text:
# Statistical Model of Superconductivity in a 2D Binary Boson-Fermion Mixture

## 1 Introduction

Recent experiments  indicate that composite bosons in ultra-cold clouds of most alkali atoms do indeed Bose-Einstein (BE) condense. Since Cooper pairs (CPs) of fermions (electrons or holes) in a many-fermion system form composite bosons in the sense of coupling to integer angular momentum, it is natural to consider the possible BE condensation of such pairs. The belief that some such condensate is central to superconductivity is more than 50 years old . High-$`T_c`$, as well as some organic, superconductors  are quasi-two-dimensional (2D). Quasi-1D superconductors have also been found . BE condensation (BEC) is impossible in two or less space dimensions  for usual or “ordinary” bosons (i.e., with a quadratic energy-momentum, or dispersion, relation). It is however still possible to have BEC in all dimensions $`d>1`$ for non-interacting bosons if they obey a linear dispersion relation —such as CPs moving in the Fermi sea. This possibility arises because the Hohenberg theorem , which prohibits BEC in 2D, relies on an $`f`$-sum rule based on the quadratic dispersion relation appropriate to bosons  moving in a vacuum. Such a linear dispersion relation for the CPs in a binary boson-fermion mixture model was recently found  to be consistent, without any adjustable parameters, with the anomalous linear (quadratic) temperature-dependence above $`T_c`$ in the resistivity of optimally-doped (overdoped) cuprates whether hole- or electron-doped. For the observed quadratic $`T`$-dependence in overdoped samples linear-dispersion CP charge carriers are essential.

Although extensive studies in the BCS-Bose “crossover” problem in superconductivity have spanned  a period of over thirty years, we note that BEC is distinct from the standard (i.e., zero center-of-mass momentum CPs) BCS theory condensation where only that one bosonic state exists.

In this paper it is shown that in addition BEC is still possible in 2D even if the number of composite bosons (pairs of fermions) in a binary boson-fermion mixture is not fixed—as chemical/thermal equilibrium renders it coupling- and temperature-dependent—as long as the total number of fermions is fixed. This gives rise to an interesting statistical-mechanics problem irrespective of the particular mechanism for pair formation, and may have a vital application for superconductivity as well as for (neutral-atom) superfluidity such as in liquid 3He , dilute mixtures of 3He in 4He , or in trapped Fermi gases . The statistical model dealt with here may be seamlessly linked to BCS theory, via the fermionic energy gap, when boson/unpaired-fermion interactions are included as, e.g., in Refs.  and . However, in these two papers the quadratic CP dispersion relation has been assumed. The quadratic form has recently been shown  to apply only in the zero-density or vacuum limit when the Fermi sea disappears.

In Section 2 we recall that at $`T=0`$ a 2D gas of fermions interacting via a constant pairing interaction in an annulus about the Fermi surface—viz., the BCS model interaction—the binding energy of a single pair near the Fermi surface (CP problem) decreases practically linearly with the center of mass momentum (CMM) of the pair for all values of the momentum below breakup, the breakup momentum typically being only about four orders of magnitude smaller than the Fermi momentum. In Section 3 we discuss why the interacting many-fermion system can be treated as a set of independent CPs (i.e., composite bosons with fermion number two) mixed int with pairable fermions which are not bound into pairs, i.e., unpaired fermions. In Section 4 the more realistic scenario is considered of the BEC of these pairs, incorporating pair breakup beyond a certain CMM. Although the number of pairs is not fixed but rather strongly coupling- and temperature-dependent, BEC is still possible in 2D. A simple binary boson- fermion statistical model is introduced by constructing the Helmholtz free energy for an ideal mixture of pairable but unpaired fermions plus paired fermions (both zero and nonzero CMM pairs), all in chemical and thermal equilibrium. The latter results through extrema of the free energy in: a) the pairable fermion occupation probabilities; b) the excited boson numbers (nonzero CMM CPs); and c) the ground boson number (zero CMM pairs). In Section 5 the coupling- and temperature-dependence of the boson number is derived. In Section 6 the critical BEC singularity temperature is obtained first by ignoring the unpaired fermions in a pure boson-gas model and then exactly for the boson-fermion binary mixture model from a $`T`$-dependent dispersion relation derived and calculated numerically, and results compared with empirical data. Finally, Section 7 gives conclusions.

## 2 Cooper-pair dispersion relation

Consider a 2D system of N fermions of mass $`m`$ confined in a square “pen” of area $`L^2`$ and interacting pairwise via the BCS model interaction

$$V_{𝐤,𝐤^{}}=\{\begin{array}{cc}V& \text{if}\mu (T)\mathrm{}\omega _D<ϵ_{k_1}(\mathrm{}^2k_1^2/2m),ϵ_{k_2}<\mu (T)+\mathrm{}\omega _D\hfill \\ 0& \text{otherwise},\hfill \end{array}$$
(1)
where $`𝐤\frac{1}{2}(𝐤_1𝐤_2)`$ is the relative wavevector of the two particles; $`V_{𝐤,𝐤^{}}`$ the 2D double Fourier integral of the underlying non-local interaction $`V(𝐫,𝐫^{})`$ in the relative coordinate $`𝐫=𝐫_1𝐫_2;\mu (T)`$ the ideal Fermi gas chemical potential which at $`T=0`$ becomes the Fermi energy $`E_F\mathrm{}^2k_F^2/2m`$ with $`k_F`$ the Fermi wavenumber; $`\mathrm{}\omega _D\mathrm{}^2k_D^2/2m`$ the width of the annulus about the Fermi circle in which the pairing interaction is nonzero, with $`\omega _D`$ being the Debye frequency. This model interaction mimics the net effect of an attractive electron-phonon interaction overwhelming the repulsive interfermion Coulomb repulsions, whenever $`V>0`$.

If $`\mathrm{}𝐊=\mathrm{}(𝐤_1+𝐤_2)`$ is the center-of-mass momentum (CMM) of a pair, let $`E_K`$ be its total energy (besides the CP rest-mass energy). The eigenvalue (CP ) equation for a pair of fermions at $`T=0`$ immersed in a background of $`N2`$ inert, spectator fermions within a (sharp) Fermi circular perimeter of radius $`k_F`$ is then

$$1=V\underset{𝐤}{}^{^{}}\frac{\theta (k_1k_F)\theta (k_2k_F)}{2ϵ_k(E_K\mathrm{}^2K{}_{}{}^{2}/4m)},$$
(2)
where again $`ϵ_k\mathrm{}^2k^2/2m`$, $`\theta (x)`$ is the Heaviside unit step function, and the prime on the summation sign denotes the conditions

$$k_1|𝐤+\frac{1}{2}𝐊|<(k_F^2+k_D^2)^{1/2}\text{and}k_2|𝐤\frac{1}{2}𝐊|<(k_F^2+k_D^2)^{1/2}$$
(3)
ensuring that the pair of fermions above the Fermi “surface” cease interacting beyond the annulus of energy thickness $`\mathrm{}\omega _D`$ in accordance with (1), thereby restricting the summation over $`𝐤`$ for a given fixed $`𝐊`$. Without these restrictions (2) would just be the Schrödinger equation in momentum space for the pair. Setting $`E_K2E_F\mathrm{\Delta }_K`$, the pair is bound if $`\mathrm{\Delta }_K>0`$, and (2) becomes an eigenvalue equation for the (positive) pair binding energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }_K`$. Our $`\mathrm{\Delta }_K`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ should not be confused with the BCS energy gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }(T)`$.

Let $`\lambda g(E_F)V0`$ be a dimensionless coupling constant with $`g(E_F)`$ the electronic density-of-states (for each spin) at the Fermi surface in the normal (i.e., interactionless) state, which in 2D is constant

$$g(ϵ)=L^2m/2\pi \mathrm{}^2g.$$
(4)
The Cooper equation (2) for the unknown quantity $`\mathrm{\Delta }_K`$ is analyzed in Ref. . For zero CMM, $`K=0`$, it becomes a single elementary integral, with the familiar  solution

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_0=\frac{2\mathrm{}\omega _D}{e^{2/\lambda }1}$$
(5)
valid for all coupling $`\lambda `$. For small $`K`$, it is not too difficult to extract  the asymptotic result

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_K\underset{K0}{}\mathrm{\Delta }_0\frac{2}{\pi }\left[1+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_0}{2\mathrm{}\omega _D}(1+\sqrt{1+\nu })\right]\mathrm{}v_FK+O(K^2)\underset{\lambda 0}{}\mathrm{\Delta }_0\frac{2}{\pi }\mathrm{}v_FK+O(K^2)$$
(6)
where $`\nu \mathrm{\Theta }_D/T_F`$, and $`v_F`$ is the Fermi velocity defined through $`E_F\mathrm{}^2k_F^2/2m=\frac{1}{2}mv_F^2`$. For weak coupling, $`\lambda 0`$, this linear dispersion relation gives the 2D analog of the 3D result stated as far back as 1964 in Ref. , p. 33 (see also, Ref. , p. 336) but with the 2D coefficient $`2/\pi `$ of the last expression of (6) replaced by $`1/2`$.

## 3 Justification of boson formalism

These CP boson-like structures could be called “quasi-bosons” since their creation and annihilation operators are known not to obey the usual boson commutation relations , p. 38. However, they do obey the Bose-Einstein distribution since the energy $`E_K`$ of the CP is given only by the total CMM, $`K`$, but is independent of the relative momentum $`k`$. Thus, the possible energy states for the pair are $`E_K`$ as defined in (2). The number of pairs $`N_𝐊`$ that can occupy such a state can take on indefinite values since there exist also indefinitely many relative momenta, namely

$$N_𝐊\underset{𝐤}{}𝒩_{𝐤,𝐊}=0,1,2,\mathrm{}.$$
(7)
Here, $`𝒩_{𝐤,𝐊}=0,1`$ is the number of pairs characterized by both k and K, and is the same number as that characterized by definite $`𝐤_1`$ and $`𝐤_2`$, namely $`𝒩_{𝐤,𝐊}=n_{𝐤_1}n_{𝐤_2}=0,1`$ where $`n_{𝐤_i}=0,1`$ is the occupation number for a single fermion, these remarks all referring to singlet pairing. Much of all this has been known  at least since 1958, albeit in somewhat different language.

This view of an actual Cooper pair should not be confused with, say, an Anderson  phonon-like collective excitation (or modes) with weak-coupling dispersion relation—in 2D  given by $`(1/\sqrt{2})\mathrm{}v_FK`$ in the long-wavelength limit, and which evolves into the plasmon when Coulomb repulsions between fermions are switched on. CPs here, like deuterons, carry fermion number two and as such are definite in number (although in the CP case this number is coupling- and temperature-dependent) and can thus undergo BEC. This is distinct from collective excitations which are indefinite in number. Park , e.g., distinguishes between “permanent” and “ephemeral” bosons, the latter sometimes being referred to as “quasiparticles” to distinguish from the former “particles”.

For $`N_B`$ ordinary bosons of mass $`m_B`$ and energy $`\epsilon _K=\mathrm{}^2K^2/2m_B`$ in any positive dimension, $`d>0`$, a temperature singularity $`T_c`$  appears in the number equation $`N_B=_𝐊[e^{(\epsilon _K\mu _B)/k_BT}1]^1`$ at vanishing bosonic chemical potential $`\mu _B\underset{}{<}0`$ when the number of $`𝐊=0`$ bosons just ceases to be negligible upon cooling. It is given by

$$T_c=\frac{2\pi \mathrm{}^2}{m_Bk_B}\left[\frac{n_B}{g_{d/2}(1)}\right]^{2/d}$$
(8)
with $`n_B`$ the boson particle density $`N_B/L^d`$, and $`g_{d/2}(z)`$ the usual Bose integrals

$$g_\sigma (z)\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\sigma )}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑x\frac{x^{\sigma 1}}{z^1e^x1}=\underset{l=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{z^l}{l^\sigma }\underset{z1}{}\zeta (\sigma ),$$
(9)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\sigma )`$ is the gamma function and $`\zeta (\sigma )`$ the Riemann zeta function of order $`\sigma `$. The last identification in (9) holds when $`\sigma >1`$ for which $`\zeta (\sigma )<\mathrm{}`$, while the series $`g_\sigma (1)`$ diverges for $`\sigma 1`$, thus giving $`T_c=0`$ for $`d2`$. For $`d=3`$ one has $`\zeta (3/2)2.612`$ so that (8) becomes the familiar formula $`T_c3.31\mathrm{}^2n_B^{2/3}/m_Bk_B`$ of “ordinary” BEC. On the other hand, for bosons with (positive) excitation energy $`\epsilon _K\mathrm{\Delta }_0\mathrm{\Delta }_K`$ given approximately by the linear term in (6) for all $`K`$, the singularity that lead to (8) now yields , for weak coupling,

$$T_c=\frac{a(d)\mathrm{}v_F}{k_B}\left[\frac{\pi ^{\frac{d+1}{2}}n_B}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{d+1}{2})g_d(1)}\right]^{1/d}$$
(10)
where  $`a(d)=1,2/\pi `$ and $`1/2`$ for $`d=1,2`$ and $`3`$, respectively. Note that now $`T_c>0`$ for all $`d>1`$, which is precisely the dimensionality range of all known superconductors including the quasi-1D organo-metallic (Bechgaard) salts . This is not inconsistent with the Hohenberg theorem  that there is no broken symmetry, i.e., long-range order, in a Bose fluid for $`d`$ = 1 or 2, since this is based on an $`f`$-sum rule for bosons with a quadratic dispersion relation. Indeed, both (8) and (10) are special cases of of the more general expression  for any space dimensionality $`d>0`$ and any boson dispersion relation $`\epsilon _K=C_sK^s`$ with $`s`$ $`>0`$ and $`C_s`$ a constant, given by

$$T_c=\frac{C_s}{k_B}\left[\frac{s\mathrm{\Gamma }(d/2)(2\pi )^dn_B}{2\pi ^{d/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }(d/s)g_{d/s}(1)}\right]^{s/d}.$$
(11)
In what follows the number of bosons will be temperature-dependent and it is in conserving the fermion number that the singularity arises. As is the case for the pure boson gas, a linear rather than a quadratic dispersion relation will be needed to obtain BEC in 2D. This emerges in a statistical model of an ideal binary mixture of bosons (the CPs) and unpaired (both pairable and unpairable) fermions in chemical equilibrium , for which thermal pair-breaking into unpaired pairable fermions is explicitly allowed.

