text:
# Closed Lightlike Curves in Non-linear Electrodynamics

## I Introduction

### A Introductory Remarks

One of the most elegant characteristics that singles out the gravitational interaction consists in the possibility –turned into an actual formulation of gravity by Einstein — of associating gravitational phenomena to the metric structure of the spacetime. Such a geometrical view is impossible to be mimic by processes envolving other kinds of forces. The main reason for this is that all other known forces do not show the universal property that is typical of gravity. Indeed, this was the main drawback that induced Einstein unified program to its failure. However an interesting analogy with the Einstein way of looking into some processes appeared recently, carrying a less ambitious program but having a deep connection with it. It consists in a fresh method that —taking into account such limitation of non-universality — looks for special physical situations that allow an equivalent description in terms of an effective modification of the geometry of spacetime. In other words: even if a given kind of force cannot be geometrized, one can discover some special (and non-trivial) situations in which a restricted geometrization is possible. It is clearly understood that it is by no means a geometrization scheme in a broad sense but only a very limited one, although very useful, as we shall see. The interest on this arises, of course, from the possibility of applying such geometrization in a sufficiently large and meaningfull set of examples. This is precisely the situation that one encounters in some interesting and diverse circumstances which has led to the claim that nongravitational processes can indeed simulate modifications of the geometry of spacetime.

Just to consider two cases that have been presented in a coherent and self-contained way we refer to  and  that deal respectivelly with:

* The propagation of photons in non-linear electrodynamics;
* Processes envolving certain properties of superfluid $`{}_{}{}^{3}He.`$

In this paper we will deal only with the first case. Before going into this let us make another rather general comment to clarify our work here. We will be concerned with the propagation of photons in a nonlinear electrodynamics in terms of a modification of the metric of the spacetime. Such modification is nothing but an effective structure that yields an equivalent description of the photon paths. This should not be taken as an universal modification of the geometry of the spacetime. We shall see however that such geometric tool is very powerful and allows the analysis of light propagation to be accomplished in a very simple way. Besides, with this method we can transpose part of the behavior of photons from the well-known combined Maxwell-Einstein framework to the nonlinear case of electrodynamics. An example of this analogy will be presented in this paper. It concerns the possibility of the presence of photons closed paths in spacetime. We will see that the remarkable Gödel analysis of the existence of closed timelike curves (CTC) in a rotating universe can be transposed to the case of photons in non-linear electrodynamics. The electromagnetic field generated by a charged string yields the possibility of the existence of closed lightlike curves (CLC) for the photons.

### B Synopsis

In the last years there has been an increasing interest on properties of the gravitational field that describe, within the context of General Relativity(GR), geometries that allow the appearance of closed timelike curves (CTC) (see, for instance , , , , ). Such unusual geometries, exact solutions of the classical Einstein equations of GR, pose a thorough problem of compatibility in the realm of field theory — just to quote one difficulty — and it is a real challenge to deal with them. As an example, we can point out the case of traversable wormholes that allow the existence of two nonequivalent paths for the possible travel of a real observer to go from one point $`P`$ of spacetime to another point $`Q`$ inducing thus the existence of a closed path in spacetime. Gödel cosmological solution is another case which also provides such kind of undesirable paths. The attraction for such geometries rests on the deep understanding of the theory allowed by their analysis. In the present paper we show that similar paths can be generated in configurations of pure electromagnetic field in a non-linear regime.

In order to achieve such a proof we must first review some recent papers that show this hidden geometrical character of the photon propagation in nonlinear electrodynamics , , . We will recover such results in a very simple way in the next section.

### C Definitions and notations

We call the electromagnetic tensor $`F_{\mu \nu }`$, while its dual $`F_{\mu \nu }^{}`$ is

$$F_{\alpha \beta }^{}\frac{1}{2}\eta _{\alpha \beta }^{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu },$$
(1)
where $`\eta _{\alpha \beta \mu \nu }`$ is the completely antisymmetric Levi-Civita tensor; the Minkowski metric tensor is represented by its standard form $`\eta ^{\mu \nu }.`$ The two invariants constructed with these tensors are defined as

$$FF^{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu },$$
(2)
$$GF^{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }^{}.$$
(3)
Once the modifications of the linearity of electrodynamics which will be dealt here with do not break the gauge invariance of the theory, we can restrict our analysis to the general form of the modified Lagrangian for electrodynamics, written as a functional of the above invariants. In the present paper we limit our analysis to the case in which the Lagrangian depends only on $`F:`$

$$L=L(F).$$
(4)
We denote by $`L_F`$ the derivative of the Lagrangian $`L`$ with respect to the invariant $`F`$; and similarly for the higher order derivatives. We are particularly interested in the derivation of the characteristic surfaces which guide the propagation of the field discontinuities.

