text:
# Boundary States for GS superstrings in an 𝐻𝑝𝑝 wave background. 11footnote 1Work supported in part by the European Community’s Human Potential Programme under contract HPRN-CT-2000-00131 Quantum Spacetime.

## 1 Introduction and conclusions.

Soon after the conjecture of AdS/CFT correspondence , some authors addressed the problem of solving the string theory in $`AdS\times S`$ backgrounds. The first approach  made use of the so-called “killing gauge” for $`\kappa `$-symmetry in order to get the string action in these backgrounds. The actions turned out to be almost intractable, so a renewed attempt was made, using this time light cone gauge ; the models still remained not solvable. However, it was recently pointed out  that a conformal model describing type IIB superstring propagating in a particular wave metric supported by a Ramond-Ramond 5-form background :

$`ds^2=2dx^+dx^{}`$ $`\mathrm{f}^2x_I^2dx^+dx^++dx^Idx^I,I=1,\mathrm{},8,`$ (2)
$`F_{+1234}=F_{+5678}=2\mathrm{f}`$
is exactly solvable. This background has several remarkable properties. It preserves the maximal number of 32 supersymmetries , and it is related by a Penrose limit to the $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ background . It is worth noticing that the metric global symmetry $`O(8)`$ is broken to $`SO(4)\times SO(4)`$ by the RR background.

The same properties are true for other backgrounds ,  and we therefore expect that our analysis extends to these cases.

Soon after the discovery of the exact solvability of this string model, an interpretation of its states within the AdS/CFT correspondence  as states with large angular momentum $`J\sqrt{N}`$ and $`J\mathrm{\Delta }`$ finite in the dual $`𝒩=4`$ SYM. Notice however that the string Hamiltonian in this background $`H_{\text{lc string}}`$ explains only the leading order anomalous dimension: $`\mathrm{\Delta }=H_{\text{lc string}}+O\left(1/R\right)`$. This interpretation has been extended to other conformal cases in .

In this article we derive the boundary states associated with branes which preserve 16 supercharges in this solvable background. Differently from what happens in the flat background, where both the covariant NSR formulation (see  for a complete and consistent set of normalizations) and light-cone GS formulation  are available, in this case only the latter is at our disposal.

The plan of the paper is the following. In section 2 we give an heuristic derivation of the $`\kappa `$ gauge fixed action found by Metsaev and we discuss why it is possible to fix the light-cone gauge. In section 3 after discussing the allowed boundary conditions on the bosonic fields $`x^I`$ we construct the bosonic boundary states. They turn out to be $`O(8)`$ invariant, just as the metric is. Finally in section 4 we investigate the conditions to be imposed in the fermionic sector in order to break exactly half the number of global supersymmetric charges. These conditions break explicitly the global symmetry down to $`SO(4)\times SO(4)`$, as it could be expected due to “fermionic” nature of the RR background. It turns out that $`D(1)`$ and $`D7`$ break more than 16 supersymmetries (actually 24) and that the other branes of type $`IIB`$ superstring can only have special embeddings and must seat at the origin of the transverse coordinates if they must preserve 16 global supersymmetry charges. They can instead sit anywhere if they are left invariant by 8 charges only.

The branes that can be described on the light cone in this background are always “instantonic” and parallel to the wave. Since the generators $`J^I`$ do not correspond to isometries, these branes are not in an obvious way related to the ones perpendicular to the wave which are difficult, if not impossible, to describe in the light-cone formalism because even if we could reach the gauge $`x^{}=p^{}\tau `$ the resulting $`\sigma `$ model would still be interacting. In a similar way it is difficult to perform a double Wick rotation  to obtain “physical” branes. It would hence be desirable to solve this theory in other gauges or in a pure spinor formalism  since the solution in NSR formalism appears to be difficult. A better understanding of why the D-instanton seems to break more that 16 charges would also be desirable, in particular to clarify whether this happens only due to our ansatz or it because of a more fundamental reason.

Another interesting point would be to compute the $`1/R`$ corrections to the GS light-cone action in order to find the corrections to the anomalous dimensions in the dual SYM.

## 2 Green-Schwarz superstrings in an $`Hpp`$-wave.

We start considering the lagrangian for a bosonic string propagating on the $`Hpp`$ wave background (2) in the conformal gauge:

$$=\frac{1}{2}(2_Ax^+^Ax^{}\mathrm{f}^2x_I^2_Ax^+^Ax^++_Ax^I^Ax^I.)$$
(3)
The variation with respect to $`x^{}`$ of the action eq. (3) implies that $`x^+`$ obeys the massless free scalar equation; we can therefore impose the light cone gauge (we fix conventionally $`2\alpha ^{}=1`$)

$$x^+=p^+\tau .$$
(4)
In this gauge the previous lagrangian becomes, setting $`m=p^+\mathrm{f}`$,

$$=\frac{1}{2}\left(_Ax^I^Ax^Im^2x_I^2\right),.$$
(5)
Furthermore, we must take into account the Virasoro conditions, giving in this gauge the following two constraints:

$`\stackrel{´}{x}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{x}^I\stackrel{´}{x}^I}{p^+}},`$ (6)
$`\dot{x}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{x}^{I2}+\stackrel{´}{x}^{I2}m^2x^{I2}}{2p^+}}.`$ (7)
The gauge fixed lagrangian (5) is that of 8 massive two-dimensional free bosons. In view of the fact that the background preserves 32 real supersymmetric charges and that it reduces to flat space in the limit $`m0`$ it is natural to expect that the fermionic lagrangian (which was first derived in  via a super-coset construction) corresponds to the modification of the usual flat-space GS action by mass terms. Since the the RR field in the background eq. (2) breaks the $`SO(8)`$ symmetry to $`SO(4)\times SO(4)`$, the mass term contains the product $`\mathrm{\Pi }\gamma ^1\overline{\gamma }^2\gamma ^3\overline{\gamma }^4`$, which is a symmetric matrix so that the mass term must be “mixed”. The fermionic lagrangian reads thus

$$_F=\frac{i}{2}\left(S^a_+S^a+\stackrel{~}{S}^a_{}\stackrel{~}{S}^a\right)\mathrm{i}mS^a\mathrm{\Pi }_{ab}\stackrel{~}{S}^b,$$
(8)
where $`S^a`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{S}^a`$ 444 These fields are related to the ones used in  by
$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^+\theta ^1=\frac{1}{2^{3/4}}S,\mathrm{\Gamma }^+\theta ^2=\frac{1}{2^{3/4}}\stackrel{~}{S}$$
($`a=1,\mathrm{}8`$) are the canonical GS fields and $`_\pm =_0\pm _1=_\tau \pm _\sigma `$. The coefficient of the mass term was chosen in such a way that $`x`$ and $`S`$ have the same plane wave expansion.

## 3 The bosonic sector.

### 3.1 Boundary conditions and quantization in the bosonic sector.

We start discussing the boundary conditions allowed by the bosonic lagrangian (3); in particular the $`x^I`$ variation implies

$$\delta x^I\stackrel{´}{x}^I|_{\sigma =0}^{\sigma =1}=0$$
(9)
which allows all usual types of boundary conditions: periodic, Neumann and Dirichlet. The other variations imply

$$\delta x^{}\stackrel{´}{x}^+|_0^1=\delta x^+,\left(\stackrel{´}{x}^{}\mathrm{f}^2x_I^2\stackrel{´}{x}^+\right)|_0^1=0$$
(10)
which are trivially satisfied when (4) and (6) are used. Moreover the condition (6) implies that $`x^{}`$ has always Dirichlet boundary conditions $`\stackrel{´}{x}^{}|B=0`$ at a boundary inserted at fixed $`\tau `$ in the closed channel, both for Neumann and Dirichlet conditions on the $`x^I`$, as it is true also for $`x^+`$ .

