text:
# Big Bang nucleosynthesis, matter–antimatter regions, extra relativistic species, and relic gravitational waves

## I Introduction

The strongest constraint on additional energy density in the universe with a radiation-like equation of state is provided by big bang nucleosynthesis (BBN). The additional energy density speeds up the expansion and cooling of the universe, and, consequently, the typical time scale of BBN is reduced in comparison with the standard case. The additional radiation-like energy density may be attributed to some extra relativistic species whose statistics may be either bosonic or fermionic. Since the supplementary species may be fermionic, they have been customarily parametrized in terms of the effective number of neutrino species

$$N_{\mathrm{eff}}=3+\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{eff}},$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{eff}}=0`$ corresponds to the standard case with no extra energy density. The standard BBN (SBBN) results are in agreement with the observed abundances for $`N_{\mathrm{eff}}=2`$$`4`$, giving thus an upper limit $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{eff}}1`$ .

Extra radiation-like energy can be also constrained by other physical considerations not directly related to BBN. However, the bounds seem to be much weaker than the ones provided by BBN. For instance, the growth of density perturbations in the early universe is affected by the radiation/matter energy density ratio, which in the standard case falls below unity some time before recombination. The data on CMB anisotropy has now improved to the point where it can be used to provide a constraint. Hannestad obtains an upper bound $`N_{\mathrm{eff}}17`$ (95% confidence), or $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{eff}}14`$. Using large scale structure (LSS) data in connection with the CMB data the same author also obtained a lower limit $`N_{\mathrm{eff}}1.5`$/$`2.5`$ (depending on the data set used).

The BBN and CMB limits are complementary. Both measure the increase in the expansion rate of the universe, but through completely different physical phenomena. They also look at different epochs in the history of the universe, BBN to $`T=𝒪(1\text{ MeV})`$, CMB to $`T=𝒪(1\text{ eV})`$. Thus attempts to relax one of these limits are unlikely to affect the other.

The BBN limits can be relaxed in nonstandard BBN (NSBBN) scenarios (see the extensive reviews and, or ). For example, the $`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}`$ yield can be affected by changing the electron neutrino spectrum, like in the model with active-sterile neutrino mixing, or by $`\nu _e`$ degeneracy, which changes the amount of thermal $`\nu _e`$. This latter scenario is called degenerate BBN (DBBN).

In the present paper yet a different scenario will be studied, namely BBN with matter–antimatter domains. In short the idea is the following. Consider the situation where matter–antimatter fluctuations, are present at the onset of BBN. The fluctuations will be described in terms of their typical scale and the relative amount of antimatter. In previous studies it has been established that this type of scenario is rather effective in reducing the neutron to proton ratio prior to the formation of the $`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}`$ abundance. The physical reason behind this statement is the different diffusion scale of protons and neutrons which can travel into antimatter domains annihilating there. Since the presence of extra relativistic species typically causes an increase in the neutron to proton ratio, it seems plausible that in the case of antimatter BBN (ABBN) more relativistic degrees of freedom can be accommodated than in the case of standard BBN scenarios.

The additional relativistic species may be also bosonic, for instance gravitons. This possible interpretation of the extra energy density at the BBN epoch was originally invoked by Schwartsman  since the production of gravitons is a generic phenomenon in Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) universes . Relic gravitational waves decouple below the Planck scale and their energy density is constrained as part of the other extra relativistic species. The BBN bound constrains the maximal fraction of critical energy density present today in relic gravitons of cosmological origin. The experimental efforts are converging towards the possibility of direct detection of stochastically distributed gravitational waves . Various resonant mass detectors are now operating at a typical frequency of the order of kHz (Allegro , Auriga , Explorer , Nautilus , Niobe ) and four Michelson interferometers (GEO-600,TAMA-400 , LIGO  and VIRGO ) will soon be operating in a wide frequency band from a few Hz up to $`10`$ kHz. It is interesting, in the context of ABBN, to elaborate on the possibility that the additional relativistic species are of gravitational origin.

The plan of our paper is the following. In Section II some basic considerations on BBN with extra relativistic species will be presented. In Section III the main features of ABBN will be summarized in light of the possible presence of additional relativistic degrees of freedom in the scenario. In Section IV the results of the analysis of the parameter space of ABBN will be reported. In Section V the findings of ABBN will be compared with the case of DBBN, while in Section VI the constraints on the additional relativistic species obtained in the framework of ABBN will be studied together with other constraints coming from different physical considerations. Section VII deals mainly with the implications of our results for the case of relic gravitational waves. Finally Section VIII contains our concluding remarks.

## II BBN with Extra Energy Density

### A Preliminaries

In the radiation-dominated era the energy density of the universe is

$$\rho g_{}\left(\frac{\pi ^2}{30}\right)T^4.$$
(2)
This equation defines the effective number $`g_{}`$ of relativistic degrees of freedom. An (ultra)relativistic fermion species with two internal degrees of freedom and in thermal equilibrium contributes $`27/8=7/4=1.75`$ to $`g_{}`$. Before neutrino decoupling the contributing relativistic particles are photons, electrons, positrons, and $`N_\nu =3`$ species of neutrinos, giving

$$g_{}=\frac{11}{2}+\frac{7}{4}N_\nu =10.75.$$
(3)
The neutrinos have decoupled before electron-positron annihilation so that they do not contribute to the entropy released in the annihilation. While they are relativistic, the neutrinos still retain an equilibrium energy distribution, but after the annihilation their temperature is lower, $`T_\nu =(4/11)^{1/3}T`$. Thus

$$g_{}=2+\frac{7}{4}N_\nu \left(\frac{T_\nu }{T}\right)^4=2+0.454N_\nu =3.36$$
(4)
after electron-positron annihilation.

If we now assume that there are some additional relativistic degrees of freedom, which also have decoupled by the time of electron-positron annihilation, or just some additional component $`\rho _x`$ to energy density with a radiation-like equation of state, $`p_x=\rho _x/3`$, its effect on the energy density and expansion rate of the universe is the same as that of having some (perhaps a fractional number of) additional neutrino species. Thus its contribution can be represented by replacing $`N_\nu `$ with $`N_{\mathrm{eff}}=N_\nu +\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ in the above. Before electron-positron annihilation we have $`\rho _x=(7/8)\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{eff}}\rho _\gamma `$ and after electron-positron annihilation we have $`\rho _x=0.227\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{eff}}\rho _\gamma `$.

The present ratio of the CMB ($`T=2.725`$ K) energy density to the critical density is $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\gamma \rho _\gamma /\rho _c=2.47\times 10^5h^2`$. If the extra energy density component has stayed radiation-like until today, its ratio to the critical density, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_x`$, is given by

$$h^2\mathrm{\Omega }_xh^2\frac{\rho _x}{\rho _c}=5.61\times 10^6\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{eff}}$$
(5)
today111 To be more precise, the neutrinos have not completely decoupled by the onset of electron-positron annihilation, so that some entropy does leak to the neutrino component. This effect, plus finite-temperature QED corrections, can be represented by using $`N_{\mathrm{eff}}=3.04`$ after $`e^\pm `$-annihilation in the $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{eff}}=0`$ case. Mangano et al. have considered the effect of extra relativistic species on this. Their numerical results (for $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{eff}}=0`$$`1`$) can be approximated by $`N_{\mathrm{eff}}=3.0395+(10.0014)1.0074\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ after $`e^\pm `$-annihilation, where the part $`3.03950.0014\times 1.0074\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is in neutrinos and $`1.0074(10.00025\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{eff}})\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is in the extra species. This assumes that the extra energy density represented by $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ has completely decoupled before $`e^\pm `$ annihilation. Here we have defined $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ as $`N_{\mathrm{eff}}3`$ before $`e^\pm `$-annihilation, i.e., $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is a constant parameter, whereas $`N_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ changes in the $`e^\pm `$ annihilation. Then we have $`\rho _x=0.2288(10.00025\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{eff}})\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{eff}}\rho _\gamma `$ after the $`e^\pm `$ annihilation and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_x=(10.00025\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{eff}})5.653\times 10^6h^2\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ today. Since antimatter annihilation effects in our ABBN scenario take place in part during the same period as $`e^\pm `$-annihilation, the quantity $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ constrained by our calculations is intermediate between $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ and $`N_{\mathrm{eff}}3`$ after $`e^\pm `$-annihilation. We ignore these small effects in the present work., where $`h`$ is the Hubble constant in units of $`100`$ km/s/Mpc.

### B Standard BBN and extra relativistic species

The BBN isotope most sensitive222The magnitude of the effect on an isotope is considered in terms of how accurately its primordial abundance can be determined from observations. to the expansion rate is $`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}`$. The $`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}`$ yield depends on the number of available neutrons, or on the number ratio $`n/p`$ of neutrons and protons. This, in turn, is determined by the competition between the expansion rate and the rates of the weak reactions which convert neutrons into protons before the onset of the strong nuclear reactions which produce the isotopes. Extra energy density speeds up the expansion rate so that more neutrons remain available for $`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}`$ production.

In the usual terminology, standard BBN (SBBN) has $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{eff}}=0`$, or $`N_{\mathrm{eff}}=N_\nu =3`$. Then SBBN is a one-parameter theory, with the present baryon-to-photon ratio

$$\eta 10^{10}\eta _{10}\frac{n_b}{n_\gamma }$$
(6)
the only free parameter. It is related to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b`$, the fraction of critical density in baryonic matter today, by

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2=3.65\times 10^3\eta _{10}.$$
(7)
For the purpose of the present discussion we expand the concept of SBBN by allowing the presence of extra radiation-like energy density, so that SBBN has two parameters, $`\eta `$ and $`N_{\mathrm{eff}}`$.

Since $`Y_p`$, the primordial $`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}`$ mass fraction, is an increasing function of both $`N_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ and $`\eta `$ in SBBN, the effect of a larger $`N_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ can be compensated by a lower $`\eta `$ to keep $`Y_p`$ in the observed range.

The effect of the expansion rate on the other isotopes, $`\mathrm{D}`$, $`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}`$, and $`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}`$ can be divided into two parts:

1. The higher $`n/p`$ ratio leads to an increase in the yield of the other isotopes too.
2. The yields of these other isotopes are also sensitive to the time scale while these isotopes are produced by the strong nuclear reactions. The effect of less time can be compensated by increasing the reaction rates by increasing the baryon density.

These effects work in the same direction for $`\mathrm{D}`$ and for $`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}`$, but (for $`\eta _{10}3`$) in the opposite direction for $`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}`$, for which the second effect is stronger. Thus the net effect on the other isotopes is to shift the agreement with observations towards higher $`\eta `$. This soon leads to conflict with $`Y_p`$, constraining $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{eff}}`$.

