text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

For many decades now, string theory has held the promise of answering long standing mysteries that require a consistent theory of quantum gravity. The two most pressing areas are those of black hole physics and cosmology, both of which, in standard treatments, are afflicted by spacetime singularities that conclusively demonstrate the need for a more robust theoretical framework. During the last few years, significant progress has been made in understanding aspects of black hole physics in the context of string theory , although the proper resolution of the Schwarzschild black hole singularity remains elusive. More recently, there has also been a renewed surge of activity in applying string theory to issues relevant to cosmology through the advent of brane-world models , the focus on de Sitter spacetime , the application of holographic ideas , and the controversial possibility that string theory (and quantum gravity more generally) might leave an observable imprint in the cosmic microwave background radiation .

It has long been recognized that one requisite element of string cosmology is an understanding of string theory at finite temperature, and much work along these lines has been undertaken . These works have also demonstrated that finite temperature studies have the capacity to shed much light on critical, foundational issues of string theory itself. As a prime example, compared with ordinary quantum field theory, string theory is exceedingly well behaved in the ultraviolet, a property largely due to the exponential growth of states as a function of energy. And since the earliest days of string theory it has been recognized that such a growth of states leads to a Hagedorn temperature — a temperature above which the statistical partition function diverges because the exponential Boltzmann suppression is overcome by the exponential density of states. The existence of a Hagedorn temperature is particularly tantalizing because a long-standing, critical question has been: what are the true, fundamental degrees of freedom in string theory? While strings provide a natural and perturbatively useful set of constituents, the existence of a Hagedorn temperature is an indication that strings — somewhat like low energy/temperature hadrons in quantum chromodynamics — may not be the elementary degrees of freedom of string theory. Perhaps, many authors have speculated, just as quark and gluons emerge as the basic ingredients of quantum chromodynamics at high enough temperatures (and energies), the true degrees of freedom of string theory may also emerge at sufficiently high temperatures. In fact, if the specific heat at the Hagedorn temperature is finite, this indicates that the Hagedorn temperature is not a limiting temperature, but, instead, demarcates a phase transition — one that might well signal the appearance of the true, elementary degrees of freedom of string theory.

Over the years there have been a number of studies of the Hagedorn temperature in string theory; most have focused on string propagation in flat backgrounds since the calculation of the density of states requires an exactly soluble model. For example, in ref.  open bosonic, open and closed supersymmetric, and heterotic string theories were studied in flat noncompact space and it was found that the Hagedorn temperature is a limiting temperature for the open string models but not for the closed string models. In , closed strings were studied on a flat compact manifold ($`T^9`$) and it was found that the Hagedorn temperature is a limiting temperature. More recently,  have studied D-brane thermodynamics and found, for example, that D$`p`$-branes for $`p<5`$ possess a non-limiting Hagedorn temperature and hence likely have a high temperature Hagedorn phase.

In spite of many studies a precise understanding of the properties that a Hagedorn phase in string theory would exhibit, is still lacking.111Interesting recent progress on this question is reported in . A number of the works cited did reveal one likely qualitative feature of strings near the Hagedorn temperature — namely, the coalescing of energy into one long string, but very little else is known. In light of the work of  this may not be particularly surprising. Through indirect reasoning, these authors showed that the Hagedorn phase is characterized by a drastic reduction in the number of degrees of freedom (the free energy behaves as $`T^2`$ instead of $`T^D`$) and hence it may well be a highly nontrivial task to identify and rigorously describe the correct high temperature constituents.

In this paper, we undertake a further study of high temperature string theory in light of two recent and related advances. The first advance is the recent realization that string propagation in a maximally supersymmetric pp-wave background provides a non-flat, exactly soluble string theory . It is natural, then, to consider thermal string theory in such a background since we retain the necessary analytical control to make explicit calculations even though the space is not flat. The second advance is the realization that because of the AdS/CFT correspondence, pp-wave string theory is dual to a subsector of a particular Yang-Mills theory . This holds out the promise of a new, dual description of the Hagedorn properties of string theory (in a pp-wave background) and hence the possibility of gaining insight inaccessible by more direct means. In what follows, through direct calculation, we will partially realize these expectations.

In particular, in section 2 we will lay out the basic formalism for explicit calculations of thermal strings in a pp-wave background. In section 3 we will discuss the high temperature behaviour of strings in a pp-wave background, and will show that, indeed, there is a Hagedorn temperature. Close examination of the thermal properties of strings near the Hagedorn temperature will reveal it to be a limiting temperature.222Recent work of  modifies some of the conclusions presented here. Extending our results (by analyzing full thermodynamic integrals rather than just their integrands as done here)  shows that the Hagedorn temperature rather signals a phase transition. This is counter to the intuition that at high energies the pp-wave string only differs mildly from the Minkowski string. Therefore, it appears that we cannot gain much insight into the nature of a Hagedorn phase (and the fundamental degrees of freedom of string theory at high temperature) by studying strings in the pp-wave background. However, in section 4 we study the dual description of these results in $`𝒩=4`$ $`SU(N)`$ super-Yang-Mills theory, and obtain a somewhat unexpected result. Extending the map between pp-waves and the dual conformal field theory given in  to the thermal domain, we find that the string Hagedorn bound is a function of the super-Yang-Mills temperature and $`R`$-charge chemical potential. Surprisingly, the known regimes of the dual Yang-Mills theory at finite temperature and $`R`$-charge density lie beyond the Hagedorn bound, and hence are inaccessible to the thermal pp-wave string. This suggests that the limiting Hagedorn temperature may not be absolute, and that there exists a physical regime on the other side of the bound.333In fact, it turns out that this conjecture is true ; see note added in proof for details. To further motivate this conjecture, we note that thermodynamics in the context of quantum gravity is notoriously subtle, and it is questionable whether the ideal gas approximation — the approximation we use in our calculations — is a valid one, as in this approximation one effectively tunes the coupling to zero. Perhaps beyond the ideal gas approximation, the Hagedorn temperature ceases to be limiting and the pp-wave string probes the full phase diagram of the SYM theory. In section 5 we offer our conclusions and directions for further work.

While completing this paper, the preprint  appeared, which, in the revised version, contains the same results on the Hagedorn temperature and limiting behaviour of the IIB pp-wave string as we find in our sections 2 and 3.

## 2 Thermodynamics of pp-wave strings

### 2.1 Partition function in a pp-wave background

Our understanding of statistical mechanics, as of quantum field theory, is ultimately based on a Hamiltonian formulation of the theory. As such statistical mechanics suffers from the same complications as quantum field theory when one considers the system in a space-time background which is not flat. Only when the background space-time has a timelike Killing vector, can we at present make sense of the notion of a Hamiltonian as the generator of time-evolution and construct an associated quantum field theory or statistical partition function.444Thermodynamics is strictly defined in the infinite volume limit, which for string theory, or any quantum theory of gravity, does not exist due to Jeans’ instability. For sufficiently small string coupling this problem may be ignored, which is the point of view we shall take. We also assume that use of the canonical ensemble is valid.

A first requirement, therefore, is to analyze the symmetries of the pp-wave background. These have been extensively discussed in . The maximally symmetric pp-wave background for the IIB string, to which we will limit our attention, has the metric

$`ds^2=dx^+dx^{}\mu ^2z_i^2(dx^+)^2+dz_i^2;i=1,\mathrm{},8`$ (2.1)
with the curvature supported by a constant five-form flux

$`F_{+1234}={\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{g_s}}.`$ (2.2)
The symmetries of the metric are two translational isometries in the $`dx^\pm `$ directions, a rotational $`SO(8)`$ symmetry, broken to $`SO(4)\times SO(4)`$ by the presence of the five-form flux, and eight Lorentz-boost-like rotations in the $`z^i,x^{}`$ plane. In addition there is the Lorentz boost $`x^+\alpha x^+,x^{}x^{}/\alpha `$, which is only a symmetry when accompanied by the rescaling $`\mu \mu /\alpha `$.

Consider now an arbitrary linear combination of the translational isometries

$`\xi (a,b)=a{\displaystyle \frac{}{x^+}}+b{\displaystyle \frac{}{x^{}}}.`$ (2.3)
We may compute its nature, and construct a time-like Killing vector, according to which we quantize the system. The length squared of $`\xi (a,b)`$ is

$`\xi ^2=ab\mu ^2z_i^2a^2;`$ (2.4)
hence $`\xi (a,b)`$ is timelike if $`a(b+\mu ^2z_i^2a)<0`$. For instance, the naive choice $`a=b=1`$, in which case the Killing vector is simply $`/t`$, ($`x^\pm =t\pm r`$), obeys this inequality. The dependence of the length of $`\xi (a,b)`$ on the position $`z`$ simply reflects the redshift of temperature for various classes of observers.555 These are hypothetical non-geodesic observers located at fixed $`z`$, which are the natural ones to consider in the formal construction of the statistical partition function as a weighted distribution of Hamiltonian eigenvalues. Physical observers would follow geodesics instead. We will choose both $`a>0`$ and $`b>0`$ to ensure that the Killing vector is everywhere timelike. Quantizing the pp-wave system with such a $`\xi (a,b)`$ as Hamiltonian, the pp-wave partition function is formally

$`𝒵(a,b;\mu )=\text{Tr}_{}e^{bp_{}ap_+}`$ (2.5)
with the standard relation $`p_\pm =i/x^\pm `$. We have denoted the implicit dependence on the curvature of the pp-wave background by the variable $`\mu `$.

The symmetry of the theory under Lorentz scaling plus boost implies that the partition function (2.5) only depends on dimensionless combinations of $`a,b`$ and $`\mu `$. This still means that the partition function is a function of two variables, rather than a single temperature. The pp-wave geometry is not isotropic and these two parameters correspond geometrically to the length of the time-like Killing vector and its angle with respect to an arbitrarily chosen fiducial tangent vector field. The first selects the family of observers and the second the temperature of the heat-bath this family measures. In flat space the first variable, the angle, is irrelevant, as isotropy assures that all families of observers are equivalent. The identical expression for the partition function eq. (2.5) in flat space, where $`\mu =0`$, can be Lorentz-boosted to a standard one-parameter partition function with temperature $`T^1=\sqrt{ab}`$. The Lorentz-boost is a symmetry of the flat space, $`\mu =0`$ theory, and the flat space partition function computed before or after the boost will give the same answer. The pp-wave geometry does not possess this symmetry, and the partition function (2.5) will therefore be a two-parameter function of $`a`$ and $`b`$. In section 4 we will see that the dependence on the second parameter corresponds to the inclusion of a chemical potential in the dual CFT partition function.666We thank Jan de Boer for pointing this out to us.

Let us conclude with a final comment. The pp-wave metric is not static. Hence straight Euclideanization of the spacetime will cause the metric to be complex. This does not mean that we cannot discuss thermal physics. As emphasized at the beginning of this section, to construct a partition function, the metric only needs to possess a timelike Killing vector to serve as Hamiltonian — the spacetime must be stationary. In that case the concept of thermal equilibrium can make sense. If spacetime is also static, constructing a path integral from the statistical partition function will be equivalent to compactifying Euclidean time. If the spacetime is not static, one has to resort back to the Hamiltonian approach, as we do here.