## 4 First-principles statistical model

Under interaction (1) at any $`T`$ the total number of fermions in 2D is $`N=L^2k_F^2/2\pi =N_1+N_2`$ and is just the number of non-interacting (i.e., unpairable) fermions $`N_1`$ plus the number of pairable ones $`N_2`$. The unpairable fermions obey the usual Fermi-Dirac distribution with fermionic chemical potential $`\mu `$. On the other hand, the $`N_2`$ pairable fermions are simply those in the interaction shell of energy width $`\mathrm{}\omega _D`$ so that

$$N_2=2_{\mu \mathrm{}\omega _D}^{\mu +\mathrm{}\omega _D}𝑑ϵ\frac{g(ϵ)}{e^{\beta (ϵ\mu )}+1}=2g\mathrm{}\omega _D,$$
(12)
since the density of electronic states (4) is constant and the remaining integral exact. At any interfermionic coupling and temperature these fermions form an ideal mixture of pairable but unpaired fermions plus CPs that are created near the single-fermion energy $`\mu (T)`$, with binding energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }_K(T)`$ $`0`$ and total energy

$$E_K(T)2\mu (T)\mathrm{\Delta }_K(T).$$
(13)
This is generalizes the $`T=0`$ equation $`E_K2E_F\mathrm{\Delta }_K`$ introduced below (3).

The Helmholtz free energy $`F=ETS`$, where $`E`$ is the internal energy and $`S`$ the entropy, for this binary “composite boson/pairable-but-unpaired-fermion system” at temperatures $`TT_c`$ is then

$`F_2`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle _{\mu \mathrm{}\omega _D}^{\mu +\mathrm{}\omega _D}}𝑑ϵg(ϵ)\left\{n_2(ϵ)ϵ+k_BT\left[n_2(ϵ)\mathrm{ln}n_2(ϵ)+\{1n_2(ϵ)\}\mathrm{ln}\{1n_2(ϵ)\}\right]\right\}`$ (14)
$`+[2\mu (T)\mathrm{\Delta }_0(T)]N_{B,0}(T)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{K>0}{\overset{K_0}{}}}\{[2\mu (T)\mathrm{\Delta }_K(T)]N_{B,K}(T)`$
$`+k_BT[N_{B,K}(T)\mathrm{ln}N_{B,K}(T)\{1+N_{B,K}(T)\}\mathrm{ln}\{1+N_{B,K}(T)\}]\}.`$
The integral term is the contribution from the unpaired fermions and runs over all levels in the energy shell where the BCS model interaction is nonzero, $`n_2(ϵ)`$ being the average number of unpaired but pairable fermions with energy $`ϵ`$; the prefactor two comes from the spin. The second term gives the free energy of the bosons with CMM $`K=0`$ since their entropy is negligible in the thermodynamic limit; here $`N_{B,0}(T)`$ is the number of (bosonic) CPs with zero CMM at temperature $`T`$. The summation term represents the free energy of the bosons with nonzero CMM, while $`N_{B,K}(T)`$ is that with arbitrary nonzero CMM $`K,`$ and the cutoff $`K_0`$ is defined  by $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{K_0}0`$. The free energy $`F_2`$ is to be minimized subject to the constraint that the total number of pairable fermions $`N_2`$ is conserved.

If $`N_{20}(T)`$ is the number of pairable but unpaired fermions, the relevant number equation for the pairable (i.e., active) fermions is then

$$N_2=N_{20}(T)+2[N_{B,0}(T)+N_{B,0<K<K_0}(T)]N_{20}(T)+2N_B(T),$$
(15)
where $`N_{B,0<K<K_0}(T)`$ denotes the total number of “excited” bosonic pairs (namely with CMM such that $`0<K<K_0`$), i.e., $`N_{B,0<K<K_0}(T)_{0<K<K_0}N_{B,K}(T)`$. Minimizing the free energy, subject to the constraint that (15) be a constant, is equivalent to minimizing the grand potential

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_2=F_2\mu _2N_2.$$
(16)
a) Minimizing $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2`$ with respect to the fermion occupation probabilities $`n_2(ϵ)`$ yields the Fermi-Dirac distribution with fermion chemical potential $`\mu _2`$, not $`\mu `$, namely

$$n_2(ϵ)=\frac{1}{e^{\beta (ϵ\mu _2)}+1};\beta (k_BT)^1.$$
(17)
Thus the total number of pairable (but unpaired) fermions then becomes

$$N_{20}(T)2_{\mu \mathrm{}\omega _D}^{\mu +\mathrm{}\omega _D}𝑑ϵg(ϵ)n_2(ϵ)=2_{\mu \mathrm{}\omega _D}^{\mu +\mathrm{}\omega _D}𝑑ϵ\frac{g(ϵ)}{e^{\beta (ϵ\mu _2)}+1},$$
(18)
and should be compared with (12) for $`N_2`$ which contains only $`\mu `$. Since in 2D $`g(ϵ)`$ is a constant (4), (18) becomes the exact expression

$$N_{20}(T)=\frac{2g}{\beta }\mathrm{ln}\left[\frac{1+e^{\beta (\mu \mu _2\mathrm{}\omega _D)}}{1+e^{\beta (\mu \mu _2+\mathrm{}\omega _D)}}\right].$$
(19)
b) Minimizing $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2`$ with respect to the excited boson numbers $`N_{B,K}(T)`$, $`K>0`$, yields the Bose-Einstein distribution summed over all $`0<K<K_0`$, namely

$$N_{B,0<K<K_0}(T)\underset{K>0}{\overset{K_0}{}}N_{B,K}(T)=\underset{K>0}{\overset{K_0}{}}[e^{\beta \{E_K(T)2\mu _2\}}1]^1.$$
(20)
The factor multiplying $`\beta `$ in (20) may be rewritten as $`\epsilon _K(T)\mu _B(T)`$, where $`\epsilon _K(T)\mathrm{\Delta }_0(T)\mathrm{\Delta }_K(T)0`$ is a (nonnegative) excitation energy as suggested by (6), while $`\mu _B(T)`$ turns out to be

$$\mu _B(T)=2\left[\mu _2(T)\mu (T)\right]+\mathrm{\Delta }_0(T).$$
(21)
This allows rewriting (20) in the more meaningful boson form

$$N_{B,0<K<K_0}(T)=\underset{K>0}{\overset{K_0}{}}[e^{\beta \{\epsilon _K(T)\mu _B(T)\}}1]^1$$
(22)
where $`\mu _B(T)`$ is clearly the bosonic chemical potential associated with the entire binary mixture.

c) Finally, minimizing $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2`$ with respect to the number of zero CMM (or, “ground state”) bosons $`N_{B,0}(T)`$ gives

$$2[\mu _2(T)\mu (T)]+\mathrm{\Delta }_0(T)=0(0TT_c),$$
(23)
valid only in the stated temperature range as $`N_{B,0}(T)`$ is negligible for all $`T>T_c`$. However, in view of (21) this implies that $`\mu _B(T)`$ $`=0`$ for all $`0TT_c`$—which is precisely the BEC condition for a pure boson gas, even though one now deals with a binary boson-fermion mixture.

## 5 Boson number

To determine $`N_B(T)`$ from (15) we need (19) which with (23) reduces to

$$N_{20}(T)=\frac{2g}{\beta }\mathrm{ln}\left[\frac{1+e^{\beta \{\mathrm{\Delta }_0(T)/2\mathrm{}\omega _D\}}}{1+e^{\beta \{\mathrm{\Delta }_0(T)/2+\mathrm{}\omega _D\}}}\right](0TT_c).$$
(24)
At $`T=0`$ two distinct coupling regimes emerge by inspecting (24): a) for $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0/2<\mathrm{}\omega _D`$ or, from (5) for $`\lambda 2/\mathrm{ln}22.89`$, we have that $`N_{20}(0)=2g(\mu )(\mathrm{}\omega _D\mathrm{\Delta }_0/2)`$; while b) for $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0/2>\mathrm{}\omega _D`$ (or $`\lambda 2.89`$) $`N_{20}(0)`$ is identically zero. Hence, the number of bosons $`N_B(0)`$ at $`T=0`$ from (15) is just $`N_B(0)=\frac{1}{2}[N_2N_{20}(0)]`$. Using (12) for $`N_2`$ the fractional number of pairable fermions that are actually paired at $`T=0`$, namely $`2N_B(0)/N_2=1N_{20}(0)/N_2`$, becomes simply

$$2N_B(0)/N_2=\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Delta }_0/2\mathrm{}\omega _D=(e^{2/\lambda }1)^1\underset{\lambda 0}{}e^{2/\lambda }\hfill & (\mathrm{for}\lambda 2/\mathrm{ln}22.89)\hfill \\ 1\hfill & (\mathrm{for}\lambda 2/\mathrm{ln}22.89).\hfill \end{array}$$

This fraction is plotted against coupling $`\lambda `$ in Fig. 1. Since $`N_B(0)=\frac{1}{2}g\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ for $`\lambda 2.89`$, only those fermions in an energy shell of width $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0/2`$ around the Fermi surface actually pair at $`T=0`$, while for $`\lambda 2.89`$ all pairable fermions actually pair up since then $`N_B(0)=g\mathrm{}\omega _D\frac{1}{2}N_2`$. This result contrasts sharply with the “heuristic model” , Eq. (22), where $`2N_B(0)/N_2`$ $`1`$ for all coupling, and is more in line with BCS theory which implies, in any $`d`$, a coupling-dependent fraction estimated (Ref.  p. 128; see also ) to be $`[g(E_F)2\mathrm{\Delta }/2g(E_F)\mathrm{}\omega _D]^2=(\mathrm{\Delta }/\mathrm{}\omega _D)^2(\mathrm{sinh}1/\lambda )^2\underset{\lambda 0}{}4e^{2/\lambda }`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}\omega _D/\mathrm{sinh}(1/\lambda )`$ (again, not to be confused with the CP binding energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$) is the $`T=0`$ BCS energy gap for the same BCS model interaction (1) used in this paper; this is graphed as the long-dashed curve in Fig. 1 and is seen to be much larger than (5) for fixed $`\lambda `$. The breakdown of BCS theory for BCS model interaction couplings larger than $`\lambda 1.13`$ is clear both because: a) the alluded fraction cannot exceed unity; and b) physically, if the fermionic energy gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}\omega _D`$ no pairable fermions are available at all. This breakdown is indicated by the short-dashed curve in Fig. 1. (A strong-coupling many-body model differing from that of BCS theory but based on the BCS model interaction has been solved by Thouless ).

