text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The desire to extend the original AdS/CFT correspondence  to examples with less supersymmetry has prompted the study of branes at conical singularities. An important example is that of $`N`$ D3-branes at the singularity of the conifold . The resulting four-dimensional $`𝒩=1`$ gauge theory has gauge group $`\mathrm{SU}(N)\times \mathrm{SU}(N)`$ and chiral matter multiplets in the bifundamental representations of the gauge group. The addition of $`M`$ fractional D3-branes changes the gauge group to $`\mathrm{SU}(N+M)\times \mathrm{SU}(N)`$  (other models within the same universality class have also recently attracted attention, see e.g. ). This non-conformal theory exhibits a duality cascade

$$\mathrm{SU}(N+M)\times \mathrm{SU}(N)\mathrm{SU}(NM)\times \mathrm{SU}(N)\mathrm{}\mathrm{SU}(M+p)\times \mathrm{SU}(p),$$
(1.1)
with $`1pM`$, where the simplest case is $`p=1`$ for which one finds an $`\mathrm{SU}(M+1)\times \mathrm{SU}(1)\mathrm{SU}(M+1)`$ theory at the end of the cascade.

A richer example is that of D3-branes at the singularity of an orientifolded conifold (where the orientifold arises from an O7-plane together with 8 D7-branes required for consistency) leading to an $`𝒩=1`$ $`\mathrm{Sp}(2N)\times \mathrm{Sp}(2N)`$ gauge theory with matter in the bifundamental and fundamental representations of the gauge group . The addition of $`M`$ fractional D3-branes changes the gauge group to $`\mathrm{Sp}(2N+2M)\times \mathrm{Sp}(2N)`$ and leads to a cascade

$$\mathrm{Sp}(2N+2M)\times \mathrm{Sp}(2N)\mathrm{Sp}(2N2M)\times \mathrm{Sp}(2N)\mathrm{}\mathrm{Sp}(2M+2p)\times \mathrm{Sp}(2p).$$
(1.2)
At the end of the cascade one arrives at an $`\mathrm{Sp}(2M+2p)\times \mathrm{Sp}(2p)`$ gauge theory, where $`2p2M`$, the simplest case being $`2p=2`$.

In this paper we study the $`\mathrm{Sp}(2N+2M)\times \mathrm{Sp}(2N)`$ gauge theory on a stack of $`N`$ physical D3-branes and $`M`$ fractional (half) D3-branes placed at the singularity of the orientifolded conifold mentioned above. This field theory is dual to type IIB string theory on $`\mathrm{𝐴𝑑𝑆}_5\times T^{11}/\mathrm{𝖹𝖹}_2`$ where the $`\mathrm{𝖹𝖹}_2`$ is an orientifold operation described in more detail later. In the dual theory the $`N`$ D3-branes are replaced by an $`_5`$ flux on $`T^{11}/\mathrm{𝖹𝖹}_2`$ and the $`M`$ fractional branes are replaced by an $`F_3`$ flux on an $`S^3/\mathrm{𝖹𝖹}_2`$ inside $`T^{11}/\mathrm{𝖹𝖹}_2`$. This model, which is a natural extension of previously studied models , is interesting because the D7-branes give rise to matter fields in the field theory transforming in the fundamental representation of the gauge group, which leads to an intricate Higgs branch structure of the moduli space of the theory.

This paper is organized as follows. In section 2 we briefly review the relevant orientifolded conifold theories, while in section 3 we describe some aspects of the cascade of the $`\mathrm{Sp}(2N+2M)\times \mathrm{Sp}(2N)`$ theory and check that the Klebanov-Strassler supergravity solution  is also a solution in the orientifolded theory. Section 4 is devoted to a study of the (classical) moduli space of the $`\mathrm{Sp}(2N_1)\times \mathrm{Sp}(2N_2)`$ gauge theory with chiral multiplets in both the fundamental and bifundamental representations of the gauge group. The analysis of this section sets the stage for the more detailed analysis in section 5 of the full quantum moduli space of the $`\mathrm{Sp}(2M+2)\times \mathrm{Sp}(2)`$ theory at the end of the duality cascade. We carry out the analysis in section 5 in two steps, first describing the classical moduli space and then the quantum moduli space. We also discuss the interpretation of the moduli space in terms of the dual string theory. We find that the classical and quantum solutions join smoothly and that a deformation of the conifold arises in the quantum theory as expected. In section 6 we discuss the interpretation of the moduli space in terms of type IIA and M-theory brane configurations. In section 7 we summarize our findings.

## 2 Orientifolded conifold theories

The $`𝒩=1`$ $`\mathrm{SU}(N)\times \mathrm{SU}(N)`$ superconformal gauge theory with chiral multiplets in the $`2(\text{    },\overline{\text{    }})2(\overline{\text{    }},\text{    })`$ bifundamental representations arises as the low energy limit of the world-volume theory on $`N`$ D3-branes at a conifold singularity . The conifold  can be described as the subspace of $`𝖨\mathrm{C}^4`$ defined by the equation $`z_1^2+z_2^2+z_3^2+z_4^2=0`$. Via a linear change of basis the conifold can also be written $`xy=wz`$. The base of the conifold, obtained by intersecting the above space with $`|z_1|^2+|z_2|^2+|z_3|^2+|z_4|^2=1`$, is $`T^{11}=\left[\mathrm{SU}(2)\times \mathrm{SU}(2)\right]/\mathrm{U}(1)`$. A striking example of the AdS/CFT correspondence  is the duality between this field theory, and type IIB string theory on $`\mathrm{𝐴𝑑𝑆}_5\times T^{11}`$ .

Orientifolds of the conifold lead to further examples of the AdS/CFT correspondence. The following two models arise as the low-energy theories on the D3-branes in a conifold background with an orientifold $`\mathrm{𝖹𝖹}_2`$ symmetry that does not break any supersymmetry, and are dual to type IIB string theory on $`\mathrm{𝐴𝑑𝑆}_5\times T^{11}/\mathrm{𝖹𝖹}_2`$ :

$$\begin{array}{c}& (\mathrm{i})\hfill & \mathrm{Sp}(2N)\times \mathrm{Sp}(2N),\hfill & \mathrm{with}\hfill & \multicolumn{-3}{c}{2(\text{},\text{})4(\text{},1)4(1,\text{}),}\\ & (\mathrm{ii})\hfill & \mathrm{Sp}(2N)\times \mathrm{SO}(2N+2),\hfill & \mathrm{with}\hfill & \multicolumn{-3}{c}{2(\text{},\text{}).}\end{array}$$

The form of the $`\mathrm{𝖹𝖹}_2`$ action on the conifold can be determined from the corresponding IIA brane configurations (see section 6 for further details).

For model (i), the action of the orientifold on the conifold becomes  $`zw`$, with $`x`$, $`y`$ invariant, or, equivalently, $`(z_1,z_2,z_3,z_4)(z_1,z_2,z_3,z_4)`$. The fixed point set of this action is the $`w=z`$ subspace of the conifold, whose three-dimensional intersection with $`|z_1|^2+|z_2|^2+|z_3|^2+|z_4|^2=1`$ was called $`X_3`$ in ref. . The model thus contains an O7-plane, and also for consistency 8 D7-branes. The world volume of the O7-plane and D7-branes is $`\mathrm{𝐴𝑑𝑆}_5\times X_3`$.

For model (ii), the orientifold action can be shown to be $`xx`$, $`yy`$ and $`zw`$, or, equivalently, $`(z_1,z_2,z_3,z_4)(z_1,z_2,z_3,z_4)`$ using the approach of . This result was recently obtained in  using a slightly different approach. This action has no fixed points inside $`T^{11}`$, so model (ii) has no orientifold-planes or D7-branes.

For other discussions of various orientifolds of the conifold, see e.g. .

## 3 Cascading theories

Generalizations of the orientifolded models considered in the previous section may be obtained by including fractional D3-branes at the conifold singularity, breaking the superconformal invariance. The addition of the fractional branes increases the rank of first factor in the product gauge groups. The resulting field theories have gauge groups $`\mathrm{Sp}(2N+2M)\times \mathrm{Sp}(2N)`$ and $`\mathrm{Sp}(2N+2M)\times \mathrm{SO}(2N+2)`$, respectively.

The lack of conformal invariance causes the gauge couplings to run. The first factor of the $`\mathrm{Sp}(2N+2M)\times \mathrm{Sp}(2N)`$ theory has effectively $`2N_f=4N+4`$ fields in the fundamental representation: four from the fundamentals, and $`4N`$ from the bifundamentals. The beta function is therefore negative, and the coupling becomes strong in the infrared. Seiberg duality  can be used to transform this to another weakly-coupled gauge theory. Seiberg duality relates a strongly-coupled $`\mathrm{Sp}(2N_c)`$ theory with $`2N_f`$ chiral superfields in the fundamental representation to a weakly-coupled $`\mathrm{Sp}(2N_\mathrm{f}2N_c4)`$ theory with the same number of fundamental superfields . In our case, Seiberg duality implies

$`\mathrm{Sp}(2N+2M)\times \mathrm{Sp}(2N)\mathrm{Sp}(2N2M)\times \mathrm{Sp}(2N).`$ (3.1)
In the new theory, the gauge coupling of the second group factor now becomes strong in the infrared, leading to a second duality transformation. This process continues, leading to a duality cascade:

$$\mathrm{Sp}(2N+2M)\times \mathrm{Sp}(2N)\mathrm{Sp}(2N2M)\times \mathrm{Sp}(2N)\mathrm{Sp}(2N2M)\times \mathrm{Sp}(2N4M)\mathrm{}$$
(3.2)
just as in the case of the $`\mathrm{SU}(N+M)\times \mathrm{SU}(N)`$ theory . At the end of the cascade one arrives at a $`\mathrm{Sp}(2M+2p)\times \mathrm{Sp}(2p)`$ theory, where $`2p2M`$. A similar cascading phenomenon was shown for the $`\mathrm{Sp}(2N+2M)\times \mathrm{SO}(2N+2)`$ case in refs. .

The dual supergravity solution describing the cascade of the $`\mathrm{SU}(N+M)\times \mathrm{SU}(N)`$ model was found in  (following earlier work in ); see also . At the end of the cascade the conifold is replaced by its deformed version. The solution in  is also a solution of the orientifolded theory dual to the $`\mathrm{Sp}\times \mathrm{Sp}`$ gauge theory (for the theory dual to the $`\mathrm{Sp}\times \mathrm{SO}`$ gauge theory, this was shown in ref. ). This follows because $`F_3`$ and $`H_3`$ change sign under the interchange of $`z`$ and $`w`$, whereas the metric and $`F_5`$ are invariant. Combining this with the action of $`\mathrm{\Omega }(1)^{F_L}`$, this shows that all fields are invariant under the orientifold projection.

