text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

A supertube is a 1/4-supersymmetric tubular D2-brane configuration of IIA superstring theory that is supported against collapse by the momentum generated by crossed electric and magnetic Born-Infeld (BI) fields on the D2-brane . As originally described, the tube was assumed to have a circular cross-section, in which case the stability is easily understood as a result of the centrifugal force due to an angular momentum 2-form on the plane of the circle. The T-dual (along the axis of the cylinder) of this rotationally-invariant supertube is a 1/4-supersymmetric helical IIB D-string  supported from collapse by the combination of angular momentum and momentum along the D-string. The TST-dual is an analogous IIA helical string .

Following , in which it was shown that a supertube cross-section could be elliptical rather than circular, we have recently shown that 1/4 supersymmetry actually allows a supertube to have a cross-section that is an arbitrary curve in $`𝔼^8`$ . Here we show that this rather surprising fact becomes less surprising once one considers the TST-dual configuration, which we call a ‘supercurve’: it turns out that a periodic supercurve is equivalent to a IIA string carrying a transverse wave of arbitrary profile at the speed of light, and it has been known for some time that such configurations preserve 1/4 supersymmetry .

Although a periodic ‘supercurve’ is equivalent to a wave on a string, this is not the description of it that emerges directly from a TST-duality of the supertube. The two features of the supertube that are essential to its stability, and 1/4 supersymmetry, are (i) that the BI electric field take the value that would be ‘critical’ in the absence of a magnetic field, and (ii) that the BI magnetic field not change sign. For the TST-dual IIA string, (i) becomes a condition of uniform motion of the string at the speed of light along the T-dual direction, while (ii) becomes the condition that the shape of the curve be monotonic in this direction. One might think that a string that moves uniformly in one direction at the speed of light must have a vanishing mass density. However, because a Nambu-Goto string is boost-invariant, only the orthogonal velocity component of a string element is physical and this ensures that its physical velocity is subluminal. Here one can see that an inconsistency could arise if the monotonicity condition were violated because this would allow the string to close, but if a closed string in $`𝔼^9`$ moves at the speed of light in a fixed direction then its centre of mass is effectively a massless particle, and this is possible only if the string has a vanishing mass-density.

It was shown in , in the IIB D-string context, that the total angular momentum of a 1/4-supersymmetric momentum-carrying string is maximized, for fixed linear momentum, when the transverse profile is a circle in a plane in $`𝔼^8`$. Here we provide a much simpler proof of this result. It turns out that there is a sequence of four bounds on the angular momentum (given 1/4 supersymmetry), according to whether the angular-momentum 2-form $`L`$ has rank 2, 4, 6 or 8. The ‘rank $`2k`$’ bound is saturated by curves in $`𝔼^9`$ for which the projection onto $`𝔼^8`$ is a closed curve that has projections to circles of common radii on $`k`$ orthogonal planes. These could be called ‘generalized’ superhelices; the $`k=1`$ case is the IIA version of the IIB D-string ‘superhelix’ described in . As the $`k=1`$ bound is the weakest one, it yields the maximum angular momentum for fixed linear momentum; this bound is the same as the one obtained for a D-string in  and for a supertube in .

One of the motivations for the present work was to gain an understanding of the implications of quantum mechanics for supertubes. Given the freedom of an arbitrary cross-sectional shape, one may wonder, for example, whether there is a unique quantum state associated to each classical shape. The TST-dual supercurve provides a simpler context in which to pose such questions because any IIA superstring configuration corresponds to a state of the perturbative quantum IIA superstring. We analyze the angular momentum of the 1/4-supersymmetric ‘BPS’ states of IIA superstring theory and derive a quantum version of the classical angular momentum bound, which is recovered as a semi-classical limit. It turns out that (for fixed linear momentum) there is a unique one-string state of the perturbative IIA superstring theory for which the quantum bound is saturated, as one might expect from the fact that the classical bound is saturated by a unique wave profile.

## 2 IIA Supercurves

Let $`\xi ^a=(t,\sigma )`$ be the string worldsheet coordinates and $`X^\mu =(X^0,𝑿)`$ be Cartesian coordinates for the $`D=10`$ Minkowski spacetime. We shall fix the time reparametrization invariance by the choice

$$X^0=t.$$
(2.1)
In this gauge, the induced worldsheet metric $`g_{ab}`$ is such that

$$\sqrt{detg}=\sqrt{(1\dot{𝑿}^2)(𝑿^{})^2+(\dot{𝑿}𝑿^{})^2},$$
(2.2)
where the overdot and prime indicate differentiation with respect to $`t`$ and $`\sigma `$, respectively. Let us now write $`𝑿=(Z,𝒀)`$ and set

$$\dot{Z}=1,\dot{𝒀}=\mathrm{𝟎},$$
(2.3)
in which case

$$\sqrt{detg}=|Z^{}|.$$
(2.4)
If we interpret the $`Z`$-direction as a T-dual direction then configurations of this type are precisely what is obtained by a TST-duality transformation of the D2-brane supertube. The condition $`\dot{Z}=1`$, which means that the string moves with the speed of light in the $`Z`$-direction, arises from the condition that the BI electric field on the supertube take the value that would be critical in the absence of the magnetic field. Also, the condition that the BI magnetic field not change sign translates to the same condition on $`Z^{}`$; we shall see below that this is needed for preservation of supersymmetry.

The condition for a bosonic IIA superstring configuration to preserve some fraction of supersymmetry of the IIA Minkowski vacuum is that the equation

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }ϵ=ϵ$$
(2.5)
admits non-zero constant spinor solutions $`ϵ`$, where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the ‘kappa-symmetry’ matrix

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=\frac{1}{\sqrt{detg}}\dot{X}^\mu X^\nu \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{}}.$$
(2.6)
As usual, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{}}`$ denotes the product of all ten Dirac matrices, anticommuting with each $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu `$ and squaring to the identity. Note that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^2=1`$. For configurations satisfying (2.3) we have

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{sgn}(Z^{})\mathrm{\Gamma }_{TZ}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{}}\frac{1}{|Z^{}|}𝒀^{}𝚪_Y\mathrm{\Gamma }_T\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{}}\left(1\mathrm{\Gamma }_{TZ}\right).$$
(2.7)
Let us first consider the case in which $`𝒀^{}/Z^{}`$ is a constant 8-vector. As long as $`Z^{}`$ is everywhere non-zero, this corresponds to an infinite straight string at an angle $`\mathrm{arctan}(|𝒀^{}|/Z^{})`$ to the $`Z`$-axis. Although this string moves at the speed of light in the $`Z`$-direction, only the orthogonal component is physical and this has the subluminal magnitude

$$v=\frac{|𝒀^{}|}{\sqrt{(Z^{})^2+|𝒀^{}|^2}}.$$
(2.8)
This case therefore corresponds to an orthogonally boosted infinite straight string, which we would expect to preserve 1/2 supersymmetry. It does so because in this case $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a constant matrix and the equation (2.5) admits 16 linearly independent solutions for $`ϵ`$.

If $`𝒀^{}/Z^{}`$ is not a constant 8-vector, but $`Z^{}`$ is nowhere zero, then the equation (2.5) is solved by spinors satisfying

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{TZ}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{}}ϵ=\mathrm{sgn}(Z^{})ϵ,\mathrm{\Gamma }_{TZ}ϵ=ϵ.$$
(2.9)
These two conditions are those of a 1/4-supersymmetric superposition of a string and linear momentum along the $`Z`$-axis, although the string now describes an arbitrary curve in the ‘transverse’ $`𝔼^8`$ space. These are the IIA supercurves that are TST-dual to the general supertube, although one might wish to restrict the term ‘supertube’ to apply only to those cases for which the cross-section is a closed non-intersecting curve in $`𝔼^8`$. For such cases the supercurve will (i) be periodic and (ii) have non-zero angular momentum; it can be interpreted as a 1/2-supersymmetric string parallel to the $`Z`$-axis that has expanded to a 1/4-supersymmetric supercurve as a result of its angular momentum. There is an entirely analogous result for D-strings that generalizes the super D-helix of , which is the T-dual of the circularly-symmetric supertube.

## 3 Hamiltonian Analysis

So far we have found a class of IIA string configurations that preserve 1/4 supersymmetry, but we should still check that they solve the Nambu-Goto equations. We will do this by considering how these solutions look in phase space. This will also permit a simple demonstration that a supercurve is equivalent to a wave-carrying string. The (bosonic) phase space Lagrangian density is

$$=P\dot{X}\frac{1}{2}e\left[P^2+(X^{})^2\right]sPX^{},$$
(3.1)
where $`e`$ and $`s`$ are Lagrange multipliers that impose the Hamiltonian and reparametrization constraints respectively. In the $`X^0=t`$ gauge this becomes

$$=P_ZD_tZ+𝑷D_t𝒀,$$
(3.2)
where $`D_t`$ is the reparametrization-covariant time derivative

$$D_t=_ts_\sigma ,$$
(3.3)
and $``$ is the (bosonic) Hamiltonian density. Using the reparametrization constraint,

$$P_ZZ^{}+𝑷𝒀^{}=0,$$
(3.4)
we can write the Hamiltonian density as

$$=\sqrt{(P_ZZ^{})^2+|𝑷𝒀^{}|^2}.$$
(3.5)
For this Hamiltonian density, the $`P_Z`$ and $`𝑷`$ equations of motion are

$`D_tZ`$ $`=`$ $`^1\left(P_ZZ^{}\right),`$
$`D_t𝒀`$ $`=`$ $`^1\left(𝑷𝒀^{}\right).`$ (3.6)
It is obvious from (3.5) that, in the $`Z^{}=1`$ gauge, the energy is minimized for fixed $`P_Z`$ when

$$𝑷=\pm 𝒀^{}.$$
(3.7)
It may be verified that such configurations solve both the equations (3) and the constraint (3.4) provided that

$$|D_tZ|=1,D_tY=0.$$
(3.8)
For $`s=0`$ this implies $`|\dot{Z}|=1`$ and $`\dot{𝒀}=\mathrm{𝟎}`$, so we conclude that the supercurve configurations described earlier indeed solve the Nambu-Goto equations, and that they are equivalent to phase space configurations satisfying (3.7). Given (3.7), they are also solved by $`\dot{Z}=0`$ but for a different value of $`s`$ and with $`\dot{𝒀}`$ now non-zero, such that $`\dot{𝒀}=\pm 𝒀^{}`$ in the $`Z^{}=1`$ gauge. This is the more conventional description of a supercurve as a string carrying a wave of arbitrary profile that moves at the speed of light in one direction along the string. The two descriptions are equivalent because in both cases the covariant time derivatives of $`Z`$ and $`𝒀`$ are the same, and for either description a case-by-case analysis of the signs leads to the conclusion that

$$=|Z^{}|+|P_Z|.$$
(3.9)
The first term is the energy due to the string mass density, and the second term is the energy due to the momentum-carrying wave on it111Note that the reparametrization constraint implies that $`P_Z=0`$ when $`𝒀^{}=\mathrm{𝟎}`$, as expected since a string with $`𝒀^{}=\mathrm{𝟎}`$ is parallel to the $`Z`$-axis..

The Hamiltonian density is the time-time component of the string stress-energy tensor density

$$\tau ^{ab}=\sqrt{detg}g^{ab},$$
(3.10)
where $`g^{ab}`$ is the inverse of the induced worldsheet metric. Observe that this is divergence-free in the gauge $`Z^{}=1`$ as a consequence of the $`X^0`$ and $`Z`$ equations of motion. For the supercurve one finds in this gauge that

$$\tau ^{ab}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right).$$
(3.11)
The off-diagonal components correspond to the presence of the linear momentum density carried by the wave. The vanishing of the string tension $`\tau ^{\sigma \sigma }`$ provides one explanation of why an arbitrary fixed wave profile in $`𝔼^8`$ is stable.