## II The Method of the Effective Geometry

We will make a short review of the Hadamard method in order to obtain the propagation equations for the discontinuities of the electromagnetic field. We limit our analysis to the case in which all modifications on the linear electrodynamics can be described by a Lagrangian $`L`$ as in Eq. (4)

Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ be a surface of discontinuity for the electromagnetic field. Following Hadamard  we assume that the field itself is continuous when crossing $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, while its first derivative presents a finite discontinuity. We accordingly set

$$[F_{\mu \nu }]_\mathrm{\Sigma }=0,$$
(5)
and

$$[_\lambda F_{\mu \nu }]_\mathrm{\Sigma }=f_{\mu \nu }k_\lambda ,$$
(6)
in which the symbol

$$[J]_\mathrm{\Sigma }\underset{\delta 0^+}{lim}\left(J|_{\mathrm{\Sigma }+\delta }J|_{\mathrm{\Sigma }\delta }\right)$$

represents the discontinuity of the arbitrary function $`J`$ through the surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ characterized by the equation $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(x^\mu )=constant`$. The tensor $`f_{\mu \nu }`$ is called the discontinuity of the field, and

$$k_\lambda =_\lambda \mathrm{\Sigma }$$
(7)
is the propagation vector.

The equations of motion are

$$_\nu \left(L_FF^{\mu \nu }\right)=0.$$
(8)
Following the definitions and procedure presented above one gets from the discontinuity of the equation of motion Eq. (8):

$$L_Ff^{\mu \nu }k_\nu +2L_{FF}\xi F^{\mu \nu }k_\nu =0,$$
(9)
where $`\xi `$ is defined by

$$\xi F^{\alpha \beta }f_{\alpha \beta }.$$
(10)
The cyclic identity yields

$$f_{\mu \nu }k_\lambda +f_{\nu \lambda }k_\mu +f_{\lambda \mu }k_\nu =0.$$
(11)
Multiplying this equation by $`k^\lambda F^{\mu \nu }`$ gives

$$\xi k_\nu k_\mu \gamma ^{\mu \nu }+2F^{\mu \nu }f_{\nu \lambda }k^\lambda k_\mu =0,$$
(12)
in which $`\gamma _{\mu \nu }`$ is the Minkowski metric tensor written in an arbitrary coordinate system. From the Eq. (9) it results:

$$f_{\mu \nu }k^\nu =\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\frac{L_{FF}}{L_F}\xi F_{\mu \nu }k^\nu .$$
(13)
After some algebraic manipulations the equation of propagation of the disturbances is obtained:

$$\left\{\gamma ^{\mu \nu }+\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\mu \nu }\right\}k_\mu k_\nu =0$$
(14)
in which the quantity $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\mu \nu }`$ is

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\mu \nu }4\frac{L_{FF}}{L_F}F^{\mu \alpha }F_\alpha ^\nu .$$
(15)
It then follows that the photon path is kinematically described by

$$g^{\mu \nu }k_\mu k_\nu =0,$$
(16)
where the effective metric $`g^{\mu \nu }`$ is given by

$$g^{\mu \nu }=L_F\gamma ^{\mu \nu }4L_{FF}F^\mu _\lambda F^{\lambda \nu .}$$
(17)
Furthermore, once the wave vector $`k_\alpha `$ is a gradient, the photon path is a geodesic in the effective geometry . We re-obtained then the remarkable result that the discontinuities of the electromagnetic field in a nonlinear electrodynamics propagates along null geodesics of an effective geometry which depends on the properties of the background field111The proof that the path is indeed a geodesics is given in the appendix B..

From the general expression of the energy-momentum tensor for an electromagnetic theory $`L=L(F)`$ we have

$$T_{\mu \nu }=4L_FF_{\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{\alpha }F_{\alpha \nu }L\gamma _{\mu \nu }.$$
(18)
We can then re-write the effective geometry in a more appealing form in terms of the energy momentum tensor. We obtain, using Eq. (18) into Eq. (17)

$$g^{\mu \nu }=\gamma ^{\mu \nu }+𝒩T^{\mu \nu },$$
(19)
where the functions $``$ and $`𝒩`$ are given by

$$=L_F+\frac{LL_{FF}}{L_F},$$
(20)
$$𝒩=\frac{L_{FF}}{L_F}$$
(21)
As a consequence of this, the Minkowskian norm of the propagation vector $`k_\mu `$ reads

$$\gamma ^{\mu \nu }k_\mu k_\nu =\frac{𝒩}{}T^{\mu \nu }k_\mu k_\nu .$$
(22)
## III Charged String