### 2.2 Single and multi-string partition functions from the lightcone

As is well known, the partition function of an ideal gas of IIB pp-wave strings is a weighted product of the partition function of a single IIB pp-wave string (see e.g. )

$`\mathrm{ln}𝒵(a,b;\mu )={\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}\left(Z_1^B(ar,br;\mu )(1)^rZ_1^F(ar,br;\mu )\right).`$ (2.6)
This relation holds for a system of weakly interacting strings immersed in a heat bath of temperature $`T^1(z)=\sqrt{ab+\mu ^2z^2a^2}`$. By definition the bosonic and fermionic components of the single string partition function are

$`Z_1^B(\beta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\text{Tr}(1+(1)^{F_{st}})e^{\beta H},`$ (2.7)
$`Z_1^F(\beta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\text{Tr}(1(1)^{F_{st}})e^{\beta H},`$ (2.8)
where $`F_{st}`$ is the spacetime fermion number operator. The partition function is more conveniently expressed in terms of the building blocks

$`Z_1^{Thermal}(\beta )=\text{Tr}e^{\beta H},Z_1^{WI}(\beta )=\text{Tr}(1)^{F_{st}}e^{\beta H}.`$ (2.9)
For a spacetime supersymmetric string, as we have in mind, the Witten index $`Z_1^{WI}(\beta )`$ counts the number of bosonic minus fermionic zero energy groundstates. This is a finite number (it equals unity, see ) and gives only a small temperature independent correction to the free energy. As we will be interested in the high temperature behaviour of the pp-wave string, we will ignore this contribution.

It remains for us to determine the single string partition function (dropping the $`Thermal`$ superscript),

$`Z_1(a,b;\mu )=\text{Tr}_{}e^{bp_{}ap_+},`$ (2.10)
for the IIB pp-wave string. This is straightforwardly achieved, as it is known how to quantize the IIB pp-wave string in the lightcone gauge . In this gauge, worldsheet diffeomorphism invariance is used to set $`X^+(\sigma ,\tau )=x^++(2\pi \alpha ^{}p^+)\tau `$, and the theory is divided into sectors of fixed $`p_{}=p^+`$. After solving for the Virasoro constraints, the remaining transverse degrees of freedom are eight free worldsheet supersymmetric scalar multiplets with mass $`\mathrm{m}=\mu \alpha ^{}p^+`$ and $`p_+=(2\pi )^1𝑑\sigma P_+`$ as lightcone Hamiltonian;

$`p_+H_{lc}^{(\mathrm{m})}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha ^{}p_{}}}\left(\omega _0(N_0^B+N_0^F)+{\displaystyle \underset{n1}{}}\omega _n^{(\mathrm{m})}(N_n^B+N_n^F+\stackrel{~}{N}_n^B+\stackrel{~}{N}_n^F)\right)`$ (2.11)
with

$`\omega _n^{(\mathrm{m})}=\text{sign}(n)\sqrt{n^2+\mathrm{m}^2}.`$ (2.12)
$`N_n^{B,F}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{N}_n^{B,F}`$ are the number operators for the eight transverse right- and left-moving bosonic and fermionic oscillator modes, and the right- and leftmoving zero modes are identified as usual. As the (lightcone) theory is worldsheet supersymmetric the zero point energy cancels between the bosons and fermions.

The choice of lightcone gauge solves the two worldsheet reparametrization constraints explicitly. One single consistency condition remains to be imposed. This is the descendant of the relation

$`X^{}(\sigma ,\tau )=X^{}(\sigma +2\pi ,\tau )`$ $``$ $`\alpha _0^{}=\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_0^{}`$ (2.13)
and becomes the level-matching constraint on the transverse oscillators. The geometric reason behind this constraint is, as always, the circle isometry of the worldsheet. The generator of worldsheet translations in the sigma directions, normalized to integer eigenvalues, is formally unchanged and equals $`P=_{n1}n(N_n\stackrel{~}{N}_n)`$. Imposing this constraint on the space of states by the introduction of a delta function, the single string partition function equals

$`Z_1(a,b;\mu )={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑p_{}{\displaystyle _{\frac{1}{2}}^{\frac{1}{2}}}𝑑\tau _1e^{bp_{}}z_{lc}(\tau _1,{\displaystyle \frac{a}{2\pi \alpha ^{}p_{}}};\mathrm{m}=\mu \alpha ^{}p_{}),`$ (2.14)
where $`z_{lc}(\tau _1,\tau _2;\mu \alpha ^{}p_{})`$ is the lightcone partition function

$`z_{lc}(\tau _1,\tau _2;\mathrm{m})\text{Tr}_{states}e^{2\pi \tau _2(\alpha ^{}p_{}H_{lc}^{(\mathrm{m})})+2\pi i\tau _1P}.`$ (2.15)
Note that we have chosen to define the lightcone partition function such that the mass $`\mathrm{m}=\mu \alpha ^{}p_{}`$ and the modular parameter $`\tau _2=a/2\pi \alpha ^{}p_{}`$ are independent. The steps to evaluate eq. (2.15) are familiar. The bosonic and fermionic sectors separate and each can be expressed in terms of the building blocks  (see also )

$`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\alpha ,\delta }(\tau ,\overline{\tau };\mathrm{m})=`$
$`e^{4\pi \tau _2E_c^\delta (\mathrm{m})}{\displaystyle \underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(1e^{2\pi \tau _2|\omega _{n+\delta }|+2\pi i\tau _1(n+\delta )+2\pi i\alpha })(1e^{2\pi \tau _2|\omega _{n\delta }|+2\pi i\tau _1(n\delta )2\pi i\alpha }),`$ (2.16)
where we have chosen as argument the standard complex combination of the modular parameters $`\tau =\tau _1+i\tau _2`$. Note that despite this notation the building blocks are not analytic in $`\tau `$. The argument of the exponential prefactor, $`E_c^\delta `$, is the zero point energy shift or Casimir energy for a chiral (one quarter of a complex two-dimensional) boson of mass $`\mathrm{m}`$ with periodicity $`\varphi (\sigma +2\pi ,t)=e^{2\pi i\delta }\varphi (\sigma ,t)`$,

$`E_c^\delta (\mathrm{m})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑k\omega (k){\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}|\omega _{n\pm \delta }|;\omega (k)=\sqrt{k^2+\mathrm{m}^2}`$ (2.17)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{p=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑se^{p^2s\frac{(\pi \mathrm{m})^2}{s}}\mathrm{cos}(2\pi \delta p).`$
In terms of these building blocks the lightcone partition function with the value of $`\tau `$ appropriate for eq. (2.14), $`\tau =\tau _1+ia/2\pi \alpha ^{}p_{}`$, equals

$`z_{lc}(\tau ,\overline{\tau };\mu \alpha ^{}p_{})={\displaystyle 𝑑\lambda 𝑑\mathrm{m}\left[\frac{\mathrm{\Theta }_{\frac{1}{2},0}(\tau ,\overline{\tau };\mathrm{m})}{\mathrm{\Theta }_{0,0}(\tau ,\overline{\tau };\mathrm{m})}\right]^4e^{2\pi i\lambda (\mathrm{m}\mu \alpha ^{}p_{})}}.`$ (2.18)
The integration over the Lagrange multiplier $`\lambda `$ enforces the proper value for the mass $`\mathrm{m}`$. Inserting this expression into eq. (2.6) and changing integration variables to $`\tau _2=ar/2\pi \alpha ^{}p_{}`$ we find the following expression for the free energy of an ideal gas of pp-wave strings

$`\beta F`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{ln}𝒵(a,b;\mu )`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{a}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\lambda 𝑑\mathrm{m}_{\frac{1}{2}}^{\frac{1}{2}}𝑑\tau _1_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\tau _2\frac{1}{\tau _2^2}\left[\frac{\mathrm{\Theta }_{\frac{1}{2},0}(\tau ,\overline{\tau };\mathrm{m})}{\mathrm{\Theta }_{0,0}(\tau ,\overline{\tau };\mathrm{m})}\right]^4\underset{r=\mathrm{odd}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}e^{\frac{abr^2}{2\pi \alpha ^{}\tau _2}+2\pi i\lambda (\mathrm{m}\mu ar/2\pi \tau _2)}}.`$
## 3 High temperature behaviour of pp-wave strings

Having computed the partition function of the IIB pp-wave string, we may start to analyze its thermodynamic properties. Particular questions of importance are:

* Does the IIB pp-wave string have a Hagedorn temperature (do level densities grow exponentially)?
* If so, does the Hagedorn behaviour of the IIB signal the onset of a phase transition, or is there a limiting temperature?

As the difference between the IIB pp-wave string and the Minkowski string is rather mild, we expect that the gross characteristics are unchanged. Naively both questions should therefore receive a positive answer, and the spectrum of the IIB pp-wave string appears to support this conclusion. For highly excited modes with individual frequency $`\omega _n=\sqrt{n^2+(\mu \alpha ^{}p_{})^2}=n(1+\frac{(\mu \alpha ^{}p_{})^2}{2n^2}+\mathrm{})`$ a given (quantized) energy level $`E=N`$ is somewhat less easily partitioned, but asymptotically (where $`\mu `$ can effectively be ignored) it certainly approaches the exponentially growing Minkowski spectrum. The pp-wave density of states is therefore also expected to grow exponentionally, albeit less rapidly at high $`T`$ than the flat space string. There should therefore exist a pp-wave Hagedorn temperature, whose value is somewhat higher than that of the Minkowski space string.

By the same reasoning, one is inclined to associate the Hagedorn temperature with a phase transition and not with a limiting temperature. The parameter which determines the nature of the Hagedorn behaviour, limiting or phase transition, is the subleading power $`\gamma `$ in the asymptotic density of states

$`d(E\mathrm{})E^\gamma e^{E/T_H}.`$ (3.1)
Again, one expects that asymptotically the effect of the pp-wave deformation, characterized by the value of $`\mu `$, on the coefficient $`\gamma `$ is negligible. Surprisingly we will find that this is not the case. A closer look reveals why. The effective mass in the lightcone gauge is $`\mathrm{m}=\mu \alpha ^{}p_{}`$ rather than $`\mu `$. Although asymptotic level densities $`d(n)`$ are clearly unaffected by $`\mu `$, the density of states $`d(E)`$ at high energies (equivalent to large lightcone momentum $`p_{}`$) may not be insensitive to the deformation. We will show that the effect of $`\mu `$ remains mild in that the growth of states is still exponential — there is a Hagedorn temperature — and just mild enough so that the pp-wave string also undergoes a phase transition at $`T=T_H`$, as recently shown by .777In a preprint version, our calculations suggested that the Hagedorn temperature was limiting, a result we conjectured to be an artifact of approximations being made. Indeed, as the recent new results of  show, this is the case; see endnote for details.