## 4 Angular Momentum Bound

Let us suppose that $`𝒀(\sigma )`$ is non-zero and periodic with period $`2\pi `$. The angular-momentum 2-form per period has components

$$L_{ij}=\frac{1}{2\pi }𝑑\sigma \left(Y_iP_jY_jP_i\right).$$
(4.1)
Given (3.7), this becomes

$$L_{ij}=\pm \frac{1}{2\pi }𝑑\sigma (Y_iY_j^{}Y_jY_i^{}),$$
(4.2)
which is proportional to the area of the closed curve formed by the projection of $`𝒀(\sigma )`$ over one period onto the $`ij`$-plane. Recall that (3.7) was derived by minimizing the energy in the $`Z^{}=1`$ gauge for fixed $`P_Z`$. We learn from the reparametrization constraint that the momentum per period in the $`Z`$-direction is

$$|\mathrm{\Delta }P_Z|=\frac{1}{2\pi }𝑑\sigma |𝒀^{}|^2$$
(4.3)
in the $`Z^{}=1`$ gauge. The integrand is the square of the length-density of the curve $`𝒀(\sigma )`$, so we might expect, by some variant of the isoperimetric inequality, that the total squared angular momentum per period

$$J^2=\frac{1}{2}L_{ij}L^{ij}$$
(4.4)
will be bounded by some multiple of $`\mathrm{\Delta }P_Z`$. We shall now establish this bound.

Specifically, we seek to maximize $`J^2`$ subject to the constraint (4.3). This is equivalent to maximizing, without constraint, the functional

$$[𝒀;\lambda ]=J^2[𝒀]+2\lambda \left[𝑑\sigma |𝒀^{}|^22\pi |\mathrm{\Delta }P_Z|\right]$$
(4.5)
with respect to the functions $`𝒀`$ and the Lagrange multiplier variable $`\lambda `$. Variation with respect to the functions $`Y_i`$ yields second-order differential equations which are trivially once-integrated. Setting the integration constants to zero by a translation in $`𝔼^8`$ (under which $`J`$ is invariant) we arrive at the equation

$$Y_i^{}=\frac{1}{\lambda J}L_{ij}Y^j.$$
(4.6)
Contracting with $`Y_i^{}`$ and integrating over a period we deduce that

$$\lambda =\frac{J}{|\mathrm{\Delta }P_Z|}.$$
(4.7)
By a rotation in $`𝔼^8`$ (under which $`J`$ is invariant) we can skew-diagonalize $`L`$; let $`\mathrm{}_p`$, $`p=1,\mathrm{},4`$, be the skew-eigenvalues. $`L`$ is then diagonal (with eigenvalues $`\pm i\mathrm{}_p`$) in the complex basis

$$W_p=Y_{2p1}+iY_{2p},$$
(4.8)
and the solution of (4.6) is then

$$W_p=R_pe^{iN_p\sigma }.$$
(4.9)
Here $`R_p`$ are arbitrary constants, and the integers

$$N_p=\frac{|\mathrm{\Delta }P_Z|}{J^2}\mathrm{}_p$$
(4.10)
count the number of times per period that the string winds around the origin of the complex $`W_p`$-plane. Note that the overall phase of each of the four complex functions $`W_p`$ in (4.9) may be brought to any desired value by a transformation in the residual $`SO(2)^4`$ subgroup of $`SO(8)`$ that preserves the skew-diagonal form of $`L`$.

Given (4.9), $`L`$ may be computed and one can thus verify that it is skew-diagonal. This calculation also reveals that

$$\mathrm{}_p=N_pR_p^2.$$
(4.11)
If $`\mathrm{}_p0`$ then this together with (4.10) shows that

$$R_p^2=\frac{J^2}{2\pi |\mathrm{\Delta }P_Z|}.$$
(4.12)
If $`\mathrm{}_p=0`$ then (4.10) implies that $`N_p=0`$ too, so that $`R_p`$ is undetermined and $`W_p`$ is constant; by a translation in the complex $`W_p`$-plane we may still choose $`R_p`$ to be given by the formula (4.12). Thus, the solution (4.9) becomes

$$W_p=\sqrt{\frac{J^2}{2\pi |\mathrm{\Delta }P_Z|}}e^{iN_p\sigma }.$$
(4.13)
Defining

$$N^2\underset{p=1}{\overset{4}{}}N_p^2$$
(4.14)
and making use of (4.10), we see that the angular momentum of this solution saturates the bound

$$JN^1|\mathrm{\Delta }P_Z|$$
(4.15)
for fixed linear momentum per period $`|\mathrm{\Delta }P_Z|`$ and winding numbers $`N_p`$.

The geometry of the periodic supercurve with maximal angular momentum per period therefore depends in an essential way on the rank of the angular-momentum 2-form; through (4.10) this is determined by the number of non-zero winding numbers $`N_p`$, which, of course, may be specified independently of the linear momentum. If only $`|\mathrm{\Delta }P_Z|`$ is specified, then the absolute bound on the angular momentum becomes simply

$$J|\mathrm{\Delta }P_Z|,$$
(4.16)
which is the bound discussed in  in the ST-dual context of the D-string and which is saturated when (say) $`N_1=1`$ and $`N_2=N_3=N_4=0`$. In this case $`L`$ has rank 2 and the supercurve is a helix (of fixed pitch in the $`Z^{}=1`$ gauge) in an $`𝔼^3`$ subspace of $`𝔼^9`$; in fact, it is the IIA dual of the superhelix of .

## 5 Light-front Gauge

With a view to simplifying the quantum treatment of supercurves within the context of type II superstring theory, we now reobtain some of the above results in the light-front gauge. We define

$$X^\pm =\frac{X^0\pm Z}{\sqrt{2}},P_\pm =\frac{P_0\pm P_Z}{\sqrt{2}}$$
(5.1)
and set

$$X^+=t,P_{}=p^+$$
(5.2)
for positive constant $`p^+`$. The Hamiltonian constraint may now be solved for the light-front Hamiltonian density $`=P_+`$, while the reparametrization constraint implies that

$$(X^{})^{}=\frac{𝑷𝒀^{}}{p^+}.$$
(5.3)
The bosonic Lagrangian density becomes

$$_{bos}=𝑷\dot{𝒀}\frac{1}{2p^+}\left(|𝑷|^2+|𝒀^{}|^2\right)_t\left(p^+X^{}\right),$$
(5.4)
from which one sees that

$$𝑷=p^+\dot{𝒀}.$$
(5.5)
Using (5.3), we may rewrite the light-front gauge bosonic Hamiltonian density as

$$_{bos}=\frac{1}{2p^+}|𝑷𝒀^{}|^2\pm _\sigma X^{}.$$
(5.6)
For periodic $`𝒀`$ the integral of $`_{bos}`$ over one period is minimized, for fixed increase $`\mathrm{\Delta }X^{}`$ of $`X^{}`$ over one period, when

$$𝑷=\pm 𝒀^{}.$$
(5.7)
Given this relation one can show that

$$(X^{})^{}=\pm \frac{|𝒀^{}|^2}{p^+},\dot{X}^{}=\frac{|𝒀^{}|^2}{(p^+)^2},$$
(5.8)
and hence that

$$\mathrm{\Delta }X^{}=\pm \frac{1}{p^+}𝑑\sigma |𝒀^{}|^2,$$
(5.9)
where the integral is over one period. As $`(X^{})^{}=\sqrt{2}Z^{}`$, a string with zero $`𝒀^{}`$ also has zero $`Z^{}`$ and is therefore pointlike. Conversely, if $`𝒀^{}`$ is non-zero then so is $`\mathrm{\Delta }Z`$, so we have a periodic wave along an infinite string in the $`Z`$-direction.

To determine the fraction of supersymmetry preserved by solutions satisfying (5.7), we return to the supersymmetry preservation condition (2.5). Imposing the conditions

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_+ϵ=0,\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{}}ϵ=\pm ϵ,$$
(5.10)
which are equivalent to (2.9), we find that (2.5) becomes an identity when (5.7) is satisfied, by virtue of the relations (5.3), (5.8) and (5.5). Thus, as expected, 1/4 supersymmetry is preserved.

The full IIA superstring action in the light-front gauge of course includes the Green-Schwarz worldsheet fermions $`S^\pm `$ in the $`\mathrm{𝟖}_s`$ and $`\mathrm{𝟖}_c`$ spinor representations of $`SO(8)`$. The phase-space Lagrangian density generalizing (5.4) is (omitting total derivatives)

$$=𝑷\dot{𝒀}i(S^+)^T\dot{S}^+i(S^{})^T\dot{S}^{},$$
(5.11)
where the Hamiltonian density is

$$=\frac{1}{2p^+}\left[|𝑷|^2+|𝒀^{}|^2i(S^+)^T(S^+)^{}+i(S^{})^T(S^{})^{}\right].$$
(5.12)
The angular-momentum 2-form generalizing the bosonic expression of (4.1) is

$$L_{ij}=\frac{1}{2\pi }𝑑\sigma \left[Y_iP_jY_jP_i\frac{1}{4}(S^+)^T\gamma _{ij}S^+\frac{1}{4}(S^{})^T\gamma _{ij}S^{}\right],$$
(5.13)
where $`\gamma _{ij}`$ is the antisymmetrized product of a pair of $`SO(8)`$ Dirac matrices.

The phase space action is invariant under the supersymmetry transformations generated by

$$Q_\pm =\frac{1}{2\pi \sqrt{2p^+}}𝑑\sigma (𝑷\pm 𝒀^{})𝜸S^{}.$$
(5.14)
We note here for future use that

$$K=\frac{1}{2\pi }𝑑\sigma \left[𝑷𝒀^{}\frac{i}{2}(S^+)^T(S^+)^{}\frac{i}{2}(S^{})^T(S^{})^{}\right]$$
(5.15)
is invariant under these transformations. When $`𝑷+𝒀^{}=0`$, the functional $`K`$ becomes the supersymmetric extension of the right-hand side of (4.3), and hence equal to the quantity $`|\mathrm{\Delta }P_Z|`$ held fixed in deriving the classical angular momentum bound. The fermions make no difference classically but we shall need to consider them in the following discussion of the quantum-mechanical angular momentum bound.

## 6 Quantum Mechanical Bound

The worldsheet fields can be expressed as Fourier series, the coefficients of which become annihilation and creation operators in the quantum theory. In particular, for zero total transverse momentum, we have the oscillator expansions

$`𝑷𝒀^{}`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\sqrt{n}\left[𝒂_n^\pm e^{\pm in\sigma }+(𝒂_n^\pm )^{}e^{in\sigma }\right],`$
$`S^\pm `$ $`=`$ $`s^\pm +{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left[S_n^\pm e^{\pm in\sigma }+(S_n^\pm )^{}e^{in\sigma }\right],`$ (6.1)
where $`𝒂_n^\pm `$ and $`S_n^\pm `$ are, respectively, the boson and fermion oscillator annihilation operators. It follows that

$$Q_\pm =\sqrt{\frac{2}{p^+}}\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\sqrt{n}\left[𝒂_n^\pm 𝜸(S_n^\pm )^{}+(𝒂_n^\pm )^{}𝜸S_n^\pm \right],$$
(6.2)
and also that

$$K=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}n\left(𝒩_n^B+𝒩_n^F\right),$$
(6.3)
where $`𝒩_n^B`$ and $`𝒩_n^F`$ are, respectively, the boson and fermion number operators for the oscillators of the $`n`$th Fourier mode.