Copi, Schramm, and Olive concluded that $`N_{\mathrm{eff}}<4`$ is a conservative upper limit. With various observational constraints on the primordial abundances, Lisi, Sarkar, and Villante obtained 95% confidence limits in the range $`N_{\mathrm{eff}}=2`$$`4`$. Using (probably prematurely) tight observational constraints, $`\mathrm{D}/\mathrm{H}=3.4\pm 0.25\times 10^5`$ and $`Y_p=0.244\pm 0.002`$, and the prior $`N_{\mathrm{eff}}3.0`$, Burles et al. get a tight upper limit $`N_{\mathrm{eff}}<3.20`$ (95% confidence). Cyburt, Fields, and Olive consider various fixed values of $`\eta `$ (looking forward to the future precision determinations of $`\eta `$ from the CMB anisotropy) and obtain the 95% confidence limits $`N_{\mathrm{eff}}3.6(3.0)`$ for $`\eta _{10}=5.8`$ and $`N_{\mathrm{eff}}4.1(3.9)`$ for $`\eta _{10}=2.4`$ with (without) the prior $`N_{\mathrm{eff}}3.0`$.

To summarize, the obtained SBBN upper limits are

$$\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{eff}}0.2\mathrm{}1.0$$
(8)
depending on the observational constraints chosen. Translated into an upper limit to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_x`$ they become

$$h^2\mathrm{\Omega }_x1.1\mathrm{}5.6\times 10^6.$$
(9)
## III BBN with matter–antimatter domains

BBN in the presence of antimatter regions has been discussed in . In this scenario the baryon-to-photon ratio is not only inhomogeneous but also not positive definite. In spite of this the Universe is not matter–antimatter symmetric and the antimatter regions are small enough to be completely annihilated well before recombination, so that they escape the CMB spectral distortion bound. This type of inhomogeneities can come from different baryogenesis scenarios .

The time when most of the annihilation takes place is determined by the size of the antimatter regions, and this, in its turn determines the nature of ABBN. Two different cases can be distinguished, depending on whether the annihilation takes place before or after $`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}`$ is formed in nucleosynthesis. The relevant physics is completely different in the two cases.

The case of interest here is the one with the smaller distance scale, where the antimatter region is annihilated before significant amounts of $`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}`$ is made. This corresponds to antimatter regions of typical radius $`r_A`$ between $`10^5`$ m and than $`10^7`$ m. (We give all distances as comoving at $`T=1`$ keV.) If the antimatter regions are even smaller they annihilate before neutrino decoupling and have no effect on BBN. The matter and antimatter are mixed by (anti)neutron diffusion. More neutrons than protons are annihilated and thus the $`n/p`$ ratio is reduced compared to SBBN. Thus we get less $`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}`$.

This reduction in $`Y_p`$ due to neutron annihilation can be used to cancel the increase in $`Y_p`$ due to a large $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{eff}}`$. Since both work by affecting the $`n/p`$ ratio, the $`n/p`$ part of the effect on the other isotopes is cancelled also, and one is left with the effect of the speed-up on the strong reactions. This shifts the agreement with observed abundances towards larger $`\eta `$ for large $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{eff}}`$.

For calculations (see for details), we assume an idealized geometry, where the antimatter regions are spherical with comoving radius $`r_A`$ and have homogeneous antimatter density equal to the matter density outside the region. With this idealization, the ABBN scenario introduces two new parameters, $`r_A`$ and $`R`$, where $`R`$ is the antimatter/matter ratio in the universe. We assume $`R<1`$ so that matter is left over after the antimatter regions have annihilated. Together $`r_A`$ and $`R`$ determine the number density of the antimatter regions (or the typical distance between neighboring antimatter regions).

In Fig. 1 we show the dependence of $`Y_p`$ on $`r_A`$ and $`R`$ for $`\eta _{10}=6`$ and $`N_{\mathrm{eff}}=3`$. We get the maximum effect for $`r10^6`$$`10^7`$ m, when most of the annihilation takes place just before $`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}`$ is made. For fixed $`r_A`$ the effect is roughly proportional to $`R`$. For $`r10^7`$ m, the effect on the other isotopes is also via the $`n/p`$ ratio and thus relatively small.

For $`r>10^7`$ m, some of the annihilation takes place after $`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}`$ formation, leading to significant production of $`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}`$ and $`\mathrm{D}`$. Because of $`{}_{}{}^{3}\mathrm{He}`$ overproduction, this region is not interesting for allowing larger $`N_{\mathrm{eff}}`$.

## IV ABBN and additional relativistic species

The observational constraints on the primordial abundances of the light elements are a matter of some controversy. We follow Kneller et al. in adopting the relatively generous constraints

$`0.23`$ $`Y_p`$ $`0.25`$ (10)
$`2\times 10^5`$ $`\mathrm{D}/\mathrm{H}`$ $`5\times 10^5`$ (11)
$`1\times 10^{10}`$ $`{}_{}{}^{7}\mathrm{Li}/\mathrm{H}`$ $`4\times 10^{10}.`$ (12)
We search for the region in the parameter space which satisfies these constraints. In SBBN these constraints lead to the upper limit $`N_{\mathrm{eff}}3.4`$. For $`N_{\mathrm{eff}}=3`$ the same constraints limit $`\eta `$ to the range $`4.2\eta _{10}5.9`$.

For $`r_A<10^7`$ m, the effect of the antimatter regions on nucleosynthesis is mainly due to the reduction of the $`n/p`$ ratio. As shown below, the dependence of the light element yields on $`r_A`$ and $`R`$ can be combined into a dependence on a single parameter, the $`n/p`$ ratio at the onset of nucleosynthesis. This redundancy of parameters allows us to cover the whole phenomenology by varying three of the four parameters only. For most of our computations we kept the antimatter radius fixed at $`r_A=10^{6.9}`$ m, in order to get the maximal reduction in $`n/p`$ for a given value of $`R`$. This left us with three parameters $`\eta `$, $`N_{\mathrm{eff}}`$, and $`R`$. We calculated the ABBN yields of light elements in this 3-dimensional parameter space and compared them to the observational constraints.

In Fig. 2 we show slices of this 3-dimensional parameter space for fixed values of $`\eta `$. For a given $`\eta `$, the upper limit on $`N_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ comes from a combination of the upper limit on $`\mathrm{D}/\mathrm{H}`$ and the lower limit on $`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}`$.

In Fig. 3 we show slices along another dimension, for fixed values of $`R`$. The allowed $`N_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ increases with increasing $`R`$. Simultaneously the allowed range in $`\eta `$ shifts to higher values.

Fig. 4 illustrates the redundancy of parameters $`R`$ and $`r_A`$. We show the yields of $`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}`$ and deuterium as a function of $`r_A`$ and $`R`$, for fixed $`\eta _{10}=6.0`$ and $`N_{\mathrm{eff}}=12`$. The value of $`N_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ was chosen close to its upper limit for this value of $`\eta _{10}`$ (see Fig. 2b). Reducing $`r_A`$ moves the allowed region to higher values of $`R`$, but the width of the region remains nearly the same. Thus the effect of a smaller $`r_A`$ can be compensated by a larger $`R`$. The contours of $`Y_p`$ and $`\mathrm{D}/\mathrm{H}`$ run almost parallel, so that we get essentially the same results for different combinations of $`r_A`$ and $`R`$, which lie along these contours. This shows that the light element yields depend on a single function of $`R`$ and $`r_A`$.

In Fig. 5 we show the projection of the allowed region in the $`(\eta ,N_{\mathrm{eff}},R)`$ space onto the $`(\eta ,N_{\mathrm{eff}})`$-plane. We see that very large amounts of extra radiation energy can be accommodated in ABBN. A large $`N_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ requires a somewhat larger $`\eta `$. For, e.g, $`\eta _{10}=6.0`$ we obtain $`3N_{\mathrm{eff}}12.5`$. Even values $`N_{\mathrm{eff}}>20`$ cannot be ruled out on the basis of nucleosynthesis. These large values require $`\eta _{10}>7`$.

If we accept the possibility of ABBN, $`N_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is no longer constrained by BBN, but is limited by other observational constraints.

## V Comparing ABBN to DBBN

### A Degenerate BBN

It is interesting to compare these results to another NSBBN scenario, degenerate BBN (DBBN) , which is also very effective in reducing the $`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}`$ yield. In SBBN the neutrino chemical potentials are assumed to be small, so that there are almost equal numbers of neutrinos and antineutrinos. In DBBN this assumption is lifted. The degeneracy parameters

$$\xi _i\frac{\mu _{\nu _i}}{T_\nu },(i=e,\mu ,\tau ),$$
(13)
stay constant as the temperature falls, as long as the neutrinos are relativistic. A nonzero $`\xi _i`$ increases the energy density in neutrinos of type $`i`$ by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{eff}}=\frac{30}{7\pi ^2}\xi _i^2+\frac{15}{7\pi ^4}\xi _i^4.$$
(14)
Degenerate neutrinos are thus one possibility for a nonzero (positive) $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{eff}}`$.

If the degeneracy is in electron neutrinos, a much stronger effect is that it shifts the balance of the weak reactions between neutrons and protons. The equilibrium ratio is

$$\left(\frac{n}{p}\right)_{\mathrm{eq}}=e^{Q/T\xi _e},$$
(15)
where $`Qm_nm_p`$. Thus a positive $`\xi _e`$ reduces $`n/p`$ and thus $`Y_p`$, while a negative $`\xi _e`$ increases $`n/p`$ and $`Y_p`$. This effect is much larger than the speed-up effect from the $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ due to $`\xi _e`$. One can have both $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ and $`\xi _e`$ as free parameters in this scenario by allowing the other $`\xi _i`$ to have much larger (absolute) values than $`\xi _e`$ (this possibility might, however, be excluded by neutrino oscillations), or by assuming some other extra radiation-like energy density contribution.

In DBBN one can compensate the increase in $`Y_p`$ due to a large $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ by a reduction due to a positive $`\xi _e`$. Like in ABBN, one then compensates for the speed-up effect on the other isotopes by increasing $`\eta `$. However this effect on these other isotopes is relatively small, and one can go to quite large $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ with a relatively small shift in $`\eta `$.

Considering BBN alone, the limit to $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is practically removed. Combining DBBN limits with other cosmological bounds on the density and expansion rate of the universe, Kang and Steigman obtained (in 1992) the limits $`0.06\xi _e1.1`$, $`|\xi _{\mu ,\tau }|6.9`$, which correspond to $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{eff}}71`$, and $`2.8\eta _{10}19`$. The other cosmological constraints have since gotten tighter (see Sec. VI below).

### B  ABBN versus DBBN

The DBBN allowed region in $`\eta `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ (see, e.g., Fig. 2 of, Fig. 5 of, or Fig. 1 of) is remarkably similar to that in ABBN (Fig. 5). We can understand this as follows.