The mode expansions for the transverse coordinates $`x_I`$ corresponding to the different boundary conditions are

$`x_{\mathrm{cl}}^I(\sigma ,\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}(m)\tau x_0^I+m^1\mathrm{sin}(m\tau )p_0^I`$ (11)
$`+\mathrm{i}{\displaystyle \underset{n=/\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}0}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sgn}(n)}{\sqrt{|\omega _n|}}}\left(e^{\mathrm{i}(\omega _n\tau k_n\sigma )}a_n^I+e^{\mathrm{i}(\omega _n\tau +k_n\sigma )}\stackrel{~}{a}_n^I\right),`$
$`x_{NN}^I(\sigma ,\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}(m\tau )x_0^I+m^1\mathrm{sin}(m\tau )p_0^I`$ (12)
$`+\mathrm{i}{\displaystyle \underset{n=/\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}0}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sgn}(n)}{\sqrt{|\omega _{n(o)}|}}}e^{i\omega _{n(o)}\tau }\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{k_n\sigma }{2}}a_n^I,`$
$`x_{DD}^I(\sigma ,\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{q_0^I\mathrm{sinh}(m(\sigma 1))+q_1^I\mathrm{sinh}(m\sigma )}{\mathrm{sinh}(m)}}`$ (13)
$`+\mathrm{i}{\displaystyle \underset{n0}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{|\omega _{n(o)}|}}}e^{i\omega _{n(o)}\tau }\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{k_n\sigma }{2}}a_n^I,`$
where we have defined

$$\omega _{\pm |n|}=\pm \sqrt{k_n^2+m^2},\omega _{\pm |n|(o)}=\pm \sqrt{(k_n/2)^2+m^2},k_n2\pi n$$
(14)
and we have fixed the Dirichlet b.c.’s as $`x_{DD}(\sigma =0)=q_0`$ and $`x_{DD}(\sigma =1)=q_1`$.

The previous eq.s are normalized in such a way that the usual commutation relation

$$[x^I(\sigma ),𝒫^J(\sigma ^{})]=i\delta (\sigma \sigma ^{})\delta ^{IJ},$$
(15)
where $`𝒫^I=\dot{x}^I`$, imply the following commutators for the modes:

$$[p_0^I,x_0^J]=i\delta ^{IJ},[a_m^I,a_n^J]=[\stackrel{~}{a}_m^I,\stackrel{~}{a}_n^J]=\mathrm{sgn}(n)\delta _{m+n,0}\delta ^{IJ}.$$
(16)
The vacuum state of the bosonic part is the direct product of a zero mode vacuum and the Fock vacuum for string oscillation modes, and is altogether defined by

$$a_0^I|0=0,a_n^I|0=\stackrel{~}{a}_n^I|0=0,n=1,2,\mathrm{},$$
(17)
where we introduced the zero mode creation and annihilation operators

$$a_0^I=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2m}}(p_0^I+\mathrm{i}mx_0^I),a_0^I=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2m}}(p_0^I\mathrm{i}mx_0^I),$$
(18)
as usual for an harmonic oscillator.

### 3.2 Bosonic boundary states.

#### Neumann conditions.

The Neumann boundary condition $`\frac{}{\sigma _{open}}x|_{\sigma =0}=0`$ for an open string field can be reinterpreted in the closed channel as a condition on the state $`|B`$ that represents the insertion of the boundary at a fixed $`\tau `$:

$$\dot{x}|_{\tau =0}|B=0.$$
(19)
This equation can be written in terms of the modes:

$$p_0|B=(a_n+\stackrel{~}{a}_n)|B=0,$$
(20)
and can be satisfied by the following boundary state:

$$|B=e^{\frac{1}{2}a_0^2}e^{_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}a_n^{}\stackrel{~}{a}_n^{}}|0,$$
(21)
where the zero mode part has become structurally analogous to the non zero mode part because the zero modes have acquired mass.

#### Dirichlet conditions.

The Dirichlet boundary condition in the closed channel

$$\left(xq_0\right)|_{\tau =0}|B=0,$$
(22)
which also implies that $`\stackrel{´}{x}|_{\tau =0}|B=0`$, becomes, in terms of the modes,

$$(x_0q_0)|B=(a_n\stackrel{~}{a}_n)|B=0.$$
(23)
The solution to these equations is given by

$$|B=e^{\frac{1}{2}(a_0^{}i\sqrt{2m}q_0)^2}e^{+_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}a_n^{}\stackrel{~}{a}_n^{}}|0,$$
(24)
where again the zero mode part is structurally analogous to the non zero mode part.

#### General situation.

We can summarize the previous discussion by introducing a matrix $`M_{IJ}`$ $`=\mathrm{diag}(\pm 1,\mathrm{},\pm 1)`$, every $`1`$ ($`+1`$) entry corresponding to a Neumann (Dirichlet) boundary condition on a transverse field:

$$\left(_+x^IM_{IJ}_{}x^J\right)|B=0.$$
(25)
This equation can be expressed on the operators as

$$a_n^IM_{IJ}\stackrel{~}{a}_n^J|B=0$$
(26)
and it is still valid for $`n=0`$ with the proviso that in the Dirichlet case we choose $`q_0=0`$. The corresponding boundary state (with $`q_0^I=0`$ for simplicity) reads

$$|B=e^{\frac{1}{2}M_{IJ}a_0^Ia_0^J}e^{+_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}M_{IJ}a_n^I\stackrel{~}{a}_n^J}|0.$$
(27)
This description can obviously be generalized to any matrix $`M_{(v)}=M^{IJ}`$ belonging to $`O(8)`$.

## 4 The complete theory.

### 4.1 Boundary conditions and quantization in the fermionic sector.

The fermionic equations of motion which can be derived from (8):

$$_+Sm\mathrm{\Pi }\stackrel{~}{S}=0,_{}\stackrel{~}{S}+m\mathrm{\Pi }S=0$$
(28)
must be supplemented with boundary conditions satisfying the constraint

$$\left(S^a\delta S^a\stackrel{~}{S}^a\delta \stackrel{~}{S}^a\right)|_{\sigma =0}^{\sigma =1}=0.$$
(29)
The allowed boundary conditions are then the usual: periodic (i.e., closed string) or generalized open, i.e. $`\stackrel{~}{S}^a|_{\sigma =0}=S^a|_{\sigma =0}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{S}^a|_{\sigma =1}=R_b^aS^b|_{\sigma =1}`$, with $`RR^T=1`$. The mode expansions with closed string conditions (which are the ones relevant for the boundary state construction) are

$`S^a(\sigma ,\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}(m\tau )S_0^a+\mathrm{sin}(m\tau )(\mathrm{\Pi }\stackrel{~}{S}_0)^a`$ (30)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{n=/\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}0}}{}}c_n\left(e^{\mathrm{i}(\omega _n\tau k_n\sigma )}S_n^a+\mathrm{i}\frac{\omega _nk_n}{m}e^{\mathrm{i}(\omega _n\tau +k_n\sigma )}\mathrm{\Pi }\stackrel{~}{S}_n^a\right),`$
$`\stackrel{~}{S}^a(\sigma ,\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}(m\tau )\stackrel{~}{S}_0^a\mathrm{sin}(m\tau )(\mathrm{\Pi }S_0)^a`$ (31)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{n=/\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}0}}{}}c_n\left(e^{\mathrm{i}(\omega _n\tau +k_n\sigma )}\stackrel{~}{S}_n^a\mathrm{i}\frac{\omega _nk_n}{m}e^{\mathrm{i}(\omega _n\tau k_n\sigma )}\mathrm{\Pi }S_n^a\right),`$
where we have defined

$$c_n=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+(\frac{\omega _nk_n}{m})^2}}.$$
(32)
As in the bosonic case, the normalizations are chosen in such a way that the canonical equal-time anti-commutator

$$\{S^a(\sigma ),S^b(\sigma ^{})\}=\{\stackrel{~}{S}^a(\sigma ),\stackrel{~}{S}^b(\sigma ^{})\}=\delta ^{ab}\delta _{m+n,0}\delta (\sigma \sigma ^{})$$
(33)
implies for the modes the relations

$$\{S_n^a,S_m^b\}=\{\stackrel{~}{S}_n^a,\stackrel{~}{S}_m^b\}=\delta ^{ab}\delta _{m+n,0}.$$
(34)
The vacuum of the fermionic zero modes sector can be chosen to be the usual set of states $`\{|I,|\dot{a}\}`$ which satisfy $`S_0^a|I=\gamma _{a\dot{a}}^I|\dot{a}/\sqrt{2}`$ and $`S_0^a|\dot{a}=\gamma _{a\dot{a}}^I|I/\sqrt{2}`$ or, as done in , to be the state $`|0`$ such that

$$(S_0^a+i\stackrel{~}{S}_0^a)|0=0,$$
(35)
which is related to the usual vacuum in such a way that it represents the zero modes part of the flat $`D(1)`$ brane. In the non-zero modes sector the prescription is unique:

$$S_n^a|0=\stackrel{~}{S}_n^a|0,n>0.$$
(36)
### 4.2 Constraints on boundary states

As in  we look for states which break half of the supercharges and therefore satisfy

$`\left(Q_a+i\eta M_{(s)ab}\stackrel{~}{Q}_b\right)|B`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (37)
$`\left(Q_{\dot{a}}+i\eta M_{(c)\dot{a}\dot{b}}\stackrel{~}{Q}_{\dot{b}}\right)|B`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (38)
These are the same conditions as in  because they are not affected by the breaking of the $`SO(8)`$ symmetry, as the reader can convince her/himself by decomposing the charges in $`SO(4)`$ chiral blocks and then reassembling the expressions written with these blocks. The $`SO(8)`$ breaking only affects the constraints the matrices $`M`$ have to satisfy, as we will see.

