text:
# REFERENCES

Isotopic composition of fragments in multifragmentation of very large nuclear systems: effects of the chemical equilibrium

P.M.Milazzo1, A.S.Botvina2, G.Vannini3, M.Bruno3, N.Colonna4, M.D’Agostino3, F.Gramegna5, I.Iori6, G.V.Margagliotti1, P.F.Mastinu5, A.Moroni6, R.Rui1

1Dipartimento di Fisica and INFN, 34127 Trieste, Italy

2Gesellschaft fur Schwerionenforschung, Darmstadt, Germany, and Institute for Nuclear Research, Russian Academy of Science, 117312 Moscow, Russia

3Dipartimento di Fisica and INFN, 40126 Bologna, Italy

4INFN, 70126 Bari, Italy

5INFN, 35020 Laboratori Nazionali di Legnaro, Italy

6Dipartimento di Fisica and INFN, 20133 Milano, Italy

## Abstract

Studies on the isospin of fragments resulting from the disassembly of highly excited large thermal-like nuclear emitting sources, formed in the 197Au+197Au reaction at 35 MeV/nucleon beam energy, are presented. Two different decay systems (the quasiprojectile formed in midperipheral reactions and the unique source coming from the incomplete fusion of projectile and target in the most central collisions) were considered; these emitting sources have the same initial N/Z ratio and excitation energy (E$`{}_{}{}^{}`$ 5–6 MeV/nucleon), but different size. Their charge yields and isotopic content of the fragments show different distributions. It is observed that the neutron content of intermediate mass fragments increases with the size of the source. These evidences are consistent with chemical equilibrium reached in the systems. This fact is confirmed by the analysis with the statistical multifragmentation model.

PACS numbers: 25.70Pq, 25.70-z, 24.60-k

The study of heavy-ion collisions at intermediate energies (10$``$E$``$100 MeV/nucleon) is a useful tool to investigate the mechanisms of fragment production in highly excited nuclear systems. In this energy regime multifragmentation appears as one of the main de-excitation channel , which can be considered  as a manifestation of a liquid-gas type phase transition in finite nuclear systems. This gives an access to the nuclear equation of state. It has been shown that statistical models  happen to be very effective in the reproduction of main characteristics of the fragment production such as charge distributions and fragment correlations.

Nowadays, with the advent of radioactive beam facilities, the influence of the isospin degree of freedom is strongly addressed and experimental information on the isotopic content of emitted fragments represents a meaningful starting point in order to get a deep understanding of either the de-excitation mechanisms or the nuclear matter properties.

Theoretical calculations predict that, in the fragmentation of asymmetric nuclear matter, the isospin composition of the ”liquid” phase (usually associated with intermediate mass fragments (IMF) and heavy residues) and the ”gas” phase (light charged particles (LCP) and nucleons) depends on many factors. In particular, calculations by Müller and Serot  showed that, for very neutron-rich systems, there may exist a distribution of the excited nuclear matter into a neutron-rich gas and a more symmetric liquid. However, Lee and Mekjian  have pointed out that the Coulomb and surface effects, which are important for finite systems, may moderate the neutron enrichment of the gas phase by producing more free protons. The Statistical Multifragmentation Model (SMM) calculations  have shown that the neutron content of the IMF can increase in the region of the phase transition, in agreement with the experimental observations .

In this situation only new experimental data could solve the problem of isospin composition of the gas and liquid phases. Indeed, a variety of experiments can be found in literature. In Refs.  the difference of the mean N/Z ratio of the LCP and of the IMF has been interpreted as the separation of gas and liquid phases. The authors of Ref.  considered the presence of neutron rich LPC and light IMF as an evidence of the neutron enrichment of the gas phase. The average N/Z ratio of fragments emitted from excited nuclear systems is seen to vary with the excitation energy and the N/Z ratio of the system. In particular in the work of Ramakrishnan et al. , where for different reaction the beam energy and the mass of the system were kept constant, it has been shown that the IMF’s isospin present a linear dependence on the N/Z ratio of the system. Moreover, it has been observed that the neutron content of the emitted IMF depends on the excitation energy of the (fixed size) sources , increasing as the excitation energy increase.

In this paper we present experimental data extracted from two emitting sources with approximately the same N/Z ratio and excitation energy, but with different size. Since existing experimental data cover the study of the N/Z ratio of fragments as a function of the excitation energy and N/Z ratio of the emitting source, this analysis represent a complementary point to fill the experimental picture on the effects induced by the isospin on the decay process.

It is also important to note that these new data provide information about isospin of fragments produced in decay of the largest nuclear systems under investigation up to now (A$`>`$300). This allows for more reliable extrapolations for the case of nuclear matter, as well as for the astrophysical applications in supernovae explosions and neutron stars.

The reaction Au+Au at 35 MeV/nucleon was studied in experiments performed at the National Superconducting K1200 Cyclotron Laboratory of the Michigan State University. Light charged particles and fragments with charge up to Z=20 were detected at 23$`{}_{}{}^{}<\theta _{lab}<`$160 by the phoswich detectors of the MSU $`Miniball`$ hodoscope . The $`MULTICS`$ array  covered the angular range 3$`{}_{}{}^{}<\theta _{lab}<`$23 and allowed for a charge discrimination up to Z=83 and for good mass discrimination for Z=1-6 isotopes. The geometric acceptance of the combined array was greater than 87% of 4$`\pi `$.

A brief summary of the results published in so far will follow. The selection of the impact parameter $`\widehat{b}`$ is based on the number Nc of charged particles detected :

$$\widehat{b}=b/b_{max}=\left(_{N_c}^+\mathrm{}P(N_c^{})𝑑N_c^{}\right)^{1/2}.$$

where P(Nc) is the charged particle probability distribution and $`\pi b_{max}^2`$ is the measured reaction cross section for N$`{}_{c}{}^{}`$3.

Through the analysis of energy and angular distributions of the experimental data, it was possible to identify events originating either from disassembly of a unique source formed in central collisions, or from decay of the quasiprojectile (QP) in peripheral and mid-peripheral collisions . The excitation energy of the fragment sources was calculated both via the calorimetric method and through comparison with model calculations . Extra kinetic energy, such as radial flow or rotational motion, does not contribute appreciably to the excitation energy. This results from the analysis of charge, angular and kinetic energy distributions of the emitted fragments, as well as from the study of event by event charge partition . Finally, nuclear temperatures were determined using the technique of the double ratio of isotope yields .

The analysis determined that the thermal characteristics (Excitation energy E and isotope temperature Tiso) of the QP, formed at 0.6$`<\widehat{b}<`$0.7 (E=5.5$`\pm `$0.6 MeV/nucleon, Tiso=4.3$`\pm `$0.2 MeV), and of the unique source (E=5.5$`\pm `$0.5 MeV/nucleon, Tiso=4.3$`\pm `$0.4 MeV) are remarkably similar .

It is therefore important to analyse the whole picture of fragment production in these reactions. The aim of this paper is to provide new results by comparing IMF production between emitting sources of similar excitation energies (E$`{}_{}{}^{}`$5–6 MeV/nucleon) and N/Z ratio (118/79=1.49), but of different size (Z=79 for the midperipheral QP, Z=126 for the central unique source (CUS) ). In particular we will focus our attention to the isospin of emitted fragments.

Charge yields of fragments obtained for the Au+Au reactions at 35 MeV/nucleon are presented in Fig.1. The heaviest source (CUS) decays emitting fragments lighter than the QP, and in a number larger than what expected by a simple scaling factor. In other words, the CUS undergoes a stronger disintegration at the de-excitation stage.

The different partition in the two systems affects the number of neutrons in the IMF. Fig.2 shows the isotope production yields for different Z values. The IMF emitted from the CUS are more neutron rich than those from the QP. This effect is enhanced when plotting the relative yield ratio vs the neutron excess (see Fig.3a): the ratio between the CUS and QP yields increases with (N-Z). In Fig.3b we present the ratio of relative yields of neutron-rich to neutron-poor isotopes at fixed Z values, for both CUS and QP. It appears that the CUS emits preferentially the more neutron rich fragments. The average $`<`$N$`>`$/Z value of each atomic specie versus its charge Z is presented in Fig.4.

One can clearly see from all the figures that the disassembly of the CUS system into a relatively larger number of fragments leads to production of more neutron rich IMF and LCP. In the previous study it was experimentally demonstrated that fixing the size of the source, but varying its excitation energy, the increase in the multiplicity of emitted fragments is accompanied to more neutron rich IMF . In the present case we observe that this effect is even more pronounced.

These results are consistent with the statistical picture of disintegration of finite nuclear systems. For example, the statistical multifragmentation model (SMM), see e.g. , is based upon the assumption of statistical equilibrium at a low-density freeze-out stage. Different break-up partitions are sampled, according to their statistical weights, in the phase space. After break-up of the nuclear source the fragments propagate independently in their mutual Coulomb field and undergo secondary decays. The de-excitation of the hot primary fragments proceeds via evaporation, fission or Fermi-break-up . SMM is very successful in reproducing experimental data concerning both peripheral and central nucleus-nucleus collisions . In particular a very good agreement between experimental data and SMM calculations was found in the study of the Au+Au 35 MeV/nucleon reaction . Here we use a new version of SMM based on the generation of a Markov chain of partitions . This version keeps its full reliability concerning the charge distribution predictions and allows for taking into account all effects influencing the isotope content of the produced fragments.

In this paper, by basing on this statistical model we aim to single out the main physical effects responsible for the observed trend. Even though some assumptions of the model, such as a fixed freeze-out volume or non-overlapping fragments, are approximations of the real conditions, and some parameters (flow energy, fragment’s level density) are not clearly defined, these uncertainties influence the fragment charge distributions mainly and can be accounted for by finding the source distribution with the well elaborated technique . When the charge distributions are fixed, the main features of the studied isotope distributions are driven by the chemical equilibrium effects and the binding energy of the fragments.

The events generated by SMM were filtered to take into account the experimental efficiency. In the Figures 1, 2 and 4 the comparisons between experimental data and SMM predictions is shown. The following set of parameters gives a good agreement between experimental data and calculations (see also ): an excitation energy $`E_s^{}`$=5.5$`\pm `$0.6 MeV/nucleon; $`A_s`$=197, $`Z_s`$=79, $`\rho _s=\frac{1}{3}\rho _0`$, for the QP; $`A_s`$=315, $`Z_s`$=126, $`\rho _s=\frac{1}{6}\rho _0`$ for the CUS ($`\rho _0`$=0.15 $`fm^3`$ is the normal nuclear density). The smaller density in the central collisions is consistent with an additional expansion caused by the flow development. The microcanonical temperatures obtained in both cases are also quite similar: $`T_{micr}`$ 5.4 MeV for the central case and $``$ 5.5 MeV for the peripheral one.

Dynamical calculations  predict that N/Z ratios of the emitting sources must have values close to that of the initial system. In particular an analysis dedicated to the study of 50 MeV/nucleon central collisions of 112Sn+112,124Sn  has shown that the best agreement between calculations and experimental data claims for N/Z values of the source close to that of the starting system (differences are lower than 3%). Also the dynamical study of 129Xe+197Au central and peripheral collisions at 50 MeV/nucleon has shown that the N/Z ratio of the thermal sources does not change essentially (differences are within 2%) from the initial one . Results presented in Ref. and concerning the study of peripheral Au+Cu reaction come to the same conclusions. Generally, since the considered emitting sources are large in size, fluctuations in their N/Z ratio value should be strongly reduced. Therefore, the assumption of conservation of the N/Z ratio after the dynamical stage, seems quite realistic. We note, that our following interpretation will be valid even under less strict assumptions, namely, when the N/Z ratio changes in the same way in the both cases, or it becomes smaller for the CUS.