The physical system we will analyse consists in a (idealized infinitely long) thin charged cylinder222We neglect all gravitational effects once there is no substantial difference introduced by gravity, as far as the phenomenon we are interested to exhibit here is concerned.. The flat Minkowskian background geometry written in a $`(t,r,\phi ,z)`$ coordinate system takes the form

$$ds^2=dt^2dr^2+2h_0d\phi dt+g(r)d\phi ^2dz^2$$
(23)
where $`g(r)=h_0^2\omega ^2r^2.`$ Although locally such geometry is Minkowskian, it can be associated to a spinning string, due to its global properties. We shall see that this has no effect on our analysis, once CLC’s do not exist in the Maxwell-Einstein theory but only in the case of nonlinear electrodynamics. This shows that our example of CLC is not a gravitational effect. Furthermore, one could set $`\omega =1`$ in all calculations without any qualitative changing in our result. In order to avoid any artificial trouble with causality we will limit the range of the coordinate $`r`$ to be strictly larger than $`r_0,`$ that is, $`r>r_0`$ where $`r_0^2=h_0^2/\omega ^2.`$ In this domain of validity, this system is regular and well defined .

From the symmetry properties of this system, the unique non-null component of the electric field is $`F_{01}=E(r)`$. In this case333In order to avoid any difficulty with the coordinates we take the radius of the charged string to be greater that the value $`r_0.`$, the equation of motion reduces to

$$L_FE=\frac{Q}{r}$$
(24)
where $`Q`$ is a constant. We are interested here in the analysis of the propagation of electromagnetic waves in such background. Following our previous treatment the photons propagate as if the metric structure of spacetime were changed into an effective Riemannian geometry. From Eq.(17) we obtain the components of the effective metric. The non-vanishing covariant components444See the appendix A. are:

$$g_{tt}=\frac{\omega ^2r^2}{h_0^2+\mathrm{\Psi }\omega ^2r^2}$$
(25)
$$g_{t\phi }=h_0g_{tt}$$
(26)
$$g_{rr}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}$$
(27)
$$g_{\phi \phi }=\mathrm{\Psi }\omega ^2r^2g_{tt}$$
(28)
$$g_{zz}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1},$$
(29)
where $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=1\left(\frac{h_0}{\omega r}\right)^24\frac{L_{FF}E^2}{L_F}$$
(30)
$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}4\frac{L_{FF}E^2}{L_F}.$$
(31)
The photon paths are null geodesics in such modified geometry. Let us consider the curve defined by the equations $`t=constant,`$ $`r=constant,`$ and $`z=constant.`$ Along such a curve the element of length reduces to

$$ds_{eff}^2=\mathrm{\Psi }\omega ^4r^4\left(\frac{1}{h_0^2+\mathrm{\Psi }\omega ^2r^2}\right)d\phi ^2.$$
(32)
Thus, for the photon to follow such a path the radius $`r=r_c`$ must be such that $`\mathrm{\Psi }(r_c)=0.`$

Let us emphasize that the possibility of the presence of CLC’s depends crucially on the non-linearity of the electromagnetic field. Indeed, it is a direct consequence of the form of the above geometry that $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ can vanish only if $`L_{FF}`$ is different from zero. In the linear Maxwell electrodynamics this phenomenon is forbidden555Let us remark that a similar analysis on the photon path can be made for Maxwell theory in a non-linear dielectric medium. This is a direct consequence of the propagation equations in a non-linear dielectric medium as it was shown in . . Thus we are allowed to claim that it is a new property which depends on the non-linearity of the electromagnetic process. This is a general formalism valid for arbitrary form of the Lagrangian. We now turn to a specific example in which such situation occurs.

### A A toy model

We set for the nonlinear Lagrangian the form666This form is very similar to Born-Infeld (BI) model. However, the sign in the field term inside the square-root is opposite to that used in BI Lagrangian. This makes a crucial difference in what concerns the appearance of CLC, as shown in the text.:

$$L=\frac{b^2}{2}\left(\sqrt{1\frac{F}{b^2}}1\right)$$
(33)
in which $`b`$ is an arbitrary constant.

A solution of the equation for the electric field yields

$$E=4bQ\left(b^2r^232Q^2\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}.$$
(34)
The field must be defined for any value of $`r`$ larger than $`r_0.`$ Thus, the minimum value of the radius $`r_{min}`$ that follows from this expression must be larger than $`\left(\frac{h_o}{\omega }\right)^2,`$ yielding a compromise between the constants. Using this value on the expression of the effective metric gives

$`ds_{eff}^2={\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{r^2l^2}}dt^2+{\displaystyle \frac{2h_0r^2}{r^2l^2}}dtd\phi `$ $``$ (35)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{r^2+l^2}}dr^2\omega ^2r^2{\displaystyle \frac{r^2l^2\frac{h_0^2}{\omega ^2}}{r^2l^2}}d\phi ^2dz^2,`$ (36)
where $`l^2\frac{32Q^2}{b^2}.`$ The value for which $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ vanishes is given by

$$r_c^2=\left(\frac{h_0}{\omega }\right)^2+\frac{32Q^2}{b^2}.$$

For $`r=r_c`$ the photon follows a closed spacetime path.

