text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Symmetry based approaches used for the construction of solutions in the framework of effective field (low energy) limits of string theories play an important role , , . In this paper we develop a new approach which allows one to extend the solution space of the stationary Einstein–multi-Maxwell (EmM) theory to the realm of heterotic string theory compactified down to three spatial dimensions on a torus. Namely, we show that a new charging symmetry invariant subspace of solutions of heterotic string theories (with $`d=2k+1`$ toroidally compactified space–time dimensions and arbitrary number $`n`$ of original Abelian fields) can be generated from the solution spectrum of the stationary Einstein theory with $`k`$ Maxwell fields. In particular, for the critical cases of heterotic ($`d=7`$) and bosonic ($`d=23`$) string theories one must start from the EmM theory with $`k=3`$ and $`k=11`$ Maxwell fields, respectively.

The toroidal compactification of heterotic string theory with arbitrary values of $`d`$ and $`n`$ was originally performed in , whereas the special case when the resulting theory is three–dimensional was originally studied in . There, the corresponding symmetric space model was identified and an explicit representation in terms of a null–curvature matrix was given (see  for such models and their classification). In this paper we exploit the general formalism developed in ,  and  as a natural matrix generalization of the stationary Einstein–Maxwell theory written down in terms of potentials which are closely related to the Ernst ones (see ,  and ). In the framework of this formalism, the subgroup of charging symmetry transformations (which preserve the property of asymptotic flatness of the solutions) acts as a linear and homogeneous map; this fact allows one to work with the solution spectrum of the theory in a transparently charging symmetry invariant form. In particular, all the results of this paper are automatically invariant with respect to the action of the total three-dimensional subgroup of charging symmetries of the heterotic string theory compactified on a torus.

In this paper we continue our investigation on string theory extensions of Einstein–Maxwell fields. In a previous work  we have studied two theories with $`d+n=2`$; here we deal with theories with $`d+n>2`$. Such a split of the effective theories with arbitrary $`d`$ and $`n`$, which arises in the low–energy limit of heterotic string theory, follows from the study of the general Israel–Wilson–Perjés class of solutions of heterotic string theory performed in . The new formalism allows one to construct, in particular, a continuos generalization of the extremal Israel–Wilson–Perjés families of solutions in the corresponding string theories to the field of non–extremal ones. In  it was shown that the static Einstein–Maxwell theory plays the role of starting system for two theories with $`d+n=2`$; in this paper we show that for the theories with $`d+n>2`$ such starting systems can be related to the stationary Einstein–multi-Maxwell theory. Here we illustrate the developed general approach by considering an extension of the Ker–Newman–NUT solution to the realm of heterotic string theory.

## 2 New Formalism for 3D Heterotic String Theory

In this section we review the necessary elements of the new formalism developed in  for the $`D`$–dimensional ($`D=d+3`$) heterotic string theory with $`n`$ Abelian gauge fields.

We start with the action for the bosonic sector of the low-energy heterotic string theory ,:

$`𝒮_D={\displaystyle d^DX|\mathrm{det}G_{MN}|^{\frac{1}{2}}e^\mathrm{\Phi }\left(R_D+\mathrm{\Phi }_{,M}\mathrm{\Phi }^{,M}\frac{1}{12}H_{MNK}H^{MNK}\frac{1}{4}F_{MN}^IF^{IMN}\right)},`$ (2.1)
where $`H_{MNK}=_MB_{NK}\frac{1}{2}A_M^IF_{NK}^I+\mathrm{cyclic}\{M,N,K\}`$ and $`F_{MN}^I=_MA_N^I_NA_M^I`$. Here $`X^M`$ is the M-th $`(M=1,\mathrm{},D)`$ coordinate of the physical space-time of signature $`(,+,\mathrm{},+)`$, $`G_{MN}`$ is the metric, whereas $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, $`B_{MN}`$ and $`A_M^I`$$`(I=1,\mathrm{},n)`$ are the dilaton, Kalb-Ramond and Abelian gauge fields, respectively. To determine the result of the toroidal compactification to three dimensions, let us put $`D=d+3`$, $`X^M=(Y^m,x^\mu )`$ with $`Y^M=X^m`$$`(m=1,\mathrm{},d)`$ and $`x^\mu =X^{d+\mu }`$$`(\mu =1,2,3)`$ and introduce the $`d\times d`$ matrix $`G_0=\mathrm{diag}(1;1,\mathrm{},1)`$, the $`(d+1)\times (d+1)`$ and $`(d+1+n)\times (d+1+n)`$ matrices $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ of the form $`\mathrm{diag}(1,1;1,\mathrm{},1)`$, respectively, and the $`(d+1)\times (d+1+n)`$ matrix field $`𝒵=𝒵(x^\lambda )`$ together with the three-metric $`h_{\mu \nu }=h_{\mu \nu }(x^\lambda )`$. In  it was shown that the resulting theory after the toroidal compactification of the first $`d`$ dimensions $`Y^m`$ can be expressed in terms of the pair $`(𝒵,h_{\mu \nu })`$; its effective dynamics is given by the action

$`𝒮_3={\displaystyle d^3xh^{\frac{1}{2}}\left(R_3+L_3\right)},`$ (2.2)
where $`R_3=R_3(h_{\mu \nu )}`$ is the curvature scalar for the three-dimensional line element $`ds_3^2=h_{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu `$ and

$`L_3=\mathrm{Tr}\left[𝒵\left(\mathrm{\Xi }𝒵^T\mathrm{\Sigma }𝒵\right)^1𝒵^T\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }𝒵\mathrm{\Xi }𝒵^T\right)^1\right].`$ (2.3)
In order to translate this ($`\sigma `$-model) description into the language of the field components of the heterotic string theory, let us introduce three doublets of $`(𝒵,h_{\mu \nu })`$-related potentials $`(_\alpha ,\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_\alpha )`$$`(\alpha =1,2,3)`$ according to the relations

$`_1=^1,\times \stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_1=\stackrel{}{J},`$
$`_2=^1𝒵,\times \stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_2=^1𝒵\stackrel{}{J}𝒵,`$
$`_3=𝒵^T^1𝒵,\times \stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_3=𝒵^T^1𝒵𝒵^T^1𝒵+𝒵^T\stackrel{}{J}𝒵,`$ (2.4)
where $`=\mathrm{\Sigma }𝒵\mathrm{\Xi }𝒵^T`$ and $`\stackrel{}{J}=^1\left(𝒵\mathrm{\Xi }𝒵^T𝒵\mathrm{\Xi }𝒵^T\right)^1`$. In Eq. (2) the scalars $`_\alpha `$ are off-shell defined magnitudes, whereas the vectors $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_\alpha `$ are defined on-shell. The scalar and vector potentials forming any doublet have the same matrix dimensionalities; let us represent them in the following block form

$`\left(\begin{array}{cc}1\times 1& 1\times d\\ d\times 1& d\times d\end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1\times 1& 1\times d& 1\times n\\ d\times 1& d\times d& d\times n\end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1\times 1& 1\times d& 1\times n\\ d\times 1& d\times d& d\times n\\ n\times 1& n\times d& n\times n\end{array}\right)`$ (2.12)
for $`\alpha =1,2,3`$ respectively, where, for example, the ‘$`13`$’ block components of the potentials $`_2`$ and $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_2`$ are $`1\times n`$ matrices. Afterwards let us define the following set of scalar magnitudes:

$`S_\alpha =U_\alpha +S_0^1W_1^TW_\alpha ,`$ (2.13)
where

$`S_0=_{1,11}+2_{2,11}_{3,11},`$
$`U_1=G_0_{1,22}G_0+G_0_{2,22}+(_{2,22})^TG_0+_{3,22},`$
$`U_2=G_0_{1,22}G_0_{2,22}G_0+(_{2,22})^T_{3,22}G_0,`$
$`U_3=\sqrt{2}\left(G_0_{2,23}+_{3,23}\right),`$
$`W_1=_{1,12}G_0_{2,12}+(_{2,21})^TG_0+_{3,12},`$
$`W_2=_{1,12}_{2,12}G_0+(_{2,21})^T_{3,12}G_0,`$
$`W_3=\sqrt{2}\left(_{2,13}+_{3,13}\right),`$ (2.14)
and vector fields

$`\stackrel{}{V}_1=\left[\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{1,12}G_0+\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{2,12}+(\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{2,21})^TG_0+\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{3,12}\right]^T,`$
$`\stackrel{}{V}_2=\left[\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{1,12}\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{2,12}G_0+(\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{2,21})^T\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{3,12}G_0\right]^T,`$
$`\stackrel{}{V}_3=\sqrt{2}\left(\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{2,13}+\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{3,13}\right)^T.`$ (2.15)
In terms of them the heterotic string theory fields read:

$`ds_D^2=ds_{d+3}^2=(dY+V_{1\mu }dx^\mu )^TS_1^1(dY+V_{1\nu }dx^\nu )+S_0ds_3^2,`$ (2.16)
$`e^\mathrm{\Phi }=\left|S_0\mathrm{det}S_1\right|^{\frac{1}{2}},`$
$`B_{mk}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(S_1^1S_2S_2^TS_1^1\right)_{mk},`$
$`B_{md+\nu }=\left\{V_{2\nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(S_1^1S_2S_2^TS_1^1\right)V_{1\nu }S_1^1S_3V_{3\nu }\right\}_m,`$
$`B_{d+\mu d+\nu }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[V_{1\mu }^T\left(S_1^1S_2S_2^TS_1^1\right)V_{1\nu }+V_{1\mu }^TV_{2\nu }V_{1\nu }^TV_{2\mu }\right],`$
$`A_m^I=\left(S_1^1S_3\right)_{mI},`$
$`A_{d+\mu }^I=\left(V_{3\mu }+S_3^TS_1^1V_{1\mu }\right)_I.`$
¿From Eq. (2.16) it follows that, apart from the magnitudes $`S_0`$, $`S_\alpha `$ and $`\stackrel{}{V}_\alpha `$, we also must compute $`\mathrm{det}S_1`$ and $`S_1^1`$ in order to obtain the field components of the heterotic string theory (2.1). Therefore, after some algebraic calculations it can be proved that

$`\mathrm{det}S_1=\left(1+S_0W_1U_1^1W_1^T\right)\mathrm{det}U_1,`$
$`S_1^1=U_1^1{\displaystyle \frac{S_0^1U_1^1W_1^TW_1U_1^1}{1+S_0^1W_1U_1^1W_1^T}}.`$ (2.17)
Finally let us point out that the magnitudes $`S_0`$, $`U_\alpha `$, $`W_\alpha `$ and $`\stackrel{}{V}_\alpha `$ can be used to explicitly write down any solution of the theory under consideration. In Section 4 we shal calculate them for an extension of the stationary EmM theory to the realm of the low–energy heterotic string theory.