### 3.1 Hagedorn behaviour

Let us first show that there is a Hagedorn temperature at which the free energy diverges. This happens when the integrand of eq. (2.2) diverges exponentially for $`\tau _20`$. Hence we need to compute the asymptotic behaviour of the building blocks $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\alpha ,\delta }(\tau ,\overline{\tau };\mathrm{m})`$ as $`\tau 0`$. As we already briefly noted, this has to be done with some care as the effective mass $`\mathrm{m}`$ is constrained to equal $`\mathrm{m}=\mu ar/2\pi \tau _2`$; see eq. (2.2). Even so, the effect of $`\mu `$ on the asymptotic level densities of the string, we have argued, should be mild, and we therefore make the ansatz that for $`\tau _20`$, with $`\mathrm{m}\tau _2=\stackrel{~}{\mu }`$ fixed, the building blocks $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\alpha ,\delta }(\tau ,\overline{\tau };\mathrm{m})`$ diverge exponentially;

$`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\alpha ,\delta }(\tau ,\overline{\tau };{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\mu }}{\tau _2}})\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\xi (\stackrel{~}{\mu })}{\tau _2}}\right]\text{as}\tau _20.`$ (3.2)
To compute the coefficient $`\xi (\stackrel{~}{\mu })`$, consider the logarithm of eq. (2.2)

$`\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Theta }_{\alpha ,\delta }(\tau ,\overline{\tau },{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\mu }}{\tau _2}})`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi \tau _2E_c^\delta ({\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\mu }}{\tau _2}})+{\displaystyle \underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\mathrm{ln}(1e^{2\pi \tau _2|\omega _{n+\delta }|+2\pi i\tau _1(n+\delta )+2\pi i\alpha })+\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{c}.`$ (3.3)
The coefficient $`2\pi \tau _2|\omega _{n+\delta }|`$ equals

$`2\pi \tau _2|\omega _{n+\delta }|=2\pi \stackrel{~}{\mu }\sqrt{1+{\displaystyle \frac{(n+\delta )^2\tau _2^2}{\stackrel{~}{\mu }^2}}}.`$ (3.4)
In the limit $`\tau _20`$ we may replace the sum over $`n`$ by an integral, provided we keep the ratio $`\tau _1/\tau _2\theta `$ fixed (The limit is therefore equal to $`|\tau |0`$, $`\mathrm{arg}(\tau )`$ fixed. If we keep $`\tau _1`$ finite instead, the limit $`\tau _20`$ is convergent).

$`{\displaystyle \underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\mathrm{ln}(1e^{2\pi \stackrel{~}{\mu }\sqrt{1+(n+\delta )^2\tau _2^2/\stackrel{~}{\mu }^2}+2\pi i\theta \tau _2(n+\delta )+2\pi i\alpha })\stackrel{\tau _20}{}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\mu }}{\tau _2}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑n\mathrm{ln}(1e^{2\pi \stackrel{~}{\mu }\sqrt{1+n^2}+2\pi i\stackrel{~}{\mu }\theta n+2\pi i\alpha }){\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\mu }}{|\tau |}}f(\stackrel{~}{\mu },\theta ,\alpha ),`$ (3.5)
and we have determined the coefficient of divergence $`\xi (\stackrel{~}{\mu })`$ implicitly in terms of an unknown function $`f(\stackrel{~}{\mu },\theta ,\alpha )`$

$`\xi (\stackrel{~}{\mu })={\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\mu }\tau _2}{|\tau |}}\left[f(\stackrel{~}{\mu },\theta ,\alpha )+\overline{f}(\stackrel{~}{\mu },\theta ,\alpha )\right].`$ (3.6)
That the divergence of the building blocks $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\alpha ,\delta }(\tau ,\overline{\tau };\mathrm{m})`$ depends on the direction with which one approaches $`\tau =0`$, is reflective of their non-analyticity.

This function $`f(\stackrel{~}{\mu },\theta ,\alpha )`$ is formally equal to

$`f(\stackrel{~}{\mu },\theta ,\alpha )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{|\tau |}{\tau _2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑n{\displaystyle \frac{e^{2\pi \mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\mu }\sqrt{1+n^2}+2\pi i\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\mu }\theta n+2\pi i\alpha \mathrm{}}}{\mathrm{}}}`$ (3.7)
$`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{2\pi i\mathrm{}\alpha }}{\mathrm{}}}K_1(2\pi \mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\mu }\sqrt{(1+\theta ^2)}),`$
where $`K_1(x)`$ is the modified Bessel function of the second kind . For $`\alpha =0`$, $`f(\stackrel{~}{\mu },\theta ,0)=f(\stackrel{~}{\mu }\sqrt{1+\theta ^2},0)`$ is a monotonic function which for small and large values of its argument asymptotes to

$`f(x,0)`$ $``$ $`2{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{K_1(2\pi \mathrm{}x)}{\mathrm{}}},`$
$`x0`$ $`:`$ $`f(x,0){\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{6x}},`$
$`x\mathrm{}`$ $`:`$ $`f(x,0){\displaystyle \frac{e^{2\pi x}}{\sqrt{x}}}.`$ (3.8)
For $`\alpha =\frac{1}{2}`$, $`f(x,\frac{1}{2})`$ behaves as

$`f(x,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})`$ $``$ $`2{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(1)^{\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{K_1(2\pi \mathrm{}x)}{\mathrm{}}},`$
$`x0`$ $`:`$ $`f(x,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}){\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{12x}},`$
$`x\mathrm{}`$ $`:`$ $`f(x,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}){\displaystyle \frac{e^{2\pi x}}{\sqrt{x}}}.`$ (3.9)
Note that $`\overline{f}(x,\alpha )=f(x,\alpha )=f(x,\alpha +1)`$.

Collecting this information, we establish the Hagedorn temperature as the combination of parameters $`a,b`$ which fail to dampen the exponential growth of oscillator states in the UV. Integrating out the Lagrange multiplier $`\lambda `$ in eq. (2.2) and substituting the proper value for the mass $`\mathrm{m}`$, the exponential growth equals

$`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Theta }_{\frac{1}{2},0}(\tau ,\overline{\tau };\frac{\mu ar}{2\pi \tau _2})}{\mathrm{\Theta }_{0,0}(\tau ,\overline{\tau };\frac{\mu ar}{2\pi \tau _2})}}\right]^4\stackrel{\tau _20}{}\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{8\mu ar}{2\pi |\tau |}}\left(f({\displaystyle \frac{\mu ar}{2\pi }}\sqrt{1+\theta ^2},0)f({\displaystyle \frac{\mu ar}{2\pi }}\sqrt{1+\theta ^2},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})\right)\right].`$ (3.10)
Because $`f(x,\alpha )`$ tends very rapidly to zero for increasing $`x`$, the leading divergent term in the integrand of eq. (2.2) is due to the single string contribution for which $`r=1`$. Thus for small values of $`\tau _2`$ the integrand is dominated by an exponential factor

$`\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle \frac{ab}{2\pi \alpha ^{}\tau _2}})\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{8\mu a}{2\pi |\tau |}}\left(f({\displaystyle \frac{\mu a}{2\pi }}\sqrt{1+\theta ^2},0)f({\displaystyle \frac{\mu a}{2\pi }}\sqrt{1+\theta ^2},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})\right)\right],`$ (3.11)
and the partition function will be convergent if the parameters $`a,b`$ which determine the temperature are chosen such that the argument in (3.11) is negative. This is only the case when

$`b>8{\displaystyle \frac{\tau _2\mu \alpha ^{}}{|\tau |}}(f({\displaystyle \frac{\mu a}{2\pi }}\sqrt{1+\theta ^2},0)f({\displaystyle \frac{\mu a}{2\pi }}\sqrt{1+\theta ^2},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}))).`$ (3.12)
The explicit $`\theta \tau _1`$ dependence may appear curious, but, as we mentioned previously, this is a consequence of the non-analytic nature of the building blocks. In the final expression for the free energy $`\tau _1`$ is integrated over and no dependence remains. To explicitly perform the $`\tau _1`$ integral is not straightforward. Inspection of the RHS of eq. (3.12), however, shows that it is a monotonically decreasing function of $`\theta `$. This allows us to argue that a minimum requirement for convergence is eq. (3.12) with $`\theta `$ set to zero,888For an important subtlety regarding this reasoning, see note added in proof.

$`b>8\mu \alpha ^{}(f({\displaystyle \frac{\mu a}{2\pi }},0)f({\displaystyle \frac{\mu a}{2\pi }},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}))).`$ (3.13)
As expected the pp-wave string therefore has a Hagedorn temperature, which occurs when this inequality is saturated. The physical temperature measured by different observers (parameterized by $`a`$) at the bound equals

$`T_H(a;z)^2=8a\mu \alpha ^{}\left(f({\displaystyle \frac{a\mu }{2\pi }},0)f({\displaystyle \frac{a\mu }{2\pi }},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})\right)+\mu ^2z^2a^2.`$ (3.14)
For $`\mu =0`$, this indeed gives the standard, observer independent, IIB Hagedorn temperature

$`ab=T_H^2=8\pi \alpha ^{}({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{6}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{12}})=4\pi ^2\alpha ^{},`$ (3.15)
whereas for $`\mu 0`$ the rapid vanishing of $`f(x)`$ implies that the Hagedorn temperature rises quickly with $`\mu `$, but only disappears for $`\mu `$ strictly infinite.

Note finally that in all the expressions above only those combinations of $`a,b`$ and $`\mu `$ appear which are invariant under the Lorentz boost plus rescaling: $`a\alpha a`$$`bb/\alpha `$ and $`\mu \mu /\alpha `$, as we argued in section 2.

### 3.2 Phase transition or limiting temperature

The crucial question is whether the Hagedorn temperature $`T_H`$ is limiting or whether the divergence of the partition function for $`T>T_H`$ signals the onset of a phase transition. The distinction between the two modes of behaviour is whether thermodynamic quantities at $`T=T_H`$ are finite or not. We will focus on the free energy, $`\beta F=\mathrm{ln}𝒵`$, eq. (2.2). A necessary, but not sufficient, requirement for the possibility of a phase transition is that the free energy is finite at $`T=T_H`$. To establish whether this is the case, we also need to know the subleading divergence of the building blocks $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\alpha ,\delta }(\tau ,\overline{\tau };\mathrm{m})`$ as $`\tau _20`$. Postulating that the behaviour of $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\alpha ,\delta }(\tau ,\overline{\tau };\mathrm{m})`$ is of the form

$`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\alpha ,\delta }(\tau ,\overline{\tau };{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\mu }}{\tau _2}})\tau _2^{c(\stackrel{~}{\mu })}e^{\frac{\xi (\stackrel{~}{\mu })}{\tau _2}},`$ (3.16)
the free energy, eq. (2.2), will be finite at $`T=T_H`$ if $`c(\mu ,\alpha =\frac{1}{2})c(\mu ,\alpha =0)`$ is large enough to overcome the $`\tau _2^2`$ factor in the measure.999Applying these observations to determine the nature of the Hagedorn temperature depends sensitively on working with the full integral instead of just the integrand of the partition function; see endnote. As  shows, the $`\tau _1`$ Lagrange multiplier integral contributes an additional factor $`\tau _2^{3/2}`$ to the measure. Hence if $`c(\mu ,\alpha =\frac{1}{2})c(\mu ,\alpha =0)>\frac{1}{8}`$, the free energy is finite and the Hagedorn bound demarcates a phase transition.  This is the case if $`c(\mu ,\alpha =\frac{1}{2})c(\mu ,\alpha =0)>\frac{1}{2}`$. The naive expectation — which we will show not to be true — is that $`c(\mu )`$ is a smooth function with $`c(\mu =0;\alpha 0)=0;c(\mu =0;\alpha =0)=1/2`$.