## IV Final Comments

It has been known from more than half a century that gravitational processes allows the existence of closed paths in spacetime. This led to the belief that this strange situation occurs uniquely under the effect of gravity. In the present paper we have shown that this is not the case. Indeed, we show here that photons can follow closed paths (CLC) due to electromagnetic forces in a non-linear regime. We presented an specific example of a theory in which CLC exists. In the limit case where the non-linearities are neglected the presence of CLC is no more possible. Thus we are allowed to claim that this new property depends crucially on the non-linearity of the electromagnetic process and it is not possible to exist in Maxwell theory.

This shows that the existence of CLC is not an exclusive property of gravitational interaction: it can exists also in pure electromagnetic processes depending on the non-linearities of the background field. The existence of such CLC in both gravitational and electromagnetic processes asks for a deep review of the causal structure displayed by the photon path.

## V Appendix A: The inverse metric

In the case in which the Lagrangian depends only on the invariant $`F`$ the effective geometry takes the form

$$g^{\mu \nu }=L_F\gamma ^{\mu \nu }4L_{FF}F^\mu _\lambda F^{\lambda \nu }$$
(37)
The inverse metric, the covariant tensor $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ defined by

$$g^{\mu \nu }g_{\nu \alpha }=\delta _\alpha ^\mu $$

can be easily evaluated by taking into account the identities

$$F^\mu _\lambda F^{\lambda \nu }F^\mu _\lambda F^{\lambda \nu }=\frac{1}{2}F\gamma ^{\mu \nu },$$

and

$$F^\mu _\lambda F^{\lambda \nu }=\frac{G}{4}\gamma ^{\mu \nu }.$$

A direct manipulation yields the result

$$g_{\mu \nu }=A\gamma _{\mu \nu }+BF_\mu ^\lambda F_{\lambda \nu }$$
(38)
where $`A`$ and $`B`$ are

$$A=\frac{1}{R}\left(L_F+2FL_{FF}\right),$$

$$B=\frac{4L_{FF}}{R},$$

and $`R`$ is defined by

$$R=L_F{}_{}{}^{2}+L_{FF}(2FL_FG^2).$$

## VI Appendix B: The Effective Null Geodesics

The geometrical relevance of the effective geometry (17) goes beyond its immediate definition. Indeed, we will demonstrate here that the integral curves of the vector $`k_\nu `$ (i.e., the trajectories of such nonlinear photons) are in fact geodesics. In order to achieve this result it will be required an underlying Riemannian structure for the manifold associated with the effective geometry. In other words, this means a set of Levi-Civita connection coefficients $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^\alpha _{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{\Gamma }^\alpha _{\nu \mu }`$, by means of which there exists a covariant differential operator $`_\lambda `$ (the covariant derivative) such that

$$_\lambda g^{\mu \nu }g^{\mu \nu }_{;\lambda }g^{\mu \nu }_{,\lambda }+\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu _{\sigma \lambda }g^{\sigma \nu }+\mathrm{\Gamma }^\nu _{\sigma \lambda }g^{\sigma \mu }=0.$$
(39)
From (39) it follows that the effective connection coefficients are completely determined from the effective geometry by the usual Christoffel formula.

Contracting (39) with $`k_\mu k_\nu `$ results

$$k_\mu k_\nu g^{\mu \nu }_{,\lambda }=2k_\mu k_\nu \mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu _{\sigma \lambda }g^{\sigma \nu }.$$
(40)
Differentiating (16) and remembering $`g^{\mu \nu }=g^{\nu \mu }`$ one gets

$$2k_{\mu ,\lambda }k_\nu g^{\mu \nu }+k_\mu k_\nu g^{\mu \nu }_{,\lambda }=0.$$
(41)
Inserting (40) for the last term on the left hand side of (41) we obtain

$$g^{\mu \nu }k_{\mu ,\lambda }k_\nu g^{\sigma \nu }\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu _{\sigma \lambda }k_\mu k_\nu =0.$$
(42)
Relabeling contracted indices we can rewrite (42) as

$$g^{\mu \nu }k_{\mu ;\lambda }k_\nu g^{\mu \nu }\left[k_{\mu ,\lambda }\mathrm{\Gamma }^\sigma _{\mu \lambda }k_\sigma \right]k_\nu =0.$$
(43)
Now, as the propagation vector $`k_\mu =\mathrm{\Sigma }_{,\mu }`$ is an exact gradient one can write $`k_{\mu ;\lambda }=k_{\lambda ;\mu }`$. With this identity and defining $`k^\nu g^{\mu \nu }k_\mu `$ equation (43) reads

$$k_{\mu ;\lambda }k^\lambda =0,$$
(44)
which states that $`k_\mu `$ is a geodesic vector. Remembering it is also a null vector (with respect to the effective geometry $`g^{\mu \nu }`$) its integral curves are thus null geodesics. We can restate our previous demonstration as:

> The discontinuities of the electromagnetic field in a nonlinear electrodynamics propagates along null geodesics of an effective geometry which depends on the properties of the background field.