At the end of this Section let us notice that the transformation

$`𝒵𝒞_1𝒵𝒞_2`$ (2.18)
with $`𝒞_1^T\mathrm{\Sigma }𝒞_1=\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`𝒞_2^T\mathrm{\Xi }𝒞_2=\mathrm{\Xi }`$ is a transparent symmetry of the theory under consideration (see Eq. (2.3)). In  and  it was shown that this symmetry coincides with the total group of three dimensional charging symmetries. The above reviewed formalism, based on the use of the matrix potential $`𝒵`$, possesses the lowest matrix dimensionality ($`𝒵`$ is a $`(d+1)\times (d+n+1)`$ matrix field and the theory (2.3) is, in fact, a $`O(d+1,d+n+1)/O[(d+1)\times (d+n+1)]`$ symmteric space model of dimension $`(d+1)(d+n+1)`$ ). From Eq. (2.18) it also follows that the general transformation of the charging symmetry subgroup acts as a linear and homogeneous map – a fact that was just discussed in the Introduction. It is clear that the new formalism is specially convenient for the study of asymptotically flat solutions of heterotic string theory toroidally compactified to three dimensions because all the results can be obtained in a transparent charging symmtery invariant form.

## 3 String theories from stationary Einstein–multi-Maxwell system

In this section we show how to map solutions of the stationary Einstein theory with $`k`$ Maxwell fields into solutions to the three–dimensional heterotic string theory with $`d=2k+1`$ toroidally compactified space–time dimensions and arbitrary number $`n`$ of Abelian gauge fields.

First of all let us formulate the main idea of our approach; it is related to the heterotic string/Einstein–Maxwell theory correspondence and the explicite form of the Isreal–Wilson–Perjés class of solutions in both of these theories . In order to achieve this aim, let us represent the stationary Einstein–Maxwell (EM) theory in a very similar form to Eq. (2.3). Namely, it is well known that the effective three–dimensional Lagrangian of the stationary EM theory reads:

$`L_3=L_{EM}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2f^2}}\left|E\overline{F}F\right|^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{f}}\left|F\right|^2,`$ (3.1)
where $`f=\frac{1}{2}(E+\overline{E}|F|^2)`$, and $`E`$ and $`F`$ are the conventional Ernst potentials. Let us introduce the $`1\times 2`$ matrix potential

$`z=(z_1z_2)`$ (3.2)
with

$`z_1={\displaystyle \frac{1E}{1+E}},z_2={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}F}{1+E}}.`$ (3.3)
Then

$`L_{EM}=2{\displaystyle \frac{z(\sigma _3zz)^1z}{1z\sigma _3z}},`$ (3.4)
where $`\sigma _3=\mathrm{diag}(11)`$. By comparing Eqs. (2.3) and (3.4) it follows that the map

$`𝒵z,\mathrm{\Xi }\sigma _3,\mathrm{\Sigma }1,`$ (3.5)
together with the interchange of operations $`T`$, relates three–dimensional heterotic string and stationary Einstein-Maxwell theories; the factor ‘2’ in (3.4) can be understood as a consequence of the exact matrix representation of complex magnitudes (see below and  as well). Therefore, the Israel–Wilson-Perjés (IWP) class of solutions of the Einstein-Maxwell theory  can be rewritten in terms of the $`z`$–potential as $`z=\lambda q`$, where $`\lambda =\lambda (x^\mu )`$ is a complex harmonic function ($`^2\lambda =0`$), $`q`$ is a $`1\times 2`$–matrix constant parameter and the parameter $`\kappa =q\sigma _3q`$ vanishes; in this case, the corresponding three–dimensional metric $`h_{\mu \nu }`$ is flat. It is clear that, in view of the correspondence (3.5), the IWP class of solutions of the heterotic string theory arises in the framework of the ansatz

$`𝒵=\mathrm{\Lambda }𝒬,`$ (3.6)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Lambda }(x^\mu )`$ is a real harmonic matrix function and $`𝒬`$ is a constant matrix parameter. In  it was shown that this fact actually takes place if the parameter

$`\kappa =𝒬\mathrm{\Xi }𝒬^T`$ (3.7)
vanishes and the three–metric $`h_{\mu \nu }`$ is flat again, in complete accordance with the correspondence (3.5). There, it also was shown that the restriction $`\kappa =0`$ completely fixes the dimensionality of the matrices $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`𝒬`$: for two theories with $`d+n=2`$, such matrices have dimensions $`(d+1)\times 1`$ and $`1\times 3`$, respectively, whereas for the theories with $`d+n>2`$ the dimensions are $`(d+1)\times 2`$ and $`2\times (d+n+1)`$, respectively.

The main idea of our approach is to remove the $`\kappa =0`$ restriction and, therefore, to consider the resulting generalization of the IWP class of solutions of heterotic string theory to the subspace of the non–extremal solutions. This means that we shall preserve the form of the ansatz (3.6) and the dimensions of the matrices $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`𝒬`$, but we shall allow arbitrary values of the parameter $`\kappa `$ defined by Eq. (3.7). Such a procedure can be applied in a very natural way in the framework of the stationary EM theory, where it defines, for instance, a continuous extension of the extremal Kerr–multi-Newman–NUT solution to the corresponding non–extremal one . This extension is really interesting from the point of view of physical applications; the example given above concerns black hole physics in EM theory . In view of the correspondence (3.5) the same motivation for the study of the ansatz (3.6) with $`\kappa 0`$ must be valid for the low–energy heterotic string theory; thus, the study of such an ansatz is also interesting in the framework of black holes in string theory , .

In this paper we consider string theories with $`d+n>2`$, when $`\kappa `$ is a symmetric $`2\times 2`$–matrix. By straightforwardly substituting the ansatz (3.6) into the equations of motion derived from Eqs. (2.2) and (2.3), one obtains

$`^2\mathrm{\Lambda }+2\mathrm{\Lambda }\kappa \mathrm{\Lambda }^T\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Lambda }\kappa \mathrm{\Lambda }^T\right)^1\mathrm{\Lambda }=0,`$
$`R_{3\mu \nu }=Tr\left[\mathrm{\Lambda }_{,(\mu }\kappa \left(1\mathrm{\Lambda }^T\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Lambda }\kappa \right)^1\mathrm{\Lambda }_{,\nu )}^T\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Lambda }\kappa \mathrm{\Lambda }^T\right)^1\right].`$ (3.8)
It is obvious that in the case $`\kappa =0`$ we recover the extremal case studied in , whereas for $`\kappa 0`$ we have the above announced continuos extension of the formalism to the non–extremal case. Below we study the situation when $`\kappa `$ is nonzero and, moreover, nondegenerate matrix with signature $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}=\mathrm{diag}(1,1)`$. The reason for considering such a particularization of the ansatz (3.6) is that, in this case, the effective system defined by Eqs. (3.8) corresponds to some new heterotic string theory by itself. Actually, The Eqs. (3.8) are the equations of motion for the action (2.2) with the matter Lagrangian (2.3) replaced by

$`\stackrel{~}{}_3=Tr\left[\mathrm{\Lambda }\kappa \left(1\mathrm{\Lambda }^T\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Lambda }\kappa \right)^1\mathrm{\Lambda }^T\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Lambda }\kappa \mathrm{\Lambda }^T\right)^1\right].`$ (3.9)
Then, as an algebraic fact it follows that there exists a nondegenerate matrix $`K`$ such that

$`\kappa =K\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}K^T.`$ (3.10)
Let us introduce the new matrix potential

$`\stackrel{~}{𝒵}=K^T\mathrm{\Lambda }^T`$ (3.11)
and set $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Xi }}=\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. We claim that it is possible to rewrite the effective Lagrangian $`\stackrel{~}{}_3`$ (3.9) in terms of $`\stackrel{~}{𝒵}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Xi }}`$; the resulting Lagrangian exactly coincides with the relation (2.3) up to the tilde. Thus, the effective system (3.9) is nothing else than the heterotic string theory with $`\stackrel{~}{d}=1`$ compactified dimensions and $`\stackrel{~}{n}=d1`$ Abelian gauge fields. From Eqs. (3.6) and (3.11) it follows that

$`𝒵=\stackrel{~}{𝒵}^TT.`$ (3.12)
where $`T=K^1𝒬`$. Eq. (3.12) maps the space of solutions of the theory in terms of $`\stackrel{~}{𝒵}`$ into that of the theory in terms of the potential $`𝒵`$, so that the matrix $`T`$ plays the role of a symmetry operator. Let us now calculate the general explicit form of such symmetry operator using Eqs. (3.6) and (3.10). Without loss of generality (see  for details), the matrix $`𝒬`$ can be parametrized in the form

$`𝒬=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& n_1^T\\ 0& 1& n_2^T\end{array}\right),`$ (3.15)
where $`n_a`$ ($`a=1,2`$) are two $`(d+n1)\times 1`$ columns. Thus, the extremal case corresponds to the restriction $`n_a^Tn_b=\delta _{ab}`$, i.e. it is realized by the unit orthogonal columns $`n_a`$. Our generalization of the extremal ansatz corresponds, in this geometric language, to the case of columns with arbitrary length and arbitrary angle between them which is compatible with the signature $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ of the matrix $`\kappa `$.

Now we are able to compute the matrix $`\kappa `$ and to determine the quantity $`K`$ using, for example, the orthogonalization procedure of the theory of quadratic forms. A special solutions reads:

$`K=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\sqrt{1n_1^Tn_1}& & 0\\ & & \\ \frac{n_1^Tn_2}{\sqrt{1n_1^Tn_1}}& & \sqrt{\frac{1n_1^Tn_1n_2^Tn_2+(n_1^Tn_1)(n_2^Tn_2)(n_1^Tn_2)^2}{1n_1^Tn_1}}\end{array}\right),`$ (3.19)
In order to obtain a general solution $`K`$ to the quadratic equation (3.10) one must generalize the special solution (3.19) through the map $`KK𝒞`$ where $`𝒞^T\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}𝒞=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$, i.e. $`𝒞O(2)`$. However, this map is effectively equivalent to the transformation $`\stackrel{~}{𝒵}𝒞^{T1}\stackrel{~}{𝒵}`$ as it follows from Eq. (3.12). It is clear that $`𝒞^{T1}`$ is nothing more than an alternative notation for the ‘left’ subgroup $`𝒞_1`$ of the charging symmetry transformation (see Eq. (2.18)), thus, it can be omitted for the charging symmetry invariant classes of solutions repersented by $`\stackrel{~}{𝒵}`$. Thus, without loss of generality one can take $`𝒬`$ and $`K`$ in the form given by Eqs. (3.15) and (3.19) when constructing a symmetry operator according to Eq. (3.12). It is worth noticing that the definition of $`K`$ is consistent with the assumed signature of $`\kappa `$.