The reason of why the nuclear sources at practically the same temperature and excitation energy produce so different fragment charge distributions (Fig.1), can be found in the larger Coulomb energy in the CUS case, and in the different dynamics of formation of the CUS leading to a flow and, as consequence, to smaller freeze-out densities.

One can see also from the Figures that the calculations reproduce the trend of increasing neutron content of produced fragments with disintegration of the nuclei into smaller pieces. This trend can be explained as follows: if the chemical equilibrium is established the big fragments have larger N/Z ratio than small ones. After disintegration of the big fragments, independently if caused by increasing excitation energy (or temperature) of a thermal source as in  or by a size (Coulomb) effect, the neutrons of the big fragments are accumulated mainly in the small secondary fragments and not in free neutron gas. The SMM calculations predict that the mean number of primary free neutron in the freeze-out volume increases only from 0.98 for the peripheral source to 1.79 for the central source. This gives rise to the N/Z ratio of the IMF and LCP, which is preserved after the secondary de-excitation.

Even if the model well explains the observed effects, the experimental rise in neutron content is slightly more pronounced. One can speculate, that the initial CUS could have slightly larger N/Z ratio than the peripheral source. Our calculations show that a slight decrease of this ratio to N/Z=1.43 without changing other SMM parameters, for the QP, would be sufficient to explain this disagreement. However, as we pointed above the difference (if any) of this ratio of the sources should not be significant. For this reason, we believe that the predicted redistribution of neutrons from heavy fragments to light ones with disintegration of a nuclear system is the natural mechanism for explanation of the data.

In summary in the study of the 197Au+197Au 35 MeV/nucleon reaction it was possible to well identify two different emitting sources with the same N/Z ratio, excitation energy and temperature (E$`{}_{}{}^{}`$5–6 MeV/nucleon; T$`{}_{iso}{}^{}`$ 4.3 MeV from the experimental measurements, T$`{}_{micr}{}^{}`$ 5.4–5.5 MeV from the SMM predictions), but different size: the QP formed in midperipheral reactions and the CUS coming from the incomplete fusion of projectile and target in the most central collisions. Charge yields and isotopic content of the fragments show different distributions in the two cases. The CUS decays emitting lighter fragments than the QP and this fact reflects on the multiplicity of fragments from CUS, which is higher than what expected scaling for the size factor the QP multiplicity. Thus, even if some parameters are fixed (E, T, N/Z) the partition of the system depends on the size and the density which determine the Coulomb energy in the freeze-out. Moreover, the neutron content of light charged particles and intermediate mass fragments increases with the size of the source.

Primary fragments produced in the freeze-out are hot and decay afterwards by emitting mainly neutrons and light charged particles. Therefore, it is natural to connect the behaviour of the experimental isotope yield as a function of source size with the similar evolution of the N/Z ratio of the corresponding hot fragments. This conclusion is here supported by the SMM calculations which reproduce the fragment production in a reasonably good way. The data here presented, obtained both in central and peripheral  collisions, indicate that the neutron content of the fragments, produced by the decay of thermal-like systems, increases with the multiplicity of emitted IMF. The data are consistent with hypothesis of thermal and chemical equilibration in finite nuclear systems , which leads to production of IMF with large neutron content. This justifies the method of extracting temperatures through isotope thermometers  and the thermodynamical description of these reactions.

The authors are indebted to I.N.Mishustin for his contribution to the development of the new version of SMM. The authors would like also thanks J.D.Dinius, S.Gaff, C.K.Gelbke, T.Glasmacher, M.J.Huang, W.J.Lynch, C.P.Montoya, M.B.Tsang and H.Xi, for their collaboration during measurements and data analysis. One of the author (A.S.B.) appreciate warm hospitality of INFN (sezione di Trieste) where a part of this work was done.

Figure captions

Fig.1: Charge yields of fragments obtained for the Au+Au reactions at 35 MeV/nucleon . Circles represent the experimental data: the solid ones are for the QP systems, the open ones are for the CUS. Solid and dashed lines are SMM calculations for peripheral and central cases, respectively.

Fig.2: Relative yields of different isotopes for fragments with charges from Z=1 to Z=6. Notations are as in Fig.1.

Fig.3: (a) ratio between the CUS and QP yields for each isotope as a function of N-Z. (b) ratio of relative yields of neutron-rich to neutron-poor isotopes at fixed Z values, for both cases (solid point are for the QP, open points for the CUS).

Fig.4: Mean neutron–to–proton ($`<N>/Z`$) ratio of the produced fragments. Notations are as in Fig.1.


format: text

text:
# Giant gravitons as probes of gauged supergravity

## 1 Introduction

We investigate giant gravitons in 4-dimensional U(1)4 and 7-dimensional U(1)2 gauged supergravities and their lifts to eleven dimensions. From the point of view of the gauged supergravities, giant gravitons are simply massive charged particles. However, from the 11-dimensional view-point, these particles can be described either as massless particles or as branes wrapping (topologically trivial) spheres. These extended objects are called giant gravitons . The mass and charge of such a particle in the lower dimensional gauged supergravity is given by the angular momentum of the giant graviton in the internal space. The size of the wrapped sphere grows with the angular momentum of the giant graviton. For large angular momentum the giant graviton description can be trusted whereas the massless particle would have a high concentration of energy which would invalidate the probe approximation of neglecting the backreaction, and for large enough angular momentum would even invalidate the low-energy supergravity approximation of M-theory.

An interesting consequence of the relation between the size of the sphere and angular momentum is that there is a maximum bound on the angular momentum since the size of the sphere cannot exceed the size of the internal space. Using the AdS/CFT correspondence this translates into a bound on the R-charge of the class of operators dual to giant gravitons. It turns out that this bound is given by $`N`$, the rank of the gauge group. Such a bound is obvious in the field theory, e.g. for single-trace operators or sub-determinant operators which are conjectured to be dual to giant gravitons . It is not obvious that the gravity dual would encode such a finite-$`N`$ bound and certainly the relation to a volume bound is novel. Note that this is also an example of a UV/IR connection since a large angular momentum corresponds to a large volume.

We study giant gravitons within the context of supergravity and in particular the relation between gauged supergravities and 11-dimensional supergravity. We show that for any solution of the gauged supergravity, a probe calculation with a massive charged particle is equivalent to probing the 11-dimensional lift with an M5- or M2-brane. This extends the results of  for the closely related case of 5-dimensional U(1)3 gauged supergravity. Again it appears that the lift ansatze have precisely the right properties for the existence of giant gravitons.

In § 2 we consider the case of 4-dimensional U(1)4 gauged supergravity. We first review the results of  for the 11-dimensional lift. In this case the giant graviton is an M5-brane wrapping a 5-sphere in the internal space. It is supported from collapse by coupling magnetically to the 4-form field strength $`F_{(4)}`$ of 11-dimensional supergravity. Before considering the M5-brane we show in § 2.1 that a massless 11-dimensional particle with angular momentum is equivalent to the massive charged particles we wish to consider in the gauged supergravity. We then move on to show that the same massive charged particles have yet another description in terms of an M5-brane. Specifically, in both cases we show that a massive charged particle probing any solution of the gauged supergravity is equivalent to a massless particle or M5-brane probing the 11-dimensional lift, with specific embeddings in the internal space. In order to perform the M5-brane probe calculation we first Hodge dualise $`F_{(4)}`$ in § 2.2 and then integrate to find the 6-form potential, $`F_{(4)}=dA_{(6)}`$, in § 2.3. In § 2.4 we then perform the giant graviton probe calculation and show that the M5-brane action reduces to that of a massive charged particle in four dimensions. This shows that probe calculations performed with these particles in four dimensions are equivalent to first lifting to eleven dimensions and then performing the M5-brane probe calculations. Hence such calculations can be performed entirely within the simpler lower dimensional context. As an application of this we probe superstar backgrounds arising as the extremal limit of charged black holes , which are conjectured to be sourced by these giant gravitons .

In § 3 we repeat the above calculations for the 7-dimensional U(1)2 gauged supergravity and the corresponding superstar solutions . We conclude with some comments in § 4.

## 2 $`D=11`$ supergravity reduction on $`S^7`$

The compactification of 11-dimensional supergravity on $`S^7`$ leads to gauged $`𝒩=8`$ supergravity in four dimensions with gauge group SO(8). This theory arises from consistently truncating the massive Kaluza-Klein modes of the compactified 11-dimensional supergravity. Consequently all solutions of the 4-dimensional supergravity will correspond to solutions of the 11-dimensional theory. In practice, however, the relationship between solutions of the two theories is complicated and highly implicit. To provide a concrete realization of this relationship one can consistently truncate the 4-dimensional $`𝒩=8`$ theory to a $`𝒩=2`$ theory. This corresponds to truncating the full gauge group SO(8) to its Cartan subgroup, $`U(1)^4`$. The explicit relationship between solutions of the $`𝒩=2`$ theory and the 11-dimensional supergravity will be shown in the following.

The $`𝒩=2`$ supergravity theory has a bosonic sector consisting of the metric, four commuting U(1) gauge fields, three dilatons and three axions. We will be interested in cases where the axions are set to zero. While this is not completely consistent (since terms of the form $`ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }F^{\mu \nu }F^{\rho \sigma }`$ will source axions) it suffices for the present purposes since we will only consider electrically charged solutions. The Lagrangian for this theory is given by

$$e^1_4=R\frac{1}{2}(\stackrel{}{\phi })^2+\frac{8}{L^2}(\mathrm{cosh}\phi _1+\mathrm{cosh}\phi _2+\mathrm{cosh}\phi _3)\frac{1}{4}\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}e^{\stackrel{}{a_i}\stackrel{}{\phi }}(F_{(2)}^i)^2$$
(1)
Here $`\stackrel{}{\phi }=(\phi _1,\phi _2,\phi _3)`$ are the three dilaton fields, $`F_{(2)}^i=dA_{(1)}^i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{}4`$, are the four U(1) field strength tensors, and the four 3-vectors $`\stackrel{}{a_i}`$ satisfy

$$M_{ij}=\stackrel{}{a_i}\stackrel{}{a_j}=4\delta _{ij}1$$
(2)
The three dilaton fields can be conveniently parameterized in terms of four scalar quantities $`X_i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{}4`$, where

$$X_i=e^{\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{}{a_i}\stackrel{}{\phi }}$$
(3)
The $`X_i`$ satisfy the constraint $`X_1X_2X_3X_4=1`$. The Lagrangian (1) leads to the equations of motion,