Based on the properties of the supergravity solution one expects to find the deformed conifold at the end of the flow. To understand the geometry at the end of the flow, we can probe the background with a single D3-brane as in ref. , i.e. we will assume that $`p=1`$ (note that the probe brane has a mirror). To probe the theory, therefore, we must analyze the moduli space of the $`\mathrm{Sp}(2M+2)\times \mathrm{Sp}(2)`$ gauge theory. This analysis will be carried out in section 5. First, however, we consider the more general case of the $`\mathrm{Sp}(2N_1)\times \mathrm{Sp}(2N_2)`$ gauge theory moduli space.

## 4 The $`\mathrm{Sp}(2N_1)\times \mathrm{Sp}(2N_2)`$ gauge theory moduli space

In this section, we analyze the (classical) moduli space of the $`𝒩=1`$ $`\mathrm{Sp}(2N_1)\times \mathrm{Sp}(2N_2)`$ gauge theory with four chiral matter multiplets in the fundamental representation of each factor of the gauge group, and two in the bifundamental representation. To obtain the $`𝒩=1`$ superpotential for this theory, we start with the $`𝒩=2`$ version of the theory, turn on (opposite sign) masses for the adjoint chiral superfields, which breaks the supersymmetry to $`𝒩=1`$, and integrate out the massive fields. This procedure is analogous to the way one obtains the $`𝒩=1`$ $`\mathrm{SU}(N_1)\times \mathrm{SU}(N_2)`$ theory from its $`𝒩=2`$ cousin .

The $`𝒩=2`$ $`\mathrm{Sp}(2N_1)\times \mathrm{Sp}(2N_2)`$ theory can be obtained by orientifolding the $`𝒩=2`$ $`\mathrm{SU}(2N_1)\times \mathrm{SU}(2N_2)`$ theory. However, for both calculational and notational purposes it is convenient to view the the superpotential for the $`𝒩=2`$ $`\mathrm{Sp}(2N_1)\times \mathrm{Sp}(2N_2)`$ theory as arising from that of another $`𝒩=2`$ $`\mathrm{SU}(2N_1)\times \mathrm{SU}(2N_2)`$ gauge theory, with matter hypermultiplets in both the bifundamental and the fundamental representations, by imposing a projection on all the fields.

We therefore consider the $`\mathrm{SU}(2N_1)\times \mathrm{SU}(2N_2)`$ theory with two $`𝒩=2`$ vector multiplets in the adjoint representations of $`\mathrm{SU}(2N_1)`$ and $`\mathrm{SU}(2N_2)`$ respectively, two $`𝒩=2`$ hypermultiplets in the bifundamental representations, and also an additional four $`𝒩=2`$ hypermultiplets in the fundamental representation of each gauge group. Our notation is such that a lower/upper index $`a=1,\mathrm{},2N_1`$ denotes a component in the fundamental/antifundamental representation of $`\mathrm{SU}(2N_1)`$, and a lower/upper index $`\overline{a}=1,\mathrm{},2N_2`$ denotes a component in the fundamental/antifundamental representation of $`\mathrm{SU}(2N_2)`$. In $`𝒩=1`$ language the two $`𝒩=2`$ vector multiplets consist of two vector multiplets corresponding to the two gauge groups, and two chiral multiplets $`\varphi _{1a}^{}{}_{}{}^{b}`$ and $`\varphi _{2\overline{a}}^{}{}_{}{}^{\overline{b}}`$. The two $`𝒩=2`$ bifundamental hypermultiplets consist of two $`𝒩=1`$ chiral multiplets $`A_{ia}^{}{}_{}{}^{\overline{b}}`$ $`(i=1,2)`$ in the $`(\text{    },\overline{\text{    }})`$ of $`\mathrm{SU}(2N_1)\times \mathrm{SU}(2N_2)`$ and two $`𝒩=1`$ chiral multiplets $`B_{i\overline{a}}^{}{}_{}{}^{b}`$ $`(i=1,2)`$ in the $`(\overline{\text{    }},\text{    })`$ representation. In addition, the four $`𝒩=2`$ multiplets in the fundamental representation consist of four $`𝒩=1`$ chiral multiplets $`Q_{1}^{I}{}_{a}{}^{}`$ $`(I=1,\mathrm{},4)`$ in the $`(\text{    },1)`$ and four $`𝒩=1`$ chiral multiplets $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_{1I}^a`$ in the $`(\overline{\text{    }},1)`$, as well as $`Q_{2}^{I}{}_{\overline{a}}{}^{}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_{2I}^{\overline{a}}`$ in the $`(1,\text{    })`$ and $`(1,\overline{\text{    }})`$ respectively.

The $`𝒩=2`$ superpotential for this theory is

$$𝒲_{𝒩=2}=\sqrt{2}\left\{\mathrm{Tr}\left[\varphi _1\left(A_1B_1+A_2B_2\right)+\varphi _2\left(B_1A_1+B_2A_2\right)\right]+\stackrel{~}{Q}_{1I}\varphi _1Q_1^I\stackrel{~}{Q}_{2I}\varphi _2Q_2^I\right\}.$$
(4.1)
We may reduce the gauge group to $`\mathrm{Sp}(2N_1)\times \mathrm{Sp}(2N_2)`$ by imposing the projections

$$\varphi _{1a}^{}{}_{}{}^{b}=J_{ac}J^{bd}\varphi _{1d}^{}{}_{}{}^{c},\varphi _{2\overline{a}}^{}{}_{}{}^{\overline{b}}=J_{\overline{a}\overline{c}}J^{\overline{b}\overline{d}}\varphi _{2\overline{d}}^{}{}_{}{}^{\overline{c}},$$
(4.2)
on the adjoint hypermultiplets (and the vector multiplets). Here $`J^{ab}`$ and $`J^{\overline{a}\overline{b}}`$ are the symplectic units of $`\mathrm{Sp}(2N_1)`$ and $`\mathrm{Sp}(2N_2)`$, respectively, which are used to raise and lower indices. Projections on the other hypermultiplet fields

$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}\hfill B_{1\overline{a}}^{}{}_{}{}^{b}& =& J_{\overline{a}\overline{c}}J^{bd}A_{2d}^{}{}_{}{}^{\overline{c}},\hfill & & \hfill B_{2\overline{a}}^{}{}_{}{}^{b}& =& J_{\overline{a}\overline{c}}J^{bd}A_{1d}^{}{}_{}{}^{\overline{c}},\hfill \\ \hfill \stackrel{~}{Q}_{1J}^a& =& g_{IJ}J^{ab}Q_{1}^{J}{}_{b}{}^{},\hfill & & \hfill \stackrel{~}{Q}_{2J}^{\overline{a}}& =& g_{IJ}J^{\overline{a}\overline{b}}Q_{2}^{J}{}_{\overline{b}}{}^{},\hfill \end{array}$$
(4.3)
result in the $`𝒩=2`$ $`\mathrm{Sp}(2N_1)\times \mathrm{Sp}(2N_2)`$ gauge theory with two $`𝒩=1`$ chiral multiplets in the bifundamental $`(\text{    },\text{    })`$ and four $`𝒩=1`$ chiral multiplets in each of the fundamental representations $`(\text{    },1)`$ and $`(1,\text{    })`$ (as well as chiral multiplets in the adjoint representation of the gauge group). In subsequent calculations we use the explicit basis choices $`g_{IJ}=\sigma _x1\mathrm{l}_{2\times 2}`$, and $`J^{ab}=i\sigma _y1\mathrm{l}_{N_1\times N_1}`$ (and similarly for $`J^{\overline{a}\overline{b}}`$). In more readable matrix notation, the projections (4.2) and (4.3) become

$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}\hfill \varphi _1& =& J_1\varphi _1^TJ_1,\hfill & & \hfill \varphi _2& =& J_2\varphi _2^TJ_2,\hfill \\ \hfill B_1& =& J_2A_2^TJ_1,\hfill & & \hfill B_2& =& J_2A_1^TJ_1,\hfill \\ \hfill \stackrel{~}{Q}_{1I}^T& =& g_{IJ}J_1Q_1^J,\hfill & & \hfill \stackrel{~}{Q}_{2I}^T& =& g_{IJ}J_2Q_2^J,\hfill \end{array}$$
(4.4)
where $`J^{ab}=J_1`$ and $`J_{ab}=J_1^1=J_1`$ (and similarly for $`J^{\overline{a}\overline{b}}=J_2`$). We could use the constraints (4.4) to eliminate half the fields in (4.1) but it will be clearer to continue to write the superpotential as (4.1), with the constraints understood.

Now we include a bare mass $`\mu `$ for the adjoint hypermultiplets in the superpotential

$$𝒲_{\mathrm{mass}}=\mu \mathrm{Tr}(\varphi _1^2\varphi _2^2),$$
(4.5)
breaking the $`𝒩=2`$ supersymmetry to $`𝒩=1`$. Taking $`\mu `$ to be large, we may integrate out the adjoint fields from the superpotential, giving the quartic superpotential for the $`𝒩=1`$ $`\mathrm{Sp}(2N_1)\times \mathrm{Sp}(2N_2)`$ gauge theory:

$`𝒲_{𝒩=1}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mu }}[\mathrm{Tr}(A_1B_1A_2B_2B_1A_1B_2A_2)+\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{Q}_{1I}Q_1^J\stackrel{~}{Q}_{1J}Q_1^I\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{Q}_{2I}Q_2^J\stackrel{~}{Q}_{2J}Q_2^I`$ (4.6)
$`+\stackrel{~}{Q}_{1I}(A_1B_1+A_2B_2)Q_1^I\stackrel{~}{Q}_{2I}(B_1A_1+B_2A_2)Q_2^I].`$
When integrating out $`\varphi _1`$ and $`\varphi _2`$, we must implement the constraint (4.2), but this will be automatic as long as the matter hypermultiplets obey the constraints (4.3).