In both cases the nonstandard feature affects nucleosynthesis mainly by reducing the $`n/p`$ ratio, with practically arbitrarily large reductions possible. Thus the nonstandard parameters, $`(r,R)`$ in the case of ABBN and $`\xi _e`$ in the case of DBBN, can be mapped onto a reduction factor in $`n/p`$. The rest of the game is then the same: $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ can now be increased to bring the $`n/p`$ ratio back up to give the observed value of $`Y_p`$; this has then a small effect on the other isotopes by shortening the time available for nuclear reactions, which has to be compensated by an increase in $`\eta `$.

## VI Different constraints on additional relativistic species

A large radiation energy density delays (i.e., moves to lower temperature) the transition from radiation domination to matter domination in the expansion law of the universe, and shortens the time scale of the radiation-dominated epoch. Since the radiation-dominated expansion law allows for logarithmic growth of density perturbations only, the large-scale structure of the universe constrains the radiation component. The effect of the radiation component in the expansion law shows also as an integrated Sachs-Wolfe (ISW) effect in the CMB angular power spectrum. Hannestad used this to obtain an upper limit $`N_{\mathrm{eff}}<17`$ (95% confidence).

In connection with a NSBBN scenario one can go further and combine the NSBBN constraints on $`(\eta ,N_{\mathrm{eff}})`$ with the CMB constraints on $`(\eta ,N_{\mathrm{eff}})`$. This has been done for DBBN in . These results will apply also to ABBN, since the allowed $`(\eta ,N_{\mathrm{eff}})`$ region is essentially the same in both NSBBN scenarios. This NSBBN allowed region leans towards higher $`\eta `$ for high $`N_{\mathrm{eff}}`$, whereas the CMB allowed region leans (slightly) towards lower $`\eta `$ for high $`N_{\mathrm{eff}}`$. The regions overlap for $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ few, but for the highest $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ allowed by CMB, the CMB seems to require a lower $`\eta `$ than these NSBBN scenarios allow. Thus the combined constraint on $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ may be lower than that from CMB alone. Hansen et al. use a different set of CMB data, favoring somewhat lower $`\eta `$, than Kneller et al. use, and get therefore tighter combined upper limits for $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{eff}}`$.

Since the CMB spectrum depends on a large number of other cosmological parameters, these results are sensitive to the assumed priors on these other parameters. Kneller et al. find that values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ larger than 10 are compatible with combined CMB and DBBN constraints, but when they include a prior on the matter density parameter, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M0.4`$, and on the age of the universe, $`t11`$ Gyr, they get a tighter upper limit, $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{eff}}6`$. Hansen et al. get $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{eff}}5`$ with a prior on the age, $`t>11`$ Gyr, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{eff}}4`$ (both at 95% CL) with a prior on the parameters $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ based on the supernova Ia data (see Fig. 5).

As emphasized by Hansen et al., the determination of $`\eta `$ from the CMB data relies on the heights of both the second and the third acoustic peaks in the CMB angular power spectrum, and, especially for the third peak, further data is needed to check on possible systematic effects. Therefore these combined CMB+NSBBN upper limits to $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ should be taken as preliminary.

At present, we can conclude that values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ as large as $`4`$ are acceptable, and values somewhat larger, $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{eff}}=𝒪(10)`$ may not yet have been ruled out. Thus, allowing for nonstandard BBN, like ABBN, raises the upper limit to the present fraction of extra radiation-like energy density from

$$h^2\mathrm{\Omega }_x1.1\mathrm{}5.6\times 10^6$$
(16)
to

$$h^2\mathrm{\Omega }_x2.3\mathrm{}8\times 10^5,$$
(17)
an increase by an order of magnitude.

## VII ABBN and stochastic backgrounds of relic gravitational waves

The supplementary radiation allowed either by ABBN or by DBBN may be the consequence of a primordial background of gravitational radiation. The present critical fraction of energy density stored in relic gravitons

$$h^2\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{GW}}(t_0)h^2\frac{\rho _{\mathrm{GW}}}{\rho _c}=5.6\times 10^6\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{eff}}.$$
(18)
depends upon $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ whose range of variation can be translated into constraints on the energy density of relic gravitational waves produced prior to BBN. The critical fraction of spectral energy density per logarithmic interval of frequency

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{GW}}(\nu ,t_0)=\frac{1}{\rho _\mathrm{c}}\frac{d\rho _{\mathrm{GW}}}{d\mathrm{ln}\nu }.$$
(19)
is often introduced for practical purposes. Eqs. (8)–(9) (obtained in the context of SBBN) and Eqs. (16)–(17) (obtained in the context of ABBN) can then be interpreted, in light of Eq. (18), as an upper limit on the energy density presently stored in relic gravitons. Heeding experimental observations, the correlation of resonant mass detectors or of wide band interferometers can also provide upper bounds on the critical fraction of energy density stored in relic gravitons. The sensitivity of operating resonant mass detectors is not yet able to probe possible signals compatible with Eqs. (16)–(17) and (18). Forthcoming generations of resonant mass and interferometric detectors are expected to improve their sensitivity in $`h^2\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{GW}}`$. The bounds coming from ABBN and from direct searches of stochastic gravitational wave backgrounds will represent two complementary sets of constraints on the same quantity.

### A GW detectors and BBN bound

Various resonant mass detectors are now operating . In , the first experiment of cross-correlation between two cryogenic detectors has been reported with the purpose of giving an upper limit on $`h^2\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{GW}}`$. The two detectors are Explorer  (operating in CERN, Geneva) and Nautilus  (operating in Frascati, near Rome). Previous experiments giving upper limits on $`h^2\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{GW}}`$ used room temperature detectors. The Rome group obtained then an upper limit $`h^2\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{GW}}<60`$ at a frequency of roughly $`905`$ Hz. The limit is a result of cross-correlation between the two detectors (located at a distance of approximately $`600`$ km) for an integration time of approximately 12 hours. This limit is not competitive with the BBN bound (and also above the critical density bound implying that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{GW}}<1`$). However, by increasing the correlation time from few hours to few months it is not unreasonable to go below one in $`h^2\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{GW}}`$.

Hollow spherical detectors have been recently investigated  as a possible tool for the analysis of the relic gravitational wave background. The sensitivity of two correlated spherical detectors could be $`𝒪(10^6)`$ in $`h^2\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{GW}}`$ for the frequency of resonance which lies between 200 and 400 Hz. In this case the ABBN bound and the experiment will be certainly competitive. Dual spherical detectors  may reach a sensitivity, in $`h^2\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{GW}}`$, which is again $`𝒪(10^6)`$ in the kHz region.

Consider now the case of wide band interferometers  whose arms range from 400 m of TAMA up to the 3 km of VIRGO and to the 4 km of LIGO. The foreseen noise power spectra $`S_n(\nu )`$ are defined for $`\nu `$ between a few Hz and $`10`$ kHz. While at small frequency the seismic noise dominates, at higher frequencies the main source of noise is provided by the shot noise. The signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) will be obtained by comparing the analytic form of the noise power spectra with the possible stochastic signal parametrized in terms of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{GW}}(\nu )`$. The single LIGO  detector will be presumably sensitive to $`h^2\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{GW}}10^3`$. Two correlated interferometers lead to a SNR

$`\mathrm{SNR}^2={\displaystyle \frac{3H_0^2}{2\sqrt{2}\pi ^2}}F\sqrt{T}\times `$ (20)
$`\left\{{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}d\nu {\displaystyle \frac{\gamma ^2(\nu )\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{GW}}(\nu )}{\nu ^6S_n^{(1)}(\nu )S_n^{(2)}(\nu )}}\right\}^{1/2},`$ (21)
($`H_0`$ is the present value of the Hubble parameter and $`F`$ depends upon the geometry of the two detectors; in the case of the correlation between two interferometers $`F=2/5`$). In Eq. (21), $`S_n^{(k)}(\nu )`$ is the (one-sided) noise power spectrum of the $`k`$-th $`(k=1,2)`$ detector, while $`\gamma (\nu )`$ is the overlap reduction function  which is determined by the relative locations and orientations of the two detectors. This function cuts off (effectively) the integrand at a frequency $`f1/2d`$, where $`d`$ is the separation between the two detectors. Eq. (21) assumes, as usually done, that the noises of the two detectors are stationary, Gaussian and not correlated.

Consider now the simple case of a flat spectrum, namely $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{GW}}(\nu )=\mathrm{\Omega }_0\nu ^0`$. From Eq. (21) using the appropriate expressions of the noise power spectra and of the overlap reduction functions pertaining to the LIGO and VIRGO detectors  we get that the sensitivity is

$$h^2\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{GW}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1.8}\times \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}^{10}\left(\frac{1\mathrm{yr}}{T}\right)^{1/2}\mathrm{SNR}^2$$
(22)
for the correlation between two LIGO detectors  and

$$h^2\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{GW}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}7.2}\times \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}^8\left(\frac{1\mathrm{yr}}{T}\right)^{1/2}\mathrm{SNR}^2$$
(23)
for the hypothetical correlation of two VIRGO detectors . In Eqs. (22) and (23) $`T`$ is the integration time of, for instance, one year.

In the context of the standard BBN scenario we would be led to exclude $`h^2\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{GW}}>5.6\times 10^6`$ as a signal of primordial origin. This bound can be relaxed, according to Eqs. (16)–(17) up to values which are $`𝒪(10^4)`$, in the context of ABBN. If a signal with $`h^2\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{GW}}`$ larger than the bound implied by standard BBN will ever be detected, it could still be of primordial nature. This observation may also be relevant for the bounds on stochastic GW backgrounds obtained by a single detector, where, $`h^2\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{GW}}`$ can be, at most $`𝒪(10^4)`$.

Microwave cavities have been originally proposed as GW detectors in the GHz–MHz region of the spectrum . Their application for high frequency gravitational wave backgrounds was theoretically suggested in . Improvements in the quality factors of the cavities (if compared with the prototypes of ) have been recently achieved  and two experiments (in Italy  and in England ) are now in progress. The sensitivity in $`h^2\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{GW}}`$ is still above one for the experiments reported so far. These devices could be important for the analysis of a frequency range where possible backgrounds generated by collections of astrophysical sources are negligible.

### B BBN bounds and theoretical models of stochastic GW backgrounds

When the ordinary inflationary phase (of de Sitter or quasi-de Sitter type) is followed by a radiation epoch gravitational waves are produced and the theoretically estimated $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{GW}}(\nu )`$ decreases as $`\nu ^2`$ for $`10^{18}h\mathrm{Hz}<\nu <10^{16}\mathrm{Hz}`$. This branch of the spectrum corresponds to modes leaving the horizon during the inflationary phase and re-entering during the matter-dominated phase . Since $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{GW}}(\nu )`$ is a decreasing function of the present frequency $`\nu `$ the most relevant bounds (determining the normalization of the spectrum) will be the ones coming from small frequencies (i.e. large length scales) and, among them, the analysis of the first thirty multipoles of temperature anisotropies in the microwave sky. The COBE normalization implies, in the low-frequency part of the inflationary spectrum, that $`h^2\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{GW}}(\nu )<6.9\times 10^{11}`$ for $`\nu 10^{18}h\mathrm{Hz}`$.