$`d_{(1,3)}d\mathrm{log}(X_i)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}M_{ij}X_j^2_{(1,3)}F_{(2)}^jF_{(2)}^j{\displaystyle \frac{1}{L^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{jk}{}}M_{ij}X_jX_kϵ_{(1,3)}`$ (4)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{L^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}M_{ij}X_j^2ϵ_{(1,3)}`$
$`d(X_i^2_{(1,3)}F_{(2)}^i)`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (5)
together with the 4-dimensional Einstein-Maxwell equations coupled to the scalars $`X_i`$. Solutions of this 4-dimensional $`𝒩=2`$ theory can be “lifted” to solutions of 11-dimensional supergravity as follows ,

$$ds_{11}=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{2/3}ds_{(1,3)}^2+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{1/3}\underset{i}{}\left(L^2X_i^1d\mu _i^2+X_i^1\mu _i^2(Ld\varphi _i+A_{(1)}^i)^2\right)$$
(6)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{i=1}^4X_i\mu _i^2`$. The lift ansatz for the 4-form field strength tensor is

$$F_{(4)}=\frac{2U}{L}ϵ_{(1,3)}\frac{L}{2}\underset{i}{}X_i^1_{(1,3)}dX_id(\mu _i^2)+\frac{L}{2}\underset{i}{}X_i^2d(\mu _i^2)(Ld\varphi _i+A_{(1)}^i)_{(1,3)}F_{(2)}^i$$
(7)
where $`U_{i=1}^4(X_i^2\mu _i^2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}X_i)`$. Here $`_{(1,3)}`$ means dualizing with respect to the metric $`ds_{(1,3)}^2`$. The four coordinates $`\mu _i`$ satisfy the constraint $`_i\mu _i^2=1`$. They can be parameterized as

$$\mu _1=\mathrm{cos}\theta _1\mu _2=\mathrm{sin}\theta _1\mathrm{cos}\theta _2\mu _3=\mathrm{sin}\theta _1\mathrm{sin}\theta _2\mathrm{cos}\theta _3\mu _4=\mathrm{sin}\theta _1\mathrm{sin}\theta _2\mathrm{sin}\theta _3$$
(8)
where $`0\theta _i\pi /2`$ and $`0\varphi _i2\pi `$.

### 2.1 A massless particle probe

We consider a massless particle moving in the 11-dimensional space-time, Eq. (6), with some conserved angular momentum on the 7-sphere. It is interesting to consider how this particle appears in the associated 4-dimensional space-time. Clearly if the particle is stationary on the 7-sphere it will simply appear as a massless particle in four dimensions. However, if the particle has some angular momentum in the internal space we expect that it will behave as a massive charged particle in the 4-dimensional space-time. Here we show that this is indeed the case.

For simplicity, we consider the action for a massive particle moving in eleven dimensions. We later take the mass to zero in the Hamiltonian formulation. The action is given by

$$S=m𝑑t\sqrt{det\left(P(g)\right)}$$
(9)
where $`P(g)`$ is the pull-back of the 11-dimensional metric $`ds_{11}^2`$ onto the particle’s world-line, i.e.

$$P(g)=g_{AB}\dot{x}^A\dot{x}^B$$
(10)
where $`x^A`$, $`A=0,\mathrm{}10`$, are coordinates on the 11-dimensional space-time with $`x^0=t`$ and $`\dot{x}^A=dx^A/dt`$. We assume that the motion on the 7-sphere is only in the $`\varphi _i`$ directions, and that the particle is stationary in the $`\mu _i`$ directions. Therefore the Lagrangian is given explicitly by

$$=m\left(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{2/3}g_{\mu \nu }\dot{x}^\mu \dot{x}^\nu \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{1/3}\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}X_i^1\mu _i^2(L\dot{\varphi }_i+A_\mu ^i\dot{x}^\mu )^2\right)^{1/2}$$
(11)
The momentum conjugate to $`\varphi _i`$ can be easily computed for each $`i=1,\mathrm{}4`$. One obtains,

$$P_i=\frac{}{\dot{\varphi }_i}=\frac{m^2L}{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{1/3}}X_i^1\mu _i^2(L\dot{\varphi }_i+A_\mu ^i\dot{x}^\mu )$$
(12)
Since the Lagrangian contains no explicit dependence on $`\varphi _i`$ these momenta are time-independent. We want to rearrange Eq. (12) to write $`\dot{\varphi }_i`$ in terms of the momenta, $`P_j`$. A few lines of algebra yields

$$\dot{\varphi }_i=\frac{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{1/3}P_iX_i}{L^2\mu _i^2}\left(\frac{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}g_{\mu \nu }\dot{x}^\mu \dot{x}^\nu }{\kappa +m^2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{1/3}}\right)^{1/2}\frac{1}{L}A_\mu ^i\dot{x}^\mu $$
(13)
where

$$\kappa \underset{j}{}\frac{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{2/3}P_j^2X_j}{L^2\mu _j^2}$$
(14)
We now construct the Routhian,

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}P_i\dot{\varphi }_i`$ (15)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{1/3}P_i^2X_i}{L^2\mu _i^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}g_{\mu \nu }\dot{x}^\mu \dot{x}^\nu }{\kappa +m^2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{1/3}}}\right)^{1/2}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{L}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}P_iA_\mu ^i\dot{x}^\mu `$ (16)
In the limit $`m0`$ the Routhian becomes

$$=\sqrt{g_{\mu \nu }\dot{x}^\mu \dot{x}^\nu }\left(\underset{i}{}\frac{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}P_i^2X_i}{L^2\mu _i^2}\right)^{1/2}\frac{1}{L}\underset{i}{}P_iA_\mu ^i\dot{x}^\mu $$
(17)
We want to minimize the energy with respect to the coordinates $`\mu _i`$. This can be achieved by defining two 4-vectors $`𝐔`$ and $`𝐕`$ by

$$U_i=\sqrt{\frac{X_i}{\mu _i^2}}\frac{P_i}{L}V_i=\sqrt{X_i\mu _i^2}$$
(18)
and recognizing that the quantity in brackets in Eq. (17) can be written as

$$\left(\underset{i}{}\frac{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}P_i^2X_i}{L^2\mu _i^2}\right)^{1/2}=|𝐔||𝐕|$$
(19)
By the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality the minimum value of this expression is $`𝐔𝐕=_iX_iP_i/L`$ which occurs when $`𝐔`$ and $`𝐕`$ are parallel. The constraint $`_i\mu _i^2=1`$ determines the constant of proportionality relating $`𝐔`$ and $`𝐕`$ and we find that the minimal energy configuration occurs at $`\mu _i^2=P_i/_jP_j`$. Thus, minimizing the energy in the compact directions produces the following Routhian

$$=\frac{1}{L}\underset{i}{}P_iX_i\sqrt{g_{\mu \nu }\dot{x}^\mu \dot{x}^\nu }\frac{1}{L}\underset{i}{}P_iA_\mu ^i\dot{x}^\mu $$
(20)
This is just the Hamiltonian for a massive charged particle with scalar coupling moving in a 4-dimensional space-time with metric $`ds_{(1,3)}^2=g_{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu `$.

### 2.2 Dualizing $`F_{(4)}`$

We are interested in probing the 11-dimensional solutions given in Eqs. (6) – (7) with giant gravitons, which in this case are M5-branes with an $`S^5`$ topology. The 5-branes will couple to the 6-form potential, $`A_{(6)}`$, which is related to the 4-form field strength tensor $`F_{(4)}`$ via the dual field strength tensor, $`F_{(7)}=F_{(4)}=dA_{(6)}`$. Therefore, to understand the motion of giant gravitons in the 11-dimensional background it is necessary to dualize the 4-form field strength tensor given in Eq. (7) and then integrate it. Dualizing $`F_{(4)}`$ requires a number of results analogous to those obtained in the appendix of Ref. , as described below. We will integrate $`F_{(7)}`$ in § 2.3.

First we consider dualizing a $`(p+q)`$-form of type $`\alpha _{(p)}\beta _{(q)}`$ in the 11-dimensional background, Eq. (6). Here $`\alpha _{(p)}`$ is a $`p`$-form in the “AdS” directions and $`\beta _{(q)}`$ is a $`q`$-form in the “$`S^7`$” directions. The following result will be useful,

$$_{(11)}(\alpha _{(p)}\beta _{(q)})=()^{q(4p)}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{(14p+2q)/6}(_{(1,3)}\alpha _{(p)}_{(7)}\beta _{(q)})$$
(21)
Here $`_{(7)}`$ refers to the metric $`ds_7^2`$ where $`ds_{11}^2=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{2/3}ds_{(1,3)}^2+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{1/3}ds_7^2`$, from Eq. (6). The metric on $`S^7`$ splits further into two parts;

$$ds_7^2=L^2\underset{i}{}X_i^1d\mu _i^2+\underset{i}{}X_i^1\mu _i^2(Ld\varphi _i+A_{(1)}^i)^2$$
(22)
Therefore, a result similar to Eq. (21) holds for dualizing forms in seven dimensions, namely

$$_{(7)}(\alpha _{(p)}\beta _{(q)})=()^{q(3p)}L^{32p}(_{(3)}\alpha _{(p)}_{(4)}\beta _{(q)})$$
(23)
where $`\alpha _{(p)}`$ is a $`p`$-form in the $`\mu _i`$ directions and $`\beta _{(q)}`$ is a $`q`$-form in the $`\varphi _i`$ directions. Here $`_{(4)}`$ refers to the metric $`ds_4^2=_iX_i^1\mu _i^2(Ld\varphi _i+A_{(1)}^i)^2`$ and $`_{(3)}`$ refers to the metric

$$d\stackrel{~}{s}_4^2=\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}X_i^1d\mu _i^2$$
(24)
restricted to the 3-sphere $`S`$: $`_{i=1}^4\mu _i^2=1`$. Due to this constraint on $`\mu _i`$, dualizing forms on $`S`$ is not completely straightforward and one needs the result

$$_{(3)}\alpha =\stackrel{~}{}_{(4)}(e_4\alpha )$$
(25)
where $`\stackrel{~}{}_{(4)}`$ refers to the metric $`d\stackrel{~}{s}_4^2`$ on $`^4`$ and $`e_4=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{1/2}_i\mu _id\mu _i`$ is a unit 1-form normal to $`S`$. With the results Eqs. (21)-(25) we can now dualize $`F_{(4)}`$ in eleven dimensions.

