text:
# Mean-field description of collapsing and exploding Bose-Einstein condensates

## I Introduction

Recent successful detection 1 ; 1x ; ex2  of Bose-Einstein condensates (BEC) in dilute bosonic atoms employing magnetic trap at ultra-low temperature has intensified experimental activities on various aspects of the condensate. On the theoretical front, numerical simulation based on the time-dependent nonlinear mean-field Gross-Pitaevskii (GP) equation 8  has provided a satisfactory account of some of these experiments 11 ; th1 ; th1a ; th2 ; th3 . Since the detection of BEC for 7Li atoms with attractive interaction, one problem of extreme interest is the dynamical study of the formation and decay of BEC for attractive atomic interaction ex2 .

For attractive interaction the condensate is stable for a maximum critical number $`N_{\text{cr}}`$ of atoms ex2 . Measurements for $`N_{\text{cr}}`$ ex2 ; ex3  are in reasonable agreement with the mean-field analyses for BEC of 7Li in a spherically symmetric trap 11 ; skxx , although there is some discrepancy for BEC of 85Rb in an axially symmetric trap sk3a ; sk1 . If the number of atoms can somehow be increased beyond this critical number, due to interatomic attraction the condensate collapses emitting atoms until the number of atoms is reduced below $`N_{\text{cr}}`$ and a stable configuration is reached. With a supply of atoms from an external source the condensate can grow again and thus a series of collapses can take place, that was observed experimentally in the BEC of 7Li with attractive interaction ex2 . Theoretical mean-field analysis has been able to explain this dynamics 11 ; th1 ; th1a ; th2 ; th3 .

Recently a more challenging experiment has been performed by Donley et al. ex4  at JILA on an attractive condensate of 85Rb atoms ex3  in an axially symmetric trap, where they manipulated the interatomic interaction by changing the external magnetic field exploiting a nearby Feshbach resonance fs . In the vicinity of a Feshbach resonance the atomic scattering length $`a`$ can be varied over a huge range by adjusting the external magnetic field. Consequently, they were able to change suddenly the atomic scattering length by a large amount for a BEC of 85Rb atoms ex3 . They even changed the sign of the scattering length, thus transforming a repulsive condensate into an attractive one. The original experiment on attractive 7Li atoms ex2  did not use a Feshbach resonance, hence the atomic interaction was fixed. This restricts the number of atoms in the 7Li BEC to a number close to $`N_{\text{cr}}`$ and the collapse is driven by a stochastic process ex2 ; ex4 .

In the experiment conducted at JILA, Donley et al. changed a stable pre-formed repulsive condensate of 85Rb atoms into a highly explosive and collapsing attractive condensate and studied the dynamics of collapsing and exploding condensates ex4 . The natural scattering length of 85Rb atoms is negative (attractive). By exploiting the Feshbach resonance they made it positive (repulsive) in the initial state, where the number of atoms, unlike in the experiment with 7Li ex2 , could be arbitrarily large. So immediately after the jump in the scattering length to a large negative value, one has a highly unstable BEC, where the number of atoms could be much larger than $`N_{\text{cr}}`$. Donley et al. have provided a quantitative estimate of the explosion of this BEC by measuring the number of atoms remaining in the condensate as a function of time until an equilibrium is reached. They claim that their experiment reveal many interesting phenomena that challenge theoretical models. Because the phenomenon looks very much like a tiny supernova, or exploding star, the researchers dubbed it a “Bosenova”. The fundamental physical process underlying the explosion remains a mystery.

In this paper we perform a mean-field analysis based on the time-dependent GP equation to understand some aspects of the above collapse and explosion of the attractive condensate of 85Rb atoms in an axially symmetric trap. To account for the loss of atoms from the strongly attractive condensate we include an absorptive nonlinear three-body recombination term in the GP equation. Three-body recombination leads to the formation of diatomic molecules with liberation of energy responsible for energetic explosion with ejection of matter from the BEC. This process could be termed “atomic fusion” in contrast to nuclear fusion in stars. The three-body recombination rate we use in numerical simulation is in agreement with previous experimental measurement k3  and theoretical calculation esry . The numerical method, we use, for the solution of the time-dependent GP equation with an axially symmetric trap has appeared elsewhere sk1 ; sk2 ; sk3 . We find that the present mean-field numerical simulation provides a fair description of some features of the experiment at JILA ex4 .

There have been other theoretical studies based on the mean-field GP equation th1 ; th1a ; th2 ; th3  to deal with dynamical collapse including an absorptive term to account for the loss of particles. In most cases the loss mechanism is three-body recombination as in the present study. However, Duine and Stoof th1a  propose that the loss arises due to a new elastic process. Instead of attempting a full numerical solution of the GP equation with axial symmetry, these investigations used various approximations to study the time evolution of the condensate or employed a spherically symmetric trap. Duine and Stoof th1a  consider the full anisotropic dynamics, but use a Gaussian approximation for the wave function rather than an exact numerical solution. Most of the other studies employed a spherically symmetric trap th1 ; th2 . However, the investigation of Ref. th3  employed an axially symmetric trap to describe some aspects of the experiment at JILA and we comment on this work in Sec. IV. In the present investigation we consider the complete numerical solution of the mean-field GP equation for an axially symmetric trap as in the experiment at JILA. It is realized that an approximate solution as in the previous studies can not explain the dynamics of this experiment th3 ; ex4 .

In Sec. II we present the theoretical model and the numerical method for its solution. In Sec, III we present our results that we compare with the experiment at JILA. Finally, in Secs. IV and V we present a brief discussion and concluding remarks.

## II Nonlinear Gross-Pitaevskii Equation

### II.1 Theoretical Model Equations

The time-dependent Bose-Einstein condensate wave function $`\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫;\tau )`$ at position $`𝐫`$ and time $`\tau `$ allowing for atomic loss may be described by the following mean-field nonlinear GP equation 8 ; 11

$`[`$ $``$ $`i\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\tau }}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2^2}{2m}}+V(𝐫)+gN|\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫;\tau )|^2{\displaystyle \frac{i\mathrm{}}{2}}`$ (1)
$`\times `$ $`(K_2N|\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫;\tau )|^2+K_3N^2|\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫;\tau )|^4)]\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫;\tau )=0.`$
Here $`m`$ is the mass and $`N`$ the number of atoms in the condensate, $`g=4\pi \mathrm{}^2a/m`$ the strength of interatomic interaction, with $`a`$ the atomic scattering length. A positive $`a`$ corresponds to a repulsive interaction and a negative $`a`$ to an attractive interaction. The terms $`K_2`$ and $`K_3`$ denote two-body dipolar and three-body recombination loss-rate coefficients, respectively. There are many ways to account for the loss mechanism th1 ; th1a . It is quite impossible to include them all in a self consistent fashion. Here we simulate the atom loss via the most important quintic three-body term $`K_3`$ th1 ; th2 ; th3 . The contribution of the cubic two-body loss term k3  is expected to be negligible th1 ; th3  compared to the three-body term in the present problem of the collapsed condensate with large density and will not be considered here.

The trap potential with cylindrical symmetry may be written as $`V(𝐫)=\frac{1}{2}m\omega ^2(r^2+\lambda ^2z^2)`$ where $`\omega `$ is the angular frequency in the radial direction $`r`$ and $`\lambda \omega `$ that in the axial direction $`z`$. We are using the cylindrical coordinate system $`𝐫(r,\theta ,z)`$ with $`\theta `$ the azimuthal angle. The normalization condition of the wave function is $`𝑑𝐫|\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫;\tau )|^2=1.`$

In the absence of angular momentum the wave function has the form $`\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐫;\tau )=\psi (r,z;\tau ).`$ Now transforming to dimensionless variables defined by $`x=\sqrt{2}r/l`$, $`y=\sqrt{2}z/l`$, $`t=\tau \omega ,`$ $`l\sqrt{\mathrm{}/(m\omega )}`$, and

$$\varphi (x,y;t)\frac{\phi (x,y;t)}{x}=\sqrt{\frac{l^3}{\sqrt{8}}}\psi (r,z;\tau ),$$
(2)
we get

$`[i{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{x^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{x}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{y^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(x^2+\lambda ^2y^2{\displaystyle \frac{4}{x^2}})`$
$`+8\sqrt{2}\pi n|{\displaystyle \frac{\phi (x,y;t)}{x}}|^2i\xi n^2|{\displaystyle \frac{\phi (x,y;t)}{x}}|^4]\phi (x,y;t)=0,`$ (3)
where $`n=Na/l`$ and $`\xi =4K_3/(a^2l^4\omega ).`$ This scaled mean-field equation has the correct $`n`$ dependence of the three-body term so that the same equation can be used to study the decay rate of different initial and final scattering lengths $`a_{\text{initial}}`$ and $`a_{\text{collapse}}`$, respectively, and initial number of atoms $`N_0`$. In this study the term $`K_3`$ will be used for a description of atom loss in the case of attractive interaction, where the scattering length $`a`$ is negative. From theoretical ver  and experimental k3  studies it has been found that for negative $`a,`$ $`K_3`$ increases rapidly as $`|a|^n`$, where the theoretical study ver  favors $`n=2`$ for smaller values of $`|a|`$. For larger $`|a|`$, a much larger rate of increase may take place esry ; ver . There are theoretical esry ; ver ; k3th  and experimental k3ex  estimates of $`K_3`$ for 87Rb, 23Na, and 7Li away from Feshbach resonance. However, no thorough and systematic study of the variation of $`K_3`$ near a Feshbach resonance has been performed how . An accurate representation of the variation of $`K_3`$ of 85Rb near the Feshbach resonance is beyond the scope of this study and here we represent this variation via a quadratic dependence: $`K_3a^2`$. This makes the parameter $`\xi `$ above a constant for an experimental set up with fixed $`l`$ and $`\omega `$ and in the present study we use a constant $`\xi `$.

The normalization condition of the wave function becomes

$$𝒩_{\text{norm}}2\pi _0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑x_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑y|\phi (x,y;t)|^2x^1=1.$$
(4)
For $`K_3=0,`$ $`𝒩_{\text{norm}}=1`$, however, in the presence of loss $`K_3>0`$, $`𝒩_{\text{norm}}<1.`$ The number of remaining atoms $`N`$ in the condensate is given by $`N=N_0𝒩_{\text{norm}}`$, where $`N_0`$ is the initial number.

The root mean square (rms) sizes $`x_{\text{rms}}`$ and $`y_{\text{rms}}`$ are defined by

$`x_{\text{rms}}^2=𝒩_{\text{norm}}^12\pi {\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑x{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑y|\phi (x,y;t)|^2x,`$ (5)
$`y_{\text{rms}}^2=𝒩_{\text{norm}}^12\pi {\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑x{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑y|\phi (x,y;t)|^2y^2x^1.`$ (6)
### II.2 Numerical Detail

We solve the GP equation (II.1) numerically using a time-iteration method elaborated in Refs. sk1 ; sk2 ; sk3 ; koo . The full GP Hamiltonian is conveniently broken into three parts $``$ $`H_x`$, $`H_y`$, and $`H_n`$ $``$ the first containing the $`x`$-dependent linear terms, the second containing the $`y`$-dependent linear terms and the third containing the nonlinear terms. The GP equations for the first two parts are defined on a two-dimensional set of grid points $`N_x\times N_y`$ using the Crank-Nicholson discretization method. The resultant tridiagonal equations along $`x`$ and $`y`$ directions are solved alternately by the Gaussian elimination method along the $`x`$ and $`y`$ directions koo . The GP equation for the third part do not contain any space derivative and is solved essentially exactly. Effectively, each time iteration of the GP equation is broken up into three parts $``$ using $`H_x`$, $`H_y`$ and $`H_n`$. For a small time step $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ the error involved in this break-up procedure along $`x`$ and $`y`$ directions is quadratic in $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and hence can be neglected. For numerical purpose we discretize the GP equation using time step $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0.001`$ and space step $`0.1`$ for both $`x`$ and $`y`$ spanning $`x`$ from 0 to 15 and $`y`$ from $`30`$ to 30. This domain of space was sufficient to encompass the whole condensate wave function even during and after collapse and explosion. The preparation of the initial repulsive wave function is now a routine job and was done by increasing the nonlinearity $`n`$ of the GP equation (II.1) by 0.0001 in each time step $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ during time iteration starting with the known harmonic oscillator solution of Eq. (II.1) for $`n=\xi =0`$ sk1 .