One-string states are built by the action of the creation operators on the oscillator vacuum

$$|0=|0_+|0_{},$$
(6.4)
which is annihilated by both $`Q_+`$ and $`Q_{}`$. However, because of the fermion zero modes $`s^\pm `$, the one-string vacuum is actually the tensor product of an $`\mathrm{𝟖}_v\mathrm{𝟖}_c`$ $`SO(8)`$ multiplet of $`|0_+`$ vacua with an $`\mathrm{𝟖}_v\mathrm{𝟖}_s`$ multiplet of $`|0_{}`$ vacua. The bosonic vacua are thus in the

$$\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝟖}\mathrm{𝟐𝟖}\mathrm{𝟑𝟓}\mathrm{𝟓𝟔}$$
(6.5)
tensor representation of $`SO(8)`$. Initially, at least, we will consider only the $`SO(8)`$ singlet because we can then ignore the effects of the fermion zero modes on the angular momentum. Thus we may take the one-string vacuum to be the oscillator vacuum (6.4). The one-string states of the form

$$|\psi =|\psi _+|0_{}$$
(6.6)
with $`|\psi _+|0_+`$ are annihilated by $`Q_{}`$ but not by $`Q_+`$, and hence preserve 1/4 supersymmetry. These, and the analogous states annihilated by $`Q_+`$ (but not by $`Q_{}`$) are, as is well-known, the 1/4-supersymmetric ‘BPS’ states of the quantum IIA superstring theory (in light-front gauge).

Henceforth we shall need to consider only the ‘$`+`$’ oscillators so we omit the ‘$`+`$’ superscript. A basis for the $`|\psi _+`$ factor in (6.6) is

$$\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}|B_n|F_n,$$
(6.7)
where

$$|B_n=\underset{i=1}{\overset{8}{}}[(a_n^i)^{}]^{B_n^i}|0_n^B,|F_n=\underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{8}{}}[(S_n^\alpha )^{}]^{F_n^\alpha }|0_n^F.$$
(6.8)
Here $`B_n^i`$ and $`F_n^\alpha `$ are non-negative integers, and $`|0_n^B`$ and $`|0_n^F`$ are the ground states of the $`n`$th bosonic and fermionic oscillators, respectively. Note that each of the states (6.7) is an eigenstate of the bosonic and fermionic number operators for the $`n`$th oscillator with eigenvalues

$$B_n=\underset{i=1}{\overset{8}{}}N_n^i,F_n=\underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{8}{}}F_n^\alpha .$$
(6.9)
Bosonic BPS states are the subset of these states for which $`_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}F_n`$ is even (since we chose to construct them on a bosonic one-string vacuum).

Given the oscillator expansion of the worldsheet fields, the angular momentum 2-form $`L_{ij}`$ is now the operator

$$L_{ij}=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left[2i(a_n^{})_{[i}(a_n)_{j]}\frac{1}{2}S_n^{}\gamma _{ij}S_n\right]+\mathrm{},$$

where we have omitted the zero mode contribution, and the ellipsis indicates terms involving the ‘$``$’ oscillators that are irrelevant to matrix elements involving only the BPS states. Since $`L_{ij}`$ commute with the oscillator number operators, states of the form (6.8) for fixed $`B_n`$ and $`F_n`$ can be assembled into $`SO(8)`$ multiplets. Each of these multiplets may be characterized by its Dynkin labels $`𝒘=(w^1,w^2,w^3,w^4)`$, in terms of which the quadratic Casimir of $`SO(8)`$ takes the form

$$J^2=\underset{a,b=1}{\overset{4}{}}G_{ab}w^a(w^b+2),$$
(6.10)
where

$$G_{ab}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 1& 1/2& 1/2\\ 1& 2& 1& 1\\ 1/2& 1& 1& 1/2\\ 1/2& 1& 1/2& 1\end{array}\right).$$
(6.11)
Note that the formula (6.10) is independent of $`n`$, whereas the expression for $`K`$ is such that the higher the level of an oscillator, the larger is its contribution to $`K`$.

We seek states that maximize $`J^2`$ for fixed $`K`$, or equivalently states that minimize $`K`$ for fixed $`J^2`$. To this end let us write $`K`$ in terms of the separate boson and fermion contributions as $`K=K_B+K_F`$. Suppose for the moment that $`K_F=0`$; in this case it is clear that the angular momentum will be maximized for fixed $`K`$ when $`B_n=0`$ for $`n>1`$, and hence $`B_1=K`$, because we may otherwise reduce $`K`$ without changing $`J^2`$ by the substitution $`n1`$. This argument fails for the fermi oscillators because $`F_n8`$, for all $`n`$, due to the Pauli exclusion principle. Thus, once we include fermi oscillators it is no longer obvious that maximizing $`J^2`$ for fixed $`K`$ requires all oscillators with $`n>1`$ to be in their ground states. Nevertheless, it seems to be true for small values of $`K`$ and in these cases all fermion oscillators are in their ground states. An obvious conjecture is that this will remain true for all $`K`$. We will examine the consequences of this conjecture below but we should first stress that it is not needed in the semi-classical limit of large $`K`$, for the following reason. If $`K`$ is large then either $`K_B`$ or $`K_F`$, or both, must be large. But if $`K_F`$ is large then most of the fermion oscillators must be in levels with $`n1`$ because of the exclusion principle, so a large number of fermions would make a large contribution to $`K`$ for correspondingly small contribution to $`J^2`$ (as compared to boson oscillators). Thus, for large $`K`$, the angular momentum will be maximized in some state for which $`K_BK_F`$, and this means that the fermion oscillators contribute negligibly to the angular momentum in the semi-classical limit; we may then assume, for simplicity, that all fermion oscillators are in their ground states. Note that the effect of choosing a non-singlet $`SO(8)`$ irrep in the decomposition (6.5) also has a negligible effect in the limit of large $`J`$, thus justifying our simplifying assumption that the one-string vacuum is an $`SO(8)`$ singlet.

Since the state with maximal $`J`$ for fixed $`K`$ has all bosonic oscillators with $`n>1`$ in their ground states, the assumption that all fermion oscillators are in their ground states leaves only BPS states of the form

$$\underset{i}{}[(a_1^i)^{}]^K|0_+|0_{}.$$
(6.12)
These states transform in the $`[(\mathrm{𝟖}_𝒗)^K]_{\mathrm{sym}}`$ representation of $`SO(8)`$. Within this reducible representation, the $`SO(8)`$ irrep corresponding to the traceless $`K`$th rank tensor has the largest value of $`J^2`$; this irrep has Dynkin labels

$$𝒘=(K,0,0,0).$$
(6.13)
Using (6.10) we deduce that $`J^2=K^2+6K`$ for this representation, and hence the bound

$$J^2K^2+6K,$$
(6.14)
with equality for the representation (6.13). Depending on the validity of the conjecture above, and the effect of choosing a non-singlet representation in (6.5), this bound may require adjustment for small $`K`$, but it is certainly valid in the semi-classical limit of large $`K`$, for which it reduces to $`JK`$. We have derived this bound in the light-front gauge but the result can of course be applied in any gauge; in particular in the ‘physical’ gauge $`\dot{X}^0=Z^{}=1`$, in which $`K`$ equals $`|\mathrm{\Delta }P_Z|`$. We thus recover the classical bound (4.16).

## 7 Conclusions

This paper was motivated by a desire to better understand the properties of D2-brane supertubes of general cross section by considering the TST-dual IIA superstring configuration. This is a 1/4-supersymmetric IIA string carrying both momentum and angular momentum that we have called a ‘supercurve’; it includes as a special case the ‘superhelix’ described for D-strings in . In fact, IIA supercurves just provide an alternative description of a IIA string carrying a left or right moving wave of arbitrary profile. As it has long been known that such configurations preserve 1/4 supersymmetry, this may help demystify the result of  that 1/4 supersymmetry allows a supertube to have an arbitrary cross-section in $`𝔼^8`$.

The main focus of this paper has been on the angular momentum carried by supercurves. The angular momentum of a supertube is subject to an upper bound that is saturated by supertubes of planar and circular cross-section . The latter have superhelices as their TST duals, so one would expect superhelices to saturate an upper bound on the angular momentum (for fixed linear momentum). A classical bound of this type was derived in  in a slightly different context. We have given a much simpler proof of it, and a refinement to the case in which one fixes the rank of the angular momentum 2-form in addition to the linear momentum.

We have shown how the classical bound on the angular momentum can be recovered from the semi-classical limit of a quantum bound derived within the context of perturbative IIA superstring theory. There is a unique $`SO(8)`$ representation for which the angular momentum is maximal. We would certainly expect that many of the properties of quantum supercurves continue to hold for quantum supertubes, and that was another motivation for their study. Our results lead us to expect that a quantum supertube of maximal angular momentum will again be associated to a unique $`SO(8)`$ representation.

## Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Jerome Gauntlett, Jaume Gomis, Joaquim Gomis and Daniel Waldram for helpful discussions. D.M. is supported by a PPARC fellowship. S.N. is supported by the British Federation of Women Graduates and the Australian Federation of University Women (Queensland).


format: text

text:
# Analytic rigidity of 𝐾-trivial extremal contractions of smooth 3-folds

## 1. Introduction

In the minimal model program, the study of certain types of birational contractions, called extremal, is of central importance. In \[Mori\], S. Mori studied and classified birational extremal contractions $`\phi :XY`$ of smooth threefolds $`X`$ where the canonical bundle of $`X`$ is negative along the fibers of the contraction. His classification in the case the exceptional locus $`Exc(\phi )`$ is a divisor includes the following results: When $`Exc(\phi )`$ contracts to a curve on $`Y`$, $`Exc(\phi )`$ is a $`^1`$-bundle over the base curve and $`Y`$ is smooth. When $`Exc(\phi )`$ contracts to a point $`qY`$, it is either $`^2`$, $`^1\times ^1`$ or a singular quadric, with specified normal bundle, and $`X`$ is the blow-up of $`q`$ on $`Y`$; in this case the analytic structure of the neighborhood of $`Exc(\phi )`$ is uniquely determined by the isomorphism class of $`Exc(\phi )`$ and its normal bundle in $`X`$. We call this feature the analytic rigidity of the contraction (see Definition 2.2).

In this paper we attempt to give a similar description for birational extremal contractions of smooth 3-folds in the $`K`$-trivial case, i.e. where the canonical bundle is numerically trivial on all the curves contracted (see §2 for a precise definition). Our main result is

###### Theorem 1.1 (Main Theorem).

Let $`X`$ be a smooth projective 3-fold over $``$ and let $`\phi :XY`$ be a $`K`$-trivial birational extremal contraction onto a normal projective variety $`Y`$, contracting a divisor $`DX`$ to a point $`qY`$. Suppose $`D`$ is normal, and $`(\omega _D^2)5`$. Then the contraction $`\phi `$ is analytically rigid.

This way we obtain the classification of $`K`$-trivial extremal contractions in terms of the exceptional divisor $`D`$ and its normal bundle $`𝒩_{D/X}`$ in $`X`$ in the case when $`D`$ is normal with $`d=(\omega _D^2)5`$, contracting to a point. As the exceptional locus is a normal rational (possibly singular) del Pezzo surface $`D`$ of degree $`d5`$ with normal bundle isomorphic to $`\omega _D`$ (see §2), we obtain a finite list of possible contractions up to analytic isomorphism.

Although extremal contractions are algebraic objects, establishing algebraic classification would lead to the problem of finding moduli of algebraic objects, which is global in nature, while the classification of extremal contractions should be local in nature. From this point of view, we may regard analytic classification as the best possible result.

As the result of analytic rigidity shows, in order to know the analytic structure of the contraction, it is sufficient to construct one example for each possible exceptional locus. No algebraic examples are known except when $`D`$ is a nonsingular del Pezzo surface of degree 6 (\[Nam1\]). In §LABEL:examples we present an example of an embedding of a singular del Pezzo surface of degree 7 into a smooth projective 3-fold such that the canonical bundle of the ambient space is numerically trivial on $`D`$. By Fujiki’s contraction theorem, $`D`$ can be contracted analytically, giving us an analytic $`K`$-trivial contraction. Similar constructions can be carried out for each possible exceptional divisor $`D`$ (any normal rational del Pezzo surface of degree $`d5`$).