Thus, photons follow geodesics in an effective geometry. Since the photon does not have electric charge, the force that acts on it in a non-linear electromagnetic field has a distinct character than that of the Lorentz force. Indeed, from the geodesic equation, the electromagnetic field acts on the photon by means of a force given by

$$f^\alpha =\mathrm{\Delta }^\alpha {}_{\mu \nu }{}^{}k_{}^{\mu }k^\nu $$
(45)
in which the quantity $`\mathrm{\Delta }^\alpha _{\mu \nu }`$ can be displayed in terms of the effective geometry $`g^{\mu \nu }`$ and its inverse $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ given above by the Christoffel form.

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^\alpha {}_{\mu \nu }{}^{}=\frac{1}{2}(L_F\gamma ^{\alpha \beta }+\mathrm{\Phi }^{\alpha \beta })(_\nu g_{\beta \mu }+_\mu g_{\beta \nu }_\beta g_{\mu \nu })$$

where $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{\alpha \beta }4L_{FF}F^\alpha _\lambda F^{\lambda \beta }.`$ Hence, it follows that the net effect of the force that the field exerts on the photon has very similar properties as the gravitational force. This is precisely the reason that allows us to interpret the action of the electromagnetic field on the photon to be a mimic of the behavior of a massless particle in a gravitational field.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The $`(1+1)`$ dimensional sigma model describes the motion of a string on a manifold. The sigma model is specified by giving a triplet of data $`(M,g,B)`$ where $`M`$ is the target $`n`$-dimensional manifold, $`g`$ is a metric on $`M`$, and $`B`$ is a $`2`$-form on $`M`$. The lagrangian for this model is

$$=\frac{1}{2}g_{ij}(x)\left(\frac{x^i}{\tau }\frac{x^j}{\tau }\frac{x^i}{\sigma }\frac{x^j}{\sigma }\right)+B_{ij}(x)\frac{x^i}{\tau }\frac{x^j}{\sigma }$$
(1.1)
with canonical momentum density

$$\pi _i=\frac{}{\dot{x}^i}=g_{ij}\dot{x}^j+B_{ij}x^j,$$
(1.2)
where an overdot denotes the time derivative ($`/\tau `$) and a prime denotes the space derivative ($`/\sigma `$) on the worldsheet. What is remarkable is that it possible for two completely different sigma models, $`(M,g,B)`$ and $`(\stackrel{~}{M},\stackrel{~}{g},\stackrel{~}{B})`$, to describe the same physics. By this we mean that there is a canonical transformation between the space of paths on $`M`$ and the corresponding one on $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ that preserves the respective hamiltonians. This phenomenon is known as *target space duality*.

This is the first of two articles where we develop a systematic framework for studying target space duality at the classical level. We do not consider quantum aspects of target space duality nor do we consider examples involving mirror symmetry. Most of our considerations are local but phrased in a manner that is amenable to globalization. We analyze the local geometric requirements necessary for target space duality. The study of target space duality has developed by discovering a succession of more and more complicated examples (see below). We show that the known examples of abelian duality, nonabelian duality and Poisson-Lie duality are all derivable as special cases of the framework. We show that target space duality boils down to the study of some very special symplectic manifolds that allow the reduction of the structure group of the frame bundle to $`\mathrm{SO}(n)`$. In article I we develop the general theory and apply it so some very simple examples. In article II  we systematically apply the theory to a variety of scenarios and we reproduce nonabelian duality and Poisson-Lie duality. The theory is applied to other geometric situations that lead us deep into unknown questions in Lie algebra theory. We try to make article I self contained. References to equations and sections in article II are preceded by II, *e.g.*, (II-8.3).

What is the value in developing a general framework for studying classical target space duality? The framework may say something about the what is string theory. We believe that there is some parameter space that describes string theory. For special values of the parameters we get the familiar Type I, Type II-A, Type II-B, *etc*. theories and that these are related by various dualities. If we can get a handle on the class of symplectic manifolds that lead to target space duality we may be able to get a better idea about the parameter space of string theory.