It is now appropriate to calculate the parameters of the present dimensionless GP equation (II.1) corresponding to the experiment at JILA. We follow the notation and nomenclature of Ref. ex4 . Their radial and axial trap frequencies are $`\nu _{\text{radial}}=17.5`$ Hz and $`\nu _{\text{axial}}=6.8`$ Hz, respectively, leading to $`\lambda =0.389`$. The harmonic oscillator length $`l`$ of 85Rb atoms for $`\omega =2\pi \times 17.5`$ Hz and $`m79176`$ MeV is $`l=\sqrt{\mathrm{}/(m\omega )}=26070`$ Å. One unit of time $`t`$ of Eq. (II.1) is $`1/\omega `$ or 0.009095 s. They prepared a stable 85Rb condensate of $`N_0=16000`$ atoms with scattering length $`a_{\text{initial}}=7a_0`$, $`a_0=0.5292`$ Å, such that the initial $`n=2.274`$. Then during an interval of time 0.1 ms the scattering length was ramped to $`a=a_{\text{collapse}}=30a_0`$ such that final $`n=9.744`$. The final condensate is strongly attractive and unstable and undergoes a sequence of collapse and explosion.

The initial value of $`n(=2.274)`$ was attained after 22740 time steps. The nonlinearity $`n`$ is then ramped from 2.274 to $`9.744`$ in 0.1 ms. As one unit of dimensionless time $`t`$ is 0.009095 s, 0.1 ms corresponds to 11 steps of time $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. In the present simulation, $`n`$ is ramped from 2.274 to $`9.744`$ in the GP equation by equal amount in 11 steps. The absorptive term $`\xi `$ was set equal to zero during above time iteration. Now the system is prepared for the simulation of the collapse and explosion.

For the simulation of the collapse and explosion the cubic nonlinear term is maintained constant and a nonzero value of $`\xi `$ is chosen. The time-evolution of the GP equation is continued as a function of time $`t=\tau _{\text{evolve}}`$ starting at 0. The time-evolution is continued using time step $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0.001`$. After a small experimentation it is found that $`\xi =2`$ fits the experiment at JILA satisfactorily. Unless otherwise specified, this value of $`\xi `$ was used in all simulations reported in this paper for different $`a_{\text{initial}}`$, $`a_{\text{collapse}}`$, and $`N_0`$.

It is useful to compare this value of $`\xi (=2)`$ with the experimental k3  and theoretical ver  estimates of three-body loss rate of 85Rb. For this we recall that $`K_3=\xi a^2l^4\omega /4.`$ Under experimental condition of an external magnetic field of 250 gauss on 85Rb k3  the scattering length was $`a370a_0`$. Consequently, the present value of $`\xi (=2)`$ corresponds to $`K_39\times 10^{25}`$ cm6/s for $`a370a_0`$, which is about two times the experimental rate $`K_3=(4.24_{0.29}^{+0.70}\pm 0.85)\times 10^{25}`$ cm6/s k3  and about 1.3 times the theoretical rate $`K_3=6.7\times 10^{25}`$ cm6/s at $`a370a_0`$ esry .

## III Numerical Result

The numerical simulation using Eq. (II.1) with a nonzero $`\xi `$ immediately yields the remaining number of atoms in the condensate after the jump in scattering length. The remaining number of atoms vs. time is plotted in Fig. 1 for $`a_{\text{initial}}=7a_0`$, $`a_{\text{collapse}}=30a_0`$, $`\xi =2`$, and $`N_0=16000`$ and compared with the experimental data. In this figure we also plot the result in this case for $`\xi =3`$, which leads to a better agreement with experiment for this specific case. However, the use of $`\xi =2`$ leads to a more satisfactory overall agreement with experiment. Except this single curve in Fig. 1 and the plot in Fig. 4 (a) below, which are calculated with $`\xi =3`$, all results reported in this paper are calculated with $`\xi =2`$.

In the experiment at JILA ex4  it was observed that the strongly attractive condensate after preparation remains stable with a constant number of atoms for an interval of time $`t_{\text{collapse}}`$, called collapse time. This behavior is physically expected. Immediately after the jump in scattering length from $`7a_0`$ to $`30a_0`$, the attractive condensate shrinks in size during $`t_{\text{collapse}}`$, until the central density increases to a maximum. Then the absorptive three-body term takes full control to initiate the explosion. Consequently, the number of atoms remains constant for $`\tau _{\text{evolve}}<t_{\text{collapse}}`$. The present result (full line) also shows a similar behavior. However, in this simulation the absorptive term is operative from $`\tau _{\text{evolve}}=0`$ and the atom number decreases right from beginning, albeit at a much smaller rate for $`\tau _{\text{evolve}}<t_{\text{collapse}}`$.

Donley et al. repeated their experiment with different values of $`a_{\text{initial}}`$, $`a_{\text{collapse}}`$, and $`N_0`$ ex4 . For $`a_{\text{initial}}=7a_0`$ we repeated our calculation with the following values of final scattering length: $`a_{\text{collapse}}=263a_0`$ and $`6.7a_0`$. These results are also plotted in Fig. 1 and agree with the unpublished, preliminary unanalyzed data don1 . The initial delay $`t_{\text{collapse}}`$ in starting the explosion is large for small $`|a_{\text{collapse}}|`$ as we see in Fig. 1. Similar effect was observed in the experiment for an initial condensate of 6000 atoms as shown in their Fig. 2 ex4 . After a sequence of collapse and explosion, Donley et al. observed a “remnant” condensate of $`N_{\text{remnant}}`$ atoms at large times containing a certain constant fraction of the initial $`N_0`$ atoms. Figure 1 shows such a behavior.

The above evolution of the condensate after the jump in scattering length to $`30a_0`$ from $`7a_0`$ for $`N_0=16000`$ can be understood from a study of the wave function and we display the central part of the wave function in Fig. 2 for $`\tau _{\text{evolve}}=0,3.6,3.8,`$ and $`8`$ ms. The wave function immediately after jump at time $`\tau _{\text{evolve}}=0`$ is essentially the same as that before the jump at $`0.1`$ ms. There is not enough time for the wave function to get modified at $`\tau _{\text{evolve}}=0`$. From Fig. 2 we find that at 3.6 ms the wave function is only slightly narrower than at 0 ms but still smooth and has not yet collapsed sufficiently. As $`\tau _{\text{evolve}}`$ increases, the wave function contracts further and the explosion starts. At 3.8 ms some spikes (irregularities) have appeared in the wave function showing the beginning of the explosion and loss. From the study of the wave functions we find that the explosion start at $`\tau _{\text{evolve}}=t_{\text{collapse}}3.7`$ ms in agreement with the experiment at JILA. We also find that at 3.7 ms before the loss began the bulk BEC did not contract dramatically as also observed in the experiment. In the numerical simulation for this case we find that at $`\tau _{\text{evolve}}=0,x_{\text{rms}}=2.98\mu `$m and $`y_{\text{rms}}=4.21\mu `$m and at $`\tau _{\text{evolve}}=3.7`$ ms, $`x_{\text{rms}}=2.53\mu `$m and $`y_{\text{rms}}=4.10\mu `$m. From Fig. 2 we see that at 8 ms the wave function is very spiky corresponding to the violent ongoing explosion.

Donley et al. fitted the decay in the number of atoms during particle loss to a decay constant $`\tau _{\text{decay}}`$ via the formula

$`N(\tau _{\text{evolve}})`$ $`=`$ $`N_{\text{remnant}}+(N_0N_{\text{remnant}})`$ (7)
$`\times `$ $`e^{(t_{\text{collapse}}\tau _{\text{evolve}})/\tau _{\text{decay}}}`$
for $`\tau _{\text{evolve}}>t_{\text{collapse}}`$. In Fig. 1 we also plot $`N(\tau _{\text{evolve}})`$ of Eq. (7) (dashed line) for $`a_{\text{collapse}}=263a_0,30a_0`$ and $`6.7a_0`$ with respective decay rates $`\tau _{\text{decay}}=`$ 1.2 ms, 2.8 ms and 2.8 ms don1 . For wide variation of parameters $`a_{\text{initial}},a_{\text{collapse}},`$ and $`N_0`$, $`\tau _{\text{decay}}`$ varies approximately between 1 and 3. The results of the present simulation (full line) agree well with the average experimental result of Eq. (7) for three different $`a_{\text{collapse}}`$ (dashed line) don1 .

Next we repeated our calculation for several other values for $`a_{\text{initial}}`$, $`a_{\text{collapse}}`$, and $`N_0`$. These results are plotted in Fig. 3 for (a) $`a_{\text{initial}}=89a_0`$, $`a_{\text{collapse}}=15a_0`$, and $`N_0=6000,`$ (b) $`a_{\text{initial}}=0.64a_0`$, $`a_{\text{collapse}}=6.6a_0`$, and $`N_0=14500`$, (c) $`a_{\text{initial}}=0.64a_0`$, $`a_{\text{collapse}}=6.6a_0`$, and $`N_0=5500`$, and (d) $`a_{\text{initial}}=7a_0`$, $`a_{\text{collapse}}=263a_0`$, and $`N_0=6000`$. The agreement of the result of simulation with unpublished, preliminary unanalyzed data is good in all four cases reported in Fig. 3 don1 .

The decay curves in Fig. 3 are different, although they have certain general features which determine the decay constant $`\tau _{\text{decay}}`$, collapse time $`t_{\text{collapse}}`$, and number of atoms in the remnant. Experimentally, the fraction of atoms that went into the remnant decreased with $`|a_{\text{collapse}}|`$ and was $`40\%`$ for $`|a_{\text{collapse}}|<10a_0`$ and was $`10\%`$ for $`|a_{\text{collapse}}|>100a_0`$. Figures 1 and 3 also show this behavior. The values of $`\tau _{\text{decay}}`$ for plots in Figs. 3 (a) $``$ (d) are 1.5 ms, 2.4 ms, 3.3 ms, and 1.9 ms, respectively, lying in the range $`13`$ ms don1 . The general features in the behavior of remnant number and collapse time are discussed in the following.

Donley et al. provided a quantitative measurement of the variation of collapse time $`t_{\text{collapse}}`$ with the final scattering length $`a_{\text{collapse}}`$ for a given $`a_{\text{initial}}=0`$ and $`N_0=6000`$. We also calculated this variation using our model given by Eq. (II.1). In our calculation we define $`t_{\text{collapse}}`$ as the time at which the spikes (irregularities), as in Fig. 2, tend to appear in the wave function. The results are plotted in Fig. 4 and compared with experimental data ex4  as well as with another calculation using the mean-field GP equation in an axially symmetric trap th3 . The agreement between the two theoretical results is very good. There is also qualitative agreement between the experimental data on the one hand and the two calculations on the other hand: $`t_{\text{collapse}}`$ decreases with $`|a_{\text{collapse}}|/a_0`$ starting from an infinite value at $`|a_{\text{collapse}}|=a_{\text{cr}}`$ for a fixed $`N_0`$, that is 6000 in Fig. 4. For this $`N_0`$, $`a_{\text{cr}}`$ is the minimum value of $`|a_{\text{collapse}}|`$ that leads to the collapse and explosion. For a given $`N_0`$, a critical value of $`nn_{\text{cr}}`$ for collapse can be defined via $`n_{\text{cr}}N_0a_{\text{cr}}/l`$. As there is discrepancy between theoretical and experimental $`n_{\text{cr}}`$ for an axially symmetric trap sk3a ; sk1 , the theoretical and experimental $`a_{\text{cr}}`$ are also supposed to be different. The experimental $`k_{\text{cr}}n_{\text{cr}}\lambda ^{1/6}=0.46`$ ex3  and the theoretical $`k_{\text{cr}}=0.55`$ sk3a ; sk1  for the axially symmetric trap used in the experiment at JILA with the asymmetry parameter $`\lambda =0.389`$. The theoretical $`a_{\text{cr}}`$ should be larger than the experimental $`a_{\text{cr}}`$ in the same proportion. This might imply that the theoretical $`t_{\text{collapse}}`$ should tend to infinity for a slightly larger value of $`a_{\text{collapse}}`$ as in Fig. 4.