Now let us consider a special situation with $`d=2k+1`$, when the potential $`\stackrel{~}{𝒵}`$ can be splitted into $`k+1`$ $`2\times 2`$–matrix blocks:

$`\stackrel{~}{𝒵}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\stackrel{~}{𝒵}_1,& \stackrel{~}{𝒵}_2,& \mathrm{},& \stackrel{~}{𝒵}_{k+1}\end{array}\right).`$ (3.21)
Let us consider a consistent ansatz with

$`\stackrel{~}{𝒵}_𝒫=\left(\begin{array}{cc}z_𝒫^{}& z_𝒫^{\prime \prime }\\ z_𝒫^{\prime \prime }& z_𝒫^{}\end{array}\right),`$ (3.24)
where $`𝒫=1,2,\mathrm{},k+1`$. Let us introduce $`k+1`$ complex functions $`z_𝒫=z_𝒫^{}+iz_𝒫^{\prime \prime }`$. Our statement is that the heterotic string theory field equations corresponding to the special subsystem (3.21)–(3.24) can be derived from the effective Lagrangian

$`L_3=L_{EmM}=2{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{z}(\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_3\stackrel{~}{z}\stackrel{~}{z})^1\stackrel{~}{z}}{1\stackrel{~}{z}\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_3\stackrel{~}{z}}},`$ (3.25)
where $`\stackrel{~}{z}=(\stackrel{~}{z}_1,\stackrel{~}{z}_2,\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{z}_{k+1})`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_3=\mathrm{diag}(1,1,1,\mathrm{},1)`$. It is clear that in the case $`k=1`$ one recovers the Eq. (3.4), i.e. one deals with the stationary Einstein–Maxwell theory. It is natural to suppose that in the case of arbitrary $`k`$ one obtains the stationary Einstein theory with $`k`$ Maxwell fields. In order to verify this statement it is convenient to introduce new variables (compare to Eq. (3.3))

$`E={\displaystyle \frac{1\stackrel{~}{z}_1}{1+\stackrel{~}{z}_1}},F_p={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}\stackrel{~}{z}_{p+1}}{1+\stackrel{~}{z}_1}},`$ (3.26)
where $`p=1,2,\mathrm{},k`$. In terms of these variables the effective Lagrangian adopts the form

$`L_{EmM}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2f^2}}\left|E\overline{F}_pF_p\right|^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{f}}\left|F_p\right|^2,`$ (3.27)
where $`f=\frac{1}{2}(E+\overline{E}F_p\overline{F}_p)`$, thus, they can be interpreted as the conventional Ernst potentials of the classical four–dimensional Einstein theory with $`k`$ Maxwell fields in the stationary case.

The theory (3.25) can be studied in a form which is very close to that of the heterotic string theory (see Section 2) by using the correspondence (3.5) modified to the case of $`k`$ Maxwell fields, i.e., by exchanging

$`z\stackrel{~}{z},\sigma _3\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_3,`$ (3.28)
(see Eqs. (3.4) and (3.7)). Namely, it is convenient to introduce the doublets $`(\stackrel{~}{m}_\alpha ,\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{\omega }_\alpha })`$ with

$`\stackrel{~}{m}_1=\stackrel{~}{h}^1,\times \stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{\omega }_1}=\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{j}},`$
$`\stackrel{~}{m}_2=\stackrel{~}{h}^1\stackrel{~}{z},\times \stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{\omega }_2}=\stackrel{~}{h}^1\stackrel{~}{z}\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{j}}\stackrel{~}{z},`$
$`\stackrel{~}{m}_3=\stackrel{~}{h}^1\stackrel{~}{z}\stackrel{~}{z},\times \stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{\omega }_3}=\stackrel{~}{h}^1(\stackrel{~}{z}\stackrel{~}{z}\stackrel{~}{z}\stackrel{~}{z})+\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{j}}\stackrel{~}{z}\stackrel{~}{z},`$ (3.29)
where $`\stackrel{~}{h}=(1\stackrel{~}{z}\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_3\stackrel{~}{z})`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{j}}=\stackrel{~}{h}^2(\stackrel{~}{z}\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_3\stackrel{~}{z}\stackrel{~}{z}\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_3\stackrel{~}{z})`$, (compare with Eq. (2)). It is clear that the doublet ($`\stackrel{~}{m}_1,\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{\omega }_1}`$) consists of complex functions, whereas the doublets ($`\stackrel{~}{m}_2,\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{\omega }_2}`$) and ($`\stackrel{~}{m}_3,\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{\omega }_3}`$), of $`1\times (k+1)`$– and $`(k+1)\times (k+1)`$–matrices, respectively. From Eqs. (3.21)–(3.24) we extract a rule for reconstructing the heterotic string theory described by the potential $`\stackrel{~}{𝒵}`$ of dimension $`2\times [2(k+1)]`$. Further, from Eqs. (3.12)–(3.19) one obtains the explicit form of the symmetry map $`\stackrel{~}{𝒵}𝒵`$. It is interesting that this map is nonholomorphic due to the transposition of $`\stackrel{~}{𝒵}`$ in Eq. (3.12), which is equivalent to the Hermitean conjugation of $`\stackrel{~}{z}`$ in view of the correspondence (3.28) discussed above.

Thus, a symmetry transformation that maps the space of solutions of the stationary Einstein theory with $`k`$ Maxwell fields into the corresponding subspace of solutions of the heterotic string with $`d=2k+1`$ toroidally compactified dimensions and $`n`$ arbitrary Abelian gauge fields is established by the following procedure. First of all, one must calculate in explicit form three doublets of potentials $`(\stackrel{~}{m}_\alpha ,\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{\omega }_\alpha })`$ for the stationary EmM theory. After that one must rewrite them in the form $`(\stackrel{~}{M}_\alpha ,\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_\alpha })`$ using the exact matrix representation of complex magnitudes (Eqs. (3.21)–(3.24) give, in fact, an example of such a representation of the complex potential $`\stackrel{~}{z}`$ in terms of the real potential $`\stackrel{~}{𝒵}`$). The next step consists of calculating the matrix potentials $`(M_\alpha ,\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_\alpha )`$ for the heterotic string theory which is an image of the EmM system according to the map (3.12). Finally, one must obtain the explicit form of the magnitudes $`S_0`$, $`W_\alpha `$, $`U_\alpha `$ and $`\stackrel{}{V}_\alpha `$, using the found potentials $`(M_\alpha ,\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_\alpha )`$.

At the end of this Section let us compute the doublets $`(M_\alpha ,\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_\alpha )`$. By using Eqs. (2) and (3.12), after some algebraic calculations, one obtains

$`M_1=\mathrm{\Sigma }+\mathrm{\Sigma }\stackrel{~}{M}_3\mathrm{\Sigma },\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_1=\mathrm{\Sigma }\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_3}\mathrm{\Sigma },`$
$`M_2=\mathrm{\Sigma }\stackrel{~}{M_2^T}T,\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_2=\mathrm{\Sigma }\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_2^T}T,`$
$`M_3=T^T(\stackrel{~}{M_1}+1)T,\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_3=T^T\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_1}T.`$ (3.30)
In the next Section we shall exploit these formulae in order to construct a subspace of solutions for the heterotic string theory with $`d=2k+1`$ and arbitrary $`n`$ starting from the stationary Einstein theory with $`k`$ Maxwell fields.

## 4 Solutions via Kerr–multi-Newman–NUT family

In order to calculate the potentials $`S_0`$, $`W_\alpha `$, $`U_\alpha `$ and $`\stackrel{}{V}_\alpha `$ for the heterotic string fields, which correspond to the Einstein–multi-Maxwell ones, according to the scheme developed in the previous Section, let us parametrize the potential $`\stackrel{~}{𝒵}`$ and the symmetry operator $`T`$ in the appropriate form. For $`\stackrel{~}{𝒵}`$ is convenient to set

$`\stackrel{~}{𝒵}=\left(\stackrel{~}{𝒵}_I\stackrel{~}{𝒵}_{II}\right),`$ (4.1)
where $`\stackrel{~}{𝒵}_I`$ is a $`2\times 1`$–column and $`\stackrel{~}{𝒵}_{II}`$ is a $`2\times (2k+1)`$–matrix that read

$`\stackrel{~}{𝒵}_I=\left(\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{z}_1^{^{}}\\ \stackrel{~}{z}_1^{^{\prime \prime }}\end{array}\right),\stackrel{~}{𝒵}_{II}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\stackrel{~}{z}_1^{^{\prime \prime }}& \stackrel{~}{z}_{1+p}^{^{}}& \stackrel{~}{z}_{1+p}^{^{\prime \prime }}\\ \stackrel{~}{z}_1^{^{}}& \stackrel{~}{z}_{1+p}^{^{\prime \prime }}& \stackrel{~}{z}_{1+p}^{^{}}\end{array}\right).`$ (4.6)
Therefore, for $`T`$ we choose the following segmentation

$`T=\left(T_IT_{II}T_{III}\right)`$ (4.7)
where $`T_I`$ is a $`2\times 1`$–column, $`T_{II}`$ is a $`2\times (2k+1)`$–matrix and $`T_{III}`$ is a $`2\times n`$–matrix, i.e.