We can compute the power $`c`$ by taking the logarithm as before,

$`\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Theta }_{\alpha ,\delta }(\tau ,\overline{\tau };{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\mu }}{\tau _2}}){\displaystyle \frac{\xi (\stackrel{~}{\mu })}{\tau _2}}=c(\stackrel{~}{\mu })\mathrm{ln}\tau _2+𝒪(\tau _2).`$ (3.17)
Recalling the determination of $`\xi (\stackrel{~}{\mu })`$ from eq. (3.1), the LHS of this equation equals

$`{\displaystyle \underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\mathrm{ln}(1e^{2\pi \stackrel{~}{\mu }\sqrt{1+(n+\delta )^2\tau _2^2/\stackrel{~}{\mu }^2}+2\pi i\theta \tau _2(n+\delta )+2\pi i\alpha }){\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\mu }}{\tau _2}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑n\mathrm{ln}(1e^{2\pi \stackrel{~}{\mu }\sqrt{1+n^2}+2\pi i\stackrel{~}{\mu }\theta n+2\pi i\alpha }).`$
Setting $`\theta =0`$ (basing ourselves on the arguments below eq. (3.12)101010This is allowed, if we correctly account for any contributions to the $`\tau _2`$ measure, see footnote 9.) and using the Poisson resummation identity

$`{\displaystyle \underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}f(n)={\displaystyle \underset{k=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑xe^{2\pi ikx}f(x),`$ (3.18)
this can be simplified to

$`2{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑n\mathrm{ln}(1e^{2\pi \stackrel{~}{\mu }\sqrt{1+n^2\tau _2^2/\stackrel{~}{\mu }^2}+2\pi i\alpha })e^{2\pi ik(n\delta )}=c\mathrm{ln}\tau _2+𝒪(\tau _2).`$ (3.19)
Formally the LHS equals

$`2{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{2\pi i(\mathrm{}\alpha k\delta )}}{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\mu }}{\tau _2}}{\displaystyle \frac{K_1(2\pi \mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\mu }\sqrt{1+(k/\mathrm{}\tau _2)^2})}{\sqrt{1+(k/\mathrm{}\tau _2)^2}}}.`$ (3.20)
Evaluating eq. (3.20) in the limit $`\tau _20`$, we may approximate the Bessel function $`K_1(2\pi \mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\mu }\sqrt{1+(k/\mathrm{}\tau _2)^2})`$ with its asymptote at infinity,

$`\tau _20:\mathrm{LHS}_{\text{(}\text{3.19}\text{)}}=2{\displaystyle \underset{k,\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\mu }e^{2\pi i(\mathrm{}\alpha k\delta )}}{\sqrt{\mathrm{}^2\tau _2^2+k^2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{2\pi \mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\mu }\sqrt{1+(k/\mathrm{}\tau _2)^2}}}{\sqrt{4\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\mu }\sqrt{1+(k/\mathrm{}\tau _2)^2}}}}0,`$ (3.21)
which goes to zero exponentially fast. We find no logarithmic divergence and conclude that $`c(\stackrel{~}{\mu })=0`$ for all values of $`\alpha `$ and $`\delta `$. This establishes our claim. For the implication is that the free energy is infinite at $`T=T_H`$ and there is no phase transition, contrary to our intuition based on the flat space, $`\mu =0`$ results.111111See footnote 9. With the improved treatment of the $`\tau _1`$ integration of , one concludes that the Hagedorn bound demarcates a phase transition.

This answer is surprising, however. How does it mesh with the known result for $`\mu =0`$? Inspection shows that in eq. (3.20) the limits $`\mu \stackrel{~}{\mu }0`$ and $`\tau _20`$ do not commute. If we take the limit $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }0`$ first, we may approximate the Bessel function $`K_1(2\pi \mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\mu }\sqrt{1+(k/\mathrm{}\tau _2)^2})`$ with its asymptote near zero, instead of the asymptote near infinity

$`\stackrel{~}{\mu }0:\mathrm{LHS}_{\text{(}\text{3.19}\text{)}}=2{\displaystyle \underset{k,\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\mu }e^{2\pi i(\mathrm{}\alpha k\delta )}}{\sqrt{\mathrm{}^2\tau _2^2+k^2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi \mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\mu }\sqrt{1+(k/\mathrm{}\tau _2)^2}}}.`$ (3.22)
The dependence on $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }`$ drops out, and one is tempted to conclude that $`c(\stackrel{~}{\mu }=0)`$ also vanishes. However, iff $`\alpha =0`$ and $`\delta =0`$, the resulting double sum is divergent. One is not allowed to take the limit $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }0`$ within the sum for $`\alpha ,\delta =0`$, and it follows that our unstated assumption that $`c(\stackrel{~}{\mu };\alpha ,\delta =0)`$ is a smooth function of $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }`$ is incorrect. A careful analysis, which we have included in an appendix for completeness, yields the known value $`c(\stackrel{~}{\mu }=0;\alpha ,\delta =0)=\frac{1}{2}`$.

This incompatibility of limits is already evident in the expression for the frequency $`\omega _n=\sqrt{n^2+(\mu \alpha p_{})^2}`$. For $`\mu 0`$ and only for $`\mu 0`$, in the high energy limit $`p_{}\mathrm{}`$, all oscillator levels can be populated at no cost in extra energy. Pursuing the argument put forth in the beginning of this section to the end, one would conclude that this costless contribution from the tower of string states gives rise to a divergent free energy. Hence, the Hagedorn temperature is a limiting temperature.121212This intuitive picture is naive. As we conjecture later on, and  has recently been able to show, the Hagedorn bound ought to, and does, signal a phase transition.

We thus see that the Hagedorn behaviour of the $`\mu =0`$ IIB Minkowski string is fundamentally different from that of the IIB pp-wave string; there is no continuum limit between the two. There is in fact a good physical explanation for why our intuition that at high energies the $`\mu `$ dependence of the background is irrelevant, and that the presence of $`\mu `$ should only affect the IR behaviour, fails. String theory is modular invariant, which means that UV physics “knows” about IR physics. This also holds for the pp-wave string. Indeed, “strikingly”, despite their nonanalyticity, the building blocks $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\alpha ,\delta }(\tau ,\overline{\tau };\frac{\stackrel{~}{\mu }}{|\tau |})`$ have nice modular properties . Under the $`S`$-modular transformation, which mixes UV and IR physics, they transform as

$`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\alpha ,\delta }(\tau ,\overline{\tau };{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\mu }}{|\tau |}})=\mathrm{\Theta }_{\delta ,\alpha }({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\tau }},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\overline{\tau }}},\stackrel{~}{\mu }).`$ (3.23)
The exact asymptotics of $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\delta ,\alpha }(\tau ,\overline{\tau };\stackrel{~}{\mu })`$ at $`\tau _2\mathrm{}`$, including any power law divergence, are easily read off from the defining expression (2.2) (based on our previous arguments, $`\tau _1`$ is again set to zero from here on)

$`\underset{\tau _2\mathrm{}}{lim}\mathrm{\Theta }_{\delta ,\alpha }(\tau ,\overline{\tau };\stackrel{~}{\mu })=\mathrm{exp}(4\pi \tau _2E_c^\alpha (\stackrel{~}{\mu })).`$ (3.24)
Hence the exact $`\tau _20`$ divergence of $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\alpha ,\delta }(\tau ,\overline{\tau };\frac{\stackrel{~}{\mu }}{\tau _2})`$ equals

$`\underset{\tau _20}{lim}\mathrm{\Theta }_{\alpha ,\delta }(\tau ,\overline{\tau };{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\mu }}{\tau _2}})=\mathrm{exp}(4\pi {\displaystyle \frac{E_c^\alpha (\stackrel{~}{\mu })}{\tau _2}}).`$ (3.25)
This is indeed equal to the expression we had before (eq. (3.6)), and illustrates how the high energy physics knows about the infrared: the coefficient of exponential growth is the 2D Casimir energy. This unambiguously determines that the power law divergence coefficient $`c(\mu 0)=0`$.

The essence of why this does not match with the flat space result $`c(\mu =0;\alpha =0)=\frac{1}{2}`$, resides in the modular properties of $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{0,0}(\tau ,\overline{\tau };\mathrm{m})`$. This building block strictly vanishes in the limit $`\mu 0`$. As shown in , the modular properties of the corresponding flat space building block, the Dedekind eta function, which include a power law factor, are obtained at the subleading level in $`\mu =0`$ from the modular properties of the building block $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{0,0}(\tau ,\overline{\tau };\mathrm{m})`$. The vanishing of $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{0,0}(\tau ,\overline{\tau };\mathrm{m})`$ for $`\mu 0`$ is due to the appearance of zero-modes. Naively at high energies the presence or absence of zero modes, an infrared issue, should not matter. What the computation explicitly shows, is that the effective mass in the problem is $`\mathrm{m}=\stackrel{~}{\mu }/\tau _2`$, rather than $`\mu `$. Thus in the naive UV, $`\tau _20`$, the mass blows up, and cannot be ignored.131313Oddly enough, it is the $`S`$-transformed part of the building block $`\tau _2\mathrm{}`$, the naive IR region, where the effect of the mass $`\mu `$ is the mildest. This is the reason why the Hagedorn behaviour of the pp-wave string is different from that of the flat space string.141414For clarity, the issue we are referring to here is how in string theory IR zero modes impact the UV Hagedorn behaviour and the different zero mode structures of the pp-wave string compared to the Minkowski string theory. The pp-wave string behaves as a $`T^8`$ compactification. Whether the Hagedorn temperature is limiting or signals a phase transition, depends on one further step of analysis.

## 4 Implications for the CFT dual

Pp-wave strings can be derived as a scaling limit from AdS strings, and through this limit they inherit a duality map with a subsector of a CFT . They are the only known example of a gauge-theory/string theory duality where the string side is understood, and as such hold promise in both explaining what stringy effects are in gauge theory, as well as using gauge theory to answer string theory questions. For the IIB pp-wave string the precise map is to a double scaling limit of $`𝒩=4`$, $`SU(N)`$ Super-Yang-Mills (SYM), the BMN limit, which sends both the rank of the gauge group $`N`$ and the $`R`$-charge $`J`$ to infinity, keeping the ratio $`J^2/N`$ fixed .

