform . Under such a transform, the sky-scraper sheaf of a point $`\mathrm{O}_\mathrm{x}`$ is transformed into $`\mathrm{I}_x[1]`$ — the ideal sheaf of functions vanishing at the same point which is then shifted one place left in the complex.

It is therefore impossible to declare that $`\mathrm{O}_\mathrm{x}`$ has any more right to be associated to a point than $`\mathrm{I}_x[1]`$ when only looking at intrinsic categorical data. Lack of mutual consistency can be seen from the fact that $`\mathrm{Hom}^1(\mathrm{I}_x[1],\mathrm{O}_\mathrm{y})=`$ for any $`yx`$.

One possibility which should immediately spring to mind as regards fixing this problem is that of “D-brane charge”. We may restrict our collection of candidate points by insisting that they all have the same D-Brane charge.

For the derived category of coherent sheaves, an object

$$\mathrm{}\mathrm{E}^0\mathrm{E}^1\mathrm{E}^2\mathrm{},$$
(9)
will have a D-brane charge given by the Chern character444D-brane charge is measured by K-theory. By considering the Chern character we are only looking at the free part. The torsion part is accessible from the derived category and might be of interest in some cases.

$$\mathrm{𝑐ℎ}(\mathrm{E}^{})=\underset{n}{}(1)^n\mathrm{𝑐ℎ}(\mathrm{E}^n).$$
(10)
The intrinsic categorical information knows about the Chern character because of the Hirzebruch-Riemann-Roch theorem:

$$\underset{n}{}(1)^ndim\mathrm{Hom}(𝖠,𝖡[n])=_X\mathrm{𝑐ℎ}(𝖠)\mathrm{𝑐ℎ}(𝖡)^{}\mathrm{𝑡𝑑}(T_X).$$
(11)
This gives a skew-symmetric inner product on the derived category which is believed to be mirror to the intersection form of 3-cycles . As such it should be non-degenerate. Also, assuming the Hodge conjecture to be true, the Chern characters of all objects in $`𝐃(X)`$ span $`H^{\text{even}}(X,)`$. We may therefore claim the following: If $`𝖠`$ and $`𝖠^{}`$ are two objects in $`𝐃(X)`$ and

$$\underset{n}{}(1)^ndim\mathrm{Hom}(𝖠,𝖡[n])=\underset{n}{}(1)^ndim\mathrm{Hom}(𝖠^{},𝖡[n]),$$
(12)
for all objects $`𝖡`$ in $`𝐃(X)`$, then $`𝖠`$ and $`𝖠^{}`$ have the same Chern character and therefore D-brane charge. Thus we know how to analyze D-brane charge from purely categorical data.

The approach one might try to take could then be as follows. Choose a pre-point object in $`𝐃(X)`$. Now catalogue all other pre-point objects in $`𝐃(X)`$ having the same D-brane charge. In simple cases it is perhaps conceivable that one might obtain a mutually consistent set of pre-point objects. The pre-point objects would hopefully therefore be fully accounted for by all the points on $`X`$ and their translations in $`𝐃(X)`$ by an even number. Unfortunately this procedure is doomed to failure in some (if not all) cases as we now demonstrate.

## 4 The Flop

Suppose $`X`$ contains a rational curve $`C`$ which may be contracted down to a point by varying the Kähler form. We may then “proceed through” this wall of the Kähler cone to produce a flop of $`X`$ into another Calabi–Yau space $`X^{}`$ with a new corresponding rational curve $`C^{}`$. In general $`X^{}`$ can be expected to be topologically distinct from $`X`$.

The topological $`B`$-model is insensitive to any change in the Kähler form and so $`𝐃(X)`$ must remain invariant under such a process. Indeed, it was shown explicitly in  that $`𝐃(X)`$ is equivalent to $`𝐃(X^{})`$. This presents a challenge to our program. If we are to construct $`X`$ from $`𝐃(X)`$ we should equally be allowed to construct $`X^{}`$.

Bridgeland  gave an explicit form to the equivalence between $`𝐃(X)`$ and $`𝐃(X^{})`$. Away from the curves $`C`$ and $`C^{}`$, the spaces $`X`$ and $`X^{}`$ are identical. That is, we have a one-to-one correspondence between points in these two spaces as shown schematically in figure 1. Naturally this correspondence breaks down for points within $`C`$ and $`C^{}`$. A sky-scraper sheaf on a point in $`C`$ corresponds to an object in $`𝐃(X^{})`$ which is not simply a sheaf but rather a longer complex.555In fact it’s a “perverse sheaf” . Similarly a point $`x^{}C^{}`$ corresponds to a specific non-sheaf object $`𝖹_x^{}`$ in $`𝐃(X)`$.