The modes re-entering during the radiation dominated epoch correspond to frequencies $`10^{16}\mathrm{Hz}<\nu <10^{11}\sqrt{H_1/M_P}`$ Hz, (where $`H_110^6M_P`$ is the curvature scale at the end of inflation). The theoretical $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{GW}}(\nu )`$ is either a flat (exact Harrison-Zeldovich spectrum ) or a slightly decreasing (in the quasi-de Sitter case) function of $`\nu `$, i.e. $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{GW}}(\nu ,t_0)\nu ^\alpha `$ , with $`\alpha 0`$. Imposing the COBE normalization as illustrated above, it turns out that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{GW}}(\nu )<10^{15}`$ for $`\nu >10^{16}`$ Hz. From Eqs. (22)–(23) and (18) it can be deduced that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{GW}}<10^{15}`$ will always be compatible with the BBN constraints and out the foreseen sensitivity of wide band interferometers.

In quintessential inflationary models , the inflationary phase is not immediately followed by a radiation-dominated phase, but a long stiff phase (dominated by the kinetic energy of the quintessence field) takes place prior to the dominance of radiation. As a consequence, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{GW}}(\nu )`$ increases as $`\nu `$ (up to logarithmic corrections) for $`10^3\mathrm{Hz}<\nu <\mathrm{GHz}`$ . This branch of the spectrum corresponds to modes leaving the horizon during the inflationary phase and re-entering during the stiff phase. Around the GHz, $`h^2\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{GW}}(\nu )`$ exhibits a spike. While the presence of the spike is a consequence of the fact that the inflationary epoch is followed by a stiff phase, the height of the spike is bounded by the BBN. In the case of standard BBN the height of the spike turns out to be, at most, $`0.8\times 10^6`$. Using the ABBN constraint the height of the spike becomes $`1.7\times 10^5`$. In pre-big bang models a similar discussion applies since the spectra of relic gravitons increase with frequency  and the most significant phenomenological bounds will be the one provided by Eq. (18).

## VIII Conclusions

Big bang nucleosynthesis provides the tightest constraint on the radiation-like energy density in the universe. However, some nonstandard BBN scenarios remove this constraint. In particular, this is true for NSBBN scenarios which cause a large reduction of the neutron-to-proton ratio before $`{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{He}`$ is formed, such as ABBN and DBBN.

All nonstandard features, whose effect on BBN is entirely due to a reduction of $`n/p`$ before the nuclei are produced, have the same effect on BBN constraints on $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{eff}}`$, provided a sufficiently large $`n/p`$ reduction is possible. One can then consider just this $`n/p`$ reduction as the nonstandard feature, and ignore the rest of the nonstandard physics as far as BBN is concerned.

The BBN upper limit to $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is raised, since this $`n/p`$ reduction can be cancelled by a corresponding $`n/p`$ increase due to the shortening of the timescale caused by a positive $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{eff}}`$. This brings $`Y_p`$ back to the observed value. A small effect on the other isotopes remains since the timescale for the nuclear reactions is also shortened by $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{eff}}`$. This can be compensated by an increase in $`\eta `$. Thus the larger $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ values require somewhat larger values of $`\eta `$. The required increase is about $`\mathrm{\Delta }\eta _{10}\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{eff}}/4`$.

Allowing for nonstandard BBN removes the upper limit to additional energy density which comes from nucleosynthesis. Even when we include the other cosmological constraints, the limit is raised from $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{eff}}1`$ at least to $`\mathrm{\Delta }N_{\mathrm{eff}}4`$, or from $`h^2\mathrm{\Omega }_x=\mathrm{few}\times 10^6`$ to $`h^2\mathrm{\Omega }_x=\mathrm{few}\times 10^5`$. Even values up to $`h^2\mathrm{\Omega }_x=8\times 10^5`$ may be acceptable. Since, after BBN, gravitational waves interact very weakly with the surrounding plasma, the upper limit of BBN sets, today, an upper limit on the critical fraction of energy density stored in gravitational waves of primordial origin. In the near future various detectors will be able to reach sensitivities, in $`h^2\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{GW}}`$, which could be $`𝒪(10^5)`$ or even smaller. Hence, the problem will be to understand whether the obtained signal is primordial or not. The bound on extra relativistic species obtained in the context of ABBN may be then relevant since $`h^2\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{GW}}`$ cannot certainly be larger than $`10^4`$ but it can be larger than $`5\times 10^6`$, constraint of the standard BBN scenario. If a signal compatible with $`h^2\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{GW}}>5.6\times 10^6`$ will ever be found (either by two correlated resonant mass detectors or, most probably, by two correlated Michelson interferometers), it could still be of primordial origin provided $`h^2\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{GW}}<𝒪(10^4)`$.

## IX Acknowledgments

We thank the Center for Scientific Computing (Finland) for computational resources. On behalf of the ROG collaboration we thank V. Fafone and G. Pizzella, for important discussions. Stimulating comments from E. Picasso, G. Gemme, and D. Babusci are also acknowledged. We thank S. Pastor, K. Abazajian, and S. Hansen for useful comments, S. Pastor for additional details concerning the results in Ref.  and S. Hansen for the CMB+SNIa contour in Fig. 5.


format: text

text:
# Sigma-model soliton intersections from exceptional calibrations

## 1 Introduction

Supersymmetric sigma models, in dimension (1+1) or above, are known to have a variety of supersymmetry-preserving, and hence stable, soliton solutions, supported by a combination of topological and Noether charges. It is natural to consider the maximally-supersymmetric models, with a total of 8 supersymmetries, because sigma models with fewer supersymmetries can always be embedded in some model with maximal supersymmetry, for which the target space is automatically hyper-Kähler (HK), although not necessarily irreducible111e.g. a Calabi-Yau 3-fold $``$ is a submanifold of the 12 real dimensional target space $`\times T^6`$, which has holonomy $`SU(3)Sp_3`$, and therefore yields a sigma model with maximal supersymmetry. In this context the fraction of supersymmetry preserved by a supersymmetric solution may be222The fraction 3/8 might be possible, in principle, but no example is known. 1/2, 1/4 or 1/8, and this fraction provides a convenient partial characterisation of the solution; roughly speaking, the lower the fraction the more complicated the solution is.

The basic sigma-model soliton is the 1/2 supersymmetric sigma-model lump (see, for example, ), which is a particle-like solution of massless (2+1)-dimensional HK sigma models, but a string-like solution (the lump-string) of (3+1)-dimensional models, and so on up to a 3-brane in the maximal dimension of (5+1). The sigma-model lump is ‘basic’ in two respects. Firstly, it gives rise to the 1/2 supersymmetric kink soliton of the massive (1+1)-dimensional sigma model obtained by non-trivial dimensional reduction on $`S^1`$ . Secondly, it is the main ingredient in the construction of solutions preserving only 1/4 supersymmetry via ‘intersections’. The first example of this was a non-singular 1/4-supersymmetric intersection of two kink domain walls in massive (1+1)-dimensional HK sigma models of quaternionic dimension $`n2`$ . Another example, which is also possible for $`n=1`$, is the kink-lump of massive (3+1) dimensional HK sigma models ; this is a non-singular solution in which a lump-string ends on a kink-domain-wall, thus imitating the physics of D2-branes in type IIA superstring theory.

A IIA superstring ending on a D2-brane can be viewed, from an 11-dimensional point of view, as a pair of intersecting supermembranes. Similarly, as we demonstrate here, the kink-lump of the massive (3+1)-dimensional sigma model lifts to a pair of 1/4 supersymmetric intersecting lump-membranes of the massless (4+1)-dimensional HK sigma model. However, our main interest in this paper is intersections of these lump-membranes that preserve the minimal fraction of 1/8 supersymmetry. We obtain a first-order ‘BPS’ equation for intersections of lump-membranes that is solved by our explicit 1/4 supersymmetric configuration but for which the generic solution preserves only 1/8 supersymmetry. Of course, there may be no generic solution that satisfies the required boundary conditions in any given model, but we propose a particular model that we believe will have 1/8 supersymmetric solutions of the desired type.

A trivial dimensional reduction of the massless (4+1)-dimensional HK sigma model to a massless (3+1)-dimensional model reduces the lump-membranes to lump-strings. It also reduces the BPS equation for 1/8 supersymmetric intersections of lump-membranes to a previously proposed BPS equation for 1/4 supersymmetric intersections of lump-strings . Another way to interpret this fact is to say that any 1/8 supersymmetric configuration of lump-membranes will degenerate to a 1/4 supersymmetric solution in regions in which it becomes independent of one of the four space coordinates, although this 1/4 supersymmetric solution is of an essentially different type to the pair of intersecting membranes mentioned above because it is a solution of the sigma-model equations that is intrinsically 3-dimensional rather than 4-dimensional. If this solution becomes independent of another of the four space coordinates then it reduces to the 1/2 supersymmetric, and intrinsically 2-dimensional, lump-membrane.

A non-trivial dimensional reduction of the massless (4+1)-dimensional HK sigma model (when this is possible) yields a massive (3+1)-dimensional HK sigma model, which admits static 1/2 supersymmetric kink-membranes and stationary, charged, 1/4 supersymmetric Q-lump-strings . Apart from the 1/4 supersymmetric kink-lump mentioned above, and its stationary Q-kink-lump counterpart , these massive models can also be expected to have 1/8 supersymmetric intersections; for example, a BPS equation for 1/8 supersymmetric intersecting Q-lump-strings is known . If the HK target space is 4-dimensional, as it is for the models we consider here, then any solution of the massive (3+1)-dimensional sigma model is also a solution of the same massive model in (4+1)-dimensions333This need not be true for higher-dimensional HK target spaces because in this case the (3+1)-dimensional model allows a more general potential than the (4+1)-dimensional model; precisely this fact was exploited in ., but additional solutions are possible in the higher dimension. In particular, our new BPS equation for 1/8 supersymmetric intersections of static lump-membranes of the massless (4+1)-dimensional model extends to a pair of BPS equations for 1/8 supersymmetric intersections of stationary Q-lump-membranes. A curious feature of generic solutions of these equations is that supersymmetry is preserved for only one time orientation, despite the time-reversal invariance of the full second-order field equations.