Donley et al. measured the number of remnant atoms for $`a_{\text{initial}}=7a_0`$ and different initial number $`N_0`$ and $`a_{\text{collapse}}`$ and these results don2  are plotted in Figs. 5 (a) and (b) and compared with numerical simulation performed with $`\xi =3`$ and 2, respectively. The agreement is good for most cases shown in this figure. For $`N_0=6000`$, there is some discrepancy between theoretical and experimental remnant numbers. The overall agreement is better in the case with $`\xi =2`$ than with $`\xi =3`$. For $`\xi =3`$ the three-body recombination loss-rate is larger and this leads to smaller remnant numbers compared to the case with $`\xi =2`$. The theoretical $`N_{\text{cr}}`$ for a fixed negative $`a_{\text{collapse}}`$ is given by $`N_{\text{cr}}=0.55l\lambda ^{1/6}/|a_{\text{collapse}}|`$ sk3a ; sk1 . For $`a_{\text{collapse}}=255a_0,100a_0,30a_0,`$ and $`21a_0`$, $`N_{\text{cr}}=124,317,1057,`$ and 1510, respectively. Hence, from Fig. 5 we find that the number in the remnant could be much larger than $`N_{\text{cr}}`$ for times on the order of tens of milliseconds. However, in our simulation such a remnant continues to emit atoms at a much slower rate and for very large times on the order of seconds the number of atoms eventually tends towards $`N_{\text{cr}}`$.

Donley et al. observed that the remnant condensate in all cases oscillated in a highly excited collective state with approximate frequencies $`2\nu _{\text{axial}}`$ and $`2\nu _{\text{radial}}`$ being predominantly excited. The actual measured frequencies are 13.6(6) Hz and 33.4(3) Hz. To find if this behavior emerges from the present simulation we plot in Fig. 6 sizes $`x_{\text{rms}}`$ and $`y_{\text{rms}}`$ vs. time for the condensate after the jump in the scattering length to $`6.7a_0`$ from $`7a_0`$ for $`N_0=16000`$. Excluding the first 20 ms when the remnant condensate is being formed, we find a periodic oscillation in $`x_{\text{rms}}`$ and $`y_{\text{rms}}`$ with frequencies 13.5 Hz and 34 Hz, respectively, as observed in experiment.

## IV Discussion

Though we have explained some aspects of the experiment at JILA, certain detailed features have not been addressed in this study. Donley et al. have classified the emitted atoms in three categories: burst, missing (undetected) and jet atoms ex4 . The jet atoms appear with much lower energy solely in the radial direction possibly from the spikes in the wave function when the collapse is suddenly interrupted during the period of atom loss before the remnant is formed. Strangely enough the emission of jet atoms are found not to possess axial symmetry always and hence can not be properly treated in a axially symmetric model. Moreover a clear-cut distinction between the burst and missing atoms emitted during the explosion seems to be difficult in the present model as the experiment could not specify the properties (magnitude and direction of velocities) of the missing atoms. Also, because of the missing atoms it is difficult to predict the energy distribution of the burst atoms during the explosion in a mean-field analysis. Without proper identification of the missing atoms, any energy distribution calculated using the present mean-field analysis will yield the total energy of burst plus missing atoms. A careful analysis of the energy of the emitted atoms is required for explaining the exclusive features and a detailed study of the wave function is needed for this purpose. Such an analysis is beyond the scope of the present investigation and would be a welcome future theoretical work.

The success of the Crank-Nicholson algorithm in alternate directions as used in this study depends on a proper discretization of the GP equation in space and time. In this study we employed a two-dimensional lattice in space of $`600\times 150`$ or 90000 points ($`x15,30y30`$) and a time step of 0.001. In the absence of collapse and recombination loss this discretization leads to very precise results. The accuracy reduces in the presence of the violent collapse and explosion simulated by three-body recombination. By varying the space discretization grid and time step we found that the estimated error in the present calculation is less than $`10\%`$ for time propagation upto few tens of milliseconds.

There has been another attempt to use the mean-field GP equation in an axially symmetric trap th3  to explain the experiment of Ref. ex4 . There are certain differences between the analysis of Ref. th3  and the present investigation. According to the experiment of Ref. ex4 , the burst atoms and missing atoms are components of expelled atoms which lose contact with the central condensate that eventually forms the remnant. Of these the burst atoms have energy much less than the magnetic trap depth. Hence, though expelled from the central condensate they continue trapped and oscillate with time. The wave function of Eq. (II.1) only describes the central condensate. However, in Ref. th3  the burst atoms are considered to be the peripheral part (the spikes) of the central condensate and hence taken to be described by the mean-field Eq. (II.1). The missing atoms are actually parts of the expelled atoms that have disappeared from the trap ex4 . In Ref. th3 , the missing atoms have been taken to be the only component of the emitted atoms. These are the main differences between the point of view of the present analysis and that of Ref. th3 .

The three-body loss rates of the two studies are also widely different. Here we employ the three-body recombination loss-rate $`K_39\times 10^{25}`$ cm6/s for $`a=370a_0`$ whereas in Ref. th3  the value $`K_310^{28}`$ cm6/s has been considered. The present rate is in rough agreement with the experimental rate of Ref. k3  ($`K_34.2\times 10^{25}`$ cm6/s) and with the theoretical rate of Ref. esry  ($`K_36.7\times 10^{25}`$ cm6/s) for the same value of scattering length whereas that of Ref. th3  is orders of magnitude smaller. However, such a small three-body rate in Ref. th3  has led to a large residual condensate at large time that they have interpreted as the sum of burst plus remnant. The use of a large three-body rate in this study has led to a much smaller residual central condensate which has been identified as the remnant as in the experiment at JILA ex4 .

However, it is assuring to see that the $`t_{\text{collapse}}`$ vs. $`|a_{\text{collapse}}|/a_0`$ curve of the two models in Fig. 4 agrees with each other. The present calculation in Fig. 4 was performed with a nonzero loss rate $`K_3`$, whereas that in Ref. th3  was performed by setting $`K_3=0`$. We find that $`K_3`$ plays an insignificant role in this calculation at small times. Hence, the two computer routines lead to the same result in the absence of recombination loss before the beginning of the explosion.

## V Conclusion

In conclusion, we have employed a numerical simulation based on the accurate solution sk1  of the mean-field Gross-Pitaevskii equation with a cylindrical trap to study the dynamics of the collapse and explosion as observed in the recent experiment at JILA ex4 . In the GP equation we include a quintic three-body nonlinear recombination loss term that accounts for the decay of the strongly attractive condensate. The results of the present simulation accounts for some aspects of the experiment.

In the experiment a strongly attractive 85Rb condensate was prepared by ramping the scattering length to a large negative value and the subsequent decay of the collapsing and exploding condensate was measured. We have been able to understand the following features of this dynamics from the present numerical simulation: (1) The condensate undergoes collapse and explosion and finally stabilizes to a remnant condensate containing about $`10\%`$ (for $`|a_{\text{collapse}}|>100a_0`$ ) to $`40\%`$ (for $`|a_{\text{collapse}}|<10a_0`$) of initial number of atoms $`N_0`$ at large times. This percentage is independent of $`N_0`$ and the ramped scattering length $`a_{\text{collapse}}.`$ The number in the remnant condensate can be much larger than the critical number for collapse $`N_{\text{cr}}`$ for the same atomic interaction for experimental times on the order of tens of milliseconds. (2) Both in the experiment and our simulation the remnant condensate executes radial and axial oscillations in a highly excited collective state for a long time with frequencies $`2\nu _{\text{radial}}`$ and $`2\nu _{\text{axial}}.`$ (3) After the sudden change in the scattering length to a large negative value, the condensate needs an interval of time $`t_{\text{collapse}}`$ before it experiences loss via explosion. Consequently, the decay starts after the interval of time $`t_{\text{collapse}}`$. (4) The number of atoms in the condensate decays exponentially with a decay constant $`\tau _{\text{decay}}`$ of few milliseconds ($`13`$ ms).

To conclude, a large part of the Bosenova experiment on 85Rb atoms at JILA ex4 , specially the detailed behavior of the remnant, can be understood by introducing the rather conventional three-body recombination loss in the standard mean-field GP equation, with a loss rate compatible with other studies k3 ; esry . The study of the detailed behavior of the burst and missing atoms and the formation of the jet in such a mean-field theory seems to be more complicated technically, nevertheless viable, and would be a subject of future investigation.

###### Acknowledgements.

The author extends sincere thanks to Dr. E. A. Donley for additional unpublished data don1 ; don2  of the experiment at JILA ex4 . The work is supported in part by the CNPq and FAPESP of Brazil.


format: text

text:
# On Gauge Dynamics and SUSY Breaking in Orientiworld

## I Introduction

Extra dimensions naturally arise in superstring theory (or M-theory), which is believed to be a consistent theory of quantum gravity. However, in order to model the real world with critical string theory (or M-theory), one must address the question of why the extra dimensions have not been observed. One way to make extra dimensions consistent with observation is to assume that they are compact with small enough volume. If the Standard Model gauge and matter fields propagate in such extra dimensions (as is the case in, say, weakly coupled heterotic string theory), then their linear sizes should not be larger than about inverse TeV . On the other hand, in the Brane World scenario the Standard Model gauge and matter fields are assumed to be localized on branes (or an intersection thereof), while gravity lives in a larger dimensional bulk of space-time. Such a scenario with compact extra dimensions can, for instance, be embedded in superstring theory via Type I compactifications. Then the extra dimensions transverse to the branes can have sizes as large as about a tenth of a millimeter .

To begin with considering compact (or, more generally, finite volume) extra dimensions was motivated by the requirement that at the distance scales for which gravity has been measured one should reproduce 4-dimensional gravity. However, as was pointed out in , 4-dimensional gravity can be reproduced even in theories with infinite-volume extra dimensions. In particular, according to  4-dimensional gravity can be reproduced on a 3-brane in infinite-volume bulk (with 6 or more space-time dimensions) up to ultra-large distance scales. Thus, in these scenarios gravity is almost completely localized on a brane (which is almost $`\delta `$-function-like) with ultra-light modes penetrating into the bulk. As was explained in , this dramatic modification of gravity in higher codimension models with infinite volume extra dimensions is due to the Einstein-Hilbert term on the brane, which is induced via loops of non-conformal brane matter .

In  we described an explicit string theory framework for embedding models with infinite-volume extra dimensions. In this framework, which we refer to as Orientiworld, the Standard Model gauge and matter fields are localized on (a collection of) D3-branes embedded in infinite-volume extra space. In particular, we consider unoriented Type IIB backgrounds in the presence of some number of D3-branes as well as an orientifold 3-plane embedded in an orbifolded space-time. The D3-brane world-volume theory in this framework is non-conformal (at least for some backgrounds with at most $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetry). At the quantum level we have the Einstein-Hilbert term induced on the branes, which leads to almost complete localization of gravity on the D3-branes. In particular, as was discussed in , (at least in some backgrounds) up to an ultra-large cross-over distance scale the gravitational interactions of the Standard Model fields localized on D3-branes are described by 4-dimensional laws of gravity.

The orientiworld framework appears has a rich structure for model building. In particular, since the extra dimensions have infinite volume, the number of D3-branes is arbitrary. Moreover, the number of allowed orbifold groups is infinite. Thus, a priori the orbifold group can be an arbitraryMore precisely, there is a mild restriction on allowed orbifold groups if we require modular invariance of the closed string sector in the corresponding oriented Type IIB background. subgroup of $`Spin(6)`$, or, if we require $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetry to avoid bulk tachyons, of $`SU(3)`$. To obtain a finite string background, we still must impose twisted tadpole cancellation conditions. However, twisted tadpoles must also be canceled in compact Type IIB orientifolds. Then the number of consistent solutions of the latter type is rather limited  as we can only have a finite number of D3-branes, and, moreover, the number of allowed orbifold groups is also finite as they must act crystallographically on the compact space. On the other hand, as we already mentioned, in the orientiworld framework the number of consistent solutions is infinite, which is encouraging for phenomenologically oriented model building.

This richness of the orientiworld framework can be exploited to construct various models for phenomenological applications. Thus, in  we gave a construction of an $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetric 3-generation Pati-Salam model in the orientiworld framework. The purpose of this paper is to explore non-perturbative gauge dynamics in orientiworld models. In particular, we discuss $`𝒩=1`$ orientiworld models based on $`𝐙_3`$ as well as $`𝐙_5`$ and $`𝐙_7`$ orbifolds. The examples we study illustrate that various non-perturbative phenomena can be expected in orientiworld models including dynamical supersymmetry breaking.

The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In section II we review the orientiworld framework. In section III we discuss various couplings in unoriented Type IIB backgrounds. In section IV we discuss the $`𝐙_3`$ models. In section V we give the $`𝐙_5`$ and $`𝐙_7`$ examples. We give some concluding remarks in section VI.