This object $`𝖹_x^{}`$ is clearly a pre-point object and has the same D-brane charge as a point object in $`X`$. It does not however correspond to a point in $`X`$. We therefore need more information to rule it out as a point in $`X`$. Since the topological field theory cannot distinguish between $`X`$ and $`X^{}`$, we are forced to go beyond the topological field theory, and thus the intrinsic information content of the derived category.

We want to use the $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$-stability of  as a criterion for ruling out $`𝖹_x^{}`$. In the region of Kähler form moduli space corresponding roughly to the Kähler cone of $`X`$ we will show that $`𝖹_x^{}`$ is unstable. This was also alluded to in .

The data required for $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$-stability is a “grading” $`\phi `$ associated to a subset of the objects in $`𝐃(X)`$. This subset of objects is the $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$-stable set of objects. The grading is determined mod 2 as the phase of the central charge of the corresponding D-brane and, as such, depends continuously on the complexified Kähler form $`B+iJ`$.

Note that the central charge of the D-brane is data visible in the non-compact 4-dimensional $`N=2`$ supersymmetric field theory and thus fits into our game rules. It is data we are allowed to use to construct $`X`$ without knowing anything about $`X`$ beforehand.

The exact rules for $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$-stability are rather convoluted as explained in . As $`B+iJ`$ is varied, objects will enter and leave the set of stable objects according to their values of $`\phi `$. The statement of $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$-stability is rather simple if we focus attention on a basic set of objects $`\{𝖠,𝖡,𝖢\}`$ where we know $`𝖢`$ can potentially decay to $`\overline{𝖠}`$ (i.e., the anti-brane of $`𝖠`$ which is actually the same thing as $`𝖠[1]`$ as argued in ) and $`𝖡`$. Assume $`\overline{𝖠}`$ and $`𝖡`$ are stable and we wish to determine if $`𝖢`$ is stable relative to decay into $`\overline{𝖠}`$ and $`𝖡`$.

Such a triple of objects forms a “distinguished triangle” in $`𝐃(X)`$ and is written:

(13)
The “” denotes that the morphism is really from $`𝖢`$ to $`𝖠[1]`$. $`𝖢`$ is then stable with respect to $`𝖠`$ and $`𝖡`$ if and only if $`\phi (𝖡)\phi (𝖠)<1`$.

It is important to note that the “” in (13) can be shuffled around to any edge. For example, (13) can be rewritten

(14)
This symmetry between the edges means that if the difference in $`\phi `$’s exceeds one on any of the edges of the triangle, the object in the opposite vertex will decay. This symmetry is one of the important properties of the derived category which cannot be reproduced in any “abelian” category such as the category of vector bundles, and shows why categories such as the latter cannot fully model D-brane decay .

In order to analyze the flop we use the following D-branes as building blocks:

1. The skyscraper sheaf $`\mathrm{O}_\mathrm{x}`$ for $`xC`$.
2. The skyscraper sheaf $`\mathrm{O}_\mathrm{y}`$ for $`yC`$.
3. The structure sheaf $`\mathrm{O}_\mathrm{C}`$ of the flopping curve, i.e., the 2-brane wrapped around $`C`$.

The periods of these D-branes are very easy to compute. We can use mirror symmetry to compute periods exactly (with respect to $`\alpha ^{}`$-corrections) as in . We may localize the picture by assuming that all curves in $`X`$ are very large except for those homologous to $`C`$. The required Picard–Fuch’s differential equation was then determined in section 5.4 of .

The part of the moduli space of $`B+iJ`$ which concerns us can be viewed as a 2-sphere as shown in figure 2. The large radius limit of $`CX`$ is put at one pole and the large radius limit of $`C^{}X^{}`$ is put at the other pole. On the equator, which separates the $`X`$ “phase” from the $`X^{}`$ “phase” we have a point where the worldsheet theory becomes singular. This latter point will be viewed as the origin in our final coordinate system, so we label it $`O`$.

There is a natural “algebraic” coordinate $`z`$ on this sphere with $`z=0`$ in the large $`C`$ limit, $`z=\mathrm{}`$ in the large $`C^{}`$ limit and $`z=1`$ at $`O`$. In terms of this coordinate $`z`$ we have a Picard–Fuchs equation

$$\left(z\frac{d}{dz}\right)^2\mathrm{\Phi }z\left(z\frac{d}{dz}\right)^2\mathrm{\Phi }=0.$$
(15)
This has a general solution

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=C_1+C_2\mathrm{log}(z).$$
(16)
The rules of the “mirror map”  (see  for more details) then tell us

$$t=_CB+iJ=\frac{1}{2\pi i}\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_1}{\mathrm{\Phi }_0},$$
(17)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ is the period which is regular and equal to 1 at the large $`C`$ limit (i.e., $`z0`$ limit) and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$ is the period whose limiting behaviour is $`\mathrm{log}(z)`$ for $`z0`$. Clearly from (15) we have

$$t=\frac{1}{2\pi i}\mathrm{log}(z).$$
(18)
Thus $`t=0`$ at $`O`$ as promised.