Also displayed in Fig. 1 are two finite-temperature results for $`2N_B(T)/N_2=1N_{20}(T)/N_2`$ which are obtainable from (24) for any $`T`$ provided one knows $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0(T)`$ for any $`T>0`$. For $`T>0`$, the $`\theta (k_1k_F)\theta (ϵ_{k_1}E_F)`$ in (2) becomes $`1n(\xi _{k_1})`$, where $`n(\xi _{k_1})(e^{\beta \xi _{k_1}}+1)^1`$ is the Fermi-Dirac distribution with $`\xi _{k_1}ϵ_{k_1}\mu (T)`$, with the ideal fermion gas chemical potential $`\mu (T)`$ in 2D being given exactly by

$$\mu (T)=\beta ^1\mathrm{ln}(e^{\beta E_F}1)\underset{T0}{}E_F.$$
(25)
Note that $`\mu (T)`$ decreases monotonically with temperature from its maximum value of $`E_F`$ but does not turn negative until $`T=T_F/\mathrm{ln}21.44T_F`$ so that the BCS model interaction (1), which requires $`\mu (T)`$ to be nonnegative, will not break down (i.e., become meaningless) over the entire range of temperatures relevant in this paper, see Fig. 4 below. Similar arguments hold for $`\theta (k_2k_F)`$. Since $`k_1=k_2`$ implies that $`\xi _{k_1}=\xi _{k_2}`$, (2) then leads to a simple generalization to finite-temperature of the $`K=0`$ CP equation, namely

$$1=\lambda _0^{\mathrm{}\omega _D}𝑑\xi (e^{\beta \xi }+1)^2[2\xi +\mathrm{\Delta }_0(T)]^1.$$
(26)
Its numerical solution for $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0(T)`$ is illustrated in Fig. 2 for $`\lambda gV=1/2`$ and $`\nu \mathrm{}\omega _D/E_F=0.05`$. Note that if one assumes a $`T`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0(T)=0`$, the resulting integral in (26) diverges and the equation can only be satisfied for $`\lambda =0`$; thus, there is no temperature $`T`$ at which “depairing” will occur for any fixed $`\nu `$ and any nonzero $`\lambda `$.

## 6 Critical temperature

Neglecting the background unpaired fermions and modeling our system as a pure boson gas of CPs but with temperature-dependent number density $`n_B(T)`$, one converts the explicit $`T_c`$-formula (10) into an implicit one by allowing $`n_B`$ to be $`T`$-dependent. For $`d=2`$ (10) becomes, since $`g_2(1)\zeta (2)=\pi ^2/6`$,

$$T_c=\frac{4\sqrt{3}}{\pi ^{3/2}}\frac{\mathrm{}v_F}{k_B}\sqrt{n_B(T_c)}.$$
(27)
This requires $`n_B(T)N_B(T)/L^2`$ which in turn requires (24), along with $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0(T)`$ as determined from (26), and is given by the expression $`2N_B(T)/N_2=1N_{20}(T)/N_2`$. Solving (27) self-consistently with $`\lambda =1/2`$ gives the remarkably constant value $`T_c/T_F0.004`$ over the entire range of $`\nu \mathrm{}\omega _D/E_F`$ values $`0.030.07`$ typical  of cuprate superconductors. On the other hand, the BCS formula $`T_c^{BCS}1.13\mathrm{\Theta }_De^{1/\lambda }`$ with $`\lambda =1/2`$ gives $`T_c/T_F`$ = 0.005, 0.008 and 0.011 for $`\nu `$ = 0.03, 0.05 and 0.07, respectively. Clearly, both sets of predictions are somewhat small compared with empirical cuprate values of $`T_c/T_F`$ that range  from $`0.010.1`$.

To obtain the exact critical temperature without neglecting the background unpaired fermions, one needs the exact CP excitation energy dispersion relation $`\epsilon _K(T)\mathrm{\Delta }_0(T)\mathrm{\Delta }_K(T)`$ which is neither exactly linear in $`K`$ nor independent of $`T`$. To determine $`\mathrm{\Delta }_K(T)`$ we need a working equation that generalizes Ref.  for $`T>0`$ via the new CP eigenvalue equation (26). Because of symmetry, see Fig. 3, one can restrict the angle $`\theta `$ to the interval $`(0,\pi /2)`$ where $`k_1k_2`$, i.e., to quadrant I. Recalling (13), in $`d`$-dimensions (2) becomes

$$1=V\left(\frac{L}{2\pi }\right)^d^{}𝑑𝐤\frac{\left[1n(\xi _{k_1})\right]\left[1n(\xi _{k_2})\right]}{\mathrm{}^2(k^2k_\mu ^2)/m+\mathrm{\Delta }_K(T)+\mathrm{}^2K^2/4m}.$$
(28)
Here $`k_\mu `$ is such that $`\mu \mathrm{}^2k_\mu ^2/2m`$ and becomes $`k_F`$ as $`T0`$, while $`k_D`$ is such that $`\mathrm{}\omega _D\mathrm{}^2k_D^2/2m`$. The prime on the integral sign now denotes the restrictions

$`k_2^2|𝐤\frac{1}{2}𝐊|^2`$ $`=`$ $`k^2kK\mathrm{cos}\theta +\frac{1}{4}K^2>k_\mu ^2,`$ (29)
$`k_1^2|𝐤+\frac{1}{2}𝐊|^2`$ $`=`$ $`k^2+kK\mathrm{cos}\theta +\frac{1}{4}K^2<k_\mu ^2+k_D^2.`$ (30)
In Fig. 3 the darkest shading corresponds to these (BCS model interaction) restrictions. The conditions (29) and (30) can be studied separately but must be satisfied simultaneously. If $`K<2\sqrt{k_\mu ^2k_D^2}`$, (29) and (30) are equivalent to

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}(k_\mu ^2\frac{1}{4}K^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta )^{1/2}+\frac{1}{2}K\mathrm{cos}\theta & <& k& <& [(k_\mu ^2+k_D^2)\frac{1}{4}K^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta ]^{1/2}\frac{1}{2}K\mathrm{cos}\theta .\end{array}$$
(31)
Note that for $`K>\sqrt{k_\mu ^2+k_D^2}\sqrt{k_\mu ^2k_D^2}`$ there exists a minimum value $`\theta _{\mathrm{min}}`$ of $`\theta `$ given by

$$\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mathrm{min}}\frac{k_D^2}{K\sqrt{2(2k_\mu ^2+k_D^2)K^2}},$$
(32)
while $`\theta _{\mathrm{min}}`$ = 0 for $`K<\sqrt{k_\mu ^2+k_D^2}\sqrt{k_\mu ^2k_D^2}`$. We introduce the dimensionless variables

$$\kappa \frac{K}{2(k_F^2+k_D^2)^{1/2}}1,\xi \frac{k}{k_F},\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_\kappa \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_K}{E_F},\nu \frac{\mathrm{\Theta }_D}{T_F}\frac{k_D^2}{k_F^2},$$
(33)
with $`k_B\mathrm{\Theta }_D\mathrm{}\omega _D\mathrm{}^2k_D^2/2m`$ and$`k_BT_FE_F,`$ where $`k_B`$ is Boltzmann’s constant. Recall the $`d=2`$ constant expression (4) for $`g(ϵ)`$, the restrictions (31), and that for $`K0`$ and $`T>0`$ the step functions in (2) $`\theta (k_{1,2}k_F)\theta (|\frac{1}{2}𝐊\pm 𝐤|k_F)`$ become $`[\mathrm{exp}\{\beta [\mathrm{}^2(\frac{1}{2}𝐊\pm 𝐤)^2/2m\mu (T)]\}+1]^1`$—but with $`2ϵ_k`$ in (2) replaced by $`ϵ_{k_1}+ϵ_{k_2}`$, $`E_F`$ by $`\mu (T)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_K`$ by $`\mathrm{\Delta }_K(T)`$. One finally arrives at a working equation for the binding energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }_K(T)`$ that generalizes Eq. (18) of Ref. , namely

$`1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{\pi }}\lambda {\displaystyle _{\theta _{min}}^{\pi /2}}𝑑\theta {\displaystyle _{\xi _{min}(\theta )}^{\xi _{max}(\theta )}}𝑑\xi \xi {\displaystyle \frac{[1+\mathrm{exp}\{\stackrel{~}{\beta }[\xi ^2+(1+\nu )\kappa ^2+2\sqrt{1+\nu }\kappa \xi \mathrm{cos}\theta 1]\}]^1}{2\xi ^2+2(1+\nu )\kappa ^22+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_\kappa (\stackrel{~}{T})}}`$ (34)
$`\times [1+\mathrm{exp}\{\stackrel{~}{\beta }[\xi ^2+(1+\nu )\kappa ^22\sqrt{1+\nu }\kappa \xi \mathrm{cos}\theta 1]\}]^1,`$
where $`\nu \mathrm{}\omega _D/\mu `$, $`\xi _{min}(\theta )\sqrt{1+\nu }\kappa \mathrm{cos}\theta +\sqrt{1(1+\nu )\kappa ^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }`$, $`\xi _{max}(\theta )`$
$`\sqrt{1+\nu }\kappa \mathrm{cos}\theta +\sqrt{(1+\nu )(1\kappa ^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta )}`$ and

$$\theta _{min}=\{\begin{array}{cc}& 0\text{if}2\kappa <1\sqrt{(1\nu )/(1+\nu )},\hfill \\ & \mathrm{cos}^1(\nu /\{4\sqrt{1+\nu }\kappa \sqrt{1+\nu /2(1+\nu )\kappa ^2}\})\mathrm{otherwise}.\hfill \end{array}$$

In (34) we have introduced the more general dimensionless quantities $`\xi k/k_\mu `$, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_\kappa (\stackrel{~}{T})\mathrm{\Delta }_K(T)/\mu `$, where $`\stackrel{~}{T}k_BT/\mu `$ or $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }\mu \beta `$, and $`\kappa K/2\sqrt{k_\mu ^2+k_D^2}`$.

To obtain the critical temperature from the finite-temperature dispersion relation, besides solving (28) for $`\mathrm{\Delta }_K(T)`$, one needs (12), (15), (22) and (25). At $`T=T_c`$ both $`N_{B,0}(T_c)0`$ and $`\mu _B(T_c)0`$ so that one gets the implicit $`T_c`$-equation for the binary mixture gas

$$1=\frac{\stackrel{~}{T}_c}{\nu }\mathrm{ln}\left[\frac{1+e^{\{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_0(\stackrel{~}{T}_c)/2\nu \}/\stackrel{~}{T}_c}}{1+e^{\{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_0(\stackrel{~}{T}_c)/2+\nu \}/\stackrel{~}{T}_c}}\right]+\frac{8(1+\nu )}{\nu }_0^{\kappa _0(\stackrel{~}{T}_c)}𝑑\kappa \frac{\kappa }{e^{[\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_0(\stackrel{~}{T}_c)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_\kappa (\stackrel{~}{T}_c)]/\stackrel{~}{T}_c}1}.$$
(35)
This must be solved numerically for the exact $`T_c`$ for each $`\lambda `$ and $`\nu `$ in conjunction with (26) for $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_0(\stackrel{~}{T})`$ and (34) for both $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_\kappa (\stackrel{~}{T})`$ and $`\kappa _0(\stackrel{~}{T}_c)`$. Results for $`\lambda =1/2`$ are shown in Table 1 and Fig. 4 for a range of $`\nu `$ values typical  of cuprates. We have taken $`T_\mu /T_F1`$, a very good approximation up to the highest temperatures dealt with. For example, from Fig. 4 the highest $`T_c/T_F0.14`$ already gives $`T_\mu /T_F0.9999`$ from (25), while for smaller $`T_c/T_F`$ the values of $`T_\mu /T_F`$ are even closer to 1. The $`T_c`$ resulting from the exact dispersion relation for $`T=0`$ (dot-dashed curve) is somewhat higher than the exact result (full curve) but lower than that using the linear approximation for $`\mathrm{\Delta }_K(T)`$ (dotted curve). It is also clear that the effect of using the exact or linear (in $`K`$) cases dominates the effect of the dispersion relation $`T`$-dependence. For cuprates $`d2.03`$ has been suggested  to be more realistic as it reflects inter-CuO-layer couplings but our results in that case would be very similar to those reported here for $`d=2`$.

Thus, for $`\nu =0.05`$ the exact $`T_c`$ is seen to be about 46% lower than the heuristic result found in Ref. , Eqs. (15) and (23). It is curious that all results depend very weakly on the $`T`$-dependence of the CP binding energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }_K(T)`$, in spite of its being substantial throughout the temperatures spanned in this paper, as seen in Fig. 2.

We defer study of the condensate fraction $`N_{B,0}(T)/N_B(T)`$ below $`T_c`$ and merely surmise that it may ultimately help explain the apparent absence  in cuprates of the Hebel-Slichter peak of nuclear-spin (NMR) relaxation rates vs temperature for $`0TT_c`$. Such a peak, originally seen  in aluminum, is perhaps the most stringent and qualitatively convincing experimental test of BCS theory (Refs. , p. 71 and , p. 79 ff). Besides cuprates, it is also absent  in several quasi-1D Bechgaard  and in several quasi-2D (ET) organic salt superconductors.

## 7 Conclusions

A simple statistical model treating CPs as non-interacting bosons in thermal and chemical equilibrium with unpaired fermions is proposed. The model gives rise to a boson number that is strongly coupling- and temperature-dependent. Since the CP dispersion relation is approximately linear, it exhibits a Bose-Einstein condensation of zero-CMM pairs at precisely two dimensions. Exact transition temperatures based upon the exact CP dispersion relation are in reasonable agreement with empirical cuprate data.