Since we will later be interested in the regime where the first gauge group is strongly coupled, we define a set of fields that are singlets under $`\mathrm{Sp}(2N_1)`$:

$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}\hfill (N_{ij})_{\overline{a}}^{}{}_{}{}^{\overline{b}}& =& B_{j\overline{a}}^{}{}_{}{}^{c}A_{ic}^{}{}_{}{}^{\overline{b}},\hfill & & \hfill M_I^J& =& \stackrel{~}{Q}_{1I}^aQ_{1}^{J}{}_{a}{}^{},\hfill \\ \hfill u_{iI}^{\overline{a}}& =& \stackrel{~}{Q}_{1I}^bA_{ib}^{}{}_{}{}^{\overline{a}},\hfill & & \hfill v_{i\overline{a}}^I& =& B_{i\overline{a}}^{}{}_{}{}^{b}Q_{1}^{I}{}_{b}{}^{},\hfill \end{array}(i,j=1,2)$$
(4.7)
in terms of which the superpotential (4.6) becomes

$`𝒲_{𝒩=1}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mu }}[\mathrm{Tr}(N_{12}N_{21}N_{11}N_{22})+\frac{1}{2}M_I{}_{}{}^{J}M_{J}^{}{}_{}{}^{I}\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{Q}_{2I}Q_2^J\stackrel{~}{Q}_{2J}Q_2^I`$ (4.8)
$`+u_{iI}v_i^I\stackrel{~}{Q}_{2I}(N_{11}+N_{22})Q_2^I],`$
where the trace is over $`\mathrm{Sp}(2N_2)`$ indices. For later convenience we also define the fields

$$\sigma _{\overline{a}}^{}{}_{}{}^{\overline{b}}=Q_{2}^{I}{}_{\overline{a}}{}^{}\stackrel{~}{Q}_{2I}^{\overline{b}}.$$
(4.9)
even though the $`Q_{2}^{I}{}_{\overline{a}}{}^{}`$ are themselves singlets under $`\mathrm{Sp}(2N_1)`$.

The constraints (4.3) imply that the $`\mathrm{Sp}(2N_1)`$ gauge-invariant fields obey

$`N_{11}=J_2N_{22}^TJ_2,N_{12}`$ $`=`$ $`J_2N_{12}^TJ_2,N_{21}=J_2N_{21}^TJ_2,`$ (4.10)
$`u_{iI}^T`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_{ij}g_{IJ}J_2v_j^J,`$ (4.11)
$`M_I^J`$ $`=`$ $`g_{IK}g^{JL}M_L{}_{}{}^{K},`$ (4.12)
$`\sigma `$ $`=`$ $`J_2\sigma ^TJ_2.`$ (4.13)
where $`ϵ_{12}=1`$. The $`4\times 4`$ matrix $`M_I^J`$ parametrized by

$$M=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}W& 0& Y& P\\ 0& W& Q& X\\ X& P& Z& 0\\ Q& Y& 0& Z\end{array}\right)$$
(4.14)
automatically satisfies the constraint (4.12).

The classical F-term equations are obtained by varying the superpotential (4.6) with respect to the independent variables $`A_i`$ and $`Q_i`$ (recall that $`B_i`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_i`$ are not independent variables, cf. (4.3)). However, it is easy to see that one obtains the same equations by treating $`A_i`$, $`B_i`$, $`Q_i`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_i`$ as independent when performing the variation. Varying with respect to $`A_1`$ and $`A_2`$ gives

$`N_{21}B_2N_{22}B_1+v_1^I\stackrel{~}{Q}_{1I}\sigma B_1`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`N_{12}B_1N_{11}B_2+v_2^I\stackrel{~}{Q}_{1I}\sigma B_2`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (4.15)
Multiplying these equations on the right by $`A_i`$, we obtain

$`N_{21}N_{12}N_{22}N_{11}+v_1^Iu_{1I}\sigma N_{11}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`N_{21}N_{22}N_{22}N_{21}+v_1^Iu_{2I}\sigma N_{21}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`N_{12}N_{11}N_{11}N_{12}+v_2^Iu_{1I}\sigma N_{12}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`N_{12}N_{21}N_{11}N_{22}+v_2^Iu_{2I}\sigma N_{22}`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (4.16)
The F-term equations obtained by varying (4.6) with respect to $`B_1`$ and $`B_2`$,

$`A_2N_{12}A_1N_{22}+Q_1^Iu_{1I}A_1\sigma `$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`A_1N_{21}A_2N_{11}+Q_1^Iu_{2I}A_2\sigma `$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (4.17)
are equivalent to (4), using the constraints (4.3). Varying the superpotential with respect to $`Q_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_1`$ yields

$`u_{1I}B_1+u_{2I}B_2+M_I{}_{}{}^{J}\stackrel{~}{Q}_{1J}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`A_1v_1^I+A_2v_2^I+Q_1^JM_J^I`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (4.18)
where the second equation follows from the first using (4.3). Finally,

$`(N_{11}+N_{22}+\sigma )Q_2^I`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`\stackrel{~}{Q}_{2I}(N_{11}+N_{22}+\sigma )`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (4.19)
follow by varying with respect to $`Q_2`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_2`$ (the second equation follows from the first using (4.3)).

When both $`A_{ia}^{}{}_{}{}^{\overline{a}}Q_{2\overline{a}}^I\stackrel{~}{Q}_{2I}^{\overline{b}}`$ and $`Q_{1a}^I\stackrel{~}{Q}_{1I}^bA_{ib}^{}{}_{}{}^{\overline{b}}`$ vanish, the F-term equations (4), and the corresponding equations that follow from (4), imply that the set of $`2N_2\times 2N_2`$ matrices $`N_{ij}`$ mutually commute, and hence they can be diagonalized. The eigenvalues can therefore be interpreted as the positions of the D3-branes. By virtue of (4),

$$N_{21}N_{12}N_{22}N_{11}=0,$$
(4.20)
so these D3-branes live on a conifold.

For the unorientifolded $`\mathrm{SU}(N+M)\times \mathrm{SU}(N)`$ model and for the $`\mathrm{Sp}(2N+2M)\times \mathrm{SO}(2N+2)`$ orientifolded theory, equation (4.20) describes the entire classical moduli space. However, for the $`\mathrm{Sp}(2N_1)\times \mathrm{Sp}(2N_2)`$ theory the moduli space has additional structure. One way to ensure that $`A_{ia}^{}{}_{}{}^{\overline{a}}Q_{2\overline{a}}^I\stackrel{~}{Q}_{2I}^{\overline{b}}`$ and $`Q_{1a}^I\stackrel{~}{Q}_{1I}^bA_{ib}^{}{}_{}{}^{\overline{b}}`$ both vanish is to set $`Q_1`$ and $`Q_2`$ to zero, but there are also other solutions. As an example, let us assume that $`v_{iI}^b=\stackrel{~}{Q}_{1I}^bA_{ib}^{}{}_{}{}^{\overline{b}}`$ and choose a basis such that $`Q_{2\overline{a}}^I`$ is only non-zero for the first four entries ($`\overline{a}=1,2,3,4`$, say). Let us also assume that the $`N_{ij}`$’s are block diagonal with one $`4\times 4`$-dimensional block and one $`(2N_24)\times (2N_24)`$-dimensional block (it is not clear whether all solutions have this block-diagonal form). In this case the F-term equations split into two parts. For the $`(2N_24)\times (2N_24)`$-dimensional block it follows as above that the $`N_{ij}`$’s commute; hence the eigenvalues in this sector satisfy the conifold equation (4.20). For the $`4\times 4`$-dimensional block it follows from (4) that if $`\sigma =0`$ then $`N_{11}+N_{22}=0`$ has to hold (assuming that the $`Q_2^I`$’s span the $`4\times 4`$ space). As we will see in more detail in the next section, $`N_{11}+N_{22}=0`$ corresponds in the dual type IIB geometry to the point where the O7-plane and the 8 D7-branes are localized. The implications of this solution is that when the $`Q_2^I`$’s are non-zero, four of the D3-branes are stuck to the D7-branes. When $`\sigma `$ is not zero the generic solution to eq. (4) is given by $`\sigma =N_{11}N_{22}`$. Inserting this relation into (4) leads to the equations

$`N_{21}N_{12}+N_{11}^2=0,`$ $`N_{12}N_{21}+N_{22}^2=0,`$
$`N_{21}N_{22}+N_{11}N_{21}=0,`$ $`N_{12}N_{11}+N_{22}N_{12}=0.`$ (4.21)
It can be shown that there exist $`4\times 4`$-dimensional matrices satisfying these equations which are not mutually commuting. The interpretation of this non-commutative solution on the string theory side is unclear. Since the non-zero $`Q_2^I`$’s only affect a $`4\times 4`$-dimensional subspace, they are essentially a $`1/N`$ effect. Perhaps the general framework discussed in  can be used to shed some light on this sector of the moduli space.

So far we have only analyzed the classical moduli space. In general there are quantum corrections to the classical moduli space and some solutions may not have counterparts in the full quantum moduli space. The quantum modification of the superpotential for the $`\mathrm{Sp}(2N_1)\times \mathrm{Sp}(2N_2)`$ theory is not known. However, for the theory at the end of the cascade, it is possible, with certain assumptions, to determine the quantum superpotential. In the next section we will study the full quantum moduli space for the theory at the end of the cascade.

## 5 The $`\mathrm{Sp}(2N_1)\times \mathrm{Sp}(2)`$ moduli space

At the end of the cascade, we have an $`\mathrm{Sp}(2N_1)\times \mathrm{Sp}(2)`$ gauge theory. For this case, the $`2\times 2`$ matrices $`N_{ij}`$ satisfying (4.10) can be explicitly parametrized as

$$N_{11}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}w& p\\ q& z\end{array}\right),N_{12}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}x& 0\\ 0& x\end{array}\right),N_{21}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}y& 0\\ 0& y\end{array}\right),N_{22}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}z& p\\ q& w\end{array}\right).$$
(5.1)
These satisfy

$$N_{11}N_{22}N_{12}N_{21}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}xywz+pq& 0\\ 0& xywz+pq\end{array}\right),$$
(5.2)
and mutually commute

$$[N_{ij},N_{kl}]=0.$$
(5.3)
From this result it follows that for the theory at the end of the cascade there are no non-commutative solutions of the type discussed at the end of sec. 4.

We now analyze the moduli space of this theory, first considering the classical moduli space, then turning to the quantum modifications due to the dynamically-generated superpotential.

### 5.1 Classical moduli space

We do not consider the most general case, but rather analyze regions of the moduli space where, roughly speaking, the scalar vev of one or the other (or both) of the fundamental fields $`Q_1`$ and $`Q_2`$ vanishes.

Case I: $`v_i^I=0`$ and $`Q_2^I=0`$

First we consider solutions of the F-term equations for which both $`v_i^I=B_iQ_1^I=0`$ and $`Q_2^I=0`$ (thus $`\sigma =0`$). The constraints (4.11) and (4.3) then imply $`u_{iI}=0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_{2I}=0`$. The F-term equations (4) reduce to

$$N_{11}N_{22}N_{12}N_{21}=0.$$
(5.4)
We may use an $`\mathrm{Sp}(2)`$ gauge transformation to diagonalize eqs. (5.1), corresponding to setting $`p=q=0`$. The eigenvalues of $`N_{ij}`$ then correspond to the position of the D3-brane probe and its orientifold mirror. Eq. (5.4) implies

$$xywz=0,$$
(5.5)
so the probe brane (and its mirror) move on a conifold. Moreover, the orientifold action on the conifold described in sec. 2, $`zw`$, $`xx`$, $`yy`$, exchanges the positions of the probe and its mirror, so our choice of parametrization (5.1) is consistent with the variables used for the geometry in sec. 2.