$`T_I=𝒦^1𝒬_I,\stackrel{~}{𝒬}_I=\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 0\end{array}\right),`$ (4.10)
$`T_{II}=𝒦^1𝒬_{II},Q_{II}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& r_1^T\\ 1& r_2^T\end{array}\right),`$ (4.13)
$`T_{III}=𝒦^1𝒬_{III},\stackrel{~}{𝒬}_{III}=\left(\begin{array}{c}l_1^T\\ l_2^T\end{array}\right),`$ (4.16)
where we have naturally decomposed $`n_a^T=\left(r_a^Tl_a^T\right)`$, into the rows $`r_a^T`$ and $`l_a^T`$ of dimension $`1\times 2k`$ and $`1\times n`$, respectively. It is worth noticing that the block representation (4.1) and (4.7) of the magnitudes $`\stackrel{~}{𝒵}`$ and $`T`$ is directly related to the number of compactified dimensions and Abelian vector fields ($`2k+1`$ and $`n`$, respectively) and, thus, is actually fruitful for the application of Eqs (2.16). Thus, after some algebraic computations, Eqs. (2.16) yield the following expression for the scalar $`S_0`$

$`S_0=1T_I^TT_I\stackrel{~}{h}^1\left(\stackrel{~}{𝒵}_IT_I\right)^T\left(\stackrel{~}{𝒵}_IT_I\right),`$ (4.17)
whereas for the columns $`W_\alpha `$ one obtains:

$`W_1=T_I^TT_{II}+\stackrel{~}{h}^1\left(\stackrel{~}{𝒵}_IT_I\right)^T\left(\stackrel{~}{𝒵}_{II}T_{II}\right),`$
$`W_2=\left[T_I^TT_{II}+\stackrel{~}{h}^1\left(\stackrel{~}{𝒵}_I+T_I\right)^T\left(\stackrel{~}{𝒵}_{II}+T_{II}\right)\right]G_0,`$
$`W_3=\sqrt{2}\left[T_I+\stackrel{~}{h}^1\left(\stackrel{~}{𝒵}_I+T_I\right)\right]^TT_{III};`$ (4.18)
finally, for the matrix potentials $`U_\alpha `$ one gets

$`U_1=G_0+T_{II}^TT_{II}+\stackrel{~}{h}^1\left(\stackrel{~}{𝒵}_{II}T_{II}\right)^T\left(\stackrel{~}{𝒵}_{II}T_{II}\right),`$
$`U_2=\left[T_{II}^TT_{II}\stackrel{~}{h}^1\left(\stackrel{~}{𝒵}_{II}T_{II}\right)^T\left(\stackrel{~}{𝒵}_{II}+T_{II}\right)\right]G_0,`$
$`U_3=\sqrt{2}\left[T_{II}\stackrel{~}{h}^1\left(\stackrel{~}{𝒵}_{II}T_{II}\right)\right]^TT_{III}.`$ (4.19)
On the other hand, the vector matrices $`\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}_\alpha `$ possess the following parametrization

$`\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_1}=\stackrel{}{\omega }ϵ,\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_2}=\left(\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}_{2,I}\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}_{2,II}\right),\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_3}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}_{3,III}\\ & \\ \stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}_{3,III}& \stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}_{3,IIII}\end{array}\right),`$ (4.23)
where $`\stackrel{}{\omega }=\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{\omega }}_1^{^{\prime \prime }}`$ (the magnitude $`\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{\omega }}_1`$ is purely imaginary, i.e. $`\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{\omega }}_1^{^{}}=0`$), $`ϵ`$ is the antisymmetric $`2\times 2`$–matrix with $`ϵ_{12}=1`$, the block componenets of $`\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}_2`$ read

$`\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}_{2,I}=\left(\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{\omega }}_{2,1}^{^{}}\\ \\ \stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{\omega }}_{2,1}^{^{\prime \prime }}\end{array}\right),\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}_{2,II}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{\omega }}_{2,1}^{^{\prime \prime }}& \stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{\omega }}_{2,1+p}^{^{}}& \stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{\omega }}_{2,1+p}^{^{\prime \prime }}\\ & & \\ \stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{\omega }}_{2,1}^{^{}}& \stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{\omega }}_{2,1+p}^{^{\prime \prime }}& \stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{\omega }}_{2,1+p}^{^{}}\end{array}\right),`$ (4.30)
whereas $`\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}_{3,III}=\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}_{3,III}^T`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}_{3,IIII}=\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}_{3,IIII}^T`$ $`(\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}_3=\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}_3^T)`$ and

$`\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}_{3,III}=\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{\omega }}_{3,\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1}}^{^{\prime \prime }}& \stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{\omega }}_{3,\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1}+p}^{^{}}& \stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{\omega }}_{3,\mathrm{1\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1}+p}^{^{\prime \prime }}& & & \end{array}\right).`$ (4.32)
Note that, in view of Eqs. (2.18) and (3), only the magnitudes $`\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{\omega }}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}_{2,I}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}_{2,II}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}_{3,III}`$ are necessary for the explicit construction of the potential $`\stackrel{}{V}_\alpha `$. Finally, the explicite expressions for these vectors read

$`\stackrel{}{V}_1=\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{\omega }}T_{II}^TϵT_I\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}_{2,II}^TT_I+T_{II}^T\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}_{2,I}\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}_{3,III}^T,`$
$`\stackrel{}{V}_2=𝒢_0\left(\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{\omega }}T_{II}^TϵT_I+\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}_{2,II}^TT_I+T_{II}^T\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}_{2,I}+\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}_{3,III}^T\right),`$
$`\stackrel{}{V}_3=\sqrt{2}\left(\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{\omega }}ϵT_I+\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}_{2,I}\right)^TT_{III}.`$ (4.33)
At this stage some remarks are in order: Eqs. (4.17), (4) and (4) also possess another parametrization which is based on the identities $`𝒦𝒦^T=\kappa `$ and $`𝒦ϵ𝒦^T=\sqrt{\mathrm{det}\kappa }ϵ`$. In both representations the potentials $`S_0`$, $`W_\alpha `$, $`U_\alpha `$ and $`\stackrel{}{V}_\alpha `$ become trivial ($`S_0=1`$, $`U_1=G_0`$, other fields vanish) for a starting Einstein–multi-Maxwell solution corresponding to $`\stackrel{~}{𝒵}=0`$. This fact reflects the underlying property of the primordial symmetry map (3.12) in the language of the potentials which define the components of the physical fields of string theory. As a last remark let us point out that the appearance of the $`(2k+1)\times (2k+1)`$–matrix $`G_0=\mathrm{diag}(1,1,1,\mathrm{},1)`$, which describes the flat metric corresponding to extra dimensions, in Eq. (4) is very natural.

As a matter of fact, our generating–procedure, based on the use of Eq. (3.12) and the special choice of the starting matrix potential $`\stackrel{~}{𝒵}`$ in an Einstein–multi-Maxwell form (see Eqs. (4.1) and (4.6)), brakes the complex structure of the starting theory. Actually, in the general case, the $`2\times [2(k+1)+n]`$–dimensional symmetry operator $`T`$ does not represent any complex magnitude $`t`$ of dimension $`1\times (k+1+n/2)`$. In particular, the number of Abelian gauge fields $`n`$ can be even. However, if $`n`$ is odd, i.e., $`n=2J`$, and also $`r_{2,2p}=r_{1,2p1}r_p^{^{}}`$, $`r_{2,2p1}=r_{1,2p}r_p^{^{\prime \prime }}`$, $`l_{2,2j}=l_{1,2j1}l_j^{^{}},`$ $`l_{2,2j1}=l_{1,2j}l_j^{^{\prime \prime }}`$, $`(p=1,2,\mathrm{},k;j=1,2,\mathrm{},J)`$, then

$`T={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{1𝒩^2}}}\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}1& 0& r_p^{^{}}& r_p^{^{\prime \prime }}& l_j^{^{}}& l_j^{^{\prime \prime }}\\ & & & & & \\ 0& 1& r_p^{^{\prime \prime }}& r_p^{^{}}& l_j^{^{\prime \prime }}& l_j^{^{}}\end{array}\right),`$ (4.37)
where $`𝒩^2=n_1^Tn_1=n_2^Tn_2`$. In this special case, vectors $`n_1`$ and $`n_2`$ have the same length and are mutually orthogonal ($`n_1^Tn_2=0`$). Therefore, from Eq. (4.37) it immediately follows that the operator $`T`$ is a real matrix representation of the complex $`1\times (k+1+J)`$ row $`t=|1𝒩^2|^{1/2}\left(1r_pl_j\right)`$ where $`r_p=r_p^{^{}}+ir_p^{^{\prime \prime }}`$ and $`l_j=l_j^{^{}}+il_j^{^{\prime \prime }}`$. Notice that in the special case under consideration it is possible to express Eq. (3) in a complex form by substituting $`M_\alpha m_\alpha `$, $`\stackrel{~}{M}_\alpha \stackrel{~}{m}_\alpha `$, $`Tt`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_3`$. Thus, in this special case it is possible to keep pure complex notations.

As an example of a concrete class of solutions of the Einstein–multi-Maxwell theory one can consider the solution which arises in the framework of the ansatz

$`\stackrel{~}{z}=\lambda \stackrel{~}{q},`$ (4.38)
where $`\lambda `$ is a complex function and $`\stackrel{~}{q}`$ is a $`1\times (k+1)`$ constant complex row. The corresponding effective system is related to the Lagrangian

$`L_3=2\stackrel{~}{\kappa }{\displaystyle \frac{|\lambda |^2}{\left(1\stackrel{~}{\kappa }|\lambda |^2\right)}},`$ (4.39)
in the case of $`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }0`$, where

$`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }=\stackrel{~}{q}\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_3\stackrel{~}{q}.`$ (4.40)
When $`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }=0`$ one obtains a decoupled three–dimensional flat space and a harmonic field $`\lambda `$. The parameter $`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }`$ plays the role of a coupling constant between three–dimensional gravity and the complex scalar field $`\lambda `$. We claim that the following concrete choice of the scalar field and the three metric

$`\lambda ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{Ria\mathrm{cos}\theta }},`$
$`ds_3^2=\mathrm{\Delta }\left({\displaystyle \frac{dR^2}{R^2+a^2\stackrel{~}{\kappa }}}+d\theta ^2\right)+\left(R^2+a^2\stackrel{~}{\kappa }\right)\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\phi ^2,`$ (4.41)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }=R^2+a^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta \stackrel{~}{\kappa }`$ and $`a`$ is a constant, gives a solution of the corresponding equations of motion. Note that in Eq. (4) the value of the parameter $`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }`$ is arbitrary. In what follows, this concrete class of solutions will be considered as the typical starting one in the framework of the developed solution–generating scheme.

To start with, we need explicit expressions for the magnitudes $`\stackrel{~}{m}_\alpha `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{\omega }}_\alpha `$. For the scalar sector one immediately gets

$`\stackrel{~}{m}_1=\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\kappa }}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}\right),`$
$`\stackrel{~}{m}_2=\stackrel{~}{q}{\displaystyle \frac{R+ia\mathrm{cos}\theta }{\mathrm{\Delta }}},`$
$`\stackrel{~}{m}_3=\stackrel{~}{q}\stackrel{~}{q}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }}},`$ (4.42)
whereas for the vector one, after the corresponding integration, one finds that

$`\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{\omega }}_{1\phi }=i{\displaystyle \frac{a\stackrel{~}{\kappa }\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }{\mathrm{\Delta }}},`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{\omega }}_{2\phi }=\stackrel{~}{q}\left(\mathrm{cos}\theta +ia\mathrm{sin}^2\theta {\displaystyle \frac{R+ia\mathrm{cos}\theta }{\mathrm{\Delta }}}\right),`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{}{\omega }}_{3\phi }=i\stackrel{~}{q}\stackrel{~}{q}{\displaystyle \frac{a\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }{\mathrm{\Delta }}},`$ (4.43)
and other vector components vanish. These relations defines the extension of the solution (4) to the realm of the heterotic string theory according to the relations (2.13), (LABEL:2.9), (4.17)–(4) and (4). Let us discuss on both, the starting Einstein–multi-Maxwell family of solutions and the resulting heterotic string theory fields.