$`K`$-trivial extremal contractions have been studied by M. Gross (\[Gr\]) and P.M.H. Wilson (\[Wilson\]). Their analysis in the case when the exceptional locus $`D`$ is a divisor contracting to a point includes a description of the (possible) exceptional loci, and the description of the analytic structure (and in particular establishing the analytic rigidity) in the case when $`D`$ is nonsingular with $`(\omega _D^2)5`$. The analytic rigidity in the case when $`D`$ is non-normal or $`(\omega _D^2)4`$ is not known. Wilson also describes the possible contractions in the case when the exceptional locus $`D`$ contracts to a curve. Small $`K`$-trivial birational extremal contractions of smooth 3-folds (i.e. when the exceptional locus is a collection of curves ) are three-dimesional flopping contactions; these were studied in \[Kollar\] and \[Reid2\].

Even in the surface case, the condition of $`K`$-negativity or $`K`$-triviality is essential for analyitic rigidity. In \[Laufer\], Laufer gives a complete list of taut surface singularities (i.e. normal 2-dimensional singularities that are completely determined by the weighted dual graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of the exceptional locus $`E`$ of the minimal resolution). He also lists those singularities which are determined by the weighted dual graph and the analytic structure of $`E`$, and states that the singularities obtained by contractions of curves of general type are not determined by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and the analytic structure of $`E`$.

We outline below the proof of the Main Theorem:

By \[Hir, Th. 3\], the proof of analytic rigidity is reduced to showing that any two embeddings of $`D`$ into smooth complex 3-folds with normal bundles isomorphic to $`𝒪_D(K_D)`$ are formally equivalent. Suppose now that we have two $`K`$-trivial extremal contractions $`\phi :XY`$ and $`\phi ^{}:X^{}Y^{}`$, with isomorphic exceptional divisors $`D`$ and $`D^{}`$, and such that $`𝒩_{D/X}𝒩_{D^{}/X^{}}`$. To prove the formal equivalence, we first show that if $`H^1(D,𝒯_D_D/_D^2)=0`$, then the two embeddings $`DX`$ and $`D^{}X^{}`$ are 2-equivalent, i.e. we have an isomorphism of the ringed spaces $`(D,𝒪_X/_D^2)`$ and $`(D^{},𝒪_X^{}/_D^{}^2)`$, where $`_D`$ denotes the ideal sheaf of $`D`$ in $`X`$. Then we can obtain a formal equivalence by showing that the obstruction spaces $`H^1(D,𝒯_X^\nu /^{\nu +1})`$ to extending a $`\nu `$-equivalence ($`\nu 2`$) to a $`\nu +1`$-equivalence vanish for any $`\nu 2`$. The vanishing of both $`H^1(D,𝒯_D_D/_D^2)`$ and $`H^1(D,𝒯_X_D^\nu /_D^{\nu +1})`$ is reduced to showing $`H^1(D,𝒯_D)=0`$ using properties of del Pezzo surfaces. This last vanishing is then proved using an explicit description of normal rational del Pezzo surfaces.

###### Remark 1.2.

We should note that our results about formal equivalence hold over any algebraically closed field of characteristic 0. However, over an arbitrary field there is no notion of analytic rigidity (and in particular we dont’t have \[Hir, Th. 3\]). Over an arbitrary field, formal equivalence implies only equivalence in the étale topology (\[Artin1, Th. (4.6)\]).

Conventions/Notations.

1. We are working over the field of complex numbers $``$.
2. For an algebraic variety $`D`$, we denote by $`𝒯_D`$ its tangent sheaf $`om_{𝒪_D}(\mathrm{\Omega }_D^1,𝒪_D)`$. In case it exists (for example if $`D`$ is Cohen-Macaulay), we denote the canonical sheaf of $`D`$ by $`\omega _D`$. If $`\omega _D`$ is locally free, we denote by $`K_D`$ the (linear equivalence class of the) canonical divisor of $`D`$.
3. For a coherent sheaf $``$ on $`D`$, we denote $`h^i(D,)=dimH^i(D,)`$.
4. We denote the intersection number of a (Cartier) divisor $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and a curve $`C`$ by $`(\mathrm{\Delta }C)`$.
5. For any variety $`X`$, we denote by $`\overline{NE}(X)`$ the closure of the cone of effective 1-cycles on $`X`$.

## 2. Preliminaries

### 2.1. $`K`$-trivial extremal contractions

###### Definition 2.1.

Let $`X`$ be a smooth projective $`n`$-fold over $``$ and $`\phi :XY`$ a birational morphism onto a normal projective variety $`Y`$ such that the exceptional locus $`D`$ of $`\phi `$ is of codimension 1 and such that $`dim\phi (D)=0`$. We call the contraction $`\phi `$

extremal if all the curves contracted by $`\phi `$ are numerically proportional, i.e. given two curves $`C`$ and $`C^{}`$ contracted by $`\phi `$, there is a rational number $`r`$ such that for any divisor $`E`$ in $`X`$, we have $`(EC^{})=r(EC)`$.

$`K`$-trivial if the canonical bundle on $`X`$ is numerically trivial on all curves contracted by $`\phi `$, i.e. $`(K_XC)=0`$ for any curve $`C`$ contracted by $`\phi `$ to a point.

Note that the condition (P1) implies that the exceptional locus $`D`$ is an irreducible divisor (Proposition 2.4), and hence $`\phi `$ contracts $`D`$ to a point $`qY`$.

###### Definition 2.2.

The contraction $`\phi `$ is called analytically rigid if its analytic structure is uniquely determined by the isomorphism class of $`Exc(\phi )=D`$ and its normal bundle $`𝒩_{D/X}`$ in $`X`$. More precisely, suppose $`\phi ^{}:X^{}Y^{}`$ is another birational map on a smooth projective 3-fold $`X^{}`$ with exceptional locus $`D^{}`$, contracting $`D^{}`$ to a point $`q^{}Y^{}`$. If $`DD^{}`$ and we have an isomorphism of normal bundles $`𝒩_{D/X}𝒩_{D^{}/X^{}}`$, then analytic rigidity of $`\phi `$ means that there are open (analytic) neighborhoods $`U`$ of $`D`$ in $`X`$ and $`U^{}`$ of $`D^{}`$ in $`X^{}`$ over which the contractions $`\phi `$ and $`\phi ^{}`$ are analytically isomorphic, i.e. we have the following commutative diagram (in the analytic category):

###### Remark 2.3.

A priori our definition (P1) of an extremal contraction is different from the one generally found in the literature, namely the “contraction of an extremal ray”. However, by Proposition 2.4 below, (P1) and (P2) imply that the birational map $`\phi `$ is the contraction of an extremal ray $`R`$ with respect to $`K_X+ϵD`$, for any $`0<ϵ`$, where $`R:=_+[C]`$ for any curve $`CD`$.

###### Proposition 2.4.

Let $`X`$ be a nonsingular projective variety of dimension $`n`$, and let $`\phi :XY`$ be a birational extremal contraction. Let $`D`$ denote the exceptional locus of $`\phi `$ (with the reduced structure). Suppose that $`\mathrm{codim}_XD=1`$ and $`dim\phi (D)=0`$. Then $`D`$ is irreducible and $`D`$ is $`\phi `$-ample. Furthermore, $`\phi `$ is the contraction of an extremal ray of the cone $`\overline{NE}(X)`$.

###### Proof.

Suppose that there are two distinct irreducible components $`D_1`$ and $`D_2`$ of $`D`$, with $`\mathrm{codim}_XD_1=1`$. Let $`H_1,H_2,\mathrm{}H_{n2}X`$ be general hyperplane sections of $`X`$. Let $`H=_{i=1}^{n2}H_i`$. Then $`H`$ is a smooth surface and $`HD_1`$ is an irreducible curve $`C_1`$ on $`D_1`$. Then

$$(D_1C_1)_X=(D_1|_HC_1)_H=(C_1^2)_H<0$$

by the negativity of self-intersection of contractible curves. Now, if $`C_2D_2`$ is a curve that is not contained in $`D_1`$, we have that $`(D_1C_2)0`$. But this contradicts the fact that $`\phi `$ is extremal, because $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$ cannot be numerically proportional. Therefore $`D`$ is irreducible and for any curve $`CD`$ we have $`(DC)<0`$.

In order to show that $`D`$ is $`\phi `$-ample, we only need to show that the divisor $`D|_D`$ is ample on $`D`$ (\[Groth3, Theorem III.4.7.1.\]). Then, by Kleiman’s criterion of ampleness, it is enough to show that $`(DZ)>0`$ for any $`Z\overline{NE}(D)`$.

The curves of $`D`$ are numerically proportional on $`X`$, therefore $`ZrC_1`$ on $`X`$ for some positive rational number $`r`$, since $`Z0`$ in $`\overline{NE}(D)`$. Therefore $`(DZ)=r(DC_1)>0,`$ and hence $`D`$ is relatively ample and the divisor $`D|_D`$ is ample on $`D`$.

In order to show that $`\phi `$ is a contraction of an extremal ray, let $`A`$ be an ample divisor on $`Y`$. Then, by the contraction theorem of extremal rays (\[Kenji\]), the face $`(\phi ^{}A)^{}`$ of 1-cycles intersecting trivially with $`\phi ^{}A`$ in $`\overline{NE}(X)`$ contains an extremal ray $`R`$ (i.e. an edge of the cone $`\overline{NE}(X)`$) and we have a contraction $`cont_R:XY^{}`$ of the extremal ray $`R`$.

But any curve $`C`$ in $`R`$ is contracted by $`\phi `$, because $`(\phi ^{}AC)=0`$. Therefore $`C`$ is numerically proportional to the curve $`C_1`$ in $`D`$, and hence the extremal ray $`R`$ is generated by $`C_1`$. Therefore $`\phi `$ and $`cont_R`$ contract the same curves. This implies $`\phi =cont_R`$. ∎

Now we consider again our situation: let $`X`$ be a smooth projective 3-fold and $`\phi :XY`$ a $`K`$-trivial birational extremal contraction, contracting a divisor $`D`$ to a point $`qY`$.

### 2.2. Description of the exceptional divisor $`D`$

By the adjunction formula,

(2.1)
$$𝒪_D(K_D)𝒪_X((K_X+D))|_D𝒪_X(D)|_D,$$

and hence $`𝒪_D(K_D)`$ is ample on $`D`$, because $`D`$ is $`\phi `$-ample. Also, $`D`$ has only Gorenstein singularities, being a (Cartier) divisor on a smooth 3-fold. Therefore $`D`$ is a so-called del Pezzo surface (i.e. Gorenstein with ample anticanonical bundle) of degree $`d=(K_D^2)`$. Note that we allow the del Pezzo surface $`D`$ to be singular.

By \[Gr, Theorem 5.2\], the possibilities for the exceptional divisor $`D`$ are further restricted by its degree and singularities; $`D`$ is either

1. a normal and rational del Pezzo surface of degree $`5d9`$ or
2. a non-normal del Pezzo surface of degree $`d=7`$ or
3. a normal del Pezzo surface of degree $`d4`$ (rational for $`d=4`$).

In order to obtain information about the normal bundle $`𝒩_{D/X}`$ of $`D`$ in $`X`$, note that the equivalences (2.1) above also show that $`𝒩_{D/X}`$ is numerically equivalent to $`𝒪_D(K_D)`$. In fact, we have that $`𝒩_{D/X}𝒪_D(K_D)`$ (using that the Euler characteristic is a numerical invariant \[Groth1, Cor. 09\] and $`\chi (𝒪_D)=1`$ for del Pezzo surfaces\[Wat\]).