We define the following 2-forms on $`S`$,

$`Z_i`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{jkl}{}}ϵ_{ijkl}\mu _jd\mu _kd\mu _l`$ (26)
$`Z_{ij}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{kl}{}}ϵ_{ijkl}d\mu _kd\mu _l`$ (27)
The volume form on $`S`$ is given by $`W=\frac{1}{6}ϵ_{ijkl}\mu _id\mu _jd\mu _kd\mu _l`$. It can easily be shown that the 2-forms $`Z_i`$ and $`Z_{ij}`$ satisfy three identities:

$`dZ_i`$ $`=`$ $`6\mu _iW`$ (28)
$`Z_id\mu _j`$ $`=`$ $`2(\delta _{ij}\mu _i\mu _j)W`$ (29)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}X_j\mu _jZ_j\mu _i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}X_j\mu _jZ_{ji}+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}Z_i`$ (30)
The 2-form $`_{(3)}d(\mu _i^2)`$ can be written in terms of $`Z_{ij}`$ as follows,

$$_{(3)}d(\mu _i^2)=_{(4)}(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{1/2}\underset{j}{}\mu _jd\mu _j2\mu _id\mu _i)=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{1/2}\underset{j}{}X_iX_j\mu _i\mu _jZ_{ij}$$
(31)
Similarly,

$`_{(3)}1=_{(4)}\left(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{1/2}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\mu _id\mu _i\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{1/2}}{6}}{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}X_j\mu _jd\mu _iZ_{ij}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{1/2}}{6}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}Z_id\mu _i+{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{1/2}}{6}}{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}\mu _i\mu _jX_jZ_jd\mu _i`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{1/2}}{3}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}(1\mu _i^2)W{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{1/2}}{3}}{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}\mu _i\mu _jX_j(\delta _{ij}\mu _i\mu _j)W`$
$`_{(3)}1`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{1/2}W`$ (32)
where we have used the identities Eqs. (30) and (29) in the second and third steps respectively. Now we dualize the first term in $`F_{(4)}`$ using the results from Eqs (21), (23) and (32),

$`_{(11)}{\displaystyle \frac{2U}{L}}ϵ_{(1,3)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2U}{L}}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{5/2}_{(7)}1`$ (33)
$`=`$ $`2UL^2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{5/2}_{(3)}1_{(4)}1`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2UL^2}{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^2}}W{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\mu _k(Ld\varphi _k+A_{(1)}^k)`$
Similarly, the results of Eqs. (21)-(32) can be used to dualize the two other terms in $`F_{(4)}`$. One finds

$$_{(11)}(\frac{L}{2}\underset{i}{}X_i^1_{(1,3)}dX_id(\mu _i^2))=\frac{L^2}{2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^2}\underset{ij}{}X_jdX_i\mu _i\mu _jZ_{ij}\underset{k}{}\mu _k(Ld\varphi _k+A_{(1)}^k)$$
(34)
for the second term and

$$_{(11)}(\frac{L}{2}\underset{i}{}X_i^2d(\mu _i^2)(Ld\varphi _i+A_{(1)}^i)_{(1,3)}F_{(2)}^i)=\frac{L^2}{2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}\underset{ij}{}F_{(2)}^iZ_{ij}X_j\mu _j\underset{ki}{}\mu _k(Ld\varphi _k+A_{(1)}^k)$$
(35)
for the third term. Thus

$`F_{(7)}=_{(11)}F_{(4)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2L^2U}{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^2}}W{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\mu _k(Ld\varphi _k+A_{(1)}^k){\displaystyle \frac{L^2}{2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}X_jdX_i\mu _i\mu _jZ_{ij}{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\mu _k(Ld\varphi _k+A_{(1)}^k)`$ (36)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{L^2}{2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}}{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}F_{(2)}^iZ_{ij}X_j\mu _j{\displaystyle \underset{ki}{}}\mu _k(Ld\varphi _k+A_{(1)}^k)`$
It is now reasonably straightforward to check that $`dF_{(7)}=0`$. However, one must take $`F_{(2)}^iF_{(2)}^j=0`$ for this result to work. This corresponds to neglecting the axions, as already discussed. As expected, the result $`dF_{(7)}=0`$ does not require use of the equations of motion because it is the Bianchi identity.

### 2.3 Integrating $`F_{(7)}`$

We now wish to integrate $`F_{(7)}`$ obtained in Eq. (36) to determine the 6-form potential $`A_{(6)}`$ which will couple to the giant graviton probes. Since $`dF_{(7)}`$ vanishes identically, such an $`A_{(6)}`$ must exist, at least locally. In fact we will find that it is not possible to determine $`A_{(6)}`$ globally, but it can be found locally.

The first step is to rewrite the following 3-form using Eq. (30),

$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^2{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}X_jdX_i\mu _i\mu _jZ_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^1{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}dX_iZ_i\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^2{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}X_jdX_i\mu _i\mu _jZ_j\mu _i`$ (37)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}_\mu \left({\displaystyle \frac{X_i\mu _i}{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}}\right)dx^\mu Z_i`$ (38)
Using this result the $`2^{\mathrm{nd}}`$ term in Eq. (36) can be rewritten as follows,

$$\frac{L^2}{2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^2}\underset{ij}{}X_jdX_i\mu _i\mu _jZ_{ij}\underset{l}{}\mu _l(Ld\varphi _l+A^l)=\frac{L^2}{2}\underset{i}{}_\mu \left(\frac{X_i\mu _i}{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}\right)dx^\mu Z_i\underset{l}{}\mu _l(Ld\varphi _l+A^l)$$
(39)
Thus we postulate that the potential $`A_{(6)}`$ contains the following term

$$\stackrel{~}{A}_{(6)}=\frac{L^2}{2}\underset{i}{}\frac{X_i\mu _i}{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}Z_i\underset{l}{}\mu _l(Ld\varphi _l+A^l)$$
(40)
Evaluating $`d\stackrel{~}{A}_{(6)}`$ gives

$`d\stackrel{~}{A}_{(6)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2L^2U}{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^2}}W{\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}\mu _l(Ld\varphi _l+A^l){\displaystyle \frac{L^2}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}_\mu \left({\displaystyle \frac{X_i\mu _i}{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}}\right)dx^\mu Z_i{\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}\mu _l(Ld\varphi _l+A^l)`$ (41)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{L^2}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}Z_jF^j{\displaystyle \underset{lj}{}}\mu _l(Ld\varphi _l+A^l)+{\displaystyle \frac{L^2}{2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}}{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}F^iZ_{ij}X_j\mu _j{\displaystyle \underset{li}{}}\mu _l(Ld\varphi _l+A^l)`$
$`6L^2W{\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}\mu _l(Ld\varphi _l+A^l)`$
Therefore

$$F_{(7)}=d\stackrel{~}{A}_{(6)}+\frac{L^2}{2}\underset{j}{}Z_jF^j\underset{lj}{}\mu _l(Ld\varphi _l+A^l)+6L^2W\underset{l}{}\mu _l(Ld\varphi _l+A^l)$$
(42)
The sum of the last two terms in this expression is closed but not exact. For $`\mu _10`$ we can integrate them obtaining,

$$d\left(\frac{L^2}{2}\frac{Z_1}{\mu _1}\underset{j}{}\mu _j(Ld\varphi _j+A_{(1)}^j)+\frac{L^2}{2}ϵ_{1jkl}\mu _k^2\mu _ld\mu _lF_{(2)}^j\underset{mj}{}(Ld\varphi _m+A_{(1)}^m)\right)$$
(43)
Then in the region where $`\mu _10`$, $`A_{(6)}`$ is given by

$$A_{(6)}=\frac{L^2}{2\mu _1\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}\underset{i}{}X_i\mu _iZ_{i1}\underset{j}{}\mu _j(Ld\varphi _j+A_{(1)}^j)+\frac{L^2}{2}ϵ_{1jkl}\mu _k^2\mu _ld\mu _lF_{(2)}^j\underset{mj}{}(Ld\varphi _m+A_{(1)}^m)$$
(44)
where we have used Eq. (30) to replace the two terms involving $`Z_i`$ with one term involving $`Z_{i1}`$.

### 2.4 Brane probe calculation

We consider probing the 11-dimensional solution with giant gravitons. These giant gravitons are 5-branes which wrap an $`S^5`$ within the $`S^7`$. We choose the $`S^5`$ to be parameterized by the coordinates $`\sigma ^i=\{\theta _2,\theta _3,\varphi _2,\varphi _3,\varphi _4\}`$. We consider the giant graviton moving rigidly in the $`\varphi _1`$ direction at fixed $`\theta _1`$. The motion of the brane in the non-compact $`AdS_4`$ directions is arbitrary, but assumed to be independent of the brane world-volume coordinates, i.e. we consider rigid motion. The action for the giant graviton is,

$$S_5=T_5𝑑t𝑑\theta _2𝑑\theta _3𝑑\varphi _2𝑑\varphi _3𝑑\varphi _4\left[\sqrt{det(P(g))}\dot{x}^\mu A_{\mu \theta _2\theta _3\varphi _2\varphi _3\varphi _4}^{(6)}\dot{\varphi }_1A_{\varphi _1\theta _2\theta _3\varphi _2\varphi _3\varphi _4}^{(6)}\right]$$
(45)
Here $`P(g)`$ is the pull-back of the 11-dimensional metric $`ds_{11}^2`$, Eq. (6), onto the world-volume of the 5-brane:

$$P(g)=\gamma _{AB}=g_{\alpha \beta }\frac{X^\alpha }{\sigma ^A}\frac{X^\beta }{\sigma ^B}$$
(46)
where $`g_{\alpha \beta }`$ is the 11-dimensional metric, $`X^\alpha `$ are the embedding coordinates of the brane in the 11-dimensional background and $`\sigma ^A=\{t,\sigma ^i\}`$ are the world-volume coordinates of the brane. The 6-dimensional pull-back metric has non-zero entries along the diagonal and in the $`(t,\varphi _i)`$ positions. Evaluating the determinant gives

$$det(\gamma _{AB})=\frac{L^{10}X_1^2\alpha }{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}\mathrm{sin}^{10}\theta _1\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _2\mathrm{sin}^6\theta _2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _3\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _3\left(g_{\mu \nu }\dot{x}^\mu \dot{x}^\nu +\frac{\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _1}{X_1\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}^2\right)$$
(47)
where $`\alpha =X_2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _2+X_3\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _3+X_4\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _3`$. The coupling of the 6-form potential to the probe world-volume can be determined simply by reading off the relevant components of $`A_{(6)}`$ from Eq. (44). Using the parameterization for the $`\mu _i`$ given in Eq. (8) one finds

$$\dot{x}^\mu A_{\mu \theta _2\theta _3\varphi _2\varphi _3\varphi _4}^{(6)}+\dot{\varphi }_1A_{\varphi _1\theta _2\theta _3\varphi _2\varphi _3\varphi _4}^{(6)}=\frac{L^5}{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}\mathrm{sin}^6\theta _1\mathrm{sin}^3\theta _2\mathrm{cos}\theta _2\mathrm{cos}\theta _3\mathrm{sin}\theta _3\alpha \dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}$$
(48)
where $`\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}=L\dot{\varphi }_1+A_\mu ^1\dot{x}^\mu `$. Thus

$`S_5`$ $`=`$ $`T_5L^5{\displaystyle }dtd\theta _2d\theta _3d\varphi _2d\varphi _3d\varphi _4{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}^5\theta _1}{\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}}}\mathrm{cos}\theta _2\mathrm{sin}^3\theta _2\mathrm{cos}\theta _3\mathrm{sin}\theta _3\{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\theta _1}{\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}}}\alpha \dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ (49)
$`+\sqrt{X_1^2\alpha \left(g_{\mu \nu }\dot{x}^\mu \dot{x}^\nu {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _1}{X_1\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}}\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}^2\right)}\}`$
This action contains no explicit dependence on $`\varphi _1`$. Thus we can replace all occurrences of $`\dot{\varphi }_1`$ by the time-independent conjugate momentum $`P_{\varphi _1}(\theta _2,\theta _3,\varphi _2,\varphi _3,\varphi _4)`$. One obtains the following Routhian