First of all, let us compute the Ernst potentials (3.26) corresponding to the solution (4):

$`=1{\displaystyle \frac{2(M+iN)}{r+i(Na\mathrm{cos}\theta )}},`$
$`_p=\sqrt{2}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(e_p+ig_p\right)}{r+i(Na\mathrm{cos}\theta )}},`$ (4.44)
where

$`\stackrel{~}{q}_1=M+iN,\stackrel{~}{q}_{1+p}=e_p+ig_p`$ (4.45)
and $`r=R+M`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }=M^2N^2+_p\left(e_p^2+g_p^2\right)`$. It is clear that our starting solution is precisely the Kerr–multi-Newman family of solutions with non–trivial NUT parameter. Thus, $`(r,\theta ,\phi )`$ stand for conventional oblate spheroidal coordinates, whereas the parameters $`M`$, $`N`$, $`e_p`$ and $`g_p`$ are the mass, NUT, electric and magnetic charges, respectively. Another interesting issue concerns the asymptotical flatness of the resulting multidimensional field configuration in the framework of our solution–generating method in the general case. It turns out that the generating field configurations contain the so–called “Dirac strings” and are not asymptotically flat, i.e. a term which is proportional to $`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ at spatial infinity ($`R\mathrm{}`$). The same situation takes place for the starting four–dimensional metric of the Einstein–multi-Maxwell theory: the corresponding term is proportional to the NUT parameter and it vanishes if $`N=0`$. Thus, in the starting solution this Dirac string peculiarity is removable. From Eqs. (4) and (4) it follows that the Dirac string for the metric (i.e. for the magnitude $`\stackrel{}{V}_1`$) is absent if one imposes the restriction

$`\stackrel{~}{𝒬}_I^TT_{II}=T_I^T\stackrel{~}{𝒬}_{II},`$ (4.46)
on the starting charge configuration and the operator of the symmetry transformation. Here $`\stackrel{~}{𝒬}_I`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{𝒬}_{II}`$ are respectively $`2\times 1`$ and $`2\times (2k+1)`$ block components of the charge matrix $`\stackrel{~}{𝒬}=\left(\stackrel{~}{𝒬}_I\stackrel{~}{𝒬}_{II}\right)`$ which realizes a real matrix representation of the complex charge parameter $`\stackrel{~}{q}`$. Notice that all the relations which involve the matrix $`\stackrel{~}{𝒬}`$ can be obtained from the relations for $`\stackrel{~}{𝒵}`$ by replacing $`z_𝒫q_𝒫`$ in $`\stackrel{~}{𝒵}`$; notice that we have used a decomposition of $`\stackrel{~}{𝒬}`$ similar to that of the Eqs. (4.1)–(4.6)).

It is possible to solve the algebraic restriction (4.46) for the general case. However, for the special case (4.37), when the symmetry operator can be represented in complex form, this can be done in aN easy and elegant way. Actually, a simple algebraic analysis shows that in this case Eq. (4.46) leads to $`N=0`$ and the relations

$`e_p=r_p^{^{}}M,g_p=r_p^{^{\prime \prime }}M,`$ (4.47)
i.e., to the NUT–less starting solution and to hard relations between the electromagnetic charges and the non–electromagnetic sector of the symmetry operator $`T`$. In this special case, up to construction, the resulting metric is asymptotically flat at spatial infinity. Notice that the resulting matter fields of heterotic string theory also contain Dirac strings. In order to remove them one must impose the corresponding restrictions on the magnitudes $`\stackrel{}{V}_2`$ and $`\stackrel{}{V}_3`$ (to elliminate, in turn, the terms proportional to $`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$). Here we will not discuss these pure algebraic topics; thus, our final solutions will include, for instance, magnetically charged field configurations.

At the end of this Section let us note that our solution–generating procedure, based on Eq. (3.12), maps the full Einstein–multi-Maxwell theory into the pure bosonic string theory sector in the case $`l_a0`$. Actually, this last restriction can be imposed independently of our generation scheme. This fact, is also reflected in the number of compactified space–time dimensions, which is equal to $`2k+1`$, where $`k`$ is precisely the number of starting Maxwell fields. Thus, a surprising fact is that the Abelian gauge field sector of heterotic string theory is not related to the Maxwell sector of the starting Einstein–multi-Maxwell theory: all the string theory gauge fields depend only on the structure of the symmetry operator $`T`$. Namely, one obtains $`n`$ Abelian vector fields $`U(1)`$ if one chooses the parameter $`l_a`$ of height $`n`$.

## 5 Conclusion and Discussion

The main result of this paper is the presentation of a new and explicit scheme of generation of heterotic string theory solutions from stationary fields of the Einstein–multi-Maxwell theory. Namely, one can start with an arbitrary stationary solution of Einstein theory coupled to $`k`$ Maxwell fields and obtain a solution of heterotic string theory with $`n`$ Abelian gauge fields which lives in $`2(k+2)`$ dimensions by making use of the procedure developed in this paper. It is worth noticing that our symmetry approach is based on pure algebraic calculations only as far as all the potentials of the starting Einstein–multi-Maxwell theory have been already computed.

Let us make two remarks concerning the properties of the underlying symmetry map (3.12) (or (4.17)–(4) and (4) in an equivalent and physically meaningful form). First of all, it is interesting to notice that for the case $`k=3`$, the resulting heterotic string theory becomes ten–dimensional. However, the complete theory with $`k=3`$ (we refer to a theory with arbitrary potential $`\stackrel{~}{𝒵}`$ of dimension $`2\times 8`$, not to the Einstein theory with $`3`$ Maxwell fields) corresponds to the bosonic sector of $`N=4`$ supergravity in four dimensions. Thus, when $`n=16`$, our procedure relates $`N=D=4`$ and $`N=1`$, $`D=10`$ supergravities in a transparent form. Keeping this in mind, it will be interesting to study the problem of supersymmetric, and therefore BPS saturated, solutions in the framework of the established correspondence. Namely, a question that naturally arises is: whether or not supersymmetric solutions of the four dimensional theory map into supersymmetric solutions of the ten–dimensional one. If they do so, how many supersymmetries will preserve under this correspondence? Notice that some classes of four–dimensional supersymmetric solutions have been extensively studied during last several years (see, for instance, , ); some special classes of ten–dimensional supersymmetric solutions have also been obtained (see , ) and the topic is still under active investigation till now.

Our second remark is related to the level of generality of the map (3.12). We consider this issue in the framework of asymptotically flat field configurations in the three–dimensional sense. Namely, we consider that the fields which are encoded in the potential $`𝒵`$ vanish at spatial infinity. In this sense our map (3.12) is complete with respect to the total group of three–dimensional charging symmetries, i.e., to the transformations that preserve the asymptotical triviality of the matrix potential $`𝒵`$. Thus, if in Eq. (3.12) the potential $`\stackrel{~}{𝒵}`$ and the symmetry operator $`T`$ have the most general form, our procedure is non–generalizable by making use of hidden symmetries that act in the subspace of three–dimensional asymptotically flat field solutions. However, if one starts with the potential $`\stackrel{~}{𝒵}`$ and the symmetry operator $`T`$ given in the matrix representation which corresponds to the complex $`\stackrel{~}{z}`$ and $`t`$, one partially loses the charging symmetry self–invariance of the resulting solutions of the heterotic string theory. In fact, one loses the part of the total charging symmetry group of the heterotic string theory which breaks the special (complex) structure of the matrix potential $`\stackrel{~}{𝒵}`$ and the symmetry operator $`T`$ given by Eqs. (4.6) and (4.37). This lost symmetry sector is evidently non–trivial and can be used for the further generalization of the solutions obtained in the framework of the pure complex generating scheme developed at the end of the previous Section.

In this paper we have constructed as well the string theory extension of the Kerr–multi-Newman solution of the Einstein–multi-Maxwell theory. This extension was presented as some simple and natural application of the developed general formalism. It was also shown how to remove all the Dirac string peculiarities from the resulting multi–dimensional metric field, so that the resulting space–time of heterotic string theory is asymptotically flat. Note that the constructed family of solutions constitutes the first example of extension of the Kerr–multi-Newman solution to the realm of the heterotic string theory. The obtained class of solutions is really interesting from the point of view of black hole physics and can be studied in detail in a conventional manner , .

## Acknowledgments

The work of both authors was supported by CONACyT grant $`No.`$ $`J34245E`$; the work of A.H-A. was also supported by grant CIC-$`4.18`$ whereas the work of O.V.K. - by grant RFBR $`No.`$ $`\mathrm{00\hspace{0.17em}02\hspace{0.17em}17135}`$. O.V.K. thanks IFM–UMSNH for facilities and hospitality provided during his stay at Morelia, Michoacan, Mexico.


format: text

text:
# Nature of the Peierls- to Mott-insulator transition in 1D

## 1 Introduction

In quasi-one-dimensional materials like halogen-bridged transition metal chain complexes, conjugated polymers, organic charge transfer salts, or inorganic blue bronzes the itinerancy of the electrons strongly competes with electron-electron and electron-phonon interactions, which tend to localize the charge carriers by establishing commensurate spin- (SDW) or charge-density-wave (CDW) ground states (GSs). At half-filling, Peierls (PI) or Mott (MI) insulating phases are favored over the metallic state. Quantum phase transitions between the insulating phases are possible and the character of the electronic excitation spectra reflects the properties of the different insulating GSs. A controversial issue is the nature of the PI-MI transition and whether or not only one quantum critical point separates the PI and MI phases in purely electronic model Hamiltonians FGN99 ; GST00 ; Pati ; Martin ; BJK01 . Phonon dynamical effects, which are known to be particularly important in low-dimensional materials JZW99 ; FHW00  may further modify the transition.

In this paper we study the PI-MI quantum phase transition in the Holstein-Hubbard model (HHM) at half-filling. Exact numerical methods BWF98  are used to diagonalize the HHM on finite chains, preserving the full dynamics of the phonons, and the density matrix renormalization group (DMRG) technique White  is applied to the adiabatic HHM and the ionic Hubbard model. On finite periodic chains we identify one critical PI-MI transition point in the HHM where the site-parity of the GS changes and the excitation gap in the optical conductivity closes. In the adiabatic limit two scenarios emerge with a discontinuous transition at strong coupling and two subsequent continuous transitions in the weak coupling regime with the possibility for an intermediate insulating phase with finite spin, charge, and optical excitation gaps.