### 2.3. The singularity at $`qY`$

Because $`\phi :XY`$ is $`K`$-trivial and extremal, the singularity $`qY`$ is a rational Gorenstein singularity (i.e. it is Gorenstein, and $`\phi _{}K_X=K_Y`$). According to \[Reid1\], to an isolated rational Gorenstein 3-fold point $`qY`$ one can attach a natural number $`k0`$ such that

1. if $`k=0`$ then $`qY`$ is a cDV point.
2. if $`k=1`$ then $`qY`$ is a hypersurface singularity that is locally of the form $`x^2+y^3+f(y,z,t)=0`$, where $`f=yf_1(z,t)+f_2(z,t)`$ and $`f_1`$ (respectively $`f_2`$) is a sum of of monomials $`z^at^b`$ of degree $`a+b4`$ (respectively $`6`$).
3. if $`k=2`$ then $`qY`$ is a hypersurface singularity that is locally of the form $`x^2+f(y,z,t)=0`$, where $`f`$ is a sum of of monomials of degree $`4`$.
4. if $`k3`$ then $`\mathrm{mult}_qY=k`$ and the embedding dimension of $`qY`$ is $`k+1`$. In particular, for $`k=3`$, $`qY`$ is still a hypersurface singularity, and for $`k=4`$ it is a complete intersection.

###### Remark 2.5.

\[Reid1, Prop. (2.13)\] implies that if the exceptional locus of $`\phi :XY`$ is a del Pezzo surface of degree $`d`$, then the invariant $`k`$ is equal to $`d`$. We also have that $`X`$ is the (weighted) blow-up of $`Y`$ at $`q`$ (\[Reid1, Theorem (2.11)\]). In particular, when $`d3`$, $`X`$ is the blow-up of $`Y`$ at $`q`$.

## 3. Normal rational del Pezzo surfaces of degree $`5`$

### 3.1. General information about del Pezzo surfaces

###### Definition 3.1.

A 2-dimensional (possibly singular) projective variety $`D`$ is called a del Pezzo surface if it has only Gorenstein singularities, and its anticanonical sheaf $`\omega _D^1`$ is ample. We call the intersection number $`d=(\omega _{D}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})`$ the degree of the del Pezzo surface $`D`$.

Normal rational del Pezzo surfaces were classified by Hidaka and Watanabe in \[Wat\]; non-normal ones by Reid in \[Reid\]. In this section we enumerate some facts that will be used subsequently in our proof of analytic rigidity.

Let $`D`$ be a normal del Pezzo surface of degree $`d`$ and $`\pi :\stackrel{~}{D}D`$ a minimal resolution of $`D`$. Then $`\stackrel{~}{D}`$ is either a cone over an elliptic curve, or $`\stackrel{~}{D}`$ is rational. In the latter case, $`D`$ is either $`^2`$ ($`d=9`$), $`^1\times ^1`$ ($`d=8`$), a singular quadric in $`^3`$ ($`d=8`$), or its minimal resolution $`\stackrel{~}{D}`$ is the blow-up of $`9d`$ points in almost general position on $`^2`$ (\[Wat\]). Note that if $`d3`$, then $`\omega _D^1`$ is very ample and its global sections yield an embedding of $`D`$ into $`^d`$ as a subvariety of degree $`d`$. This embedding defines a projectively normal variety and is defined by quadric equations except for the case $`d=3`$ (\[Wat, Theorem 4.4\]).

###### Proposition 3.2.

\[Wat, Prop. 4.2\] Let $`D`$ be a normal del Pezzo surface. Then

1. The anticanonical system $`|K_D|`$ of $`D`$ contains a nonsingular elliptic curve.
2. $`H^1(D,𝒪_D(\nu K_D))=0`$ for all $`\nu `$.
3. If $`\mathrm{deg}`$D$`=d`$, then

$$dimH^0(D,𝒪_D(\nu K_D))=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{(\nu +1)\nu }{2}d+1\hfill & \text{if }\nu 0\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{if }\nu <0.\hfill \end{array}$$

### 3.2. Singularities of normal rational del Pezzo surfaces of degree $`5`$

In the following, we present a complete description of the configurations of points the blow-up of which gives the minimal resolution of a normal rational del Pezzo surface of degree $`d5`$.

Notation. For convenience, we introduce the following notations/definitions (\[Demazure\]): Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=\{p_1,\mathrm{},p_r\}`$ be a finite set of points on $`^2`$ (infinitely near points allowed) and assume that $`|\mathrm{\Sigma }|8`$. Denote by $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_i`$ the subsystem $`\{p_1,\mathrm{},p_i\}`$, $`1ir`$, and let $`V(\mathrm{\Sigma }_i)^2`$ be the blow-up of $`^2`$ with center $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_i`$. Then there exists a sequence of blow-ups

$$V(\mathrm{\Sigma })=V(\mathrm{\Sigma }_n)V(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{n1})\mathrm{}V(\mathrm{\Sigma }_1)^2.$$

Denote by $`E_iV(\mathrm{\Sigma }_i)`$ the exceptional locus of the morphism $`V(\mathrm{\Sigma }_i)V(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{i1})`$.

###### Definition 3.3.

\[Demazure, III.2\] The points of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ are in general (respectively almost general) position if

1. No three (resp. four) of them are collinear.
2. No six (resp. seven) of them are on a conic.
3. All the points are distinct (resp. for all $`1ir`$, the point $`p_{i+1}V(\mathrm{\Sigma }_i)`$ does not lie on any proper transform $`\widehat{E}_j`$ of some $`E_j`$, $`1ji`$, with $`(\widehat{E}_j^2)=2`$).
4. When $`|\mathrm{\Sigma }|=8`$, there exists no singular cubic which passes through all the points of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and has one of them as the singular point (no corresponding condition in the almost general case).

Let $`D`$ be a normal rational del Pezzo surface of degree $`d5`$ and let $`\pi :\stackrel{~}{D}D`$ be its minimal resolution. Suppose $`D`$ is not $`^1\times ^1`$ or a singular quadric in $`^3`$. Then $`\stackrel{~}{D}V(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ for some set $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ of $`9d4`$ points in almost general position on $`^2`$.

Up to a projective automorphism of $`^2`$ (and its extensions to the blow-up spaces), there are 22 different configurations of at most 4 points in almost general position (including $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=\mathrm{}`$, when $`D^2`$). Below we describe these configurations (giving a representative for each configuration) and the corresponding blow-ups.

Fix the homogeneous coordinates $`[x_0:x_1:x_2]`$ on $`^2`$. Then on the affine open $`U_0=\{x_00\}𝔸^2`$ we have local coordinates $`x:=\frac{x_1}{x_0}`$ and $`y:=\frac{x_2}{x_0}`$. In the following, all blow-ups will be of (possibly infinitely near) points of $`U_0^2`$. For any point $`pU_0`$, we have the natural coordinates on the exceptional locus $``$ of the blow-up $`\mathrm{Bl}_pU_0`$, using $`(T_pU_0)(𝔸^2)^1`$. For a point $`q\mathrm{Bl}_pU_0`$ we write $`qp`$ if $`q`$ is infinitely near to $`p`$, i.e. if $`q`$.

#### 3.2.1. Blowing up one point

###### 3.2.1.1.

Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1=\{p_1\}`$, where $`p_1^2`$ and let $`\sigma _1:S_1=V(\mathrm{\Sigma }_1)^2`$ be the blow-up of $`p_1`$ on $`^2`$. Up to a projective automorphism of $`^2`$, we can assume $`p_1=[1:0:0]`$.

#### 3.2.2. Blowing up two points


text:
# Lattice QCD results at finite 𝑇 and 𝜇

## 1 Introduction

QCD at finite $`T`$ and/or $`\mu `$ is of fundamental importance, since it describes relevant features of particle physics in the early universe, in neutron stars and in heavy ion collisions. Extensive experimental work has been done with heavy ion collisions at CERN and Brookhaven to explore the $`\mu `$-$`T`$ phase boundary (cf. ). Note, that past, present and future heavy ion experiments with always higher and higher energies produce states closer and closer to the $`T`$ axis of the $`\mu `$-$`T`$ diagram. It is a long-standing question, whether a critical point exists on the $`\mu `$-$`T`$ plane, and particularly how to tell its location theoretically .

Let us discuss the $`\mu `$=0 case first. Universal arguments  and lattice simulations  indicate that in a hypothetical QCD with a strange (s) quark mass ($`m_s`$) as small as the up (u) and down (d) quark masses ($`m_{u,d}`$) there would be a first order finite $`T`$ phase transition. The other extreme case ($`n_f`$=2) with light u/d quarks but with an infinitely large $`m_s`$ there would be no phase transition, only a crossover. Observables change rapidly during a crossover, but no singularities appear. Between the two extremes there is a critical strange mass ($`m_s^c`$) at which one has a second order finite $`T`$ phase transition. Staggered lattice results on $`L_t`$=4 lattices with two light quarks and $`m_s`$ around the transition $`T`$ ($`n_f`$=2+1) indicated  that $`m_s^c`$ is about half of the physical $`m_s`$. Thus, in the real world we probably have a crossover.

Returning to a non-vanishing $`\mu `$, one realizes that arguments based on a variety of models (see e.g. ) predict a first order finite $`T`$ phase transition at large $`\mu `$. Combining the $`\mu =0`$ and large $`\mu `$ informations an interesting picture emerges on the $`\mu `$-$`T`$ plane. For the physical $`m_s`$ the first order phase transitions at large $`\mu `$ should be connected with the crossover on the $`\mu =0`$ axis. This suggests that the phase diagram features a critical endpoint $`E`$ (with chemical potential $`\mu _E`$ and temperature $`T_E`$), at which the line of first order phase transitions ($`\mu >\mu _E`$ and $`T<T_E`$) ends . At this point the phase transition is of second order and long wavelength fluctuations appear, which results in (see e.g. ) consequences, similar to critical opalescence. Passing close enough to ($`\mu _E`$,$`T_E`$) one expects simultaneous appearance of signatures which exhibit nonmonotonic dependence on the control parameters , since one can miss the critical point on either sides.

The location of E is an unambiguous, non-perturbative prediction of QCD. No ab initio, lattice analysis based on QCD was done to locate the endpoint. Crude models with $`m_s=\mathrm{}`$ were used (e.g. ) suggesting that $`\mu _E`$ 700 MeV, which should be smaller for finite $`m_s`$. The goal of our exploratory work is to propose a new method to study lattice QCD at finite $`\mu `$ and apply it to locate the endpoint. We use full QCD with dynamical $`n_f`$=2+1 staggered quarks.

QCD at finite $`\mu `$ can be given on the lattice ; however, standard Monte-Carlo techniques fail. At Re($`\mu `$)$``$0 the determinant of the Euclidean Dirac operator is complex, which spoils any importance sampling method.

Several suggestions were studied in detail to solve the problem. We list a few of them (for a recent review see Ref. ).

In the large gauge coupling limit a monomer-dimer algorithm was used . For small gauge coupling an attractive approach is the “Glasgow method”  in which the partition function is expanded in powers of $`\mathrm{exp}(\mu /T)`$ by using an ensemble of configurations weighted by the $`\mu `$=0 action. After collecting more than 20 million configurations only unphysical results were obtained: a premature onset transition. The reason is that the $`\mu `$=0 ensemble does not overlap sufficiently with the states of interest. Another possibility is to separate the absolute value and the phase of the fermionic determinant and use the former to generate configurations and the latter in observables . The curvature of the $`\mu T`$ phase diagram at $`\mu =0`$ was determined by a stochastic calculation of the derivatives of the fermion determinant in .

At imaginary $`\mu `$ the measure remains positive and standard Monte Carlo techniques apply. The canonical partition function can be obtained by a Fourier transform . In this technique the dominant source of errors is the Fourier transform rather than the poor overlap. One can also use the fact that the partition function away from the transition line should be an analytic function of $`\mu `$, and the fit for imaginary $`\mu `$ values could be analytically continued to real values of $`\mu `$ . At T sufficiently above the transition, both real and imaginary $`\mu `$ can be studied by dimensionally reducing QCD . Hamiltonian formulation may also help studying the problem .

An attractive approach to alleviate the problem is the “Glasgow method” (see e.g. Ref. ) in which the partition function ($`Z`$) is expanded in powers of $`\mathrm{exp}(\mu /T)`$ by using an ensemble of configurations weighted by the $`\mu `$=0 action. After collecting more than 20 million configurations only unphysical results were obtained. The reason is that the $`\mu `$=0 ensemble does not overlap enough with the finite density states of interest .