## II Orientiworld Framework

In this section we review the orientiworld framework. First we describe the underlying oriented Type IIB orbifold backgrounds. We then consider their orientifolds. Parts of our discussion here will closely .

### A Oriented Backgrounds

Consider Type IIB string theory with $`N`$ parallel coincident D3-branes where the space transverse to the D-branes is $`=𝐑^6/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. The orbifold group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\{g_aa=1,\mathrm{},|\mathrm{\Gamma }|\}`$ ($`g_1=1`$) must be a finite discrete subgroup of $`Spin(6)`$ (it can be a subgroup of $`Spin(6)`$ and not $`SO(6)`$ as we are dealing with a theory containing fermions). If $`\mathrm{\Gamma }SU(3)`$ ($`SU(2)`$), we have $`𝒩=1`$ ($`𝒩=2`$) unbroken supersymmetry, and $`𝒩=0`$, otherwise.

Let us confine our attention to the cases where type IIB on $``$ is a modular invariant theoryThis is always the case if $`\mathrm{\Gamma }SU(3)`$. For non-supersymmetric cases this is also true provided that $`𝐙_2\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. If $`𝐙_2\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, then modular invariance requires that the set of points in $`𝐑^6`$ fixed under the $`𝐙_2`$ twist has real dimension 2.. The action of the orbifold on the coordinates $`X_i`$ ($`i=1,\mathrm{},6`$) on $``$ can be described in terms of $`SO(6)`$ matrices: $`g_a:X_i_j(g_a)_{ij}X_j`$. (The action of $`g_a`$ on the world-sheet superpartners of $`X_i`$ is the same.) We also need to specify the action of the orbifold group on the Chan-Paton charges carried by the D3-branes. It is described by $`N\times N`$ matrices $`\gamma _a`$ that form a representation of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Note that $`\gamma _1`$ is an identity matrix and $`\text{Tr}(\gamma _1)=N`$.

The D-brane sector of the theory is described by an oriented open string theory. In particular, the world-sheet expansion corresponds to summing over oriented Riemann surfaces with arbitrary genus $`g`$ and arbitrary number of boundaries $`b`$, where the boundaries of the world-sheet correspond to the D3-branes. In  it was shown that the one-loop massless (and, in non-supersymmetric cases, tachyonic) tadpole cancellation conditions require that

$$\text{Tr}(\gamma _a)=0a1.$$
(1)
In  it was also shown that this condition implies that the Chan-Paton matrices $`\gamma _a`$ form an $`n`$-fold copy of the regular representation of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. The regular representation decomposes into a direct sum of all irreducible representations $`𝐫_i`$ of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ with degeneracy factors $`n_i=|𝐫_i|`$. The gauge group is ($`N_inn_i`$)

$$G=_iU(N_i).$$
(2)
The matter consists of Weyl fermions and scalars transforming in bifundamentals $`(𝐍_i,\overline{𝐍}_j)`$ (see  for details). The overall center-of-mass $`U(1)`$, which is inherited from the parent $`𝒩=4`$ supersymmetric $`U(N)`$ gauge theory and is always present in such models, is free - matter fields are not charged under this $`U(1)`$. We do, however, have matter charged under the rest of the $`U(1)`$’s, which we will refer to as non-trivial $`U(1)`$’s. If $`\mathrm{\Gamma }SO(3)`$, then all the non-trivial $`U(1)`$’s are anomaly free, in fact, in these cases gauge theories are necessarily non-chiral. As was discussed in , these $`U(1)`$’s acquire masses at the one-loop level via couplings to the corresponding twisted R-R two-forms for which there are induced kinetic terms on D3-branes. If $`\mathrm{\Gamma }SU(3)`$ but $`\mathrm{\Gamma }SO(3)`$, then we have chiral gauge theories and some of the non-trivial $`U(1)`$ factors are actually anomalous (in particular, we have $`U(1)_kSU(N_l)^2`$ mixed anomalies), and are broken (that is, acquire masses) at the tree-level via a generalized Green-Schwarz mechanism . If in these cases we also have anomaly-free non-trivial $`U(1)`$’s, then the latter acquire masses at the one-loop level just as in the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }SO(3)`$ cases . So the non-trivial $`U(1)`$ factors decouple in the infra-red. As to the non-Abelian parts of the gauge theories, it was shown in  that they are conformal in the large $`N`$ limit§§§In this limit we take the string coupling $`g_s0`$ together with $`N\mathrm{}`$ while keeping $`Ng_s`$ fixed., including in the non-supersymmetric cases. The key reason for this conformal property is the tadpole cancellation condition (1), which, as was explained in , implies that all planar diagramsIn the large $`N`$ limit non-planar diagrams are suppressed by powers of $`1/N`$. with external lines corresponding to non-Abelian gauge as well as matter fields reduce to those of the parent $`𝒩=4`$ theory, which is conformal. At finite $`N`$ conformality of the non-Abelian parts of the $`𝒩=2`$ gauge theories becomes evident from vanishing of the one-loop $`\beta `$-function (as $`𝒩=2`$ gauge theories perturbatively are not renormalized beyond one loop), and can also be argued for $`𝒩=1`$ cases . In non-supersymmetric cases, however, we always have twisted closed string sectors tachyons, which prevent one from considering finite $`N`$ casesIn the large $`N`$ limit the closed twisted sector tachyons are harmless as the string coupling $`g_s`$ goes to zero. Also, in this limit all non-trivial $`U(1)`$’s decouple in the infra-red..

### B Unoriented Backgrounds

Let us now consider a generalization of the above setup by including orientifold planes. In the following we will mostly be interested in finite $`N`$ theories, so let us focus on theories with at least $`𝒩=1`$ unbroken supersymmetry. Thus, consider Type IIB string theory on $`=𝐂^3/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }SU(3)`$. Consider the $`\mathrm{\Omega }(1)^{F_L}J`$ orientifold of this theory, where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the world-sheet parity reversal, $`F_L`$ is the fermion number operator, and $`J`$ is a $`𝐙_2`$ element ($`J^2=1`$) acting on the complex coordinates $`z_i`$ ($`i=1,2,3`$) on $`𝐂^3`$ such that the set of points in $`𝐂^3`$ fixed under the action of $`J`$ has real dimension $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$ or $`4`$.

If $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$ then we have an orientifold 3-plane. If $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ has a $`𝐙_2`$ subgroup, then we also have an orientifold 7-plane. If $`\mathrm{\Delta }=4`$ then we have an orientifold 7-plane. We may also have an orientifold 3-plane depending on whether $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ has an appropriate $`𝐙_2`$ subgroup. Regardless of whether we have an orientifold 3-plane, we can a priori introduce an arbitrary number of D3-branes\**\**\**In general, codimension-3 and higher objects (that is D-branes and orientifold planes) do not introduce untwisted tadpoles.. On the other hand, if we have an orientifold 7-plane we must introduce 8 of the corresponding D7-branes to cancel the corresponding R-R charge appropriately. (The number 8 of D7-branes is required by the corresponding untwisted tadpole cancellation conditions.)

We need to specify the action of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ on the Chan-Paton factors corresponding to the D3- and D7-branes (if the latter are present, which is the case if we have an orientifold 7-plane). Just as in the previous subsection, these are given by Chan-Paton matrices which we collectively refer to as $`\gamma _a^\mu `$, where the superscript $`\mu `$ refers to the corresponding D3- or D7-branes. Note that $`\text{Tr}(\gamma _1^\mu )=n^\mu `$ where $`n^\mu `$ is the number of D-branes labelled by $`\mu `$.

Now the world-sheet expansion contains oriented as well as unoriented Riemann surfaces. The unoriented Riemann surfaces contain handles and boundaries as well as cross-caps. The latter are the (coherent Type IIB) states that describe the familiar orientifold planes. The presence of the cross-caps modifies the twisted one-loop tadpole cancellation conditions, which can now be written as:

$$B_a+\underset{\mu }{}C_a^\mu \text{Tr}(\gamma _a^\mu )=0,a1.$$
(3)
These should be contrasted with (1) in the oriented case. In particular, in certain cases some $`B_a`$, which correspond to contributions due to cross-caps, need not vanish. This makes possible (albeit does not guarantee - see below) non-conformal gauge theories on D3-branes in the orientiworld context .

Thus, let us see what kind of orientiworld models we can have. For definiteness let us focus on the cases where we do have an orientifold 3-plane (that is, $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$). If there are no orientifold 7-planes (that is, if $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ does not contain a $`𝐙_2`$ element), then the orientifold projection $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ can be either of the $`SO`$ or the $`Sp`$ type: the corresponding orientifold 3-plane is referred to as O3- or O3+, respectively. That is, before orbifolding, if we place $`2N`$ D3-branes on top of the O3--plane (O3+-plane), we have the $`𝒩=4`$ super-Yang-Mills theory with the $`SO(2N)`$ ($`Sp(2N)`$) gauge group††††††Note that we can also place $`2N+1`$ D3-branes on top of the O3--plane to obtain the $`SO(2N+1)`$ gauge group.. (We are using the convention where $`Sp(2N)`$ has rank $`N`$.) After the orbifold projections the 33 (that is, the D3-brane) gauge group is a subgroup of $`SO(2N)`$ ($`Sp(2N)`$), which can contain $`U(N_k)`$ factors as well as $`SO`$ ($`Sp`$) subgroups. The 33 matter can contain bifundamentals in any of these subgroups as well as rank-2 antisymmetric (symmetric) representations in the unitary subgroups. Next, if we have an O7-plane, the orientifold projection $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ must always be of the $`SO`$ type on the D7-branes - this is required by the tadpole cancellation condition. This, in particular, implies that the 33 and 77 matter cannot contain rank-2 symmetric representations. Note that we also have 37 matter in bifundamentals of the 33 and 77 gauge groups. Finally, note that there is no overall center-of-mass $`U(1)`$ in these models (the parent theory is an $`SO`$ or $`Sp`$ gauge theory), so all $`U(1)`$’s (if present) are non-trivial in the sense of the previous subsection.

If $`\mathrm{\Gamma }SO(3)`$, then the corresponding gauge theories are necessarily non-chiral. If we have $`U(1)`$ factors, they acquire masses at the one-loop level via the mechanism discussed in the previous subsection . As to the non-Abelian parts of the corresponding gauge theories, as was discussed in , they are always conformal despite the fact that some twisted $`B_a`$ can be non-zero in such models (see  for a detailed explanation of why this is so)‡‡‡‡‡‡The $`\mathrm{\Gamma }SU(2)`$ orientifolds were originally discussed in .. The situation is very different in the cases where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }SU(3)`$ but $`\mathrm{\Gamma }SO(3)`$. All such theories are non-conformal . In fact, generically they are chiral with a few (essentially trivial) exceptions. Thus, in some cases the twisted tadpole cancellation conditions allow a choice such that all twisted Chan-Paton matrices are trivial (that is, they are identity matrices). In such a case the gauge theory is a pure $`SO`$ or $`Sp`$ $`𝒩=1`$ super-Yang-Mills theory (that is, we have no chiral matter supermultiplets). In all other cases we have chiral matter. More precisely, there is one possible exception where the gauge group is $`SU(4)U(1)_A`$ with matter transforming in $`\mathrm{𝟔}(+2)`$ (the $`U(1)_A`$ charge is given in parenthesis). Such a theory is conformal as the matter is non-trivially charged under the anomalous $`U(1)_A`$, but the latter is broken at the tree level via a generalized Green-Schwarz mechanism, and the resulting non-Abelian gauge theory turns out to be non-conformal (as $`\mathrm{𝟔}`$ of $`SU(4)`$ is a real representation). In general, if we have chiral matter, we have at least one anomalous $`U(1)`$. Such anomalous $`U(1)`$’s acquire masses at the tree level . If in these cases we also have anomaly-free $`U(1)`$’s, they acquire masses at the one-loop level as in the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }SO(3)`$ cases .

## III Various Couplings In Orientiworld

For our subsequent discussions it will be useful to understand some couplings in the orientifold backgrounds. For simplicity we will focus on the cases with O3-planes but without O7-planes. In fact, we will specialize on orbifold groups $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=𝐙_p`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }SU(3)`$ but $`\mathrm{\Gamma }SO(3)`$, where $`p`$ is a prime. The action of the generator $`\theta `$ or $`𝐙_p`$ on the complex coordinates $`z_\alpha `$, $`\alpha =1,2,3`$, on $`𝐂^3/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is given by

$$\theta z_\alpha =\omega ^\mathrm{}_\alpha z_\alpha ,$$
(4)
where $`\omega \mathrm{exp}(2\pi i/p)`$, and $`_{\alpha =1}^3\mathrm{}_\alpha =p`$.