The simplest target space duality is abelian duality. Here a theory with target space $`S^1`$ or $``$ is dual to a theory with target space $`S^1`$ or $``$. For a comprehensive review and history of abelian duality look in . It should also be mentioned that it has been known for a long time, see *e.g.* , that the abelian duality transformation is a canonical transformation. A first attempt to generalize abelian duality to groups led to the pseudochiral model of Zakharov and Mikhailov  as a dual to the nonlinear sigma model. Nappi  showed that these models were not equivalent at the quantum level. The correct dual model was first found by Fridling and Jevicki  and Fradkin and Tseytlin  using path integral methods. String theory motivated a renewed interest in abelian and nonabelian duality . It was shown that the duality transformation was canonical  and these ideas were generalized in a variety of ways . The form of the generating functions for duality transformation gave hints that nonabelian duality was associated with the geometry of the cotangent bundle of the group.

The most intricate target space duality discovered thus far is the Poisson-Lie duality of Klimcik and Severa . In this example we see a very nontrivial geometrical structure playing a central role. A Poisson-Lie group $`G`$ is a Lie group with a Poisson bracket that is compatible with the group multiplication law. Drinfeld  showed that Poisson-Lie groups are determined by a Lie bialgebra $`𝔤_D=𝔤\stackrel{~}{𝔤}`$ where $`𝔤`$ is the Lie algebra of $`G`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{𝔤}`$ is the Lie algebra of a Lie group $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$, See Appendix II-B.1. The two Lie algebras are coupled together in a very symmetric way. A Lie group $`G_D`$ with Lie algebra $`𝔤_D`$ is called a Drinfeld double. It should be pointed out that $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ is also a Poisson-Lie group. By using a clever argument, Klimcik and Several discovered that if the metric $`g`$ and $`B`$ field on a Poisson-Lie group $`G`$ was of a special form then there would be a corresponding metric $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{B}`$-field on the group $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$. Their observations follow from the symmetric way that $`G`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ enter into the Drinfeld double $`G_D`$. They showed that that by writing down a “first order” sigma model on $`G_D`$ they could derive either the model on $`G`$ or the model on $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ by taking an appropriate slice. Here one explicitly sees that the the target manifold and the target dual manifold are carefully glued together into a larger space. Klimcik and Severa do not explicitly write down the duality transformation but they are totally explicit about the metric and $`B`$ field. It was Sfetsos  who wrote down the duality transformation, verified that it was a canonical transformation, and constructed the generating function for the canonical transformation, see also .

At the time of the work by Klimcik and Severa, the author had been working on a program to develop a general theory of target space duality, see . In that article I advocated the use of generating functions of the type (2.2) because they would lead to a linear relationship333For nonpolynomial generating functions look at . between $`(dx/d\sigma ,\pi )`$ and $`(d\stackrel{~}{x}/d\sigma ,\stackrel{~}{\pi })`$ that preserved the quadratic nature of the sigma model hamiltonians. I discussed the geometry which was involved and explained the role played in this geometry by the hamiltonian density $``$ and the momentum density $`𝒫`$. Explicit formulas relating the geometries of the two manifolds were not given in that article for the following reason. The formulation I had at the time involved variables $`(x,p)`$ where essentially $`\pi =dp/d\sigma `$. This gave a certain symmetry to some of the equations but at a major price. The $`B`$ field gauge symmetry $`BB+dA`$ became a nonlocal symmetry in $`(x,p)`$ space and the gauge symmetry was no longer manifest. Only for special choices of $`A`$ was the gauge transformation local. The formulas I had derived respected the special gauge transformations but I could not verify general gauge invariance. Sfetsos  exploited some of the geometric constraints I had proposed and he was able to explicitly construct the duality transformation for Poisson-Lie duality. Sfetsos’ work is very interesting. He conjectures the form of the duality transformation and he knows the geometric data $`(M,g,B)`$ and $`(\stackrel{~}{M},\stackrel{~}{g},\stackrel{~}{B})`$ from the work of Klimcik and Severa. He now uses this information and certain integrability constraints to explicitly work out the generating function for the canonical transformation. Sfetsos’ computation may be reinterpreted as the construction of a known symplectic structure  on the Drinfeld double, see Section II-3.