Needless to say, further corrections are yet to be included in the present simple binary mixture boson-fermion model, e.g., i) realistic Fermi surfaces, ii) Van Hove singularities  or other means of accounting for periodic-crystalline effects, as well as iii) the all important $`d`$-wave interfermionic interaction, iv) the boson-fermion interaction and v) residual interbosonic interactions. As to the latter, also generally neglected in BCS theory, if the lowering  of $`T_c`$ in liquid 4He by about 29% with respect to the ideal Bose gas BEC $`T_c`$ is any guide, interbosonic interactions will also lower $`T_c`$ in a more realistic picture. As to the boson-fermion interaction, it is precisely this ingredient that enabled T.D. Lee and coworkers , and Tolmachev  more generally, to link BCS and BEC through a relation stating that the BE condensate fraction is proportional to the (BCS-like) fermionic gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }(T)`$ squared.

## Acknowledgments

We thank A. Salazar for help with Figure 1. M.C., A.P. and A.R. are grateful for partial support from grant PB98-0124, and M.deLl. from grants PB92-1083 and SAB95-0312, both by DGICYT (Spain), and PAPIIT (Mexico) IN102198-9 as well as from CONACyT (Mexico) 27828-E. R.M.Q. and N.J.D. acknowledge the support of the FRD (South Africa). M.deLl. thanks D.M. Eagles, M. Fortes, O. Rojo, and A.A. Valladares for numerous discussions; V.V. Tolmachev for extensive correspondence; R. Escudero for calling his attention to Ref. ; and A.N. Kocharian for reading and commenting the manuscript.

Figure Captions

Figure 1. Fractional number of pairable fermions that are actually paired, at three different temperatures, vs. coupling $`\lambda `$ for the present first-principles model (5) and estimated for BCS theory at $`T=0`$ as explained below (5). The number of pairable fermions with the BCS model interaction used is just (12); all of them are actually paired at $`T=0`$ in the heuristic BEC model, Ref.  Eq. (23).

Figure 2. Temperature dependence of $`K=0`$ CP binding energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0(T)`$ obtained numerically from (26) for $`\lambda =1/2`$ and $`\nu =0.05`$. Note that when $`T=\mathrm{}`$ (26) is analytical for $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0(\mathrm{})`$; the latter then turns out to be about $`10^8`$, so that the curve saturates from above to this value at $`T=\mathrm{}`$.

Figure 3. Cross-section of overlap “volume” in momentum space (darkest shading) where the tip of the relative wavevector $`𝐤`$ (for two fermions with wavevectors $`𝐤_\mathrm{𝟏}`$ and $`𝐤_\mathrm{𝟐}`$) must point for the attractive BCS model interaction (1) between them to be nonzero and form a Cooper pair of CMM magnitude $`\mathrm{}K`$.

Figure 4. Critical BEC temperature $`T_c`$ in units of $`T_F`$, resulting from (35) for $`\lambda =1/2`$ for varying $`\nu \mathrm{}\omega _D/\mu \mathrm{\Theta }_D/T_F`$: with no approximations (full curve); using $`\mathrm{\Delta }_K(T)`$ evaluated at $`T=0`$ (dot-dashed); using the linear-in-$`K`$ approximation for $`\mathrm{\Delta }_K(T)`$ (dotted). The dashed straight line is the BCS formula $`T_c1.13\mathrm{\Theta }_De^{1/2\lambda }`$ for $`\lambda =1/2`$. The very lowest full horizontal line is the solution of the implicit $`T_c`$-equation (27) for the pure boson gas for $`\nu =0.03,0.05`$ and $`0.07`$. Cuprate data are taken from Ref. .


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Non-trivial Kaluza-Klein sphere reductions of supergravity theories have been studied in a number of contexts. Long ago it was demonstrated  that the linearised analysis of the zero-mode fluctuations of the $`S^7`$ reduction of $`D=11`$ supergravity  can be extended to a fully non-linear and consistent embedding of maximal $`D=4`$ gauged $`SO(8)`$ supergravity in $`D=11`$. The fact that the truncation to the zero-mode sector is consistent, despite the non-linearities of the theory, is rather non-trivial since there appears to be no group-theoretic understanding of why it should work.

More recently, a similar, although more explicit, demonstration of the consistency of the $`S^4`$ reduction from $`D=11`$ to the maximal $`D=7`$ gauged $`SO(5)`$ supergravity was given . The consistent reduction of massive type IIA supergravity on a locally $`S^4`$ space, to give the $`N=2`$ gauged $`SU(2)`$ supergravity in $`D=6`$, has also been obtained . In addition, certain reductions to truncations of the maximal gauged supergravities in various dimensions have also been constructed. These have the advantage of being considerably simpler than the maximal theories, allowing the reduction Ansatz to be presented in a more explicit form. Cases that have been constructed include the $`N=2`$ gauged $`SU(2)`$ supergravity in $`D=7`$ ; the $`N=4`$ gauged $`SU(2)\times U(1)`$ supergravity in $`D=5`$ ; the $`N=4`$ gauged $`SO(4)`$ supergravity in $`D=4`$ ; and maximal abelian truncations in $`D=4`$, 5 and 7 . One can also consider non-supersymmetric truncations of the maximal gauged supergravities. In  the consistent truncations of the $`D=7`$, $`D=5`$ and $`D=4`$ supergravities to the graviton plus scalar subsectors comprising only the diagonal scalars in the $`SL(N,\text{I}\mathrm{R})/SO(N)`$ scalar submanifolds were considered (with $`N=5`$, 6 and 8 respectively), and the consistent embeddings in $`D=11`$ and $`D=10`$ were constructed.

Although the full consistency of the $`S^7`$ and $`S^4`$ reductions of $`D=11`$ supergravity has essentially been demonstrated, no similar complete result exists for the $`S^5`$ reduction of type IIB supergravity. The field content of the full $`N=8`$ gauged supergravity  consists of gravity; fifteen $`SO(6)`$ gauge fields; twelve 2-form gauge potentials in the $`6`$ and $`\overline{6}`$ representations of $`SO(6)`$; 42 scalars in the $`1+1+20^{}+10+\overline{10}`$ representations of $`SO(6)`$, and the fermionic superpartners. It is believed that this can arise from an $`S^5`$ reduction of type IIB supergravity; at the linearised level, the reduction Ansatz was given in . However, at the full non-linear level, the only complete demonstrations so far are for the consistent embedding of the maximal abelian $`U(1)^3`$ truncation , the $`N=4`$ gauged $`SU(2)\times U(1)`$ truncation , and the scalar truncation in . The full metric Ansatz was conjectured in .

In this paper, we obtain the consistent reduction Ansatz for a different truncation of the maximal gauged $`D=5`$ supergravity. One can consistently set the $`1+1+10+\overline{10}`$ of scalars to zero, at the same time as setting the $`6+\overline{6}`$ of 2-form potentials to zero. The bosons that remain, namely gravity, the $`15`$ Yang-Mills fields, and the $`20^{}`$ of scalars, come just from the metric plus the self-dual 5-form sector of the original type IIB theory. We shall obtain complete results for the consistent embedding of this subsector of the gauged $`N=8`$ theory, with all fifteen of the $`SO(6)`$ gauge fields $`A_{\left(1\right)}^{ij}`$ , and the twenty scalars that parameterise the full $`SL(6,\text{I}\mathrm{R})/SO(6)`$ submanifold of the complete scalar coset. These can be parameterised by a unimodular symmetric tensor $`T_{ij}`$.

Another way of expressing the truncation that we shall consider in this paper is as follows. The type IIB theory itself can be consistently truncated in $`D=10`$ so that just gravity and the self-dual 5-form remain. The fifteen Yang-Mills gauge fields and twenty scalars that we retain in our Ansatz are the full set of massless fields associated with Kaluza-Klein reduction from this ten-dimensional starting point. (The counting of massless fields is the same as the one that arises from a toroidal reduction from the same ten-dimensional starting point.) We shall see below that the self-duality condition on the 5-form plays an essential rôle in the consistency of the $`S^5`$ reduction.

This subsector of type IIB supergravity is particularly relevant for the AdS/CFT correspondence , because it is the metric and the self-dual 5-form that couple to the D3-brane.

We also address the more general question of the circumstances under which a theory admits a consistent sphere reduction. We show that in a $`D`$-dimensional theory of gravity coupled to an $`n`$-form field strength, a consistent $`S^n`$ reduction that retains the full set of $`SO(n+1)`$ Yang-Mills fields together with coupled massless scalars is possible only when $`D=11`$ and $`n=4`$ or $`7`$, or in $`D=10`$ with $`n=5`$. Furthermore, in $`D=11`$ the theory has to be the bosonic sector of eleven-dimensional supergravity, with the $`FFA`$ term, while in $`D=10`$ the 5-form must be self-dual. In all three cases the full set of massless scalars includes a subset $`T_{ij}`$ described by the coset $`SL(n+1,\text{I}\mathrm{R})/SO(n+1)`$. (Such a coset structure is absent for any other values of $`(D,n)`$, and so it would not be appropriate to look for a consistent reduction Ansatz with scalars $`T_{ij}`$ of $`SL(n+1,\text{I}\mathrm{R})/SO(n+1)`$ for generic $`(D,n)`$.) Of the three cases where such a consistent sphere reduction is possible, the ten-dimensional one is singled out as the only case where the consistent reduction includes only gravity plus the $`SO(n+1)`$ gauge fields $`A_{\left(1\right)}^{ij}`$ and the scalars $`T_{ij}`$. By contrast, for $`D=11`$ reduced on $`S^4`$ one must additionally retain a set of five 2-form potentials, while for $`D=11`$ reduced on $`S^7`$ one must instead additionally retain 35 pseudoscalars as well as the 35 scalars $`T_{ij}`$, in order to achieve consistent reductions.111This is related to the fact that one can consistently truncate five-dimensional maximal gauged supergravity to the $`SO(6)`$ gauge fields plus scalars of the coset $`SL(6,\text{I}\mathrm{R})/SO(6)`$. By contrast, the analogous truncations cannot be performed in the maximal gauged supergravities in $`D=7`$ and $`D=4`$.

## 2 The $`SO(6)`$ reduction Ansatz on $`S^5`$

We parameterise the fields for this truncated theory as follows. The twenty scalars, which are in the $`20^{}`$ representation of $`SO(6)`$, are represented by the symmetric unimodular tensor $`T_{ij}`$, where $`i`$ is a 6 of $`SO(6)`$. The fifteen $`SO(6)`$ Yang-Mills gauge fields will be represented by the 1-form potentials $`A_{\left(1\right)}^{ij}`$, antisymmetric in $`i`$ and $`j`$. The inverse of the scalar matrix $`T_{ij}`$ is denoted by $`T_{ij}^1`$. In terms of these quantities, we find that the Kaluza-Klein reduction Ansatz is given by

$`d\widehat{s}_{10}^2`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{1/2}ds_5^2+g^2\mathrm{\Delta }^{1/2}T_{ij}^1D\mu ^iD\mu ^j,`$ (1)
$`\widehat{H}_{\left(5\right)}`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{G}_{\left(5\right)}+\widehat{}\widehat{G}_{\left(5\right)},`$ (2)
$`\widehat{G}_{\left(5\right)}`$ $`=`$ $`gUϵ_{\left(5\right)}+g^1(T_{ij}^1DT_{jk})(\mu ^kD\mu ^i)`$ (3)
$`\frac{1}{2}g^2T_{ik}^1T_j\mathrm{}^1F_{\left(2\right)}^{}{}_{}{}^{ij}D\mu ^kD\mu ^{\mathrm{}},`$
$`\widehat{}\widehat{G}_{\left(5\right)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{5!}}ϵ_{i_1\mathrm{}i_6}[g^4U\mathrm{\Delta }^2D\mu ^{i_1}\mathrm{}D\mu ^{i_5}\mu ^{i_6}`$ (4)
$`5g^4\mathrm{\Delta }^2D\mu ^{i_1}\mathrm{}D\mu ^{i_4}DT_{i_5j}T_{i_6k}\mu ^j\mu ^k`$
$`10g^3\mathrm{\Delta }^1F_{\left(2\right)}^{i_1i_2}D\mu ^{i_3}D\mu ^{i_4}D\mu ^{i_5}T_{i_6j}\mu ^j],`$
where

$`U2T_{ij}T_{jk}\mu ^i\mu ^k\mathrm{\Delta }T_{ii},\mathrm{\Delta }T_{ij}\mu ^i\mu ^j,`$
$`F_{\left(2\right)}^{ij}=dA_{\left(1\right)}^{ij}+gA_{\left(1\right)}^{ik}A_{\left(1\right)}^{kj},DT_{ij}dT_{ij}+gA_{\left(1\right)}^{ik}T_{kj}+gA_{\left(1\right)}^{jk}T_{ik},`$
$`\mu ^i\mu ^i=1,D\mu ^id\mu ^i+gA_{\left(1\right)}^{ij}\mu ^j,`$ (5)
and $`ϵ_{\left(5\right)}`$ is the volume form on the five-dimensional spacetime. Note that $`\widehat{}\widehat{G}_{\left(5\right)}`$ is derivable from the given expressions (1) and (3); we have presented it here because it is quite an involved computation. The coordinates $`\mu ^i`$, subject to the constraint $`\mu ^i\mu ^i=1`$, parameterise points in the internal 5-sphere. In obtaining the above Ansatz we have been guided by previous results in the literature, including the $`S^4`$ reduction Ansatz from $`D=11`$ that was constructed in .