The simplest way to satisfy $`B_iQ_1^I=0`$ is to set $`Q_1^I=0`$, in which case $`M_I^J`$ vanishes. $`M_I^J`$ may, however, be non-zero if not all the $`Q_1^I`$ vanish. Multiplying the first F-term equation in (4) on the right by $`Q_1^K`$, we obtain

$$M_I{}_{}{}^{J}M_{J}^{}{}_{}{}^{K}=0detM=0,$$
(5.6)
which implies

$$XYWZ=0,W=Z,P=Q=0,$$
(5.7)
in terms of the parametrization (4.14).

Case II: $`v_i^I=0`$

Next we consider the case where $`v_i^I=B_iQ_1^I=0`$, but some of the $`Q_2^I`$ are non-vanishing. The constraints (4.10) and (4.13) imply $`N_{11}+N_{22}+\sigma =J_2(N_{11}+N_{22}+\sigma )^TJ_2`$. Consequently $`N_{11}+N_{22}+\sigma `$ is proportional to a linear combination of the Pauli matrices, and therefore is invertible if it does not vanish. If it is invertible, then eq. (4) implies $`Q_2^I=0`$, contrary to assumption. Therefore, it vanishes:

$$\sigma =N_{11}N_{22}.$$
(5.8)
Setting $`v_i=0`$ in eq. (4), and using eqs. (5.3) and (5.8), we see that

$`N_{11}N_{22}N_{12}N_{21}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`N_{11}+N_{22}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`\sigma `$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (5.9)
which implies

$$xywz=0,w=z,p=q=0,$$
(5.10)
so the probe brane moves on the $`w=z`$ subspace of the conifold (5.5). The restriction to this subspace occurs only because some of the $`Q_2^I`$ have non-zero vevs. By comparing with the results in section 2 we see that the D3-brane probe (5.10) is stuck to the D7-branes which are located at the orientifold fixed point, $`z=w`$, so the minimal length of D3-D7 strings vanishes. This is consistent with the fact that the induced masses of the $`Q_2^I`$ fields, which are given by the eigenvalues of $`\sigma `$, are zero in this case, since $`\sigma `$ vanishes identically.

The fields $`Q_1^I`$ may also have non-zero vevs, as long as they satisfy $`B_iQ_1^I=0`$ and $`M_I{}_{}{}^{J}M_{J}^{}{}_{}{}^{K}=0`$. The latter condition implies that $`M_I^J`$ satisfies eq. (5.7).

Case III: $`Q_2^I=0`$

Finally, we consider the case in which $`Q_2^I=0`$ (therefore $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_{2I}=0`$), but some of the $`Q_1^I`$ are nonzero. Setting $`\sigma =0`$ in eqs. (4), and using (5.3), we see that

$$v_{j\overline{a}}^Iu_{iI}^{\overline{b}}\delta _{ij}\delta _{\overline{a}}^{}{}_{}{}^{\overline{b}}.$$
(5.11)
We assume that the constant of proportionality does not vanish, otherwise this reduces to case I. Viewing $`v_{j}^{I}{}_{\overline{a}}{}^{}`$ as vectors whose components are labelled by $`I`$ we choose a basis in which

$`v_{1}^{I}{}_{\overline{1}}{}^{}=\left(\begin{array}{c}v_{1\overline{1}}\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\end{array}\right),v_{2}^{I}{}_{\overline{2}}{}^{}=\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ v_{2\overline{2}}\\ 0\\ 0\end{array}\right),v_{2}^{I}{}_{\overline{1}}{}^{}=\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 0\\ v_{2\overline{1}}\\ 0\end{array}\right),v_{1}^{I}{}_{\overline{2}}{}^{}=\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 0\\ 0\\ v_{1\overline{2}}\end{array}\right).`$ (5.12)
The constraints (4.11) then imply

$`u_{1I}^{\overline{1}}=\left(\begin{array}{c}v_{2\overline{2}}\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\end{array}\right),u_{2I}^{\overline{2}}=\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ v_{1\overline{1}}\\ 0\\ 0\end{array}\right),u_{2I}^{\overline{1}}=\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 0\\ v_{1\overline{2}}\\ 0\end{array}\right),u_{1I}^{\overline{2}}=\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 0\\ 0\\ v_{2\overline{1}}\end{array}\right),`$ (5.13)
and the relations (5.11) imply

$$v_{2\overline{1}}v_{1\overline{2}}=v_{1\overline{1}}v_{2\overline{2}}.$$
(5.14)
The F-term equations (4) then give

$$(N_{11}N_{22}N_{12}N_{21})_{\overline{a}}^{}{}_{}{}^{\overline{b}}=v_{1\overline{1}}v_{2\overline{2}}\delta _{\overline{a}}^{}{}_{}{}^{\overline{b}}.$$
(5.15)
Multiplying the first equation of (4) on the right by $`A_{ja}^{}{}_{}{}^{\overline{b}}`$ and on the left by $`v_{i}^{I}{}_{\overline{a}}{}^{}`$ we get

$$v_{1\overline{1}}v_{2\overline{2}}\left(N_{ji}\right)_{\overline{a}}^{}{}_{}{}^{\overline{b}}+v_{i}^{I}{}_{\overline{a}}{}^{}M_I{}_{}{}^{J}u_{jJ}^{\overline{b}}=0.$$
(5.16)
Using (5.1), (5.12), and (5.13), this can be used to show that $`M`$ has the form (4.14) with

$$X=\frac{v_{1\overline{1}}}{v_{2\overline{1}}}x,Y=\frac{v_{2\overline{1}}}{v_{1\overline{1}}}y,W=w,Z=z,P=\frac{v_{1\overline{2}}}{v_{1\overline{1}}}p,Q=\frac{v_{1\overline{1}}}{v_{1\overline{2}}}q.$$
(5.17)
Next, we multiply eqs. (4) and (4) by $`Q_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_1`$, eq. (4) by $`A_i`$ and $`B_i`$, and compare the results to show

$`N_{11}+N_{22}`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (5.18)
Equation (5.18) arises only when the $`Q_1^I`$ vevs are not all zero. Equations (5.15) and (5.18) imply

$$xywz=v_{1\overline{1}}v_{2\overline{2}},w=z,p=q=0.$$
(5.19)
The matrix $`M_I^J`$ is completely determined in terms of the $`v_i^I`$ and $`N_{ij}`$ as

$$M=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}z& 0& v_{2\overline{1}}y/v_{1\overline{1}}& 0\\ 0& z& 0& v_{1\overline{1}}x/v_{2\overline{1}}\\ v_{1\overline{1}}x/v_{2\overline{1}}& 0& z& 0\\ 0& v_{2\overline{1}}y/v_{1\overline{1}}& 0& z\end{array}\right)$$
(5.20)
and obeys $`detM=(v_{1\overline{1}}v_{2\overline{2}})^2`$.

The geometrical interpretation of eq. (5.19) is not entirely clear. The induced masses of the $`Q_1^I`$ fields, which are given by the eigenvalues of $`M`$, are nonvanishing when $`v_{1\overline{1}}v_{2\overline{2}}0`$. This would appear to imply that the length of the D3-D7 strings in this case is nonvanishing.

It would be interesting to find the generalization of the solution in  describing this sector of the moduli space.

### 5.2 Quantum moduli space

At the end of the flow, the first gauge group of the $`\mathrm{Sp}(2N_1)\times \mathrm{Sp}(2)`$ theory becomes strongly coupled, and a quantum superpotential is dynamically generated. We effectively have an $`𝒩=1`$ $`\mathrm{Sp}(2N_1)`$ gauge theory with $`2N_f=8`$ hypermultiplets $`q_a^M`$, which we parametrize as

$$q_a^M=\left(\begin{array}{cccccccc}A_{1a}^{}{}_{}{}^{\overline{1}}& A_{1a}^{}{}_{}{}^{\overline{2}}& A_{2a}^{}{}_{}{}^{\overline{1}}& A_{2a}^{}{}_{}{}^{\overline{2}}& Q_{1a}^1& Q_{1a}^2& Q_{1a}^3& Q_{1a}^4\end{array}\right).$$
(5.21)
The gauge indices of the $`\mathrm{Sp}(2N_2)`$ factor act as flavor indices. When the $`𝒩=2`$ superpotential for such a theory has the form $`\sqrt{2}q_a^M\varphi ^{ab}q_b^M`$, where $`M=1,\mathrm{},2N_f`$, the Affleck-Dine-Seiberg superpotential  is given by  (when $`N_1+1>N_f`$)

$$𝒲_{\mathrm{ADS}}=(N_1+1N_f)\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝒩=1}^{3(N_1+1)N_f}}{\mathrm{Pf}V}\right)^{\frac{1}{N_1+1N_f}},$$
(5.22)
where $`V`$ is the antisymmetric $`2N_f\times 2N_f`$ meson matrix $`V^{MN}=q_a^MJ^{ab}q_b^N`$. The $`𝒩=2`$ superpotential (4.1) for the $`\mathrm{Sp}(2N_1)\times \mathrm{Sp}(2)`$ theory is not flavor diagonal in the basis (5.21), but can be written as $`\sqrt{2}q_a^Mg_{MN}\varphi ^{ab}q_b^N`$ where

$$g_{MN}=\left(\begin{array}{cccccccc}0& 0& 0& 1& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 1& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 1\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 1& 0\end{array}\right),$$
(5.23)
where the lower $`4\times 4`$ block is just the matrix $`g_{IJ}`$ introduced in eqs. (4.3). However, $`g_{MN}`$ can be diagonalized by a change of basis without altering the Pfaffian. Hence, the superpotential of the $`𝒩=1`$ $`\mathrm{Sp}(2N_1)\times \mathrm{Sp}(2)`$ theory can be written as

$$𝒲=𝒲_{𝒩=1}+(N_13)\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝒩=1}^{3N_11}}{\mathrm{Pf}V}\right)^{\frac{1}{N_13}},$$
(5.24)
with $`𝒲_{𝒩=1}`$ given by eq. (4.8) and with $`V`$ given by

$$V^{MN}=q_a^MJ^{ab}q_b^N=\left(\begin{array}{cccccccc}0& x& q& w& 0& v_{2\overline{2}}& 0& 0\\ x& 0& z& p& 0& 0& v_{2\overline{1}}& 0\\ q& z& 0& y& 0& 0& 0& v_{1\overline{2}}\\ w& p& y& 0& v_{1\overline{1}}& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& v_{1\overline{1}}& 0& W& Q& X\\ v_{2\overline{2}}& 0& 0& 0& W& 0& Y& P\\ 0& v_{2\overline{1}}& 0& 0& Q& Y& 0& Z\\ 0& 0& v_{1\overline{2}}& 0& X& P& Z& 0\end{array}\right),$$
(5.25)
where we have chosen the basis (5.12) and (5.13) for $`v_{i}^{I}{}_{\overline{a}}{}^{}`$ and $`u_{iI}^{\overline{a}}`$, and used the parametrizations (5.1) and (4.14). Using the same parametrization, the superpotential (5.24) becomes