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{L}}\sqrt{g_{\mu \nu }\dot{x}^\mu \dot{x}^\nu }({\displaystyle \frac{X_1\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}{\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _1}}(P_{\varphi _1}{\displaystyle \frac{N\alpha }{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}}\mathrm{sin}^6\theta _1\mathrm{cos}\theta _2\mathrm{sin}^3\theta _2\mathrm{cos}\theta _3\mathrm{sin}\theta _3)^2`$ (50)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{N^2X_1^2\alpha }{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}}\mathrm{sin}^{10}\theta _1\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _2\mathrm{sin}^6\theta _2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _3\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _3)^{1/2}{\displaystyle \frac{P_{\varphi _1}\dot{A}^1}{L}}`$
where $`N=T_5L^6`$. The terms inside the square root can be rewritten as a sum of squares:

$$X_1^2P_{\varphi _1}^2+X_1\alpha \mathrm{tan}^2\theta _1(P_{\varphi _1}N\mathrm{sin}^4\theta _1\mathrm{cos}\theta _2\mathrm{sin}^3\theta _2\mathrm{cos}\theta _3\mathrm{sin}\theta _3)^2$$
(51)
This rearrangement makes it easy to minimize the energy over $`\theta _1`$. There are two minima occurring at $`\theta _1=0`$ and $`P_{\varphi _1}=P_1\mathrm{cos}\theta _2\mathrm{sin}^3\theta _2\mathrm{cos}\theta _3\mathrm{sin}\theta _3`$, where $`P_1`$ is constant given by $`P_1=N\mathrm{sin}^4\theta _1`$. The minimum at $`\theta _1=0`$ corresponds classically to a massless particle, rather than a brane expanded on $`S^5`$. This solution is singular with respect to the gravitational field equations because it represents a huge amount of energy concentrated at a point, which leads to uncontrolled quantum corrections . However, the latter minimum corresponds to a giant graviton. At this expanded minimum the Routhian reduces to

$$=\left(\frac{1}{L}\sqrt{g_{\mu \nu }\dot{x}^\mu \dot{x}^\nu }X_1P_1\frac{1}{L}P_1A_\mu ^1\dot{x}^\mu \right)\mathrm{cos}\theta _2\mathrm{sin}^3\theta _2\mathrm{cos}\theta _3\mathrm{sin}\theta _3$$
(52)
Integrating out the dependence on $`\sigma ^i=\{\theta _2,\theta _3,\varphi _2,\varphi _3,\varphi _4\}`$ gives

$$=\frac{1}{L}\sqrt{g_{\mu \nu }\dot{x}^\mu \dot{x}^\nu }\stackrel{~}{P}_1X_1\frac{1}{L}\stackrel{~}{P}_1\dot{A}_\mu ^1\dot{x}^\mu $$
(53)
where $`\stackrel{~}{P}_1=P_1V_5`$ and $`V_5=\pi ^3`$ is the volume of a 5-dimensional sphere in flat space. This is just the Hamiltonian for a massive charged particle with scalar coupling moving in a 4-dimensional space-time with metric $`ds_{(1,3)}=g_{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu `$. Equivalently we could have chosen the probe to move in any of the four $`\varphi _i`$ directions. Then minimizing the energy over the remaining compact coordinate would give

$$E_i=\frac{1}{L}\sqrt{g_{\mu \nu }\dot{x}^\mu \dot{x}^\nu }\stackrel{~}{P}_iX_i\frac{1}{L}\stackrel{~}{P}_iA_\mu ^i\dot{x}^\mu $$
(54)
for the energy of that probe. So we find that by considering minimum energy configurations in the compact directions, the giant graviton action reduces to that of a charged particle coupled to a scalar field moving in four dimensions. This means that probing an 11-dimensional supergravity solution with giant gravitons is equivalent to probing the corresponding 4-dimensional solution with a charged particle. This result depends on the fact that the quantity under the square root in Eq. (50) can be rearranged as a sum of squares. If this did not happen the minimization would be much more complicated and probably not produce such a simple result.

### 2.5 Probing superstars with giant gravitons

In this section we use the giant graviton probe calculations of § 2.4 to probe a specific class of superstar geometries. Superstars are solutions of supergravity theories that arise by taking the supersymmetric limit of certain families of black hole solutions. In this limit the horizon disappears and the space-time is left with a naked singularity. It is thought that some superstar geometries may be sourced by giant gravitons, with the naked singularity interpreted physically as a collection of giant gravitons. Evidence for this was first given in Ref.  where the authors considered type IIB superstar geometries and showed that the dipole field excited in the 5-form near the singularity corresponded to the dipole field excited by a collection of giant gravitons. Moreover, they argued that this ensemble of giant gravitons produced the correct mass and internal momentum for the superstar.

In this case we consider superstar solutions of 11-dimensional supergravity which are lifts of $`𝒩=2`$ supergravity in four dimensions with gauge group $`U(1)^4`$. The 4-dimensional theory admits the following 4-charge AdS black hole solution

$$ds_4^2=\frac{f}{(H_1H_2H_3H_4)^{1/2}}dt^2+(H_1H_2H_3H_4)^{1/2}(f^1dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2)$$
(55)
where

$`f`$ $`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{r}}+{\displaystyle \frac{4r^2}{L^2}}H_1H_2H_3H_4`$ (56)
$`H_i`$ $`=`$ $`1+{\displaystyle \frac{q_i}{r}}`$ (57)
$`A^i`$ $`=`$ $`(H_i^11)dt`$ (58)
We assume without loss of generality that the four U(1) charges $`q_i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{}4`$, satisfy $`q_1q_2q_3q_40`$. In the extremal limit, $`\mu =0`$, this solution has a naked singularity at $`r=q_4`$. The apparent singularity in the metric at $`r=0`$ is a removable coordinate singularity. In the extremal limit we choose a new coordinate $`\rho =r+q_4`$ and extend the space-time past the coordinate singularity to $`\rho =0`$. This gives

$$ds_4^2=\frac{\stackrel{~}{f}}{(\stackrel{~}{H}_1\stackrel{~}{H}_2\stackrel{~}{H}_3\stackrel{~}{H}_4)^{1/2}}dt^2+(\stackrel{~}{H}_1\stackrel{~}{H}_2\stackrel{~}{H}_3\stackrel{~}{H}_4)^{1/2}(\stackrel{~}{f}^1d\rho ^2+d\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2)$$
(59)
where

$`\stackrel{~}{f}`$ $`=`$ $`(\rho q_4)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{L^2}}\stackrel{~}{H}_1\stackrel{~}{H}_2\stackrel{~}{H}_3\stackrel{~}{H}_4`$ (60)
$`\stackrel{~}{H}_i`$ $`=`$ $`\rho +q_iq_4`$ (61)
$`A^i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{q_i}{\stackrel{~}{H}_i}}dt`$ (62)
In these coordinates the naked singularity occurs at $`\rho =0`$. The 4-dimensional solution can be lifted to an 11-dimensional supergravity solution via the lift ansatz given in Eqs. (6) and (7). The 11-dimensional solution will inherit a naked singularity from the 4-dimensional solution. We want to understand whether the naked singularity can be interpreted as a collection of giant gravitons. One way to test this idea is to probe the superstar geometry with giant gravitons. If the hypothesis is correct one expects that a probe carrying the same type of charge as the background will have a minimum energy configuration at the naked singularity, $`\rho =0`$. Moreover, we expect $`\rho =0`$ to be a BPS minimum ($`E_i=\frac{P_i}{L}`$) for this type of probe. We consider giant graviton probes carrying momentum in the $`\varphi _i`$ direction and wrapping the $`\theta _{ji}`$, $`\varphi _{ji}`$ directions. We look for solutions which are stationary in the extended directions, i.e. $`\dot{x}^\mu =0`$ except $`\mu =0`$. From Eq. (53) the energy of such a probe is given by

$$E_i=\frac{1}{L}\sqrt{g_{00}}\stackrel{~}{P}_iX_i\frac{\stackrel{~}{P}_iA^i}{L}=\frac{\stackrel{~}{P}_i}{L}\frac{\stackrel{~}{f}^{1/2}+q_i}{\stackrel{~}{H}_i}$$
(63)
There are five distinct cases for the background charge, which we consider in turn:

1. all $`q_i=0`$, then BPS minimum for all 4 types of probe at $`\rho =0`$.
2. $`q_10`$, all other $`q_i=0`$. The probe coupling to $`A^1`$ has a BPS minimum at $`\rho =0`$. Energy of probes coupling to $`A^2`$, $`A^3`$, $`A^4`$ saturates the BPS bound at $`\rho =0`$, but the gradient of the potential is non-zero at $`\rho =0`$.
3. $`q_1,q_20`$, all other $`q_i=0`$. Energy of probes coupling to $`A^1`$, $`A^2`$ saturates the BPS bound at $`\rho =0`$, but the gradient of the potential is non-zero. Probes coupling to $`A^3`$, $`A^4`$ neither saturate the BPS bound, nor have a minimum at $`\rho =0`$.
4. $`q_1,q_2,q_30`$, $`q_4=0`$. Energy of probes coupling to $`A^1`$, $`A^2`$, $`A^3`$ saturates the BPS bound at $`\rho =0`$, but gradient of potential is infinite. Energy of probe coupling to $`A^4`$ diverges as $`\rho 0`$.
5. $`q_1,q_2,q_3,q_40`$. Energy of probe coupling to $`A^4`$ diverges as $`\rho 0`$. The gradient of the potential for probes coupling to $`A^1`$, $`A^2`$, $`A^3`$ is non-zero at $`\rho =0`$.

Thus we find that the only scenario where it is sensible to interpret the naked singularity as a configuration of giant gravitons is in the singly charged background. Here the probe which carries the same type of charge as the background has a BPS minimum at $`\rho =0`$. In all other cases the energy of the probe is not minimized at the singularity. This is similar to what was found in Ref.  in the context of type IIB supergravity, where only the singly charged background could be interpreted in terms of giant gravitons.

## 3 Supergravity reduction on $`S^4`$

The Kaluza-Klein reduction of 11-dimensional supergravity on $`S^4`$ leads to $`𝒩=4`$ supergravity in seven dimensions with gauge group SO(5). As in the previous case, this $`𝒩=4`$ theory can be consistently truncated to $`𝒩=2`$ supergravity coupled to a vector multiplet. The vector multiplet consists of the metric, a 2-form potential, four vector potentials and four scalars. We are interested in a further truncation of the 7-dimensional theory where only the metric, two vector potentials and two scalars are retained in the bosonic sector. That is, the only gauge fields retained are those corresponding to the $`U(1)^2`$ Cartan subgroup of SO(5). Like the previous case, where we neglected axions, this further truncation is not completely consistent. However, solutions which preserve $`F_{(2)}^1F_{(2)}^2=0`$ will be solutions of both the full and truncated $`𝒩=2`$ theories. These solutions will also correspond directly to solutions of 11-dimensional supergravity. The lift ansatz will be described in the following paragraph.

The Lagrangian for the 7-dimensional truncated $`𝒩=2`$ theory is given by

$`e^1_7`$ $`=`$ $`R{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}}(X_i^1X_i)^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(X_0^1X_0)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{L^2}}(4X_1X_2+2X_0X_1+2X_0X_2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}X_0^2)`$ (64)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}}X_i^2(F_{(2)}^i)^2`$
Here $`X_0,X_1,X_2`$ are a convenient parameterization for the two scalar fields. They obey the constraint $`X_0=(X_1X_2)^2`$. The 2-forms $`F_{(2)}^i=dA_{(1)}^i`$, $`i=1,2`$ are field strengths for the U(1) gauge groups. The 7-dimensional equations of motion can be easily deduced from the above Lagrangian. We obtain 333From now on we will use $`\{\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma ,\mathrm{}\}`$ for indices running over 0, 1, 2, while $`\{i,j,k,\mathrm{}\}`$ run over 1, 2 only.