### A Oriented Backgrounds

Before we turn to the unoriented backgrounds, let us recall some facts about the oriented theories. Thus, consider Type IIB on $`𝐑^{1,3}\times (𝐂^3/𝐙_p)`$. The closed string sector has $`p1`$ twisted sectors $`\theta ^k`$, $`k=1,\mathrm{},p1`$. In each twisted sector we have a complex NS-NS scalar $`\varphi _k`$ and a complex R-R two-form $`C_k`$, which satisfy the reality condition

$$\varphi _{pk}=\varphi _k^{},$$
(5)
and similarly for $`C_k`$.

Next, consider $`N`$ D3-branes placed at the orbifold fixed point in $`(𝐂^3/𝐙_p)`$. Let $``$ be the ($`N\times N`$ matrix valued) D3-brane gauge field strength, which satisfies the orbifold projection $`\gamma _k\gamma _k^1=`$ (recall that we have $`N=np`$ and $`\gamma _k=\mathrm{diag}(I_n,\omega I_n,\omega ^2I_n,\mathrm{},\omega ^{p1}I_n)`$, where $`I_n`$ is the $`n\times n`$ identity matrix). We have a Chern-Simons coupling of the following form :

$$S_{\mathrm{CS}}=\frac{1}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}\underset{k=1}{\overset{p1}{}}_{\mathrm{D3}}C_k\mathrm{Tr}\left(\gamma _ke^{2\pi \alpha ^{}}\right).$$
(6)
In particular, the term linear in $``$

$$\underset{k=1}{\overset{p1}{}}_{\mathrm{D3}}C_k\mathrm{Tr}\left(\gamma _k\right)$$
(7)
describes the mixing between the $`p1`$ twisted two-forms $`C_k`$ and $`p1`$ anomalous $`U(1)`$’s (note that we have $`p`$ $`U(1)`$’s, but one of them is an overall center-of-mass $`U(1)`$ which does not couple to the twisted two-forms $`C_k`$). Since the fields $`C_k`$ have non-vanishing kinetic terms supported at the orbifold fixed point (that is, they propagate in $`𝐑^{1,3}`$ that coincides with the D3-brane world-volumes), the anomalous $`U(1)`$’s are actually massive already at the tree level.

Now consider the supersymmetric completion of the couplings (7), which gives the corresponding Fayet-Iliopoulos (FI) couplings:

$$S_{\mathrm{FI}}=\underset{k=1}{\overset{p1}{}}_{\mathrm{D3}}\varphi _k\mathrm{Tr}\left(\gamma _k𝒟\right),$$
(8)
where $`𝒟`$ is the (matrix valued) auxiliary field corresponding to $``$. The FI term for a given non-trivial $`U(1)_j`$, $`j=1,\mathrm{},p1`$, therefore reads:

$$\xi _{\mathrm{FI},j}=\underset{k=1}{\overset{p1}{}}\varphi _k\mathrm{Tr}\left(\gamma _k\lambda _j\right),$$
(9)
where $`\lambda _j`$ is the Chan-Paton matrix corresponding to this $`U(1)_j`$. Note that at the orbifold point the D-terms give masses to the twisted NS-NS scalars $`\varphi _k`$, which are now part of the massive $`U(1)`$ gauge supermultiplets.

Next, consider the terms in (6) quadratic in $``$:

$$\pi \alpha ^{}\underset{k=1}{\overset{p1}{}}_{\mathrm{D3}}C_k\mathrm{Tr}\left(\gamma _k^2\right).$$
(10)
The supersymmetric completion of this coupling gives a coupling proportional to

$$\underset{k=1}{\overset{p1}{}}_{\mathrm{D3}}\varphi _k\mathrm{Tr}\left(\gamma _k^2\right).$$
(11)
That is, the twisted NS-NS scalars contribute to the gauge couplings, while the twisted R-R scalars (dual to the twisted two-forms) contribute to the corresponding $`\theta `$-angles (that is, the gauge kinetic function is given by $`f=S+f_1`$, where $`S`$ is the untwisted sector dilaton supermultiplet, while $`f_1`$ is the contribution which depends on the twisted closed string sector moduli) .

### B Unoriented Backgrounds

Once we add an O3-plane, the above discussion is modified as follows. First, note that the twisted Chan-Paton matrices now have the form: $`\gamma _k=\mathrm{diag}(I_{n_0},\omega I_{n_1},\mathrm{},\omega ^{p1}I_{n_{p1}})`$, where $`_{k=0}^{p1}n_k=N`$, and the integers $`n_k`$ satisfy the reality condition $`n_{pk}=n_k`$, $`k=1,\mathrm{},p1`$, and otherwise are no longer identical but are determined by the twisted tadpole cancellation conditions  (here $`\eta =1`$ for the O3-- plane, while $`\eta =1`$ for the O3+-plane):

$$\mathrm{Tr}\left(\gamma _{2k}\right)=4\eta \underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{3}{}}\left(1+\omega ^{k\mathrm{}_\alpha }\right)^1.$$
(12)
In particular, some $`n_k`$ can actually vanish. The gauge group is now $`SO(n_0)`$ or $`Sp(n_0)`$ (depending on whether we choose an O3-\- or O3+-plane) times $`_{k=1}^{(p1)/2}U(n_k)`$ (if any of the $`n_k`$ vanishes, we simply delete the corresponding subgroup). Second, the orientifold projection removes the real parts of the complex fields $`\varphi _k`$ and $`C_k`$, while the imaginary parts $`\mathrm{Im}(\varphi _k)`$ and $`\mathrm{Im}(C_k)`$, $`k=1,\mathrm{},(p1)/2`$, are combined (after dualizing the two-forms $`C_k`$ to scalars $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_k`$) into $`(p1)/2`$ twisted chiral supermultiplets . If we actually have an anomalous $`U(1)_{n_j}`$ factor coming from the $`U(n_j)`$ subgroup (that is, if the corresponding $`n_j0`$), then this $`U(1)_{n_j}`$ becomes massive at the tree level via the Chern-Simons coupling of the corresponding field strength $`_{n_j}`$ with the fields $`\mathrm{Im}(C_k)`$. This can be seen from the part of (7) surviving the orientifold projection (it is not difficult to see that the Chan-Paton matrix $`\lambda _{n_j}`$ for this $`U(1)_{n_j}`$ factor is a matrix block-diagonal w.r.t. partitions of $`N`$ into $`n_0,\mathrm{},n_{p1}`$ integers with only non-vanishing entries being $`n_j`$ 1’s and $`n_{pj}(=n_j)`$ $`1`$’s):

$$2\underset{k=1}{\overset{(p1)/2}{}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{(p1)/2}{}}\mathrm{Im}\left(\mathrm{Tr}\left[\gamma _k\lambda _{n_j}\right]\right)_{\mathrm{D3}}\mathrm{Im}(C_k)_{n_j}.$$
(13)
Similarly, the Fayet-Iliopoulos terms are given by:

$$\xi _{\mathrm{FI},n_j}=2\underset{k=1}{\overset{(p1)/2}{}}\mathrm{Im}(\varphi _k)\mathrm{Im}\left(\mathrm{Tr}\left[\gamma _k\lambda _{n_j}\right]\right).$$
(14)
These couplings imply that, since we have $`m_A=_{j=1}^{(p1)/2}\left[1\delta _{n_j,0}\right]`$ anomalous $`U(1)`$’s, precisely $`m_A`$ linear combinations of the $`(p1)/2`$ chiral superfields (whose lowest components are given by complex scalars $`\mathrm{\Phi }_k=\mathrm{Im}(\varphi _k)+i\mathrm{Im}(\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_k)`$) become part of the massive $`U(1)`$ superfields at the orbifold point.

Finally, let us see what happens to the correction $`f_1`$ to the gauge kinetic function due to the twisted moduli $`\mathrm{\Phi }_k`$. In the unoriented backgrounds these corrections actually vanish . Thus, consider the part of (11) surviving the orientifold projection. For the $`SO(n_0)/Sp(n_0)`$ part of the gauge group (if present) the corresponding part of the trace $`\mathrm{Tr}\left(\gamma _k^2\right)`$ is always real, so due to the reality condition $`\varphi _{pk}=\varphi _k^{}`$ only the real parts of $`\varphi _k`$ can contribute. But it is precisely the real parts of $`\varphi _k`$ that are removed by the orientifold projection. As to the $`U(n_j)`$ subgroups, note that up to the appropriate normalization factors the corresponding corrections to $`f_1`$ are the same for the non-Abelian parts $`SU(n_j)`$ as those for the Abelian parts $`U(1)_{n_j}`$. The latter are given by

$$\underset{k=1}{\overset{p1}{}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{(p1)/2}{}}\mathrm{Tr}\left(\gamma _k\lambda _{n_j}^2\right)_{\mathrm{D3}}\varphi _k_{n_j}^2.$$
(15)
Note that the traces $`\mathrm{Tr}\left(\gamma _k\lambda _{n_j}^2\right)`$ are all real, so only the real parts of $`\varphi _k`$ can contribute. This implies that in the orientifold backgrounds the gauge couplings (and the corresponding $`\theta `$-angles) do not receive twisted moduli dependent corrections at the tree level.

## IV The $`𝐙_3`$ Models

The simplest choice of the orbifold group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in the present context is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=𝐙_3=\{1,\theta ,\theta ^2\}`$, where the generator $`\theta `$ of $`𝐙_3`$ acts on the complex coordinates $`z_\alpha `$, $`\alpha =1,2,3`$, on $`𝐂^3`$ as follows:

$$\theta z_\alpha =\omega z_\alpha ,$$
(16)
where $`\omega \mathrm{exp}(2\pi i/3)`$. At the origin of $`𝐂^3/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ we can place an O3-\- or O3+-plane. Let $`\eta =1`$ in the former case, while $`\eta =+1`$ in the latter case. The twisted tadpole cancellation requires that

$$\mathrm{Tr}(\gamma _\theta )=4\eta .$$
(17)
We can then place $`(3N+4\eta )`$ D3-branes on top of the O3-plane, and choose

$$\gamma _\theta =\mathrm{diag}(\omega I_N,\omega ^1I_N,I_{N+4\eta }).$$
(18)
The twisted closed string sector gives rise to a single massless chiral supermultiplet corresponding to the orbifold blow-up mode. The massless open string spectrum gives rise to the gauge theory on the D3-branes. For $`\eta =1`$ and $`N=0`$ we have pure $`Sp(4)`$ super-Yang-Mills theory\**\**\**Recall that in our conventions $`Sp(N)`$ with $`N2𝐍`$ has rank $`N/2`$.. For $`\eta =1`$ and $`N2𝐍`$ we have $`SU(N)Sp(N+4)U(1)_A`$ gauge theory with matter in the chiral supermultiplets $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha =3\times (𝐒,\mathrm{𝟏})(+2)`$ and $`Q_\alpha =3\times (\overline{𝐍},𝐍+\mathrm{𝟒})(1)`$, where the anomalous $`U(1)_A`$ charges are given in parentheses, and $`𝐒`$ stands for the two-index $`N(N+1)/2`$ dimensional symmetric representation of $`SU(N)`$. For $`\eta =1`$ and $`N=4`$ we have $`SU(4)U(1)_A`$ gauge theory with matter in the chiral supermultiplets $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha =3\times \mathrm{𝟔}(+2)`$. For $`\eta =1`$ and $`N=5`$ we have $`SU(5)U(1)_A`$ gauge theory with matter in the chiral supermultiplets $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha =3\times \mathrm{𝟏𝟎}(+2)`$ and $`𝐐_\alpha =3\times \overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}(1)`$. For $`\eta =1`$ and $`N6`$ we have $`SU(N)SO(N4)U(1)_A`$ gauge theory with matter in the chiral supermultiplets $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha =3\times (𝐀,\mathrm{𝟏})(+2)`$ and $`𝐐_\alpha =3\times (\overline{𝐍},𝐍\mathrm{𝟒})(1)`$, where $`𝐀`$ stands for the two-index $`N(N1)/2`$ dimensional antisymmetric representation of $`SU(N)`$. (Note that in the $`\eta =1`$ and $`N=6`$ case the $`SO`$ part of the gauge group is actually Abelian.) In the cases where we have the $`Q_\alpha `$ matter, we have the following tree-level superpotential:

$$𝒲_{\mathrm{tree}}=yϵ_{\alpha \beta \gamma }\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha Q_\beta Q_\gamma +\mathrm{},$$
(19)
where $`y`$ is the corresponding Yukawa coupling, and the ellipses stand for non-renormalizable couplings. Note that at the renormalizable level we have an $`SO(3)`$ global symmetry\*†\*†\*†Non-renormalizable couplings suppressed by powers of $`M_s`$ break this global $`SO(3)`$ symmetry to its discrete subgroup subsumed in the discrete $`𝐙_3`$ gauge symmetry., and the subscript $`\alpha `$ in $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha `$ and $`Q_\alpha `$ corresponds to the triplet of $`SO(3)`$.