$`𝒲`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mu }}[2(xy+wzpq)+2(v_{1\overline{1}}v_{2\overline{2}}v_{1\overline{2}}v_{2\overline{1}})+W^2+Z^22XY+2PQ`$ (5.26)
$`+(zw)(\sigma _{\overline{1}}^{}{}_{}{}^{\overline{1}}\sigma _{\overline{2}}^{}{}_{}{}^{\overline{2}})2p\sigma _{\overline{2}}^{}{}_{}{}^{\overline{1}}2q\sigma _{\overline{1}}^{}{}_{}{}^{\overline{2}}\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{Q}_{2I}Q_2^J\stackrel{~}{Q}_{2J}Q_2^I]`$
$`+(N_13)\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝒩=1}^{3N_11}}{\mathrm{Pf}V}}\right)^{\frac{1}{N_13}},`$
with

$`\mathrm{Pf}(V)=\sqrt{detV}=(xywz+pq)(XYWZ+PQ)v_{1\overline{1}}v_{1\overline{2}}v_{2\overline{1}}v_{2\overline{2}}`$
$`+\left(xYv_{1\overline{1}}v_{1\overline{2}}yXv_{2\overline{1}}v_{2\overline{2}}wWv_{1\overline{2}}v_{2\overline{1}}+zZv_{1\overline{1}}v_{2\overline{2}}+qPv_{1\overline{1}}v_{2\overline{1}}pQv_{1\overline{2}}v_{2\overline{2}}\right).`$ (5.27)
The F-term equations are derived from the superpotential (5.26) by varying with respect to the gauge invariant fields $`N_{ij}`$, $`M_I^J`$, $`v_i^I`$, and $`Q_2^I`$. These equations differ from the classical F-term equations (4), (4), and (4), even in the limit $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝒩=1}0`$, because the latter were obtained by varying (4.6) with respect to $`A_i`$, $`B_i`$ and $`Q_1^I`$. The F-term equations (4), obtained by varying with respect to $`Q_2^I`$, are the same in the classical and quantum cases, because the ADS superpotential does not depend on $`Q_2`$. Even though their derivations are different we will find that the quantum and classical solutions join smoothly.

Case I: $`v_i^I=0`$ and $`Q_2^I=0`$

As a simplification we can set $`v_i^I=0`$ and $`\sigma =0`$ directly in (5.26), (5.2) since these expressions are quadratic in $`v_i^I`$ and $`Q_2^I`$ and hence will not contribute to the variation. Comparing the F-term equations derived by varying (5.26) with respect to $`x`$, $`y`$, $`w`$, $`z`$, $`p`$, and $`q`$, and with respect to $`X`$, $`Y`$, $`W`$, $`Z`$, $`P`$, and $`Q`$, we obtain

$`xywz+pq`$ $`=`$ $`XYWZ+PQ,`$
$`W`$ $`=`$ $`Z,`$
$`P=Q`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (5.28)
implying $`\mathrm{Pf}(V)=(xywz+pq)^2`$. The F-term equations become

$$\frac{2}{\mu }\mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝒩=1}^{\frac{3N_11}{N_13}}(\mathrm{Pf}V)^{\frac{2N_1}{N_13}}(xywzpq)=0,$$
(5.29)
which implies

$$(N_{11}N_{22}N_{12}N_{21})_{\overline{a}}^{}{}_{}{}^{\overline{b}}=ϵ\delta _{\overline{a}}^{\overline{b}},\mathrm{where}ϵ=\left(\frac{\mu }{2}\right)^{\frac{N_13}{N_11}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝒩=1}^{\frac{3N_11}{N_11}}.$$
(5.30)
Setting $`p=q=0`$ using an $`\mathrm{Sp}(2)`$ gauge transformation, we find that the probe branes move on a deformed conifold

$$xywz=ϵ.$$
(5.31)
From (5.2), the matrix $`M_I^J`$ has the form

$$M_I{}_{}{}^{J}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}Z& 0& Y& 0\\ 0& Z& 0& X\\ X& 0& Z& 0\\ 0& Y& 0& Z\end{array}\right),$$
(5.32)
where the matrix elements of $`M`$ are arbitrary, but by (5.2) and (5.31) must satisfy

$$detM=(XYZ^2)^2=ϵ^2.$$
(5.33)
Unlike in the classical case, $`M=0`$ is not a solution. (If $`M_I^J`$ were to vanish, then $`𝒲_{\mathrm{ADS}}`$ would blow up.) The lower $`4\times 4`$ block of the antisymmetric matrix $`V`$ has the form

$$V^{IJ}=Q_{1a}^IJ^{ab}Q_{1b}^J=g^{IK}M_K{}_{}{}^{J}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& Z& 0& X\\ Z& 0& Y& 0\\ 0& Y& 0& Z\\ X& 0& Z& 0\end{array}\right).$$
(5.34)
A flavor transformation allows us to block-diagonalize this matrix, so that the above relations reduce to

$$V^{IJ}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& \stackrel{~}{Z}& 0& 0\\ \stackrel{~}{Z}& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& \stackrel{~}{Z}\\ 0& 0& \stackrel{~}{Z}& 0\end{array}\right),\mathrm{with}\stackrel{~}{Z}=ϵ^{\frac{1}{2}}=\left(\frac{\mu }{2}\right)^{\frac{N_13}{2N_12}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝒩=1}^{\frac{3N_11}{2N_12}},$$
(5.35)
which is exactly the meson matrix in eq. (3.12) of de Boer et. al.  for the $`𝒩=1`$ $`\mathrm{Sp}(2N_1)`$ theory with $`2N_f=4`$ fundamental fields (see also ref. ). In section 6, we will explain this in terms of the M-theory configuration corresponding to this branch of moduli space. Note that (5.35) is simply a rewriting of (5.33) since the determinant is invariant under the flavor rotation.

In the limit $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝒩=1}0`$, the solution (5.31) and (5.2) reduces to the classical solution (5.5) and (5.7).

Case II: $`v_i^I=0`$

The F-term equation obtained by varying the full superpotential (5.26) with respect to $`Q_2`$ is equivalent to the classical F-term equation (4). By the previous arguments given for the classical case II above, this yields

$$\sigma =N_{11}N_{22}.$$
(5.36)
The F-term equations derived by varying (5.26-5.2) with respect to $`N_{ij}`$ and $`M_I^J`$, after setting $`v_i^I=0`$, yield (5.2-5.29) as in case I. In addition, they imply

$$\sigma _{\overline{a}}^{}{}_{}{}^{\overline{b}}\delta _{\overline{a}}^{\overline{b}}.$$
(5.37)
This, together with the constraint (4.13), implies that $`\sigma `$ vanishes. Hence we have

$`N_{11}N_{22}N_{12}N_{21}`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ1\mathrm{l},`$
$`N_{11}+N_{22}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`\sigma `$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (5.38)
The second equation in (5.2) implies $`w=z`$ and $`p=q=0`$, so the probe brane moves on the $`w=z`$ subspace of the deformed conifold (5.31). As in case I, the field $`M`$ is of the form (5.32) satisfying (5.33).

When $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝒩=1}0`$, the quantum case II solution (5.2) reduces to the classical case II solution (5.1).

Case III: $`Q_2^I=0`$

Setting $`\sigma =0`$ in eq. (5.26), and varying with respect to $`N_{ij}`$, $`M_I^J`$, and $`v_{i\overline{a}}`$ we find

$`xywz`$ $`=`$ $`v_{1\overline{1}}v_{2\overline{2}}+ϵ`$
$`w`$ $`=`$ $`z`$
$`p=q`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
$`v_{1\overline{2}}v_{2\overline{1}}`$ $`=`$ $`v_{1\overline{1}}v_{2\overline{2}}.`$ (5.39)
Thus

$`N_{11}N_{22}N_{12}N_{21}`$ $`=`$ $`(v_{1\overline{1}}v_{2\overline{2}}+ϵ)1\mathrm{l}`$
$`N_{11}+N_{22}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (5.40)
The F-term equations also show that the matrix elements of $`M_I^J`$ are related to those of $`N_{ij}`$ by

$$X=\left(\frac{v_{1\overline{1}}}{v_{2\overline{1}}}\right)x,Y=\left(\frac{v_{2\overline{1}}}{v_{1\overline{1}}}\right)y,W=w,Z=z,P=Q=0,$$
(5.41)
which yields (5.20) but with $`x`$, $`y`$, $`z`$, and $`w`$ satisfying (5.2). The above solution reduces to the classical case III solution when $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝒩=1}0`$.

### 5.3 Summary

The various branches of the $`\mathrm{Sp}(2N_1)\times \mathrm{Sp}(2)`$ moduli space relevant to the end of the cascade, and their type IIB brane interpretations have appeared throughout this section. Here we collect these results.

The $`2\times 2`$ matrices $`N_{ij}`$ (5.1) mutually commute and their eigenvalues can be interpreted as the position of the D3-brane probe (and its mirror).

We first summarize the structure of the classical moduli space. In case I we found $`detN_{ij}=0`$ (5.4), or equivalently $`xywz=0`$ in the parametrization (5.1), so the D3-brane probe moves on the orientifolded conifold. For case II we again found $`xyzw=0`$ and in addition $`N_{11}+N_{22}=0`$ (5.1), or $`wz=0`$. The latter condition implies that the D3-brane is stuck to O7-plane/D7-brane stack. In case III we also found $`wz=0`$ together with $`xywz=v_{1\overline{1}}v_{2\overline{2}}`$ (5.19). The geometrical interpretation of these equations is less clear, but some suggestions were presented in the text.

For the quantum moduli space we found a similar structure with the quantum and classical solutions joining smoothly. In case I we found $`detN_{ij}=ϵ`$ (5.30), or $`xywz=ϵ`$, so the D3-brane probe moves on the deformed orientifolded conifold. For case II we again found $`xyzw=ϵ`$ and in addition $`N_{11}+N_{22}=0`$ (5.2), or $`wz=0`$, so the D3-brane is stuck to O7-plane/D7-brane stack. In case III we also found $`wz=0`$ together with $`xywz=v_{1\overline{1}}v_{2\overline{2}}+ϵ`$ (5.2). As in the classical case, the geometrical interpretation of these equations is unclear.

Some insight into the various branches of the quantum moduli space can be gleaned from the M-theory lift of the type IIA brane configuration corresponding to the $`\mathrm{Sp}(2N_1)\times \mathrm{Sp}(2N_2)`$ gauge theory, to which we turn next.