## 2 Theoretical models

The paradigm for correlated electron-phonon systems has usually been the one-dimensional HHM defined by

$`H=H_{tU}g\omega _0{\displaystyle \underset{i,\sigma }{}}(b_i^{}+b_i)n_{i\sigma }+\omega _0{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}b_i^{}b_i,`$ (1)
$`H_{tU}=t{\displaystyle \underset{i,\sigma }{}}(c_{i\sigma }^{}c_{i+1\sigma }+\text{H.c.})+U{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}n_in_i.`$ (2)
$`H_{tU}`$ constitutes the conventional Hubbard Hamiltonian with hopping amplitude $`t`$ and on-site Coulomb repulsion strength $`U`$; $`c_{i\sigma }^{}`$ creates a spin-$`\sigma `$ electron at Wannier site $`i`$ and $`n_{i\sigma }=c_{i\sigma }^{}c_{i\sigma }`$. In (1), the second term couples the electrons locally to a phonon created by $`b_i^{}`$. Here $`g=\sqrt{\epsilon _p/\omega _0}`$ is a dimensionless electron-phonon coupling constant, where $`\epsilon _p`$ and $`\omega _0`$ denote the polaron binding energy and the frequency of the optical phonon mode, respectively.

The GS of the Holstein model for $`U=0`$ is a Peierls distorted state with staggered charge order in the adiabatic limit $`\omega _00`$ for any finite $`\epsilon _p`$. As in the Holstein model of spinless fermions BMH98 ; WEI98 , quantum phonon fluctuations destroy the Peierls state for small electron-phonon interaction strength JZW99  – an issue which has remained unresolved in early studies of the Holstein model using Monte Carlo techniques Hirsch . Above a critical threshold $`g_c(\omega _0)`$, the Holstein model describes a PI with equal spin and charge excitation gaps – the characteristic feature of a band insulator (BI).

The adiabatic limit of the HHM takes the form

$$H=H_{tU}\underset{i,\sigma }{}\mathrm{\Delta }_in_{i\sigma }+\frac{K}{2}\underset{i}{}\mathrm{\Delta }_i^2$$
(3)
(termed AHHM); it includes the elastic energy of a harmonic lattice with a “stiffness constant” $`K`$. In this frozen phonon approach, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i=(1)^i\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is a measure of the static, staggered density modulations of the PI phase. Eq. (3) with $`K=0`$ and fixed $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is known as the ionic Hubbard model (IHM) for which an insulator-insulator transition was already established before, although with controversial results regarding the possibility of an additional intervening phase FGN99 ; GST00 ; Pati . Interestingly, the IHM was motivated originally in quite different contexts, i.e. for the description of the neutral to ionic transition in charge transfer salts Nagaosa  and ferro-electricity in transition metal oxides Egami ; Resta .

## 3 Numerical results

### 3.1 Charge- and spin-structure factors

In order to establish the GS properties of the above models and the existence of the PI-MI transition we start with the evaluation of the staggered charge- and spin-structure factors $`S_c(\pi )`$ and $`S_s(\pi )`$, respectively,

$`S_c(\pi )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{j,\sigma \sigma ^{}}{}}(1)^j(n_{i\sigma }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})(n_{i+j,\sigma ^{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}),`$
$`S_s(\pi )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}(1)^jS_i^zS_{i+j}^z,S_i^z={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(n_in_i).`$
Results for the $`U`$-dependences of $`S_c(\pi )`$ and $`S_s(\pi )`$ on an 8-site HHM ring are shown in Fig. 1 for two different phonon frequencies, corresponding to adiabatic and non-adiabatic regimes. The PI regime is characterized by a large (small) charge- (spin-) structure factor. Also shown in Fig. 1 are results for the AHHM \[$`N=8`$ (Lanczos), $`N=64`$ (DMRG)\] which will be discussed in Sec. 3.3 Increasing $`U`$ at fixed $`\epsilon _p`$ and $`\omega _0`$, Peierls CDW order is suppressed as becomes manifest from the rapid drop of $`S_c(\pi )`$ which decreases nearly linearly in the adiabatic regime, but its initial decrease is significantly weaker for higher phonon frequencies. The disappearance of the charge ordering signal is accompanied by a steep rise in $`S_s(\pi )`$ indicating enhanced antiferromagnetic correlations in the MI phase. The data for $`S_c(\pi )`$ provide evidence for a critical point $`U_c`$ at which the CDW order disappears: rather abruptly for adiabatic and smoothly for non-adiabatic phonon frequencies. Above $`U_c`$ the low-energy physics of the system is qualitatively similar to the pure Hubbard chain; it is governed by gapless spin and massive charge excitations. As compared to the PI phase, the local magnetic moment $`L_i(U/t,\epsilon _p/t,\omega _0/t)(S_i^z)^2`$ is strongly enhanced (e.g. $`L_i(8,2,1)/L_i(0,2,1)16.4`$).

We emphasize the weak finite-size dependence of the exact diagonalization data for $`S_c(\pi )`$ in both the strong-CDW Peierls and MI phases (see the upper panel of Fig. 2). The variation of $`S_s(\pi )`$ with the system size $`N`$ points to a vanishing spin-structure factor in the CDW state, i.e. for $`U<U_c`$ but, of course, it is beyond our current numerical capabilities to perform a real finite-size analysis for the HHM with dynamical phonons. In the adiabatic limit, we expect a finite $`S_s(\pi )`$ in the MI phase as for the corresponding SDW state of the so-called extended Hubbard model with $`U>2V`$ FS84 ; H84 .

To discuss the lattice dynamical effects in some more detail we show in Fig. 3 the weights of $`m`$-phonon states in the GS of the HHM at different interaction strengths. First of all Fig. 3 demonstrates that our phonon Hilbert space truncation procedure is well-controlled in the sense that states with larger numbers of phonons, as accounted for in the calculations, have negligible spectral weight. Of course, the number of phonons which have to be taken into account strongly depends on the physical situation. Whereas the GS of the MI is almost a zero-phonon state, multi-phonon states become increasingly important if $`U`$ is reduced ($`\epsilon _p`$ is enhanced) in the PI regime.

For small $`U`$ and low phonon frequencies the PI phase appears for $`g>g_c(\omega _0)`$, even if the ratio $`\lambda =\epsilon _p/2t`$ is small. In the GS of such a conventional BI phonons populate predominantly the $`q=0`$ and $`\pi `$ modes, but the total number of phonons involved in the creation of the Peierls-distorted CDW is rather small. On the contrary, for large phonon frequencies, $`g>g_c(\omega _0)`$ implies $`\lambda 1`$ and we observe a multi-phonon GS (cf. Fig. 3). As a consequence the electrons are heavily dressed by phonons, forming bipolarons in real space, which lower their energy by ordering in a staggered CDW. Therefore, in the non-adiabatic strong electron-phonon coupling regime, the system is classified rather as a charge-ordered bipolaronic insulator than as a BI. The kinetic energy is much more suppressed for the bipolaronic than for the band PI (cf. lower panel of Fig. 1). Since SDW correlations reduce $`E_{kin}`$ as well, the kinetic energy reaches a maximum when the system crosses from the PI to the MI regime.

### 3.2 Optical response

Valuable insight into the nature of the PI-MI transition is obtained from symmetry considerations GST00 ; BJK01 . The BI-MI transition of the IHM on finite lattices was shown to be connected to a GS level crossing with a site-parity change, where the site inversion symmetry operator $`P`$ is defined by $`Pc_{i\sigma }^{}P^{}=c_{Ni\sigma }^{}`$ with $`N=4n`$ for $`i=0,\mathrm{},N1`$. This feature will become evident in the regular part of the optical conductivity at $`T=0`$,

$$\sigma ^{reg}(\omega )=\frac{\pi }{N}\underset{m0}{}\frac{|\psi _0|\widehat{j}|\psi _m|^2}{E_mE_0}\delta (\omega E_m+E_0).$$
(4)
Here, $`|\psi _0`$ and $`|\psi _m`$ denote the GS and excited states, respectively, and $`E_m`$ the corresponding eigenenergies. Importantly, the current operator $`\widehat{j}=\mathrm{i}et_{i\sigma }(c_{i\sigma }^{}c_{i+1\sigma }c_{i+1\sigma }^{}c_{i\sigma })`$ has finite matrix elements between states of different site-parity only.

The evolution of the frequency dependence of $`\sigma ^{reg}(\omega )`$ from the PI to the MI phase with increasing $`U`$ is illustrated in Fig. 4. In the PI regime the electronic excitations are gapped due to the pronounced CDW correlations. The broad optical absorption band for $`U=0`$ results from particle-hole excitations across the BI gap which are accompanied by multi-phonon absorption and emission processes. The shape of the absorption band reflects the phonon distribution function in the GS. Excitonic gap states may occur in the process of structural relaxation. At $`U_{opt}`$ the optical gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{opt}`$ closes, and due to the selection rules for optical transitions this necessarily implies a GS level crossing with a site-parity change. We have explicitly verified that the GS site parity in the PI phase is $`P=+1`$ and $`P=1`$ in the MI phase (see also Fig. 1). For the HHM on finite rings $`U_{opt}`$ is identical to the critical point where $`S_c(\pi )`$ sharply drops.

For the adiabatic phonon frequency used in Fig. 4 the phonon absorption threshold is small and, because the GS is a multi-phonon state, we find a gradual linear rise of the integrated spectral weight $`S^{reg}(\omega )=_0^\omega \sigma ^{reg}(\omega ^{})d\omega ^{}`$. $`S^{reg}(\omega )/S^{reg}(\mathrm{})`$ is a natural measure for the relative weight of the different optical absorption processes. In contrast, in the non-adiabatic regime ($`\omega _0t`$), the lowest optical excitations have mainly pure electronic character in the vicinity of $`U_{opt}`$. As a result the gap is closed by a state having large electronic spectral weight.

In the MI phase the optical gap is by its nature a correlation gap. The lower panel in Fig. 4 shows clearly that $`\sigma (\omega )`$ of the HHM in the MI phase is dominated by excitations which can be related to those of the pure Hubbard model. In addition, phononic sidebands with low spectral weight and phonon-induced gap states appear.

### 3.3 Phase diagram in the adiabatic limit

The above results for the HHM establish the PI-MI phase transition scenario on small rings and trace it to the level crossing of the two site-parity sectors. In order to draw conclusions about the phase diagram in the adiabatic regime we exploit the connection to the AHHM.