It is consistent to truncate the fields of type IIB supergravity to the metric and self-dual 5-form $`\widehat{H}_{\left(5\right)}`$. The ten-dimensional equations for motion for these fields are then given by

$`\widehat{R}_{MN}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{96}}\widehat{H}_{MPQRS}\widehat{H}_N{}_{}{}^{PQRS},`$
$`d\widehat{H}_{\left(5\right)}`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (6)
The Ansatz presented above satisfies these equations of motion if and only if the five-dimensional fields satisfy the equations

$`D(T_{ik}^1T_j\mathrm{}^1F_{\left(2\right)}^k\mathrm{})`$ $`=`$ $`2gT_{k[i}^1DT_{j]k}\frac{1}{8}ϵ_{ijk_1\mathrm{}k_4}F_{\left(2\right)}^{k_1k_2}F_{\left(2\right)}^{k_3k_4},`$
$`D(T_{ik}^1DT_{kj})`$ $`=`$ $`2g^2(2T_{ik}T_{jk}T_{ij}T_{kk})ϵ_{\left(5\right)}+T_{ik}^1T_\mathrm{}m^1F_{\left(2\right)}^\mathrm{}kF_{\left(2\right)}^{mj}`$
$`\frac{1}{6}\delta _{ij}\left[2g^2(2T_k\mathrm{}T_k\mathrm{}(T_{kk})^2)ϵ_{\left(5\right)}+T_{pk}^1T_\mathrm{}m^1F_{\left(2\right)}^\mathrm{}kF_{\left(2\right)}^{mp}\right],`$
together with the five-dimensional Einstein equation. These equations of motion can all be derived from the five-dimensional Lagrangian

$`_5`$ $`=`$ $`R\text{1}\mathrm{l}\frac{1}{4}T_{ij}^1DT_{jk}T_k\mathrm{}^1DT_\mathrm{}i\frac{1}{4}T_{ik}^1T_j\mathrm{}^1F_{\left(2\right)}^{ij}F_{\left(2\right)}^k\mathrm{}V\text{1}\mathrm{l}`$
$`\frac{1}{48}ϵ_{i_1\mathrm{}i_6}\left(F_{\left(2\right)}^{i_1i_2}F_{\left(2\right)}^{i_3i_4}A_{\left(1\right)}^{i_5i_6}gF_{\left(2\right)}^{i_1i_2}A_{\left(1\right)}^{i_3i_4}A_{\left(1\right)}^{i_5j}A_{\left(1\right)}^{ji_6}+\frac{2}{5}g^2A_{\left(1\right)}^{i_1i_2}A_{\left(1\right)}^{i_3j}A_{\left(1\right)}^{ji_4}A_{\left(1\right)}^{i_5k}A_{\left(1\right)}^{ki_6}\right),`$
where the potential $`V`$ is given by

$$V=\frac{1}{2}g^2\left(2T_{ij}T_{ij}(T_{ii})^2\right).$$
(9)
In (2) we have omitted the wedge symbols in the final topological term, to economise on space. The Lagrangian is in agreement with the one for five-dimensional gauged $`SO(6)`$ supergravity in .

To see this, we look first at the ten-dimensional equation $`d\widehat{H}_{\left(5\right)}=0`$, with the Ansatz given above. The terms involving structures of the form $`X_{\left(4\right)}^{ij}D\mu ^iD\mu ^j`$, where $`X_{\left(4\right)}^{ij}`$ represents a 4-form in the five-dimensional spacetime, give rise to the Yang-Mills equations above. Contributions of this kind come from $`d\widehat{G}_{\left(5\right)}`$ and also from the final term in $`d\widehat{}\widehat{G}_{\left(5\right)}`$. The terms involving structures of the form $`X_{\left(5\right)}^{ij}(\mu ^iD\mu ^j)`$, where $`X_{\left(5\right)}^{ij}`$ represents a 5-form in the five-dimensional spacetime, give rise to the scalar equations of motion in (2). Since $`\mu ^iD\mu ^i=\mu ^id\mu ^i=\frac{1}{2}d(\mu ^i\mu ^i)=0`$, there is a trace subtraction in the scalar equation, and we read off $`X_{\left(5\right)}^{ij}\frac{1}{6}\delta _{ij}X_{\left(5\right)}^{kk}=0`$ as the five-dimensional equation of motion. Contributions of this structure come only from $`d\widehat{G}_{\left(5\right)}`$. Finally, all other structures arising from calculating $`d\widehat{H}_5=0`$ vanish identically, without the use of any five-dimensional equations of motion. In deriving these results one needs to make extensive use of the Schoutens over-antisymmetrisation identity, $`ϵ_{[i_1\mathrm{}i_6}V_{i_7]}=0`$.

It is worth remarking that it is essential for the consistency of the reduction Ansatz that the 5-form $`\widehat{H}_{\left(5\right)}`$ should be self-dual. One cannot simply consider a reduction Ansatz for a ten-dimensional theory consisting of gravity plus a non-self-dual 5-form, whose Ansatz is given by $`\widehat{G}_{\left(5\right)}`$ in (3). Although the Bianchi identity $`d\widehat{G}_{\left(5\right)}=0`$ would give perfectly acceptable equations of motion for $`F_{\left(2\right)}^{ij}`$ and $`T_{ij}`$, the field equation $`d\widehat{}\widehat{G}_{\left(5\right)}=0`$ would produce the (unacceptable) constraint

$$ϵ_{ijk_1\mathrm{}k_4}F_{\left(2\right)}^{k_1k_2}F_{\left(2\right)}^{k_3k_4}=0.$$
(10)
It is only by combining $`\widehat{G}_{\left(5\right)}`$ and $`\widehat{}\widehat{G}_{\left(5\right)}`$ together into the self-dual field $`\widehat{H}_{\left(5\right)}`$ that a consistent five-dimensional result is obtained, with (10) now combining with terms from $`d\widehat{G}_{\left(5\right)}`$ to form part of the five-dimensional Yang-Mills equations given in (2).222If one were to consider the reduction of a ten-dimensional theory with a non-self-dual 5-form there would be additional fields present in a complete massless truncation. These would comprise $`10=4+6`$ vector potentials and $`5=1+4`$ scalars. However the inclusion of these fields would still not achieve a consistent reduction Ansatz, since the current (10), which is in the $`15`$ of $`SO(6)`$, could still not acquire an interpretation as a source term for the additional fields. Thus the additional requirement of self-duality seems to be essential for consistency. (Of course anti-self-duality would be equally good.) It is interesting, therefore, that self-duality of the 5-form is apparently forced on us by the requirements of Kaluza-Klein consistency, if we try to “invent” a ten-dimensional theory that can be reduced on $`S^5`$. Thus once again we see that supersymmetry and Kaluza-Klein consistency for sphere reductions seem to go hand in hand.333Of course the initial truncation of the type IIB theory to its gravity plus self-dual 5-form sector is itself a non-supersymmetric one, but the crucial point is that the consistency of the Kaluza-Klein $`S^5`$ reduction is singling out a starting point that is itself a subsector of a supersymmetric theory.

The Kaluza-Klein $`S^5`$ reduction that we have obtained here retains the full set of massless fields that can result from the reduction of gravity plus a self-dual 5-form in $`D=10`$. In other words, after the initial truncation of the type IIB theory in $`D=10`$, no further truncation of massless fields has been performed.

It should also be emphasised that it would be inconsistent to omit the fifteen $`SO(6)`$ gauge fields when considering the embedding of the twenty scalars $`T_{ij}`$. This can be seen from the Yang-Mills equations in (2), which have a source term $`gT_{k[i}^1DT_{j]k}`$ appearing on the right-hand side. This is a quite different situation from a toroidal reduction, where it is always consistent to truncate to the scalar sector, setting the gauge fields to zero. The new feature here in the sphere reduction is that the scalar fields are charged under the gauge group. This is a general feature of all the sphere reductions, to $`D=4`$, $`D=5`$ and $`D=7`$, and thus in all cases it is inconsistent to include the full set of scalar fields without including the gauge fields as well (see also ). (One can consistently truncate to the diagonal scalars in $`T_{ij}`$, setting all the gauge fields to zero, as in , since then $`T_{k[i}^1DT_{j]k}=0`$.)

Our testing of the consistency of the reduction Ansatz (1)-(4) has so far been restricted to checking the equations of motion for $`\widehat{H}_{\left(5\right)}`$. A full testing of the consistency of the ten-dimensional Einstein equations would be quite involved, and will be addressed in future work.444The experience in all previous work on consistent reductions is that although the actual checking of the higher-dimensional Einstein equations is the most difficult part from a computational point of view, the consistency seems to be assured once it has been achieved for the equations of motion for the antisymmetric tensor fields, which itself is an extremely stringent requirement. In the next section we shall show that the reduction Ansatz that we have obtained in this paper reduces, with appropriate additional truncations, to results that have been obtained previously. Since the complete consistency was proven in these earlier results, including the ten-dimensional Einstein equations, this provides further supporting evidence for the complete consistency of the Ansatz that we have constructed here.

Finally in this section, we remark that the $`S^5`$ reduction that we have constructed here is also consistent if we include the dilaton $`\widehat{\varphi }`$ and axion $`\widehat{\chi }`$ of the type IIB theory. These simply reduce according to the Ansätze

$$\widehat{\varphi }=\varphi ,\widehat{\chi }=\chi ,$$
(11)
where the unhatted quantities denote the fields in five dimensions. In this reduction they do not appear in the previous Ansätze for the metric and self-dual 5-form, and in $`D=5`$ they just give rise to the additional $`SL(2,\text{I}\mathrm{R})`$-invariant Lagrangian

$$_{(\varphi ,\chi )}=\frac{1}{2}d\varphi d\varphi \frac{1}{2}e^{2\varphi }d\chi d\chi ,$$
(12)
which is added to (2). Note in particular that $`\varphi `$ and $`\chi `$ do not appear in the five-dimensional scalar potential $`V`$.

## 3 Truncations to previous results

We can consider three different truncations of the reduction scheme of the previous section, in order to make contact with previous results in the literature. The first of the three involves truncating the twenty scalars $`T_{ij}`$ of the $`SL(6,\text{I}\mathrm{R})/SO(6)`$ coset to the diagonal subset

$$T_{ij}=\mathrm{diag}(X_1,X_2,X_3,X_4,X_5,X_6),$$
(13)
where $`_iX_i=1`$, and setting all the fifteen gauge fields $`F_{\left(2\right)}^{ij}`$ to zero. This reduces to the embedding that was obtained in , for which the complete proof of consistency was constructed in .

The second possible truncation involves reducing the scalar sector still further, to

$$T_{ij}=\mathrm{diag}(\stackrel{~}{X}_1,\stackrel{~}{X}_1,\stackrel{~}{X}_2,\stackrel{~}{X}_2,\stackrel{~}{X}_3,\stackrel{~}{X}_3),$$
(14)
where $`_a\stackrel{~}{X}_a=1`$, but now retaining the three $`U(1)`$ gauge fields $`F_{\left(2\right)}^{12}`$, $`F_{\left(2\right)}^{34}`$ and $`F_{\left(2\right)}^{56}`$ of the maximal abelian $`U(1)^3`$ subgroup of $`SO(6)`$. (It is easy to see, by looking at the five-dimensional equations of motion in (2), that this is a consistent truncation.) The truncated theory is supersymmetric, and describes five-dimensional $`U(1)`$-gauged simple supergravity coupled to two $`U(1)`$ vector multiplets. The consistent embedding of this theory in type IIB supergravity was obtained in .