### A The $`Sp`$ Theories

Some examples (more precisely, their compact versions) of the above theories with $`\eta =1`$ (that is, with the $`SO`$ orientifold projection) were discussed in . Here we will focus on the theories with $`\eta =1`$ (that is, with the $`Sp`$ orientifold projection). Let us note that the $`\eta =1`$ models are actually simpler to discuss then their $`\eta =1`$ counterparts. This is because in the $`\eta =1`$ cases the $`SU`$ part of the gauge theory is asymptotically free (while the $`SO`$ part is not asymptotically free), so in the infra-red we have to deal with a strongly coupled chiral gauge theory\*‡\*‡\*‡One exception is the $`\eta =1`$ and $`N=4`$ model, where the non-Abelian gauge group is $`SU(4)`$, the matter consists of 3 chiral supermultiplets in $`\mathrm{𝟔}`$ of $`SU(4)`$, and there is no tree-level superpotential. This theory can be thought of as $`SO(6)`$ with 3 flavors, which is well understood .. In contrast, in the $`\eta =1`$ case it is the $`SU`$ part that is not asymptotically free, while the $`Sp`$ part is, so in the infra-red the non-perturbative dynamics reduces to that of a strongly coupled $`Sp(N_c=N+4)`$ gauge theory with $`N_f=3N/2`$ flavors (by one flavor of $`Sp(N_c)`$ we mean a pair of chiral supermultiplets in $`N_c`$ of $`Sp(N_c)`$). And these theories are well understood .

First, consider the model with $`\eta =1`$ and $`N=0`$. The gauge theory on the D3-branes is pure $`Sp(4)`$ super-Yang-Mills theory. Note that the twisted closed string sector gives rise to a single chiral supermultiplet, which plays no role in the gauge dynamics (this follows from our discussion in the previous section). Non-perturbatively we have gaugino condensate in $`Sp(4)`$ with confinement and chiral symmetry breaking. This model is interesting as it provides a simple setup where one gets pure $`𝒩=1`$ superglue on D3-branes. In particular, it would be interesting to use this setup to identify BPS domain walls in the $`Sp(4)`$ super-Yang-Mills theory, but this is outside of the scope of this paper.

Let us now discuss the $`\eta =1`$ and $`N2𝐍`$ models. For presentation purposes we will discuss the $`N=2`$ model after we discuss all the other cases.

The $`SU(4)Sp(8)U(1)_A`$ Model

This is the $`\eta =1`$ and $`N=4`$ model. The gauge group is $`SU(4)Sp(8)U(1)_A`$, the chiral matter is given by $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha =3\times (\mathrm{𝟏𝟎},\mathrm{𝟏})(+2)`$ and $`Q_\alpha =3\times (\overline{\mathrm{𝟒}},\mathrm{𝟖})(1)`$, and the tree-level superpotential is given by (19). As we have already mentioned, the $`SU(4)`$ gauge coupling is weak in the infra-red, while the $`Sp(8)`$ gauge coupling becomes strong. The low energy degrees of freedom are given by mesons (note that there are no baryons in $`Sp`$ theories )

$`_{[\alpha \beta ]}=3\times (\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}},\mathrm{𝟏})(2),`$ (20)
$`_{\{\alpha \beta \}}=6\times (\overline{\mathrm{𝟔}},\mathrm{𝟏})(2).`$ (21)
(Note that for $`SU(4)`$ we actually have $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟔}}=\mathrm{𝟔}`$.) There is no non-perturbative superpotential in this theory, and at the origin of the meson moduli space we have confinement without chiral symmetry breaking . Note that due to the tree-level superpotential (19) the mesons $`_{[\alpha \beta ]}`$ pair up with the fields $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha `$ and acquire masses:

$$𝒲_{\mathrm{tree}}=yϵ_{\alpha \beta \gamma }\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha _{[\beta \gamma ]}.$$
(22)
So at low energies we have the $`SU(4)`$ gauge theory with matter chiral supermultiplets in $`P_I=6\times \overline{\mathrm{𝟔}}(2)`$, $`I=1,\mathrm{},6`$. Actually, so far we have been ignoring the anomalous $`U(1)_A`$. The corresponding D-term is given by

$$D=2P^2+\xi _{\mathrm{FI}}.$$
(23)
From (14) it follows that $`\xi _{\mathrm{FI}}`$ is negative for positive values of $`\mathrm{Im}(\varphi _1)`$ (which corresponds to the size of the blow-up). This implies that all the fields $`P_I`$ as well as $`\mathrm{Im}(\varphi _1)`$ have vanishing expectation values. That is, the blow-up mode is frozen and the orbifold cannot be blown up in this model. As we discussed in the previous section, at the orbifold point the twisted chiral superfield becomes part of the massive $`U(1)_A`$ gauge supermultiplet. The low energy theory is therefore $`SO(6)`$ gauge theory with 6 vectors. Note that this theory is not infra-red free. However, it has a dual magnetic description  in terms of $`SO(4)SU(2)_LSU(2)_R`$ gauge theory with 6 flavors of quarks $`q^I`$ ($`I=1,\mathrm{},6`$) in the $`4(2,2)`$ dimensional representation along with $`6(6+1)/2=21`$ gauge singlets $`M_{IJ}`$ and the superpotential

$$𝒲_{\mathrm{magnetic}}=M_{IJ}q^Iq^J.$$
(24)
Note that the magnetic theory is actually free in the infra-red.

The $`SU(N)Sp(N+4)U(1)_A`$ Models with $`N>4`$

Before we discuss the $`\eta =1`$ and $`N=6`$ model, we would like to discuss the $`\eta =1`$ and $`N>6`$ models. In this case the $`Sp(N+4)`$ theory has a dual magnetic description (albeit the magnetic theory is also strongly coupled) . In this dual picture the gauge group is $`SU(N)Sp(2N8)U(1)_A`$, the matter is given by

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha =3\times (𝐒,\mathrm{𝟏})(+2),`$ (25)
$`_{[\alpha \beta ]}=3\times (\overline{𝐒},\mathrm{𝟏})(2),`$ (26)
$`_{\{\alpha \beta \}}=6\times (\overline{𝐀},\mathrm{𝟏})(2),`$ (27)
$`q_\alpha =3\times (𝐍,\mathrm{𝟐}𝐍\mathrm{𝟖})(+1),`$ (28)
and the superpotential is given by

$$𝒲_{\mathrm{magnetic}}=yϵ_{\alpha \beta \gamma }\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha _{[\beta \gamma ]}+_{\{\alpha \beta \}}q_\alpha q_\beta .$$
(29)
The mesons $`_{[\alpha \beta ]}`$ pair up with the fields $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha `$ and acquire masses, so at low energies we have the mesons $`_{\{\alpha \beta \}}`$ and the quarks $`q_\alpha `$. As we have already mentioned, the $`Sp(2N8)`$ gauge coupling is strong in the infra-red. On the other hand, the $`SU(N)`$ gauge coupling remains weak (even after integrating out the fields $`_{[\alpha \beta ]}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha `$). Moreover, the orbifold blow-up mode is frozen in this model. This can be seen as follows. The $`U(1)_A`$ D-term reads:

$$D=2M_{\{\alpha \beta \}}^2+q^2+\xi _{\mathrm{FI}},$$
(30)
where $`\xi _{\mathrm{FI}}<0`$ for positive $`\mathrm{Im}(\varphi _1)`$. We must also ensure D-flatness for the $`SU`$ and $`Sp`$ subgroups. The D-flat directions are in one-to-one correspondence with chiral gauge invariant operators. As far as the $`Sp`$ part is concerned, such operators can only contain the following combinations:

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{[\alpha \beta ]}=q_{[\alpha }q_{\beta ]}=3\times (𝐒,\mathrm{𝟏})(+2),`$ (31)
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\{\alpha \beta \}}=q_{\{\alpha }q_{\beta \}}=6\times (𝐀,\mathrm{𝟏})(+2).`$ (32)
Note, however, that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{[\alpha \beta ]}`$ cannot enter as we cannot construct $`SU(N)`$ gauge invariant operators from $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{[\alpha \beta ]}`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\{\alpha \beta \}}`$ and $`M_{\{\alpha \beta \}}`$. On the other hand, the F-flatness conditions imply that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\{\alpha \beta \}}=0`$. It then follows that the FI term must vanish along with the vacuum expectation values of $`_{\{\alpha \beta \}}`$ and $`q_\alpha `$.

Let us now discuss the $`N=6`$ case. The above discussion is essentially unmodified in this case except that in the dual magnetic theory the $`Sp(4)`$ subgroup is actually weakly coupled. As to the $`SU(6)`$ gauge theory, its one-loop $`\beta `$-function coefficient vanishes (after integrating out the the fields $`_{[\alpha \beta ]}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha `$), but it is still free in the infra-red.

The $`SU(2)Sp(6)U(1)_A`$ Model

This is the $`\eta =1`$ and $`N=2`$ model. This model is interesting as supersymmetry is dynamically broken in this model. The gauge group is $`SU(2)Sp(6)U(1)_A`$, the chiral matter is given by $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha =3\times (\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟏})(+2)`$ and $`Q_\alpha =3\times (\mathrm{𝟐},\mathrm{𝟔})(1)`$, and the tree-level superpotential is given by (19). The $`U(1)_A`$ D-term is given by

$$D=2\mathrm{\Phi }^2Q^2+\xi _{\mathrm{FI}},$$
(33)
where $`\xi _{\mathrm{FI}}`$ is negative for positive values of $`\mathrm{Im}(\varphi _1)`$.

First consider the case where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha =0`$. Then the above D-term vanishes only if $`Q_\alpha =0`$ and $`\mathrm{Im}(\varphi _1)=0`$. The $`SU(2)`$ gauge coupling is weak in the infra-red, so as far as the $`Sp`$ part of the gauge theory is concerned we have $`Sp(N_c=6)`$ with $`N_f=3`$ flavors. In general, the $`Sp(N_c)`$ theory with $`N_fN_c/2`$ flavors (that is, $`2N_f`$ fields $`Q_i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},2N_f`$, in $`N_c`$ of $`Sp(N_c)`$) has a dynamically generated superpotential :

$$𝒲_{\mathrm{non}\mathrm{pert}}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^{3(N_c/2+1)N_f}}{\mathrm{Pf}(M)}\right)^{1/(N_c/2+1N_f)},$$
(34)
where $`M_{ij}=M_{ji}=Q_iQ_j`$ are the meson fields, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the dynamically generated scale. For $`N_f=N_c/2`$ the gauge group is completely broken for $`\mathrm{Pf}(M)0`$, and this superpotential is generated by an instanton in the broken $`Sp(N_c)`$. For $`N_f<N_c/2`$ the superpotential is associated with gaugino condensation in the unbroken $`Sp(N_c2N_f)`$. In particular, for $`0<N_fN_c/2`$ the above superpotential has a runaway behavior w.r.t. the vacuum expectation values of $`M_{ij}`$ (that is, there is no supersymmetric vacuum for finite values of $`M_{ij}`$).

In our case the mesons are $`_{[\alpha \beta ]}=3\times (\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟏})(2)`$ and $`_{\{\alpha \beta \}}=6\times (\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏})(2)`$. At first it might seem that we have global supersymmetry breaking as the $`U(1)_A`$ D-term grows with non-vanishing vacuum expectation values of the mesons. However, recall that we have assumed that $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha =0`$. But there is nothing stopping $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha `$ from being non-vanishing. Suppose some or all $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha 0`$. Then the D-term can a priori be set to zero. Nonetheless, we still have no supersymmetric vacuum. Thus, in this case due to the tree-level superpotential (19) two of the fields $`Q_\alpha `$ acquire masses (this is independent of a particular configuration of the vacuum expectation values of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha `$ as long as at least one of the fields $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha 0`$). So as far as the $`Sp(6)`$ part of the gauge theory is concerned, at low energies we have $`Sp(6)`$ with one flavor. As we already mentioned above, in this theory we have a dynamically generated runaway (in the corresponding meson field) superpotential with no supersymmetric vacuum. The $`D`$-term, however, can now vanish, so there is no stable vacuum with broken global supersymmetry.