## 6 Type IIA and M-theory interpretations

In the previous sections we have seen that the moduli space of the $`\mathrm{Sp}(2N_1)\times \mathrm{Sp}(2N_2)`$ gauge theory and its modification by the ADS superpotential has a richer structure compared to that of its unorientifolded cousin, the $`\mathrm{SU}(N_1)\times \mathrm{SU}(N_2)`$ gauge theory.

It is fruitful to study the structure of the moduli space of the $`\mathrm{Sp}(2N_1)\times \mathrm{Sp}(2N_2)`$ theory from the viewpoint of the associated type IIA string theory configuration and its lift to M-theory, where some of the results obtained in the previous sections can be understood. We will start by briefly reviewing the type IIA setup to make the presentation more self contained.

### 6.1 Type IIA configurations

The $`\mathrm{SU}(N)\times \mathrm{SU}(N)`$ superconformal gauge theory with chiral multiplets in the $`2(\text{    },\overline{\text{    }})2(\overline{\text{    }},\text{    })`$ representations arises in type IIA string theory as the world-volume field theory on D4-branes suspended between two NS5-branes in an elliptic model (i.e., periodic in the $`x_6`$ direction) . There are $`N`$ D4-branes going along half the $`x_6`$ circle, and $`N`$ D4-branes going along the other half; the two stacks of D4-branes give rise to the two factors of the gauge group. If the NS5-branes are parallel, the $`\mathrm{SU}(N)\times \mathrm{SU}(N)`$ gauge theory has $`𝒩=2`$ supersymmetry; the $`𝒩=2`$ vector multiplet includes a chiral multiplet in the adjoint representation of the gauge group. If the NS5-branes are rotated 90 degrees with respect to one another, the $`\mathrm{SU}(N)\times \mathrm{SU}(N)`$ gauge theory has only $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetry . Rotating the NS5-branes  corresponds field-theoretically to including (opposite sign) masses (4.5) for the adjoint chiral multiplets, which breaks the supersymmetry to $`𝒩=1`$, and integrating them out.

The introduction of a pair of orientifold 6-planes into this configuration results in various $`𝒩=2`$  and $`𝒩=1`$  world-volume theories on the D4-branes, particular examples of which are the models

$$\begin{array}{c}& (\mathrm{i})\hfill & \mathrm{Sp}(2N)\times \mathrm{Sp}(2N),\hfill & \mathrm{with}\hfill & \multicolumn{-3}{c}{2(\text{},\text{})4(\text{},1)4(1,\text{})}\\ & (\mathrm{ii})\hfill & \mathrm{Sp}(2N)\times \mathrm{SO}(2N+2),\hfill & \mathrm{with}\hfill & \multicolumn{-3}{c}{2(\text{},\text{})}\end{array}$$

whose IIB realizations were already discussed in sec. 2. The O6-planes span the 0123789 directions and are separated in the (compact) 6 direction; the two NS5-branes are placed between the O6-planes and are related to each other by the orientifold symmetry. If the NS5-branes are parallel, spanning the 0123 and $`v=x_4+ix_5`$ directions, the world-volume field theories have $`𝒩=2`$ supersymmetry and include chiral multiplets in the adjoint representation of the gauge group. The NS5-branes may be rotated (in opposite directions) toward the $`u=x_8+ix_9`$ plane (so that one of them spans the $`v\mathrm{cos}\alpha +u\mathrm{sin}\alpha `$ plane and the other spans the $`v\mathrm{cos}\alpha u\mathrm{sin}\alpha `$ plane) while still respecting the orientifold symmetry (which takes $`x_6x_6`$ and $`vv`$). When $`\alpha =\pi /4`$, the NS5-branes become orthogonal, and the world-volume field theory on the D4-branes is given by (6.1). In model (i), both orientifold planes are O$`6^{}`$ planes; the configuration also contains 8 D6-branes for cancellation of 6-brane charge. In model (ii), there is one O$`6^+`$ and one O$`6^{}`$ plane and no D6-branes.

The form of the $`\mathrm{𝖹𝖹}_2`$ orientifold action on the conifold in the type IIB configuration may be determined  from the rotated IIA brane configuration described above . The D3-branes move in the background $`xy=(u\mathrm{cos}\alpha +v\mathrm{sin}\alpha )(u\mathrm{cos}\alpha v\mathrm{sin}\alpha )`$. When $`\alpha =\pi /4`$, this is just a conifold $`xy=wz`$, where $`w=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(u+v)`$ and $`z=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(uv)`$. The orientifold action implies $`uu`$, $`vv`$ so that $`wz`$, as discussed in sec. 2.

Generalizations of the orientifolded models described above may be obtained by suspending $`2M`$ additional D4-branes between the NS5-branes that only go along one of the two halves of the $`x_6`$ circle. The extra D4-branes break the superconformal invariance and are the type IIA analog of the fractional D3-branes in the type IIB theory. For recent discussions of cascading theories from the type IIA viewpoint, see .

### 6.2 M-theory configurations

Next, we turn to the M-theory lifts of these type IIA brane configurations. First, consider the configuration corresponding to the superconformal $`\mathrm{Sp}(2N)\times \mathrm{Sp}(2N)`$ gauge theory with two orthogonal NS5-branes (one spanning the $`z`$ plane and the other the $`w`$ plane) and $`2N`$ D4-branes wrapping all the way around the $`x_6`$ circle. Because the D4-branes do not end on the NS5-branes, but pass through, they can move transversely away (in the directions $`z`$, $`w`$, and $`x_7`$) from the NS5-branes. The motions of each of the $`N`$ D4-branes (which are correlated with the motion of the $`N`$ mirror branes) together with the Wilson loop expectation value around $`x_6`$, gives rise to a six-dimensional moduli space, which is classically a conifold. Since the 2 NS5-branes and the D4-branes can be physically separated, each lifts to a separate M5-brane .

Next consider the case $`2N_1>2N_2`$, in which superconformal symmetry is broken. $`2N_2`$ of the branes still wrap all the way around the $`x_6`$ circle, and can move transversely away from the other branes; the classical moduli space of these branes is, as before, the conifold. These branes lift to a “toroidal” M5-brane which is wrapped in the $`x_6`$ and $`x_{10}`$ directions.

There are $`2N_12N_2`$ additional D4-branes that wrap only half-way around the circle. These D4-branes end on the two NS5-branes (which have $`w=x_7=0`$ and $`z=x_7=0`$ respectively) and are therefore pinned in the $`z`$, $`w`$, and $`x_7`$ directions. The two NS5-branes and the D4-branes connecting them lift to a single M5-brane . This M5-brane should be similar to the “MQCD” brane that occurs in the (non-elliptic) type IIA model with O6-planes  which gives rise to the $`𝒩=1`$ $`\mathrm{Sp}(2N_c)`$ model; in the limit where the $`x_6`$-periodicity becomes large, they should become identical.

We briefly describe the form of the MQCD brane in the $`𝒩=1`$ $`\mathrm{Sp}(2N_c)`$ model obtained in a model with O6-planes, following refs. . Begin with a $`𝒩=2`$ $`\mathrm{Sp}(2N_c)`$ model with $`2N_f>0`$ massless fundamentals which arises from a IIA configuration with parallel NS5-branes extended in the $`v`$ direction. This configuration lifts to an M5-brane whose embedding is given by the Seiberg-Witten curve

$`t_++t_{}`$ $`=`$ $`C(v^2)=v^{2N_c}+\mathrm{}`$ (6.1)
$`t_+t_{}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝒩=2}^{4N_c+42N_f}v^{2N_f4}`$ (6.2)
(A possible $`v^2`$ term on the right hand side of the first equation vanishes because of the masslessness of the fundamental fields.) To obtain the curve for the $`𝒩=1`$ theory, we must relatively rotate the NS5-branes, as described above. This is possible only if the curve (6.1) degenerates to genus zero, in which case the coefficients of $`C(v^2)`$ are fixed. Rotating the NS5-branes through an angle $`\alpha =\mathrm{arctan}(\stackrel{~}{\mu })`$ (where $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }`$ is proportional to the adjoint mass $`\mu `$) in the $`vu`$ hyperplane, we obtain a curve whose projection onto the $`v`$ plane is still given by (6.1), but with asymptotic behavior

$`x_6\mathrm{},u\stackrel{~}{\mu }v,v\mathrm{},t_+v^{2N_c}`$
$`x_6+\mathrm{},u\stackrel{~}{\mu }v,v\mathrm{},t_{}v^{2N_c}`$ (6.3)
The resulting genus zero curve may be parametrized in terms of either $`w_+=u+\stackrel{~}{\mu }v`$ or $`w_{}=u\stackrel{~}{\mu }v`$. Letting

$$v=P(w_+),t_+=Q(w_+),$$
(6.4)
the orientifold symmetry $`t_+t_{}`$, $`uu`$, $`vv`$ implies

$$v=P(w_{}),t_{}=Q(w_{}).$$
(6.5)
The asymptotic conditions (6.2) then imply

$`P(w_+)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\stackrel{~}{\mu }}}\left(w_+{\displaystyle \frac{w_0^2}{w_+}}\right)`$ (6.6)
$`w_+w_{}`$ $`=`$ $`w_0^2`$ (6.7)
for some $`w_0`$. Equation (6.2) yields

$`Q(w_+)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\stackrel{~}{\mu })^{2N_c}}}w_+^{2N_c+42N_f}\left(w_+^2w_0^2\right)^{N_f2}`$ (6.8)
where

$$w_0=2\stackrel{~}{\mu }\mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝒩=2}$$
(6.9)
up to a complex phase. Following the argument of ref. , the parameter $`w_0`$ is proportional to the eigenvalue of the meson matrix constructed from the fundamental fields.

### 6.3 Moduli space

We will now establish the connection between the configuration of two disconnected M5-branes described above and the moduli space of the $`\mathrm{Sp}(2N_1)\times \mathrm{Sp}(2)`$ gauge theory as described in sec. 5. The motion of the toroidal M5-brane, which is the lift of 2 D4-branes that wrap $`x_6`$, is described by the $`2\times 2`$ matrices $`N_{ij}`$. The MQCD brane configuration is described by $`M_I^J`$, or equivalently $`V^{IJ}`$.

Case I

In case I, $`N_{ij}`$ and $`M_I^J`$ are unrelated, which reflects the independence of the 2 M5-branes. Classically, the moduli space of the toroidal M5-brane is the conifold (5.5). The ADS superpotential modifies the classical geometry to the deformed conifold (5.31).