The third possible truncation involves retaining just a single scalar field $`X`$, by taking

$$T_{ij}=\mathrm{diag}(X,X,X,X,X^2,X^2),$$
(15)
at the same time retaining only the gauge fields of $`SU(2)\times U(1)`$. It is convenient now to take the $`SO(6)`$ indices $`i`$ to range over $`0i5`$. We take all the gauge potentials $`A_{\left(1\right)}^{ij}`$ to be zero except for the following:

$`A_{\left(1\right)}^{01}=A_{\left(1\right)}^{23}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}A_{\left(1\right)}^1,A_{\left(1\right)}^{02}=A_{\left(1\right)}^{31}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}A_{\left(1\right)}^2,A_{\left(1\right)}^{03}=A_{\left(1\right)}^{12}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}A_{\left(1\right)}^3,`$
$`A_{\left(1\right)}^{45}=B_{\left(1\right)}.`$ (16)
We also parameterise the coordinates $`\mu ^i`$ of the internal 5-sphere as follows:

$`\mu ^0+\mathrm{i}\mu ^3=\mathrm{cos}\xi \mathrm{cos}\frac{1}{2}\theta e^{\mathrm{i}(\psi +\varphi )/2},\mu ^1+\mathrm{i}\mu ^2=\mathrm{cos}\xi \mathrm{sin}\frac{1}{2}\theta e^{\mathrm{i}(\psi \varphi )/2},`$
$`\mu ^4+\mathrm{i}\mu ^5=\mathrm{sin}\xi e^{\mathrm{i}\tau }.`$ (17)
Substituting (15), (16) and (17) into the metric Ansatz (1), we obtain

$`d\widehat{s}_{10}^2`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{1/2}ds_5^2+g^2X\mathrm{\Delta }^{1/2}d\xi ^2+g^2\mathrm{\Delta }^{1/2}X^2s^2\left(d\tau gB_{\left(1\right)}\right)^2`$ (18)
$`+\frac{1}{4}g^2\mathrm{\Delta }^{1/2}X^1c^2{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}(\sigma ^i\sqrt{2}gA_{\left(1\right)}^i)^2,`$
where $`c\mathrm{cos}\xi `$, $`s\mathrm{sin}\xi `$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }=X^2s^2+Xc^2`$, $`h^i\sigma ^i\sqrt{2}gA_{\left(1\right)}^i`$, and the $`\sigma _i`$ denote the three left-invariant 1-forms of $`SU(2)`$, given by $`\sigma _1+\mathrm{i}\sigma _2=e^{\mathrm{i}\psi }(d\theta +\mathrm{i}\mathrm{sin}\theta d\varphi )`$, $`\sigma _3=d\psi +\mathrm{cos}\theta d\varphi `$. This is the metric Ansatz obtained in  for the embedding of five-dimensional $`N=4`$ gauged $`SU(2)\times U(1)`$ supergravity in $`D=10`$. The internal 5-sphere now has a geometrical interpretation as a foliation by $`S^3\times S^1`$, with $`\xi `$ parameterising the foliating surfaces.

Substituting (15), (16) and (17) into the Ansatz for $`\widehat{G}_{\left(5\right)}`$ given in (3), leads to

$`\widehat{G}_{\left(5\right)}`$ $`=`$ $`gU\epsilon _5{\displaystyle \frac{3sc}{g}}X^1dXd\xi +{\displaystyle \frac{c^2}{8\sqrt{2}g^2}}X^2F_{\left(2\right)}^ih^jh^k\epsilon _{ijk}`$ (19)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{sc}{2\sqrt{2}g^2}}X^2F_{\left(2\right)}^ih^id\xi {\displaystyle \frac{sc}{g^2}}X^4G_{\left(2\right)}d\xi (d\tau gB_{\left(1\right)}),`$
where $`U=2(X^2c^2+X^1s^2+X^1)`$, again in agreement with the Ansatz obtained in . As a consistency check, we can also verify that substituting (15), (16) and (17) into the Ansatz (4) for $`\widehat{}\widehat{G}_{\left(5\right)}`$ gives the same expression as the one obtained for $`\widehat{}\widehat{G}_{\left(5\right)}`$ in . Thus we have verified that the gauged $`SO(6)`$ embedding that we have obtained in this paper can be truncated to the $`SU(2)\times U(1)`$ embedding of the $`N=4`$ theory whose consistency was proven in . This again provides further supporting evidence for the consistency of the our gauged $`SO(6)`$ reduction Ansatz.

## 4 Consistency conditions for sphere reductions

One of the interesting outcomes from our analysis is that it is essential for the consistency of the 5-form reduction Ansatz that it be a self-dual 5-form, rather than an unconstrained one. It seems, therefore, that the requirement of consistency of the sphere reduction has singled out a ten-dimensional starting point that is itself embeddable in a supersymmetric theory.

This raises the more general question of what possible higher-dimensional theories might allow consistent Kaluza-Klein sphere reductions. All the known examples are associated with supersymmetric higher-dimensional theories, but one might wonder whether this was just a reflection of the fact that these are the cases that have received the most attention in the literature. However, the following argument seems to suggest that the supersymmetric cases may be the only ones that can allow consistent $`S^n`$ sphere reductions, in which all the massless fields (including the $`SO(n+1)`$ Yang-Mills fields) are retained.

Consider a $`D`$-dimensional theory of gravity plus an $`n`$-form field strength, with the Lagrangian

$$e^1_D=R\frac{1}{2n!}F_n^2,$$
(20)
where $`e=\sqrt{g}`$. If this were to give a $`(Dn)`$-dimensional theory with an $`SO(n+1)`$ gauge group, as a consistent reduction on $`S^n`$, it would be necessary that the ungauged $`(Dn)`$-dimensional theory obtained by reducing instead on the torus $`T^n`$ should have a global symmetry group $`G`$ that contains $`SO(n+1)`$ as a compact subgroup, since an $`SO(n+1)`$ factor in the denominator group would be gauged in the spherical reduction. A reduction on $`T^n`$ always produces a theory with a $`GL(n,\text{I}\mathrm{R})`$ global symmetry, which has $`SO(n)`$ as its maximal compact subgroup, and so this would be insufficient for allowing an $`SO(n+1)`$ gauging. In special cases the $`GL(n,\text{I}\mathrm{R})`$ global symmetry can be enhanced  to $`SL(n+1,\text{I}\mathrm{R})`$, but this happens only if there is a “conspiracy” between axionic scalars coming from the metric and axions coming from the form-field $`F_n`$. For this conspiracy to occur, the strengths of the dilaton couplings to axions from these two sources must be the same.555It is always the case that the counting of dilatons and axions would be consistent with the numerology required for an $`SL(n+1,\text{I}\mathrm{R})/SO(n+1)`$ coset structure, but this does not in general imply that the enhanced coset actually occurs. Specifically, if $`\stackrel{}{\varphi }`$ denotes the set of $`n`$ canonically-normalised dilatons that result from the $`T^n`$ reduction then all the dilaton/axion couplings should be of the form $`e^{\stackrel{}{a}_i\stackrel{}{\varphi }}(\chi _i)^2`$, where the constant vectors $`\stackrel{}{a}_i`$ satisfy $`(\stackrel{}{a}_i)^2=4`$ for each $`i`$. (In fact the full set of $`\stackrel{}{a}_i`$ vectors would constitute the positive-root vectors of $`SL(n+1,\text{I}\mathrm{R})`$ .) It was shown in  that the strengths of dilaton couplings can be conveniently characterised in terms of the quantity $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, related to the dilaton vector $`\stackrel{}{a}`$ by

$$\stackrel{}{a}^2=\mathrm{\Delta }\frac{2(n1)(Dn1)}{D2},$$
(21)
for an $`n`$-form field strength in $`D`$ dimensions, since the quantity $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is preserved under toroidal Kaluza-Klein reduction. Furthermore, it was shown that the Kaluza-Klein vectors and axions coming from a toroidal reduction of the metric always have $`\mathrm{\Delta }=4`$. It therefore follows that for the symmetry enhancement to $`SL(n+1,\text{I}\mathrm{R})`$ to take place, the dilaton-coupling $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ for the original $`n`$-form field666If there is no dilaton in the original higher-dimensional theory then the “dilaton coupling” $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is given by setting $`\stackrel{}{a}^2=0`$ in (21), and it is this value that is preserved under toroidal reduction. in (20) must also take the value $`\mathrm{\Delta }=4`$. An enumeration of all possible cases shows that for Lagrangians of the form (20) one gets $`\mathrm{\Delta }=4`$ only for

$$(D,n)=(11,4),(11,7),(10,5).$$
(22)
The above considerations seem to single out the three cases in (22) as the only ones where an $`S^n`$ reduction of a Lagrangian of the form (20) could consistently yield the gauge fields of $`SO(n+1)`$ and the scalars $`T_{ij}`$ of the coset $`SL(n+1,\text{I}\mathrm{R})/SO(n+1)`$.777Consistent sphere reductions with scalars $`T_{ij}`$ for more general $`(D,n)`$ values for the Lagrangian (20) have been suggested in . We expect that a more complete analysis of the consistency of the reduction would exclude such possibilities. In particular, scalars $`T_{ij}`$ parametrising the coset $`SL(n+1,\text{I}\mathrm{R})/SO(n+1)`$ only occur in the three cases listed in (22). As we have seen in section 2 of this paper, it can turn out that additional structure is also required in order to achieve consistency, namely the self-duality of the 5-form in the case of $`(D,n)=(10,5)`$. By the same token one can expect that a consistent reduction would only be possible in the cases $`(D,n)=(11,4)`$ and $`(11,7)`$ if additional structure is also present in the eleven-dimensional Lagrangian.

For example, if we consider the $`S^7`$ reduction from $`D=11`$, then the total set of 70 spin-0 fields decompose as a $`35_v`$ of scalars and a $`35_c`$ of pseudoscalars. The 35 scalars in $`T_{ij}`$ correspond to the $`35_v`$. Turning on these forces all the 28 gauge fields of $`SO(8)`$ to be excited, and in turn these excite the remaining $`35_c`$ of pseudoscalars. In order for an $`S^7`$ reduction that retains all these fields to be consistent, it is necessary to include an $`F_{\left(4\right)}F_{\left(4\right)}A_{\left(3\right)}`$ term in the original Lagrangian (20), with precisely the coefficient dictated by $`D=11`$ supersymmetry. This point also emphasises that in the $`S^7`$ reduction one cannot consider just the 35 scalars $`T_{ij}`$ in isolation; the full set of bosonic fields of $`N=8`$ gauged supergravity (and not merely the 28 gauge fields) must be included if the full set of $`T_{ij}`$ scalars are present.

A similar situation arises with the $`S^4`$ reduction from $`D=11`$. Including the full set of 14 scalars $`T_{ij}`$ in a consistent reduction will force the complete set of massless fields to be non-vanishing, including not only the ten Yang-Mills fields of $`SO(5)`$ but also the five 3-form field strengths coming from the antisymmetric tensor. The consistency of the reduction is then only possible if the $`FFA`$ term of $`D=11`$ supergravity is included.

Another possibility for obtaining further examples of consistent sphere reductions is to include a dilaton in the higher-dimensional Lagrangian, whose coupling to the $`n`$-form field strength is arranged to have $`\mathrm{\Delta }=4`$:

$$e^1_D=R\frac{1}{2}(\varphi )^2\frac{1}{2n!}e^{a\varphi }F_n^2,$$
(23)
with $`a^2=42(n1)(Dn1)/(D2)`$. (Lagrangians of this type without the restriction on the value of the constant $`a`$ have also been discussed in  in the context of sphere reductions.) In this case there will no longer be an AdS$`{}_{Dn}{}^{}\times S^n`$ vacuum solution, but rather a warped product of a domain wall and $`S^n`$. The possibilities for achieving $`\mathrm{\Delta }=4`$ couplings are in fact rather limited, given that $`a`$ should be a real number. First of all, for an $`n`$-form with $`4nD4`$ it can be seen that we must have $`D11`$. For example if $`n=4`$, then we must have $`D11`$, while for $`n=5`$ we must have $`D10`$. (It is only necessary to consider forms with $`nD/2`$ since Hodge duality maps those with $`n>D/2`$ into this range.) Interestingly, for $`n=3`$ one can achieve $`\mathrm{\Delta }=4`$ in an arbitrary dimension $`D`$; the Lagrangian (23) then corresponds to the low-energy effective theory of the $`D`$-dimensional bosonic string. We can expect that the full 3-sphere reduction of this Lagrangian (keeping the complete $`SO(4)`$ gauge fields of its isometry group, not merely the $`SU(2)`$ subset of left-invariant fields) will be consistent. Similarly, we can expect that it should be consistent to reduce the theory with $`n=3`$ on a $`(D3)`$-sphere. Before the gauging, the scalar coset in $`D=3`$ is $`SO(D2,D2)/(SO(D2)\times SO(D2))`$. One of the $`SO(D2)`$ denominator group factors can be gauged, and we obtain the scalar coset $`SL(D2,\text{I}\mathrm{R})/SO(D2)`$ together with the additional gauge fields of $`SO(D2)`$, and a singlet scalar (which is the original dilaton of the $`D`$-dimensional theory).

A consistent sphere reduction, albeit of a slightly different kind, has in fact been obtained in an example where there is a dilaton in the higher-dimensional theory that couples to the form-field. In  it was shown that a reduction of the massive type IIA supergravity on an internal 4-dimensional space that is locally $`S^4`$ gives rise to the $`N=2`$ $`SU(2)`$ gauged supergravity in $`D=6`$.

## 5 Conclusions and further comments

In this paper we have constructed a consistent Kaluza-Klein reduction Ansatz for embedding the subset of the fields of five-dimensional $`N=8`$ gauged supergravity, comprising gravity, the fifteen $`SO(6)`$ gauge fields, and the twenty scalars of the $`SL(6,\text{I}\mathrm{R})/SO(6)`$ submanifold of the full scalar manifold, into type IIB supergravity in $`D=10`$. This embedding can equivalently be viewed as a complete reduction Ansatz (with no truncation of massless fields) for the ten-dimensional theory comprising just gravity plus a self-dual 5-form, which itself is a consistent truncation of type IIB supergravity.