The symmetry charges of both theories are mapped to each other as follows

$`{\displaystyle \frac{2p_+}{\mu }}=EJ,2\mu \alpha ^{}p_{}={\displaystyle \frac{J}{\sqrt{\lambda }}},\lambda =g_{YM}^2N=4\pi g_sN.`$ (4.1)
Here $`E`$ is the energy of the theory on $`S^3`$ (or conformal weight on $`R^4`$), and $`J`$ a generator of a $`U(1)_R`$ subgroup of $`SU(4)_R`$. The string partition function, $`𝒵(a,b;\mu )`$ we computed in eq. (2.2), is a function of the two independent variables, $`a,b`$, thermodynamically conjugate to the operators $`p_+,p_{}`$ (recall that $`\mu `$ can be removed by the Lorentz boost). One linear combination of these is the temperature of the string heat bath, the other designates the family of observers which perform the measurement. From the SYM point of view we see that we are computing the partition function at a finite temperature $`T_{YM}`$ and finite $`R`$ charge chemical potential $`\nu _R`$. To determine the precise relation between $`a,b`$ and $`T_{YM}`$ and $`\nu _R`$, we need to recall some facts about both theories and the map in more detail.

The derivation of the duality between pp-wave strings and the BMN doubly scaling limit of $`𝒩=4`$ SYM starts with a global coordinate choice for the AdS factor. This means we are considering the SYM theory on $`S_3`$ rather than $`^4`$. The finite temperature, finite density SYM partition function is therefore well defined, with the scale set by the radius of the $`S_3`$. A second detail concerns thermodynamics in a system with non-zero groundstate energy. When we consider a system (ideal gas) at finite temperature, what we really mean is that the constituents of the system have an average excitation energy $`E_{ex}T`$ above the groundstate. In other words the temperature is the thermodynamic conjugate to the excitation energy $`E_{ex}=EE_0`$ rather than the absolute energy $`E`$ (see e.g. ). In $`𝒩=4`$ SYM a state with a specific $`R`$-charge $`J`$ has at least an absolute energy $`J`$ due to the BPS condition. Hence within a sector of fixed $`J`$, there is a groundstate energy, and when considering the thermodynamics within such a sector, the temperature is the conjugate variable to $`EJ`$. The corresponding statement on the pp-wave string side is of course that the light-cone Hamiltonian $`p_+`$ is positive semi-definite.

With this in mind, and the map of operators eq. (4.1), the identification of the string thermodynamic variables in terms of those of $`𝒩=4`$ SYM is straightforward. The temperature and chemical potential equal

$`T_{YM}^1={\displaystyle \frac{a\mu }{2}},\sqrt{\lambda }\nu _R={\displaystyle \frac{b}{2\mu \alpha ^{}}}.`$ (4.2)
However, we are not considering the full $`𝒩=4`$ $`SU(N)`$ SYM theory but only the physical degrees of freedom that survive the double scaling limit $`N,J\mathrm{}`$, with $`J^2/N`$ fixed. It is therefore more appropriate to define a chemical potential $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }\nu _R\sqrt{\lambda }`$ conjugate to $`\stackrel{~}{J}J/\sqrt{\lambda }`$. Finally, all computations in the preceding sections are done in the ideal gas approximation where $`g_s1`$. We should therefore keep in mind that the results obtained should only apply when the Yang-Mills coupling is also vanishingly weak.

### 4.1 Hagedorn bound for $`𝒩=4`$ SYM

We have seen that for an ideal gas of IIB pp-wave strings the free energy diverges at

$`{\displaystyle \frac{b}{8\mu \alpha ^{}}}=f({\displaystyle \frac{a\mu }{2\pi }},0)f({\displaystyle \frac{a\mu }{2\pi }},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}).`$ (4.3)
When the left-hand side is less than the right-hand side, the (perturbative) IIB pp-wave string theory is does not exist, as the Hagedorn behaviour is limiting.151515This is the conclusion we drew in a preprint version. However, as shown in footnote 9 and the note added in proof, using the improved calculation of  the Hagedorn temperature is seen to demarcate a phase transition both for compactifications on $`T^p`$, $`p<9`$ and pp-wave strings, updating our and previous results.

In terms of SYM variables the Hagedorn bound reads

$`\stackrel{~}{\nu }=4\left(f({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi T}},0)f({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi T}},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})\right).`$ (4.4)
In figure 1, we have plotted the bound in the temperature-chemical potential phase diagram of $`𝒩=4`$ SYM.161616Timelikeness of the Killing vector also constrains the variables $`a`$ and $`b`$. For a global Killing vector $`a,b>0`$ simply implies that the SYM temperature and density are positive semi-definite. The existence of a limiting Hagedorn temperature in the dual pp-wave string would appear to say that the area of the phase diagram where the BMN density $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }`$ is less than the RHS of eq. (4.4) is inaccessible. This is peculiar, as it includes the familiar $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }\nu =0`$ region of the theory. In fact through the AdS/CFT correspondence quite a lot has become known about the finite density, finite temperature behaviour of large $`N`$, $`𝒩=4`$ SYM through the study of spinning branes in supergravity . Unfortunately these studies are not able to clarify what the physics is near the Hagedorn bound. They are performed in supergravity, the $`\alpha ^{}0`$ limit of the AdS string theory, and form a complementary regime to that of the pp-wave .

On the other hand the region of applicability of these studies is beyond the Hagedorn bound and therefore, surely, this region is physically accessible. A possible explanation for the apparent mismatch between the IIB pp-wave string theory and $`𝒩=4`$ SYM is that extending the usual zero temperature duality may be more subtle than the approach used in this section.171717Throughout our analysis we have worked in the context of the canonical ensemble; it would be worth checking that temperature fluctuations are under control to ensure the validity of this assumption. The recent paper  discusses this point. Perhaps, for example, it is only within the ideal gas approximation of vanishingly weak coupling that the Hagedorn bound is limiting. Indeed with small, but non-zero coupling, an infinite free energy in a gravitational system is not likely to be a stable situation. At finite $`g_s1`$ the system will fall out of equilibrium long before one approaches the Hagedorn bound. One suspects that at finite string coupling, multistring bound states and/or nonperturbative states, such as D-brane black holes, become dominant at high energies, whereas in the ideal gas approximation the high energy behavior is effectively that of a single string. Perhaps, then, the Hagedorn bound reflects a breakdown of the duality between ultra perturbative (perturbative string theory in the ideal gas approximation) IIB pp-wave string theory and $`𝒩=4`$ SYM.181818This conjecture of ours, that the Hagedorn bound should demarcate a phase boundary, has indeed been shown correct by Brower, Lowe and Tan . They are able to come to this conclusion by including contributions to the integrand of the partition function arising from the Lagrange multiplier $`\tau _1`$ integral; see note added in proof.

## 5 Conclusion

We have studied the finite temperature behavior of IIB strings in a pp-wave background and found, as expected from flat-space experience, a Hagedorn temperature. However, whereas the Hagedorn temperature in Minkowski space indicates the onset of a phase transition, our calculations show the ideal gas pp-wave Hagedorn temperature to have a different character: it is a limiting temperature.191919See footnotes 15 and 18. At first this might seem surprising since one would have thought that the pp-wave spacetime deformation becomes irrelevant at high energies; the high temperature pp-wave string should be smoothly connected to the high temperature Minkowski space string by the limit $`\mu 0`$. Yet, in the context of string theory, and finite temperature string theory in particular, this limit has to be taken with care; as we have seen here, the nature of the Hagedorn temperature has a nontrivial dependence on $`\mu `$.

Naively, large scale modifications to space-time do not affect ultraviolet physics. But in the example studied here, as in many other string theoretic situations, this reasoning fails; perhaps this could have been expected here from the fact that the scalar curvature diverges at $`z=0`$. Certainly within string theory, modular invariance implies that high energy physics is dependent on the two-dimensional worldsheet Casimir energy, whereas one would have expected the Casimir energy to be more relevant for light string excitations. Indeed, one way to interpret the Hagedorn temperature in string theory is as the appearance of a massless winding mode in the timelike direction.202020From this viewpoint, the results of , which studies T-duality along the timelike Killing vector, may be interesting. The fact that strings simultaneously know about the large and small scale structure means that only in very controlled situations the high energy behavior is that of the Minkowski string. The calculations here indicate that in situations where the 2D Casimir energy is affected by the background this is not the case.

The dual description, using the BMN limit of $`𝒩=4`$ SYM, adds another interesting layer to the analysis as the dual theory exists for parameters which appear to be forbidden on (ideal gas) string theory arguments.212121The conjecture that the Hagedorn behaviour should signal a phase transition, which we partly based on this observation, has been found true ; see note added in proof. The simplest explanation is that the duality, at least in the form used here, is breaking down. There is also the possibility that the dual theory is telling us that somehow — notwithstanding the results we have found — the Hagedorn temperature on the pp-wave string side is not strictly limiting and can be crossed. This is tantalizing because for string theories such as the IIB Minkowski string in which the Hagedorn divergence is associated with a phase transition, the identification of the degrees of freedom in the Hagedorn phase is one of the important outstanding questions  (see  for the most recent progress). Perhaps, with further study beyond the ideal gas approximation, the existence of a dual description for pp-wave string theory may give insight into this critical issue.

We conclude with a question. The traditional interpretation of the Hagedorn temperature, by analogy with QCD, is a confinement/deconfinement transition. Such a transition is known to occur for large $`N`$ $`𝒩=4`$ SYM on $`S_3`$ when the temperature $`T`$ is of order one in units of the $`S_3`$ radius , although it is unclear whether this transition is related to Hagedorn behaviour of the AdS string (see, however, ). It would be interesting to see if the results in  can be extended to include finite $`R`$-charge density as well. Perhaps this might shed more light on the large $`R`$-charge density - finite temperature behaviour of $`𝒩=4`$ SYM.

Note added in proof: As this article was being prepared for publication, a preprint by Brower, Lowe and Tan appeared which improved the analysis of the asymptotic behaviour of the partition function. For the value of the Hagedorn temperature, their observations have no effect. However, the nature of the transition is affected. Brower, Lowe and Tan’s improved treatment of the $`\theta \tau _1`$ Lagrange multiplier integral found that it contributes an extra factor of $`\sqrt{\tau _2}`$ to the remaining $`\tau _2`$ integral. Combined with a Jacobian factor $`\tau _2`$ from changing to $`(\tau _2,\theta =\tau _1/\tau _2)`$ coordinates this means that the measure in the final $`\tau _2`$ integral equals $`d\tau _2/\sqrt{\tau _2}`$ rather than $`d\tau _2/\tau _2^2`$. This implies that free energy is finite at $`T_H`$ and that the Hagedorn bound may demarcate a phase transition for pp-wave strings. Similarly Brower, Lowe and Tan’s results indicate that closed strings compactified on $`T^p`$ have a non-limiting Hagedorn temperature for $`p<9`$. Our conjecture that the Hagedorn temperature should demarcate a phase transition is thereby borne out, and this opens up a new avenue to explore both the Hagedorn phase of string theory and the connection between pp-wave strings and $`𝒩=4`$ super-Yang-Mills at finite chemical potential. We are grateful to R. Brower, D. Lowe, and C. Tan for comments and discussions.

Acknowledgments: We thank Maulik Parikh for collaboration in the early stages of this work and many extensive and intensive discussions. We also thank David Berman, Jan de Boer, Chong-Sun Chu, Clifford Johnson, Dan Kabat, Al Mueller, Hiroshi Ooguri, Dam Thanh Son, Matt Strassler, and Bo Sundborg for fruitful discussions and suggestions. KS and GS would like to thank the organizers and participants of the Amsterdam Summer workshop on String Theory and BG and GS would like to thank the Aspen Center for Physics for providing stimulating environments to pursue this research. ISCAP gratefully acknowledges the generous support of the Ohrstrom foundation. KS and BG gratefully acknowledge support from the DOE grant DE-FG-02-92ER40699. GS gratefully acknowledges support from the DOE grant EY-76-02-3071, and the University of Pennsylvania SAS Dean’s funds.