Differently from what happens in flat space, some of the supersymmetry charges do not commute with the hamiltonian, therefore we must impose explicitely that the constraints (37,38) be time invariant. From the commutation relations

$$[P^{},Q_a]=\mathrm{\Pi }_{ab}Q_a,[P^{},\stackrel{~}{Q}_a]=\mathrm{\Pi }_{ab}\stackrel{~}{Q}_a$$
(39)
we get a further constraint on the matrix $`M_{(s)ab}`$:

$$M_{(s)ab}=(\mathrm{\Pi }M_{(s)}\mathrm{\Pi })_{ab}.$$
(40)
The supercharges used in the previous expressions are given by :

$$\frac{1}{2^{3/4}\sqrt{p^+}}Q_a=S_0,\frac{1}{2^{3/4}\sqrt{p^+}}\stackrel{~}{Q}_a=\stackrel{~}{S}_0,$$
(41)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{p^+}}{2^{1/4}}}Q_{\dot{a}}`$ $`=`$ $`p_0^I\overline{\gamma }^{I\dot{a}b}S_0^bmx_0^I\left(\overline{\gamma }^I\mathrm{\Pi }\right)_{\dot{a}b}\stackrel{~}{S}_0^b`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left(\sqrt{2\omega _n}c_n\overline{\gamma }_{\dot{a}b}^I(a_n^IS_n^b+a_n^IS_n^b)+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{i}m}{\sqrt{2\omega _n}c_n}}\left(\overline{\gamma }^I\mathrm{\Pi }\right)_{\dot{a}b}(\stackrel{~}{a}_n^I\stackrel{~}{S}_n^b\stackrel{~}{a}_n^I\stackrel{~}{S}_n^b)\right),`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{p^+}}{2^{1/4}}}\stackrel{~}{Q}_{\dot{a}}`$ $`=`$ $`p_0^I\overline{\gamma }_{\dot{a}b}^I\stackrel{~}{S}_0^b+mx_0^I\left(\overline{\gamma }^I\mathrm{\Pi }\right)_{\dot{a}b}S_0^b`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}((\sqrt{2\omega _n}c_n\overline{\gamma }_{\dot{a}b}^I(\stackrel{~}{a}_n^I\stackrel{~}{S}_n^b+\stackrel{~}{a}_n^I\stackrel{~}{S}_n^b){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{i}m}{\sqrt{2\omega _n}c_n}}\left(\overline{\gamma }^I\mathrm{\Pi }\right)_{\dot{a}b}(a_n^IS_n^ba_n^IS_n^b)).`$
and the light-cone Hamiltonian is given by

$`P^{}=H_{l.c.}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2p^+}}\left(p_0^2+m^2x_0^2+2iS_0^a\mathrm{\Pi }_{ab}\stackrel{~}{S}_0^b\right)`$ (44)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p^+}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\omega _n\left(a_n^{}a_n+S_n^aS_n^a+\stackrel{~}{a}_n^{}\stackrel{~}{a}_n+\stackrel{~}{S}_n^a\stackrel{~}{S}_n^a\right).`$
Multiplying (37) by $`\left(Q^c+i\eta M_{(s)d}^c\stackrel{~}{Q}^d\right)`$ and taking the anticommutator, we get as an immediate consequence that

$$\left(M_{(s)}M_{(s)}^T\right)_{ab}=\delta _{ab}.$$
(45)
In a similar way from (38), using the anticommutation relations and looking at the terms proportional to $`P^{}`$ we find

$$\left(M_{(c)}M_{(c)}^T\right)_{\dot{a}\dot{b}}=\delta _{\dot{a}\dot{b}}.$$
(46)
Equation (38) can be rewritten as

$$\left(S_0^a+i\eta M_{(s)b}^a\stackrel{~}{S}_0^b\right)|B=0,$$
(47)
which suggests to take the following ansatz:

$$\left(S_n^a+i\eta M_{(s)b}^a\stackrel{~}{S}_n^b\right)|B=0,n=0,\pm 1,\pm 2,\mathrm{},$$
(48)
in order to solve the second defining equation (38).

Using the ansatz (48) and (26) into (38), we get three different equations. From the non zero modes structure $`a^{}S+aS^{}`$ we find

$$M^{JI}(\overline{\gamma }^J)_{\dot{a}b}=(M_{(c)}\overline{\gamma }^IM_{(s)}^T)_{\dot{a}b}.$$
(49)
This is the same equation arising in flat space . From the non zero modes structure $`a^{}SaS^{}`$, which always enters multiplied by $`m`$, we get a new equation which explicitly breaks the $`SO(8)`$ invariance:

$$M^{IJ}(\overline{\gamma }^J\mathrm{\Pi })_{\dot{a}b}=(M_{(c)}\overline{\gamma }^I\mathrm{\Pi }M_{(s)})_{\dot{a}b}.$$
(50)
Finally, the zero-mode sector yields a further constraint which reads

$$\left[p^I\left(\overline{\gamma }^IM_{(s)}M_{(c)}\overline{\gamma }^I\right)_{\dot{a}b}+i\eta x_0^I\left(\overline{\gamma }^I\mathrm{\Pi }+M_{(c)}\overline{\gamma }^I\mathrm{\Pi }M_{(s)}\right)_{\dot{a}b}\right]\stackrel{~}{S}_0^b|B=0,$$
(51)
which can be rewritten in a better way with the help of (49,50) as

$$\left[\overline{\gamma }_{\dot{a}b}^J\left(\delta ^{IJ}M^{IJ}\right)p^Ii\eta x_0^I\left(\delta ^{IJ}+M^{IJ}\right)\left(\overline{\gamma }^I\mathrm{\Pi }M_{(s)}\right)_{\dot{a}b}\right]\stackrel{~}{S}_0^b|B=0.$$
(52)
### 4.3 Boundary states.

Since the constraints (49,50,52) are invariant under $`SO(4)\times SO(4)`$ rotations as $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ is, we can look for special solutions from which we can derive the general ones by a rotation. As usual in light-cone formalism branes are “instantonic” since they have Dirichlet boundary condition on $`x^+\tau `$. The complete boundary states are given by

$`|B`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}M_{IJ}a_n^I\stackrel{~}{a}_n^Ji\eta M_{(s)ab}S_n^a\stackrel{~}{S}_n^a\right)|B_0,`$ (53)
$`|B_0`$ $`=`$ $`\left(M_{IJ}|I|\stackrel{~}{J}+i\eta M_{(c)\dot{a}\dot{b}}|\dot{a}|\stackrel{~}{\dot{b}}\right)e^{\frac{1}{2}M_{IJ}a_0^Ia_0^J}|0_a`$ (54)
The explicit form of the matrices $`M`$ is given, up to $`SO(4)\times SO(4)`$ rotations, by the following cases.

#### D(-1):

No solutions preserve 16 supersymmetries. The natural solution $`M_{(v)}=M_{(s)}=M_{(c)}=1_8`$ violates (50), which in turn means that (38) is violated. Eight supercharges are still preserved, thanks to (37).

#### D1:

Both spatial Neumann directions must lie in the first four $`1,2,3,4`$ or second four directions $`5,6,7,8`$. Moreover the brane must seat in the origin because of the zero modes constraints (52). An explicit solution is given by

$$M_{(s)b}^a=(\gamma ^1\overline{\gamma }^2)_{ab},M_{(c)\dot{b}}^{\dot{a}}=(\overline{\gamma }^1\gamma ^2)_{\dot{a}\dot{b}},M^{II}=\{\begin{array}{cc}1\hfill & I=1,2\\ +1\hfill & I1,2\end{array},q_0^{3,4,5,6,7,8}=0.$$
(55)
Relaxing the condition on the zero-modes $`q_0`$, i.e., allowing the brane to sit anywhere, violates (52) and thus (38). Only 8 charges are then preserved.

#### D3:

No solution preserves 16 supersymmetry charges. The following would-be solution does not satisfy the constraint (40) for time-invariance. Three of the four spatial Neumann directions are in either the first four $`1,2,3,4`$ or second four directions $`5,6,7,8`$. Again the brane is fixed at the origin of the transverse Dirichlet coordinates: $`q_0^{4,6,7,8}=0`$. An explicit solution is

$$M_{(s)b}^a=(\gamma ^1\overline{\gamma }^2\gamma ^3\overline{\gamma }^5)_{ab},M_{(c)\dot{b}}^{\dot{a}}=(\overline{\gamma }^1\gamma ^2\overline{\gamma }^3\gamma ^5)_{\dot{a}\dot{b}},M^{II}=\{\begin{array}{cc}1\hfill & I=1,2,3,5\\ +1\hfill & I=4,6,7,8\end{array}.$$
(56)
With an even number of directions in the first or second four directions (and arbitrary positions $`q_0`$) one obtains a solution preserving the 8 charges corresponding to (37).