The magnitude of $`S_c(\pi )`$ in the HHM for $`U=0`$ and $`\omega _0=0.1t`$ allows a straightforward way to fix the stiffness constant $`K`$ in Eq. (3). Using the result of the AHHM for $`S_c(\pi )`$ at $`U=K=0`$ we determine first the ionic potential strength $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ by the requirement that $`S_c^{IHM}(\pi ,\mathrm{\Delta }_0)=S_c^{HHM}(\pi )`$ for the same chain length and periodic boundary conditions. In a second step, the GS energy of the AHHM, $`E_0(K,\mathrm{\Delta },U=0)`$, determines $`K`$ by the criterion that $`E_0`$ is minimized for $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$. We thereby obtain $`K=0.74`$, which is henceforth kept fixed when the interaction $`U`$ is turned on. For each value of $`U`$, the ionic potential strength of the AHHM is then obtained by minimizing $`E_0(K,\mathrm{\Delta },U)`$ with respect to $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, yielding $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{\Delta }(U,K)`$ as shown in Fig. 5 (triangles). The resulting structure factors for the AHHM are plotted in Fig. 1, too, and agree very accurately with the 8-site HHM ring data for $`\omega _0/t=0.1`$. This agreement reconfirms numerically that the AHHM is indeed the appropriate effective model to describe the CDW phase of the HHM in the adiabatic limit. The drop in $`S_c(\pi )`$ at the transition point results from a discontinuous vanishing of $`\mathrm{\Delta }(U,K)`$ (see Fig. 5). The large charge structure factor $`S_c(\pi )`$ below $`U_c`$ and the enhancement of the spin structure factor $`S_s(\pi )`$ above $`U_c`$ as well as the sharp changes at the transition point find a natural explanation with the results for $`\mathrm{\Delta }(U,K)`$ in Fig. 5. Below the transition $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is finite implying long range CDW order in the GS. At the transition point $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ vanishes discontinuously and thereby the AHHM reduces to the pure Hubbard model ($`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$).

Given the value for the stiffness constant $`K`$ we also plot in Fig. 5 $`\mathrm{\Delta }(U,K)`$ obtained from DMRG on an open chain of length $`N=64`$. For comparison, the corresponding results for $`S_c(\pi )`$ and $`S_s(\pi )`$ in the AHHM are shown in Fig. 1, too (stars). $`S_c(\pi )`$ decreases smoothly and almost linearly; although unresolved on the vertical scale in Fig. 1 the transition remains discontinuous as a consequence of the results for $`\mathrm{\Delta }(U,K)`$ in Fig. 5. In contrast to the behavior of the 8-site chain, $`\mathrm{\Delta }(U,K)`$ here decreases more smoothly with increasing $`U`$ and vanishes discontinuously near $`U/2\epsilon _p0.75`$. The small discontinuous increase in $`S_s(\pi )`$ at the transition is also hardly resolved for the 64-site chain in contrast to the 8-site chain data. The discontinuous nature of the PI-MI transition in the AHHM for $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i=(1)^i\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is obvious in the atomic limit $`t=0`$ where $`\mathrm{\Delta }=1/K`$ for $`U<U_c=1/K`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$ for $`U>U_c`$. As verified above, the first order nature persists for finite small $`t`$, i.e. in the strong coupling regime $`U`$, $`K^1t`$.

Also shown in Fig. 5 is the level crossing line $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{cr}(U)`$ of the IHM for $`N=8`$ (diamonds) and $`N=64`$ (circles) chain. $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{cr}(U)`$ for $`N=64`$ was obtained from extrapolating Lanczos results for rings of up to 14 sites to a 64-site chain boundary . Importantly, $`\mathrm{\Delta }(U,K)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{cr}(U)`$ do not intercept because $`\mathrm{\Delta }(U,K)`$ jumps to zero before reaching the level crossing point of the IHM.

The DMRG results presented in Fig. 5 for $`N=64`$ raise the question whether the discontinuous transition in the AHHM can turn into a continuous transition on approaching the weak coupling regime by increasing the stiffness constant $`K`$. Indeed, as we have explicitely verified by exact diagonalization of a periodic (and open too) AHHM ring of length $`N=14`$, the transition is second order in the regime $`U`$, $`K^1t`$. The corresponding Lanczos results for the variation of the GS energy vs. $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in the $`(K,U)`$-parameter plane are summarized in Fig. 6. Detailed $`K`$-scans were performed for weak ($`U=0.3t`$) and strong ($`U=5t`$) Hubbard interaction. The evolution of $`E(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ in the AHHM in fact reveals that the transition from the PI to the MI phase (sequence $`(2)(3)(4)`$) occurs discontinuously at strong coupling $`K^1,Ut`$, while the transition follows a Ginzburg-Landau-type behavior for a second order phase transition at weak coupling (sequence $`(1)(5)`$ in Fig. 6).

Due to the continuous decrease of $`\mathrm{\Delta }(U,K)`$ at weak coupling $`\mathrm{\Delta }(U,K)`$ necessarily intercepts the $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{cr}(U)`$ line of the IHM boundary . This intercept marks the point $`U_{opt}`$ when the site-parity sectors become degenerate and the optical absorption gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{opt}`$ disappears. This situation therefore implies the existence of an intermediate region $`U_{opt}<U<U_s`$ with finite $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, where $`U_s`$ marks the point where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ continuously vanishes. Since $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$ for $`U>U_S`$, i.e. when the AHHM reduces to the Hubbard model, the spin gap vanishes at $`U_s`$. The intermediate insulating phase thus has finite spin, charge, and optical excitation gaps. For weak coupling the PI-MI transition therefore evolves across two critical points $`U_{opt}`$ and $`U_s`$. The $`U`$ vs. $`K^1`$ phase diagram contains a multicritical point at which a first order line splits into two continuous transition lines. The additional transition line is also indicated in Fig. 6 (dotted line). For weak $`U`$ at fixed $`K`$ the transition at $`U_{opt}`$ is expected to be of Kosterlitz-Thouless type since it corresponds to the merging of the energies of the two site-parity sectors; the CDW vanishes in a second order type transition at $`U=U_s`$. The $`E(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ behavior, however, can only detect the boundary to the MI phase of the AHHM where the GS energy is minimized for vanishing $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

We summarize these findings in the diagram for the excitation gaps shown in Fig. 7,

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_c`$ $`=`$ $`E_0(N/2+1,N/2)+E_0(N/21,N/2)`$ (5)
$`2E_0(N/2,N/2),`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_s`$ $`=`$ $`E_0(N/2+1,N/21)E_0(N/2,N/2),`$ (6)
where $`E_0(N_{},N_{})`$ is the GS energy of the system with $`N_{}`$ spin-up and $`N_{}`$ spin-down electrons. In the Peierls BI phase for $`U<U_{opt}`$ the spin and charge gaps, are equal and finite and remarkably $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{opt}\mathrm{\Delta }_c`$ (for a similar conclusion in the IHM see Qin ). At $`U=U_{opt}`$ the site-parity sectors become degenerate, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{opt}=0`$ but remarkably $`\mathrm{\Delta }_c=\mathrm{\Delta }_s>0`$. For $`UU_s`$ the usual MI phase of the half-filled Hubbard chain with $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{opt}=\mathrm{\Delta }_c>\mathrm{\Delta }_s=0`$ is realized. For strong coupling, when the PI to MI transition is first order, $`U_{opt}=U_s`$, the spin gap discontinuously disappears at the transition and the optical gap jumps from zero to the finite charge gap value of the Hubbard chain. In weak coupling there exists an intermediate region $`U_{opt}<U<U_s`$ in which all excitation gaps are finite. The CDW persists for all $`U<U_s`$. The site-parity eigenvalue is $`P=+1`$ in the PI and $`P=1`$ in the MI phase.

The insulating, intermediate phase at weak coupling as identified above remains yet to be characterized. For the insulator-insulator phase transition(s) in the IHM Fabrizio et al. proposed the existence of an intermediate phase with a long range bond order wave (BOW) based on a bosonization analysis FGN99 . BOW order is characterized by a finite expectation value of the staggered bond charge $`B=\frac{1}{N}_{i\sigma }(1)^ic_{i\sigma }^{}c_{i+1\sigma }^{}+H.c.`$. Some positive numerical evidence has indeed been reported for enhanced BOW correlations above the level crossing transition in the IHM Pati ; Martin ; BJK01 ; Torio01 . Yet, these results have remained ambiguous so far and no consensus has been reached about the existence of long range BOW order in the IHM. In the attempt to search for BOW order the DMRG calculations, which for numerical accuracy reasons are predominantly performed on open chains, suffer from the fact that Friedel-like bond charge density oscillations are induced by the chain ends already for the pure Hubbard chain BJK01 . The identification of BOW order in the IHM or AHHM by DMRG on open chains therefore requires a delicate subtraction procedure to discriminate a BOW signal from the edge induced bond charge oscillations of the Hubbard chain. We have nevertheless attempted to search for BOW correlations in the weak coupling regime of the AHHM, where the continuous nature of the transition into the MI phase was established by the Lanczos results on the periodic or open 14-sites chain, i.e. these calculations naturally focused on the weak-$`U`$ regime ($`U<t`$). This weak coupling regime is notoriously hard for numerical evaluations; unfortunately the numerical accuracy needed to allow a firm conclusion about the presence or absence of a BOW signal could not be achieved within our DMRG runs.

While a confirmation is thus still lacking BOW order remains a vivid candidate order in coexistence with a CDW to characterize the intermediate phase in the AHHM at weak coupling. We furthermore note that if the existence of a BOW is verified in the AHHM, its phase diagram would be remarkably similar to the extended Hubbard model with nearest neighbor Coulomb repulsion with an intervening BOW phase in the crossover between the CDW and MI phases at weak coupling Na ; Ca .

## 4 Conclusions

In summary, we have found a PI-MI transition in the HHM above a threshold electron-phonon coupling. The transition results from a GS level crossing with a change in the GS site-parity eigenvalue. In the adiabatic limit two scenarios emerge with a discontinuous PI-MI transition for $`U,K^1t`$, and two continuous transitions for weak coupling $`U,K^1t`$ with an intermediate phase where CDW order persists. In the non-adiabatic regime our structure factor data indicate that the PI-MI transition proceeds continuously.

## Acknowledgments

We appreciate discussions with A.R. Bishop, F. Göhmann, G.I. Japaridze, and A. Weiße. Calculations were performed at the NIC Jülich and the LRZ München, supported by the Bavarian Network for High-Performance Computing (KONWIHR). H.F. and A.P.K. acknowledge support through SPP 1073 and SFB 484 of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, respectively.


text:
# Traceless stress-energy and traversable wormholes

## Abstract

A one-parameter family of static and spherically symmetric solutions to Einstein equations with a traceless energy-momentum tensor is found. When the nonzero parameter $`\beta `$ lies in the open interval $`(0,1)`$ one obtains traversable Lorentzian wormholes. One also obtains naked singularities when either $`\beta <0`$ or $`\beta >1`$ and the Schwarzschild black hole for $`\beta =1`$.

Traversable wormholes.