A crucial point in the analysis is that in the gauged five-dimensional supergravity one cannot consistently set the Yang-Mills fields to zero, while retaining the full set of scalar fields, unlike the situation in ungauged supergravity. In the context of the truncation that we consider in this paper, where we retain the twenty scalars $`T_{ij}`$, we cannot ignore the fifteen $`SO(6)`$ gauge fields, since the scalars act as sources for them.888This also implies that solutions built using these scalars will in general require non-vanishing Yang-Mills fields. We saw that the self-duality of the 5-form field of the type IIB theory plays an essential rôle in the consistency of the reduction.

More generally, we showed that if one starts from a theory comprising gravity and an $`n`$-form field strength, then a consistent reduction on $`S^n`$ that retains the scalars $`T_{ij}`$ of the coset $`SL(n+1,\text{I}\mathrm{R})/SO(n+1)`$ will also have to include at least the gauge fields of $`SO(n+1)`$, and furthermore will only be possible for the $`S^4`$ and $`S^7`$ reductions of $`D=11`$, and the $`S^5`$ reduction of $`D=10`$. In fact the consistency will in addition require that the theories in $`D=11`$ and $`D=10`$ have the additional structures associated with $`D=11`$ and type IIB supergravity, namely the $`FFA`$ term in $`D=11`$, and the self-duality of the 5-form in $`D=10`$. In $`D=7`$ the scalars and Yang-Mills fields must be supplemented by the five 2-form potentials, while in $`D=4`$ they must be supplemented by the 35 pseudo-scalars, in order to achieve consistency. On the other hand in $`D=5`$ no additional fields beyond the scalars $`T_{ij}`$ and the gauge fields $`A_{\left(1\right)}^{ij}`$ are required for consistency. In fact in all three cases this is related to the presence of the terms of the form (10), bilinear in Yang-Mills fields. In $`D=7`$ this term acts as a source for the five 3-form fields; in $`D=4`$ it acts as a source for the 35 pseudo-scalars; but in $`D=5`$ it acts as a “source” for the Yang-Mills fields themselves. This special feature of the $`D=5`$ gauged supergravity may have implications in the dual four-dimensional $`N=4`$ super Yang-Mills theory.

We also discussed the more general possibilities that might arise if one includes a dilaton in the higher-dimensional theory. The possibilities for further examples of consistent sphere reductions seem to be rather limited, as discussed in section 4.

In a full $`S^5`$ reduction of type IIB supergravity there will be additional fields coming from the reduction of the NS-NS and R-R 2-form potentials, and from the dilaton and axion. A complete analysis of the $`S^5`$ reduction can therefore be expected to be extremely complicated. In particular, for example, the $`10`$ and $`\overline{10}`$ of pseudo-scalars lead to a considerably more complicated metric reduction Ansatz. The Ansatz for a subset of the fields that included one scalar and one pseudoscalar was derived in , and in . However even in that case, the construction of the Ansatz for the antisymmetric tensor fields is rather involved, and has not yet been pushed to completion.

## Acknowledgement

C.N.P. is grateful to the University of Pennsylvania for hospitality during the course of this work.


text:
# G328.4+0.2: A large and luminous Crab-like supernova remnant

## 1. Introduction

When a massive star ends its life in a supernova explosion, the outer layers of the star are expelled at high velocity, and interact with the ambient interstellar medium (ISM) to produce a supernova remnant (SNR). “Shell” SNRs are usually characterized by radio synchrotron emission with a limb-brightened morphology, roughly centered on the site of the supernova explosion. Some SNRs are classified as “composite”, indicating that as well as a shell they have an additional central component, characterized by a filled-center morphology, a flat spectral index ($`0.3\alpha 0`$; $`S_\nu \nu ^\alpha `$) and significant linear polarization. This extra component is usually interpreted as a synchrotron nebula, powered by a pulsar also formed in the supernova explosion (Milne et al. (1979); Weiler & Panagia (1980); Reynolds & Chevalier (1984)). Thus even when a pulsar itself is not detected (as is the case much more often than not), the mere existence of one of these synchrotron nebulae tells us that an energetic pulsar must be located within.

The best known example of a pulsar-powered nebula is the Crab Nebula. However, it has long been apparent that the Crab is very different from most other SNRs, in that it consists of a synchrotron nebula and associated pulsar, but has no surrounding shell corresponding to the supernova blast wave. It is now recognized that about 5% of all SNRs similarly lack shells; these sources are generally referred to as “Crab-like” SNRs, or “plerions” (Weiler & Panagia (1978)). It is still an open question as to whether Crab-like SNRs have surrounding shells which are simply not detectable (Chevalier (1977); Sankrit & Hester (1997)), or whether they are fundamentally different from other SNRs in that they have no shell, invisible or otherwise (Nomoto (1987); Wallace, Landecker, & Taylor (1997)).

Crab-like SNRs are thus important to identify and study, both for understanding the nature and evolution of SNRs, and because they are an unambiguous indication of the presence of a young pulsar. The source G328.4+0.2 (MSH 15–57; Mills, Slee, & Hill (1961)) has been been the subject of several radio studies (Shaver & Goss (1970); Caswell et al. (1980); Whiteoak & Green (1996)), which have indicated a featureless filled-center appearance and a comparatively flat spectral index. These properties have resulted in G328.4+0.2 being proposed as a member of the Crab-like class of SNRs, and indeed is the only Galactic Crab-like SNR easily accessible to Southern hemisphere observers. H i measurements with a two-element interferometer have shown H i absorption in this direction to a distance in excess of 20 kpc (Caswell et al. (1975)). This large distance would make the SNR extraordinary luminous, even brighter than the Crab Nebula itself.

However, previous images of this source have been of only intermediate resolution (the best observations to date had only six beams across the SNR), while the lack of imaging capability in the H i measurements of Caswell et al. (1975) mean that the absorption they saw could have been coming from another bright source in the vicinity, rather than from the SNR itself. We therefore present new radio observations of G328.4+0.2 both in polarimetric continuum and in the H i line, aimed at confirming the Crab-like nature of this source, verifying the large distance claimed for it, and studying it at much higher resolution and sensitivity than in previous work. Our observations and analysis are described in §2, and our results are presented in §3. In §4 we confirm G328.4+0.2 as a Crab-like SNR, and infer the properties of the central pulsar presumed to be powering it. A complementary study of this source in X-rays is reported in a companion paper by Hughes, Slane & Plucinsky (2000).

## 2. Observations and Data Reduction

Our observations of G328.4+0.2 were made with the Australia Telescope Compact Array (ATCA; Frater, Brooks, & Whiteoak (1992)), a 6 km east-west synthesis array located near Narrabri, NSW, Australia, on dates as listed in Table 1. Continuum observations were made at 1.4 and 4.5 GHz; each band had a width of 128 MHz, divided into 32 channels. Simultaneous with the 1.4 GHz data, observations were made in the H i line, centered on 1421 MHz and using 512 channels across a 4 MHz bandwidth. All four Stokes parameters (XX, YY, XY and YX) were recorded in continuum observations; only XX and YY were obtained in the H i line. All observations consisted of a single pointing centered on G328.4+0.2. Flux density calibration was carried out using observations of PKS B1934–638 (with assumed flux densities of 14.9 and 6.3 Jy at 1.4 and 4.5 GHz respectively), while antenna gains and polarization were calibrated using regular observations of MRC B1456–367 at 1.4 GHz and PMN J1603–4904 at 4.5 GHz.

Data were reduced in the MIRIAD package. After flagging and calibration were carried out, total intensity images were formed at each of 1.4 and 4.5 GHz using uniform weighting, multi-frequency synthesis and maximum entropy deconvolution. The resulting images were then corrected for the mean primary beam response, with resolutions and sensitivities given in Table 1.

Images in linear polarization were formed by creating separate images in Stokes $`Q`$ and $`U`$, deconvolving each of these separately using the CLEAN algorithm, and then combining with appropriate debiasing to form $`L=(Q^2+U^2)^{1/2}`$. At 1.4 GHz, significant Faraday rotation across the band can depolarize the emission, and images of linear polarization were produced on a channel by channel basis and then averaged to form a single map. At 4.5 GHz, differential Faraday effects are negligible and the entire observing bandwidth was used to form a single pair of Stokes $`Q`$ and $`U`$ images. The resulting maps of linear polarization were clipped wherever Stokes $`I`$, $`Q`$ or $`U`$ fell below 3$`\sigma `$.

For the H i data, the continuum contribution was subtracted in the u-v plane (van Langevelde & Cotton (1990)), and a cube then formed using uniform weighting and discarding all baselines longer than 7 k$`\lambda `$. The cube contained planes between –200 km s-1 and +200 km s-1 (LSR) at intervals of 4 km s-1. The peak flux density in the image was sufficiently low that no sidelobes were apparent, and no attempt was made to deconvolve. The cube was then weighted by the corresponding 1.4 GHz continuum image. Absorption spectra against SNR G328.4+0.2 and the nearby H ii region G328.30+0.43 were then generated by integrating over an appropriate spatial region and renormalizing appropriately to give units of fractional absorption.

The rms noise, $`\sigma `$, in each absorption spectrum was estimated from the fluctuations in line-free channels. As in previous papers (e.g. Gaensler, Manchester, & Green (1998)), we adopt $`6\sigma `$ as a threshold for significance, to take into account the increase in system temperature of the receivers due to the brightness temperature of H i in the Galactic Plane.

## 3. Results

### 3.1. Continuum

Images of G328.4+0.2 at 1.4 and 4.5 GHz are shown in Fig 1, and properties of the source at each frequency are given in Table 1. The source is approximately circular, with a bar-like feature running east-west at the peak of the emission. A plateau of fainter emission surrounds this bar; this plateau is significantly more pronounced to the east and to the south.

G328.4+0.2 is of sufficiently small diameter that its entire flux density is recovered by the telescope at both observing frequencies, and the corresponding flux densities (after a background correction has been applied) are given in Table 1. These flux densities, together with the 0.8 GHz measurement of Whiteoak & Green (1996), imply a spectral index for the source $`\alpha =0.12\pm 0.03`$.

Examination of the whole 1.4 GHz field (not shown here) shows there to be no outer shell of emission surrounding G328.4+0.2, out to a radius of 15 arcmin and down to a 1$`\sigma `$ sensitivity of 0.8 mJy beam-1, corresponding to a surface brightness limit at 1 GHz (assuming a typical shell spectral index $`\alpha =0.5`$) of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=1.6\times 10^{21}`$ W m-2 Hz-1 sr-1.

Discarding the shortest baselines to filter out extended emission, we can put $`5\sigma `$ limits at 1.4 GHz and 4.5 GHz of 7 and 0.3 mJy respectively on the flux density of any point source within G328.4+0.2.

### 3.2. Polarization

At 1.4 GHz, the only linearly polarized emission seen from G328.4+0.2 is in a couple of clumps seen at the position of the peak in total intensity. These clumps have a fractional polarized intensity of $``$1%. When imaged on a channel by channel basis, the variation of the position angle of this polarization, $`\varphi `$, shows a $`\varphi \lambda ^2`$ dependence across the 1.4 GHz band. This allows us to determine a rotation measure (RM) for this emission (cf. Gaensler, Manchester, & Green (1998)) of $`900\pm 100`$ rad m-2, where the uncertainty is dominated by spatial variations in RM rather than by uncertainty in the measurement process (for which typical uncertainties are $`\pm 30`$ rad m-2).

At 4.5 GHz, significantly more linear polarization is seen from G328.4+0.2, with a spatial distribution shown in Fig 2. Although the polarization appears to be reduced around the edges of the source, this is most likely an artifact of the clipping of polarized emission below $`3\sigma `$ in Stokes $`Q`$ and $`U`$; the fractional polarized intensity shows no decrease towards the edges. The level of fractional polarization ranges between 5% and 50% with a mean of 20%.

An RM of 1000 rad m-2 corresponds to $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi 10^{}`$ across the entire 4.5 GHz observing bandwidth, which is smaller than the uncertainties in position angles of individual frequency channels. Thus no rotation measures could be extracted from the 4.5 GHz data.

### 3.3. H i absorption

H i absorption towards G328.4+0.2 needs to be compared to an H i emission spectrum in a similar part of the sky. But because most of the power in H i emission is on scales larger than were sampled by our observations, such a spectrum is difficult to extract from our ATCA data. Instead, we use an H i emission spectrum taken from the single-dish survey of Kerr et al. (1986), in the direction $`l=328\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}5`$, $`b=0\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}25`$. This emission profile is shown in the upper panel of Fig 3. Two ATCA absorption profiles are also shown in Fig 3: towards G328.4+0.2 and towards the H ii region G328.30+0.43, 15 arcmin to the north-west. The latter emits in various maser lines, and is known to have a systemic velocity of approximately –95 km s-1 (Braz & Epchtein (1983); Cohen, Masheder, & Caswell (1995)).