Even so, as was discussed in detail in , generically we do expect to have a stable vacuum with broken local supersymmetry. In particular, if in the context of global supersymmetry we have a runaway superpotential with the runaway directions corresponding to charged matter fields, then in the context of supergravity the runaway directions are generically expected to be stabilized due to contributions coming from the Kähler potential (see  for details). Note that this mechanism is four-dimensional, and we indeed have four-dimensional supergravity on D3-branes via the mechanism of .

### B Comments on the $`\eta =1`$ Models

In this subsection we would like to comment on some properties of the $`𝐙_3`$ models with $`\eta =1`$, that is, those where we have an O3--plane. As we have already mentioned, compact versions of some of these models were discussed in .

The $`SU(4)U(1)_A`$ Model

This is the $`\eta =1`$ and $`N=4`$ model. The gauge group is $`SU(4)U(1)_A`$, the chiral matter is given by $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha =3\times \mathrm{𝟔}(+2)`$, and there is no tree-level superpotential. The $`U(1)_A`$ D-term is given by

$$D=2\mathrm{\Phi }^2+\xi _{\mathrm{FI}},$$
(35)
where $`\xi _{\mathrm{FI}}`$ is negative for positive values of $`\mathrm{Im}(\varphi _1)`$.

The $`SU(4)`$ gauge theory is strongly coupled in the infra-red. We can view this theory as $`SO(6)`$ with 3 vectors. In this theory there are two distinct branches . The first branch has a dynamically generated runaway superpotential in the vacuum expectation values of the mesons $`_{\{\alpha \beta \}}=6\times \mathrm{𝟏}(+2)`$. On this branch supersymmetry is broken via the mechanism mentioned at the end of the previous subsection. The second branch has a vanishing superpotential, so supersymmetry is intact. Note that in this model the orbifold blow-up mode can be non-zero. In fact, on the first branch the non-supersymmetric vacuum has a non-zero blow-up mode, while on the second branch it depends on the mesons $`_{\{\alpha \beta \}}`$ (in both cases the blow-up mode is fixed from the requirement that the $`U(1)_A`$ D-term vanish).

The $`SU(5)U(1)_A`$ Model

This is the $`\eta =1`$ and $`N=5`$ model. The gauge group is $`SU(5)U(1)_A`$, the chiral matter is given by $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha =3\times \mathrm{𝟏𝟎}(+2)`$ and $`Q_\alpha =3\times \overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}(1)`$, and the tree-level superpotential is given by (19). The $`U(1)_A`$ D-term in this model is given by

$$D=2\mathrm{\Phi }^2Q^2+\xi _{\mathrm{FI}},$$
(36)
where $`\xi _{\mathrm{FI}}`$ is negative for positive values of $`\mathrm{Im}(\varphi _1)`$.

To analyze the gauge dynamics in this model, let us first consider the model with the gauge group $`SU(5)`$, chiral matter in $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha =3\times \mathrm{𝟏𝟓}`$ and $`Q_\alpha =3\times \overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}`$, and no tree-level superpotential. This theory is $`s`$-confining The simplest example of an $`s`$-confining theory is $`SU(N_c)`$ with $`N_f=N_c+1`$ flavors. In this theory we have confinement without chiral symmetry breaking at the origin of the meson and baryon moduli space.. A simple way of understanding this is as follows. Consider the following gauge invariant operator:

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\{\alpha \beta \}}\mathrm{\Phi }_{\{\alpha }\mathrm{\Phi }_{\beta \}}ϵ_{\gamma \delta \eta }\mathrm{\Phi }_\gamma \mathrm{\Phi }_\delta \mathrm{\Phi }_\eta =6\times \mathrm{𝟏}.$$
(37)
So we have a D-flat direction corresponding to turning on non-vanishing vacuum expectation values of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha `$. The original $`SU(5)`$ gauge group can be broken down to $`SU(2)`$ along this direction. To see this, consider the branching of $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}`$ of $`SU(5)`$ under the breaking $`SU(5)SU(3)SU(2)U(1)`$:

$`\mathrm{𝟓}=(\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟏})(2)+(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐})(+3),`$ (38)
$`\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}=(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏})(+6)+(\overline{\mathrm{𝟑}},\mathrm{𝟏})(4)+(\mathrm{𝟑},\mathrm{𝟐})(+1).`$ (39)
Now let us turn on non-zero vacuum expectation values for $`(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏})(+6)`$ in all three $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha `$, and also for $`(\overline{\mathrm{𝟑}},\mathrm{𝟏})(4)`$ in at least one of the $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha `$. This is consistent with the flat directions $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\{\alpha \beta \}}`$. The gauge group is broken down to $`SU(2)`$, and the left-over charged matter consists of three $`\mathrm{𝟐}`$’s coming from $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha `$ as well as three $`\mathrm{𝟐}`$’s coming from $`Q_\alpha `$. That is, we have $`SU(2)`$ with 3 flavors, which is $`s`$-confining.

Let us now include the tree-level superpotential (19). Then two of the three $`\mathrm{𝟐}`$’s coming from $`Q_\alpha `$ acquire masses, and we have $`SU(2)`$ with 2 flavors. In this theory we have quantum modification of the moduli space , but supersymmetry is unbrokenIn  it was argued that supersymmetry is broken in this model once we include the tree-level superpotential. In particular, the non-perturbative superpotential is known for the $`SU(5)`$ theory with $`3\times \mathrm{𝟏𝟎}`$ and $`3\times \overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}`$ and no tree-level superpotential . If we now add the tree-level superpotential and write the total superpotential in terms of the $`SU(5)`$ gauge invariant degrees of freedom, we will find that this total superpotential has a runaway behavior in terms of the gauge invariant degrees of freedom. This, however, does not necessarily imply that supersymmetry is broken. Thus, for vacuum expectation values of gauge invariant operators larger than the dynamically generated scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in the original $`SU(5)`$ theory the description in terms of the $`SU(5)`$ gauge invariant operators is no longer valid. Now, if supersymmetry were broken, the corresponding non-supersymmetric vacuum would have various vacuum expectation values stabilized at $`M_s`$ (as this stabilization is due to the contributions coming from the Kähler potential as we discussed at the end of the previous section), while in the case of a weakly coupled background ($`g_s1`$) we have $`\mathrm{\Lambda }M_s`$. In this case we must therefore consider the low energy theory after Higgsing (and not the other way around) as we did above where we saw that supersymmetry is intact. However, if $`g_s`$ is somewhat large (the one-loop $`\beta `$-function coefficient for the $`SU(5)`$ theory is 9), then we could have supersymmetry breaking along the lines of .. Finally, note that the anomalous $`U(1)_A`$ D-term can also be canceled in this model.

The $`SU(6)SO(2)U(1)_A`$ Model

This is the $`\eta =1`$ and $`N=6`$ model. The gauge group is $`SU(6)SO(2)U(1)_A`$, the chiral matter is given by $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha =3\times (\mathrm{𝟏𝟓},\mathrm{𝟏})(+2)`$ and $`Q_\alpha =3\times (\overline{\mathrm{𝟔}},\mathrm{𝟐})(1)`$, and the tree-level superpotential is given by (19). (Note that $`SO(2)U(1)`$, and the doublet $`\mathrm{𝟐}`$ of $`SO(2)`$ refers to the states with opposite $`U(1)`$ charges.) The $`U(1)_A`$ D-term is given by

$$D=2\mathrm{\Phi }^2Q^2+\xi _{\mathrm{FI}},$$
(40)
where $`\xi _{\mathrm{FI}}`$ is negative for positive values of $`\mathrm{Im}(\varphi _1)`$. Note that

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }ϵ_{\alpha \beta \gamma }\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }_\beta \mathrm{\Phi }_\gamma =(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏})(+6).$$
(41)
Thus, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is a chiral gauge invariant operator w.r.t. $`SU(6)SO(2)`$. So we have a D-flat direction, which is also F-flat, corresponding to turning on non-vanishing expectation values of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha `$ (the $`U(1)_A`$ D-term can be canceled by appropriately turning on $`\mathrm{Im}(\varphi _1)`$). It is not difficult to see that at generic points along this flat direction the $`SU(6)`$ subgroup is broken down to a $`U(1)`$, so the resulting gauge group is $`U(1)SO(2)U(1)U(1)`$. In the process of this Higgsing two of the original three $`Q_\alpha `$ fields become massive, and we have total of 12 chiral supermultiplets charged under this $`U(1)U(1)`$. These supermultiplets can be used to Higgs the remaining Abelian gauge group completely.

The above discussion suggests that there is no dynamically generated superpotential in this model. Another way of arriving at the same conclusion is as follows. Consider giving vacuum expectation values to the fields $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha `$ so that $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$ breaks $`SU(6)`$ down to $`Sp(6)`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$ breaks $`Sp(6)`$ down to $`Sp(4)Sp(2)`$, and finally $`\mathrm{\Phi }_3`$ breaks $`Sp(4)Sp(2)`$ down to $`Sp(2)Sp(2)Sp(2)`$ (this Higgsing is consistent with the flat direction $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$). The resulting gauge group is $`SU(2)SU(2)SU(2)SO(2)`$ (the anomalous $`U(1)_A`$ is not shown), and the charged chiral matter is given by $`(\mathrm{𝟐},\mathrm{𝟐},\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏})`$, $`(\mathrm{𝟐},\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐},\mathrm{𝟏})`$, $`(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐},\mathrm{𝟐},\mathrm{𝟏})`$, $`(\mathrm{𝟐},\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐})`$, $`(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐},\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐})`$, $`(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐},\mathrm{𝟐})`$. We can further break the gauge group down to $`SU(2)U(1)`$ by giving non-vanishing expectation values to the last two fields. The resulting matter is given by $`\chi _i^\pm =\mathrm{𝟐}(\pm q_i)`$, $`i=1,2,3`$, where $`\pm q_i`$ are the $`U(1)`$ charges. As far as the $`SU(2)`$ subgroup is concerned, we have $`SU(2)`$ with three flavors of quarks in the fundamental of $`SU(2)`$. In this theory we have confinement without chiral symmetry breaking (at the origin of the moduli space), and there is no non-perturbative superpotential . This suggests that the $`SU(6)SO(2)`$ theory with the chiral matter $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha `$ and $`Q_\alpha `$ and the tree-level superpotential (19) is an $`s`$-confining theory. (Such theories without a tree-level superpotential were classified in .)

The $`SU(N)SO(N4)U(1)_A`$ Models with $`N7`$

These are the $`\eta =1`$ and $`N7`$ models. The $`SO(N4)`$ gauge invariant operators are given by mesons

$`_{[\alpha \beta ]}=3\times (\overline{𝐀},\mathrm{𝟏})(2),`$ (42)
$`_{\{\alpha \beta \}}=6\times (\overline{𝐒},\mathrm{𝟏})(2),`$ (43)
and baryons

$$\left(_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _{N4}}\right)_{A_1\mathrm{}A_{N4}}=Q_{\alpha _1A_1i_1}\mathrm{}Q_{\alpha _{N4}A_{N4}i_{N4}}ϵ_{i_1\mathrm{}i_{N4}},$$
(44)
where $`A_m`$ is the $`\overline{𝐍}`$ index, while $`i_m`$ is the $`𝐍\mathrm{𝟒}`$ index. (Note that the $`U(1)_A`$ charge of the baryon operators is $`(N4)`$.) There are no $`SU(N)`$ gauge invariant operators involving $`_{\{\alpha \beta \}}`$. So all the $`SU(N)`$ gauge invariant operators must be constructed from $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha `$, $`\mathrm{\Theta }_\alpha ϵ_{\alpha \beta \gamma }_{[\beta \gamma ]}`$ and the baryons $`_{\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _{N4}}`$. If $`N`$ is odd we have no gauge invariant operators involving totally antisymmetrized products of only $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha `$ or only $`\mathrm{\Theta }_\alpha `$. On the other hand, if $`N`$ is even we have no such operators as $`N/2>3`$ (and the index $`\alpha `$ takes only three values). So the building blocks for the gauge invariant operators must be $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha \mathrm{\Theta }_\beta `$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\alpha _1}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{\alpha _n}_{\beta _1\mathrm{}\beta _{N4}}`$, where $`n=(N4)/2`$ if $`N`$ is even, and $`n=N2`$ is $`N`$ is odd. This implies that if $`N`$ is even all gauge invariant operators have zero $`U(1)_A`$ charge. On the other hand, if $`N`$ is odd the gauge invariant operators must have $`U(1)_A`$ charges which are positive multiples of $`N`$.