In previous papers  we have rewritten the exterior and interior Schwarzschild solutions replacing the usual radial standard coordinate $`r`$ with an angular one $`\psi `$ defined by

$$r=\frac{2m}{\mathrm{cos}^2\psi }\frac{\pi }{2}\psi \frac{\pi }{2}$$
(1)
when $`r>2m`$, and analytically continued to

$$r=\frac{2m}{\mathrm{cosh}^2\psi }\mathrm{}<\psi <\mathrm{}$$
(2)
when $`r<2m`$, $`m`$ representing the gravitational mass of the considered body. This allows to obtain some results otherwise less apparent or even hidden in the usual coordinate systems. With special emphasis on the interior Schwarzschild solution, we introduced the concept of quasi-universe, namely an universe deprived of a spherical void. Two quasi-universes with the same gravitational mass are connected by the Einstein-Rosen bridge (fig.1) which can therefore be renamed an extreme wormhole., extreme because it is not seen as traversable by a static observer.

The throat of the Einstein-Rosen bridge contains no matter and by fact constitutes the $`IIII`$ representation of the exterior Schwarzschild solution in the customary nomenclature of the Kruskal-Szekeres diagram . We interpreted this representation as describing two sources of equal gravitational mass placed at the boundaries $`\psi =\pi /2`$ and $`\psi =\pi /2`$, so as a limiting case of fig.1 when the connections between the two quasi-universes and the Einstein-Rosen bridge tend to infinity. The quasi-universes can exchange information if the Einstein-Rosen bridge is substituted by a two-way traversable wormhole. After the seminal paper of Morris and Thorne  there was a considerable amount of activity about wormhole physics . The prescriptions to have a wormhole traversable are clearly given in , and particularly important with this respect is the violation of the null energy condition (NEC) . In our opinion to have a wormhole connecting two quasi-universes it is also necessary that no singularity lies beyond its throat. This fact can occur, as an example, in the Brans-Dicke theory of gravitation when the post-Newtonian parameter $`\gamma `$ is greater than unity. In this case one effectively obtains a solution describing a wormhole which connects two spaces asymptotically flat , but obtains also another solution where beyond the throat there is a singularity smeared on a spherical surface asymptotically large but not asymptotically flat . The aim of this paper is to find a wormhole solution without singularities beyond the throat and different from the Einstein-Rosen bridge only by the occurrence of a “vacuum tension”, which implies the presence in the throat of exotic matter violating the NEC condition. Having in mind the work of Kar and Sahdev , where a class of wormhole solutions is achieved starting from a choice of the “potential” $`g_{tt}`$ and obtaining $`g_{rr}`$ as a solution to the constraint of vanishing Ricci scalar curvature ($`R=0`$), we find the metric components by assuming a traceless energy-momentum tensor ($`T=0`$). Our ansatz implies again $`R=0`$ but the constraints are now on the energy density $`\rho `$ and on the radial and transverse pressures $`p_{}`$ and $`p_{}`$:

$$\{\begin{array}{c}\rho =0\hfill \\ \\ p_{}+2p_{}=0\hfill \end{array}$$
(3)
(Note that sometimes in the literature the radial pressure is substituted by minus the radial tension $`\tau `$ and the transverse pressure is simply denoted by $`p`$).

Let us firstly consider the static spherically symmetric line element

$$ds^2=A(r)dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2B(r)dt^2$$
(4)
where

$$d\mathrm{\Omega }^2=d\vartheta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\vartheta d\phi ^2$$
(5)
and the energy-momentum tensor with components

$$T_r^r=p_{}(r),T_\vartheta ^\vartheta =T_\phi ^\phi =p_{}(r),T_t^t=\rho (r)$$
(6)
The relevant Einstein equations, dropping for simplicity the $`r`$ dependence and denoting by a prime the derivative with respect to $`r`$, are in units $`c=G=1`$

$`{\displaystyle \frac{BAB+rB^{}}{r^2AB}}=8\pi p_{}`$ (7a)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4rA^2B^2}}\left\{2B^2A^{}+rAB_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+B\left[rA^{}B^{}2A\left(B^{}+rB^{\prime \prime }\right)\right]\right\}=8\pi p_{}`$ (7b)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{AA^2rA^{}}{r^2A^2}}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}8}\pi \rho `$ (7c)
Taking into account the constraints (3) one obtains from eqs. (7)

$`A`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{1{\displaystyle \frac{2\eta }{r}}}}`$
$`B`$ $`=\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1+\beta \left(\sqrt{1{\displaystyle \frac{2\eta }{r}}}1\right)}{{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{}{\alpha }}}}\right]^2`$
where $`\eta `$, $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are constants. The constant $`\alpha `$ can be related to the position $`r_{obs}`$ of the observer , while $`\eta `$ and $`\beta `$ are related to the gravitational mass $`m`$ by comparison with the Newtonian limit at large distances. More in detail, if we put

$$\alpha =1+\beta \left(\sqrt{1\frac{2\eta }{r_{obs}}}1\right),\eta =\frac{m}{\beta }$$
(8)
the previous expressions for $`A`$ and $`B`$ become

$`A`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{1{\displaystyle \frac{2m}{\beta r}}}}`$
$`B`$ $`=\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1+\beta \left(\sqrt{1{\displaystyle \frac{2m}{\beta r}}}1\right)}{1+\beta \left(\sqrt{1{\displaystyle \frac{2m}{\beta r_{obs}}}}1\right)}}\right]^2`$
so, when the observer is put at spatial infinity, the asymptotic behaviour of $`B`$ is effectively $`B12m/r`$ regardless of the sign of $`\beta `$. As to the pressures, they are

$$p_{}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}p_{}=\frac{(1+\beta )m}{4\pi \beta \left[1+\beta \left(\sqrt{1{\displaystyle \frac{2m}{\beta r}}}1\right)\right]r^3}$$
(9)
and are independent, as they must be, on the observer position $`r_{obs}`$. Therefore once $`r_{obs}`$ is fixed in eq. (12), the nonzero constant $`\beta `$ becomes the only free parameter in this model. A treatment of the integration constants different from ours is given in .

The invariant of curvature $`K=R_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }R^{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }`$, which will be needed in the following, is given by

$`K=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{24m^2}{r^7\beta ^2\left[1+\beta \left(\sqrt{1{\displaystyle \frac{2m}{\beta r}}}1\right)\right]^2}}\{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}m\beta +`$
$`r[1+\beta (3\beta 2(1+\beta )\sqrt{1{\displaystyle \frac{2m}{\beta r}}}2)]\}`$
The lapse function $`B`$ vanishes at $`r_{}=2m\beta /(2\beta 1)`$ when $`\beta <0`$ or when $`\beta 1`$. The particular value $`\beta =1`$ describes a black hole in Schwarzschild geometry with zero pressures, event horizon at $`r_h=2m`$, curvature invariant given by $`48m^2/r^6`$ and therefore essential singularity at $`r=0`$. If instead $`\beta <0`$ or $`\beta >1`$ both the pressures and the curvature invariant $`K`$ diverge at $`r=r_{}`$ where $`B`$ vanishes so we have no more an event horizon but a naked singularity at $`r_{}`$; let us notice that the essential singularity occurs now at a value of $`r`$ greater than the value $`r_0=2m/\beta `$ where otherwise should blow up the function $`A`$ if $`\beta `$ is nonnegative.

Let us consider the case $`0<\beta <1`$. Now the function $`B`$ does not vanish and is everywhere finite so if we introduce the proper length $`l`$ through

$$l=\pm _{r_0}^r\frac{dr^{}}{\sqrt{1{\displaystyle \frac{2m}{\beta r^{}}}}}=\pm \left\{r\sqrt{1\frac{r_0}{r}}+r_0\mathrm{log}\left[\sqrt{\frac{r}{r_0}}\left(1+\sqrt{1\frac{r_0}{r}}\right)\right]\right\}$$
(10)
and put the spacetime metric (4) in the form

$$ds^2=dl^2+r^2(l)d\mathrm{\Omega }^2e^{2\varphi (l)}dt^2$$
(11)
where $`\varphi (l)=\mathrm{log}B[r(l)]`$, it is apparent that the above line element satisfies all the properties required to can describe a Lorentzian wormhole with radius of the throat given by $`r_0=2m/\beta `$ and traversable in principle because of the absence of an event horizon. Also the invariant of curvature $`K`$ and the pressures are everywhere finite, in particular the pressures at the throat are given by

$$p_{}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}p_{}=\frac{m}{4\pi \beta r_0^3}=\frac{\beta ^2}{32\pi m^2}$$
(12)
Another coordinate patch which covers the entire geometry, besides the one given in eq. (16), and which allows to obtain somewhat simpler expressions can be obtained if we replace the standard radial coordinate $`r`$ not by the proper length $`l`$ but by an angular variable $`\psi `$, as discussed at the very beginning of the paper, which can be given in this case by

$$r=\frac{2m}{\beta \mathrm{cos}^2\psi }\frac{\pi }{2}\psi \frac{\pi }{2}$$
(13)
The spacetime metric (4) then becomes

$$ds^2=\left(\frac{4m}{\beta \mathrm{cos}^3\psi }\right)^2d\psi ^2+\left(\frac{2m}{\beta \mathrm{cos}^2\psi }\right)^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2\left[\frac{1+\beta (|\mathrm{sin}\psi |1)}{1+\beta (|\mathrm{sin}\psi _{obs}|1)}\right]^2dt^2$$
(14)
and, because of traversability, the observer could even be put at the throat where, according to (18), $`\psi _{obs}=0`$. Therefore two quasi-universes can be connected by a traversable wormhole though at the expense of violation of the energy conditions.

Leaving apart discussions about the traversability in practice or about known violations of the energy conditions, we would like to make some final remarks. We remind that our one-parameter solution depends so critically on the parameter $`\beta `$ as to pass at $`\beta =1`$ from a naked singularity ($`\beta >1`$) to a wormhole ($`0<\beta <1`$) through a state describing a Schwarzschild black hole ($`\beta =1`$). We found an analogous behavior  when considering the static spherically symmetric vacuum solution of the Brans-Dicke theory of gravitation: in that case by varying the post Newtonian parameter $`\gamma `$ different kinds of solutions were obtained when passing through the critical value $`\gamma =1`$. This value corresponds to the usual Schwarzschild exterior solution and a possible physical interpretation was given  by introducing spacetime fluctuations at a scale comparable to Planck length near the event horizon of a black hole. Another explanation, which seems worthy to be further investigated, might reside on the high nonlinearity of Einstein equations which makes solutions to change qualitatively, as in the theory of dynamical systems, when a reference state loses its stability because a “control parameter”, in the actual case $`\beta `$, passes through some critical value.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was completed after the sudden demise of A.G. Agnese, one of the authors, whose long and precious collaboration is gratefully acknowledged.