#### D5:

An even number of directions have to be in each of the two sets of four coordinates. The brane is stuck at the origin of the remaining coordinates: $`q_0^{7,8}=0`$ if it must preserve 16 charges (otherwise only 8 are presrved), and

$$M_{(s)b}^a=(\gamma ^1\overline{\gamma }^2\gamma ^3\overline{\gamma }^4\gamma ^5\overline{\gamma }^6)_{ab},M_{(c)\dot{b}}^{\dot{a}}=(\overline{\gamma }^1\gamma ^2\overline{\gamma }^3\gamma ^4\overline{\gamma }^5\gamma ^6)_{\dot{a}\dot{b}},M^{II}=\{\begin{array}{cc}1\hfill & I7,8\\ +1\hfill & I=7,8\end{array}.$$
(57)
#### D7:

no solutions.
The would-be solution $`M_{(v)}=1_8`$, $`M_{(s)}=\gamma ^1\overline{\gamma }^2\gamma ^3\overline{\gamma }^4\gamma ^5\overline{\gamma }^6\gamma ^7`$ and $`M_{(c)}=\overline{\gamma }^1\gamma ^2\overline{\gamma }^3\gamma ^4\overline{\gamma }^5\gamma ^6\overline{\gamma }^7`$ violates (50).

As a further check we can notice that applying $`P^I=p_0^I`$ to (38) we get

$$im\left[\left(\overline{\gamma }^I\mathrm{\Pi }M_{(s)}\overline{\gamma }^I\mathrm{\Pi }M_{(c)}\right)\stackrel{~}{S}_0\right]_{\dot{a}}+\left(Q_{\dot{a}}+i\eta M_{(c)\dot{a}\dot{b}}\stackrel{~}{Q}_{\dot{b}}\right)p_0^I|B=0$$
(58)
which is trivially satisfied in Neumann directions.

It is nevertheless worth noticing that the B2B amplitude between two would-be $`D(1)`$ boundary states located in arbitrary positions is zero, even if they do not preserve 16 supercharges. Indeed, the would-be $`D(1)`$ boundary state does belong neither to a short representation nor to a long one: 8 charges are still preserved since (37) is still satisfied. Therefore inserting $`1=\frac{1}{2^{5/2}p^+}\{Q_ai\eta M_{(s)ac}\stackrel{~}{Q}_c,Q_d+i\eta M_{(s)bd}\stackrel{~}{Q}_d\}`$ into the boundary-to-boundary amplitude $`D(1),q_0|e^{\tau L_0^{l.c.}}|D(1),q_1`$ we get zero. More generally the same result is valid for the boundary-to-boundary amplitude between two flat space boundary states whose $`M_{(s)}`$ do satisfy (40): in particular it applies to $`D3`$’s with two directions in each of the two coordinates sets and to the other branes not at the origin of the transverse coordinates.

## Appendix A Notation and definitions

We essentially use the Metsaev and Tseylin’s conventions  which we report here for self consistency. The conventions for the indices are:

$`\mu ,\nu ,\rho =0,1,\mathrm{},9`$ $`so(9,1)\text{ vector indices (tangent space indices)}`$
$`I,J,K,L=1,\mathrm{},8`$ $`so(8)\text{ vector indices (tangent space indices)}`$
$`\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma =1,\mathrm{},16`$ $`so(9,1)\text{ spinor indices in chiral representation}`$
$`a,b,c=1,\mathrm{},8`$ $`so(9,1)\text{ spinor indices surviving the }\kappa \text{ symmetry}`$
fixing in chiral representation
$`\dot{a},\dot{b},\dot{c}=1,\mathrm{},8`$ $`so(9,1)\text{ spinor indices not surviving the }\kappa \text{ symmetry}`$
fixing in chiral representation
$`A,B=0,1`$ 2-d world-sheet coordinate indices
We identify the transverse target indices with tangent space indices, i.e. $`x^{\underset{¯}{I}}=x^I`$, and avoid using the underlined indices in $`+`$ and $``$ light-cone directions, i.e. adopt simplified notation $`x^+`$, $`x^{}`$. We suppress the flat space metric tensor $`\eta _{\mu \nu }=(,+,\mathrm{},+)`$ in scalar products, i.e. $`X^\mu Y^\mu \eta _{\mu \nu }X^\mu Y^\nu .`$ We decompose $`x^\mu `$ into the light-cone and transverse coordinates: $`x^\mu =(x^+,x^{},x^I)`$, $`x^I=(x^i,x^i^{})`$, where

$$x^\pm \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(x^9\pm x^0).$$
(59)
The scalar products of tangent space vectors are decomposed as

$$X^\mu Y^\mu =X^+Y^{}+X^{}Y^++X^IY^I,X^IY^I=X^iY^i+X^i^{}Y^i^{}.$$
(60)
The notation $`_\pm `$, $`_I`$ is mostly used for target space derivatives555In sections 2, 3.2.3 and 4.1 $`_\pm `$ indicate world-sheet derivatives.

$$_+\frac{}{x^+}_{}\frac{}{x^{}},_I\frac{}{x^I}.$$
(61)
We also use

$$^+=_{},^{}=_+,^I=_I.$$
(62)
The $`SO(9,1)`$ Levi-Civita tensor is defined by $`ϵ^{01\mathrm{}9}=1`$, so that in the light-cone coordinates $`ϵ^{+1\mathrm{}8}=1`$. The derivatives with respect to the world-sheet coordinates $`(\tau ,\sigma )`$ are denoted as

$$\dot{x}^I_\tau x^I,\stackrel{´}{x}^I_\sigma x^I.$$
(63)
We use the chiral representation for the $`32\times 32`$ Dirac matrices $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu `$ in terms of the $`16\times 16`$ matrices $`\gamma ^\mu `$

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu =\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \gamma ^\mu \\ \overline{\gamma }^\mu & 0\end{array}\right),$$
(64)
$$\gamma ^\mu \overline{\gamma }^\nu +\gamma ^\nu \overline{\gamma }^\mu =2\eta ^{\mu \nu },\gamma ^\mu =(\gamma ^\mu )^{\alpha \beta },\overline{\gamma }^\mu =\gamma _{\alpha \beta }^\mu ,$$
(65)
$$\gamma ^\mu =(1,\gamma ^I,\gamma ^9),\overline{\gamma }^\mu =(1,\gamma ^I,\gamma ^9),\alpha ,\beta =1,\mathrm{}16.$$
(66)
We adopt the Majorana representation for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-matrices, $`C=\mathrm{\Gamma }^0`$, which implies that all $`\gamma ^\mu `$ matrices are real and symmetric, $`\gamma _{\alpha \beta }^\mu =\gamma _{\beta \alpha }^\mu `$, $`(\gamma _{\alpha \beta }^\mu )^{}=\gamma _{\alpha \beta }^\mu `$. As in  $`\gamma ^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _k}`$ are the antisymmetrized products of $`k`$ gamma matrices, e.g., $`(\gamma ^{\mu \nu })^\alpha {}_{\beta }{}^{}\frac{1}{2}(\gamma ^\mu \overline{\gamma }^\nu )^\alpha {}_{\beta }{}^{}(\mu \nu )`$, $`(\gamma ^{\mu \nu \rho })^{\alpha \beta }\frac{1}{6}(\gamma ^\mu \overline{\gamma }^\nu \gamma ^\rho )^{\alpha \beta }\pm 5\text{ terms}`$. Note that $`(\gamma ^{\mu \nu \rho })^{\alpha \beta }`$ are antisymmetric in $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$. We assume moreover the following block decomposition for $`\gamma ^I`$:

$$\gamma ^I=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& (\gamma ^I)^{a\dot{b}}\\ (\gamma ^I)^{\dot{a}b}& 0\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& (\tau ^I)\\ (\tau ^I)^T& 0\end{array}\right)$$
(67)
and the normalization