## Appendix A Subleading divergence of the Building Blocks

We seek the coefficient of the $`\mathrm{ln}(\tau _2)`$ divergence in eq. (3.20)

$`2{\displaystyle \underset{k,\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}e^{2\pi i(\mathrm{}\alpha k\delta )}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\mu }K_1(\frac{\stackrel{~}{2\pi \mu }}{\tau _2}\sqrt{(\mathrm{}\tau _2)^2+k^2})}{\sqrt{(\mathrm{}\tau _2)^2+k^2}}}+\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{c}.\stackrel{\tau _20}{=}c(\stackrel{~}{\mu },\alpha ,\delta )\mathrm{ln}(\tau _2)+\mathrm{}`$ (A.1)
in the limit $`\tau _20`$ for $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }=0`$. Compared to eq. (3.20) in the text, we have added the complex conjugate contribution to the RHS; recall from eq. (2.2) and eq. (3.3) that the building blocks $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\alpha ,\delta }(\tau ,\overline{\tau },\mathrm{m})`$ are real. This double sum behaves differently in this limit for $`\alpha 0`$ or $`\delta 0`$ and $`\alpha ,\delta =0`$. The symmetry in the sums over $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`k`$ allows us to concentrate only on the case where either $`\alpha 0`$ or $`\delta 0`$. We will choose the former.

Noting that the expression can be rewritten so that the summation parameters, $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`k`$, always multiply $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }`$, we may approximate for $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }`$ small the double sum by a double integral. This has to be done with care since the summation is from $`1`$ to infinity. The resulting double integral equals

$`2{\displaystyle _{\stackrel{~}{\mu }}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑k{\displaystyle _{\stackrel{~}{\mu }\tau _2}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\mathrm{}(e^{2\pi i\frac{\alpha }{\stackrel{~}{\mu }\tau _2}\mathrm{}}+e^{2\pi i\frac{\alpha }{\stackrel{~}{\mu }\tau _2}\mathrm{}}){\displaystyle \frac{K_1(\frac{2\pi }{\tau _2}\sqrt{\mathrm{}^2+k^2})}{\tau _2\sqrt{\mathrm{}^2+k^2}}}.`$ (A.2)
We are integrating over the first quadrant of the $`k,\mathrm{}`$ plane except for a rectangle centered on the origin with area $`4\stackrel{~}{\mu }^2\tau _2`$. As $`\mu `$ is very small, we approximate the lower boundary by a circle of the same area, and change to polar coordinates. We obtain

$`2{\displaystyle _{\stackrel{~}{\mu }\sqrt{\frac{2\tau _2}{\pi }}}^{\mathrm{}}}r𝑑r{\displaystyle \frac{K_1(\frac{2\pi r}{\tau _2})}{\tau _2r}}{\displaystyle _0^{\pi /2}}𝑑\theta (e^{2\pi i\frac{r\alpha \mathrm{cos}\theta }{\stackrel{~}{\mu }\tau _2}}+e^{2\pi i\frac{r\alpha \mathrm{cos}\theta }{\stackrel{~}{\mu }\tau _2}}).`$ (A.3)
The angular integral yields a Bessel function of the first kind, and after a rescaling of $`r`$ one finds

$`{\displaystyle _{\stackrel{~}{\mu }\sqrt{\frac{8\pi }{\tau _2}}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑rK_1(r)J_0({\displaystyle \frac{r\alpha }{\stackrel{~}{\mu }}}).`$ (A.4)
The integral (A.4) is convergent for $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }=0`$ at the upper boundary, but not at the lower boundary. The result depends on whether $`\alpha `$ does or does not vanish: the limits $`\alpha 0`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }0`$ do not commute.

If $`\alpha 0`$, we may approximate the Bessel function $`J_0(r\alpha /\stackrel{~}{\mu })`$ for $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }=0`$ with its asymptote at infinity

$`x\mathrm{}:J_0(x)\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi x}}}\mathrm{cos}(x\pi /4),`$ (A.5)
and obtain

$`{\displaystyle _{\stackrel{~}{\mu }\sqrt{\frac{8\pi }{\tau _2}}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑rK_1(r)J_0({\displaystyle \frac{r\alpha }{\stackrel{~}{\mu }}})={\displaystyle _{\stackrel{~}{\mu }\sqrt{\frac{8\pi }{\tau _2}}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑rK_1(r)\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2\stackrel{~}{\mu }}{\pi r\alpha }}}\mathrm{cos}({\displaystyle \frac{r\alpha }{\stackrel{~}{\mu }}}\pi /4).`$ (A.6)
Substiting at the lower boundary the asymptote of $`K_1(x)`$ near $`x=0`$,

$`x0`$ $`:`$ $`K_1(x){\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}},`$ (A.7)
one finds that the behaviour of the integral near the lower boundary equals

$`{\displaystyle _{\stackrel{~}{\mu }\sqrt{\frac{8\pi }{\tau _2}}}^\mathrm{\Lambda }}𝑑r{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2\stackrel{~}{\mu }}{\pi r\alpha }}}\mathrm{cos}({\displaystyle \frac{r\alpha }{\stackrel{~}{\mu }}}\pi /4)`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2\stackrel{~}{\mu }}{\pi \alpha }}}\mathrm{cos}(\pi /4)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{r}}}\right]_{\stackrel{~}{\mu }\sqrt{\frac{8\pi }{\tau _2}}}^\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (A.8)
$``$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{4}{\pi \alpha }}}\mathrm{cos}(\pi /4)\left({\displaystyle \frac{\tau _2}{8\pi }}\right)^{1/4}+f(\mathrm{\Lambda })+𝒪(\stackrel{~}{\mu }).`$
The small $`\stackrel{~}{\mu }`$ behaviour is finite, and there is no logarithmic divergence for $`\tau _20`$. Instead the integral vanishes as a quarter power. Note, however, that this power has a multiplicative constant which is inversely proportional to $`\alpha `$. The answer therefore only holds if $`\alpha 0`$.

For $`\alpha =0`$ we should approximate the Bessel function $`J_0(x)`$ with its asymptote near zero rather than infinity. This is just unity. Again approximating $`K_1(x)1/x`$ by its small $`x`$ asymptote we now find logarithmic behaviour at the lower boundary

$`{\displaystyle _{\stackrel{~}{\mu }\sqrt{\frac{8\pi }{\tau _2}}}^\mathrm{\Lambda }}𝑑r{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{ln}(\stackrel{~}{\mu }\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi }{\tau _2}}})+𝒪(\stackrel{~}{\mu })+f(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ (A.9)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}\tau _2+\mathrm{}`$
We read off the expected result $`c(\stackrel{~}{\mu }=0)=\frac{1}{2}`$.

Hence the building blocks $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\alpha ,\delta }(\tau ,\overline{\tau },\mathrm{m}=0)`$ have a subleading power law divergence for $`\tau _20`$,

$`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\alpha ,\delta }(\tau ,\overline{\tau };0)\tau _2^{c(\alpha ,\delta )}e^{\frac{\xi (\stackrel{~}{\mu }=0)}{\tau _2}},`$ (A.10)
with $`c(\alpha 0\mathrm{or}\delta 0)=0`$; $`c(\alpha ,\delta =0)=\frac{1}{2}`$, as was known by other methods.


format: text

text:
# Looking Back at the First Decade of 21st-Century High-Energy Physics

## 1 Introduction

The organizers of the Tenth Conference on String Phenomenology, $`\mathrm{cos}^{10}\varphi `$, have invited me to review the exciting developments in high-energy physics that took place during the tumultuous first decade of the 21st century. It is amusing to look back at the quaint preoccupations of participants in the first $`\mathrm{cos}\varphi `$ meeting, back in 2002. At that time, accelerators had established what was then regarded as the Standard Model, but offered no clear indications what directions physics might take beyond it, and the community was anxious for the LHC to be funded and completed. On the other hand, non-accelerator experiments had provided evidence beyond the Standard Model in the form of neutrino oscillations. Meanwhile, string theorists were all doing $`PP`$ or branes in extra dimensions.

How different is today’s panorama! The LHC has taken us triumphantly beyond the Standard Model, and its financial travails back in 2002 have been long forgotten. However, now we are anxious for the linear $`e^+e^{}`$ collider to be funded and completed. In parallel, cosmology has taken us far beyond the petty models for physics beyond the Standard Model that we were playing with back in 2002. Quantum gravity has now become an experimental science, and we are probing directly the emergence of space-time itself.

There is no point in reviewing here the discovery of the Higgs boson . That is an old story by now, prefaced by the evanescent hint at LEP , the suspense maintained by the data from the Tevatron , and climaxed by the prompt appearance of the Higgs boson at the LHC, as illustrated in Fig. 1. The most important remaining Higgs question is whether the LHC will be able to discover its partners that are expected in the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM). As seen in Fig. 2, it is touch-and-go whether the LHC will be to find these heavier MSSM Higgs bosons, though the LHC luminosity upgrade to $`10^{35}`$ cm-2s-1 currently underway will certainly improve the chances .

Rather than the old Higgs story, here I focus on the most important discovery of the LHC to date, namely ….

## 2 Discovery of Extra Dimensions

The issue was never really whether the LHC would discover extra dimensions, but whether they would be bosonic: $`x_{5,6,\mathrm{}}`$ or fermionic: $`\theta ,\overline{\theta }`$. Long before the LHC, it was pointed out that one of the most promising sets of signals for supersymmetry would be events with missing transverse energy, accompanied by hadronic jets and/or leptons produced in the cascade decays of heavier sparticles, as seen in Fig. 3 . Events resembling these predictions were indeed found almost as soon as the LHC switched on, see for example Fig. 4 . However, already back in 2002, it had been pointed out that universal extra-dimensional models with conserved Kaluza-Klein parity also predict missing-energy events. Just like the sparticle cascades, the sequential decays of Kaluza-Klein states produce accompanying jets and leptons, as seen in Fig. 5 .

Of course, distinguishing the supersymmetric and Kaluza-Klein scenarios turned out to be relatively simple, in principle. For similar masses, the cross sections at the LHC were different, as well as their angular distributions. Moreover, the mass differences between different Kaluza-Klein states were relatively small, as seen in Fig. 6 , because of the small renormalization-group range compared with the GUT scale anticipated in supersymmetry. Using these clues, the supersymmetric interpretation of the LHC missing-energy events has gained the upper hand, though there may still be some die-hard advocates of the Kaluza-Klein interpretation.

The discovery of supersymmetry at the LHC certainly did not come as a surprise, since most of the allowed parameter space was known to be accessible to the LHC, as foreshadowed in Fig. 7 . However, the initial LHC configuration has not been able to measure all the sparticle masses and other properties one should like to know, providing a second motivation for the LHC luminosity upgrade, as seen in Fig. 8 .