The solution for the antisymmetric meson matrix $`V^{IJ}`$ (5.35) involves a single vev, which by virtue of the relation  $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝒩=1}^{3N_11}=\mu ^{N_1+1}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝒩=2}^{2N_12}`$ becomes

$$\stackrel{~}{Z}=2^{\frac{3N_1}{2N_12}}\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝒩=2}$$
(6.10)
This is proportional to the parameter $`w_0`$ (6.9) of the MQCD brane. This is consistent with our interpretation that $`M_I^J`$ describes the M5-brane that is the lift of two orthogonal NS5-branes and $`2N_12`$ D4-branes.

Case II

In the case II solution, $`N_{ij}`$ and $`M_I^J`$ are also unrelated, indicating that the two M5-branes are still disconnected. $`M_I^J`$ has the same form as in case I, so the MQCD brane is unaltered. In addition to satisfying the deformed conifold constraint, the $`N_{ij}`$ must also obey $`N_{11}+N_{22}=0`$ (5.2). This may be understood geometrically as follows.

Case II represents a Higgs branch of the gauge theory in which the scalar vev $`Q_2`$ is non-zero. In the type IIA configuration, this branch corresponds to D4-branes breaking on the D6-branes that lie in the interval between the two NS-branes containing the $`2`$ D4-branes. Thus, only the D4-branes that wrap around the $`x_6`$ circle (those which lift to the toroidal M5-brane) can break on the D6-branes. Since the D6-branes are coincident with the O6-plane (the fundamental fields have no bare mass), which is located at $`v=0`$ (i.e., $`w=z`$), the D4-branes can only break on them if they satisfy $`w=z`$ as well. This then implies that the toroidal M5-brane must satisfy the condition $`N_{11}+N_{22}=0`$.

Case III

Case III represents a Higgs branch of the gauge theory in which the scalar vev $`Q_1`$ is non-zero. This branch corresponds to D4-branes breaking on the D6-branes that lie in the interval between the two NS5-branes containing the $`2N_1`$ D4-branes. Since all the D4-branes can now break on the D6-branes, the configurations of both M5-branes, described by $`M_I^J`$ and $`N_{ij}`$, are altered by the $`Q_1`$ vevs.

As in case II, the D4-branes can only break on the D6-branes if they satisfy $`w=z`$, thus the toroidal M5-brane satisfies $`N_{11}+N_{22}=0`$ (5.2). The remaining $`2N_12`$ D4-branes were already pinned at the D6-brane locus, so there is no additional constraint on $`M_I^J`$.

Finally, since the breaking of the D4-branes on the D6-branes allows the entire configuration of D4-branes to be interconnected, the M5-branes to which they lift are no longer disconnected; this is reflected in the fact that $`N_{ij}`$ and $`M_I^J`$ are no longer independent, but are related by eq. (5.41).

## 7 Summary

In this paper we have presented a description of the moduli space of the $`𝒩=1`$ cascading $`\mathrm{Sp}(2N_1)\times \mathrm{Sp}(2N_2)`$ gauge theory, and the interpretation of its various branches in terms of both type IIB and type IIA/M-theory brane configurations.

In section 4 we discussed the (classical) F-term equations appropriate to the generic case, i.e. without restriction to the end of the cascade. When the scalar components of the $`Q_i`$’s do not have vevs, we argued that the D3-branes move on the orientifolded conifold. When the vevs of the $`Q_i`$’s are no longer zero we found that there are subsectors in which the $`N_{ij}`$’s are no longer mutually commuting matrices. In these sectors there does not appear to be a geometric interpretation of the $`N_{ij}`$’s as (commuting) coordinates. However, the vevs of these non-commutative $`N_{ij}`$’s span (at most) a $`4\times 4`$ subspace of the $`2N_2\times 2N_2`$ matrices $`N_{ij}`$, therefore for $`N_2`$ large, one intuitively expects them to be only a $`1/N_2`$ effect.

In sec. 5, which is the main part of the paper, we presented an extensive study of the various branches of the moduli space at the end of the cascade. We studied both the classical and the quantum versions of the moduli space. The structure of the moduli space and the dual type IIB interpretations was summarized in sec. 5.3.

In section 6 we discussed the moduli space from the viewpoint of type IIA brane configurations and their lift to M-theory. The solutions of the quantum F-term equations can be interpreted in terms of the configuration of two M5 branes, with $`N_{ij}`$ corresponding to a toroidal M5 brane that wraps the $`x_6`$ direction, and $`M_I^J`$ corresponding to an MQCD brane that is the lift of the NS5-branes and D4-branes connecting them. The case III solution in which $`N_{ij}`$ and $`M_I^J`$ are related (5.41) corresponds to one of the Higgs branches of the theory in which the two M5 branes are connected.

In a companion paper we will discuss the leading $`\alpha ^{}`$-corrections to the supergravity solution for the orientifolded models discussed in this paper (analogous to those considered in ref.  for the supergravity solution of ref. ) and the role of these corrections in the dual field theory.


format: text

text:
# On the theoretical possibility of the electromagnetic scalar potential wave spreading with an arbitrary velocity in vacuum

## Abstract

In this work we revisit the process of constructing wave equations for the scalar and vector potentials of an electromagnetic field, and show that a wave equation with an arbitrary velocity (including a velocity higher than the velocity of light in vacuum) for the scalar potential exists in the framework of classical electrodynamics. Some consequences of this fact are considered.

Our letter is devoted to the discussion of a possibility of the existence of sub- and superluminal electromagnetic waves in vacuum.

A considerable number of experimental and theoretical works about superluminal spreading of electromagnetic waves, particles and other objects have recently been published, as mentioned by E. Recami in , Walker in , Kotel’nikov in  and in the book edited by Chubykalo et al  (see also references in the mentioned works). J. Marangos wrote in his brilliant note “Faster than a speeding photon” : “The textbooks say nothing can travel faster than light, not even light itself. New experiments show that is no longer true, raising questions about the maximum speed at which we can send information.” (see also the bibliography in this work). Really, a series of recent experiments, performed at Cologne, Berkeley, Florence and Vienna, and quite recent experiments by W. Tittel et al  revealed that evanescent waves (in undersized waveguides, e.g.) seem to spread with a superluminal group velocity. For example, in up-to-date experiments by Mugnai et al (see their work ) superluminal behavior in the propagation of microwaves (centimeter wavelength) over much longer distances (tens of centimeters) at a speed 7% faster than $`c`$ was reported.

In the majority of cases, these works almost directly declare that generally accepted electrodynamics must be sufficiently reconsidered.***See incidentally “Essay on non-Maxwellian theories of electromagnetism” by V. Dvoeglazov .

In this paper we would like to address the problem of electromagnetic waves spreading with an arbitrary velocity in vacuum ($`vc`$ and $`vc`$) conditioned by a choice of gauges. In other words, we attempt to explain here these superluminal electromagnetic phenomena using well-known arbitrariness of a choice of gauges permitted by classical electrodynamics.

Is there a way of showing a possibility of the existence of the superluminal wave processes in vacuum mentioned in the beginning of the letter, without leaving the framework of classical electrodynamics? Here we show that, yes, there is.

It is known, if we are given potentials $`𝐀`$ and $`\phi `$, then these uniquely determine the fields $`𝐄`$ and $`𝐇`$:

$$𝐄=\phi \frac{1}{c}\frac{𝐀}{t}\mathrm{and}𝐇=\times 𝐀.$$
(1)
However, it is well known that the same field can correspond to different potentials. Electric and magnetic fields determined from equations (1) actually do not change upon replacement of $`𝐀`$ and $`\phi `$ by $`𝐀^{}`$ and $`\phi ^{}`$, defined by

$$𝐀^{}=𝐀+f\mathrm{and}\phi ^{}=\phi \frac{1}{c}\frac{f}{t}.$$
(2)
Only those quantities which are invariant with respect to the transformation (2) have physical meaning, so all equations must be invariant under this transformation.

This non-uniqueness of the potentials gives us the possibility of choosing them so that they fulfill one auxiliary condition (gauge) chosen by us. It means that we can set one, since we may choose the function $`f`$ in (2) arbitrarily.

Let us recall how a necessity of choosing a gauge condition arises. One substitutes fields $`𝐄`$ and $`𝐇`$, expressing by potentials $`𝐀`$ and $`\phi `$, into Maxwell equations

$`𝐄=4\pi \varrho ,`$ (3)
$`𝐇=0,`$ (4)
$`\times 𝐇={\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{c}}𝐣+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{c}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝐄}{t}},`$ (5)
$`\times 𝐄={\displaystyle \frac{1}{c}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝐇}{t}},`$ (6)
to obtain equations which are easier-to-use than the original equations with respect to fields $`𝐄`$ and $`𝐇`$. After direct substituting (1) into Maxwell equations we have:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\phi +\frac{1}{c}\frac{}{t}\mathrm{div}𝐀=4\pi \varrho $$
(7)
and

$$\mathrm{\Delta }𝐀\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{^2𝐀}{t^2}\mathrm{grad}\left(\mathrm{div}𝐀+\frac{1}{c}\frac{\phi }{t}\right)=\frac{4\pi }{c}𝐣.$$
(8)
Thus because of non-uniqueness of the potentials, we can always subject them to an auxiliary condition. For this reason, we try to choose this condition so as the system of equations (7) and (8) (or at least one of them) would be transformed into some “easy-to-solve” equations. Let us consider this problem from a purely formal, mathematical point of view. Note if a certain connection between $`\mathrm{div}𝐀`$ and $`\frac{\phi }{t}`$ exists then because of dimensions condition this connection must generally look like

$$\mathrm{div}𝐀+\alpha \frac{\phi }{t}=0,$$
(9)
where $`\alpha `$ is an arbitrary constant parameter with dimensions $`\left[\frac{1}{\mathrm{𝚌𝚖}/\mathrm{𝚜𝚎𝚌}}\right]`$. We will show that the condition (9) can satisfy (2) by a corresponding choice of function $`f`$ in (2). For this we substitute values $`𝐀^{}`$ and $`\phi ^{}`$ into (9):

$$𝐀+\mathrm{\Delta }f+\alpha \frac{\phi }{t}\frac{\alpha }{c}\frac{^2f}{t^2}=0.$$
(10)
Let us make now a formal conjecture that a perturbation of potential $`\phi `$ spreads with a certain arbitrary constant velocity $`v`$ (for a given process) which is not necessarily equal to $`c`$. We choose the arbitrary constant $`\alpha `$ as $`\alpha =\frac{c}{v^2}`$ then the condition (9) becomes

$$\mathrm{div}𝐀+\frac{c}{v^2}\frac{\phi }{t}=0,$$
(11)
.