$`d_{(1,6)}d\mathrm{log}(X_i)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4X_0^{1/2}}{L}}ϵ_{(1,6)}{\displaystyle \frac{2X_0X_i}{L^2}}ϵ_{(1,6)}X_i^2F^i_{(1,6)}F^i2\lambda `$ (65)
$`d_{(1,6)}d\mathrm{log}(X_0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4X_0}{L^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}X_iϵ_{(1,6)}+{\displaystyle \frac{2X_0^2}{L^2}}ϵ_{(1,6)}2\lambda `$ (66)
$`d\left(X_i^2_{(1,6)}F^i\right)`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (67)
where

$$\lambda =\frac{1}{5L^2}(8X_0^{1/2}4X_0\underset{i}{}X_i+X_0^2)ϵ_{(1,6)}\frac{1}{5}\underset{i}{}X_i^2F^i_{(1,6)}F^i$$
(68)
and $`_{(1,6)}`$ means dualizing with respect to the metric $`ds_{(1,6)}^2`$. Solutions of the equations of motion can be lifted to solutions of 11-dimensional supergravity via the lift ansatz:

$`ds_{11}^2`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{1/3}ds_{(1,6)}^2+\mathrm{\Delta }^{2/3}\left(L^2{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =0}{\overset{2}{}}}X_\alpha ^1d\mu _\alpha ^2+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}}X_i^1\mu _i^2(Ld\varphi _i+A^i)^2\right)`$ (69)
$`F_{(7)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2U}{L}}ϵ_{(1,6)}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{L}}\mathrm{\Delta }X_0ϵ_{(1,6)}{\displaystyle \frac{L}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =0}{\overset{2}{}}}X_\alpha ^1_{(1,6)}dX_\alpha d(\mu _\alpha ^2)`$ (70)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{L}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}}X_i^2d(\mu _i^2)(Ld\varphi _i+A_{(1)}^i)_{(1,6)}F_{(2)}^i`$
where $`U=_{\alpha =0}^2(X_\alpha ^2\mu _\alpha ^2\mathrm{\Delta }X_\alpha )`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }=_{\alpha =0}^2X_\alpha \mu _\alpha ^2`$. The variables $`\mu _\alpha `$ satisfy the constraint $`_\alpha \mu _\alpha ^2=1`$. They can be parameterized by

$$\mu _0=\mathrm{sin}\theta _1\mathrm{cos}\theta _2,\mu _1=\mathrm{cos}\theta _1,\mu _2=\mathrm{sin}\theta _1\mathrm{sin}\theta _2,$$
(71)
where $`0\theta _1,\theta _2\pi /2`$ and $`0\varphi _1,\varphi _22\pi `$.

### 3.1 Dualizing $`F_{(7)}`$

We want to consider probing the 11-dimensional supergravity solutions Eqs. (69)-(70) with giant gravitons. As in § 2.1 we could also consider probing with a massless particle moving on the 4-sphere. We find that this is equivalent to probing the associated 7-dimensional space-time with a massive charged particle. However, we do not repeat the calculation here. The giant gravitons used here to probe the solution will be M2-branes with an $`S^2`$ topology. The 2-branes will couple to a 3-form potential $`A_{(3)}`$, related to the 7-form field strength tensor $`F_{(7)}`$ via the dual field strength $`F_{(4)}=_{(11)}F_{(7)}=dA_{(3)}`$. Therefore to find $`A_{(3)}`$ explicitly we need to dualize $`F_{(7)}`$, given in Eq. (70), and integrate the resulting 4-form. In many ways this is similar to the previous case where a 4-form field strength tensor was dualized (§ 2.2) and then integrated (§ 2.3) to find a 6-form potential $`A^{(6)}`$. The main differences arise in the intermediate calculations because here the sphere is even-dimensional, and thus parameterized slightly differently compared to $`S^7`$. However, the end results will be largely similar.

In analogy with the previous case, we first need a result for dualizing $`(p+q)`$-forms which split into a product of a $`p`$-form, $`\alpha _{(p)}`$, in the “AdS” directions and a $`q`$-form, $`\beta _{(q)}`$, in the “$`S^4`$” directions. We find

$$_{(11)}(\alpha _{(p)}\beta _{(q)})=()^{q(7p)}\mathrm{\Delta }^{(2p+4q1)/6}(_{(1,6)}\alpha _{(p)}_{(4)}\beta _{(q)})$$
(72)
The metric on $`S^4`$ also splits into two parts:

$$ds_4^2=L^2\underset{\alpha =0}{\overset{2}{}}X_\alpha ^1d\mu _\alpha ^2+\underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}X_i^1\mu _i^2(Ld\varphi _i+A^i)^2$$
(73)
Therefore, we have a result similar to Eq. (72) for dualizing forms within the $`S^4`$,

$$_{(4)}(\alpha _{(p)}\beta _{(q)})=()^{q(2p)+1}L^{22p}(\stackrel{~}{}_{(2)}\alpha _{(p)}_{(2)}\beta _{(q)})$$
(74)
where $`\alpha _{(p)}`$ is a $`p`$-form in the $`\mu _\alpha `$ directions and $`\beta _{(q)}`$ is a $`q`$-form in the $`\varphi _i`$ directions. Here $`_{(2)}`$ means dualizing with respect to $`ds_2^2=_iX_i^1\mu _i^2(Ld\varphi _i+A^i)^2`$, whereas $`\stackrel{~}{}_{(2)}`$ refers to the metric

$$ds_3^2=\underset{\alpha =0}{\overset{2}{}}X_\alpha ^1d\mu _\alpha ^2$$
(75)
restricted to the surface $`S:_\alpha \mu _\alpha ^2=1`$. Dualizing forms on $`S`$ requires the following result ,

$$\stackrel{~}{}_{(2)}\alpha =_{(3)}(e_3\alpha )$$
(76)
where $`_{(3)}`$ refers to $`ds_3^2`$ in Eq. (75) and $`e_3=\mathrm{\Delta }^{1/2}_\alpha \mu _\alpha d\mu _\alpha `$ is a unit 1-form orthogonal to $`S`$. We now have all the necessary results to dualize $`F_{(7)}`$ in eleven dimensions.

It is useful to define the following 1-forms ,

$`Z_{\alpha \beta }`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_{\alpha \beta \gamma }d\mu _\gamma `$ (77)
$`Z_\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_{\alpha \beta \gamma }\mu _\beta d\mu _\gamma `$ (78)
Due to the constraint $`_\alpha \mu _\alpha ^2=1`$, there are three identities connecting these 1-forms :

$`dZ_\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`2\mu _\alpha W`$ (79)
$`Z_\alpha d\mu _\beta `$ $`=`$ $`(\delta _{\alpha \beta }\mu _\alpha \mu _\beta )W`$ (80)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}X_\alpha \mu _\alpha Z_{\alpha \beta }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}X_\alpha \mu _\alpha Z_\alpha \mu _\beta \mathrm{\Delta }Z_\beta `$ (81)
where $`W=\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{\alpha \beta \gamma }\mu _\alpha d\mu _\beta d\mu _\gamma `$ is the volume form on $`S`$. Using these identities we can obtain some intermediate results:

$`\stackrel{~}{}_{(2)}d\mu _\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{}_{(3)}(\mathrm{\Delta }^{1/2}{\displaystyle \underset{\beta }{}}\mu _\beta d\mu _\beta d\mu _\alpha )=X_0^{1/4}\mathrm{\Delta }^{1/2}{\displaystyle \underset{\beta }{}}X_\alpha Z_{\alpha \beta }\mu _\beta X_\beta `$ (82)
$`\stackrel{~}{}_{(2)}1`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{}_{(3)}(\mathrm{\Delta }^{1/2}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}\mu _\alpha d\mu _\alpha )=X_0^{1/4}\mathrm{\Delta }^{1/2}W`$ (83)
The factors of $`X_0`$ in these expressions arise from the relation $`X_0=(X_1X_2)^2`$, which means that the determinant of the metric $`ds_3^2`$, given in Eq. (75), is $`X_0^{1/2}`$ (c.f. previous case, where $`det(d\stackrel{~}{s}_4^2)=(X_1X_2X_3X_4)^1=1`$). However, these extra factors of $`X_0`$ will cancel out when we dualize terms in $`F_{(7)}`$. For example, using Eqs. (72), (74) and (83), we can dualize the first term in $`F_{(7)}`$ as follows,

$`_{(11)}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2U}{L}}ϵ_{(1,6)}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2U}{L}}\mathrm{\Delta }^{5/2}_{(4)}1`$ (84)
$`=`$ $`2UL\mathrm{\Delta }^{5/2}\stackrel{~}{}_{(2)}1_{(2)}1`$
$`=`$ $`2UL\mathrm{\Delta }^2X_0^{1/4}W{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}X_i^{1/2}\mu _i(Ld\varphi _i+A_{(1)}^i)`$
$`=`$ $`2UL\mathrm{\Delta }^2W{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\mu _i(Ld\varphi _i+A_{(1)}^i)`$
where we have used the constraint $`X_0=(X_1X_2)^2`$ in the last line. Similarly we can dualize the other terms in $`F_{(7)}`$ using the results Eqs. (72)-(83). We find

$`F_{(4)}=_{(11)}F_{(7)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2LU}{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}W{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\mu _i(Ld\varphi _i+A_{(1)}^i)+{\displaystyle \frac{LX_0}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}W{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\mu _i(Ld\varphi _i+A_{(1)}^i)`$ (85)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{L}{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\beta }{}}\mu _\alpha dX_\alpha Z_{\alpha \beta }\mu _\beta X_\beta {\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\mu _i(Ld\varphi _i+A_{(1)}^i)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{L}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}{\displaystyle \underset{i\beta }{}}F_{(2)}^iZ_{i\beta }\mu _\beta X_\beta {\displaystyle \underset{ji}{}}\mu _j(Ld\varphi _j+A_{(1)}^j)`$
It is straightforward to show that $`dF_{(4)}=0`$, using the identities given in Eqs. (79)-(81). This means that $`F_{(4)}`$ can be integrated at least locally.

### 3.2 Integrating $`F_{(4)}`$

The procedure for integrating $`F_{(4)}`$ is very similar to the previous case. Therefore, we will not repeat the calculation here, but just show the final result. As before, it is not possible to write $`F_{(4)}=dA_{(3)}`$ with $`A_{(3)}`$ well-defined over the whole space-time. However, $`A_{(3)}`$ can be found locally everywhere. For example, in the region where $`\mu _10`$, $`A_{(3)}`$ is given by

$$A_{(3)}=\frac{L}{\mu _1\mathrm{\Delta }}\underset{\alpha }{}\mu _\alpha X_\alpha Z_{\alpha 1}\underset{i}{}\mu _i(Ld\varphi _i+A_{(1)}^i)+L\mu _0F_{(2)}^2(Ld\varphi _1+A_{(1)}^1)$$
(86)
In the next section we will consider giant graviton probes moving in the 11-dimensional space-time at fixed $`\mu _10`$. The above form for $`A_{(3)}`$ will allow the coupling of the probe to the 3-form potential to be determined explicitly.