We propose a method to reduce the overlap problem and determine the phase diagram in the $`\mu `$-T plane (for details see ). The idea is to produce an ensemble of QCD configurations at $`\mu `$=0 and at the transition temperature $`T_c`$. Then we determine the Boltzmann weights  of these configurations at $`\mu 0`$ and at $`T`$ lowered to the transition temperatures at this non-vanishing $`\mu `$. Since transition configurations are reweighted to transition ones a much better overlap can be observed than by reweighting pure hadronic configurations to transition ones . Since the original ensemble is collected at $`\mu `$=0 we do not expect to be able to decsribe the physics of the large $`\mu `$ region with e.g. exotic colour superconductivity. Fortunately, the typical $`\mu `$ values at present heavy ion accelerators are smaller than the region we cover (for the freeze-out condition see e.g. ).

After illustrating the applicability of the method we locate the critical point of QCD. (Multi-dimensional reweighting was successful for determining the endpoint of the hot electroweak plasma  e.g. on 4D lattices.)

## 2 Overlap improving multi-parameter reweighting

Let us study a generic system of fermions $`\psi `$ and bosons $`\varphi `$, where the fermion Lagrange density is $`\overline{\psi }M(\varphi )\psi `$. Integrating over the Grassmann fields we get:

$$Z(\alpha )=𝒟\varphi \mathrm{exp}[S_{bos}(\alpha ,\varphi )]detM(\varphi ,\alpha ),$$
(1)
where $`\alpha `$ denotes a set of parameters of the Lagrangian. In the case of staggered QCD $`\alpha `$ consists of $`\beta `$, $`m_q`$ and $`\mu `$. For some choice of the parameters $`\alpha `$=$`\alpha _0`$ importance sampling can be done (e.g. for Re($`\mu `$)=0). Rewriting eq. (1)

$`Z(\alpha )={\displaystyle 𝒟\varphi \mathrm{exp}[S_{bos}(\alpha _0,\varphi )]detM(\varphi ,\alpha _0)}`$
$`\left\{\mathrm{exp}[S_{bos}(\alpha ,\varphi )+S_{bos}(\alpha _0,\varphi )]{\displaystyle \frac{detM(\varphi ,\alpha )}{detM(\varphi ,\alpha _0)}}\right\}.`$ (2)
We treat the curly bracket as an observable (measured on each configuration) and the rest as the measure. Changing only one parameter of the ensemble generated at $`\alpha _0`$ provides an accurate value for some observables only for high statistics. This is ensured by rare fluctuations as the mismatched measure occasionally sampled the regions where the integrand is large. This is the overlap problem. Having several parameters the set $`\alpha _0`$ can be adjusted to get a better overlap than obtained by varying only one parameter.

The basic idea of the method as applied to dynamical QCD can be summarized as follows. We study the system at $`\mathrm{Re}(\mu )`$=0 around its transition point. Using a Glasgow-type technique we calculate the determinants for each configuration for a set of $`\mu `$, which, similarly to the Ferrenberg-Swendsen method , can be used for reweighting. The average plaquette values can be used to perform an additional reweighting in $`\beta `$. Since transition configurations were reweighted to transition ones a much better overlap can be observed than by reweighting pure hadronic configurations to transition ones as done by the Glasgow-type techniques. The differences between the two methods are shown in Figure 1. Moving along the transition line was also suggested by Ref. .

We have directly tested these ideas in $`n_f`$=4 QCD with $`m_q`$=0.05 dynamical staggered quarks. We first collected 1200 independent V=4$`6^3`$ configurations at Re($`\mu `$)=Im($`\mu `$)=0 and some $`\beta `$ values and used the Glasgow-reweighting and also our technique to study Re($`\mu `$)=0, Im($`\mu `$)$``$0. At Re($`\mu `$)=0, Im($`\mu `$)$``$0 direct simulations are possible. After performing these direct simulations as well, a clear comparison can be done. Figure 2 shows the predictions of the three methods for the average quark condensates at $`\beta `$=5.085 as a function of Im($`\mu `$). The predictions of our method agree with the direct results, whereas for larger Im($`\mu `$) the predictions of the Glasgow method are by several standard deviations off. We expect that our method can be applied at Re($`\mu `$)$``$0.

## 3 The endpoint of $`n_f=2+1`$ QCD

In QCD with $`n_f`$ staggered quarks one should change the determinants to their $`n_f`$/4 power in our two equations. Importance sampling works also in this case at some $`\beta `$ and at Re($`\mu `$)=0. Since $`detM`$ is complex an additional problem arises, one should choose among the possible Riemann-sheets of the fractional power in eq. (2). This can be done by using  the fact that at $`\mu `$=$`\mu _w`$ the ratio of the determinants is 1 and it should be a continuous function of $`\mu `$.

In the following we keep $`\mu `$ real and look for the zeros of $`Z`$ for complex $`\beta `$. At a first order phase transition the free energy $`\mathrm{log}Z(\beta )`$ is non-analytic. A phase transition appears only in the V$`\mathrm{}`$ limit, but not in a finite $`V`$. Nevertheless, $`Z`$ has zeros at finite V, generating the non-analyticity of the free energy, the Lee-Yang zeros . These are at complex parameters (e.g. $`\beta `$). For a system with first order transition these zeros approach the real axis as V$`\mathrm{}`$ by a $`1/V`$ scaling. This V$`\mathrm{}`$ limit generates the non-analyticity of the free energy. For a system with crossover $`Z`$ is analytic, and the zeros do not approach the real axis as V$`\mathrm{}`$.

At T$``$0 we used $`L_t`$=4, $`L_s`$=4,6,8 lattices. T=0 runs were done on $`10^3`$ 16 lattices. $`m_{u,d}`$=0.025 and $`m_s`$=0.2 were our bare quark masses. At $`T0`$ we determined the complex valued Lee-Yang zeros, $`\beta _0`$, for different V-s as a function of $`\mu `$. Their V$`\mathrm{}`$ limit was given by a $`\beta _0(V)=\beta _0^{\mathrm{}}+\zeta /V`$ extrapolation. We used 14000, 3600 and 840 configurations on $`L_s`$=4,6 and $`8`$ lattices, respectively. Im($`\beta _0^{\mathrm{}}`$) is shown on Figure 3 as a function of $`\mu `$. For small $`\mu `$-s the extrapolated Im($`\beta _0^{\mathrm{}}`$) is inconsistent with a vanishing value, and predicts a crossover. Increasing $`\mu `$ the value of Im($`\beta _0^{\mathrm{}}`$) decreases, thus the transition becomes consistent with a first order phase transition (overshooting is a finite V effect). Our primary result is $`\mu _{end}=0.375(20)`$.

To set the physical scale we used a weighted average of $`R_0`$, $`m_\rho `$ and $`\sqrt{\sigma }`$. Note, that (including systematics due to finite V) we have $`(R_0m_\pi )=0.73(6)`$, which is at least twice, $`m_{u,d}`$ is at least four times as large as the physical values.

Figure 4 shows the phase diagram in physical units, thus $`T`$ as a function of $`\mu _B`$, the baryonic chemical potential (which is three times larger then the quark chemical potential). The endpoint is at $`T_E=160\pm 3.5`$ MeV, $`\mu _E=725\pm 35`$ MeV. At $`\mu _B`$=0 we obtained $`T_c=172\pm 3`$ MeV.

## 4 Conclusion

We proposed a method –an overlap improving multi-parameter reweighting technique– to numerically study non-zero $`\mu `$ and determine the phase diagram in the $`T`$-$`\mu `$ plane. Our method is applicable to any number of Wilson or staggered quarks. As a direct test we showed that for Im($`\mu `$)$``$0 the predictions of our method are in complete agreement with the direct simulations, whereas the Glasgow method suffers from the well-known overlap problem. We studied the $`\mu `$-$`T`$ phase diagram of QCD with dynamical $`n_f`$=2+1 quarks. Using our method we obtained $`T_E`$=160$`\pm `$3.5 MeV and $`\mu _E`$=725$`\pm `$35 MeV for the endpoint. Though $`\mu _E`$ is too large to be studied at RHIC or LHC, the endpoint would probably move closer to the $`\mu `$=0 axis when the quark masses get reduced. At $`\mu `$=0 we obtained $`T_c`$=172$`\pm `$3 MeV. More work is needed to get the final values by extrapolating in the R-algorithm and to the thermodynamic, chiral and continuum limits. The details of the presented results can be found in .

This work was partially supported by grants OTKA-T34980/T29803/M37071/OM-MU-708/IKTA111/NIIF and in part based on the MILC collaboration’s lattice code: http://physics.indiana.edu/~sg/milc.html.


text:
# The 𝑈(1) axial symmetry and the chiral transition in QCD

## 1 Introduction

It is generally believed that a phase transition which occurs in QCD at a finite temperature is the restoration of the spontaneously broken $`SU(L)SU(L)`$ chiral symmetry in association with $`L`$ massless quarks. At zero temperature the chiral symmetry is broken spontaneously by the condensation of $`q\overline{q}`$ pairs and the $`L^21`$ $`J^P=0^{}`$ mesons are just the Nambu–Goldstone (NG) bosons associated with this breaking. At high temperatures the thermal energy breaks up the $`q\overline{q}`$ condensate, leading to the restoration of chiral symmetry. We expect that this property not only holds for massless quarks but also continues for a small mass region. The order parameter for the chiral symmetry breaking is apparently $`\overline{q}q_{i=1}^L\overline{q}_iq_i`$: the chiral symmetry breaking corresponds to the non–vanishing of $`\overline{q}q`$ in the chiral limit $`sup(m_i)0`$. From lattice determinations of the chiral order parameter $`\overline{q}q`$ one knows that the $`SU(L)SU(L)`$ chiral phase transition temperature $`T_{ch}`$, defined as the temperature at which the chiral condensate $`\overline{q}q`$ goes to zero (in the chiral limit $`sup(m_i)0`$), is nearly equal to the deconfining temperature $`T_c`$ (see, e.g., Ref. ). But this is not the whole story: QCD possesses not only an approximate $`SU(L)SU(L)`$ chiral symmetry, for $`L`$ light quark flavours, but also a $`U(1)`$ axial symmetry (at least at the classical level). The role of the $`U(1)`$ symmetry for the finite temperature phase structure has been so far not well studied and it is still an open question of hadronic physics whether the fate of the $`U(1)`$ chiral symmetry of QCD has or has not something to do with the fate of the $`SU(L)SU(L)`$ chiral symmetry. In the following sections we shall try to answer these questions:

* At which temperature is the $`U(1)`$ axial symmetry restored? (if such a critical temperature does exist!)
* Does this temperature coincide with the deconfinement temperature and with the temperature at which the $`SU(L)`$ chiral symmetry is restored?

## 2 Topological and chiral susceptibilities

In the “Witten–Veneziano mechanism”  for the resolution of the $`U(1)`$ problem, a fundamental role is played by the so–called “topological susceptibility” in a QCD without quarks, i.e., in a pure Yang–Mills (YM) theory, in the large–$`N_c`$ limit ($`N_c`$ being the number of colours):

$$A=\underset{k0}{lim}\underset{N_c\mathrm{}}{lim}\left\{id^4xe^{ikx}TQ(x)Q(0)\right\},$$
(1)
where $`Q(x)=\frac{g^2}{64\pi ^2}\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }F_{\mu \nu }^aF_{\rho \sigma }^a`$ is the so–called “topological charge density”. This quantity enters into the expression for the squared mass of the $`\eta ^{}`$: $`m_\eta ^{}^2=\frac{2LA}{F_\pi ^2}`$, where $`L`$ is the number of light quark flavours taken into account in the chiral limit. Therefore, in order to study the role of the $`U(1)`$ axial symmetry for the full theory at non–zero temperatures, one should consider the YM topological susceptibility $`A(T)`$ at a given temperature $`T`$, formally defined as in Eq. (1), where now $`\mathrm{}`$ stands for the expectation value in the full theory at a given temperature $`T`$ The problem of studying the behaviour of $`A(T)`$ as a function of the temperature $`T`$ was first addressed, in lattice QCD, in Refs. . Recent lattice results  (obtained for the $`SU(3)`$ pure–gauge theory) show that the YM topological susceptibility $`A(T)`$ is approximately constant up to the critical temperature $`T_cT_{ch}`$, it has a sharp decrease above the transition, but it remains different from zero up to $`1.2T_c`$. In the Witten–Veneziano mechanism, a (no matter how small!) value different from zero for $`A`$ is related to the breaking of the $`U(1)`$ axial symmetry, since it implies the existence of a pseudo–Goldstone particle with the same quantum numbers of the $`\eta ^{}`$. Therefore, the available lattice results show that the $`U(1)`$ chiral symmetry is restored at a temperature $`T_{U(1)}`$ greater than $`T_{ch}`$.