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}\mathrm{\Gamma }^0\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^9=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1_{16}& 0\\ 0& 1_{16}\end{array}\right),\gamma ^0\overline{\gamma }^1\mathrm{}\gamma ^8\overline{\gamma }^9=1_{16},\gamma ^+=\overline{\gamma }^{}=\sqrt{2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}1_8& 0\\ 0& 0_8\end{array}\right)$$
(68)
We use the following definitions

$$\mathrm{\Pi }^\alpha {}_{\beta }{}^{}(\gamma ^1\overline{\gamma }^2\gamma ^3\overline{\gamma }^4)^\alpha {}_{\beta }{}^{},(\mathrm{\Pi }^{})^\alpha {}_{\beta }{}^{}(\gamma ^5\overline{\gamma }^6\gamma ^7\overline{\gamma }^8)^\alpha {}_{\beta }{}^{}.$$
(69)
$$\overline{\mathrm{\Pi }}_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\beta }(\overline{\gamma }^1\gamma ^2\overline{\gamma }^3\gamma ^4)_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\beta },(\overline{\mathrm{\Pi }}^{})_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\beta }(\overline{\gamma }^5\gamma ^6\overline{\gamma }^7\gamma ^8)_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\beta }.$$
(70)
Note that $`\mathrm{\Pi }^\alpha {}_{\beta }{}^{}=\overline{\mathrm{\Pi }}_\beta ^\alpha `$. Because of the relation $`\gamma ^0\overline{\gamma }^9=\gamma ^+`$ the normalization condition 68 takes the form $`\gamma ^+\mathrm{\Pi }\mathrm{\Pi }^{}=1`$. Note also the following useful relations (see also )

$$(\gamma ^+)^2=\mathrm{\Pi }^2=(\mathrm{\Pi }^{})^2=1,$$
(71)
$$\tau _I\tau _J^T+\tau _J\tau _I^T=2\delta _{IJ}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}_8$$
(72)
The 32-component positive chirality spinor $`\theta `$ and the negative chirality spinor $`Q`$ are decomposed in terms of the 16-component spinors as

$$\theta =\left(\begin{array}{c}\theta ^\alpha \\ 0\end{array}\right),\mathrm{\Gamma }^+\theta =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\sqrt{2}}}\left(\begin{array}{c}S^a\\ 0_8\\ 0_{16}\end{array}\right),Q=\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ Q_\alpha \end{array}\right).$$
(73)


format: text

text:
# TURKU-FL-P39-02 Simulations of Q-Ball Formation

## 1 Introduction

The Affleck-Dine condensate  offers an interesting possibility for baryogenesis at a high energy scale. The Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM) has several flat directions in its scalar potential along which squark, slepton and higgs fields fluctuate during inflation forming AD-condensates . The formation of an Affleck-Dine condensate is then natural in theories with supersymmetry.

The evolution of the AD-condensate is not as simple as one might envision at first, but includes highly nonlinear dynamics. In  it was realized that the condensate will fragment into Q-balls  which represent the true ground state instead of the condensate. This fragmentation process has then been studied in a number of works -, both in the case of gravity and gauge mediated supersymmetry breaking. Three dimensional simulations have been performed in both cases , but only for a very limited range of the energy-charge ratio of the condensate. In two dimensions, Q-ball formation has been studied in detail in , where it was found that at high initial value of the energy-charge ratio of the condensate, the resulting Q-ball charge distribution is well represented by a thermal distribution. On the basis of the analytical arguments presented in , it is expected that the three dimensional results should be well represented by the two dimensional simulations. In order to verify this assumption and to study the fragmentation process in more detail, we have studied the fragmentation process by utilizing full three dimensional simulations.

In this letter we present results from full 3+1 dimensional simulations of the fragmentation of the Affleck-Dine condensate in the MSSM with gravity mediated supersymmetry breaking. The numerical results are presented in Section 2 along with illustrations of the fragmentation process. In Section 3 we study the Q-ball distribution statistically. The letter is concluded in Section 4.

## 2 Numerical results

### 2.1 Preliminaries

The numerical work is performed by utilizing the parallel computing resources available at the Finnish center for high-performance computing (CSC). The simulations are run on a Cray T3E parallel machine.

In the simulations, the lattice is divided into cubes of $`40^3`$ and data transfer between the cubes is achieved by using the Message Passing Interface (MPI)-library. The lattice size used was typically $`120^3`$ but also larger lattice sizes up to $`200^3`$ were studied. In all simulations, periodic boundary conditions were used.

As an initial condition we add uniform noise to the amplitude and the phase of the uniformly rotating condensate field,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }_0\text{e}^{i\omega t}+\delta \mathrm{\Phi }.$$
(1)
The amplitude of the condensate is chosen to have the same value as in the 2D-case, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0=10^9\mathrm{GeV}`$. The type of noise added does not affect the results . The amplitude of the noise was typically $`|\delta \mathrm{\Phi }|/\mathrm{\Phi }_010^{10}`$, but it was also varied in order to study its effects on the results. Decreasing the amplitude of the noise simply delays the beginning of the fragmentation process but the essential features of the dynamics are unchanged.

The simulations are done with varying values of $`\omega `$ to study the effect of varying the initial energy-charge -ratio, $`x\rho /(mq)`$, of the condensate. As $`\omega `$ is decreased the condensate rotates more slowly and $`x`$ increases. Assuming that $`V(\mathrm{\Phi }_0)\omega ^2|\mathrm{\Phi }_0|^2`$, $`x`$ and $`\omega `$ are related simply by $`xm\omega ^1`$.

The equation of motion of the AD-condensate is

$$\ddot{\mathrm{\Phi }}+3H\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}\frac{1}{a^2}^2\mathrm{\Phi }+m^2\mathrm{\Phi }[1+K\mathrm{log}(\frac{|\mathrm{\Phi }|^2}{M^2})]gH^2\mathrm{\Phi }+\frac{3\lambda ^2}{M_{\mathrm{Pl}}^2}|\mathrm{\Phi }|^4\mathrm{\Phi }=0,$$
(2)
where $`M=10^{14}\mathrm{GeV}`$, $`a`$ is the scale factor of the universe and $`H`$ is the Hubble parameter, $`H=\dot{a}/a`$. The field was decomposed into real and imaginary parts, $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\varphi _1+i\varphi _2`$. Field and space-time were also rescaled according to

$$\phi =\frac{\varphi }{m},h=\frac{H}{m},\tau =mt,\xi =mx.$$
(3)
The parameter values chosen for the simulations were $`m=10^2\mathrm{GeV},K=0.1`$ and $`\lambda =\frac{1}{2}`$ (the $`gH^2`$-term can be omitted since $`gH^2m^2`$). The universe is assumed to be matter dominated so that $`a=a_0t^{\frac{2}{3}}`$ and $`H=\frac{2}{3t}`$.

The spatial and temporal lattice units were varied in order to verify that their exact values do not affect the results. The calculations were done in a comoving volume so that the physical size of the lattice increases with time. The initial time is $`\tau _0=100`$ and $`a=0.1\times \tau ^{\frac{2}{3}}`$. The simulations were run up to $`10^6`$ time steps.

### 2.2 Results

We have simulated the evolution of the AD-condensate for different values of $`x`$ (or $`\omega `$) to check for similar and differing features in two and three dimensions. The increase of phase space and somewhat larger dissipation in three dimensions are expected to modify some features of final Q-ball systems.

We have presented the essential features of the simulations in Figs. 3-8. Figs. 3-5 illustrate the evolution condensate with $`x1`$, while Figs. 6-8 show the $`x10^5`$-case333Color versions of the figures are available at www.utu.fi/$``$tuomul/qballs/. Here we have plotted just one $`40^3`$-box from the whole lattice. Note that we plot comoving volume,i.e. the physical size of the box grows with time. In the Figs. 3-8, $`\rho _\varphi ^c`$ indicates the absolute value of the equal charge density surface drawn to each figure.

In both cases, the initial part of the condensate evolution follows along similar lines: The fastest growing mode starts to dominate the initially stochastic perturbation spectrum, Fig. 3. Linear growth continues until non-linear effects begin to dominate and perturbations begin rapid growth. The regions of largest charge density form filament type structures which then fragment into lumps of charge, Fig. 4.

If $`x1`$, no further qualitative development is visible after the filaments fragment. The energetic lumps are excited Q-balls which relax as the universe (box) expands, leaving a distribution consisting of Q-balls.

If $`x1`$, a further development, however, takes place, as is shown in Figs. 6-8. After the filaments have fragmented into energetic charge lumps, a rapid growth of high density regions with negative charge takes place (negative charge is plotted as light gray in the figures), Figs. 6-7. After this stage a large number of charged lumps which carry positive and negative charge are present in the box. The lumps relax with time and the spatial distribution freezes as the box grows.

Note that in the depicted $`x1`$ case the amplitude of the initial perturbation is smaller than in the $`x10^5`$ case, which explains why the initial charge lumps appear more quickly in the large $`x`$ case. With equal initial perturbations, the fragmentation process takes place at the same time in both cases.