In this article I present a general theory for target space duality that is manifestly gauge invariant with respect to $`B`$ field gauge transformations. I consider what could be called *irreducible duality* where there are no spectator fields. All the fields participate actively in the duality transformation. I show that the duality transformation arises because of the existence of a special symplectic manifold $`P`$ that locally looks like $`M\times \stackrel{~}{M}`$ and admits a double fibration. The duality transformation exists only when there exists a compatible confluence of several distinct geometric structures associated to the manifold $`P`$: an $`\mathrm{O}(2n)`$ structure related to the hamiltonian density (3.1), an $`\mathrm{O}(n,n)`$ structure related to the momentum density (3.2), an $`\mathrm{O}(n)\times \mathrm{O}(n)`$ structure associated with the sigma model metrics, and a $`\mathrm{Sp}(2n)`$ structure related to the symplectic form. This is why these symplectic manifolds are very special and rare. I develop the general theory and then show how the known examples of abelian duality, nonabelian duality and Poisson-Lie duality follow. The general theory indicates that there are probably many more examples. For example, in Section 8.3 I write down families of nonlinear duality transformations that map a theory with target space $`^n`$ into one with target space $`^n`$. I also investigate a variety of scenarios and pose open mathematical questions deeply related to the theory of Lie algebras.

This work differs from the work of Sfetsos  in a variety of ways. There are two types of constraints on the canonical transformation: algebraic constraints having to do with quadratic form of the hamiltonian density and differential constraints having to do integrability conditions. Sfetsos writes these down but in a way that is neither geometric nor gauge invariant. He applies them to Poisson-Lie duality and derives the generating function. Sfetsos’ formulation does not exploit the fact that there are natural geometric structures associated to these equations. This is what I was trying to do in  but failed due to a bad choice of variables $`(x,p)`$ leading to an absence of manifest $`B`$ field gauge invariance. The formulation presented here uses the variables $`(x,\pi )`$ and is manifestly gauge invariant. In Section II-2.2.2 I give a geometric interpretation of $`B`$ field gauge invariance. In this article I work in terms of adapted frame fields. In this way, the formalism has an immediate interpretation in terms of $`H`$-structures on the bundle of frames. In fact the discussion presented in Section II-4.1 is done in a sub-bundle of the bundle of frames.

The framework developed in this work allows one to attack a variety of interesting questions. Are there any interesting restrictions on the manifolds $`M`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$? We show in Section 6 that the manifolds $`M`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ have to admit flat orthogonal connections. We know for any manifold $`M`$ there always exists a natural symplectic manifold $`P=T^{}M`$, the cotangent bundle. We can ask what type of dualities arises from the standard symplectic structure on the cotangent bundle? We show that this can only happen if $`M`$ is a Lie group, see Section II-2.2.1. This formalism allows general question to be asked. For example there are a series of PDEs that have to be solved to determine the duality transformations. These PDEs depend on some functions. If these functions are zero then one gets abelian duality, if some are made nonzero then you get nonabelian duality, *etc*. This is a framework that can be used for a systematic study of duality. It opens up the possibility to study dualities involving parallelizable manifolds that are not Lie groups such as $`S^7`$ or sub-bundles of the frame bundle. This work indicates that duality is a very rich geometrical framework ripe for study and we have only scratched the surface.

## 2 The symplectic structure

We review briefly the notion of a “generating function” in canonical transformations because our methods introduce a secondary symplectic structure into the formulation of target space duality and it is important to understand the difference between the two.

Assume you have symplectic manifolds, $`P`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{P}`$, with respective symplectic forms $`\omega `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }`$. Consider $`P\times \stackrel{~}{P}`$ with standard projections $`\mathrm{\Pi }:P\times \stackrel{~}{P}P`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}:P\times \stackrel{~}{P}\stackrel{~}{P}`$. You can make $`P\times \stackrel{~}{P}`$ into a symplectic manifold by choosing as symplectic form $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}^{}\stackrel{~}{\omega }\mathrm{\Pi }^{}\omega `$. By definition, a canonical or symplectic transformation $`f:P\stackrel{~}{P}`$ satisfies $`f^{}\stackrel{~}{\omega }=\omega `$. We describe $`f`$ by its graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_fP\times \stackrel{~}{P}`$. It is clear $`f:P\stackrel{~}{P}`$ will be symplectic if and only if $`\mathrm{\Omega }|_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_f}=0`$. Locally we have $`\omega =d\theta `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }=d\stackrel{~}{\theta }`$. Thus we see that $`\stackrel{~}{\theta }\theta `$ is a closed $`1`$-form on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_f`$. Consequently there exists locally a function $`F:\mathrm{\Gamma }_f`$ such that $`\stackrel{~}{\theta }\theta =dF`$. This function $`F`$ is called the “generating function” for the symplectic transformation. The reason is that if in local Darboux coordinates we have that $`\theta =pdq`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\theta }=\stackrel{~}{p}d\stackrel{~}{q}`$ then we have that $`F`$ is locally a function of only $`q`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{q}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{p}=F/\stackrel{~}{q}`$ and $`p=F/q`$. We can now use the inverse function theorem to construct the map from $`(q,p)`$ to $`(\stackrel{~}{q},\stackrel{~}{p})`$. Note that $`dim\mathrm{\Gamma }_f=2n`$ and therefore $`F`$ is a function of $`2n`$ variables. Had we chosen $`\theta =qdp`$ then we would have that $`F`$ is a function of $`\stackrel{~}{q}`$ and $`p`$. In this case it is worthwhile to observe $`F=\stackrel{~}{q}p`$ generates the identity transformation. We mention this because the identity transformation is not in the class of transformations generated by functions of $`q`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{q}`$.