Another way to address the same question is to look at the behaviour at non–zero temperatures of the susceptibilities related to the propagators for the following meson channels  (we consider for simplicity the case of $`L=2`$ light flavours): the isoscalar $`I=0`$ scalar channel $`\sigma `$ (also known as $`f_0`$ in the modern language of hadron spectroscopy), interpolated by the operator $`O_\sigma =\overline{q}q`$; the isovector $`I=1`$ scalar channel $`\delta `$ (also known as $`a_0`$), interpolated by the operator $`\stackrel{}{O}_\delta =\overline{q}\frac{\stackrel{}{\tau }}{2}q`$; the isovector $`I=1`$ pseudoscalar channel $`\pi `$, interpolated by the operator $`\stackrel{}{O}_\pi =i\overline{q}\gamma _5\frac{\stackrel{}{\tau }}{2}q`$; the isoscalar $`I=0`$ pseudoscalar channel $`\eta ^{}`$, interpolated by the operator $`O_\eta ^{}=i\overline{q}\gamma _5q`$. Under $`SU(2)_A`$ transformations, $`\sigma `$ is mixed with $`\pi `$: thus the restoration of this symmetry at $`T_{ch}`$ requires identical correlators for these two channels. Another $`SU(2)`$ chiral multiplet is $`(\delta ,\eta ^{})`$. On the contrary, under the $`U(1)_A`$ transformations, $`\pi `$ is mixed with $`\delta `$: so, a “practical restoration” of the $`U(1)`$ axial symmetry should imply that these two channels become degenerate, with identical correlators. Another $`U(1)`$ chiral multiplet is $`(\sigma ,\eta ^{})`$. (Clearly, if both chiral symmetries are restored, then all $`\pi `$, $`\eta ^{}`$, $`\sigma `$ and $`\delta `$ correlators should become the same.) In practice, one can construct, for each meson channel $`f`$, the corresponding chiral susceptibility

$$\chi _f=d^4xO_f(x)O_f^{}(0),$$
(2)
and then define two order parameters: $`\chi _{SU(2)SU(2)}\chi _\sigma \chi _\pi `$, and $`\chi _{U(1)}\chi _\delta \chi _\pi `$. If an order parameter is non–zero in the chiral limit, then the corresponding symmetry is broken. Present lattice data for these quantities seem to indicate that the $`U(1)`$ axial symmetry is still broken above $`T_{ch}`$, up to $`1.2T_{ch}`$, where the $`\delta `$$`\pi `$ splitting is small but still different from zero.  In terms of the left–handed and right–handed quark fields \[$`q_{L,R}\frac{1}{2}(1\pm \gamma _5)q`$\], one has the following expression for the difference between the correlators for the $`\delta ^+`$ and $`\pi ^+`$ channels:

$`𝒟_{U(1)}(x)O_{\delta ^+}(x)O_{\delta ^+}^{}(0)O_{\pi ^+}(x)O_{\pi ^+}^{}(0)`$ (3)
$`=2\left[\overline{u}_Rd_L(x)\overline{d}_Ru_L(0)+\overline{u}_Ld_R(x)\overline{d}_Lu_R(0)\right].`$
(The integral of this quantity, $`d^4x𝒟_{U(1)}(x)`$, is just equal to the $`U(1)`$ chiral parameter $`\chi _{U(1)}=\chi _\delta \chi _\pi `$.) What happens below and above $`T_{ch}`$? Below $`T_{ch}`$, in the chiral limit $`sup(m_i)0`$, the left–handed and right–handed components of a given light quark flavour (up or down, in our case with $`L=2`$) can be connected through the quark condensate, giving rise to a non–zero contribution to the quantity $`𝒟_{U(1)}(x)`$ in Eq. (3) (i.e., to the quantity $`\chi _{U(1)}`$). But above $`T_{ch}`$ the quark condensate is zero: so, how can the quantity $`𝒟_{U(1)}(x)`$ (i.e., the quantity $`\chi _{U(1)}`$) be different from zero also above $`T_{ch}`$, as indicated by present lattice data? The only possibility in order to solve this puzzle seems to be that of requiring the existence of a genuine four–fermion local condensate, which is an order parameter for the $`U(1)`$ axial symmetry and which remains different from zero also above $`T_{ch}`$. This will be discussed in section 4.

## 3 Which chiral symmetry is restored in hot QCD?

Let us define the following temperatures:

* $`T_{ch}`$: the temperature at which the chiral condensate $`\overline{q}q`$ goes to zero. The chiral symmetry $`SU(L)SU(L)`$ is spontaneously broken below $`T_{ch}`$ and it is restored above $`T_{ch}`$.
* $`T_{U(1)}`$: the temperature at which the $`U(1)`$ axial symmetry is (approximately) restored. If $`\overline{q}q0`$ also the $`U(1)`$ axial symmetry is broken, i.e., the chiral condensate is an order parameter also for the $`U(1)`$ axial symmetry. Therefore we must have: $`T_{U(1)}T_{ch}`$.
* $`T_\chi `$: the temperature at which the pure–gauge topological susceptibility $`A`$ (approximately) drops to zero. Present lattice results indicate that $`T_\chi T_{ch}`$ Moreover, the Witten–Veneziano mechanism implies that $`T_{U(1)}T_\chi `$.

The following scenario, that we shall call “SCENARIO 1”, in which $`T_\chi <T_{ch}`$, is, therefore, immediately ruled out. In this case, in the range of temperatures between $`T_\chi `$ and $`T_{ch}`$ the $`U(1)`$ axial symmetry is still broken by the chiral condensate, but the anomaly effects are absent. In other words, in this range of temperatures the $`U(1)`$ axial symmetry is spontaneously broken (à la Goldstone) and the $`\eta ^{}`$ is the corresponding NG boson, i.e., it is massless in the chiral limit $`sup(m_i)0`$, or, at least, as light as the pion $`\pi `$, when including the quark masses. This scenario was first discussed (and indeed really supported!) in Ref. . It is known that the $`U(1)`$ chiral anomaly effects are connected with instantons.  It is also known that at high temperature $`T`$ the instanton–induced amplitudes are suppressed by the so–called “Pisarski–Yaffe suppression factor”, due to the Debye–type screening:

$$d𝒩_{inst}(T)d𝒩_{inst}(T=0)\mathrm{exp}\left[\pi ^2\rho ^2T^2\left(\frac{2N_c+L}{3}\right)\right],$$
(4)
$`\rho `$ being the instanton radius. The argument of Pisarski and Wilczek in Ref.  was the following: “If instantons themselves are the primary chiral–symmetry–breaking mechanism, then it is very difficult to imagine the unsuppressed $`U(1)_A`$ amplitude at $`T_{ch}`$.” So, what was wrong in their argument? The problem is that Eq. (4) can be applied only in the quark–gluon plasma phase, since the Debye screening is absent below $`T_{ch}`$. Indeed, Eq. (4) is applicable only for $`T2T_{ch}`$ and one finds instanton suppression by at least two orders of magnitude at $`T2T_{ch}`$ (see Ref.  and references therein). Moreover, the qualitative picture of instanton–driven chiral symmetry restoration which is nowadays accepted has significantly changed since the days of Ref. . It is now believed (see Ref.  and references therein) that the suppression of instantons is not the only way to “kill” the quark condensate. Not only the number of instantons is important, but also their relative positions and orientations. Above $`T_{ch}`$, instantons and anti-instantons can be rearranged into some finite clusters with zero topological charge, such as well–formed “instanton–anti-instanton molecules”.

Therefore, we are left essentially with the two following scenarios.
SCENARIO 2: $`T_{ch}T_{U(1)}`$, with $`T_{ch}T_\chi T_{U(1)}`$. If $`T_{ch}=T_\chi =T_{U(1)}`$, then, in the case of $`L=2`$ light flavours, the restored symmetry across the transition is $`U(1)_ASU(2)_LSU(2)_RO(2)O(4)`$, which may yield a first–order phase transition (see, for example, Ref. ).
SCENARIO 3: $`T_{ch}T_{U(1)}`$, that is, the complete $`U(L)_LU(L)_R`$ chiral symmetry is restored only well inside the quark–gluon plasma domain. In the case of $`L=2`$ light flavours, we then have at $`T=T_{ch}`$ the restoration of $`SU(2)_LSU(2)_RO(4)`$. Therefore, we can have a second–order phase transition with the $`O(4)`$ critical exponents. $`L=2`$ QCD at $`TT_{ch}`$ and the $`O(4)`$ spin system should belong to the same universality class. An effective Lagrangian describing the softest modes is essentially the Gell-Mann–Levy linear sigma model, the same as for the $`O(4)`$ spin systems (see Ref. ). If this scenario is true, one should find the $`O(4)`$ critical indices for the quark condensate and the specific heat: $`\overline{q}q|(TT_{ch})/T_{ch}|^{0.38\pm 0.01}`$, and $`C(T)|(TT_{ch})/T_{ch}|^{0.19\pm 0.06}`$. Present lattice data partially support these results.

## 4 The $`U(1)`$ chiral order parameter

We make the assumption (discussed in the previous sections) that the $`U(1)`$ chiral symmetry is broken independently from the $`SU(L)SU(L)`$ symmetry. The usual chiral order parameter $`\overline{q}q`$ is an order parameter both for $`SU(L)SU(L)`$ and for $`U(1)_A`$: when it is different from zero, $`SU(L)SU(L)`$ is broken down to $`SU(L)_V`$ and also $`U(1)_A`$ is broken. Thus we need another quantity which could be an order parameter only for the $`U(1)`$ chiral symmetry.  The most simple quantity of this kind was found by ’tHooft in Ref. . For a theory with $`L`$ light quark flavours, it is a $`2L`$–fermion interaction that has the chiral transformation properties of:

$$_{eff}\underset{st}{det}(\overline{q}_{sL}q_{tR})+\underset{st}{det}(\overline{q}_{sR}q_{tL}),$$
(5)
where $`s,t=1,\mathrm{},L`$ are flavour indices, but the colour indices are arranged in a more general way (see below). It is easy to verify that $`_{eff}`$ is invariant under $`SU(L)SU(L)U(1)_V`$, while it is not invariant under $`U(1)_A`$. To obtain an order parameter for the $`U(1)`$ chiral symmetry, one can simply take the vacuum expectation value of $`_{eff}`$: $`C_{U(1)}=_{eff}`$. The arbitrarity in the arrangement of the colour indices can be removed if we require that the new $`U(1)`$ chiral condensate is “independent” of the usual chiral condensate $`\overline{q}q`$, as explained in Refs. . In other words, the condensate $`C_{U(1)}`$ is chosen to be a genuine $`2L`$–fermion condensate, with a zero “disconnected part”, the latter being the contribution proportional to $`\overline{q}q^L`$, corresponding to retaining the vacuum intermediate state in all the channels and neglecting the contributions of all the other states. As a remark, we observe that the condensate $`C_{U(1)}`$ so defined turns out to be of order $`𝒪(g^{2L2}N_c^L)=𝒪(N_c)`$ in the large–$`N_c`$ expansion, exactly as the quark condensate $`\overline{q}q`$.