Consequently from (10) we obtain the equation for $`f`$:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }f\frac{1}{v^2}\frac{^2f}{t^2}=F(𝐫,t),$$
(12)
where $`F(𝐫,t)=𝐀\frac{c}{v^2}\frac{\phi }{t}`$ is a given function $`𝐫`$ and $`t`$. Substituting the function $`f`$ from a solution of Eq. (12) into formulas (2) we find values of potentials $`𝐀^{}`$ and $`\phi ^{}`$ satisfying gauge (11)note that if we choose the arbitrary constant $`\alpha `$ as $`\alpha =\frac{1}{c}`$ instead of gauge (11), we obtain the well-known Lorentz gauge
$$\mathrm{div}𝐀+\frac{1}{c}\frac{\phi }{t}=0.$$
.

The gauge (11) unlike the Lorentz gauge, has no relativistically invariant character. But gauge (11) is obviously allowable in classical electrodynamics on parity with other well-known gauges: the Coulomb gauge

$$\mathrm{div}𝐀=0\mathrm{and}\mathrm{\Delta }\phi =4\pi \varrho $$
(13)
and the so-called radiation gauge

$$\mathrm{div}𝐀=0\mathrm{and}\phi =0,$$
(14)
which in turn also have no relativistically invariant character .

Let us apply the gauge (11) to Eqs. (7) and (8). As a result we obtain two equations:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\phi \frac{1}{v^2}\frac{^2\phi }{t^2}=4\pi \varrho $$
(15)
and

$$\mathrm{\Delta }𝐀\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{^2𝐀}{t^2}=\mathrm{grad}\left(\frac{v^2c^2}{cv^2}\frac{\phi }{t}\right)\frac{4\pi }{c}𝐣.$$
(16)
In current- and charge-free regions these equations become

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\phi \frac{1}{v^2}\frac{^2\phi }{t^2}=0$$
(17)
and

$$\mathrm{\Delta }𝐀\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{^2𝐀}{t^2}=\left(\frac{v^2c^2}{cv^2}\right)\mathrm{grad}\frac{\phi }{t}.$$
(18)
We can see that the equations obtained differ strongly from the well-known wave equations for charge-free space in the Lorentz gauge

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\phi _L\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{^2\phi _L}{t^2}=0$$
(19)
and

$$\mathrm{\Delta }𝐀_L\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{^2𝐀_L}{t^2}=0$$
(20)
(index $`L`$ denotes that these potentials obey Lorentz gauge). Actually, a solution of Eq.(17) is a wave of perturbation of the scalar potential spreading in vacuum with the arbitrary phase velocityrecall that in vacuum, the phase velocity and the group velocity of electromagnetic perturbation spreading coincide. $`v`$ which can be both lower than $`c`$ and higher than $`c`$ (unlike the solution of Eq.(19)!) Then there is Eq.(18) which is a wave equation with a source (unlike Eq.(20)) despite the fact that this equation is written for charge(current-)-free space. The function of source in Eq.(18) is a gradient of changing of the solution of Eq.(17) with changing of time. Note that the gauge (11) is more general gauge than Coulomb and Lorentz gauges. Actually, if we choose the arbitrary constant velocity $`v`$ in (11) as $`c`$ we obtain the Lorentz gauge and corresponding wave equations for potentials (19),(20), on the other hand if $`v`$ in (11) tends to infinity we immediately obtain the Coulomb gauge and corresponding equations for potentials:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\phi _C=4\pi \varrho $$
(21)
and

$$\mathrm{\Delta }𝐀_C\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{^2𝐀_C}{t^2}=\mathrm{grad}\left(\frac{1}{c}\frac{\phi _C}{t}\right)\frac{4\pi }{c}𝐣.$$
(22)
(index $`C`$ denotes that these potentials obey Coulomb gauge).

Obviously, equations (15)-(18) and specially Eqs. (15) and (17) can lead the way to found a theory of superluminal electromagnetic interactions and signal transfer in vacuum, which experimental evidences were mentioned in the Introduction. And the scalar potential $`\phi `$ from Eqs. (17) has to play the leading role in constructing this theory.

Against this, one can say that there is the well-known, generally accepted opinion in classical electrodynamics that electromagnetic potentials are just auxiliary quantities which have no real physical meaning (unlike real mensurable magnitudes $`𝐄`$ and $`𝐇`$). We can reply to this retort as follows:

On the one hand, from generally accepted classical electrodynamics we know that the Poynting vector is proportional to the density of the electromagnetic field momentum. But on the other hand, paradoxes connected with the Poynting vector (and, correspondingly, with an energy and momentum distribution) exist and they are well-known. For example, in  it is noted: if a point charge $`Q`$ is vibrating in some mechanical way along the $`X`$-axis with respect to a certain point $`x_Q`$, then the value of electromagnetic energy density $`w`$ (which is a point function like $`𝐄`$) on the same axis will be also oscillating. Immediately the question arises: how does the test charge $`q`$ at the point of observation, lying at some fixed distance from the point $`x_Q`$ along the continuation of the X-axis, “know” about the charge $`Q`$ vibration? In other words, we have a rather strange situation: the Poynting vector $`𝐒=\frac{c}{4\pi }[𝐄\times 𝐇]`$ is zero along this axis§§§Note that recently many works devoted to the Poynting vector concept was published. See, e.g.,  and corresponding references there. (because H is zero along this line) but the energy and the momentum, obviously “pass” from point to point along this axis. This means that we cannot be sure any more that exclusively using the vector fields $`𝐄`$ and $`𝐇`$ allows us to characterize the process of distributing the electromagnetic energy and momentum in vacuum within the framework of classical electrodynamics. It would be very interesting to carry out thorough research in this problem. At this stage, we can only say that it is unlikely that one can solve this problem without taking into account a physical reality of electromagnetic potentials waves. On the other hand the equation (17) and (18) are conjunct, i.e. the radiator (source) in the wave equation (18) for the vector potential is the function of the superluminal (for example) solution of (17)! What does it mean theoretically? It means that the source of the vector potential’s waves spreads with an superluminal velocity. But the vector potential in turn produces the variable magnetic field (it follows from $`\times 𝐀=𝐇`$). The variable magnetic field in turn produces the variable electric field. It means that a perturbation of the scalar potential started up in some distant point reaches the given point and produces in it mensurable fields $`𝐄`$ and $`𝐇`$.

It is an accepted truth that, for the purpose of long-range radio communications, one employs mainly transverse electromagnetic waves propagating at the speed of light. These waves are described mathematically by relatively simple equations whose consequences can be easily verified by experiment. On the other hand, as it was noted in the recent work , there exists an extensive area of electromagnetic phenomena characterized by a complicated and mainly approximate mathematical formulation whose consequences cannot be easily tested experimentallyOptical phenomena are not excluded, since we know nothing about the details of quantum transitions responsible for the emission of photons by atoms.. This is precisely the area where one can expect to find unknown effects and unusual properties of the electromagnetic field. Such an expectation is supported by the fact that even classical electrodynamics does not actually prohibit either the superluminal velocity or the longitudinal electromagnetic waves if we take into account the physical reality of potentials and existence of Eqs. (15)-(18). It is clear, therefore, that in general electromagnetic fields may propagate in a manner drastically different from that with which we are familiar on the basis of radio broadcasting.

For objectiveness we have to mention that many works are published where authors claim that the absolute majority of experiments discovered the superluminal propagation are incorrect (see, for example, the book  the Section “Contra”). But we just would like to note that it cannot be emphasized enough that in the problem of the experimental confirmation or confutation of the superluminal propagation the last word has not yet been said on this matter. But now we have the formal proof, based only on Maxwell electrodynamics, that electromagnetic waves connected with a perturbation of scalar potential $`\phi `$ (Eqs. (15), (17)) can travel either faster than the speed of light in vacuum $`c`$ or slower than $`c`$ but not exclusively with $`c`$ exactly! Here let us observe (following E.Recami ) that the particular role of the speed of light in the Special Relativity is due to its invariance, and not to the fact that it is (or it is not) the maximal one.

###### Acknowledgements.

The authors would like to express their gratitude to Profs. Valeri Dvoeglazov and Stanislav Pavlov from Zacatecas University for their discussions and critical comments. We would also like to thank Annamaria D’Amore for revising the manuscript.
Appendix This Chapter is added after sending the manuscript  Recently, two works  on the subject considered in this paper appeared, where it is stated that despite of non-retarded origin of the scalar potential in any gauge (except the Lorentz one), the E field calculated in any gauge is retarded. To the authors’ point of view, it is not so. One can easily see that in both cited works \**\**\**We focus on the Coulomb gauge as it is done in , but basically it can be shown for any gauge, the key point of proof of equivalence of the gauges is to show that the current density $`𝐣`$ can be presented as a sum of two currents, longitudinal and transversal:
$$𝐣_{||}+𝐣_{}=𝐣$$
(23)
by the way, the longitudinal current, which is the source in the equation for the vector potential, is yielded by the action-at-distant scalar potential so it is described by highly nonlocal function (Eq. (3.9) of  and Eq. (2.8) of ).

$$𝐣_{||}=\frac{1}{4\pi }\frac{^{}𝐣(𝐫^{},t)}{\left|𝐫𝐫^{}\right|}𝑑𝐫^{}$$
(24)
Correspondingly, the transversal current is described by highly nonlocal function too:

$$𝐣_{}=\frac{1}{4\pi }\times \times \frac{𝐣(𝐫^{},t)}{\left|𝐫𝐫^{}\right|}𝑑r^{}$$
(25)
Eqs. (24) and (25) correspond to Eqs. (6.49) and (6.50) of , where the proof that the sum of rhs of these equations is equal to the rhs of Eq. (23) is given. This proof is based on application of the vector identity

$$\times \times 𝐣=(𝐣)^2𝐣$$
(26)
and equation $`^2(1/\left|𝐫𝐫^{}\right|)=4\pi \delta (𝐫𝐫^{})`$ . However, it should be noted that while proving validity of Eq. (23), (or Eq. (6.48) of ), two formal rules are broken here, i.e.

* In Eq. (25) the differential operator $`\times \times `$ must act on the vector too but $`1/\left|𝐫𝐫^{}\right|`$ is a scalar,
* the differential operator $`\times \times `$ acts on external variable but the vector equality (26) must be applied to internal variables.

So, the proof given in  is incorrect and, therefore, calculations of works  based on this proof are incorrect too.

Physical explanation of incorrectness of this proof is simple: original current density is the local quantity. After Eq. (23), it is proposed to form the local quantity from two nonlocal quantities. Let us consider a point of space where the current is zero. We should create from this zero two vector fields; by the way one of them is rotational (Eq. 25)) and second is irrotational (Eq. (24)), i.e. two fields different in their origin. So the rotational field is equal to ’minus’ irrotational field and, because for the vector the sign ”minus” correspond to opposite direction of the vector, rotational field = - irrotational field, that is nonsense.

The reader can see that we do not use Eq. (23) in our calculations and just in this point, there is essential difference between this work and all previous works on the gauges in the classical electrodynamics where correctness of Eq. (23) is undeniably accepted.