### 3.3 Brane probe calculation

We consider probing the 11-dimensional solution with a giant graviton. In this case the giant graviton is a 2-brane wrapped on an $`S^2`$ within the $`S^4`$. We take the brane world-volume to be parameterized by the coordinates $`t,\theta _2,\varphi _2`$ and consider rigid motion in the $`\varphi _1`$ direction at fixed $`\theta _1`$. The motion in the non-compact AdS directions is arbitrary, but assumed to be independent of the coordinates $`\theta _2`$, $`\varphi _2`$, so that only rigid motion of the brane is considered. The action for the giant graviton is given by

$$S_2=T_2𝑑t𝑑\theta _2𝑑\varphi _2\left[\sqrt{det(P(g))}+\dot{x}^\mu A_{\mu \theta _2\varphi _2}^{(3)}+\dot{\varphi }_1A_{\varphi _1\theta _2\varphi _2}^{(3)}\right]$$
(87)
As before, $`P(g)`$ is the pull-back of the 11-dimensional metric onto the 3-dimensional world-volume of the brane. The determinant of this metric can be evaluated readily. One obtains,

$$det(P(g))=\mathrm{\Delta }^1L^4X_1^2\mathrm{sin}^4\theta _1\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _2\alpha \left(g_{\mu \nu }\dot{x}^\mu \dot{x}^\nu +\frac{\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _1}{X_1\mathrm{\Delta }}\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}^2\right)$$
(88)
The components of $`A_{(3)}`$ which couple to the brane can be read off from Eq. (86), using the parameterization for $`\mu _\alpha `$ given in Eq. (71). We obtain,

$$\dot{x}^\mu A_{\mu \theta _2\varphi _2}^{(3)}+\dot{\varphi }_1A_{\varphi _1\theta _2\varphi _2}^{(3)}=\frac{L^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\mathrm{sin}^3\theta _1\mathrm{sin}\theta _2\alpha \dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}$$
(89)
where $`\alpha =X_0\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _2+X_2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _2`$ and $`\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}=L\dot{\varphi _1}+A_\mu ^1\dot{x}^\mu `$. Thus we get the following Lagrangian for the giant graviton,

$$=T_2L^2\left\{\frac{X_1}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _1\mathrm{sin}\theta _2\alpha ^{1/2}\sqrt{g_{\mu \nu }\dot{x}^\mu \dot{x}^\nu \frac{\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _1}{X_1\mathrm{\Delta }}\dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}^2}\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\mathrm{sin}^3\theta _1\mathrm{sin}\theta _2\alpha \dot{\mathrm{\Phi }}\right\}$$
(90)
As in the previous case, there is no explicit dependence on $`\varphi _1`$ in the Lagrangian and so we replace $`\dot{\varphi _1}`$ with its time-independent conjugate momentum $`P_{\varphi _1}(\theta _2,\varphi _2)`$. This yields the following Routhian,

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{L}}\sqrt{g_{\mu \nu }\dot{x}^\mu \dot{x}^\nu }\left({\displaystyle \frac{X_1\mathrm{\Delta }}{\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _1}}\left(P_{\varphi _1}{\displaystyle \frac{N}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}\mathrm{sin}^3\theta _1\mathrm{sin}\theta _2\alpha \right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{N^2X_1^2\alpha }{\mathrm{\Delta }}}\mathrm{sin}^4\theta _1\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _2\right)^{1/2}`$ (91)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{L}}P_{\varphi _1}A_\mu ^1\dot{x}^\mu `$
As before, the quantity in the square root can be rearranged as a sum of squares to give

$$=\frac{1}{L}\sqrt{g_{\mu \nu }\dot{x}^\mu \dot{x}^\nu }\left(X_1^2P_{\varphi _1}^2+X_1\alpha \mathrm{tan}^2\theta _1(P_{\varphi _1}N\mathrm{sin}\theta _1\mathrm{sin}\theta _2)^2\right)^{1/2}\frac{1}{L}P_{\varphi _1}A_\mu ^1\dot{x}^\mu $$
(92)
It is now simple to minimize the energy over $`\theta _1`$. There are two minima: $`\theta _1=0`$ and $`P_{\varphi _1}=P_1\mathrm{sin}\theta _2`$, where $`P_1=N\mathrm{sin}\theta _1`$ is constant. Like the previous case, the minimum at $`\theta _1=0`$ is singular as it represents a huge energy concentrated at a point. From now on we consider the latter minimum which represents a giant graviton. At this minimum the Routhian becomes

$$=\frac{1}{L}\sqrt{g_{\mu \nu }\dot{x}^\mu \dot{x}^\nu }X_1\stackrel{~}{P}_1\frac{1}{L}\stackrel{~}{P}_1A_\mu ^1\dot{x}^\mu $$
(93)
after integrating out $`\theta _2,\varphi _2`$ and setting $`\stackrel{~}{P}_1=2\pi P_1`$. This is the Hamiltonian for a massive charged particle coupled to a scalar in seven dimensions. Equivalently we could have chosen the brane to wrap the $`\theta _1,\varphi _1`$ directions and move in the $`\varphi _2`$ direction. This would produce an entirely analogous result. Thus in general the energy of a probe moving in the $`\varphi _i`$ direction is given by

$$E_i=\frac{1}{L}\sqrt{g_{\mu \nu }\dot{x}^\mu \dot{x}^\nu }X_i\stackrel{~}{P}_i\frac{1}{L}\stackrel{~}{P}_iA_\mu ^i\dot{x}^\mu $$
(94)
where $`i=1,2`$. Therefore we have shown that probing the 11-dimensional solutions Eqs. (69)-(70) with a giant graviton is equivalent to probing the related 7-dimensional geometry with a massive charged particle. As before, this result depends on the fact that the quantity in the square root in Eq. (91) can be rearranged as a sum of squares to simplify the minimization procedure.

### 3.4 Probing superstars with giant gravitons

We now consider probing particular superstar geometries with giant gravitons. These superstars are lifts of $`𝒩=2`$ supergravity in seven dimensions with gauge group $`U(1)^2`$. The 7-dimensional theory admits the following family of black hole solutions with two charges,

$$ds_7^2=\frac{fr^{2/5}}{(H_1H_2)^{4/5}}dt^2+(H_1H_2r^2)^{1/5}(f^1r^4dr^2+d\mathrm{\Omega }_5^2)$$
(95)
where

$`f`$ $`=`$ $`r^6\mu r^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4L^2}}H_1H_2`$ (96)
$`H_i`$ $`=`$ $`r^4+q_i`$ (97)
$`A_{(1)}^i`$ $`=`$ $`q_iH_i^1dt`$ (98)
and $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_5^2`$ is the metric on a unit 5-sphere in flat space. In the extremal case, $`\mu =0`$, there is a naked singularity at $`r=0`$. The lifted 11-dimensional supergravity solution inherits the naked singularity. We want to understand whether this singularity can be interpreted as a collection of giant gravitons. The results of the previous section will be used to probe the 11-dimensional supergravity solution with giant gravitons. We want to see whether the energy of a giant graviton probe is minimized at $`r=0`$, and whether it is a BPS minimum ($`E_i=\stackrel{~}{P}_i/L`$). We consider a giant graviton 2-brane probe which carries momentum in the $`\varphi _i`$ direction, wraps the $`\theta _{ji},\varphi _{ji}`$ directions and is stationary in the extended directions, i.e. $`\dot{x}^\mu =0`$ except $`\mu =0`$. From Eq. (94), the energy of this probe is given by

$$E_i=\frac{1}{L}\sqrt{g_{00}}X_i\stackrel{~}{P}_i\frac{1}{L}\stackrel{~}{P}_iA_0^i=\frac{\stackrel{~}{P}_i}{L}\frac{f^{1/2}r+q_i}{H_i}$$
(99)
There are three distinct cases to consider:

1. All $`q_i=0`$. BPS minimum at $`r=0`$ for probes coupling to both $`A^1`$ and $`A^2`$.
2. $`q_10`$, $`q_2=0`$. Probe coupling to $`A^1`$ has a BPS minimum at $`r=0`$. Energy of probe coupling to $`A^2`$ diverges as $`r0`$.
3. $`q_1,q_20`$. The energy of both probes saturates the BPS bound at $`r=0`$, but the gradient of the potential is non-zero at $`r=0`$.

Therefore, as in the previous case, it is only sensible to interpret the singly charged background as being sourced by giant gravitons. In this case a probe carrying the same type of charge as the background has a BPS minimum at $`r=0`$. In the doubly charged background this does not occur.

## 4 Conclusions

We have demonstrated that massive charged particles in 4-dimensional U(1)4 gauged supergravity and 7-dimensional U(1)2 gauged supergravity correspond to giant gravitons in eleven dimensions. The existence of these giant gravitons, which is a dynamical property of the brane interacting with the background gauge field, does not depend on any specific solution of the gauged supergravities or preservation of supersymmetry. So it appears that giant gravitons are closely related to the structure of the lift ansatze. These calculations complement the results for 5-dimensional U(1)3 gauged supergravity obtained in  as well as the results of  where it was first emphasised that giant gravitons can appear in a variety of backgrounds, without requiring supersymmetry.

We also considered probing superstar geometries which are conjectured to be sourced by a collection of giant gravitons. We obtained the same qualitative results as in  for the 5-dimensional case – for the single charge solutions the probe calculation supported the conjecture while for the multi-charges solutions the potential seen by the probes does not have a BPS minimum at the superstar singularity. Again the interpretation is not clear. The results may indicate that the multi-charge solutions are not sourced by giant gravitons, that the singularities of the multi-charge solutions are not physical, or that the reduced supersymmetry of the multi-charge solutions requires us to consider higher order curvature corrections in the probe calculations. This is clearly an issue which requires further investigation.

Clearly giant gravitons are interesting objects within the context of gauged supergravities and their lifts to 10- or 11-dimensional supergravity, as well as in the context of gauge/gravity duality. In particular, we expect that further investigation of these objects will lead to a better understanding of consistent truncation to gauged supergravities. This may also illuminate the role of solutions of gauged supergravities as opposed to solutions of 10- or 11-dimensional supergravity as the dual description of gauge theories.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank David Page and Harald Svendsen for many helpful discussions. EJH is funded by the George Murray Scholarship (University of Adelaide) and the Overseas Research Students Awards Scheme.


text:
# Discovery of a very cool object with extraordinarily strong H𝛼 emissionThese observations were collected at the VLT of the ESO (Chile), the Keck I telescope (USA), and the 3.5-m telescope at Calar Alto Observatory (Spain).

## 1 Introduction

Both mass accretion and chromospheric activity have H$`\alpha `$ emission as a signature. Chromospheric activity appears as a consequence of the low density, the inverted temperature profile and the strong magnetic field present in K- and M-type dwarfs. Other Balmer lines, as well as Caii H&K and the Caii infrared triplet can appear in emission too. The activity detected in some brown dwarfs (objects incapable of burning hydrogen stably, with masses below 0.075 $`M`$, Chabrier at al. chabrier00 (2000) and references therein) have, probably, this origin (Martín et al. 1999a ), although so far there is no theoretical model capable of explaining this phenomenology (e.g., Mohanty et al. mohanty02 (2002)). In addition, the H$`\alpha `$ emission line of these cool objects often has an intrinsic variability, and strong flares are commonly detected in M dwarfs. On the other hand, accretion can appear in interacting binaries (during the transfer process of material) or in accreting objects with circumstellar disks, such as the young TTauri stars. These pre-main sequence stars are normally classified as classical TTauri (CTT) stars or weak-line TTauri (WTT) stars. The first group is characterized by strong H$`\alpha `$ emission (larger than 10 or 20 Å, Appenzeller & Mundt appenzeller89 (1989); Martín martin97 (1997)), asymmetric and broad H$`\alpha `$ profiles (sometimes with double peaks), presence of forbidden emission lines (arising from shocks produced by jets and outflows), blue/UV and infrared excesses, and a strong Li i 6708 Å line in absorption (indicative of youth). On the contrary, WTT stars lack most of these properties due to the absence of an active disk, and show smaller H$`\alpha `$ emissions while keeping strong lithium lines. In addition, WTT stars display a lower degree of variability (e.g., Herbst et al. herbst02 (2002)).