In the case of the $`SU(L)SU(L)`$ chiral symmetry, one finds the following Ward identity (WI):

$$d^4xT^\mu A_\mu ^a(x)i\overline{q}\gamma _5T^bq(0)=i\delta _{ab}\frac{1}{L}\overline{q}q,$$
(6)
where $`A_\mu ^a=\overline{q}\gamma _\mu \gamma _5T^aq`$ is the $`SU(L)`$ axial current. If $`\overline{q}q0`$ (in the chiral limit $`sup(m_i)0`$), the anomaly–free WI (6) implies the existence of $`L^21`$ non–singlet NG bosons, interpolated by the hermitean fields $`O_b=i\overline{q}\gamma _5T^bq`$. Similarly, in the case of the $`U(1)`$ axial symmetry, one finds that:

$$d^4xT^\mu J_{5,\mu }(x)i\overline{q}\gamma _5q(0)=2i\overline{q}q,$$
(7)
where $`J_{5,\mu }=\overline{q}\gamma _\mu \gamma _5q`$ is the $`U(1)`$ axial current. But this is not the whole story! One also derives the following WI:

$$d^4xT^\mu J_{5,\mu }(x)O_P(0)=2Li_{eff},$$
(8)
where $`O_Pi[det(\overline{q}_{sL}q_{tR})det(\overline{q}_{sR}q_{tL})]`$. If the $`U(1)`$ chiral symmetry is still broken above $`T_{ch}`$, i.e., $`_{eff}0`$ for $`T>T_{ch}`$ (while $`\overline{q}q=0`$ for $`T>T_{ch}`$), then this WI implies the existence of a (pseudo–)Goldstone boson (in the large–$`N_c`$ limit!) coming from this breaking and interpolated by the hermitean field $`O_P`$. Therefore, the $`U(1)_A`$ (pseudo–)NG boson (i.e., the $`\eta ^{}`$) is an “exotic” $`2L`$–fermion state for $`T>T_{ch}`$!

## 5 The new chiral effective Lagrangian

We shall see in this section how the proposed scenario, in which the $`U(1)`$ axial symmetry is still broken above the chiral transition, can be consistently reproduced using an effective–Lagrangian model.

It is well known that the low–energy dynamics of the pseudoscalar mesons, including the effects due to the anomaly and the quark condensate, and expanding to the first order in the light quark masses, can be described, in the large–$`N_c`$ limit, by an effective Lagrangian,  written in terms of the mesonic field $`U_{ij}\overline{q}_{jR}q_{iL}`$ (up to a multiplicative constant) and the topological charge density $`Q`$. If we make the assumption that the $`U(1)`$ chiral symmetry is restored at a temperature $`T_{U(1)}`$ greater than $`T_{ch}`$, we need another order parameter for the $`U(1)`$ chiral symmetry, the form of which has been discussed in the previous section. We must now define a field variable $`X`$, associated with this new condensate, to be inserted in the chiral Lagrangian. The translation from the fundamental quark fields to the effective–Lagrangian meson fields is done as follows. The operators $`i\overline{q}\gamma _5q`$ and $`\overline{q}q`$ entering in the WI (7) are essentially equal to (up to a multiplicative constant) $`i(\mathrm{Tr}U\mathrm{Tr}U^{})`$ and $`\mathrm{Tr}U+\mathrm{Tr}U^{}`$ respectively. Similarly, the operators $`_{eff}det(\overline{q}_{sL}q_{tR})+det(\overline{q}_{sR}q_{tL})`$ and $`O_Pi[det(\overline{q}_{sL}q_{tR})det(\overline{q}_{sR}q_{tL})]`$ entering in the WI (8) can be put equal to (up to a multiplicative constant) $`X+X^{}`$ and $`i(XX^{})`$ respectively, where $`Xdet\left(\overline{q}_{sR}q_{tL}\right)`$ is the new field variable (up to a multiplicative constant), related to the new $`U(1)`$ chiral condensate, which must be inserted in the chiral effective Lagrangian. It was shown in Refs.  that the most simple effective Lagrangian, constructed with the fields $`U`$, $`X`$ and $`Q`$, is:

$`(U,U^{},X,X^{},Q)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{Tr}(_\mu U^\mu U^{})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_\mu X^\mu X^{}+`$ (9)
$`V(U,U^{},X,X^{})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}iQ(x)\omega _1\mathrm{Tr}[\mathrm{log}(U)\mathrm{log}(U^{})]+`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}iQ(x)(1\omega _1)[\mathrm{log}(X)\mathrm{log}(X^{})]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2A}}Q^2(x),`$
where the potential term $`V(U,U^{},X,X^{})`$ has the form:

$`V(U,U^{},X,X^{})={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\lambda _\pi ^2\mathrm{Tr}[(U^{}U\rho _\pi 𝐈)^2]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\lambda _X^2(X^{}X\rho _X)^2`$ (10)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{B_m}{2\sqrt{2}}}\mathrm{Tr}[MU+M^{}U^{}]{\displaystyle \frac{c_1}{2\sqrt{2}}}[det(U)X^{}+det(U^{})X].`$
$`M`$ represents the quark mass matrix, $`M=\mathrm{diag}(m_1,\mathrm{},m_L)`$, and $`A`$ is the topological susceptibility in the pure YM theory. All the parameters appearing in the Lagrangian are to be considered as functions of the physical temperature $`T`$. In particular, the parameters $`\rho _\pi `$ and $`\rho _X`$ are responsible for the behaviour of the theory respectively across the $`SU(L)SU(L)`$ and the $`U(1)`$ chiral phase transitions, according to the following table:

|  |  | $`T<T_{ch}`$ | $`T_{ch}<T<T_{U(1)}`$ | $`T>T_{U(1)}`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | $`\rho _\pi `$ | $`\frac{1}{2}F_\pi ^2>0`$ | $`\frac{1}{2}B_\pi ^2<0`$ | $`\frac{1}{2}B_\pi ^2<0`$ |
|  | $`\rho _X`$ | $`\frac{1}{2}F_X^2>0`$ | $`\frac{1}{2}F_X^2>0`$ | $`\frac{1}{2}B_X^2<0`$ |
| \[Tab.1\] | | | |  |

\[That is: $`\rho _\pi (T_{ch})=0`$ and $`\rho _X(T_{U(1)})=0`$.\] The $`U(1)`$ chiral symmetry remains broken also in the region of temperatures $`T_{ch}<T<T_{U(1)}`$, where on the contrary the $`SU(L)SU(L)`$ chiral symmetry is restored. The $`U(1)`$ chiral symmetry is restored above $`T_{U(1)}`$. We also assume that the topological susceptibility of the pure YM theory, $`A(T)`$, drops to zero at a temperature $`T_\chi `$ greater than $`T_{ch}`$. Then, for the consistency of the model, it must be $`T_\chi T_{U(1)}`$.

One can study the mass spectrum of the theory for $`T<T_{ch}`$ and $`T_{ch}<T<T_{U(1)}`$. First of all, let us see what happens for $`T<T_{ch}`$, where both the $`SU(L)SU(L)`$ and the $`U(1)`$ chiral symmetry are broken. Integrating out the field variable $`Q`$ and taking only the quadratic part of the Lagrangian, one finds that, in the chiral limit $`sup(m_i)0`$, there are $`L^21`$ zero–mass states, which represent the $`L^21`$ Goldstone bosons coming from the breaking of the $`SU(L)SU(L)`$ chiral symmetry down to $`SU(L)_V`$. Then there are two singlet eigenstates:

$`\eta ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{F_\pi ^2+LF_X^2}}}(\sqrt{L}F_XS_X+F_\pi S_\pi ),`$
$`\eta _X`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{F_\pi ^2+LF_X^2}}}(F_\pi S_X+\sqrt{L}F_XS_\pi ),`$ (11)
(where $`S_\pi `$ is the usual $`SU(L)`$ singlet meson field associated with $`U`$, while $`S_X`$ is the meson field associated with $`X`$) with non–zero masses. One of them ($`\eta ^{}`$) has a “light” mass, in the sense of the $`N_c\mathrm{}`$ limit, being

$$m_\eta ^{}^2=\frac{2LA}{F_\pi ^2+LF_X^2}=𝒪(\frac{1}{N_c}).$$
(12)
This mass is intimately related to the anomaly and they both vanish in the $`N_c\mathrm{}`$ limit. On the contrary the field $`\eta _X`$ has a sort of “heavy hadronic” mass of order $`𝒪(1)`$ in the large–$`N_c`$ limit. We immediately see that, if we put $`F_X=0`$ in the above–written formulae (i.e., if we neglect the new $`U(1)`$ chiral condensate), then $`\eta ^{}=S_\pi `$ and $`m_\eta ^{}^2`$ reduces to $`\frac{2LA}{F_\pi ^2}`$, which is the “usual” $`\eta ^{}`$ mass in the chiral limit.  Yet, in the general case $`F_X0`$, the two states which diagonalize the squared mass matrix are linear combinations of the “quark–anti-quark” singlet field $`S_\pi `$ and of the “exotic” field $`S_X`$. Both the $`\eta ^{}`$ and the $`\eta _X`$ have the same quantum numbers (spin, parity and so on), but they have a different quark content: one is mostly $`i(\overline{q}_Lq_R\overline{q}_Rq_L)`$, while the other is mostly $`i[det(\overline{q}_{sL}q_{tR})det(\overline{q}_{sR}q_{tL})]`$. What happens when approaching the chiral transition temperature $`T_{ch}`$? We know that $`F_\pi (T)0`$ when $`TT_{ch}`$. From Eq. (12) we see that $`m_\eta ^{}^2(T_{ch})=\frac{2A}{F_X^2}`$ and, from the first Eq. (11), $`\eta ^{}(T_{ch})=S_X`$. We have continuity in the mass spectrum of the theory through the chiral phase transition at $`T=T_{ch}`$. In fact, if we study the mass spectrum of the theory in the region of temperatures $`T_{ch}<T<T_{U(1)}`$ (where the $`SU(L)SU(L)`$ chiral symmetry is restored, while the $`U(1)`$ chiral symmetry is still broken), one finds that there is a singlet meson field $`S_X`$ (associated with the field $`X`$ in the chiral Lagrangian) with a squared mass given by (in the chiral limit): $`m_{S_X}^2=\frac{2A}{F_X^2}`$. This is nothing but the would–be Goldstone particle coming from the breaking of the $`U(1)`$ chiral symmetry, i.e., the $`\eta ^{}`$, which, for $`T>T_{ch}`$, is a sort of “exotic” matter field of the form $`i[det(\overline{q}_{sL}q_{tR})det(\overline{q}_{sR}q_{tL})]`$. Its existence could be proved perhaps in the near future by heavy–ions experiments.

## 6 Conclusions

We have tried to gain a physical insight into the breaking mechanism of the $`U(1)`$ axial symmetry, through a study of the behaviour of the theory at finite temperature. In the following, we briefly summarize the main points that we have discussed and the results that we have obtained.

* One expects that, above a certain critical temperature, also the $`U(1)`$ axial symmetry will be (approximately) restored. We have tried to see if this transition has (or has not) anything to do with the usual $`SU(L)SU(L)`$ chiral transition: various possible scenarios have been discussed.
* We have proposed a scenario (supported by lattice results) in which the $`U(1)`$ axial symmetry is still broken above the chiral transition. A new order parameter is introduced for the $`U(1)`$ axial symmetry.
* We have shown that this scenario can be consistently reproduced using an effective Lagrangian model. We have analysed the effects that one should observe on the mass spectrum of the theory, both below and above $`T_{ch}`$. In this scenario, the $`\eta ^{}`$ survives across the chiral transition at $`T_{ch}`$ in the form of an “exotic” $`2L`$–fermion state.

This scenario could perhaps be verified in the near future by heavy–ions experiments, by analysing the spectrum in the singlet sector. Some tests and verifications of this picture could also be provided by Monte Carlo simulations on the lattice.