Supersymmetric sigma models in (5+1) dimensions with 4-dimensional HK target spaces (quaternionic dimension 1) provide a low energy effective description of the dynamics of an M5-brane in a spacetime of the form $`\text{𝔼}^{(1,5)}\times HK_4\times S^1`$ in the special case of vanishing worldvolume 3-form field strength and fixed position on $`S^1`$; this truncation preserves the 8 supersymmetries that are left unbroken by the combination of the M5-brane and the HK background spacetime. Given that the $`\text{𝔼}^{(1,5)}`$ factor of the background is identified as the fivebrane vacuum, the fivebrane dynamics is then governed by an action for maps from $`\text{𝔼}^{(1,5)}`$ to $`HK_4`$, for which the low-energy limit is the (1,0)-supersymmetric (5+1)-dimensional sigma model with $`HK_4`$ as its target space (see  for a review).

The 1/2 supersymmetric lump solitons of such sigma models can be interpreted as smooth 3-brane intersections of the original M5-brane with another M5-brane that is wrapped on a finite area holomorphic 2-cycle of $`HK_4`$ . Actually, since the intersection is smooth, one may consider the two intersecting M5-branes in this background as a single Kähler-calibrated M5-brane . In this M-theory context it is natural to suppose that intersections of sigma-model solitons will also have an interpretation as calibrations. However, whereas Kähler-calibrated surfaces are solutions of equations that are homogeneous in derivatives, as are the BPS equations for sigma-model solitons and their intersections, the equations of other types of calibrated surfaces are inhomogeneous in derivatives and therefore have no obvious interpretation as BPS equations in field theory.

Nevertheless, since a calibrated p-surface solves the equations of motion for a p-brane, any solutions of the ‘linearized’ calibration equation (obtained by linearizing in derivatives) must solve the ‘linearized’ p-brane equations. In flat space these ‘linearized’ equations have no interesting solutions, not surprisingly since the ‘linearized’ equations are truly linear in this case, being linear in fields as well as derivatives. But in non-flat backgrounds the ‘linearized’ calibration equations will still be non-linear in fields and hence may have interesting solutions. In fact, we shall show that both the BPS equation of  for 1/4 supersymmetric intersecting sigma-model solitons and the new BPS equation presented here for 1/8 supersymmetric intersections are ‘linearizations’ of the equations for, respectively, associative and Cayley calibrations. Thus, intersecting HK sigma-model solitons can be understood in terms of exceptional calibrations of a single M5-brane of M-theory. This result is reminiscent of the interpretation of junctions of MQCD domain walls as Cayley calibrated M5-branes , but we are not aware of any direct connection to the results reported here.

## 2 Supersymmetric HK sigma models

We begin with a brief discussion of the models to be considered. Let $`X^I`$ ($`I=1,\mathrm{},4n`$) be the scalar fields. Omitting fermions, the massless supersymmetric sigma model in (5+1) dimensions has the action

$$S_6[X]=\frac{1}{2}𝑑td^5x\left[|\dot{X}|^2|X|^2\right],$$
(2.1)
where the overdot indicates differentiation with respect to the time coordinate $`t`$, and $``$ is the partial derivative with respect to the five cartesian space coordinates. As the target space is necessarily HK, there exist three complex structures $`𝐈=(I_1,I_2,I_3)`$, with matrix entries $`(I_i)^I_J`$ ($`i=1,2,3`$), obeying the algebra of the quaternions

$$I_iI_j=\delta _{ij}\text{𝕀}+\epsilon _{ijk}I_k,$$
(2.2)
where 𝕀 is the identity matrix. The triplet of complex structures is associated with the triplet of (closed) Kahler 2-forms

$$𝛀_{IJ}=g_{IK}𝐈^K{}_{J}{}^{}.$$
(2.3)
The massless (5+1)-dimensional model can of course be trivially dimensionally reduced to any lower spacetime dimension, but given that the target space admits a $`U(1)`$ Killing vector field (KVF) $`k`$, there is also the possibility of a non-trivial dimensional reduction, achieved by setting

$$_5X^I=mk^I,$$
(2.4)
where $`m`$ is a mass-parameter. This reduction will preserve all 8 supersymmetries if $`k`$ is triholomorphic, which is the requirement of vanishing $`_k𝛀`$, where $`_k`$ is the Lie derivative with respect to the vector field $`k`$. The resulting maximally supersymmetric (4+1)-dimensional sigma model has the action (again supressing fermions)

$$S_5[X]=\frac{1}{2}𝑑td^4x\left[|\dot{X}|^2|X|^2m^2|k|^2\right],$$
(2.5)
where $``$ indicates differentiation with respect to the four space coordinates. For $`m0`$ there is a positive scalar potential, given by the norm squared of the triholomorphic KVF $`k`$ ; this potential vanishes at the isolated fixed points of $`k`$.

Although many of our results on HK sigma models are valid for target spaces of arbitrary quaternionic dimension $`n`$, we shall concentrate here on the $`n=1`$ case because of its M-theory interpretation and the connection to exceptional calibrations. Specifically, we shall consider 4-dimensional HK manifolds with a triholomorphic $`U(1)`$ KVF. In coordinates $`(\phi ,𝐗)`$ for which this KVF is

$$k=/\phi ,$$
(2.6)
the metric is

$$ds^2=Ud𝐗d𝐗+U^1(d\phi +𝐀d𝐗)^2$$
(2.7)
where $`U`$ is a harmonic function on $`\text{𝔼}^3`$ with isolated point singularities and $`𝐀`$ is a 3-vector potential such that $`\mathbf{}\times 𝐀=\mathbf{}\phi `$. If $`\phi `$ is identified with period $`2\pi `$ then completeness of the metric requires

$$U=a+\frac{1}{2}\underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}|𝐗𝐗_k|^1$$
(2.8)
for some number $`a`$, integer $`N`$, and a choice of $`N`$ points $`𝐗_k`$ in $`\text{𝔼}^3`$, which are called the ‘centres’ . The triplet of Kähler 2-forms is

$$𝛀=𝒟\phi d𝐗\frac{1}{2}Ud𝐗\times d𝐗$$
(2.9)
where we have supressed the wedge product of forms, and defined the covariant derivative

$$𝒟\phi =d\phi +𝐀d𝐗.$$
(2.10)
The coefficients of $`𝛀`$ are $`\phi `$-independent, so $`k`$ is triholomorphic.

For these 4-dimensional HK target spaces the massless (5+1)-dimensional sigma model has the action

$$S_6[\phi ,𝐗]=\frac{1}{2}𝑑td^5x\left\{U^1\left[(𝒟_t\phi )^2|𝒟\phi |^2\right]+U\left[|\dot{𝐗}|^2|𝐗|^2\right]\right\}.$$
(2.11)
The dimensional reduction ansatz (2.4) is now

$$𝒟_5\phi =m,_5𝐗=\mathrm{𝟎},$$
(2.12)
and this yields the (4+1)-dimensional action

$$S_5[\phi ,𝐗]=\frac{1}{2}𝑑td^4x\left\{U^1\left[(𝒟_t\phi )^2|𝒟\phi |^2\right]+U\left[|\dot{𝐗}|^2|𝐗|^2\right]m^2U^1\right\}.$$
(2.13)
Note that the potential $`m^2U^1`$ is non-negative and has zeros at the singularities of $`U`$; i.e., at the centres of the metric.

## 3 Lumps and Q-lumps, Kinks and Q-kinks

As a prelude to our results on intersecting sigma-model solitons we will briefly review some aspects of the solitons themselves. We start with the lump and Q-lump solitons of (2+1)-dimensional HK sigma models. The energy functional is

$$E=\frac{1}{2}d^2x\left\{|\dot{X}|^2+|_1X|^2+|_2X|^2+m^2|k|^2\right\}.$$
(3.14)
For $`m=0`$ this is a massless sigma model while for $`m0`$ it is a massive one. Introducing a constant unit 3-vector $`𝐧`$, we may rewrite the energy functional as

$$E=\frac{1}{2}d^2x\left\{|\dot{X}mk|^2+|_1X𝐧𝐈_2X|^2\right\}\pm mQ+𝐧𝐋$$
(3.15)
where $`Q`$ is the $`U(1)`$ Noether charge associated to the symmetry generated by $`k`$,

$$Q=d^4x\dot{X}k,$$
(3.16)
and $`𝐋`$ is the topological ‘lump’ charge

$$𝐋=_{\text{}}f^{}(𝛀),$$
(3.17)
where $`f`$ is the sigma-model map from the Euclidean 2-space, viewed as the complex plane , and $`f^{}(𝛀)`$ is its pullback. For fixed $`Q`$ and $`𝐋`$ the energy is minimized by solutions of the equations

$$\dot{X}^I=\pm mk^I$$
(3.18)
and

$$_1X^I=(𝐧𝐈)^I{}_{J}{}^{}_{2}^{}X^J.$$
(3.19)
The energy of solutions to these equations is given by

$$E=|𝐋|+m|Q|.$$
(3.20)
For $`m=0`$ the sigma-model fields define a time-independent holomorphic map with respect to the complex structure $`𝐧𝐈`$. Given a 2-cycle of the HK manifold that is holomorphic with respect to this complex structure, there exist finite energy holomorphic maps from  to it. These are the sigma-model lump (or multi-lump) solitons; it can be shown that they preserve 1/2 supersymmetry. For $`m0`$, the holomorphic map is time-dependent but the energy density remains time-independent, so we now have non-static but stationary solitons. These are the Q-lumps, which can be shown to preserve 1/4 supersymmetry.

The simplest (HK) example of both lumps and Q-lumps is provided by a metric of the type described in the previous section with

$$U=\frac{1}{2}\left[\frac{1}{|𝐗𝐚|}+\frac{1}{|𝐗+𝐚|}\right]$$
(3.21)
for unit vector $`𝐚`$. Because $`U`$ preserves an $`SO(2)`$ subgroup of the $`SO(3)`$ rotation group acting on the 3-vector $`𝐗`$ there is a consistent truncation to a Kahler sigma model with $`S^2`$ target space parametrized by $`(\phi ,A𝐚𝐗)`$ with $`|A|1`$. For this truncated model,

$$U^1=1A^2,$$
(3.22)
and we can choose the vector potential $`𝐀`$ such that $`𝒟\phi =d\phi `$ . The two singular points at $`A=\pm 1`$ are the north and south poles of the target 2-sphere, which is a holomorphic homology 2-sphere of the original HK target space. A sigma-model lump is obtained as a solution of the BPS equation (3.19) with $`𝐧=𝐚`$. The anti-lump is a solution of this equation for $`𝐧=𝐚`$. All other solutions, including all solutions for $`𝐧\pm 𝐚`$, are supersymmetric ‘BPS flows’ but not ones corresponding to finite energy.