At negative velocities, the two spectra are very similar, and match well the H i emission seen along similar lines-of-sight. However, a significant difference is seen at positive velocities, where H i at a velocity of +28 km s-1 is clearly producing significant absorption against G328.4+0.2, but only a weak feature is seen for G328.30+0.43. Examination of the image plane corresponding to this velocity clearly shows the outline of all of G328.4+0.2 in absorption, leaving no doubt that this absorption feature is genuine. However, for the H ii region G328.30+0.43 we see no real match in absorption to the source’s morphology at this velocity, as expected given that it is known to be at the tangent point. This weak absorption probably corresponds to fluctuations in the H i emission at this velocity, appearing negative because of spatial filtering by the interferometer.

## 4. Discussion

### 4.1. Distance

The H i spectrum shown in Fig 3 demonstrates clearly that the systemic velocity of G328.4+0.2 is at least +28 km s-1. H i emission is seen at +28 km s-1 not just in the direction of G328.4+0.2, but towards several other sources in the vicinity (Caswell et al. (1975)). Thus it is unlikely that the emission and absorption seen at this velocity correspond to some much closer cloud of gas which deviates dramatically from the Galactic rotation curve. While an H i emission feature at +58 km s-1 shows no corresponding absorption, its low brightness temperature means that we can probably not use this result to derive an upper limit on the source’s radial velocity.

To calculate a lower limit on the distance to G328.4+0.2, we adopt standard IAU parameters for the Sun’s orbital velocity ($`\mathrm{\Theta }_0=220`$ km s-1) and distance from the Galactic Centre ($`R_0=8.5`$ kpc) (Kerr & Lynden-Bell (1986)), use the best fitting model for Galactic rotation of Fich, Blitz & Stark (1989), and assume uncertainties in systemic velocities of $`\pm `$7 km s-1. For a systemic velocity of +28 km s-1, it then follows that G328.4+0.2 must be at a distance of at least $`17.4\pm 0.9`$ kpc. In further discussion, we assume a distance $`d=17d_{17}`$ kpc; the diameter of G328.4+0.2 is then $`25d_{17}`$ pc.

### 4.2. Morphology

G328.4+0.2 is an extended Galactic source with a filled-center morphology, significant linear polarization across most of its extent, and a spectral index much flatter than for a typical shell-type supernova remnant. Down to our surface brightness limit, there is no evidence that G328.4+0.2 is surrounded by a larger, limb-brightened shell. This limit is sufficient to detect the shell of a typical young SNR (see Frail et al. (1995)), although not sensitive enough to detect the shell component of the composite SNR G322.5–0.1 (Whiteoak (1992)). Thus while the limits on a shell around G328.4+0.2 are not as stringent as around some other such sources, from the available data we class it as a Crab-like SNR.

The mere presence of a Crab-like or composite SNR is usually taken to indicate that there is an energetic pulsar within, even though in most such sources no pulsar has yet been detected. While indeed no pulsar has been seen within G328.4+0.2 in either radio waves (Manchester, D’Amico, & Tuohy (1985); Kaspi et al. (1996)) or in X-rays (Wilson (1986); Hughes, Slane, & Plucinsky (2000)), this can easily be accounted for by unfavorable beaming, insufficient sensitivity at the SNR’s large distance, and significant scattering, dispersion (at radio wavelengths) and absorption (in X-rays) along the long line of sight. We thus assume in further discussion that there is an unseen rotation-powered pulsar within G328.4+0.2, whose relativistic wind powers the radio emission from the remnant.

The bar running through the center of G328.4+0.2 is a feature similar to that seen in many other Crab-like SNRs. There are two interpretations of such a feature: one is that it corresponds to a trail of emitting particles left behind by a pulsar with a significant space velocity (e.g. Frail et al. (1996); Sun, Wang, & Chen (1999)), the other is that the bar is actually comprised of two opposed jet-like features, produced by a bipolar outflow from the pulsar (e.g. Fürst et al. 1988, 1989). High-resolution X-ray imaging is required to distinguish between these possibilities, since the much shorter synchrotron lifetime of X-ray emitting particles will result in X-ray emission being concentrated around the current point of injection into the SNR. So if the bar is a high velocity pulsar leaving a trail, we expect to see X-ray emission concentrated at one end of the bar, while if it is a pair of outflows, X-ray emission should peak near the center of the bar.

### 4.3. Physical Properties

We first determine the radio luminosity, $`L_R`$, of G328.4+0.2. Hughes et al. (2000) demonstrate that any break in the continuum spectrum of this source is at a frequency higher than 100 GHz. We thus assume that the radio spectrum of G328.4+0.2 is a single power-law of spectral index $`\alpha =0.12`$. Integrating between 100 MHz and 100 GHz, we then find a broad-band radio luminosity for G328.4+0.2 of $`L_R=3.3d_{17}^2\times 10^{35}`$ erg s-1.

In Table 2, we compare the size and radio luminosity of G328.4+0.2 to those of other Crab-like SNRs (as well as Crab-like cores of composite SNRs) with similar properties; it can be seen that G328.4+0.2 is one of the most radio-luminous and largest Crab-like SNRs yet discovered. Two sources closely resemble G328.4+0.2: N157B (Wang & Gotthelf (1998); Lazendic et al. (2000)), a Crab-like SNR in the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC) in which a 16-ms X-ray pulsar has recently been discovered111The pulsar has so far remained undetected in radio waves, but otherwise has properties typical of a radio pulsar (Crawford et al. (1998))., and G74.9+1.2 (Weiler & Shaver (1978); Wallace et al. (1997)), a Galactic SNR which as yet has had no pulsar detected in it. Below we will argue that these three SNRs constitute a particular sub-class of Crab-like SNR.

A pulsar’s spin-down luminosity is given by

$$\dot{E}4I\pi ^2\dot{P}/P^3,$$
(1)
where $`P`$ is the period of the pulsar and $`I=10^{45}`$ g cm-2 is its moment of inertia. Defining $`ϵ=L_R/\dot{E}`$, we find that in the few cases where a pulsar has been detected within a Crab-like SNR, the radio luminosity of the SNR normally falls in the narrow range $`ϵ=(15)\times 10^4`$ (Frail & Scharringhausen (1997); Gaensler et al. (2000)). In particular, the Crab Nebula has $`ϵ=4\times 10^4`$, and we assume a similar value for G328.4+0.2. One then finds that its central pulsar has $`\dot{E}_{38}=8.3`$ (where $`\dot{E}=10^{38}\dot{E}_{38}`$ erg s-1), a value consistent with that derived by Hughes et al. (2000) from the X-ray properties of this source. This value of $`\dot{E}`$ ranks amongst the highest values seen for the radio pulsar population, and makes this source a good candidate for pulsed emission searches by future X-ray and $`\gamma `$-ray missions.

A pulsar drives a supersonic bubble into its surroundings, whose radius, $`R`$, is given by (Weaver et al. (1977); Arons (1983)):

$$R=0.82\dot{E}_{38}^{1/5}t_3^{3/5}n_0^{1/5}\mathrm{pc},$$
(2)
where $`t_3`$ kyr is the age of the pulsar and $`n_0`$ cm-3 is the density of the ambient medium. It is usually assumed that Crab-like SNRs are propagating into a low density component of the ISM (Chevalier (1977)), for which we adopt a typical density $`n_0=0.003`$ cm-3. We can then determine an age for G328.4+0.2 of $`t_37d_{17}^{5/3}`$ kyr.

For a idealized braking index $`n=3`$ and an initial period $`P_iP`$, the age of the SNR is equal to its pulsar’s characteristic age, $`\tau _cP/2\dot{P}`$. We can then combine our inferred age with Equation (1) to determine parameters for the pulsar of $`P=11`$ ms and $`B3.2\times 10^{19}(P\dot{P})^{1/2}`$ G $`=6\times 10^{11}`$ G, where $`B`$ is the inferred surface magnetic field of the neutron star, assuming a dipole geometry. These inferred parameters, along with the results of similar calculations for G74.9+1.2 and N157B, are given in Table 2 – we find that all three pulsars are of much smaller period, lower magnetic field and larger age than the Crab Pulsar.

Various assumptions have gone into the calculations behind this last statement, and we now consider what effect each one has on the results. The assumption least likely to be true is that $`t=\tau _c`$; if we relax this requirement to include braking indices $`n3`$ and initial periods $`P_iP`$, we still find, for a wide range of parameters, that $`\tau _c0.7t`$ (see Fig 3 of Marshall et al. (1998)). Since $`P\tau _c^{1/2}`$ and $`B\tau _c^1`$, the consequent inferred spin periods and magnetic fields are still significantly smaller than for the Crab Pulsar. A second assumption is that $`ϵ=ϵ_{\mathrm{Crab}}`$; however the dependence on $`ϵ`$ is even weaker than on $`\tau _c`$ ($`Pϵ^{1/3}`$ and $`Bϵ^{1/6}`$), so that even invoking a value of $`ϵ`$ ten times larger than that for the Crab (which would be higher than for any pulsar observed) has little effect on the results. We have also assumed a value $`n=0.003`$ cm-3; a significantly lower density than this can indeed produce a more typical magnetic field ($`Bn^{2/3}`$), but still requires a fast period ($`Pn^{1/6}`$). Meanwhile, Equation (2) is only strictly true for constant $`\dot{E}`$. In reality, $`\dot{E}`$ will decrease as a function of time, so that the radius of the pulsar wind bubble will be larger than given by Equation (2) and will hence cause us to over-estimate the age of the system. While this effect is difficult to quantify, the ages given in Table 2 would have to be too large by a factor of 5–10 to produce periods as slow as that of the Crab Pulsar. Finally, we note that the calculations we have made for G328.4+0.2 all use the lower limit on the distance derived in Section 4.1; at greater distances, the inferred period and magnetic field are both even lower than those given in Table 2.

Thus even if not all of the assumptions which we have made are valid, one is still forced to conclude that the pulsars powering these SNRs are likely to be spinning rapidly and have low magnetic fields. In particular, the pulsar actually observed within N157B indeed fulfils this prediction, having observed properties quite similar to those we have inferred for it (see Table 2).

## 5. Conclusions

Our radio observations of G328.4+0.2 confirm it to be a Crab-like SNR at a distance of $`>`$17 kpc, making it the largest and most radio-luminous such object in our Galaxy. G328.4+0.2, together with the Galactic SNR G74.9+1.2 and N157B in the LMC, appear to form a small subset of Crab-like SNRs with both high radio luminosities and large diameters. The high luminosities of these remnants demand a high value of $`\dot{E}`$ for their central pulsars, while these remnants’ large extent, even assuming an energetic pulsar and a low ambient density, requires them to be significantly older than the Crab Nebula. Since $`\dot{E}\tau _cP^2`$ and $`\dot{E}\tau _c^2B^2`$, this combination of a high $`\dot{E}`$ and large age can only be produced by a pulsar which is spinning at least twice as fast as the Crab Pulsar, but which has a magnetic field $``$5 times weaker. Specifically, we infer G328.4+0.2 to be $``$7000 yrs old and powered by a pulsar with period $`P11`$ ms and dipole magnetic field $`B=6\times 10^{11}`$ G. Similar properties are predicted for G74.9+1.2 and for N157B, which in the latter case agree with those of the pulsar recently detected within this SNR.

Using the distribution of pulsar initial magnetic fields proposed by Stollman (1987), we can estimate that the birth-rate of pulsars with magnetic fields $`B6\times 10^{11}`$ G is a fraction 0.05 of that of pulsars with magnetic fields comparable to the Crab Pulsar. Thus of the $``$35 Crab-like and composite SNRs known in the Galaxy, we can expect $``$2 to be powered by such low-field pulsars, and G328.4+0.2 and G74.9+1.2 may thus represent the complete sample of such sources.

The radio beaming fraction for young pulsars is estimated to be in the range 50–70% (Frail & Moffett (1993); Brazier & Johnston (1999)). Thus the failure to detect radio pulsations from G328.4+0.2, G74.9+1.2 and N157B (Kaspi et al. (1996); Lorimer, Lyne, & Camilo (1998); Crawford et al. (1998)) is unlikely to be solely due to beaming, and more likely results from the large distance to these objects. With continuing improvements in sensitivity, searches for pulsations towards these sources should eventually be successful.

We thank Taisheng Ye for early assistance with this project, and Pat Slane and Jack Hughes for useful discussions on the manuscript. We also acknowledge some important suggestions made by the referee, Roger Chevalier. The Australia Telescope is funded by the Commonwealth of Australia for operation as a National Facility managed by CSIRO. B.M.G. acknowledges the support of NASA through Hubble Fellowship grant HF-01107.01-98A awarded by the Space Telescope Science Institute, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., for NASA under contract NAS 5–26555. J.R.D. acknowledges a Visitor’s Fellowship from the Netherlands Scientific Organization (NWO) during his stay at the NFRA.