In order to compute central charges we use 666Note that we are using the sign convention for $`B`$ from section 3 rather than section 2 of !

$$Z(𝖠)=_Xe^{B+iJ}\mathrm{𝑐ℎ}(𝖠)\sqrt{\mathrm{𝑡𝑑}(T_X)}+\text{quantum corrections}$$
(19)
where the quantum corrections are determined from the fact that $`Z(𝖠)`$ is a period. This immediately yields:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill Z(\mathrm{O}_\mathrm{x})=\mathrm{Z}(\mathrm{O}_\mathrm{y})& =1\hfill \\ \hfill Z(\mathrm{O}_\mathrm{C})& =t,\hfill \end{array}$$
(20)
i.e., there are no quantum corrections! This makes the flop particularly easy to analyze. In most other examples the complexity of the Picard–Fuchs system makes the formula for central charged much less amenable as seen in .

We may capture all the relevant properties of D-brane behaviour near the flop by assuming $`t=ϵe^{i\theta }`$ where $`ϵ1`$. We thus parametrize the moduli space as in figure 3.

The grades of our D-branes can be determined from $`\phi =\frac{1}{\pi }\mathrm{arg}(Z)`$ where at large radius limit (i.e., $`\theta =\frac{\pi }{2}`$) we insist that $`2<\phi 0`$ . Thus

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \phi (\mathrm{O}_\mathrm{x})=\phi (\mathrm{O}_\mathrm{y})& =0\hfill \\ \hfill \phi (\mathrm{O}_\mathrm{C})& =\frac{\theta }{\pi }.\hfill \end{array}$$
(21)
We may now compute D-brane stability. The first distinguished triangle of interest is

(22)
Here we label each edge of the triangle with the difference in grading between the vertices. It is whether this label is greater than or less than one which determines the stability of the opposite vertex. In derived category language $`𝖠`$ is the “Cone” of the natural map $`\mathrm{O}_\mathrm{C}\mathrm{O}_\mathrm{x}`$. The short exact sequence

$$0\mathrm{O}_\mathrm{C}(1)\mathrm{O}_\mathrm{C}\mathrm{O}_\mathrm{x}0$$
(23)
tells us that $`𝖠`$ is given by $`\mathrm{O}_\mathrm{C}(1)[1]`$. The triangle (22) dictates that $`\mathrm{O}_\mathrm{x}`$ will decay into $`𝖠`$ and $`\mathrm{O}_\mathrm{C}`$ if $`\theta <0`$. That is the 0-brane $`\mathrm{O}_\mathrm{x}`$ becomes unstable as we pass from the $`X`$ phase into the $`X^{}`$ phase through $`\theta =0`$. This is exactly what we wanted! If we impose the stability constraint on our 0-branes then we lose the “bogus” ones living on a curve flopped out of existence.

Note that there is no nontrivial homomorphism $`\mathrm{O}_\mathrm{C}\mathrm{O}_\mathrm{y}`$ with $`yC`$. This means that there is no distinguished triangle of the form (22) with $`x`$ replaced by $`y`$. This prevents the 0-branes $`\mathrm{O}_\mathrm{y}`$, away from the flop, from decaying — again in line with expectation.

We would now like to find the new 0-branes which jump into existence as we pass into the $`X^{}`$ phase. It would be nice to have a systematic way of building triangles relevant to our discussion. Clearly homomorphisms from $`\mathrm{O}_\mathrm{C}`$ to something else will be of interest since the relative grading is likely to change as we encircle $`O`$. We might therefore consider a map $`\mathrm{O}_\mathrm{C}𝖠`$ next. Using the spectral sequence (7) we can show that $`\mathrm{Hom}(\mathrm{O}_\mathrm{C},𝖠)=0`$ so we get nothing new here. As a next attempt one can show that $`\mathrm{Hom}(\mathrm{O}_\mathrm{C}[1],𝖠)=^2`$. Let us see what happens when we consider the cone $`𝖡`$ of a map $`\mathrm{O}_\mathrm{C}[1]𝖠`$. This generates the triangle