We now turn to the kinks and Q-kinks. These are solutions of the massive (1+1)-dimensional sigma model, for which the energy functional is

$$E=\frac{1}{2}𝑑x\left\{|\dot{X}|^2+|X^{}|^2+m^2|k|^2\right\},$$
(3.23)
where the prime indicates differentiation with respect to the one space coordinate. Introducing a constant $`v`$ such that $`v^2<1`$, we may rewrite the energy functional as

$`E`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑x\left\{|\dot{X}mvk|^2+|X^{}m\sqrt{1v^2}(𝐧𝐈)k|^2\right\}}`$ (3.24)
$`\pm mvQ+m\sqrt{1v^2}(𝐧𝐊)`$
where $`𝐊`$ is the topological ‘kink’ charge

$$𝐊=_{\text{}}f^{}(i_k𝛀).$$
(3.25)
For fixed $`Q`$ and $`𝐊`$, the energy is minimized by solutions of the first-order equations

$$\dot{X}^I=\pm mvk^I$$
(3.26)
and

$$(X^I)^{}=m\sqrt{1v^2}\left(𝐧𝐈\right)^I{}_{J}{}^{}k_{}^{J}.$$
(3.27)
When $`v=0`$ we have a static kink and when $`v0`$ we have a stationary Q-kink; in either case the energy is

$$E=m\sqrt{|𝐊|^2+Q^2},$$
(3.28)
and both kink and Q-kink preserve 1/2 supersymmetry.

The simplest HK examples again occur for 4-dimensional multi-centre target spaces, for which (3.26) and (3.27) are equivalent to

$$𝒟_t\phi =\pm mv,\dot{𝐗}=\mathrm{𝟎},𝐗^{}=m\sqrt{1v^2}U^1𝐧$$
(3.29)
for some unit vector $`𝐧`$. For special choices of $`𝐧`$, the solutions of these equations will be BPS flows with finite energy; these are the kinks and Q-kinks, which connect the vacua at the singularities of $`U`$. For the 2-centre case with $`U`$ given by (3.21) we can solve the equations (3.29) by again considering the Kähler truncation; this shows that the finite energy BPS flows occur for $`𝐧=\pm 𝐚`$.

In general, not every vacuum of the massive sigma model will be connected to every other one by a kink but the vacua must form a connected set. Note that BPS flows cannot cross for a given $`𝐧`$, but there is no such restriction on BPS flows corresponding to different choices of $`𝐧`$. For example, let $`𝐚`$, $`𝐛`$ and $`𝐜`$ be three mutually orthogonal unit 3-vectors and consider a 6-centre metric with

$$U=\frac{1}{2}\underset{}{}\left[\frac{1}{|𝐗𝐚|}+\frac{1}{|𝐗𝐛|}+\frac{1}{|𝐗𝐜|}\right].$$
(3.30)
This choice preserves a discrete subgroup of $`SO(3)`$ that permutes the three axes of $`\text{𝔼}^3`$. In particular, there is a $`Z_2`$ subgroup that fixes $`𝐚𝐗`$ but interchanges $`𝐛𝐗`$ and $`𝐜𝐗`$. This is sufficient to ensure the consistency of the truncation to a Kähler sigma model with fields $`(\phi ,A𝐚𝐗)`$, for which

$$U=\frac{1}{1A^2}+\frac{2}{\sqrt{1+A^2}}$$
(3.31)
Although the BPS flow interpolating between $`A=1`$ and $`A=1`$ is now more complicated, it exists. By symmetry so do BPS flows interpolating between $`𝐗=𝐛`$ and $`𝐗=𝐛`$ (for $`𝐧=𝐛`$), and between $`𝐗=𝐜`$ and $`𝐗=𝐜`$ (for $`𝐧=𝐜`$).

Similar considerations apply to lumps of the (2+1)-dimensional massless sigma model; whenever there exists a massive sigma-model kink interpolating between two centres of the $`HK_4`$ metric then there exists a holomorphic map from  to a homology 2-sphere with poles at the two centres. We will use this fact in the following section to argue that a (4+1)-dimensional supersymmetric HK sigma model with the 4-dimensional 6-centre target space just described admits 1/8 supersymmetric intersections of its lump-membrane solitons.

## 4 BPS equations for intersecting solitons

We now turn to intersecting solitons of the (4+1)-dimensional sigma model. The energy functional is

$$E=\frac{1}{2}d^4x\left\{|\dot{X}|^2+|\mathbf{}X|^2+|_4X|^2+m^2|k|^2\right\}$$
(4.32)
where we have set $`x=(𝐱,x^4)`$ and $`=(\mathbf{},_4)`$. For $`m0`$ this is a massive sigma model but we may set $`m=0`$ to get the massless model. We now rewrite this energy functional as

$$E=\frac{1}{2}d^4x\{|\dot{X}mk|^2+|_4X^I𝐈^I{}_{J}{}^{}\mathbf{}X^J|^2\}\pm mQ+T$$
(4.33)
where $`T`$ is the surface term

$$T=\frac{1}{2}d^4x\mathbf{}X^I\times \mathbf{}X^J𝛀_{IJ}+d^4x_4X^I\mathbf{}X^J𝛀_{IJ}.$$
(4.34)
The energy is therefore minimized, for boundary conditions that fix the value of $`Q`$ and $`T`$, by solutions of the first order ‘BPS’ equations

$$\dot{X}^I=\pm mk^I$$
(4.35)
and

$$_4X^I=𝐈^I{}_{J}{}^{}\mathbf{}X^J.$$
(4.36)
For sigma-model fields that are independent of $`x^1`$ the latter equation reduces to

$$_4X^I=(I_2)^I{}_{J}{}^{}_{2}^{}X^J+(I_3)^I{}_{J}{}^{}_{3}^{}X^J,$$
(4.37)
which is equivalent to the equation considered in the context of the (3+1)-dimensional HK sigma model in . Because the three complex structures $`𝐈`$ obey the algebra of the quaternions, an analogous equation holds for configurations that are independent of any one of the four space coordinates.

When the target space is a 4-dimensional HK manifold of the type described in the introduction, the equation (4.35) becomes

$$\dot{\phi }=\pm m,$$
(4.38)
which is trivially solved, while the BPS equation (4.36) becomes the set of equations

$$\mathbf{}𝐗=U^1𝒟_4\phi ,\mathbf{}\times 𝐗=U^1𝓓\phi +_4𝐗.$$
(4.39)
For configurations that are independent of $`x^4`$ these equations reduce to

$$\mathbf{}𝐗=0,\mathbf{}\times 𝐗=U^1𝓓\phi ,$$
(4.40)
which describe intersecting lump-strings in the model obtained by a trivial reduction to (3+1) spacetime dimensions. If we further specialize to configurations that are independent of $`x^3`$ then we find, firstly, that $`X_1`$ and $`X_2`$ are harmonic functions on the 12-plane; for non-singular solutions with physical behaviour at infinity we must therefore set $`X_1=X_2=0`$. We are then left with $`X_3`$ and $`\phi `$ which are required to satisfy

$$_1X_3=U^1𝒟_2\phi ,_2X_3=U^1𝒟_1\phi $$
(4.41)
These are the equations for the sigma-model lump in the form given in .

We now consider the interpretation of (4.36) or, more specifically, (4.39). Suppose that we have a solution that is asymptotically independent of, say, $`x^1`$ and $`x^2`$ as both $`x^3`$ and $`x^4`$ become large (for fixed $`x^1,x^2`$). Such a solution asymptotes to a lump-membrane in the 12-plane. One can now imagine a solution of this type that is symmetric under permutations of the four axes, in which case it will describe the intersection of six lump-membranes, one for each of the planes through the origin containing two of the four axes. It is possible that 1/8 supersymmetric solutions of (4.39) of this type will exist only for special models. We will see in the following section that a simple 2-centre model allows a special solution that can be interpreted as a non-singular intersection of two totally orthogonal membranes. A similar type of solution must exist for the 6-centre model described earlier with $`𝐧=𝐚`$, for the reasons explained there, but now one can contemplate a superposition with two similar solutions obtained from the BPS equations for $`𝐧=𝐛`$ and $`𝐧=𝐜`$. By choosing boundary conditions that preserve the permutation symmetry of $`𝐚`$, $`𝐛`$ and $`𝐜`$, and that specify the appropriate fall-off of the fields away from any of the axes, one would expect to find a solution in which six lump-membranes intersect in the way just described, although we anticipate that this may be difficult to verify in practice.

## 5 An explicit intersecting lump solution

We will now exhibit a particular static solution of (4.39) for the 2-centre massless HK sigma model with $`U`$ given by (3.21). We will show later that it preserves 1/4 supersymmetry rather than 1/8 supersymmetry, so it is not a generic solution. Nevertheless, it demonstrates that non-singular intersections of lump-membranes can occur. We first set

$$X_1=A,X_2=X_3=0,$$
(5.42)
to reduce the four equations to the two pairs of equations

$$_1A=U^1𝒟_4\phi ,_4A=U^1𝒟_1\phi $$
(5.43)
and

$$_3A=U^1𝒟_2\phi ,_2A=U^1𝒟_3\phi .$$
(5.44)
These equations become the kink-lump equations solved in  on non-trivial reduction to (3+1) dimensions. As explained there, we may now choose a gauge for which $`𝒟\phi =d\phi `$. Noting that the potential $`U^1`$ is given by (3.22), we can easily solve (5.43) and (5.44). The solution is

$$A=\mathrm{tanh}\mathrm{log}|Z|,\phi =\mathrm{arg}Z$$
(5.45)
for a function $`Z(\zeta ,\xi )`$ that is holomorphic in the two complex variables

$$\zeta =x^2+ix^3,\xi =x^4+ix^1.$$
(5.46)
The simplest non-trivial choice for $`Z`$ is

$$Z=\frac{c}{\zeta \xi }$$
(5.47)
for some complex number $`c`$. For fixed $`\zeta `$ we have a lump in the $`\xi `$-plane and hence a membrane parallel to the $`\zeta `$-plane. Similarly, for fixed $`\xi `$ we have a lump in the $`\zeta `$-plane and hence a membrane parallel to the $`\xi `$-plane. Thus, the full non-singular solution represents a pair of intersecting membranes.