## 3 Discussion

The qualitative features in the three dimensional case are very similar to the previously studied two dimensional case, which is exactly what we expect on the basis of analytical arguments . To verify that here the Q-ball anti-Q-ball distribution in the large $`x`$ case is thermal, we utilize statistical means.

The one-particle partition function for a thermal distribution is given by

$$Z_1=\underset{V_D}{}\frac{d^Dxd^Dp}{(2\pi )^D}\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑Qe^{\beta E+\mu Q}$$
(4)
where $`\mu `$ is the chemical potential related to the charge of Q-balls. The cumulative distribution function $`F(Q,\mu ,\beta )`$ in terms of the probability distribution function $`g(Q,\mu ,\beta )`$ is then

$$F(Q,\mu ,\beta )=\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{Q}{}}𝑑Q^{}g(Q^{})=\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{Q}{}}𝑑Q^{}\text{e}^{\mu Q^{}\beta |Q^{}|}(\beta |Q^{}|+1),$$
(5)
where we have omitted the fugacity of the distribution.

Before we can fit the cumulative distribution function to the Q-ball distribution seen in the simulations, we need to count and classify the lumps of charge. Our approach is two-fold: first we search for local maxima in the charge (anti-charge) density. Then we classify the local maxima, $`\varphi _{max}`$, by using the criteria

$$\varphi _{max}>M\mathrm{exp}(\frac{1(\omega /m)^2}{2|K|}),$$
(6)
which follows from the fact that inside a Q-ball, $`V(\varphi )\omega ^2\varphi ^2<0`$. In other words we require that the complex phase of a charge maximum must rotate quickly enough for it to be classified as a Q-ball.

The number of local maxima that pass the Q-ball criterion is only a fraction of the total number, typically the number of points is reduced by $`8090\%`$.

This is illustrated in Fig. 1, where a plot of the local maxima is presented before (dotted line) and after (solid line) the Q-ball criterion is applied. Clearly, there are both small and large charge lumps do not satisfy the criterion (6). The existence of these lumps that are not Q-balls is expected since the remains of the perturbed initial condensate are still present in the system. Also some of the lumps may be excited Q-balls which do not yet satisfy the condition (6).

After selecting which charge lumps to consider, we then fit the cumulative distribution function to the Q-ball charge distribution. The values of $`m\beta `$ at different $`\tau `$ are shown in Fig. 2 (corrected for the expansion of the box).

Just like in the two dimensional case, we see that the Q-ball anti-Q-ball -system reaches a thermal equilibrium soon after negative charge enters the system. The chemical potential, $`\mu `$, is also again much smaller than $`m\beta `$. Due to geometrical considerations, the number density of Q-balls is slightly larger in three dimensions. Because the radii of Q-balls are essentially equal in both dimensions , the higher the dimension is, the more Q-balls the system can support.

If the criterion (6) is not applied and (5) is fitted to the whole distribution, we find that the value of $`m\beta `$ is practically unchanged. On this basis, we expect that the value of $`m\beta `$ obtained from the whole distribution in two dimensions , is a good approximation to the distribution with the Q-ball criterion applied.

The value of $`m\beta `$ in the three dimensional simulations performed here is smaller than in the two dimensional case i.e. the average energy of a Q-ball is larger. One can understand this by considering the total energies in the system in the two cases (omitting $`\mu `$) , $`E_D=(D+1)N_D/\beta _D`$, where $`D`$ is the dimension and $`N`$ is the number of Q-balls. From this we get $`\beta _3=(4E_2N_3)/(3E_3N_2)\beta _2`$. The energies in the two cases are related by $`(E_2/E_3)=(m/\mathrm{GeV})^1V_2/V_3`$, where $`V_D`$ is the volume in $`D`$ dimensions in lattice units. The number densities are found to be $`N_3/V_32N_2/V_2`$, hence $`\beta _38/3(\mathrm{GeV}/m)\beta _2`$, which is in good agreement with the numerical results.

## 4 Conclusions

We note that the results fully support the expectations that the two dimensional simulations capture the essential features of the fragmentation process, both at qualitative and quantitative level. The final Q-ball distribution is strongly dependent on the initial charge-energy ratio $`x`$: with $`x1`$, only positive charge appears due to the fact that Q-balls in this scenario have a linear energy dependence on charge, $`EmQ`$ , so that all energy and charge can be accounted for by creating Q-balls. As $`x`$ grows, the excess energy left after storing the charge in Q-balls grows and, as it must be accounted for, leads to the production of negative charge. In the $`x10^5`$ case, we have again seen that $`|Q_+|+|Q_{}|>>Q_++Q_{}`$ i.e. that the absolute amount of charge created is much larger than the net charge in the box. This fact also presents itself in the form of a small chemical potential $`\mu `$.

The charge distribution in the large $`x`$ case is, like in two dimensions, well represented by a thermal distribution. After the initial formation process, the distribution thermalizes slightly more slowly than in two dimensions, which is natural due to the increased phase space. The value of $`\beta `$ is also compatible with the analytical and numerical expectations.

An interesting feature seen in the simulations is the formation of a filament network in early stages of the condensate evolution. This was also seen in two dimensions but the observation of this effect here confirms that this is not an artifact of two dimensions. Numerical analysis in two dimensions also showed that the final distribution of large Q-balls was not spatially random. Small Q-balls have a large kinetic energy component, which effectively will randomize the distribution, but the spatial distribution of large Q-balls may well have some structure also in three dimensions. If Q-balls survive thermal erosion  and decay into baryons after the electroweak phase transition, some remains of this structure may still be present during nucleosynthesis. Note, however, that any remaining spatial correlation is very small: assuming a high reheat temperature, the universe can expand between reheating and nucleosynthesis by a factor of $`10^8`$. Further assuming a large correlation length of $`10\mathrm{GeV}^1`$ (the size of the box when filaments appear), we see that during nucleosynthesis, spatial correlations are very small unless the universe expands significantly between fragmentation and reheating.

To conclude, we have verified that the two dimensional simulations capture all of the essential features of the dynamics of the Affleck-Dine condensate. Depending on the initial conditions, the AD-condensate fragments into a large number of Q- or anti-Q-balls. A period during which the charge density forms filament like structures is observed, which is likely to leave a spatial correlation between large Q-balls.

## Acknowledgments

We thank S. Kasuya for discussions. This work has been partly supported by the Magnus Ehrnrooth Foundation. The Finnish center for high-performance computing and networking (CSC) is gratefully acknowledged for providing the computational resources.


text:
# Fulde-Ferrell-Larkin-Ovchinnikov State and Field-Induced Superconductivity in an Organic Superconductor

\[

## Abstract

An experimental phase diagram of the field-induced superconductivity in the $`\lambda `$-$`(\mathrm{BETS})_2\mathrm{FeCl}_4`$ compound is theoretically reproduced by a combination of the Fulde-Ferrell-Larkin-Ovchinnikov (FFLO) state and the Jaccarino-Peter mechanism. Semi-quantitative agreement is obtained in the presence of a very weak subdominant triplet pairing interaction between electrons with antiparallel spins, in addition to a dominant singlet pairing interaction. An order-parameter mixing effect enhances the FFLO state and plays an essential role in the semiquantitative agreement. As a possible origin of the small triplet component, pairing interactions mediated by spin fluctuations are proposed. It is argued that, in this mechanism of the pairing interactions, equal spin pairing interactions are much weaker than the antiparallel spin pairing interactions in the strong magnetic field, which is consistent with the lack of observation of equal spin state.

PACS numbers: 74.80.Dm,74.80.-g

\]

Recently, a field-induced superconductivity (FISC) was observed at high magnetic fields in an organic superconductor $`\lambda `$-$`(\mathrm{BETS})_2\mathrm{FeCl}_4`$, (BETS = bis(ethylenedithio)tetraselenafulvalene) . The lower critical field $`H_\mathrm{c}^{\mathrm{low}}(T)`$ of the FISC is upwards convex  as a function of temperature $`T`$. When we consider the Jaccarino-Peter mechanism  as the origin of the FISC , the lower critical field corresponds to the upper critical field of a typical superconducting phase. Therefore, the upwards convex $`H_\mathrm{c}^{\mathrm{low}}(T)`$ is not a common characteristic of the upper critical field. Some authors argued  that this upturn behavior can be explained by the Fulde-Ferrell-Larkin-Ovchinnikov (FFLO) state .

The FFLO state has been discussed in some other organic superconductors, because some of them satisfy the necessary conditions for the FFLO state to occur: (1) Those samples can be clean type II superconductors due to their narrow electron bands; (2) The orbital pair-breaking effect is strongly suppressed for parallel magnetic fields due to the low dimensionality. The present compound $`\lambda `$-$`(\mathrm{BETS})_2\mathrm{FeCl}_4`$ also exhibits these features.

The upturn due to the FFLO state in the cylindrically symmetric system was obtained by Bulaevskii  and Aoi et al. . The FFLO state in two-dimensional superconductors was reexamined and discussed in connection with exotic superconductors, such as organics and cuprates, by some authors . The upturn is a common behavior of the FFLO state in quasi-two-dimensional systems . This behavior is due to a Fermi surface effect  analogous to Fermi surface nesting for the spin-density and charge-density waves, which we call a nesting effect for the FFLO state.

On the other hand, an upturn of the upper critical field ($`\mathrm{d}^2H_\mathrm{c}/\mathrm{d}T^2>0`$) and a first-order transition below the upper critical field have been observed in $`\kappa `$-$`(\mathrm{BEDT}`$\- $`\mathrm{TTF})_2\mathrm{Cu}(\mathrm{NCS})_2`$ . The FFLO state has also been discussed in this compound. Manalo and Klein  have successfully confirmed the agreement between the experimental  and theoretical results .

A recent experiment on thermal conductivity by Tanatar et al.  supports the existence of the FFLO state in $`\lambda `$-$`(\mathrm{BETS})_2\mathrm{GaCl}_4`$. They observed that the upper critical field is consistent with the Pauli paramagnetic limit in dirty samples, while it shows no saturation down to 0.3 K in clean samples. This experimental result supports the FFLO state also in the FISC in $`\lambda `$-$`(\mathrm{BETS})_2\mathrm{FeCl}_4`$, since these two compounds are similar, except $`\lambda `$-$`(\mathrm{BETS})_2\mathrm{FeCl}_4`$ has the magnetic anions.

In $`\lambda `$-$`(\mathrm{BETS})_2\mathrm{FeCl}_4`$, localized spins of $`S=5/2`$ on the $`(\mathrm{FeCl}_4)^1`$ anions create an exchange field on the conducting layer of the two-dimensional network of $`\mathrm{BETS}`$ molecules. As many authors pointed out , the exchange field shifts the Zeeman energy effectively, and thus also the superconductivity area in the $`B`$-$`T`$ phase diagram. This compensation mechanism is called the Jaccarino-Peter mechanism, which was originally proposed for the FISC in ferromagnetic metals. The present compound is an antiferromagnetic insulator at zero field, but this difference does not affect the mechanism at high magnetic fields, where the localized magnetic moments are saturated .

Balicas et al. have compared the experimental phase diagram of $`\lambda `$-$`(\mathrm{BETS})_2\mathrm{FeCl}_4`$ with the theoretical one with the FFLO state, taking into account the shift of the FISC area by the Jaccarino-Peter mechanism . The main features of the FISC have been reproduced qualitatively by a combination of the FFLO state and the Jaccarino-Peter mechanism.

However, from a quantitative viewpoint, the theoretical width of the magnetic field region of the FISC is much narrower than the experimental one. In the experimental phase diagram, the FISC area has a center at about 33 T and the lower limit at about 17 T , which means that the absolute value of the critical field is equal to about 16T in the absence of the exchange field. When the orbital pair breaking effect is ignored, the maximum transition temperature $`T_\mathrm{c}^{(\mathrm{m})}4.2\mathrm{K}`$ gives the Pauli paramagnetic limit $`1.856[\mathrm{T}/\mathrm{K}]\times T_\mathrm{c}^{(\mathrm{m})}=7.8\mathrm{T}`$ and the $`s`$-wave FFLO critical field 11 T for the cylindrical Fermi surface. Therefore, the experimental value 16 T is much larger than the estimates using the simple theory.

Therefore, we need an explanation for this difference. There are some mechanisms which enhance the FFLO critical field, such as the effects of the anisotropies of the Fermi surface and the gap function . In particular, by a nesting effect, the critical field can be enhanced up to a value several times as large as the Pauli paramagnetic limit . However, the increase due to this mechanism occurs at low temperatures , and the tricritical point does not change. In the case of $`\lambda `$-$`(\mathrm{BETS})_2\mathrm{FeCl}_4`$, it seems that the shape of the FISC area in the experimental phase diagram is not reproduced very well solely by these mechanisms.

Another mechanism is an order-parameter mixing effect. In the presence of a subdominant triplet pairing interaction between electrons with antiparallel spins, even if it is very weak, the upper critical field is largely enhanced. This effect was theoretically predicted in $`s`$-wave superconductors with a spherical symmetric Fermi surface , and also in $`s`$\- and $`d`$-wave superconductors with quasi-two-dimensional Fermi surfaces . In the latter study, this effect was discussed in connection with the organic superconductors. Subdominant triplet pairing components exist in the pairing interactions mediated by the spin fluctuations , and also in those mediated by phonons . In the latter, the triplet pairing component is enhanced due to the weakness of the screening effect in the low dimensions .

In this paper, we reproduce a phase diagram that agrees with the experimental data semiquantitatively, by taking into account the order-parameter mixing effect in the FFLO state with the Jaccarino-Peter mechanism.

Before we analyze of the FISC, let us briefly discuss the exchange field created by the $`(\mathrm{FeCl}_4)^1`$ anions. In our previous paper , we proposed a mechanism which enhances the upper critical field in antiferromagnetic superconductors. In order to illustrate the mechanism, we used a generalized Kondo lattice model of the localized spins and mobile electrons with a Kondo coupling $`J_\mathrm{K}`$ between them and an antiferromagnetic exchange coupling $`J`$ between the localized spins. As a special case, the model describes an aspect of the $`\lambda `$-$`(\mathrm{BETS})_2\mathrm{FeCl}_4`$ compound, for a half-filled electron band and large ratios of $`J_\mathrm{K}/zJ`$, where $`z`$ is the number of the nearest neighbor sites. In the application to the $`\lambda `$-$`(\mathrm{BETS})_2\mathrm{FeCl}_4`$ compound, $`J`$ should be replaced with some indirect interaction via conducting layers , which must be much smaller than $`J_\mathrm{K}`$. Therefore, it is expected that the ratio $`J_\mathrm{K}/zJ`$ is much smaller than 1. The RKKY exchange interaction and the reconstructed Fermi surface have been calculated by Brossard et al. .

In the calculation based on the generalized Kondo lattice model , the boundary between the antiferromagnetic insulating phase and the paramagnetic metallic phase is $`B_{\mathrm{MI}}=\mu _0H_{\mathrm{MI}}=\mu _0zJS/|\mu _\mathrm{e}|`$, where $`\mu _0`$ is the magnetic permeability and $`\mu _\mathrm{e}`$ is the electron magnetic moment. On the other hand, the compensation effect shifts the center of the FISC area by

$$B_{\mathrm{cent}}=\mu _0H_{\mathrm{cent}}=\mu _0\frac{J_\mathrm{K}S}{|\mu _\mathrm{e}|}.$$
$`(1)`$
Therefore, from the experimental data , $`B_{\mathrm{MI}}10.5\mathrm{T}`$ and $`B_{\mathrm{cent}}33\mathrm{T}`$, we obtain the ratio

$$\frac{J_\mathrm{K}}{zJ}=\frac{B_{\mathrm{cent}}}{B_{\mathrm{MI}}}3.11,$$
$`(2)`$
which is consistent with the above consideration.

From the values $`B_{\mathrm{cent}}=33\mathrm{T}`$, $`B_{\mathrm{MI}}=10.5\mathrm{T}`$ and $`S=5/2`$, we obtain $`J_\mathrm{K}/k_\mathrm{B}8.87\mathrm{K}`$ and $`zJ/k_\mathrm{B}=2.82\mathrm{K}`$. The mean field value of the antiferromagnetic transition temperature $`T_{\mathrm{AF}}^{\mathrm{MF}}`$ is equal to $`zJS(S+1)/48.1\mathrm{K}`$, which agrees very well with the experimental value 8.5 K.

Now, let us examine the FISC. We examine the case in which a dominant singlet pairing interaction and a very weak subdominant triplet pairing interaction coexist between electrons with antiparallel spins. The pairing interaction and the gap function are expanded as

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill V(𝐤,𝐤^{})& =& \underset{\alpha }{}g_\alpha \gamma _\alpha (𝐤)\gamma _\alpha (𝐤^{}),\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Delta }(𝐤)& =& \underset{\alpha }{}\mathrm{\Delta }_\alpha \gamma _\alpha (𝐤),\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(3)`$
with symmetry factors $`\gamma _\alpha (𝐤)`$. In cylindrically symmetric systems, they are defined by, for example, $`\gamma _s(𝐤)1`$, $`\gamma _{p_x}(𝐤)\widehat{k}_x`$, $`\gamma _{d_{x^2y^2}}(𝐤)\widehat{k}_{x}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\widehat{k}_{y}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$, and so on. We normalize $`\gamma _\alpha (𝐤)`$ by

$$_0^{2\pi }\frac{\mathrm{d}\phi }{2\pi }[\gamma _\alpha (\phi )]^2=1,$$
$`(4)`$
where $`\gamma _\alpha (\phi )=[\gamma _\alpha (𝐤)]_{|𝐤|=k_\mathrm{F}}`$ and $`\phi `$ is the angle between $`𝐤`$ and $`k_x`$-axis. We assume a cylindrically symmetric Fermi surface for simplicity, and $`s`$-wave and $`p`$-wave pairing interactions as the dominant and subdominant pairing interactions, respectively . Later, we will discuss the effects of the anisotropies of the Fermi surface and the gap function.

In the weak coupling limit, the gap equations are written as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_\alpha \mathrm{log}\frac{T}{T_{\mathrm{c}\alpha }^{(0)}}=\underset{\beta }{}M_{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{\Delta }_\beta ,$$
$`(5)`$
where we define

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill M_{\alpha \beta }& & _0^{2\pi }\frac{\mathrm{d}\phi }{2\pi }\gamma _\alpha (\phi )\gamma _\beta (\phi )\mathrm{sinh}^2\frac{\beta \zeta }{2}\mathrm{\Phi }(\phi ),\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Phi }(\phi )& & _0^{\mathrm{}}dy\frac{\mathrm{tanh}y}{y(\mathrm{cosh}^2y+\mathrm{sinh}^2\frac{\beta \zeta }{2})},\hfill \\ \hfill T_{\mathrm{c}\alpha }^{(0)}& =& 2\mathrm{e}^\gamma \pi ^1\omega _\mathrm{c}\mathrm{e}^{1/g_\alpha N(0)},\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(6)`$
with $`\zeta =h[\overline{q}\mathrm{cos}(\phi \phi _𝐪)+1]`$, $`\overline{q}=v_\mathrm{F}q/2h`$, $`h=|\mu _e|(|H|H_{\mathrm{cent}})`$, $`N(0)`$ the density of states at the Fermi energy, and $`\phi _𝐪`$ the angle between the center-of-mass momentum $`𝐪`$ of the FFLO state and the $`k_x`$-axis.

For the symmetry, we can assume the direction of $`𝐪`$ along the $`k_x`$-axis without loosing generality. Then, the $`p_y`$-wave component $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{p_y}\widehat{k}_y`$ is not mixed with the $`s`$-wave component, while the $`p_x`$-wave component $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{p_x}\widehat{k}_x`$ is mixed with it. Therefore, the transition temperature for a given $`𝐪`$ is calculated by $`T_\mathrm{c}(h,𝐪)=T_{\mathrm{c}s}^{(0)}\mathrm{e}^{\lambda (h,𝐪)}`$ with the smallest eigenvalue $`\lambda (h,𝐪)`$ of the $`2\times 2`$ matrix

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}M_{ss}& M_{sp}\\ M_{ps}& M_{pp}+G_p\end{array}\right),$$
$`(7)`$
where we define

$$G_p\mathrm{log}\frac{T_{\mathrm{c}s}^{(0)}}{T_{\mathrm{c}p}^{(0)}}=\frac{1}{g_pN(0)}\frac{1}{g_sN(0)}.$$
$`(8)`$
Here, $`T_{\mathrm{c}s}^{(0)}`$ and $`T_{\mathrm{c}p}^{(0)}`$ are the pure $`s`$\- and $`p`$-wave transition temperatures. In the presence of the exchange field, $`T_{\mathrm{c}s}^{(0)}`$ is equal to the maximum transition temperature $`T_\mathrm{c}^{(\mathrm{m})}`$ of the FISC. The final result of the transition temperature is obtained by maximizing $`T_\mathrm{c}(h,𝐪)`$ with respect to $`𝐪`$.

The results are depicted in Fig. 1. The FFLO critical fields are largely enhanced even for a very small value of the coupling constant of the coexisting triplet pairing interaction. Figure 1(a) shows the result for $`T_\mathrm{c}^{(\mathrm{m})}=4.2\mathrm{K}`$ and $`T_{\mathrm{c}p}^{(0)}=0.084\mathrm{K}`$, which corresponds to $`T_{\mathrm{c}p}^{(0)}/T_\mathrm{c}^{(\mathrm{m})}=1/50`$ and $`G_p3.912`$. It is found that the agreement between theoretical and experimental results is significantly improved by taking into account the weak triplet pairing interaction (solid curve), in comparison to the result in the absence of the triplet pairing interactions (dotted curve). Taking into account the ambiguity in determination of the experimental values of the transition temperatures , it can be concluded that the overall behavior of the transition curve is semiquantitatively reproduced by the FFLO state.

Figure 1(b) is the result for $`T_\mathrm{c}^{(\mathrm{m})}=4.5\mathrm{K}`$ and $`T_{\mathrm{c}p}^{(0)}=0.045\mathrm{K}`$, which corresponds to $`T_{\mathrm{c}p}^{(0)}/T_\mathrm{c}^{(\mathrm{m})}=1/100`$ and $`G_p4.605`$. Except near the top of the peak, the theoretical curve agrees very well with the experimental data.

In the above calculations, the presence of the weak triplet pairing interactions between electrons with antiparallel spins is assumed. When the system is isotropic in the spin space, triplet pairing interactions between electrons with parallel spins are of the same magnitude at zero field. In this case, one might expect transitions to an equal spin pairing state at magnetic fields where the FISC of antiparallel spin pairing is suppressed. For example, in the cases shown in Figs. 1(a) and 1(b), the transition temperatures of the equal spin state are equal to 84 mK and 45 mK, respectively. However, such transitions have not been observed in the experiments.

This discrepancy can be explained if the origin of the triplet pairing interactions is the exchange of the spin fluctuations enhanced by on-site Coulomb repulsion . For example, in a random phase approximation (RPA), the equal spin pairing interactions originate from the fluctuations as shown in the diagrams in Fig. 2(a) . Therefore, they correspond to the fluctuations of $`S_z`$ components. On the other hand, the antiparallel spin pairing interactions originate from the fluctuations as shown in the diagrams in Figs. 2(b) and 2(c)  in the RPA. They correspond to the fluctuations of $`S_z`$ components and $`S_\pm S_x\pm \mathrm{i}S_y`$, respectively. In the magnetic field in the $`z`$-direction, since the spin moment $`S_z`$ is finite, the spin fluctuations of $`z`$ components are much smaller than those of $`x`$ and $`y`$ components. Therefore, the equal spin pairing interactions are much weaker than the antiparallel spin pairing interactions in the magnetic field.

Another possible explanation is the orbital pair-breaking effect. The transition temperature of the equal spin pairing state is only 45 mK in the case shown in Fig. 1(b). If we take into acount the orbital pair-breaking effect, the equal spin pairing state with such a small transition temperature may be suppressed completely at higher magnetic fields where the system is metallic.

In this paper, we have assumed the $`s`$-wave pairing interaction as the dominant singlet interaction, and the cylindrical Fermi surface for simplicity . For the $`d`$-wave pairing, the curve of the critical field exhibits a kink at a low temperature . However, the kink disappears when the Fermi surface is anisotropic to some extent . Furthermore, the anisotropy of the Fermi surface enhances the critical field  for a nesting effect. However, since the enhancement occurs especially at low temperatures $`T\stackrel{<}{}0.2T_\mathrm{c}`$ , the mixing effect remains necessary for the semiquantitative reproduction of the experimental phase diagram in an entire temperature region including $`T\stackrel{>}{}0.2T_\mathrm{c}`$.

In conclusion, the phase diagram of $`\lambda `$-$`(\mathrm{BETS})_2\mathrm{FeCl}_4`$ including the curve of the lower limit of the FISC which is upwards convex ($`\mathrm{d}^2H_c(T)/\mathrm{d}T^2<0`$) can be explained by the combination of the FFLO state and the Jaccarino-Peter mechanism, together with the order-parameter mixing effect. For the semiquantitative reproduction of the phase diagram in the present theory, the existence of the very weak subdominant triplet pairing interaction is essential. The origin of it can be attributed to spin fluctuations in the magnetic field. The phase diagrams of $`\lambda `$-$`(\mathrm{BETS})_2\mathrm{Ga}_{1\mathrm{x}}\mathrm{Fe}_\mathrm{x}\mathrm{Cl}_4`$ are also expected to be understood in the present mechanism. The experimental evidence of the existence or inexistence of the FFLO state can be obtained by direct observations of the structure of the gap function .

The author would like to thank Dr. Uji for useful discussions and the experimental data, and Dr. C$`\stackrel{´}{\mathrm{e}}`$pas for useful discussions.