Now, if $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the dynamically generated scale of the $`SU(N)`$ theory, then $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\beta _0}`$ ($`\beta _0=3N\frac{1}{2}\times 3\times (N2)\frac{1}{2}\times 3\times (N4)=9`$ is the one-loop $`\beta `$-function coefficient for $`SU(N)`$) has the $`U(1)_A`$ charge

$$q_A=(+2)\times \frac{N(N1)}{2}+(1)\times N\times (N4)=3N.$$
(45)
This together with the above arguments indicates that in theories with even $`N`$ we cannot have a non-perturbative superpotential (as the superpotential must have vanishing $`U(1)_A`$ charge). For odd $`N`$, however, this argument does not rule out a non-perturbative superpotential.

To understand the odd $`N`$ cases in more detail, let us use the standard $`U(1)_R`$ symmetry arguments. We will assign $`+1`$ $`U(1)_R`$ charges to the gauginos of the $`SU(N)`$ as well as $`SO(N4)`$ gauge groups, and $`U(1)_R`$ charges $`q_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`q_Q`$ to the fields $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha `$ respectively $`Q_\alpha `$. Then the requirement that the $`U(1)_RSU(N)^2`$ and $`U(1)_RSO(N4)^2`$ anomalies vanish gives the following values:

$`q_\mathrm{\Phi }={\displaystyle \frac{2N12}{3N}},`$ (46)
$`q_Q={\displaystyle \frac{2N+6}{3N}}.`$ (47)
This implies that the $`(U(1)_A,U(1)_R)`$ charges read:

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }^3:(N,0),`$ (48)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha \mathrm{\Theta }_\beta :(0,2),`$ (49)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\alpha _1}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{\alpha _{N2}}_{\beta _1\mathrm{}\beta _{N4}}:(N,2(2N9)/3).`$ (50)
The superpotential must have $`U(1)_R`$ charge $`+2`$. We do have combinations with $`U(1)_R`$ charge $`+2`$ (and $`U(1)_A`$ charge 0), which can schematically be written as

$$\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_{\alpha _1}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{\alpha _{N2}}_{\beta _1\mathrm{}\beta _{N4}}}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^3}\right)^{\frac{3}{2N9}}=\left(\frac{\left[\mathrm{\Phi }_{\alpha _1}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{\alpha _{N2}}_{\beta _1\mathrm{}\beta _{N4}}\right]^3}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^9}\right)^{\frac{1}{2N9}}.$$
(51)
These combinations, however, are not holomorphic in the gauge invariant operators for odd $`N7`$ (in particular, we have a branch point at the origin). We therefore conclude that for these values of $`N`$ we do not have a non-perturbative superpotential either.

Next, recall that the tree-level superpotential is given by

$$𝒲_{\mathrm{tree}}=y\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha \mathrm{\Theta }_\alpha .$$
(52)
The F-flatness conditions then imply that $`\mathrm{\Theta }_\alpha =0`$ and $`ϵ_{\alpha \beta \gamma }\mathrm{\Phi }_{\beta [A_1A_2]}Q_{\gamma A_2i}=0`$. In particular, in all cases at hand the gauge invariant operators involving the $`SO(N4)`$ mesons $`\mathrm{\Theta }_\alpha `$ must vanish.

On the other hand, in the odd $`N`$ cases the gauge invariant operators involving the $`SO(N4)`$ baryons can be written as

$$\left(\mathrm{\Phi }_{\alpha _1}\mathrm{\Phi }_{\alpha _2}\right)\left(\left(\mathrm{\Phi }_{\beta _1}Q_{\gamma _1i_1}\right)\mathrm{}\left(\mathrm{\Phi }_{\beta _{N4}}Q_{\gamma _{N4}i_{N4}}\right)\right)ϵ_{i_1\mathrm{}i_{N4}}.$$
(53)
Due to the aforementioned F-flatness conditions the $`\beta _m`$ and $`\gamma _m`$ indices must be symmetrized pairwise. Each such symmetrization gives 6 of the $`SO(3)`$ global symmetry (note that $`6=5+1`$). So we have $`(N4)`$ 6’s of $`SO(3)`$ completely antisymmetrized. However, at most 3 6’s of $`SO(3)`$ can be completely antisymmetrized without vanishing. This implies that for $`N>7`$ the above gauge invariant operators should vanish to be compatible with the F-flatness conditions, and the blow-up mode is frozen at its vanishing value. So in the odd $`N>7`$ cases the $`SO(N4)`$ gauge subgroup is unbroken, and therefore so is the $`SU(N)`$ gauge subgroup.

A similar analysis can be performed in the even $`N`$ cases. Here the gauge invariant operators involving the $`SO(N4)`$ baryons can be written as

$$\left(Q_{\alpha _1i_1}\mathrm{}Q_{\alpha _{(N4)/2}i_{(N4)/2}}\right)\left(\left(\mathrm{\Phi }_{\beta _1}Q_{\gamma _1j_1}\right)\mathrm{}\left(\mathrm{\Phi }_{\beta _{(N4)/2}}Q_{\gamma _{(N4)/2}j_{(N4)/2}}\right)\right)ϵ_{i_1\mathrm{}i_{(N4)/2}j_1\mathrm{}j_{(N4)/2}}.$$
(54)
In this case we therefore have $`(N4)/2`$ 6’s of $`SO(3)`$ completely antisymmetrized. This implies that for $`N>10`$ these gauge invariant operators must vanish to be compatible with the F-flatness conditions, and the blow-up mode is frozen at its vanishing value. So in the even $`N>10`$ cases the $`SO(N4)`$ gauge subgroup is unbroken, and therefore so is the $`SU(N)`$ gauge subgroup.

Now, in the $`N=7`$ and $`N=10`$ cases we have 3 6’s of $`SO(3)`$ completely antisymmetrized. Since 6 is reducible ($`6=5+1`$), and a totally antisymmetric product of 3 5’s vanishes, we have $`155`$ with the two 5’s antisymmetrized. In particular, the singlet $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha Q_\alpha `$ must be non-vanishing, that is, for at least one value of $`\alpha `$ we must have $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha 0`$ and $`Q_\alpha 0`$. Without loss of generality we can choose $`\mathrm{\Phi }_10`$ and $`Q_10`$. The F-flatness conditions then imply that either $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2=Q_2=0`$ or $`\mathrm{\Phi }_3=Q_3=0`$. But then the gauge invariant operators containing $`SO(N4)`$ baryons also vanish in the $`N=7`$ and $`N=10`$ cases.

Finally, consider the $`N=8`$ case, where we have 2 6’s of $`SO(3)`$ antisymmetrized. In this case the relevant products are $`15`$ and $`55`$ (the latter is antisymmetrized). So in this case the above argument does not apply. However, for $`N=8`$ we have $`SO(N4)=SO(4)SU(2)_LSU(2)_R`$, and the matter is

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha =3\times (\mathrm{𝟐𝟖},\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏})(+2),`$ (55)
$`L_\alpha =3\times (\overline{\mathrm{𝟖}},\mathrm{𝟐},\mathrm{𝟏})(1),`$ (56)
$`R_\alpha =3\times (\overline{\mathrm{𝟖}},\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐})(1).`$ (57)
The basic $`SU(2)_LSU(2)_R`$ gauge invariant operators are

$`_\alpha =ϵ_{\alpha \beta \gamma }L_\beta L_\gamma =3\times (\overline{\mathrm{𝟐𝟖}},\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏})(2),`$ (58)
$`_{\{\alpha \beta \}}=L_{\{\alpha }L_{\beta \}}=6\times (\overline{\mathrm{𝟑𝟔}},\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏})(2),`$ (59)
$`_\alpha =ϵ_{\alpha \beta \gamma }R_\beta R_\gamma =3\times (\overline{\mathrm{𝟐𝟖}},\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏})(2),`$ (60)
$`_{\{\alpha \beta \}}=R_{\{\alpha }R_{\beta \}}=6\times (\overline{\mathrm{𝟑𝟔}},\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟏})(2)`$ (61)
The mesons $`_{\{\alpha \beta \}}`$ and $`_{\{\alpha \beta \}}`$ cannot enter the $`SU(8)`$ gauge invariant operators, while the mesons $`_\alpha =_\alpha =0`$ due to the F-flatness conditions.

The above arguments indicate that in the $`N7`$ models the gauge group is unbroken, and the blow-up mode is zero (so that the $`U(1)_A`$ D-term vanishes). At low energies the theory flows into an interacting fixed point. As was pointed out in , in the large $`N`$ limit this superconformal field theory is actually the same as the parent $`𝒩=4`$ supersymmetric $`SO(3N4)`$ gauge theory (which, in turn, in the large $`N`$ limit is the same as the parent $`𝒩=4`$ supersymmetric $`SU(3N4)`$ gauge theory).

## V Other Examples

In this section we would like to briefly mention other interesting $`𝐙_p`$ examples. In particular, we will discuss a $`𝐙_5`$ example and a $`𝐙_7`$ example.

### A A $`𝐙_5`$ Example

Consider the $`𝐙_5`$ orbifold group whose generator $`\theta `$ has the following action on the complex coordinates $`z_\alpha `$ ($`\omega \mathrm{exp}(2\pi i/5)`$):

$$\theta z_{1,2}=\omega z_{1,2},\theta z_3=\omega ^3z_3.$$
(62)
The tadpole cancellation conditions have the following solution (see subsection B of section III):

$$\mathrm{Tr}\left(\gamma _{\theta ^2}\right)=4\eta \frac{1}{(1+\omega )^2(1+\omega ^3)}=4\eta (\omega +\omega ^4).$$
(63)
This then implies that

$$\gamma _\theta =\mathrm{diag}(I_N,\omega I_N,\omega ^2I_{N4\eta },\omega ^3I_{N4\eta },\omega ^4I_N).$$
(64)
In particular, consider the $`\eta =1`$ and $`N=0`$ case. We then have $`SU(4)U(1)_A`$ gauge group with a chiral supermultiplet in $`\mathrm{𝟔}(+2)`$. As far as the non-Abelian part of the gauge group is concerned, we can view this model as $`SO(6)`$ with one vector. In this theory we have a runaway superpotential , so supersymmetry is broken in this model.

### B A $`𝐙_7`$ Example

Consider the $`𝐙_7`$ orbifold group whose generator $`\theta `$ has the following action on the complex coordinates $`z_\alpha `$ ($`\omega \mathrm{exp}(2\pi i/7)`$):

$$\theta z_1=\omega z_1,\theta z_2=\omega ^2z_2\theta z_3=\omega ^4z_3.$$
(65)
The tadpole cancellation conditions have the following solution (see subsection B of section III):

$$\gamma _\theta =4\eta .$$
(66)
This then implies that

$$\gamma _\theta =\mathrm{diag}(I_{N4\eta },\omega I_N,\omega ^2I_N,\omega ^3I_N,\omega ^4I_N,\omega ^5I_N,\omega ^6I_N).$$
(67)
In particular, consider the $`\eta =1`$ and $`N=0`$ case. We then have pure $`SO(4)SU(2)_LSU(2)_R`$ super-Yang-Mills theory. It would be interesting to use this setup to identify BPS domain walls in this gauge theory.

## VI Concluding Remarks

The above discussions illustrate that the orientiworld framework has a rich variety of non-perturbative phenomena that can arise in the orientiworld models. In particular, we can have dynamical supersymmetry breaking as well as various interesting supersymmetry preserving phenomena such as confinement, domain walls, etc.

The orientiworld framework gives a consistent embedding of non-conformal gauge theories in the Type IIB string theory context. Generalizing the gauge/string theory correspondence of  to such theories would be very interesting, but it is also expected to be non-trivial as the corresponding supergravity solutions are often expected to be singular. Solving the problem of such singularities might also shed light on non-supersymmetric cases, which would be interesting in the context of the cosmological constant problem along the lines of .

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was supported in part by the National Science Foundation and an Alfred P. Sloan Fellowship. I would like to thank the New High Energy Theory Center at Rutgers University for their kind hospitality while parts of this work were completed. I would also like to thank Albert and Ribena Yu for financial support.