Confirmation of this interpretation can be had from an investigation of the energy. For the general solution of the form (5.45) the energy density is

$$=\left(1+|Z|^2\right)^2\left[|_\zeta Z|^2+|_\xi Z|^2\right].$$
(5.48)
For the particular solution (5.47) this becomes

$$(u,v)=\frac{4|c|^2(u+v)}{\left(|c|^2+uv\right)^2}$$
(5.49)
where

$$u=|\zeta |^2,v=|\xi |^2.$$
(5.50)
Noting that

$$=4|c|^2\left(\frac{}{u}+\frac{}{v}\right)\left(|c|^2+uv\right)^1,$$
(5.51)
we can easily evaluate the total energy

$$E=4\pi ^2_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑u_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑v(u,v).$$
(5.52)
Introducing a cut-off for small $`u`$ and $`v`$, we can integrate once to get

$$E=4\pi ^2\left[_\delta ^{\mathrm{}}𝑑v+_\delta ^{\mathrm{}}𝑑u\right]+𝒪(\delta ).$$
(5.53)
Taking the $`\delta 0`$ limit, we recognize this as the formula

$$E=4\pi A_\xi +4\pi A_\zeta $$
(5.54)
where $`A_\xi `$ and $`A_\zeta `$ are the (infinite) areas of the $`\zeta `$ and $`\xi `$ planes, respectively. The coefficient $`4\pi `$ is the lump energy, which equals the area of the unit 2-sphere for the model under discussion; it has an obvious interpretation as the energy per unit area (tension) of a lump-membrane.

This sigma-model solution is reminiscent of the solution of the D=5 supermembrane equations describing a pair of intersecting membranes (see, for example, ). In fact, the D=5 supermembrane action provides an effective description of the lump-membrane of the D=5 supersymmetric sigma model, and so we should expect to find an effective description of the intersecting lump-membranes as a solution of it. However, it should be remembered that the lump-membranes are membranes with a lump core of a definite non-zero size (although this size is arbitrary). With this in mind, it is instructive to examine the energy density function $`(u,v)`$ as a function of $`u`$ for fixed $`v`$. Noting that

$$_u=\frac{4|c|^2\left(|c|^2v^2\right)}{(|c|^2+uv)^3},$$
(5.55)
we see that $``$ is a monotonically decreasing function of $`u`$ for $`v>|c|`$ and hence in the limit of large $`v`$, but for $`v<|c|`$ the energy density is a monotonically increasing function of $`u`$. We conclude that two membranes intersect in a region of size $`\sqrt{|c|}`$.

Finally, we observe that there is an analogous solution of the massive model but with $`\phi =\pm mt`$. We will see later that this solution also preserves 1/4 supersymmetry if $`\phi =mt`$, but breaks all supersymmetry if $`\phi =mt`$, despite the time-reversal invariance of the sigma-model equations.

## 6 Supersymmetry

The condition for a supersymmetric sigma model field configuration to preserve some fraction of the 8 supersymmetries of the sigma-model vacuum is particularly simple for the HK manifolds described in section 2, and can be found in . Since all maximally-supersymmetric sigma models in spacetime dimension (2+1) and above can be obtained by dimensional reduction (trivial or otherwise) of the massless (5+1)-dimensional model, we need only consider that case. The number of supersymmetries preserved by any configuration of this theory is the number of linearly-independent constant $`SU(2)`$-Majorana-Weyl spinor solutions $`\lambda `$ to the equation

$$\gamma ^\mu \left[𝝉_\mu 𝐗+iU^1𝒟_\mu \phi \right]\lambda =0,$$
(6.56)
where $`𝝉`$ is the triplet of Pauli matrices. We have supressed both the $`SO(5,1)`$ spinor and $`SU(2)`$ indices. The chirality condition on $`\lambda `$ will be taken to be

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^{012345}\lambda =\lambda .$$
(6.57)
This reduces the 16 complex components of $`\lambda `$ to 8 complex components but only 8 real linear combinations are linearly independent because of the $`SU(2)`$-Majorana condition (which we do not give here as we shall never need to use its explicit form). The fraction of supersymmetry preserved by configurations of lower-dimensional sigma models can also be determined from (6.56) by lifting them to (5+1) dimensions via the reduction ansatz (2.4) (with $`m=0`$ for massless models).

We shall now determine the fraction of supersymmetry preserved by a generic solution of equations (4.38) and (4.39). Using (4.39) to eliminate the space derivatives of $`\phi `$ in the supersymmetry preservation condition (6.56), we find for $`m=0`$ that

$$(_jX_k)\left[\mathrm{\Gamma }^j\tau _k+i\mathrm{\Gamma }^i\epsilon _{ijk}+i\mathrm{\Gamma }^4\delta _{jk}\right]\lambda +(_4X_i)\left[\mathrm{\Gamma }^4\tau _ii\mathrm{\Gamma }^i\right]\lambda =0,$$
(6.58)
where $`\tau _i`$ $`(i=1,2,3)`$ are the three Pauli matrices. For $`m0`$ we have the additional condition

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^{05}\lambda =\pm \lambda ,$$
(6.59)
where the choice of sign is inherited from (4.38).

We shall begin our analysis by considering the $`m=0`$ case. When $`_4𝐗`$ is non-zero we must set

$$\tau _k\lambda =i\mathrm{\Gamma }^4\mathrm{\Gamma }^k\lambda (k=1,2,3).$$
(6.60)
These conditions imply that

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^{1234}\lambda =\lambda .$$
(6.61)
Using (6.60) in (6.58) we find that

$$(_jX_k)\left[\mathrm{\Gamma }^4\mathrm{\Gamma }^{jk}\mathrm{\Gamma }^i\epsilon _{ijk}\right]\lambda =0,$$
(6.62)
but this is satisfied identically as a consequence of (6.61). As all three conditions (6.60) are independent we deduce that the generic ($`m=0`$) solution of the BPS equations (4.39) preserves 1/8 supersymmetry.

Because of the chirality condition (6.57), the constraint (6.61) is equivalent to

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^{05}\lambda =\lambda .$$
(6.63)
It follows that the additional constraint (6.59) that is needed for preservation of supersymmetry when $`m0`$ is identically satisfied if we choose the upper sign, but is otherwise violated. What this means is that there can be 1/8-supersymmetric intersections of Q-lump membranes in the massive (4+1)-dimensional theory, but only if $`\dot{\phi }`$ is positive. Reversing the time orientation takes the supersymmetric solution into a non-supersymmetric one. The asymmetry arises from the choice of chirality of the D=6 spinor $`\lambda `$ and the fact that this asymmetry is maintained by a non-trivial dimensional reduction.

For the special case in which $`X_2=X_3=0`$, as occurs for the particular solution of section 5, the supersymmetry preservation condition (6.58) becomes

$$\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }^4_1X_3\mathrm{\Gamma }^1_4X_3\right)\left(1i\mathrm{\Gamma }^{41}\tau _1\right)\lambda +\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }^2_3X_3\mathrm{\Gamma }^3_2X_3\right)\left(1i\mathrm{\Gamma }^{23}\tau _1\right)\lambda =0.$$
(6.64)
For generic $`X_3`$ this implies the conditions

$$i\mathrm{\Gamma }^{23}\tau _1\lambda =\lambda ,i\mathrm{\Gamma }^{41}\tau _1\lambda =\lambda ,$$
(6.65)
which preserve 1/4 supersymmetry. Given the chirality condition (6.57) these conditions imply (6.63), so the stationary, charged, version of the solution of section 5 either preserves 1/4 supersymmetry or breaks all supersymmetries, again depending on the time orientation.

Let us now consider the simpler set of BPS equations (4.40), appropriate to solutions that are independent of $`x^4`$. In this case we need not impose the conditions (6.60). Instead, we may impose the conditions

$$i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{045}\mathrm{\Gamma }^k\tau _k\lambda =\lambda .$$
(6.66)
This yields

$$(_jX_k)\left[\mathrm{\Gamma }^{045}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{jk}+\mathrm{\Gamma }^i\epsilon _{ijk}\right]\lambda =0,$$
(6.67)
but this is automatically satisfied as a consequence of the chirality condition (6.57). The three new conditions (6.66) are no longer independent because, given the chirality condition, any two imply the third. Thus, generic solutions of (4.37) preserve 1/4 supersymmetry, in agreement with the result of . However, (6.59) is no longer implied by these conditions so we conclude (again in agreement with ) that the time-dependent Q-lump version of the 1/4 supersymmetric intersection of sigma-model lump-strings preserves only 1/8 supersymmetry, but does so irrespective of the time orientation.

## 7 Calibrated M5-branes

Consider an M5-brane in a $`HK_4`$ background, as described by the array

$$\begin{array}{ccccccccccc}HK_4:\hfill & & & & & & 6& 7& 8& \underset{¯}{9}& \\ M5:\hfill & 1& 2& 3& 4& 5& & & & & \end{array}$$
(7.68)
The coordinate $`x^9`$ is identified with the angular coordinate $`\phi `$ of the $`HK_4`$ manifold, and the $`6,7,8`$ directions with the cartesian coordinates $`𝐗`$ on $`\text{𝔼}^3`$. If the M5-brane is fixed in the remaining tenth direction and has vanishing worldvolume gauge fields then its dynamics will be described at low energy by a supersymmetric (5+1)-dimensional sigma model with $`HK_4`$ as its target space. As explained earlier, each of the singularities of the function $`U`$ on $`\text{𝔼}^3`$ that determines the $`HK_4`$ metric will be connected to at least one other singularity by a holomorphic 2-sphere. For simplicity, suppose that there are only two singularities, separated in the $`6`$-direction. Then we may wrap another M5-brane on this 2-sphere. This second M5-brane may smoothly intersect the first one in a 3-brane, yielding a configuration that preserves 1/8 of the 32 supersymmetries of the M-theory vacuum. This configuration is described by the array

$$\begin{array}{ccccccccccc}HK_4:\hfill & & & & & & 6& 7& 8& \underset{¯}{9}& \\ M5:\hfill & 1& 2& 3& 4& 5& & & & & \\ M5:\hfill & & & 3& 4& 5& 6& & & 9& \end{array}$$
(7.69)
Such 3-brane intersections of M5-branes are 1/2 supersymmetric lump solitons of the effective HK sigma model on the first M5-brane . An M5-brane configuration preserving only 1/16 of the supersymmetry of the M-theory vacuum may be obtained by the addition of another M5-brane, according to the array

$$\begin{array}{ccccccccccc}HK_4:\hfill & & & & & & 6& 7& 8& \underset{¯}{9}& \\ M5:\hfill & 1& 2& 3& 4& 5& & & & & \\ M5:\hfill & 1& & & 4& 5& 6& & & 9& \\ M5:\hfill & & 2& 3& & 5& 6& & & 9& \end{array}$$
(7.70)
As the 5 direction is common to all M5-branes we can trivially compactify it to arrive at an effective (4+1)-dimensional sigma model. The array can then be interpreted as the 1/4 supersymmetric intersection of two lump-membranes. As we saw in section 5, this configuration needs only the simplest 2-centre $`HK_4`$ metric for its realization.