The community has long known that the TeV-scale linear collider now under construction would be needed to unravel sparticle (or Kaluza-Klein) spectroscopy, which is why we have been so anxious about its financing. Just as the corresponding LHC problems were overcome in 2002, we have been relieved this year that the analogous linear collider issues have also been resolved. We look forward soon to detailed measurements of Higgs decay branching ratios, which may tell us indirectly whether the heavier supersymmetric Higgs bosons are really there, and to better measurements of the sparticle (or Kaluza-Klein) masses. These will finally lay to rest the debate between gravity-mediated and other scenarios for supersymmetry breaking, and perhaps even finally convince Kaluza-Klein die-hards that the extra dimensions are indeed fermionic.

Their last-ditch stand has, however, been encouraged by the remarkable LHC event reported last year, shown in Fig. 9, which has all the characteristics expected of TeV-scale black-hole production . It has many jets, predominating over leptons and missing energy. Time and the LHC luminosity upgrade will tell us whether this was a statistical fluctuation or a harbinger of Hawking radiation.

## 3 Discovery of Dark Matter

It was known at the beginning of the past decade that astroparticle experiments would have a fair chance of detecting supersymmetric dark matter, if it existed. The direct search for the scattering of dark-matter particles in the laboratory has not yet been successful, despite the best efforts of the CDMS collaboration in the Soudan mine . However, the recent observations by IceCube  of energetic muons from the direction of the Sun, believed to originate from the interactions of energetic solar neutrinos, are compatible with several of the benchmark supersymmetric scenarios proposed a decade ago, as seen in Fig. 10 .

As seen in Fig. 11, these IceCube-friendly scenarios predict that a signal should be seen in the GENIUS detector now under construction . We are all on tenterhooks to see whether some supersymmetric interpretation of the IceCube dark-matter signal will be confirmed. It will also be vital to check whether the strength of this signal is compatible with the LHC signal for sparticle production and the universal gravity-mediated scenario for supersymmetry breaking assumed in Figs. 10 and 11.

## 4 Neutrino Masses and Oscillations

Back at the first $`\mathrm{cos}\varphi `$ meeting, we were glimpsing an emerging default option for neutrino phenomenology. We were becoming convinced  that there were no light sterile neutrinos besides the the three active species confirmed by LEP. Theorists expected their masses to be hierarchical, but there was no experimental evidence for this hypothesis. The atmospheric and solar experiments had told us that the corresponding mixing angles were near maximal, and suggested that atmospheric $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ mainly. We had only the Chooz and Super-Kamiokande upper limits on $`\theta _{13}`$. Theorists expected the light-neutrino masses to be mainly Majorana in nature. It is also worth remembering that no experiment had actually confirmed a neutrino oscillation pattern, and some die-hards still advocated decay interpretations of the data, although theorists expected neutrino lifetimes much longer than the age of the Universe.

The neutrino-oscillation data raised almost as many questions as they answered. Could we really exclude light sterile neutrinos, as would certainly be required if the LSND claim were to be confirmed by MiniBooNE? Could we really exclude degenerate neutrino masses, or an inverse mass hierarchy? Although the LMA solution for solar-neutrino oscillations was strongly favoured after the first SNO neutral-current measurements, some die-hards were still clinging to the LOW and/or SMA solutions. Would $`\tau `$ production be observed, and would $`\theta _{13}`$ be accessible to the first generation of long-baseline neutrino experiments, a question vital for the detectability of CP violation in neutrino oscillations? Fundamentally, could the Majorana nature of neutrino masses be confirmed by neutrinoless double-$`\beta `$ decay experiments, and/or the distinctive ocillation pattern be observed in long-baseline experiments?

Some of our questions were answered soon after $`\mathrm{cos}^1\varphi `$, and others more recently. The KamLAND experiment soon provided ample confirmation of the LMA solar solution , and then MiniBooNE failed to confirm the LSND signal . An unplanned bonus was the observation of supernova 2007b. Detailed measurements of its neutrinos, in particular in the reconstructed Super-Kamiokande detector, confirmed the favoured oscillation scenario. The MINOS experiment  duly observed the expected oscillation pattern in charged-current reactions, and the Gran Sasso experiments have observed $`\tau `$ production in the CERN beam . Most interesting has been the saga of $`\theta _{13}`$. The combination of MINOS, ICARUS and OPERA found a hint that $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}\mathrm{few}\times 10^2`$. This indication was subsequently confirmed by the rejuvenated Super-Kamiokande experiment working in the first-generation off-axis JHF neutrino beam .

Thus, all the elements were in place for the recent approval of a fully-fledged neutrino factory. As you know, this should be able to answer our remaining questions about neutrino masses and oscillations, namely the hierarchy, degeneracy or inverse hierarchy of the mass spectrum, and the magnitude of the CP-violating phase $`\delta `$. It will certainly pin down more precisely the magnitude of $`\theta _{13}`$ and measure the sign of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{23}^2`$ via matter effects on the long-baseline beam. The best measurement of the CP-violating phase $`\delta `$ will be possible via the $`T`$-odd asymmetry:

$`P(\nu _e\nu _\mu )`$ $``$ $`P(\overline{\nu }_e\overline{\nu }_\mu )=16s_{12}c_{12}s_{13}c_{13}^2s_{23}c_{23}sin\delta `$ (1)
$`\times `$ $`\mathrm{sin}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta m_{12}^2}{4E}}L\right)\mathrm{sin}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta m_{13}^2}{4E}}L\right)\mathrm{sin}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta m_{23}^2}{4E}}L\right).`$
at the neutrino factory. The upgraded JHF beam and the Hyper-Kamiokande detector now under construction also have a good chance of making a preliminary measurement, and the combination of the two will be very useful for resolving ambiguities, as seen in Fig. 12 .

In addition to its ‘core business’ of long-baseline neutrino oscillation physics, the intense proton source of the neutrino factory will provide unique opportunities for other physics, including that using stopped or slow muons, which has been given considerable impetus by the recent results from PSI and BNL.

## 5 Discovery of Lepton Flavour Violation

Over the last decades of the 20th century, searches for the violation of charged-lepton flavours made steady but undramatic progress in pushing down the upper limits on observables such as $`\mu e\gamma `$ and $`\mu e`$ conversion on nuclei. This unspectacular hard work paid off in a big way with the recent discoveries of these two reactions at PSI and BNL , respectively. The two measurements are very consistent, with the rate for $`\mu e\gamma `$ measured by MECO at BNL being a few per-mille of the branching ratio for $`\mu e\gamma `$, as expected in many models.

The violation of charged-lepton numbers was only to be expected at some level, once neutrino oscillations had been observed. However, the rates for such processes would have been negligible if there were no other low-energy particles beyond those in the Standard Model. The apparent observation of low-energy supersymmetry provides a good candidate for the new low-energy physics that enhances charged-lepton flavour violation. The minimal seesaw model for neutrino masses contains the following terms:

$$L_\nu =\left(Y_\nu \right)_{ij}(\nu ,L)_iN_jH+\frac{1}{2}N_iM_{ij}N_j$$
(2)
where the $`N_i`$ are three heavy singlet neutrino fields. The total number of physical parameters in this model is 18 . Nine of these are measurable in low-energy neutrino physics, namely 3 neutrino eigenmasses $`m_\nu `$, 3 real mixing angles $`\theta _{12,23,13}`$, and 3 CP-violating phases - the oscillation phase $`\delta `$ and two Majorana phases $`\varphi _{1,2}`$. The remaining 9 parameters are needed to describe the heavy-neutrino sector, and again include 3 heavy eigenmasses $`M_\nu `$, 3 real mixing angles $`\alpha `$ and 3 CP-violating phases $`\beta `$. This minimal seesaw model therefore contains a total of 6 CP-violating phases, and the extra phases $`\alpha `$ control the rate for leptogenesis , the favoured explanation for the origin if the baryon number of the Universe.

In the minimal supersymmetric extension of this minimal seesaw model, the soft supersymmetry-breaking parameters are renormalized by the Dirac coupling matrix $`Y_\nu `$:

$`\delta m_\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi ^2}}(3m_0^2+A_0^2)(Y_\nu ^{}Y_\nu )_{ij}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_{GUT}}{m_{N_i}}}\right),`$ (3)
$`\delta A_{\mathrm{}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8\pi ^2}}Y_\mathrm{}_i(Y_\nu ^{}Y_\nu )_{ij}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_{GUT}}{m_{N_i}}}\right).`$ (4)
Non-diagonality in the neutrino Dirac couplings $`Y_\nu `$ in the mass eigenstate basis for the charged leptons induces lepton flavour violation in the slepton and sneutrino mass matrices, which depends on the mixing angles $`\alpha `$ and the CP-violating phases $`\beta `$ that are not observable in low-energy interactions. This mechanism is certainly able to accommodate the MEG and MECO data, as seen in Fig. 13 . It is certainly possible, even likely, that there are other sources of lepton flavour violation at the string and/or GUT scales, but this supersymmetric seesaw mechanism offers a ‘Standard Model’ to be confronted with the MEG, MECO and other data on the violation of charged-lepton flavours and CP.

Examples of such processes include $`\tau \mu \gamma ,\tau e\gamma ,\mu 3e,\tau 3\mathrm{}`$ and the electric dipole moments of the electron and muon, which could have interesting rates in the minimal supersymmetric seesaw model, as seen in Fig. 14 . Rumours have begun to circulate of interesting rare $`\tau `$ decays at the LHC, and also at the $`B`$ factories following their recently completed luminosity upgrades. Another interesting place to look for lepton flavour violation is in sparticle decays at the LHC or the $`e^+e^{}`$ linear collider. The suppression of rare $`\mu (\tau )`$ decays is in large part due to loop factors and the relatively large ratio of slepton over lepton masses, and relatively large branching ratios for $`\chi _2\chi \mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ are quite possible . Here again, some interesting hints have been emerging from the LHC, but we may have to wait for $`\mathrm{cos}^{11}\varphi `$ and/or the LHC luminosity upgrade before these are confirmed.

## 6 Space-Time Foam

We have known for over a decade now, thanks to the early experiments on the cosmic microwave background radiation, that the geometry of the Universe is flat on large distance scales. However, we have long expected that it should exhibit large quantum fluctuations on small distance and time scales:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }E,\mathrm{\Delta }\chi =O(1)\mathrm{in}\mathrm{\Delta }x,\mathrm{\Delta }t=O(1),$$
(5)
where the energy $`E`$, distance $`L`$ and time $`t`$ are measured in Planck units $`10^{19}`$ GeV, $`10^{33}`$ cm and $`10^{43}`$ s, respectively, and $`\chi `$ is a generic measure of space-time topology. The big question has been whether there could be any observable consequences of this ‘space-time foam’ (5)? Most theorists have thought this must surely be impossible, but some disreputable characters have suggested that there might be observable loss of information across microscopic event horizons , modifying the conventional superposition rules of quantum mechanics, and also that the ‘recoil’ of the vacuum during the passage of an energetic particle might modify its apparent velocity :

$$c(E)=c_0(1\frac{E}{M}+\mathrm{}),$$
(6)
where $`c_0`$ is the low-energy velocity of light and and one might expect that the effective quantum-gravity scale $`MM_P`$. This possibility first arose in the context of a string-inspired model of space-time foam , but subsequently found possible in the more traditional loop approach to quantum gravity. Microscopic tests of quantum mechanics have not advanced much since the old days of CPLEAR , over a decade ago, but there have been some interesting recent developments related to the suggestion (6).