(24)
Thus $`𝖡`$ jumps into existence as $`\theta `$ becomes negative, i.e., we pass into the $`X^{}`$ phase. It is not hard to show that $`B`$ is a pre-point object in the sense of (8) and has the same D-brane charge as a point. Since $`\mathrm{Hom}(\mathrm{O}_\mathrm{C}[1],𝖠)=^2`$ we had a choice of which map to use to give $`𝖡`$. This essentially gives us a whole $`^1`$’s-worth of objects $`𝖡`$. Indeed $`𝖡`$ is exactly the object in $`𝐃(X)`$ studied by Bridgeland in  where he showed that the $`^1`$ parametrized by the $`𝖡`$ objects fits nicely into $`XC`$ to produce precisely $`X^{}`$. That is, he showed rigorously that the objects $`𝖡`$ really are the point objects for points on $`C^{}X^{}`$, and so the objects $`𝖡`$ are the $`𝖹_x^{}`$ objects discussed earlier in this section.

It is very gratifying to note that the objects selected by Bridgeland for this purpose are exactly the ones selected by $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$-stability for this same rôle.

Let us now continue this process. Since $`\mathrm{Hom}(\mathrm{O}_\mathrm{C}[1],𝖡)=`$, we may construct another distinguished triangle:

(25)
which shows that another D-brane, $`𝖢`$, comes into existence along with $`B`$ as we pass into the $`X^{}`$ phase. Lastly $`\mathrm{Hom}(\mathrm{O}_\mathrm{C}[1],𝖢)=0`$ but $`\mathrm{Hom}(\mathrm{O}_\mathrm{C}[2],𝖢)=^2`$ so the triangle

(26)
brings a new object $`𝖣`$ into existence as $`\theta `$ falls below $`\pi `$, i.e., after we circle $`O`$ clockwise in figure 3 and come back into the $`X`$ phase. Note that since $`\mathrm{Hom}(\mathrm{O}_\mathrm{C}[2],𝖢)=^2`$, we actually have a $`^1`$’s-worth of objects $`𝖣`$. We claim that the $`𝖣`$ objects are the new objects representing points on $`C`$ after monodromy around $`O`$. This is exactly the mechanism for monodromy presented in the context of the quintic in  except that here we have had to pass through a number of triangles to perform the monodromy. Note also that even though $`𝖣`$ and $`\mathrm{O}_\mathrm{x}`$ are quite different objects in $`𝐃(X)`$, they have the same D-brane charge. Thus this monodromy cannot be seen purely at the level of cohomology classes.

Note that this monodromy is consistent with the Fourier–Mukai transform predicted by Horja  and Seidel and Thomas . That is, in the language of :

$$𝖣=\mathrm{Cone}(\mathrm{hom}(\mathrm{O}_\mathrm{C},\mathrm{O}_\mathrm{x})\stackrel{𝐋}{}\mathrm{O}_\mathrm{C}\mathrm{O}_\mathrm{x}).$$
(27)
In order to further clarify this monodromy statement, let us consider what happens if we try to perform the flop by moving counter-clockwise around $`O`$ to leave the $`X`$ phase and pass into the $`X^{}`$ phase. Now we have the following relevant distinguished triangle

(28)
which shows how $`\mathrm{O}_\mathrm{x}`$ becomes unstable as $`\theta >\pi `$. We claim then the triangle (26) is exactly the triangle (28) under clockwise monodromy around $`O`$, i.e., $`\mathrm{O}_\mathrm{C}`$ becomes $`\mathrm{O}_\mathrm{C}[2]`$ and $`\mathrm{O}_\mathrm{C}(1)`$ becomes $`𝖢`$. This is again consistent with the Fourier–Mukai transform above.

## 5 Discussion

The derived category picture emphasizes the issues involved in declaring a given D-brane to be a point, i.e., a 0-brane. The occurrence of flops and monodromy show that many objects in the derived category have a right to be called a point, but only in a particular region of Kähler moduli space.

In any sufficiently complex example it is clear that even if one restricts to a specific D-brane charge, there are an infinite number of candidate point objects for each point in $`X`$. Many of these are related by monodromy transforms like the one we saw above for a flop. One can also generate similar monodromy transforms for points on the exceptional divisor of an orbifold. Insisting that a point object be stable removes all the monodromy images of each point.

It is overly-optimistic to assume that we have given enough conditions to cut down the number of pre-point objects to be left with the consistent set of true point objects. Understanding this further is key to knowing how to extract target space topology from worldsheet information.

## Acknowledgments

It is a pleasure to thank T. Bridgeland, S. Katz, D. Morrison and R. Plesser for useful conversations. The author is supported in part by NSF grant DMS-0074072 and by a research fellowship from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation.