format: text

text:
# The Dynamics of the Circumnuclear Disk and its environment in the Galactic Centre

## 1 Introduction

The Galactic Centre region is an ideal laboratory for studying the fueling of a central black hole in great detail. Eckart & Genzel (1996) have observed the proper motions of bright stars in the central few arcseconds around the non-thermal radio continuum source Sgr A. They concluded that there is strong evidence for a $``$2.5 106 M central dark mass located within $``$0.015 pc of Sgr A with a mass density of at least 6.5 109 M pc-3. This high density excludes the possibility that the central mass concentration is a central star cluster. Sgr A is surrounded by a huge Hii region Sgr A West with a size111We assume 8.5 kpc for the distance to the Galactic Centre of 2.1$`\times `$2.9 pc, which was first observed by Ekers et al. (1975). The ionized gas in this region forms a spiral pattern (see e.g. Lo & Claussen 1983, Lacy et al. 1991) and is therefore called the Minispiral. The western side of this feature represents the inner edge of a large ring of molecular and atomic gas, the Circumnuclear Disk (CND) which extends from $``$2 to $``$7 pc from the centre. It was observed by several authors: Gatley et al. (1986) (H2), Serabyn et al. (1986) (CO,CS), Güsten et al. (1987) (HCN), DePoy et al. (1989) (H2), Sutton et al. (1990) (CO), Jackson et al. (1993) (Oi, HCN), Marr et al. (1993) (HCN), Coil & Ho (1999, 2000) (NH3), and Wright et al. (2001) (HCN). The main results of their investigations are:

* The CND has a hydrogen mass of a few 104 M,
* the disk is very clumpy with an estimated volume filling factor of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{V}0.01`$,
* the clumps have masses of $``$30 M, sizes of $``$0.1 pc, and temperatures $``$100 K.

It is now clear that the CND is interacting with the surrounding molecular clouds, but it is still a matter of debate where these connections are located (Zylka et al. 1990, Coil & Ho 1999 2000, Wright et al. 2001).

Krolik & Begelman (1988) constructed a clumpy disk model for AGNs where cloud–cloud collisions are responsible for the energy and momentum transport and thus for the viscosity. Shlosman et al. (1990) discussed the possibility of fueling an AGN by the means of a cloudy disk. Sanders (1998) investigated the accretion process in the Galactic Centre on the basis of ‘sticky particle’ calculations. He concluded that the gas features observed within 10 pc from the Galactic Centre can be understood in terms of tidal capture and disruption of gas clouds on low angular momentum orbits in a potential containing a point mass. The inner edge of the CND is explained by the formation of a ‘dispersion ring’, an asymmetric elliptical torus precessing counter to the direction of rotation. This feature can be maintained for many orbital periods. These calculations follow the orbital motions of 4000 particles, whereas the number of observed clouds in the CND is $``$500. Less clouds means less collisions and thus a lower viscosity (see e.g. Pringle 1981). This has influences on the way the dispersion ring forms.

In a previous article, we constructed a self-consistent model to describe the physical and kinematical state of the CND (Vollmer & Duschl 2001a). The gas clouds were described as isothermal spheres embedded in an Hii region. The disk structure formed by the clouds was described by a quasi standard continuous accretion disk using adequately averaged parameters of the discrete cloud model. We succeeded in reproducing observed quantities as the cloud mass, the cloud radius, the electron density at the cloud edge, the electron density of the Hii region, the emission measure, the disk height, and the dispersion velocity. A major result was that the collisional time scale for one cloud is several Myr. The isolated CND might thus be much longer lived than previously assumed (Güsten et al. 1987).

In Vollmer & Duschl (2001b) we pointed out a possibility to create the inner edge of the CND: as the clouds approach the Galactic Centre only those with densities high enough to resist tidal disruption can survive. At a certain distance from the Galactic Centre, the clouds with high enough densities to survive become too heavy and will fragment and/or collapse. This critical distance depends on the radiation field because it determines the radius of the clouds. Assuming realistic conditions for the Galactic Centre, we ended up with an inner edge at $``$2 pc.

The present article is devoted to the dynamics of the gas clouds in the CND. With the help of an improved numerical 3D collisional cloud model we investigate the collisional time scales of the CND, which is assumed not to interact with the surrounding molecular clouds. A more realistic way to model the Galactic Centre region is to include the molecular clouds, whose projected distances to the CND are small (see e.g. Mezger et al. 1989, Zylka et al. 1990). In the second part of this article we take this environment into account in our model and deduce more realistic collision rates for a gas clouds falling into the Galactic Centre with an already existing CND. A possible scenario for the star formation history in the Galactic Centre is presented.

## 2 The model

The numerical simulations must take into account that the CND consists of several hundred gas clouds. The present code treats each cloud as a point with a given mass and radius. The mass–radius relation for the clouds might be given by the virial theorem

$$r_{\mathrm{cl}}=0.478\times M_{\mathrm{cl}}[\mathrm{M}_{}]/T_{\mathrm{cl}}[\mathrm{K}]\mathrm{pc}$$
(1)
where $`r_{\mathrm{cl}}`$ is the cloud radius, $`M_{\mathrm{cl}}`$ the cloud mass, and $`T_{\mathrm{cl}}`$ the cloud temperature. The temperature distribution with respect to the distance from the Galactic Centre is assumed to be

$$T_{\mathrm{cl}}(R)=224/\sqrt{R[\mathrm{pc}]}\mathrm{K}$$
(2)
where $`R`$ is the distance of the cloud from the Galactic Centre. This distribution is consistent with the observed UV radiation field (Vollmer & Duschl 2001a) and the deduced gas temperature (see e.g. Güsten et al. 1987, Sutton et al. 1990). On the other hand, Vollmer & Duschl (2001a) have shown that the clouds in the CND have a constant radius $`r_{\mathrm{cl}}0.05`$ pc if one takes the ionization front due to the external UV radiation field into account. In the present study we use both mass–radius relations.

We follow the orbits of these clouds in the three dimensional gravitational potential. The radial distribution of the total enclosed mass $`M(R)`$ is given by

$$M(R)=M+M_0R^{\frac{5}{4}}$$
(3)
where $`M=\mathrm{3\hspace{0.17em}10}^6`$ M is the mass of the central black hole, and $`M_0=\mathrm{1.6\hspace{0.17em}10}^6`$ M/pc$`^{\frac{5}{4}}`$ describes the mass distribution of the stellar content. This is close to the findings of Eckart & Genzel (1996). When orbiting around the Galactic Centre, the clouds can have inelastic collisions. For the search of the next neighbour of a cloud a Barnes & Hut (1986) treecode is used. During these collisions clouds can exchange mass and larger clouds can grow through coalescence. The result of a collision can be one (coalescence), two (mass exchange), or many fragments (fragmentation). In our model, we limit the fragmentation case to a maximum of 3 fragments. Let the radius of the first cloud be $`r_1`$, that of the second cloud $`r_2`$. Let the impact parameter be $`b`$, the velocity of the fragment $`v_\mathrm{f}`$, and the escape velocity $`v_{\mathrm{esc}}`$. We follow the prescriptions of Wiegel (1994):

* for $`r_1r_2<b<r_1+r_2`$:
fragmentation
* for $`br_1r_2`$ and $`v_{\mathrm{esc}}>v_\mathrm{f}`$:
mass exchange
* for $`br_1r_2`$ and $`v_{\mathrm{esc}}v_\mathrm{f}`$:
coalescence

In order to avoid the production of large number of too small clumps ($`M<10`$ M), we treat a fragmentary collision, which would give rise to a cloud with $`M<10`$ M, as a mass–exchange collision in adding the mass of the potential third cloud to that of the lightest colliding clouds. This procedure ensures that the arising cloud mass spectrum has a maximum between 10 and 15 M.

The integration of the ordinary differential equation is done with the Burlisch-Stoer method (Stoer & Burlisch 1980) using a Richardson extrapolation and Stoermer’s rule. This method advances a vector of dependent variables $`y(x)`$ from a point $`x`$ to a point $`x+H`$ by a sequence of $`n`$ substeps. Thus, the initial timestep $`H`$ is divided subsequently into $`n`$=2, 3, 4, etc. substeps. At the end the solution of $`y(x+H)`$ is extrapolated and an error can be estimated. The size of the timestep is adaptive and linked to the estimated error of the extrapolation. This error is normalized by the values of the distance covered during the last timestep and the velocity of each particle. The error level for acceptance of the extrapolated solution is a free parameter and has to be adapted to the physical problem treated. For a relative error level $`\mathrm{\Delta }r_i/r_{\mathrm{norm}}=\mathrm{\Delta }v_i/v_{\mathrm{norm}}<0.1`$, where $`i`$=1, 2, 3, $`r_{\mathrm{norm}}=10^2`$ pc and $`v_{\mathrm{norm}}=\mathrm{5\hspace{0.17em}10}^2`$ km s-1 the Courant criterion is fulfilled for each timestep.

The collisions are evaluated at each timestep $`h=H/n`$ and only those, which appear for all sequences $`n`$, are taken into account. Therefore, the relative error level $`ϵ`$ is crucial for the value of the obtained collision rates. We adopt the strategy to chose the error level in a way to match the theoretical collision rates.

## 3 The normalization of the collision rate

With the fixed precision of the calculations it is possible to compare the model collision time for one cloud with the theoretical one:

$$t_{\mathrm{coll}}(n_{\mathrm{cl}}\sigma _{\mathrm{cl}}v_{\mathrm{cl}})^1$$
(4)
where $`n_{\mathrm{cl}}`$ is the local cloud density, $`\sigma _{\mathrm{cl}}=\pi r_{\mathrm{cl}}^2`$ the cross section of the cloud, and $`v_{\mathrm{cl}}`$ the cloud velocity. The comparison of the mean collision time for one cloud are made with the simplest spatial configuration, namely a spherical volume. The clouds are initially distributed uniformly in a sphere with a radius of 4 pc. The initial velocities are uniformly distributed between 20 km s-1 and 40 km s-1. The gravitational potential is due to the following mass distribution: $`M(R)=M_0R^{\frac{5}{4}}`$ with $`M_0`$ from Eq. (3). In order to check our numerics, we made one set of simulations where the potential collisions are counted, but not executed. In this case there is only negligible angular momentum transfer due to gravitational interactions between the clouds and the spatial distribution of the clouds stays approximately constant during the simulation.

The influence of the mass–radius relation on the collision rate is tested with two different relations:

* RUN1: $`r_{\mathrm{cl}}M_{\mathrm{cl}}\sqrt{R}`$. In this case the cloud temperature adjusts to the temperature given in Eq. (2). Since there is cloud heating due to cloud–cloud collisions, it is assumed that the dynamical time scale is much larger than the cooling time scale due to radiation.
* RUN2: $`r_{\mathrm{cl}}=\mathrm{const}.`$. In this case an external UV radiation field is assumed that creates an ionization front on the cloud surface which is directed to the Galactic Centre. The location of this ionization front does not depend on the clouds’ distance to the Galactic Centre (Vollmer & Duschl 2001a), i.e. the cloud radius is constant.

The ratio of the model mean collision time of one cloud and the theoretical one for RUN1 and RUN2 without executed collisions is shown in Fig. 1. The theoretical mean collision time is given by

$$t_{\mathrm{coll}}^{\mathrm{theo}}n_{\mathrm{cl}}\sigma _{\mathrm{cl}}v_{\mathrm{cl}}^1\left(n_{\mathrm{cl}}\sigma _{\mathrm{cl}}v_{\mathrm{cl}}\right)^1.$$
(5)
The ratio for both simulations stays constant over 100 Myr. It is $``$1 for RUN1 and $``$0.75 for RUN2. Thus, both simulations reproduce the theoretical collision time scale correctly within 25%. The difference between RUN1 and RUN2 lies in the density gradient of the cloud distribution. Clouds at the outskirts of the sphere are larger for RUN1. Therefore, the average theoretical collision time scale is smaller, and the ratio between the model and the theoretical collision time scales is larger. Since these clouds are located in a region with a low particle density and do not contribute much to the global model collision time scale, the ratio between the model and theoretical collision time scale is larger.

We then calculated another set of simulations with proceeding cloud–cloud collisions. As the system evolves, the angular momentum transport through these collisions, i.e. the viscosity, makes the particle density increase in the centre. The initial and the final stage of such a simulation is shown in Fig. 2.

The ratio between the model and theoretical mean collision time for RUN1 and RUN2 is shown in Fig. 3. The theoretical mean collision time is given by Eq. (5).

* RUN1: During 6 Myr the ratio between the model and theoretical collision time scales is $``$1. As the spatial cloud distribution changes to higher central densities, the number of collisions in the system is overestimated by Eq. (5), i.e. the collisional time scale is underestimated. This makes the ratio between the model and the theoretical collision time scale increase. The critical cloud density for this increase is $`n_{\mathrm{cl}}100`$ clouds/pc3.
* RUN2: We observe here the same trend as for RUN1. When the cloud distribution contracts, the number of collisions is theoretically underestimated. This effect also starts at a critical cloud density of $`n_{\mathrm{cl}}100`$ clouds/pc3.

We thus conclude that the mean collision time for one cloud, which is resulting from the model, reflects the real value or might underestimate it by $``$25% if the cloud distribution is not heavily concentrated.

## 4 CND simulations as an isolated structure

We have distributed 500 particles within a ring volume of constant height $`H`$=1 pc and an inner radius of $`R_{\mathrm{in}}`$=2 pc and an outer radius $`R_{\mathrm{out}}`$=7 pc. The initial velocities were Keplerian using a gravitational potential made by the mass distribution described in Eq. (3). A turbulent velocity of 20% of the Keplerian value was added in an arbitrary direction. The system evolved then freely in the gravitational potential of a point mass (the central black hole) and an extended mass distribution (the central star cluster). Vollmer & Duschl (2001b) have shown that the clouds, which approach the Galactic Centre, become tidally disrupted if they are not dense enough to resist. Those clouds with a high enough central density to be stable at a radius of $`R_{\mathrm{crit}}`$2 pc will collapse and/or fragment. In any case, no cloud can survive at radii closer than $`R_{\mathrm{crit}}`$. In our model we take this effect into account by removing clouds with $`R<R_{\mathrm{crit}}`$.

As in Sect. 3 we have made first a simulation counting the collisions without executing them. The cloud radius is $`r_{\mathrm{cl}}=const=0.05`$ pc. Fig. 4 shows different states of evolution of such a disk-like structure.

The timesteps are $`\mathrm{\Delta }t=16`$ Myr. The first plot shows the ring–like initial condition. After several Myr the disk reaches a state of equilibrium. The disk thickness at a distance of 5 pc is about 2 pc. The collisional time scale for one cloud is shown in Fig. 5.

It ranges between 2 and 3 Myr.

In the next step we have made two simulations with collisions using the two different mass–radius relations RUN1 and RUN2. Since the evolution of the spatial cloud distribution is quasi identical for RUN1 and RUN2, we show only that of RUN2 in Fig. 6.

The observed thickness of the CND, i.e. 0.5 pc at a distance of 2 pc and 1.5 pc at a distance of 5 pc from the Galactic Centre (Güsten et al. 1987) lies between those of the model with and without collisions. The initial mass distribution 18 M$`{}_{}{}^{}<M_{\mathrm{cl}}<38`$ M (Fig. 7 dotted line) smears out due to the inelastic collisions. The mass distribution after 10 Myr is plotted as a solid line in Fig. 7.

The maximum has shifted to smaller cloud masses and a high mass tail has been built. A part of these high mass clouds should have collapsed, but this mechanism is not included in our code.

The resulting evolution of the model mean collision time can be seen for the mass–radius relation RUN1 and RUN2 in Fig. 8.

We observe an increasing mean collision time for the mass-radius relation RUN1 (Fig. 8 left panel). This is, because the cloud distribution is shifted to smaller masses. Thus the clouds are smaller and the collision time scale, which is proportional to the square of the cloud radius, increases. For the case of a constant radius independent of the cloud mass (RUN2; Fig. 8 right panel) the collision rate increases, because the number of clouds and thus the cloud density increases.

Since the cloud density is always smaller than $`n_{\mathrm{crit}}`$ the results for the mean collision time scales is robust. The derived mean collision time scale for one cloud is of the order of 1–2 Myr.

In Vollmer & Duschl (2001a) we gave a mean collision time scale of $``$10 Myr. The factor 5 between both approaches can be understood in the light of the analytical model for turbulent, clumpy accretion disks (Vollmer & Beckert 2002). In this model, the viscosity is given as $`\nu =Re^1v_{\mathrm{turb}}l_{\mathrm{driv}}`$, where $`v_{\mathrm{turb}}`$ is the turbulent velocity dispersion and $`l_{\mathrm{driv}}`$ is the driving wavelength for the turbulence. From the analytical model it follows that $`l_{\mathrm{driv}}=H`$, where $`H`$ is the disk height. Thus one obtains $`\nu =Re^1v_{\mathrm{turb}}H`$. This viscosity prescription is also used in Vollmer & Duschl (2001a). The relation between the gas surface density $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and the mass accretion rate $`\dot{M}`$ of the disk is (see, e.g., Pringle 1981)

$$3\pi \nu \mathrm{\Sigma }=\dot{M}.$$
(6)
The collision time scale for one cloud is then $`t_{\mathrm{coll}}=Re\mathrm{\Omega }^1`$. In Vollmer & Duschl (2001a) we used $`Re=1000`$, whereas a Reynolds number of $`Re=20`$ has to be used in the framework of Vollmer & Beckert (2002), which is consistent with our dynamical results (Fig. 8). Vollmer & Duschl (2001a) assumed thus a relatively large Reynolds number. Consequently, they obtained a relatively large gas surface density (Eq. 6), i.e. a relatively large disk mass ($`M_{\mathrm{gas}}\mathrm{1.5\hspace{0.17em}10}^5`$ M), about a factor of 10 larger than that what we have used here.

## 5 Environmental effects

In the previous Sections we have treated the CND as an isolated structure. In reality this is not the case. Observation of molecular transitions (e.g. CO: Sutton et al. 1990; CO, CS: Serabyn et al. 1986, HCN: Coil & Ho 1999, 2000, Wright et al. 2001) and mm observations (e.g. Mezger et al. 1989, Dent et al. 1993) have shown that there are several molecular cloud complexes in the vicinity of the Galactic Centre. Sgr A East Core, a compact giant molecular cloud with a gas mass of several 105 M and the giant molecular clouds M-0.13-0.08 and M-0.02-0.07 form the Sgr A cloud complex. We will compare our simulations to the observational results of Zylka et al. (1990), because their distinction of different cloud complexes is made on kinematical grounds. They obtained the following results: M-0.13-0.08 has radial velocities in the range of $``$5–25km s-1, a total mass of $``$3 105 M and lies in front of the Galactic Centre. M-0.02-0.07 consists of two different features. (i) Sgr East Core with a mass of $``$2 105 M and (ii) a curved streamer of total mass $``$105 M and velocities between 25 and 65 km s-1, which lies also in front of the Galactic Centre. Thus, there is neutral gas with a mass of several 105 M, which is presumably located within the inner 50 pc around the Galactic Centre (see, however, von Linden et al. 1993). In addition, there are hints that they are kinematically connected to the CND.

### 5.1 Initial conditions

We let evolve a model of the CND as described above with 500 particles and a total mass of $``$1.5 104 M during 10 Myr. We then added a spherical mass distribution of 1000 particles, a total mass of 3 104 M, and a size of 10 pc at a distance of $``$30 pc. The initial values of the velocity of these clouds were 30% of the Keplerian value with an additional velocity dispersion of 20% of this value. Due to the sub-Keplerian velocity, the cloud falls into the Galactic Centre colliding with the CND. This initial configuration can be seen in Fig. 9.

We have made two different sets of simulations:
(i) a prograde encounter, i.e. the orbital angular momentum of the cloud is close to that of the disk;
(ii) a retrograde encounter, i.e. the orbital angular momentum of the cloud is opposite to that of the disk. Technically, this is realized in mirroring the $`z`$-axis for the disk clouds: $`z^i=z^i,v_z^i=v_z^i`$, where $`i`$ is the number of the cloud.

Furthermore, we varied the fraction of kinetic energy that is radiated away during a cloud–cloud collision. This has important influences on the collision and mass accretion rate of the system.

### 5.2 The model evolution

#### 5.2.1 Retrograde encounter

The evolution of a system with no loss of kinetic energy per collision can be seen in Fig. 10. The timestep is $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$=1.2 Myr.

The cloud hits the CND for the first time at $`t0.3`$ Myr. The second collision takes place at $`t0.8`$ Myr. The period of the orbit is $`t_{\mathrm{orb}}`$0.7 Myr. During its orbiting the cloud is stretched due to the tidal shear. The streamer becomes a filament of $``$40 pc within 1 Myr. As the cloud collides for the first time with the CND, the latter is heavily damaged and shows an azimuthally asymmetric cloud distribution. Meanwhile, a counter rotating streamer is building up at the outer part of the CND. After $``$3 Myr the CND becomes less and less prominent. After $``$2 Myr the streamer crosses itself for the first time and has a “brezel” form at $`t`$3 Myr. Later on, it begins to form a triangular feature. At the end of the simulation ($`t`$10 Myr), we observe this triangular feature containing a ring–like rotating structure extending from $``$5 to $``$10 pc and a counter rotating core (the former CND). The simulation with 10% energy loss per collision shows a more pronounced ring–like structure and a less prominent rotating core.

This evolution can be also described by the number of collisions and by the mass accretion rate. We define this mass accretion rate by the accumulated mass of clouds per timestep $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$, which have distances to the Galactic Centre less than 2 pc. This evolution is shown in Fig. 11 for four different energy loss rates per collision: 0%, 1%, 10%, and an energy loss that is proportional to the fraction of the clouds’ mass, which participates in the collision (Krolik & Begelman 1988).

The evolution of the mass accretion rate and the collision rate are similar for all energy loss rates. During the first collision at $`t`$0.4 Myr the total accreted mass is $`3000M_{}`$ within 0.1 Myr. Nevertheless, this is not the major accretion event. This happens between 2 and 3 Myr, when the tidally stretched cloud (streamer) is crossing itself. The total accreted mass in this second event is $``$104 M within 2 Myr. At later stages of the simulation the mass accretion rate decreases steadily having still some small peaks. The comparison with the collision rate shows that the first accretion event coincides with the the first collision of the cloud with the CND. The major event coincides with the second to fourth collisions and with the first crossing of the streamer with itself. The later and smaller accretion events coincide with later collisions between the streamer and the CND. The peak mass accretion rate at the beginning is $``$3 10-2 M yr-1 falling to several 10-4 M yr-1 after an elapsed time of 6 Myr. The peak of the major accretion event is $``$10-2 M yr-1 decreasing steadily until the end of the simulation.

The evolution of the simulation with 1% energy loss per collision is almost identical to that without energy loss. With an energy loss rate of 10% per collision the mass is accreted approximately 2 times faster than for the simulation without energy loss. After the first peak the mass accretion rate stays at a value $`>0.01`$ M yr-1. Then it decreases strongly from 2 to 5 Myr and rises again at 9 Myr. The collision rate shows the same behaviour. Clouds collide more frequently during 1 and 2 Myr as for the simulation without energy loss. At $`t=6`$ Myr the collision rate begins to rise from 4 10-4 yr-1 to 1.5 10-3 yr-1 at 9 Myr. This happens, because the cloud distribution of the infalling streamer symmetrizes and forms a second circumnuclear disk with a mass of $``$1.5 104 M.

#### 5.2.2 Prograde encounter

The evolution of the system with no loss of kinetic energy per collision can be seen in Fig. 12. The timestep is $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$=1.2 Myr.

In difference to the retrograde encounter, the CND is not damaged by the infalling cloud. During the evolution of the system the cloud–cloud collisions change the angular momentum of the CND and that of the infalling cloud. With no energy loss per collision this alignment is minimum, i.e. at the end of the simulations the majority of the CND clouds have still their initial angular momentum. We observe at the end of the simulations a triangular structure with an outer ring–like structure and the CND inside. Thus, one can still recognize two structure with different angular momenta. For the simulations with an energy loss greater than 5% the situation changes. At the end of the simulation there is only one kinematical entity, a new CND with an angular momentum between that of the CND and that of the infalling cloud. The evolution of the system is shown in Fig. 13 for 6 different energy loss rates per collision $`ϵ`$: 0%, 1%, 5%, 10%, 20%, and a mass dependent energy loss.

Whereas in the case of a retrograde encounter the general behaviour of the different quantities were the same for different energy loss rates, in the case of a prograde encounter these evolutions change dramatically for different energy loss rates. In the case of energy loss rates $`ϵ<`$1% the mass accretion rate shows two peaks of $`\dot{M}\mathrm{2\hspace{0.17em}10}^3`$ M yr-1. After a third small peak the mass accretion rate drops to zero. In the case of $`ϵ`$=5% there are also two peaks at the beginning followed by an increase between $`t`$2 Myr and 4 Myr ($`\dot{M}\mathrm{2\hspace{0.17em}10}^3`$ M yr-1) and decreases then slowly. For $`ϵ`$=10% there is a gap in the mass accretion rate after the first collision between the infalling cloud and the CND. At later timesteps the mass accretion rate stays almost constant at a value of $`\dot{M}\mathrm{2\hspace{0.17em}10}^3`$ M yr-1. The gap disappears for $`ϵ`$=20%. After a large first maximum between 0.5 and 1.5 Myr ($`\dot{M}\mathrm{7\hspace{0.17em}10}^3`$ M yr-1), the mass accretion rate has a minimum at $`t2.5`$ Myr, rises again to $`\mathrm{7\hspace{0.17em}10}^3`$ M yr-1 at $`t`$4 Myr and decreases again. In the case of a mass dependent energy loss the mass accretion rate decreases steadily from its initial maximum of $`10^2`$ M yr-1 to $`\dot{M}10^3`$ M yr-1 after 10 Myr.

The evolution of the collision rate also shows big differences for different energy loss rates $`ϵ`$. Whereas the peak ($`t_{\mathrm{coll}}^1\mathrm{2\hspace{0.17em}10}^3`$ yr-1) due to the first encounter between the infalling cloud and the CND is always there, the subsequent behaviours are markedly different. For $`ϵ`$=0% the collision rate begins to rise at $`t`$=3 Myr until $`t`$=6 Myr and then stays constant ($`t_{\mathrm{coll}}^1\mathrm{5\hspace{0.17em}10}^3`$ yr-1). For $`ϵ`$=5% the collision rate begins to rise at $`t`$1.5 Myr and stays constant between 3 and 10 Myr ($`t_{\mathrm{coll}}^1\mathrm{2\hspace{0.17em}10}^3`$ yr-1). For higher $`ϵ`$ the collision rate even decreases at $`t4`$ Myr.

## 6 Comparison with the Sgr A cloud complex

We have constructed a simple toy model in order to compare the observed Sgr A cloud complex (Zylka et al. 1990) to a snapshot of our simulation (for the observational interpretation see Sect. 5). The Sgr A Radio and GMC Complex observed at $`\lambda `$ 1.3 mm with the IRAM MRT (Mezger et al. 1989, Zylka et al. 1990), the synchrotron shell Sgr A East observed at $`\lambda `$ 6 cm with the VLA (Yusef-Zadeh & Morris, 1987), and 13CO(2-1) IRAM spectra (Mezger et al. 1996) are shown in Fig. 14. Since there seems to be at least two different kinematical features, we have added two snapshots of the tidally stretched cloud at two different times (0.6 Myr and 1.6 Myr) together with the CND. This has been done using a simulation with 5 times more clouds in order to have a particle resolution. The cloud cross sections were adapted to ensure the same mean collision time scale as for the simulation with 1500 clouds. We use a prograde simulation, because it fits best observed line–of–sight locations of the GMCs in the vicinity of the CND. At these early stages of evolution, the results do only marginally depend on the energy loss rate per collision $`ϵ`$. We therefore chose $`ϵ`$=0.

This composite snapshot can be seen in the left panel of Fig. 15. It should be stressed here that the aim of this comparison is not to reproduce each feature in detail but to make a generic picture of the Sgr A region. Therefore, it is not troublesome that the cloud in the east of the Galactic Centre is not as close as M-0.02-0.07. However, the CND and the streamer in south-north direction containing M-0.13-0.08 are nicely reproduced. The mass distribution in direction of the line of sight (LOS) is shown in the lower panel of Fig. 15. The streamer in south–north direction is located in front of the Galactic Centre as well as the eastern cloud.

The radial velocity field can be seen in Fig. 16. The velocities in the R.A.–Dec. plane are shown in Fig. 17. The streamer in south–north direction is thus approaching the Galactic Centre from the front crossing the northern part of the CND. The eastern cloud is near the apocenter of its elliptical orbit, the north-western part having already changed the sign of the radial velocity falling onto the CND from the front.

Zylka et al. (1998) show CS(3-2) spectral line data observed at the IRAM 30m Telescope covering the central 21$`{}_{}{}^{}\times 20^{}`$ with a spatial resolution of 17′′. Their galactic longitude–velocity and galactic latitude–velocity plots can be directly compared with our simulations. We therefore made plots of exactly the same slices in $`\mathrm{\Delta }l`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }b`$ respectively.

The galactic longitude–velocity plots of Zylka et al. (1998) are plotted in Fig. 18. The corresponding model diagrams can be seen in Fig. 19.

The main features of the CS(3–2) ($`v`$$`\mathrm{\Delta }l`$) plots are reproduced by the model. Obviously, the CS(3–2) intensity does not match the column density of the model plots. This might be due to the fact that the CS(3–2) emission depends on the physical condition out of which only one is the total column density. In Fig. 19(a) the streamer in south-north direction is clearly visible. Nevertheless it appears more prominent in the corresponding CS(3–2) plot (Fig. 18(a)). In Fig. 19(b) and (c) the CND is prominent. We miss the observed prominent cloud complex at positive velocities and positive longitudes almost completely. The eastern model streamer can be seen in in the upper right part of Fig. 19(a) and as an extension of the CND structure at positive velocities in Fig. 19(b). Both features have a counterpart in Fig. 18(a) and (b). In contrast, the feature at negative velocities in Fig. 19(d), which is due to the eastern part of the eastern streamer (Fig. 16), in Fig. 19(d) has no counterpart in Fig. 18(d). This implies that the observations might correspond to a slightly later timestep in the evolution of the eastern model cloud and/or that its orbital parameters might be slightly different from that of the observed cloud. Nevertheless, our eastern model cloud represents a valuable first approach in modelling M-0.02-0.07.

The galactic latitude–velocity plots of Zylka et al. (1998) are plotted in Fig. 20. The corresponding model diagrams can be seen in Fig. 21.

We succeed in reproducing the feature at negative latitudes and positive velocities (Fig. 21(e) and (f)), which is caused by the southern streamer. The model velocities are offset by $``$40 km s-1 from the observed ones in both diagrams. The eastern streamer, which can be seen at negative latitudes in Fig. 21(a) and (b) has only an observed counterpart in Fig. 20(b). This is due to the fact that the eastern model streamer is located more to the north than M-0.02-0.07. The additional CND features at negative latitudes and negative velocities (Fig. 21(c) and (d)) might indicate that the position angle of the CND might differ by some degrees between the model and the real CND.

## 7 Discussion

In this work we investigated the dynamical behaviour of the CND in the Galactic Centre. In a first step we treated an isolated ring–like structure which contains 500 clouds with a cloud mass of $``$30 M. Once in equilibrium, the disk shows the same height with respect to the radius as it is deduced from mm-observations (Güsten et al. 1987). We normalized the number of collisions per unit time with the help of a simple spherical cloud distribution. The resulting value for the CND simulation in equilibrium is $`t_{\mathrm{coll}}\mathrm{2\hspace{0.17em}10}^6`$ yr. Therefore, the isolated CND can be longer lived as it was thought before. This collision time scale implies a mass accretion rate of several 10-4 M yr-1. We conclude that the current mass accretion rate at pc scale ranges between 10-3 and 10-4 M yr-1 (the latter being the value for the isolated CND, see Vollmer & Duschl 2001a).

In a second step the environment of the CND was taken into account. We have constructed a dynamical model where a spherical cloud falls into the Galactic Centre onto a pre–existing CND. A retrograde and a prograde encounter were simulated with different kinetc energy loss rates $`ϵ`$ per collisions. In the case of a retrograde encounter the evolution of the mass accretion and cloud collision rate during the collision between the cloud and the CND are not very sensitive to $`ϵ`$. We observe a first maximum during $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$0.1 Myr followed a larger maximum ($`\mathrm{\Delta }t>`$1 Myr). In the case of a prograde encounter we observe dramatic changes in the behaviour of these quantities. For small energy loss rates per collision ($`ϵ`$2%) only $``$2 103 M are accreted within less than 2 Myr, whereas the collision rate increases by a factor of $``$5 between 2 and 5 Myr. For intermediate energy loss rates (5%$`ϵ`$10%) we observe an approximately constant mass accretion rate of $`\dot{M}\mathrm{3\hspace{0.17em}10}^3`$ M yr-1 with a gap ($`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$0.5 Myr) after the first encounter of the cloud with the CND. For $`ϵ`$=5% there is second broader gap ($`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$2 Myr) $``$1 Myr after the first collision of the cloud with the CND. The collision rate between the clouds stays constant ($`t_{\mathrm{coll}}^1\mathrm{3\hspace{0.17em}10}^3`$ yr-1) over the whole evolution. For $`ϵ`$20% the initial value of the mass accretion rate is more than a factor of 2 higher than for $`ϵ<`$20% and decreases steadily during the whole evolution. The collision rate shows a prominent peak when the cloud collides for the first time with the CND, drops then to $`t_{\mathrm{coll}}^110^3`$ yr-1 and varies by a small amount during the further evolution.

This strong dependence of the mass accretion and the collision rate on the energy loss rate per collision shows the importance of cooling mecanisms and the magnetic field, which both influence the energy loss rate. Whereas the Oi and Cii lines are the major contributors to radiative energy losses in the shock front during the collision, the magnetic field retains kinetic energy in the clouds. Following Krolik & Begelman (1988) the loss rate of kinetic energy during a cloud–cloud collision is given by $`ϵ=f\xi `$, where $`f`$ is the fraction of cloud’s mass participating in the collision and $`\xi `$ is the degree of inelasticity. Krolik & Begelman (1988) estimate $`f=0.2`$, which is in good agreement with our findings for the simulations with a mass dependent energy loss rate. The degree of inelasticity is given by

$$\xi =1\frac{1}{\sqrt{\beta }\frac{1}{2}},$$
(7)
where $``$ is the Mach number and $`\beta `$ is the ratio between gas and magnetic pressure. A Mach number $`20`$ and $`\beta 1`$ gives $`\xi =0.95`$. Only for $`\beta <0.1`$ more than 20% of the energy available in the collision is retained by the magnetic field. The strength of the magnetic field in the CND is about 1 mG (Yusef-Zadeh et al. 1996), the cloud densities are of the order 106 cm-3, and the gas temperature within the clouds is $``$150 K (Vollmer & Duschl 2001a). This leads to $`\beta `$ of the order of 1. Therefore, we conclude that magnetic fields might not play a preponderant rôle for the evolution of the CND as long as Eq. (7) holds.

Vollmer & Duschl (2001a) estimate the energy loss rate in the shock during the collisions to be $`ϵ=`$10%. Thus, most realistic simulations are those with $`ϵ`$=10–20% and a mass dependent energy loss rate (lower panels in Figs. 11 and 13). For $`ϵ>`$10% the evolutions of the mass accretion and cloud collision rates of a retrograde and a prograde encounter are very similar: there is a prominent peak after the first collision between the cloud and the CND followed by steady decrease. For $`ϵ=`$10% there are measurable differences between a retrograde and a prograde encounter (see Sect. 5.2).

In a further step we have constructed the observed features of the Sgr A cloud complex by adding two snapshots of our simulations. We can reproduce the observed topography in a satisfying way in the R.A.–Dec. plane and in galactic longitude/latitude–velocity planes. This means that the orbit of the recently infalling model cloud is prograde with respect to the CND and the gas motion in the galactic disk. The observed warp of the CND (Güsten et al. 1987) can be naturally explained by a former prograde encounter (see Sect. 5.2.2). Based on our model, there is the possibility that one of the streamers has already passed the Galactic Centre less than 0.5 Myr years ago. During this former interaction of a cloud and the CND a small starburst might have taken place at a distance of several pc from the Galactic Centre. Since the front end of the tidally stretched cloud and the front of the eastern streamer are just crossing the CND today, we should be able to find signs of a small current starburst in the CND. This might be the case for the observed Oi cloud (the Tongue, Jackson et al. 1993). In this case, the incoming streamer hits the CND at $``$3–5 pc. The clouds lose angular momentum due to collisions and are contracted. The so infalling perturbed clouds fragment, collapse, and form stars. These new ionizing O and B stars are still embedded in the part of the cloud from which they formed. Ott et al. (1999) found evidence for ongoing star formation in the Central Cavity. Especially, they identified stars embedded in extended dust clouds within the Minispiral. The UV radiation of the young hot stellar population can penetrate efficiently into the fragmented cloud. Therefore, the gas in this region is predominantly in atomic form and can not be observed in HCN.

The remaining question is: how and when did the Hei star cluster form? Genzel et al. (1996) found that the Hei stars are rotating in a direction opposite to that of Galactic rotation. If the star cluster was formed through an CND – molecular cloud interaction and if the stars’ angular momentum reflects that of their parent cloud, this would imply that the colliding cloud was on a retrograde orbit. Since we have argued that the energy mass loss rate $`ϵ`$10% the two last two rows of Fig. 11 are relevant. If we assume that star formation is triggered by cloud–cloud collisions, the majority of stars is formed during the first 2 Myr after the first collision between the cloud and the CND. Assuming a cloud mass of 30 M this leads to a total mass of colliding clouds of $``$6 104 M within 2 Myr. On the other hand, if the starburst produces stars with a given IMF, we can calculate the initial total gas mass needed to form the observed Hei stars. Assuming an initial mass function $`\mathrm{\Phi }=CM^2`$ with cut–offs at 0.2 M and 50 M and normalized by the observed Heii stars:

$$M_{\mathrm{tot}}^{\mathrm{HeII}}=_{10\mathrm{M}_{}}^{50\mathrm{M}_{}}\mathrm{\Phi }(m)dM=25\times M^{\mathrm{HeII}}500\mathrm{M}_{}$$
(8)
we deduce total stellar mass produced by the starburst of several 104 M. This would imply that 30–50% of the colliding gas mass is transformed into stars. Since the cloud orbit is retrograde with respect to the rotation of the CND, the colliding clouds lose efficiently angular momentum and thus fall into the Galactic Centre. Therefore, we expect that the stars are formed near the inner edge of the CND. They need $``$7 Myr to build a centrally peaked spatial distribution (Vollmer & Duschl 2001b). After this time the initial cloud has the appearance of several streamers (see Fig. 10 at $`t`$=7 Myr) and can not be recognized any more as one single cloud. Nevertheless, we can imagine that a part of Sgr A East Core could be identified as this remaining feature. In order to give an example for the dynamical behaviour of the system after 10 Myr we plot the velocity field of our simulation after this time (Fig. 22).

The mass distribution and the velocity field are complicated with one side approaching the observing and the other one receding. The position and inclination angle of the orbit of the infalling cloud might not be the one observed. Since it is difficult to separate really distinct kinematical features in the observations, the discussed model offers only one plausible explanation for the complicated kinematical structure of Sgr A East Core.

Our model still contains great simplifications concerning the physics of the cloud–cloud collisions (see Sect. 2). The effects of these collisions on the cloud population might change, for example, with a better knowledge of the detailed radiative magneto-hydrodynamics which is clearly needed.

The shortcomings concerning the large scale dynamics of our model can in principle be overcome by modifying the initial conditions for the infalling cloud. But, since the parameter space for these initial conditions is very large, it is not the aim of this work to reproduce each feature in great detail but to show general effects. Nevertheless, we can conclude that the Sgr A cloud complex consists of more than one dynamically independent feature.

For the distinction of the dynamically different features in the Sgr A cloud complex we followed Zylka et al. (1990) who made this distinction on observational grounds. It is still possible that interferences of these features exist. Only an analysis of a complete data cube of this region together with the model calculation can shed more light on this question.

## 8 Conclusions

We have made numerical simulations using a collisional N–body code where each particle has a given mass and radius. These clouds can have inelastic that are described schematically. We have first normalized the collision time scale in our code using a spherical configuration. Simulations of an isolated disk structure corresponding to the Circumnuclear Disk (CND) in the Galactic Centre yields a mean collision time scale of one cloud of $`t_{\mathrm{coll}}2`$ Myr and a mass accretion rate of $`10^4`$ M yr$`{}_{}{}^{1}\dot{M}10^3`$ M yr-1.

Since two giant molecular clouds (GMC) are located closer than 50 pc from the CND, we take in a second step this environment of the CND into account. We made simulations for a retrograde and a prograde encounter using different loss rates of kinetic energy during the collisions. We found that the influence of the energy loss rate on the mass accretion and cloud collision rates is strongest for a prograde encounter. We estimate the energy loss rate per collision of the clouds in the Galactic Centre to be of the order of 10–20% of the kinetic energy.

The direct comparison of a 1.2 mm maps and CS(3–2) position–velocity diagrams of a region containing the CND and the GMCs with a model snapshot shows that the GMCs are on a prograde orbit with respect to the rotation of the CND. A former prograde encounter of a infalling cloud with the CND can naturally explain its observed warp. Since both GMCs might begin to collide with the CND we expect small current star formation near the inner edge of the CND.

Within our scenario of an encounter between an infalling molecular cloud and a CND, we point out the possibility that the Heii star cluster has been formed by a retrograde encounter of a cloud with the CND $``$7 Myr ago. The cloud that formed the Heii star cluster has been destroyed by tidal forces and can presently no longer be distinguished as one single kinematical entity.


text:
# hep-th/0203249 Open Strings on Plane waves and their Yang-Mills duals

## 1. Introduction

Following the ideas in  we consider a limit of a particular large $`N`$ gauge theory where we can see both closed and open strings arising in the large $`N`$ limit. These closed and open strings move in a ten dimensional space, though the ends of the open strings move on a D7 brane located at an orientifold sevenplane. The limit is the same as the one considered in . In  only closed strings were obtained since the Yang Mills theory contained only fields in the adjoint representation. The theory we consider here is an $`𝒩=2`$ $`Sp(N)`$ gauge theory with a hypermultiplet in the antisymmetric representation and four fundamental hypermultiplets. Since there are fields in the fundamental we will now have open strings in the ’t Hooft limit . This theory is dual to string theory on $`AdS_5\times S^5/Z_2`$, where the $`Z_2`$ is an orientifold action . Here we consider the limit of large ’t Hooft coupling, we pick a $`U(1)`$ generator, $`J`$, inside the symmetry group of the theory and we consider operators that carry large charge under $`J`$ but have a conformal dimension close to $`J`$, i.e. $`\mathrm{\Delta }J`$ is small. We consider such operators at weak ’t Hooft coupling and we identify some operators that get small corrections to their dimensions which start looking like strings propagating on an orientifold of the maximally supersymmetric plane wave background . We have closed strings that arise from single trace gauge invariant operators as in $`𝒩=4`$ SYM and open strings that arise from gauge invariant operators with two quarks at the ends. We extrapolate these results naively to strong coupling where they produce open and closed strings moving in an orientifold background. The orientifold projection is automatically obeyed by the gauge invariant operators. The operators corresponding to open strings are such that these open strings obey the appropriate boundary conditions.

In section 2 we consider string theory in the background of the orientifolded pp wave, in section 3 we look at the field theory corresponding to the D3-D7-O(7) system. In section 4 we identify the string theory spectrum in the plane wave limit, with the gauge invariant operators. We then analyze the calculation of the anomalous dimension of operators, derive the string bit hamiltonian and argue that we obtain the right boundary conditions for the open string.

Other papers describing orbifolds of $`𝒩=4`$ gauge theories and their corresponding plane wave limits include . Other aspects of plane waves were recently explored in .

## 2. The orientifold of a plane wave

We will consider the $`O(7)`$ orientifold projection with vanishing tadpoles of the pp-wave solution of 10d IIB supergravity found in . An $`O(7)`$ plane carries $`4`$ units of D-7-brane charge, so add 4 $`D7`$ branes to cancel the charge locally. This produces a gauge group $`SO(8)`$ on the worldvolume of the D-7-branes .

We want to take this orientifold of the pp-wave background. We have directions $`x^\pm `$, and $`y_{1,\mathrm{}6}`$ and the two extra directions $`y_{7,8}`$. The orientifold acts by sending $`y_{7,8}y_{7,8}`$, and leaves all other coordinates fixed. This breaks half of the 32 supersymmetries.

The metric is

$$ds^2=4dx^+dx^{}\mu ^2y^2(dx^+)^2+(dy^2)$$
(2.1)
$$F_{+1234}=F_{+5678}=\mu $$
(2.2)
The fixed point set of the orientifold is at $`y_{7,8}=0`$. Notice that the orientifold is parallel to the lightcone directions, so that we can take lightcone gauge and quantize the strings in this background. The quantization of the string theory on the pp wave in light cone gauge was done in . Once we choose light cone gauge the orientifold projection will act as a projection on the Hilbert space of the light cone gauge theory.

Let us first consider the closed string sector. Before the projection the light cone action reduced to a set of eight massive bosonic oscillators on a circle. We denote the corresponding creation and annihilation operators by $`a_n^i`$, $`a_n^i`$ where $`n`$ denotes the momentum of the oscillator along the circle. Similarly we have eight massive fermions. All bosons and fermions have the same mass. We denote the fermionic annihilation and creation operators by $`b_n^a`$ and $`b_n^a`$ respectively. The index $`a`$ runs over the $`(+,+)`$ and $`()`$ spinor representations of $`SO(4)\times SO(4)`$ where $`\pm `$ denotes the chirality under each $`SO(4)`$. The orientifold leaves the closed string ground state invariant and it acts in the following way on the oscillators

$$a_n^ia_n^ii=1,\mathrm{}6,a_n^{7,8}a_n^{7,8},b_ni\mathrm{\Gamma }^{56}b_n$$
(2.3)
Note that on the Green Schwarz light cone fermions the orientifold acts as $`S_L\mathrm{\Gamma }^{78}S_R`$, where $`S_L`$ and $`S_R`$ are real left and right world sheet chirality fermions in definite chirality $`SO(8)`$ spinor representation (Here and in the following $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{78}`$ for example denotes $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_7\mathrm{\Gamma }_8`$). However due to the fact that the mass term is of the form $`S_L\mathrm{\Gamma }^{5678}S_R`$ we find that on the fermion creation operators $`b_n^a`$ the orientifold action is indeed as indicated in (2.3). So we see the usual statement that the orientifold reverses the direction of the string and it multiplies the $`y_{7,8}`$ oscillators by $`1`$. If we only consider zero momentum oscillators ($`n=0`$) then the orientifold projection requires that we have an even number of $`a_0^{7,8}`$ oscillators. We also have to remember to impose the $`L_0\overline{L}_0`$ condition on the states. The orientifold condition (2.3) acting on the zero momentum fermions ($`n=0`$) multiplies four of them by $`1`$ and leaves the other four invariant. The four that are left invariant are associated to supersymmetries that act nonlinearly on the light cone gauge Hilbert space.

Now let us consider the open strings. For these strings, the oscillators in the $`y_{1\mathrm{}6}`$ directions have Neumann boundary conditions, while the oscillators transverse to the orientifold, $`y^{7,8}`$, have Dirichlet boundary conditions. The fermions obey a boundary condition of the form $`S_L=\mathrm{\Gamma }^{78}S_R`$. This boundary condition leaves only 8 (real components) of the massive fermion zero momentum modes $`n=0`$. These split into 4 creation and 4 annihilation operators (here by creation operators we mean operators that increase the light cone energy). Again due to the specific form of the mass term we find that:

i) all the creation operators carry charge $`1/2`$ with respect to $`SO(2)_{56}`$ acting on $`56`$ directions, while all the annihilation operators carry charge $`+1/2`$.

ii) as a result, the ground state (i.e. lowest energy state) carries $`SO(2)_{56}`$ charge $`+1`$.

iii) due to the unbalanced number of zero modes, four fermions and six bosons, the open string ground state energy is $`p^{}=\mu `$ where $`\mu `$ is the mass of the oscillators. All non-zero momentum oscillators $`(n0)`$ come in equal numbers of bosons and fermions so that their contribution to the ground state energy cancels.

These facts will be important for us in the following when we identify these states with the gauge invariant operators.

The action of these four creation operators generates the vector supermultiplet of theories of 16 supercharges. As usual, the open string ground state is odd under the projection  which implies that the Chan-Paton indices are anti-symmetric and therefore are in the adjoint of $`SO(8)`$. We can find all open string states by keeping states invariant under the orientifold projection. One way to think about it is to say that we can form any state with the oscillators and then we arrange the SO(8) indices into a symmetric or anti-symmetric representation to obey the orientifold condition.

In appendix A, we give a more detailed proof of the above statements.

### II-A. The orientifolded plane wave as a limit of $`AdS_5\times S^5/Z_2`$.

We write the metric of $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ metric as

$$ds^2=R^2(\mathrm{cosh}^2\rho dt^2+d\rho ^2+\mathrm{sinh}^2\rho d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2+\mathrm{cos}^2\theta d\psi ^2+d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2)$$
(2.4)
where the second $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2`$ on $`S^3`$ which is part of $`S^5`$ is explicitly given as

$$d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2=\mathrm{cos}^2\theta ^{}d\psi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+d\theta _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta ^{}d\varphi ^2$$
(2.5)
The $`Z_2`$ action which combines with the orientifold projection is $`\psi ^{}\psi ^{}+\pi `$. In these coordinates the D7 branes sit at $`\theta ^{}=\pi /2`$.

We can now take the suitable limits to go to the pp wave solutions exactly as in . This is a Penrose limit. The Penrose limit consists in looking at the neighborhood of a lightlike geodesic. If the geodesic does not intersect the orientifold plane we get the maximally supersymmetric type IIB plane wave . It is more interesting to consider a geodesic that lies on the orientifold plane, in this way we will retain the orientifold plane as we take the limit. For this purpose we consider the case where we boost along $`\psi `$.

We define

$$\rho =r/R,\theta =y/R,x^+=\frac{(t+\psi )}{2},x^{}=R^2\frac{t\psi }{2}$$
(2.6)
and we take the limit $`R\mathrm{}`$. The metric then becomes (2.1) with $`\mu =1`$. In these units we find that

$$p_{}=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }+J}{R^2},p_+=\mathrm{\Delta }J$$
(2.7)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the energy conjugate to $`t`$ translations and $`J`$ is conjugate to translations in $`\psi `$. $`p_+`$ is equal to the light cone hamiltonian.

The $`S_3`$ (at $`\theta ^{}=\pi /2`$) in $`S^5`$ where the orientifold is lying has a symmetry $`SO(4)=SU(2)_R\times SU(2)_L`$, we can define

$$J=J_{SU(2)_R}^3+J_{SU(2)_L}^3,J^{}=J_{SU(2)_R}^3J_{SU(2)_L}^3$$
(2.8)
In terms of the coordinates in the metric (2.1) we see that $`J^{}`$ performs rotations in the $`y^{5,6}`$ plane, while $`J`$ is the one appering in (2.6)

## 3.  The gauge theory

Consider a theory where we have $`N`$ $`D3`$ branes parallel to the $`O(7)`$ plane. The $`D3`$ branes have a gauge group $`Sp(N)`$. $`N`$ denotes the number of D3 branes after we do the orientifold (i.e. in the covering space we have $`2N`$ D3 branes). We consider the low energy limit where we decouple the gauge theory living on the D3 branes from the rest. The $`SO(8)`$ gauge symmetry of the D7 branes becomes a global symmetry of the theory on the D3 branes.

The theory on the $`D3`$ branes is an $`𝒩=2`$ theory, with a hypermultiplet in the antisymmetric representation of $`Sp(N)`$. These antisymmetric representations describe the motion of the D3 brane along the directions of the D7 brane. We will split them into two chiral fields $`Z,Z^{}`$. The scalar superpartner of the gauge field will be called $`W`$, it describes motions of the branes in the direction transverse to the orientifold. It can be shown that the theory of the D3-branes at the origin in moduli space is conformal . We also have the $`D3D7`$ strings, which are in the fundamental representation of $`Sp(N)`$. These are four hypermultiplets in the fundamental, which we label in chiral language by $`q_i,\stackrel{~}{q}_i`$. Since this representation is real the global symmetry group is $`SO(8)`$, as expected also from the fact that this is the gauge group of the D7 theory. This theory has a $`U(1)\times SU(2)_R`$ R-symmetry and also a $`SU(2)_L\times SO(8)`$ global symmetry. The chiral fields $`Z,Z^{}`$ are doublets of $`SU(2)_L`$, they have zero charge under $`U(1)`$, and they, together with their complex conjugates, form a doublet of $`SU(2)_R`$. The field $`W`$ is a singlet of both $`SU(2)`$ symmetries and carries charge 1 under $`U(1)`$. Finally the fields $`q,\stackrel{~}{q}`$ carry zero $`U(1)`$ charge, are singlets under $`SU(2)_L`$ and together with their complex conjugates they form a doublet of $`SU(2)_R`$. Remembering the definition of the charge $`J`$ (2.8) we find that $`Z`$ has $`J=1`$ and $`Z^{}`$ has $`J=0`$. We also find that $`q^i,\stackrel{~}{q}^i`$ have $`J=1/2`$.

We also have the relations $`p_+=\mathrm{\Delta }J`$ and $`p_{}(\mathrm{\Delta }+J)/R^2`$, where $`R^2`$ is the curvature radius of $`AdS`$ in string units. In summary, we consider the limit of large ’t Hooft coupling and we consider operators with large charge $`J`$ (with $`J/R^2J/(g_{YM}^2N)^{1/2}`$ fixed), and small values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }J`$.

The superpotential of the theory is given by $`𝒩=2`$ SUSY. In $`𝒩=1`$ language it reads(up to normalizations of the fields)

$$𝒲(W_{ab}q_i^a\stackrel{~}{q}_i^b+W_{ab}\mathrm{\Omega }^{bc}Z_{cd}\mathrm{\Omega }^{de}Z_{ef}^{}\mathrm{\Omega }^{fa})$$
(3.1)
The F-terms are given by

$`F_{\stackrel{~}{q}}=Wq,F_q=W\stackrel{~}{q}`$ (3.2)
$`F_{Z^{}ad}=W_{ab}\mathrm{\Omega }^{bc}Z_{cd}`$ $``$ $`(ad)`$ (3.3)
$`F_{Zad}=W_{ab}\mathrm{\Omega }^{bc}Z_{cd}^{}`$ $``$ $`(ad)`$ (3.4)
$`F_{Wcb}=Z_{cd}\mathrm{\Omega }^{da}Z_{ab}^{}`$ $`+`$ $`(bc)+(q\stackrel{~}{q})_{(cb)}`$ (3.5)
The action written in terms of components has a potential which is given by the square of the $`F`$ terms plus the square of the $`D`$ terms.

A chiral operator with angular momentum $`J`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }J=0`$ is given by

$$(Z_{ab}\mathrm{\Omega }^{bc})^J=\mathrm{tr}[(Z\mathrm{\Omega })^J]$$
(3.6)
we need the invariant tensor $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ of $`Sp(N)`$ to raise one of the indices so that we can use matrix multiplication. The indices range from 1 to $`2N`$. This will be identified with the closed string ground state with $`p_{}=2J/R^2`$.

There are other protected BPS operators, or elements of the chiral ring, (see ) whose quantum numbers are those of

$$\mathrm{tr}\left((Z\mathrm{\Omega })^J(Z^{}\mathrm{\Omega })^{l_1}(W\mathrm{\Omega })^{2l_2}\right)$$
(3.7)
More precisely, we have to symmetrize over the positions of $`Z^{}\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and of the $`W\mathrm{\Omega }`$ insertions. The reason is that, as usual, any operator proportional to $`𝒲=0`$ (the $`F`$ terms in (3.2)) is not a primary operator. The $`F_Z=0`$ and $`F_Z^{}=0`$ equations tell us that $`W\mathrm{\Omega }`$ can be commuted freely past $`Z\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`Z^{}\mathrm{\Omega }`$, and the $`F_W=0`$ equation that $`Z^{}\mathrm{\Omega }`$ can be commuted past $`Z\mathrm{\Omega }`$ 111the commutator is a $`q\stackrel{~}{q}`$ which splits the single trace into 2 traces, this is subleading in $`1/N`$ but it seems to be important for interactions involving open strings.. So the operator is actually

$$\underset{i_1,\mathrm{}i_{l_1};j_1,\mathrm{},j_{l_2}=1}{\overset{J}{}}\mathrm{tr}((Z\mathrm{\Omega })^{i_1}(Z^{}\mathrm{\Omega })(Z\mathrm{\Omega })^{j_1i_1}(W\mathrm{\Omega })\mathrm{}.(W\mathrm{\Omega })^{j_{l_2}}(Z\mathrm{\Omega })^{Jj_{l_2}})$$
(3.8)
Now $`l_2`$ should be even since $`Z`$ and $`Z^{}`$ are antisymmetric matrices, whereas $`W`$ is a symmetric matrix, thus the symmetrized sum $`\left((Z\mathrm{\Omega })^J(Z^{}\mathrm{\Omega })^{l_1}(W\mathrm{\Omega })^s\right)`$ is a symmetric matrix if s is even, and therefore gives 0 when it multiplies another $`W\mathrm{\Omega }`$. This implies that we have an even number of $`W`$.

We can also have elements of the chiral ring with the same quantum numbers as the operator

$$Q_i\mathrm{\Omega }(Z\mathrm{\Omega })^J(Z^{}\mathrm{\Omega })^lQ_j$$
(3.9)
where $`Q_i`$ $`i=1,\mathrm{},8`$ is any of $`q^l,\stackrel{~}{q}^l`$. The F-terms imply that we should again symmetrize (sum) over all possible positions of the $`Z^{}\mathrm{\Omega }`$ insertions and then the operator

$$\underset{k_1,\mathrm{}k_l=1}{\overset{J}{}}Q_i\mathrm{\Omega }(Z\mathrm{\Omega })^{k_1}(Z^{}\mathrm{\Omega })\mathrm{}(Z^{}\mathrm{\Omega })^{k_l}(Z\mathrm{\Omega })^{Jk_l}Q_j$$
(3.10)
is antisymmetric in $`i,j`$. These represent the massless open strings at the orientifold fixed point

We cannot have elements of the chiral ring where we insert $`W`$ and $`Q`$ simultaneously, because using the F-terms we can commute the $`W`$ past anything else so that it lies adjacent to $`Q`$, and then the operator vanishes when we impose that the $`F_q`$, $`F_{\stackrel{~}{q}}`$ are zero. In other words, $`F_Z=0`$, $`F_Z^{}=0`$ tell us that we should sum over the positions of the $`W\mathrm{\Omega }`$ insertions with equal weight, and $`F_q=0`$, $`F_{\stackrel{~}{q}}=0`$ tell us that the weight at the endpoints should be zero .

## 4. The string bit hamiltonian

We now discuss the operators corresponding to the string states that we found above.

The closed and open string ground states are identified as the operators

$$\mathrm{tr}((Z\mathrm{\Omega })^J)$$
(4.1)
$$Q_i\mathrm{\Omega }(Z\mathrm{\Omega })^JQ_j$$
(4.2)
Note that $`\mathrm{\Delta }J=0`$ for (4.1), while $`\mathrm{\Delta }J=1`$ for (4.2) since $`\mathrm{\Delta }J=1/2`$ for $`Q_i`$. This is in precise agreement with the non-vanishing ground state energy that we found for open strings above. Furthermore, since $`Q`$ is $`SU(2)_R`$ doublet, it follows that the operator (4.2) carries $`J^{}=+1`$, which agrees with what we found for the open string vacuum. Replacing the operators $`Q_jQ_i`$ does not produce a new state, but just a minus sign. This follows because $`\mathrm{\Omega }(Z\mathrm{\Omega })^J`$ is antisymmetric, and so the $`i,j`$ indices are in the adjoint of SO(8). Of course this had to work since it is a rephrasing of the comparison done in .

In analogy with the discussion in  we associate each oscillator on the string with the insertion of an operator with $`\mathrm{\Delta }J=1`$ along the “string of $`\mathrm{\Omega }Z`$s” that we have in (4.1, 4.2). The first four $`y^i`$ oscillators are associated to the insertion of a derivative, as in . $`y^{5,6}`$ are related to the insertion of $`Z^{}`$ or $`\overline{Z^{}}`$. The $`y^{7,8}`$ oscillators are related to the insertion of $`W`$ and $`\overline{W}`$ in the operator. We can also insert the fermion operators with $`\mathrm{\Delta }J=1`$. We have the fermions in the vector multiplet and also the fermions in the antisymmetric representation which are in a hypermultiplet. Once we have chosen the components with $`J=1/2`$ these two types of fermions are distinguished by their $`J^{}`$ eigenvalue. On the string Hilbert space these two correspond to the two possible eigenvalues of $`i\mathrm{\Gamma }^{56}`$ on $`b_n^a`$. Then the string states are obtained by summing over all possible positions inside the trace of the insertions of $`_iZ,Z^{},\overline{Z}^{},W,\overline{W}`$ and fermions with $`J=1/2`$. We can act with these on either the closed string ground state, or the open string ground state. We have seen that if we only act with zero momentum modes (corresponding to elements of the chiral ring), we can only act with an even number of $`a_0^{7,8}`$’s (corresponding to $`W,\overline{W}`$ insertions) on the closed string ground state, and with no $`a_0^{7,8}`$’s on the open string ground state. Similarly the fermion zero mode creation operators in open string come with $`J^{}=1/2`$ which translates into the gauge theory statement that the chiral ring involves only the insertion of anti-symmetric fermion and not the adjoint ones. That is as it should be, from the orientifold projection. Once we include nonzero momentum oscillators, we can act with any number of $`a_n^{7,8}`$’s.

To construct nonzero modes we need to add momentum on the worldsheet, and the momentum $`n`$ is related to a phase proportional to the $`J`$ charge to the left of the operator, as in . Let us see how the orientifold projection arises for them. Any state that does not obey the orientifold projection is automatically zero once we take into account the symmetry or anti-symmetry of the various indices of the operators. The action of the orientifold is essentially taking the transpose of the operator. For example, we can consider the operator

$$\underset{l}{}e^{\frac{i2\pi ln}{J}}Tr\left[W\mathrm{\Omega }(Z\mathrm{\Omega })^lZ^{}\mathrm{\Omega }(Z\mathrm{\Omega })^{Jl}\right]$$
(4.3)
We can think of this state as $`a_n^{7+i8}a_n^{5+i6}|0,p_{}_{l.c.}`$. Under the orientifold action this state is mapped to $`a_n^{7+i8}a_n^{5+i6}|0,p_{}_{l.c.}`$. So the surviving state is the combination $`(a_n^{7+i8}a_n^{5+i6}a_n^{7+i8}a_n^{5+i6})|0,p_{}_{l.c.}`$. Now we would like to prove that the operator (4.3) can be interpreted as containing both terms in precisely this combination. To see this we can take the transpose of (4.3). We get a minus sign from the transpose of $`W`$. And we easily see that we effectively change the momentum from $`nn`$. So we see that we indeed have the precise combination we have in the lightcone after performing the orientifold. The two possible $`J=1/2`$ fermions, the one coming from the vector multiplet and the one from the antisymmetric hypermultiplet, get a relative minus sign when we take the transpose. As we said above these two fermions are distinguished by their eigenvalue of $`J^{}`$. This is related to the fact that under the orientifold projection the fermions on the string worldsheet get a sign proportional to their $`J^{}`$ eigenvalue.

The $`L_0\overline{L}_0`$ condition is imposed by the cyclicity of the trace as in .

The large N Feynman diagrams of this theory are similar to the SU(N) theory except that the double lines that represent particles do not have oriented edges. They have unoriented edges. This implies that that we can build non-orientable surfaces, etc. When we twist a field in the symmetric or anti-symmetric representations we get different minus signs .

In our case we will be interested only in planar diagrams. So the only difference with SU(N) will be in the labeling of states, as we discussed above. The gauge invariant states automatically implement the orientifold projection.

The derivation of the string hamiltonian is completely parallel to what we discussed in . Here we just note that there is a simple way of doing the computation if we keep track of what terms in the bosonic potential come from the F terms and which from the D terms.

Then it becomes rather simple to compute the conformal dimension of an operator of the form

$$\underset{l}{}e^{\frac{i2\pi nl}{J}}Tr[\mathrm{}Z\mathrm{\Omega }(Z^{}\mathrm{\Omega })(Z\mathrm{\Omega })^{Jl}]$$
(4.4)
which contains only chiral fields but with an extra phase for the field $`Z^{}`$. These are holomorphic operators. Then we know that when the phases are zero, all diagrams that contribute to the anomalous dimension vanish. In this case diagrams coming from the $`F`$ terms cancel by themselves, while the ones coming from photons, D-terms and self energy corrections of each individual propagator, cancel each other (see figure 1 ). These latter diagrams do not change the position of the fields, so they will also cancel when we include phases.

So the total anomalous dimension comes from the diagrams involving $`F`$ terms (see figure 2). These diagrams exchange the position of two fields and give a result that depends on the phases. Since the $`F`$ terms contain commutators we see that the diagrams in figure 2 correctly contain the relative $`(1)`$ signs between the terms that exchange position relative to the ones that do not exchange position. This is why the contributions to the anomalous dimensions gives terms that involve $`(Z_i^{}Z_{i+1}^{})^2`$ in the effective action of the string.

Now let us discuss the open strings in more detail. The bulk of the open string is the same as the bulk of the closed string. New aspects arise when an excitation aproaches the boundary. We need to understand the origin of the Dirichlet and Neuman boundary conditions. In principle, when we insert excitations with some phases we can put phases that mimic any boundary condition. So we need to understand the first order correction to the Hamiltonian. If we insert a field $`Z^{}`$ at position $`k`$ along the “open string of $`Z`$” in (4.2) we find an effective Hamiltonian of the form

$$\underset{k}{}g_{YM}^2N(b_k+b_k^{}(b_{k1}b_{k1}^{}))^2+b_kb_k^{}$$
(4.5)
We are interested in the term proportional to $`g^2N`$. This is a quadratic form which is proportional to the following matrix

$$M=\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}1& 1& 0& 0& \mathrm{}\\ 1& 2& 1& 0& \mathrm{}\\ 0& 1& 2& 1& \mathrm{}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ 0& \mathrm{}& 0& 1& 1\end{array}\right)$$
(4.6)
and it is a discretized version of the second derivative. Here the only thing to notice are the terms at the upper left and bottom right corner of the matrices which come from examining the potential terms coming from $`F`$ terms in (3.2). We want to write the theory in terms of normal modes, so we want to write it in terms of eigenvectors of the above matrix. It is a standard exercise in coupled harmonic oscillators to show that the eigenvectors of the above matrix have the form $`\mathrm{cos}\pi nk/J`$. So that we effectively have Neumann boundary conditions. One can also see this explicitly by looking at the first component of the eigenvalue problem for $`M`$, $`(M\lambda )v=0`$. This takes the form $`v^1v^2=\lambda v^1`$, since the eigenvalue will be proportional to $`1/J^2`$ in the limit of large $`J`$ we see that this reduces to $`_\sigma vv(0)/J0`$ in the large $`J`$ limit.

Similarly we can consider an insertion of a $`W`$ field along the “open string of $`Z`$s” (4.2). Now the matrix to be diagonalized has the form

$$W=\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}2& 1& 0& 0& \mathrm{}\\ 1& 2& 1& 0& \mathrm{}\\ 0& 1& 2& 1& \mathrm{}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ 0& \mathrm{}& 0& 1& 2\end{array}\right)$$
(4.7)
where the only difference with the previous one is the factor of $`2`$ in the lower right and upper left corners of $`W`$. This arises because there is an extra potential term coming from the $`|F_q|^2`$ terms in the bosonic potential. Again it can be seen that we recover the Dirichlet boundary condition. One can see this by looking at the first equation for an eigenvector $`v^k`$ of eigenvalue $`\lambda `$. This becomes $`v(0)_\sigma v/J\lambda v(0)`$ which becomes $`v(0)=0`$ in the $`J\mathrm{}`$ limit.

In summary, we see that open strings obey the appropriate boundary conditions. These boundary conditions depend on the form of the interactions in the gauge theory.

## 5. Conclusions

In this paper we have considered the dual pair of $`𝒩=2`$ superconformal $`Sp(N)`$ gauge theory and the string theory in the near horizon geometry $`AdS_5\times S^5/Z_2`$ in the Penrose limit. In particular for the Penrose limit which includes the D7 branes, string theory has open string sectors. Following the proposal of  we compare a class of gauge invariant operators in the gauge theory with the oscillator states of the string theory, both in the unoriented closed and open string sectors. In particular, we find that the operators which are bilinear in the fundamental hypermultiplets are dual to open string states. By studying the eigenvectors of the string bit hamiltonian we find the Dirichlet and Neumann boundary conditions at the level of gauge invariant operators.

A natural extension of this paper is to consider open strings ending on baryons. The BPS sector of those open strings was considered in . If we consider a baryon or a giant graviton with $`J=N`$ which are represented by D3 branes on $`S^5`$ and we take the Penrose limit along a geodesic on the D3 then we find a plane wave with a D3 along $`x^\pm `$ and two of the transverse coordinates. In this case we expect that the open string spectrum is given again by putting oscillators with phases on the open strings discussed in . We plan to study this further.

Acknowledgements

This research was supported in part by DOE grants DE-FGO2-91ER40654, DE-FG02-90ER40542 and by the EEC contract SCI-CT920792

Appendix A: String spectrum on the orientifold of a plane wave

In this appendix we discuss in more detail some aspects of the string spectrum on the orientifolded plane wave.

Closed strings

Let us recall the basic facts. In the light cone gauge $`x^+=p^+\tau `$, the 8 transverse bosonic and Green-Schwarz fermionic coordinates become massive. The mode expansion for the light cone variables are :

$`x^I(\sigma ,\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\omega _n}}}(e^{i\omega _n\tau +in\sigma }a_n^Ie^{i\omega _n\tau in\sigma }(a_n^I)^{})`$
$`\theta ^1(\sigma ,\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`[e^{i\mu p^+\tau }b_0{\displaystyle \underset{n>0}{}}c_ne^{i\omega _n\tau }(e^{in\sigma }b_n+{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _nn}{\mu p^+}}e^{in\sigma }b_n)]+c.c.`$
$`\theta ^2(\sigma ,\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`[e^{i\mu p^+\tau }i\mathrm{\Pi }b_0i\mathrm{\Pi }{\displaystyle \underset{n>0}{}}c_ne^{i\omega _n\tau }(e^{in\sigma }b_n{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _nn}{\mu p^+}}e^{in\sigma }b_n)]+c.c.`$ (A.1)
where

$$\omega _n=\sqrt{n^2+(\mu p^+)^2},$$
(A.2)
$`c_n`$ are some normalization constants which we shall not need here and $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ is the reflection operator $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{5678}`$ along 4 directions $`x^5,..,x^8`$. This can be compared with eqs.(2.5-2.7) of , by the substitution $`(a_n^I)^{}=\sqrt{\frac{\omega _n}{2}}\alpha _n^{1I}`$ and $`(a_n^I)^{}=\sqrt{\frac{\omega _n}{2}}\alpha _n^{2I}`$ for $`n>0`$. The creation and annihilation operators are $`a_n^{}`$ and $`a_n`$ respectively for all integers $`n`$. Similarly $`b_n=\theta _n^1`$, $`b_n=i\mathrm{\Pi }\theta _n^2`$ for $`n>0`$ and the zero mode $`b_0=\theta _0^1+i\mathrm{\Pi }\theta _0^2`$. For all integers $`n`$, $`b_n`$ and $`b_n^{}`$ are annihilation and creation operators respectively. Note that this choice of vacuum for the fermion zero modes corresponds to the lowest energy state and the light cone Hamiltonian comes with vanishing zero point energy. The level matching condition in this notation becomes the vanishing of the sum of the momenta $`n`$ of all the oscillator modes of the creation operators, $`_in_i=0`$. This form of level matching condition is convenient for the comparison with the gauge theory operators.

The $`Z_2`$ projection in the present case is $`\mathrm{\Omega }(1)^{F_L}R`$ where $`R`$ reflects the two directions $`\stackrel{}{y}`$. On the fermions $`R`$ therefore acts as $`\theta ^I\mathrm{\Gamma }_{78}\theta ^I`$. The world sheet parity operator exchanges $`\theta ^1`$ with $`\theta ^2`$ while $`(1)^{F_L}`$ gives a minus sign to $`\theta ^1`$. Combining all this one finds that the $`Z_2`$ action on the oscillator modes is

$`a_n^I`$ $``$ $`a_n^I,\mathrm{for}I=1,..,6;a_n^Ia_n^I,\mathrm{for}I=7,8;`$
$`b_n`$ $``$ $`i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{56}b_n`$ (A.3)
Note that, in particular only half of the fermion zero modes are $`Z_2`$ even, signalling that supersymmetry is now half compared to the type IIB case. In particular we note that these $`Z_2`$ even fermion zero mode annihilation (creation) operators come with definite eigenvalue w.r.t. $`i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{56}`$ implying that they have $`J^{}`$ charge $`1/2`$ ($`+1/2`$). This is important in the identification with the gauge theory chiral operators since this $`J^{}`$ charge corresponds to an insertion of the anti-symmetric fermion as opposed to the adjoint fermion.

The physical states are the ones that are even under the above $`Z_2`$ and satisfy level matching condition. We take the vacuum state $`|0,p^+>`$ to be even under $`Z_2`$. The states that are obtained by applying bosonic creation operators are

$$\psi (n_1,..,n_k;I_1,..,I_k)=\mathrm{\Pi }_{r=1}^k(a_{n_r}^{I_r})^{}|0,p^+>$$
(A.4)
which under $`Z_2`$ action transform as

$$\psi (n_1,..,n_k,I_1,..,I_k)(1)^{\mathrm{}}\psi (n_1,..,n_k;I_1,..,I_k)$$
(A.5)
where $`\mathrm{}`$ is the number of creation operators in $`\psi `$ along 7 and 8 directions.

Open string sector

In type I’, there are also open strings that are stretched between the 8 D7 branes. In the Penrose limit under consideration these D7 branes are located at the origin of the 78 plane. This means that $`x^7`$ and $`x^8`$ must satisfy Dirichlet boundary conditions. The boundary conditions at $`\sigma =0`$ and $`\pi `$ are therefore:

$$_\sigma x^I=0,\mathrm{for}I=1,..,6;x^I=0\mathrm{for}I=7,8\theta ^1=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{78}\theta ^2$$
(A.6)
The general solutions to the equations of motion in the light-cone gauge subject to the above boundary conditions are:

$`x^I(\sigma ,\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \underset{n0}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\omega _n}}}\mathrm{cos}n\sigma (e^{i\omega _n\tau }a_n^Ie^{i\omega _n\tau }(a_n^I)^{})\mathrm{for}I=1,..,6`$
$`x^I(\sigma ,\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \underset{n>0}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\omega _n}}}\mathrm{sin}n\sigma (e^{i\omega _n\tau }a_n^Ie^{i\omega _n\tau }(a_n^I)^{})\mathrm{for}I=7,8`$
The solution for the $`\theta ^1`$ and $`\theta ^2`$ are the same as in the closed string case eq.(A.1) subject to the condition

$$b_n=i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{56}b_n$$
(A.8)
There are a few important points to note. While the bosonic Neumann directions $`x^I`$ for $`I=1,..,6`$ have zero modes, the two Dirichlet directions $`x^7`$ and $`x^8`$ do not have zero modes. For fermions there are on the other hand 8 zero modes (as opposed to 16 in the closed string case) of which 4 are creation and 4 annihilation operators. From (A.8) it follows that all the annihilation operators $`b_0`$ carry the $`SO(2)_{56}`$ charge $`J^{}=+1/2`$. Since the state $`(b_0^{})^4|0>`$ carries $`+2`$ units of $`J^{}`$ charge above that of the vacuum $`|0>`$ we conclude that $`|0>`$ must carry $`J^{}=+1`$. The vacuum energy now is $`\mu `$ due to the fact that the number of boson zero modes is 6 while that of fermion zero modes is 8. We will see this fact also by matching the states obtained by applying the fermion zero mode creation operators on the vacuum state to the vector multiplet living on the D7 brane world volume.

We can decompose the states in the vector multiplet of D7 brane in the light cone gauge in terms of $`SO(4)\times SO(2)_{56}\times SO(2)_{78}`$ where $`SO(4)`$ is the rotation group acting on $`1234`$ directions, (recall that $`J^{}`$ is the $`SO(2)_{56}`$ charge). The vector multiplet contains a light cone vector which has the 4 components $`V_i`$ transforming as $`(v,0,0)`$, and a complex $`V`$ (and $`\overline{V}`$) in $`(1,\pm 1,0`$). The complex scalar $`\varphi `$ (and $`\overline{\varphi }`$) in the vector multiplet transforms as $`(1,0,\pm )`$. The fermions are $`\psi _\pm `$ transforming as $`(sp,\pm 1/2,1/2)`$ and $`\psi _\pm ^{}`$ in $`(sp^{},\pm 1/2,\pm 1/2)`$. Here $`v`$, $`sp`$ and $`sp^{}`$ denote the vector, spinor and spinor’ representations of $`SO(4)`$. Denoting by $`b_{0L}`$ and $`b_{0R}`$ the projections $`(1+\mathrm{\Pi })b_0/\sqrt{2}`$ and $`(1\mathrm{\Pi })b_0/\sqrt{2}`$, we get the above table for the bosonic states.

In this table $`c`$ is the energy of the open string vacuum. To show that $`c=1`$ we need only to determine its value from the scalar field equation for say $`\varphi `$. Recalling that D7 branes are located at the origin of the 78 plane, we can carry out the analysis of the linearized equations of motion for these fields in the pp wave background exactly as in . For example the scalar field equation in the pp background $`\mathrm{}\varphi =0`$ gives rise to the following light cone Hamiltonian:

$$H=p_+=\frac{1}{2p^+}\underset{I=1}{\overset{6}{}}(p_I^2\mu ^2p_{}^{+}{}_{}{}^{2}_{p_I}^2)$$
(A.9)
This is just the Schrodinger equation for a non-relativistic 6-dimensional harmonic oscillator and the zero point energy $`E_0`$ is simply $`6/2\mu =3\mu `$. Comparing with the table above and noting that the scalar fields appear in 2nd and 3rd rows in the table, we conclude $`c=1`$. A similar analysis for gauge fields can be carried out where the Chern-Simons terms play a crucial role in splitting the energies of $`V`$, $`\overline{V}`$ and $`V_i`$.

Finally, the $`Z_2`$ action on these different oscillator modes are as follows (as can be seen by taking $`\sigma `$ to $`\pi \sigma `$ together with $`(1)^{F_L}`$ and the reflection in the 78 plane):

$$a_n^I(1)^na_n^I,I=1,\mathrm{}8;b_n(1)^nb_n$$
(A.10)