Now consider the six-centre metric of section 3. We argued in section 4 that this would allow two further pairs of intersecting lump-membranes, leading to a configuration in which six lump-membranes, in the six planes containing two axes, intersect. This possibility is associated to the array

$$\begin{array}{ccccccccccc}HK_4:\hfill & & & & & & 6& 7& 8& \underset{¯}{9}& \\ M5:\hfill & 1& 2& 3& 4& 5& & & & & \\ M5:\hfill & 1& & & 4& 5& 6& & & 9& \\ M5:\hfill & & 2& & 4& 5& & 7& & 9& \\ M5:\hfill & & & 3& 4& 5& & & 8& 9& \\ M5:\hfill & 1& & 3& & 5& & 7& & 9& \\ M5:\hfill & & 2& 3& & 5& 6& & & 9& \\ M5:\hfill & 1& 2& & & 5& & & 8& 9& \end{array}$$
(7.71)
Note that this contains the previous array. Also contained as a sub-array of (7.71) is

$$\begin{array}{ccccccccccc}HK_4:\hfill & & & & & & 6& 7& 8& \underset{¯}{9}& \\ M5:\hfill & 1& 2& 3& 4& 5& & & & & \\ M5:\hfill & 1& & & 4& 5& 6& & & 9& \\ M5:\hfill & & 2& & 4& 5& & 7& & 9& \\ M5:\hfill & & & 3& 4& 5& & & 8& 9& \end{array}$$
(7.72)
As the $`4`$ and $`5`$ directions are now common to all M5-branes we can trivially compactify them to arrive at a configuration of three intersecting lump-strings of a (3+1)-dimensional sigma model.

Each of the above arrays can be interpreted as describing a single calibrated M5-brane . The array (7.69) corresponds to the Kähler calibration discussed in detail in . The array (7.70) is another Kähler calibration, which was associated to the kink-lump in  but has a more direct interpretation in terms of the intersecting lump-membrane solution presented in section 5. The remaining arrays correspond to exceptional calibrations. Specifically, (7.71) corresponds to a Cayley calibrated 4-surface in $`\text{𝔼}^4\times HK_4`$, while the sub-array (7.72) corresponds to an associative 3-surface in $`\text{𝔼}^3\times HK_4`$. We need discuss only the Cayley calibration in detail as it contains the other cases as sub-cases. We shall see below that the low-energy limit of the equations for a Cayley-calibrated 4-surface in $`\text{𝔼}^4\times HK_4`$ yields equations that are equivalent to the sigma-model BPS equation (4.36).

## 8 M-theory supersymmetry

For any of the calibrations of interest here, the equations that govern the calibrated surface can be obtained from the requirement of partial preservation of supersymmetry by an M5-brane. The number of supersymmetries preserved is the dimension of the space of solutions, for the 32-component covariantly-constant real spinor $`ϵ`$, of the condition

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }ϵ=ϵ,$$
(8.73)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the ‘$`\kappa `$-symmetry’ matrix of the M5-brane. Let us take the $`D=11`$ spacetime coordinates to be $`X^M=(X^m,X^{\mathrm{}})`$ where $`X^m=(X^\mu ,X^I)`$ are D=10 spacetime coordinates for $`\text{𝔼}^{(1,5)}\times HK_4`$. We denote the corresponding D=11 Dirac matrices by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_M=(\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ,\mathrm{\Gamma }_I,\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{6789}),$$
(8.74)
where

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{012345}.$$
(8.75)
For the chosen background we have

$$\{\mathrm{\Gamma }_I,\mathrm{\Gamma }_J\}=2G_{IJ}$$
(8.76)
where $`G_{IJ}`$ is the $`HK_4`$ metric. The covariantly-constant spinors in this background satisfy

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{6789}ϵ=ϵ$$
(8.77)
and take the form $`ϵ=fϵ_0`$ for some non-zero function $`f`$ and constant spinor $`ϵ_0`$. As the function $`f`$ cancels we may suppose that the spinor $`ϵ`$ satisfying (8.73) and (8.77) is constant.

The worldvolume fields of the M5-brane are the maps $`X^M(x)`$ from the worldvolume, with coordinates $`(x^\mu ,x^5)`$ to the D=11 spacetime, and a 3-form self-dual field strength. We set the 3-form field strength to zero and then take $`X^{\mathrm{}}`$ to be constant; this reduces the worldvolume field content to that of a scalar multiplet of (1,0) (5+1)-dimensional supersymmetry, and the matrix $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ to the $`\kappa `$-symmetry matrix of the D=10 N=1 super-5-brane, for which

$$6!\sqrt{detg}\mathrm{\Gamma }=\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma \lambda \eta }_\mu X^m_\nu X^n_\rho X^p_\sigma X^q_\lambda X^r_\eta X^s\mathrm{\Gamma }_{mnpqrs}.$$
(8.78)
In the physical gauge $`X^\mu =x^\mu `$, the worldvolume metric is

$$g_{\mu \nu }=\eta _{\mu \nu }+_\mu X^m_\nu X^nG_{mn},$$
(8.79)
and the supersymmetry preserving condition (8.73) becomes

$$(\sqrt{detg})ϵ=(1\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu _\mu X^I\mathrm{\Gamma }_I\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mu \nu }_\mu X^I_\nu X^J\mathrm{\Gamma }_{IJ}+\mathrm{})\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}ϵ.$$
(8.80)
At zeroth order we have

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}ϵ=ϵ,$$
(8.81)
which implies that the vacuum state of the 5-brane is a $`1/2`$ supersymmetric M-theory configuration. Because of the condition (8.77), the background reduces this fraction to $`1/4`$; the surviving 8 supersymmetries are those of the sigma-model vacuum. At first order we have

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu _\mu X^I\mathrm{\Gamma }_Iϵ=0.$$
(8.82)
In the special case of Kähler calibrations, this condition actually implies the full M5-brane supersymmetry condition (8.80) . Although this will not be true for calibrations in general, we might expect (8.82) to be equivalent to the sigma model supersymmetry preservation condition (6.56). We shall now verify this.

Introducing a vierbein $`e_I^A`$ for the $`HK_4`$ metric, we may write

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_I=e_I{}_{}{}^{A}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{A}^{}$$
(8.83)
for flat space Dirac matrices $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_A=(\mathrm{\Gamma }_i,\mathrm{\Gamma }_\phi )`$. For the $`HK_4`$ metric (2.7) the condition (8.82) then becomes

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \left[_\mu X^i\mathrm{\Gamma }_i+U^1𝒟_\mu \phi \mathrm{\Gamma }_\phi \right]ϵ=0.$$
(8.84)
This is equivalent to

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \left[_\mu 𝐗𝝈+iU^1𝒟_\mu \phi \right]ϵ=0,$$
(8.85)
where we have defined

$$𝝈=i𝚪\mathrm{\Gamma }_\phi .$$
(8.86)
Note that, as a consequence of the condition (8.77) imposed by the HK background, these matrices obey the algebra of the quaternions, exactly as do the Pauli matrices $`𝝉`$ appearing in the sigma model preservation condition (6.56). Since the matrices $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu `$ obey the same algebra as the D=6 Dirac matrices $`\gamma ^\mu `$ of (6.56), the implications of (6.56) are the same as those of the linearized supersymmetry preservation condition (8.82), given the additional constraints (8.77) and (8.81) on the D=11 spinor $`ϵ`$.

It remains for us to confirm that the BPS equation (4.36) governing the 1/8 supersymmetric intersections of static sigma-model solitons is what is obtained by linearization of the M-theory supersymmetry condition for a Cayley-calibrated M5-brane. For a Cayley calibration in $`\text{𝔼}^8`$ we have , in our conventions

$$(\mathbf{}𝐗_4\phi )+𝐢\left(\mathbf{}\times 𝐗\mathbf{}\phi _4𝐗\right)=(dX)^3terms$$
(8.87)
where $`𝐢`$ are the imaginary units of the quaternions. A solution of these equations can be found in . When the $`\text{𝔼}^8`$ background is replaced by $`\text{𝔼}^4\times HK_4`$, the equation becomes

$$(\mathbf{}𝐗U^1D_4\phi )+𝐢\left(\mathbf{}\times 𝐗U^1𝓓\phi _4𝐗\right)=(dX)^3terms$$
(8.88)
Linearizing in derivatives yields precisely the BPS equation (4.36).

## 9 Discussion

In this paper we have found a novel BPS equation for intersecting solitonic membranes (lumps) of (4+1)-dimensional supersymmetric HK sigma models, for which the generic solution preserves 1/8 supersymmetry. This equation applies to sigma models with HK target spaces of arbitrary quaternionic dimension $`n`$, but the $`n=1`$ is special because in this case the BPS equation can also be deduced by linearization (in derivatives) of the equations governing Cayley-calibrated 4-surfaces in $`\text{𝔼}^4\times HK_4`$, and these calibrations have a physical realization in terms of an M-theory M5-brane. The degeneration to an associative 3-surface in $`\text{𝔼}^3\times HK_4`$ yields the equation found in  for intersecting lump-strings of the (3+1)-dimensional HK sigma model.

We have also shown how a similar result applies to intersecting Q-lumps of the massive (4+1)-dimensional sigma-model. A curious feature of this case is that a supersymmetric solution is transformed into a non-supersymmetric one by time reversal! We should stress here that this phenomenon is not just a feature of generic solutions that preserve 1/8 supersymmetry (which remain hypothetical) but is also a feature of an explicit special solution that preserves 1/4 supersymmetry. Although this may seem a strange phenomenon, we remind the reader that a similar phenomenon has long been known for space reversal .

We have certainly not exhausted the possible sigma-model soliton intersections in this paper. New possibilities, preserving only 1/8 supersymmetry, are likely to occur in models for which the HK target space has a quaternionic dimension $`n1`$, as shown by the multi-domain walls of  and the intersecting domain walls of , although any M-theory interpretation of these new possibilities will have to be rather different from the $`n=1`$ cases discussed here. However, even for $`n=1`$ there are likely to be further possibilities; we will conclude with a brief mention of one such case. Let us write the energy functional (4.32) as

$$E=\frac{1}{2}d^4x\left\{|\dot{X}\sigma mvk|^2+|𝐈\mathbf{}Xm\eta \sqrt{1v^2}k|^2\right\}+\sigma mvQ+\eta mK$$
(9.89)
where $`\sigma `$ and $`\eta `$ are two signs, and $`K`$ is the topological charge

$$K=d^4x(i_k𝛀)_I\mathbf{}X^I.$$
(9.90)
The energy is minimized, for fixed $`Q`$ and $`K`$ by solutions of the first-order equations

$$\dot{X}=\sigma mvk,𝐈\mathbf{}X=\eta m\sqrt{1v^2}k.$$
(9.91)
This equation is solved by the 1/4-supersymmetric Q-kink-lump of  but generic solutions preserve 1/8 supersymmetry.

###### Acknowledgments.

It is a pleasure to thank Jerome Gauntlett for helpful discussions. R.P. thanks Trinity College for financial support.