Some of the best opportunities for probing this possibility are provided by astrophysical sources : these offer long light propagation times $`t=D/c`$ and hence relatively large time delays $`\delta t(D/c^2)(E/M)`$. Astrophysical sources with short intrinsic fluctuation time scales $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ yield the best figures of merit for probing the quantum-gravity scale $`M`$:

$$M\frac{ED}{\mathrm{\Delta }t}.$$
(7)
Examples of interesting astrophysical sources include gamma-ray bursters (GRBs), pulsars and active galactic nuclei (AGNs). Back at the beginning of the past decade, the latter already yielded limits

$$M>2\times 10^{16}\mathrm{GeV},$$
(8)
and the GLAST collaboration had made preliminary estimates of their sensitivity to this possible quantum-gravity effect, as seen in Fig. 15 . Recently, we have started hearing rumours that GLAST observations of some GRBs exhibit unexplained time-lags . It is in principle possible to distinguish propagation effects from time-lags at the sources, by looking for a correlation with distance $`D`$ for GRBs with known redshifts $`z`$ , and we look forward to hearing the results of such an analysis.

## 7 Probing the String-Particle Phase Transition

With the release of the maps of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) sky by the Planck satellite , experimental tests of the string-particle phase transition have begun in earnest. Over a decade ago, it started dawning on cosmologists that the CMB could be sensitive to trans-Planckian physics , then string theorists got in on the action, and the rest, as they say, is history. Non-perturbative string phenomenology is now in full swing, with attempts to match the Planck polarization data, the apparent deviations from scale invariance and the indications of non-Gaussian behaviour of the CMB fluctuations.

One the most interesting recent calculational developments has been the debut of lattice simulations of the string-particle transition and the emergence of space-time using the latest Petaflop computer Grids. We now know that there are many similarities between the behaviours of bulk quantities across this transition, such as the metric, and those in the corresponding quark-hadron transition, depicted in Fig. 16 , which depend on the details of the string compactification.

## 8 Theoretical Advances

Who would have imagined back at the first $`\mathrm{cos}\varphi `$ conference that we would be measuring directly the emergence of space-time from the string soup, and that we would be well on the way to calculating it? And who would have believed that we would now know how to calculate the present-day vacuum energy in terms of the soft supersymmetry-breaking parameters and the string vacuum moduli, as now seems ‘trivial’?

These and other remarkable developments have been made possible by the impressive theoretical advances since the first $`\mathrm{cos}\varphi `$ conference. Thinking back to that meeting, the list of problems still unsolved then seems almost comical:

* The mechanism of supersymmetry breaking,
* Vacuum energy,
* How to fix the vacuum moduli,
* The cosmological gravitino problem,
* The supersymmetric CP-violating phases,
* The sizes of the extra dimensions,

and many more. This audience would be bored if I described how all these problems have been solved, and the margin of this proceedings contribution is any case too small. Here it suffices to say that $`ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ`$ theory does indeed solve them, impossible as this might have seemed back before the $`N>2`$ string revolutions, when our only theoretical tools were $`M`$, $`F`$ and $`K`$ theory.

## Acknowledgements

I thank Alon Faraggi and Steve Abel for their foresight back in 2002, asking me to undertake this exercise in hindsight. No doubt my memory has become hazy on some points, and I apologize in advance to any 2012 readers for its comical lapses. They will probably consider many other discoveries to have been more exciting. Finally, I think the Yukawa Institute in Tokyo for its hospitality while writing up this load of crystal ball.


text:
# A curious electrovac spacetime as 𝐺=0 limit of the NUT space

## Abstract

We take the $`G=0`$ limit of the NUT space which yields a non flat space and show that source of its curvature is electromagnetic field generated by the NUT parameter defining the NUT symmetry. This is a very curious electrovac NUT space. Further it is also possible to superpose on it a global monopole.

It is quite well-known that the NUT solution describes gravomagnetic effects of gravity and it could in fact be interpreted as describing gravitational field of a gravomagnetic charge \[1-5\]. The solution has certain unfamiliar features such as it is unlike other isolated source solutions is not asymptotically flat. At any rate it is an interesting exact solution of the Einstein vacuum equation. Its elctrovac generalization is also known  which describes a NUT particle with electric charge.

For asymptotically flat spacetimes, the limit of vanishing gravitational constant, $`G=0`$ yields flat spaceA very simple and novel electromagnetic field has been derived as $`G=0`$ limit of the charged rotating Kerr-Newman metric .. It should be interesting to find what does this limit give for asymptotically non flat case of the NUT solution? This is what we wish to explore in this note. It would turn out that source of curvature of the $`G=0`$ limit of the NUT space is interestingly the Maxwell field generated by the NUT parameter. The NUT parameter occurs in the metric in two roles, one in gravitational potential and the other in defining the symmetry of the space. In the $`G=0`$ limit, the former role washes away while the latter still survives and it is this that produces the electromagnetic field which is responsible for the curvature. It is remarkable that it is the pure NUT space which is endowed with electric charge which produces no gravitational potential.

The NUT space is described by the metric,

$$ds^2=A(dt2l\mathrm{cos}\theta d\phi )^2A^1dr^2(r^2+l^2)(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\phi ^2)$$
(1)
with

$$A=1+2\varphi ,\varphi =G\frac{Mr+l^2}{r^2+l^2}.$$
(2)
Here $`\varphi `$ is the gravitational potential of the NUT particle of mass M and the NUT charge $`l`$.

Now we take the $`G=0`$ limit, which is equivalent to gravitational potential vanisning, and so the metric reduces to

$$ds^2=(dt2l\mathrm{cos}\theta d\phi )^2dr^2(r^2+l^2)(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\phi ^2).$$
(3)
It could be easily verified that it is not flat and the source of its curvature is electromagnetic field given by

$$𝐅=\frac{\sqrt{2}l(r^2l^2)}{(r^2+l^2)^2}𝐝r(𝐝t2l\mathrm{cos}\theta 𝐝\phi )$$
(4)
which generates in view of the Einstein vacuum equation $`R_{ab}=T_{ab}`$ the following stresses,

$$T_0^0=T_1^1=T_2^2=T_3^3=\frac{2l^2}{(r^2+l^2)^2}$$
(5)
where we have set $`8\pi G=1=c`$.

It is pure NUT space which gets endowed with an effective electric charge, $`\sqrt{2}l`$ which produces a radial electric field with effective squared area radius, $`r^2+l^2`$. The above energy distribution obviously satisfies the positive energy conditions. It is a very curious and amazing spacetime which is free of the Newtonian gravitational potential. Radial motion is indistinguishable from that of flat space and else all the geodesics lie on spatial cones  with the semi-angle determined by $`l`$ and angular momentum of the test particle.

The electromagentic field vanishes at $`r=l`$ and asymptotically it falls off as $`1/r^2`$. It attains the maximum value $`1/4\sqrt{2}l`$ at $`r^2=3l^2`$. In the Kerr - Newman case, it vanishes at $`r=a\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ (which would always lie inside the horizon) and maximum occurs at $`r^2=3a^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta `$. The field is singular on the ring $`r=0,\theta =\pi /2`$, which is also the curvature singularity. In the present case, the spacetime neither admits horizon nor does it have singularity of any kind anywhere. It is regular everywhere and but it does not go flat asymptotically. It appears as though the surface $`r=l`$ is a perfect conductor and carrying charge $`\sqrt{2}l`$. Asymtotically, it would appear as the usual Coulombic field.

Recently, it has been attempted to identify the physical symmetry of the NUT space  as the gauged Killing symmetry. For the $`1+3`$ decomposition of spacetime, the metric would have the block, $`h(dt+A_adx^a)^2`$ where $`A_a`$ does behave like a gauge vector potential for gravomagnetic part of the field . The gauged Killing symmetry is defined by

$$Ł_\xi g_{ab}=h\psi _{;(a}A_b)$$
(6)
where

$$Ł_\xi A_a=\psi _{;a}.$$
(7)
Obviously the NUT solution belongs to this class and it can be verified that it admits the gauged Killing symmetry, which is characteristic of the NUT space.

Next, let us write in the metric (1), $`A=1+2k`$, where $`k`$ is a constant. This would correspond to constant gravitational potential in the NUT space. We have seen above that pure NUT space with vanishing gravitational potential gets endowed with electromagnetic field. On the other hand, it has been shown that constant potential superposes a global monopole field \[9-12\] on the existing space. Inclusion of constant potential would lead to the following stresses,

$`T_0^0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2l^2(1+2k)^2}{(r^2+l^2)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{4k(1+k)}{r^2+l^2}}=T_1^1,`$ (8)
$`T_2^2`$ $`=`$ $`T_3^3={\displaystyle \frac{2l^2(1+2k)^2}{(r^2+l^2)^2}}.`$ (9)
A global monopole is supposed to be produced in phase transition in the early universe by instantaneous breaking of global $`O(3)`$ symmetry into $`U(1)`$. Global monopole on a NUT particle of the parameters $`M,l`$ has been studied . It is modelled as a triplet scalar field, $`\psi ^a=\eta f(r)x^a/(r^2+l^2)^{1/2},x^ax^a=r^2`$ with the usual scalar field Lagrangian . The stresses it generates would asymptotically approximate to $`T_0^0=T_1^1=\eta ^2/(r^2+l^2)`$ and all others vanishing. Clearly the above stresses show that there is superposition of the original electromagnetic field and global monopole field with the identification $`\eta ^2=4k(1+k)`$.

In the above metric, gravitational source is purely the gauge potential $`A_a`$ and hence it could cause no radial acceleration as indicated by the absence of the Newtonian gravitational potential. The parameter $`l`$ essentially defines the gauged Killing symmetry and it is remarkable that it also sources the electromagntic field as given above. This brings out the intimate relation between the NUT gauged symmetry and electromagnetic field. That is electromagnetic field is kind of endowed in the symmetry itself. Gravoelectric charge (mass/energy distribution) defines gravitational potential and does not directly enter into defining symmetry of space. Here it primarily defines the symmetry and in turn it gives rise to electric field which is the cause of curvature of the metric.

Further we have shown that it is also possible to superpsoe global monopole field, as is the case for general spherically symmetric spacetime , on this pure NUT space. It is interesting to note that in the NUT space when we make gravitational potential vanish we end up with a spacetime generated by an electromegnetic field, and when potential is constant then a global monopole gets superposed on the original electromagnetic source. Of course when gravitational potential is not tampered with, then it is the vacuum NUT solution. However, it is a remarkable and novel way of generating an electromagnetic source. The association of NUT gauged symmetry  with electromagnetic field calls for further probing and it may perhaps reveal something important and insightful.

Acknowledgement: LKP would like to thank IUCAA for the visit during which this work was done. It is a pleasure to thank Kesh Govinder for computational help.