The $`\sigma `$ Orionis cluster (Walter et al. walter97 (1997)) is a young (1–8 Myr, Zapatero Osorio et al. 2002a ) stellar association with low reddening ($`E(BV)`$=0.05, Lee lee68 (1968)), and located at a Hipparcos distance of 352$`{}_{85}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{+166}`$ pc. Many substellar members of this cluster show H$`\alpha `$ emission in their optical spectra (Barrado y Navascués et al. barrado02 (2002), and references therein). This paper presents the discovery of a brown dwarf with likely membership in $`\sigma `$ Orionis, which has the strongest H$`\alpha `$ emission line ever detected in a TTauri late-type star or active very cool object. We discuss the origin of this extraordinary emission.

## 2 Observations and analysis

The object studied in this paper, named S Ori 71, was discovered in an optical $`IZ`$ survey using LRIS at the 10-m KeckI telescope, USA (Zapatero Osorio et al. 2002b ). Near-infrared data ($`J`$-band) were collected with the Omega Prime detector attached at the 3.5-m telescope of the Calar Alto Observatory, Spain. The combination of optical and infrared datasets produced several brown dwarf and isolated planetary-mass candidates (unable to fuse deuterium) of the $`\sigma `$ Orionis cluster. Many of them have been followed-up spectroscopically in order to assess their nature and study their properties (Barrado y Navascués et al. barrado01 (2001); Martín et al. martin01b (2001)). The spectrum presented in this paper was collected with the 8-m VLT/UT1 telescope at the Paranal Observatory of the European Southern Observatory, Chile, using FORS1 (2451904.056 JD). It was processed and analyzed as in Barrado y Navascués et al. (barrado01 (2001)). The VLT spectrum of S Ori71 (6200–9300 Å) is shown in Fig. 1. The spectral type of our object was derived by comparing its pseudo-continuum to that of various M- and L-type dwarf spectra, and by comparing several spectral ratios in different bands following Kirkpatrick et al. (kirk99 (1999)) and Martín et al. (1999b ). The final classification, L0, has a uncertainty of half a sub-class. Coordinates, photometric and spectral measurements, and other parameters of S Ori 71 are listed in Table 1. A finding chart can be provided upon request. Both photometric and spectroscopic data support S Ori 71’s being a likely member of the $`\sigma `$ Orionis cluster.

Figure 2 illustrates the known spectral sequence of the $`\sigma `$ Orionis cluster. S Ori 71 lies above this sequence, which might indicate that, either it is younger than other cluster members, or that it contains two components of rather equal mass. A similar case is that of S Ori 47 (Zapatero Osorio et al. osorio99 (1999); Barrado y Navascués et al. barrado01 (2001)), a slightly cooler (L1), substellar object of the cluster. S Ori 71 also appears overluminous in color-magnitude diagrams. Its luminosity (Table 1) is obtained using bolometric corrections of Leggett et al. (leggett02 (2002)). Adopting a cluster age of 3 Myr and the evolutionary models of Baraffe et al. (baraffe98 (1998)), we estimate the mass of S Ori 71 to be between 0.014 $`M_{}`$ and 0.021 $`M_{}`$ if it were a single object. In case of binarity, each component would be 0.012–0.017 $`M_{}`$. From the models, we also infer that the surface temperature of the object is in the range 2200–2500 K, in agreement with its spectral type. Table 1 summarizes these results. Other sets of theoretical models (Burrows et al. burrows97 (1997); D’Antona & Mazzitelli dantona97 (1997); Chabrier et al. chabrier00 (2000)) produce similar mass and temperature values.

## 3 H$`\alpha `$ emission and its origin

S Ori 71 displays a broad, incredibly strong H$`\alpha `$ emission as compared to other similar type objects. Two blow-ups of the object’s spectrum around H$`\alpha `$ are depicted in Fig. 1: panel $`a`$ illustrates the asymmetry of the line in a 2-D plot, while the comparison to the instrumental profile (sky line) is provided in panel $`b`$. This broad H$`\alpha `$ emission is probably a result of the electron scattering in the H$`\alpha `$ formation region as observed in some TTauri stars (Stahl & Wolf stahl80 (1980)). Figure 1 also includes two spectra of the field dwarf PC 0025$`+`$0047 taken from Martín et al. (1999a ). With M9.5 spectral type, this field object shows a persistent and variable H$`\alpha `$ emission. The line pseudo-equivalent widths (pEWs) of the two spectra of the figure are $``$200 Å and 400 Å, although Martín et al. (1999a ) have reported H$`\alpha `$ variability in the range 100–400 Å in a 4 yr timespan. Other few field objects with similar spectral types also have strong H$`\alpha `$ emissions up to pEW $``$ 400 Å (Liebert et al. liebert99 (1999); Burgasser et al. burgasser02 (2002)). However, the emission of S Ori 71 (pEW = 705 $`\pm `$ 75 Å) stands out due to its huge intensity. Table 2 summarizes the properties of several objects with similar spectral classes both in the field and in the $`\sigma `$ Orionis cluster. To our knowledge, in addition to these objects, the largest H$`\alpha `$ pEWs correspond to more massive and warmer sources, like LkH$`\alpha `$ 101, an unusual F-type CTT star (Cohen & Kuhi cohen79 (1979); Herbig & Bell herbig88 (1988)), and XZ Tau, V573 Ori, HO Lup, Sz 123, Sz 69, Sz 102, WZ Cha and PT Mon, all of them with K and early-M classes and H$`\alpha `$ pEWs = 220–377 Å.

We have also compared the H$`\alpha `$ pEWs of $`\sigma `$ Orionis stellar and substellar cluster members (Bejár et al. bejar99 (1999); Barrado y Navascués et al. barrado01 (2001); Zapatero et al. 2002a , 2002c ) to those values of CTT stars of Orion with less than 1 Myr (Herbig & Bell herbig88 (1988)), WTT stars (Alcalá et al. alcala96 (1996), alcala00 (2000)), and very low mass stars and brown dwarfs of the $`\alpha `$ Persei cluster (70–95 Myr, Prosser et al. prosser94 (1994); Stauffer et al. stauffer99 (1999)). Fine details are given in Barrado y Navascués et al. (barrado02 (2002)). While H$`\alpha `$ emission in CTT stars is very likely originated in accretion disks surrounding the central object, older stars are believed to show less intense H$`\alpha `$ emission as a consequence of chromospheric activity and rotation. Resulting from the comparison, we note that besides the very young age of the $`\sigma `$ Orionis cluster, Orion CTT stars have stronger H$`\alpha `$ lines, and that the emission level of the $`\sigma `$ Orionis low mass members is slightly larger or similar to that of the $`\alpha `$ Persei cluster (late-K to mid-M spectral types). This late cluster is older (Stauffer et al. stauffer99 (1999); Basri & Martín basri99 (1999)), but its low mass members have high rotation rates (Randich et al. randich96 (1996)). On the other hand, H$`\alpha `$ pEWs of the $`\sigma `$ Orionis cluster members, regardless of its origin, increases toward cooler objects, reaching about 100 Å in the planetary-mass domain (Barrado y Navascués et al. barrado01 (2001)). Line variability is also present among the smallest objects: Zapatero Osorio et al. (2002c ) measured a variable emission in S Ori 55 (Table 2), with pEWs ranging between 180 Å and 410 Å, whereas few weeks before, Barrado y Navascués et al. (barrado01 (2001)) reported almost no activity (pEW = 5 Å). Unfortunately, we have a single spectrum of S Ori 71, and cannot reach any conclusion on its variability. However, we remark that S Ori 71 presents a noteworthy H$`\alpha `$ pEW among low mass stellar and substellar members of any young cluster. Our literature search covered objects in Upper Scorpius, the Scorpius-Centaurus complex, Taurus, and the IC 348 cluster (Cohen & Kuhi cohen79 (1979), Herbig & Bell herbig88 (1988); Alcalá et al. alcala96 (1996), alcala00 (2000); Martín martin98 (1998); Herbig herbig98 (1998); Ardila et al. ardila00 (2000)).

If we consider the ratio between the H$`\alpha `$ luminosity of the object to its bolometric luminosity, as shown in Fig. 3, S Ori 71 appears to be more active than any other known brown dwarf (log $`L(\mathrm{H}\alpha )`$/$`L_{\mathrm{bol}})`$ = –2.69 $`\pm `$ 0.16). In very young star forming regions, strong H$`\alpha `$ emission is generally due to disk accretion, and it may be accompanied by emission of forbidden lines, like \[O i\] at 6300 & 6364 Å, \[N ii\] at 6548 & 6583 Å, and \[S ii\] at 6717 & 6731 Å, which result from jets and outflows. Other lines indicating activity, such as He i at 6678 Å, are not seen. We can impose upper limits of 1–2 Å to the pEW of these lines from our spectrum.

The fact that S Ori 71 could be a binary formed by similar mass objects, as previously discussed, adds a new possibility to the origin of the H$`\alpha `$ emission. Some matter transfer might take place between the components if they are close enough to each other (as proposed by Burgasser et al. burgasser00 (2000) for a T spectral type brown dwarf that has a persistent line emission). However, more data are needed to assess the reliability of this suggestive scenario. In addition, we have considered the possibility of S Ori 71 being an interacting binary formed by one compact object and a very small object. In this case, S Ori 71 would not belong to the $`\sigma `$ Orionis cluster. In order to reproduce the observed photometric data of our object, it would be composed of a 0.09 $`M_{}`$ main sequence star and a $``$0.5 $`M_{}`$ white dwarf ($`\tau `$ 2 Gyr) in a very short orbit. However, our optical spectrum does not show any evidence for a contribution from a hot companion (the white dwarf).

It might be possible to classify S Ori 71 as a a CTT substellar analog (i.e., accreting from a surrounding disk), based both on the strength of H$`\alpha `$ and its asymmetric profile. It would be very interesting to study the object’s $`K`$-band and mid-infrared emission and see if there is any flux excess, which would confirm the presence of the disk. At the present time and with the available data, we cannot rule out any possible scenario. A further explanation would be the case of an interacting binary with mass exchange or a common chromosphere/corona where magnetic loops would connect both objects and would experience frequent reconnections, producing the very strong H$`\alpha `$ emission. The geometry of these loops would be distorted as both components orbit around each other (specially if there is not synchronization between the orbital and the rotational periods), producing a magnification of the magnetic fields by compressing the magnetic lines, and resulting in abrupt releases of energy during flare-like events. Additional infrared, X-ray and radio data would be very valuable to provide new insights on the origin of the H$`\alpha `$ emission of objects like S Ori 71.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank the ESO staff at Paranal. Financial support was provided by the Spanish “Programa Ramón y Cajal” and AYA2001-1124-CO2 programs.