All this generalizes to field theory. We discuss only the case of $`(1+1)`$ dimensions. Let $`P(M)`$ be the path space of M. By this we mean the set of maps $`\{\gamma :NM\}`$ where $`N`$ can be $``$, $`S^1`$ or $`[0,\pi ]`$ depending on whether we are discussing infinite strings, closed strings or open strings. Most of the discussion in this article is local and so we do not specify $`N`$. In the case of a sigma model with target space $`M`$, the basic configuration space is $`P(M)`$ with associated phase space $`P(T^{}M)`$. If $`(x,\pi )`$ are coordinates on $`T^{}M`$ then the symplectic structure on $`P(T^{}M)`$ is given by

$$\delta \pi (\sigma )\delta x(\sigma )d\sigma .$$
(2.1)
In what follows we are interested in looking for canonical transformations between a sigma model with target space $`M`$ and one with target space $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ of the same dimensionality. We say that a sigma model with geometrical data $`(M,g,B)`$ is dual to a sigma model $`(\stackrel{~}{M},\stackrel{~}{g},\stackrel{~}{B})`$ if there exists a canonical transformation $`F:P(T^{}M)P(T^{}\stackrel{~}{M})`$ that preserves the hamiltonian densities, $`F^{}\stackrel{~}{}=`$, where the hamiltonian density is given by (3.1).

In the case of “abelian duality” where the target space is a circle you can choose the generating function to be

$$F[x,\stackrel{~}{x}]=\stackrel{~}{x}\frac{dx}{d\sigma }𝑑\sigma .$$

This leads to the standard duality relations $`\pi (\sigma )=d\stackrel{~}{x}/d\sigma `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }(\sigma )=dx/d\sigma `$.

The nonabelian duality relations follow from the following natural choice  for generating function. Assume the target space is a simple connected compact Lie group $`G`$ with Lie algebra $`𝔤`$. The dual manifold is the Lie algebra with an unusual metric. The generating function is very natural:

$$F[g,\stackrel{~}{X}]=\mathrm{Tr}\left(\stackrel{~}{X}g^1\frac{dg}{d\sigma }\right)𝑑\sigma ,$$

where $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ is a Lie algebra valued field.

We now consider a class of generating functions for target space duality that leads to a linear relationship  between $`(dx/d\sigma ,\pi (\sigma ))`$ and the corresponding variables on the dual space. On $`M\times \stackrel{~}{M}`$ choose locally a $`1`$-form $`\alpha =\alpha _i(x,\stackrel{~}{x})dx^i+\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_i(x,\stackrel{~}{x})d\stackrel{~}{x}^i`$. We can define a natural “generating function” on $`P(M\times \stackrel{~}{M})`$ by

$$F[x(\sigma ),\stackrel{~}{x}(\sigma )]=\alpha =\left(\alpha _i(x(\sigma ),\stackrel{~}{x}(\sigma ))\frac{dx^i}{d\sigma }+\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_i(x(\sigma ),\stackrel{~}{x}(\sigma ))\frac{d\stackrel{~}{x}^i}{d\sigma }\right)𝑑\sigma .$$
(2.2)
We only consider target space duality that arises from this type of canonical transformation.

Let $`v`$ be a vector field along the path $`(x(\sigma ),\stackrel{~}{x}(\sigma ))M\times \stackrel{~}{M}`$ with compact support which represents a deformation of the path. Note that $`\delta _vF=_v\alpha =\iota _v𝑑\alpha `$. In the previous formula $`_v\alpha =\iota _vd\alpha +d\iota _v\alpha `$ is the Lie derivative with respect to $`v`$. Since $`v`$ has compact support, the exact term can be neglected. Thus the variation of $`F`$ is determined by the exact $`2`$-form $`\beta =d\alpha `$:

$$\delta _vF=\iota _v\beta .$$
(2.3)
We use $`\beta `$ to construct the duality transformation. If $`x`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{x}`$ are respectively local coordinates on $`M`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ then

$$\beta =\frac{1}{2}l_{ij}(x,\stackrel{~}{x})dx^idx^j+m_{ij}(x,\stackrel{~}{x})d\stackrel{~}{x}^idx^j+\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{l}_{ij}(x,\stackrel{~}{x})d\stackrel{~}{x}^id\stackrel{~}{x}^j,$$
(2.4)
where $`\stackrel{~}{l}`$: $`l_{ij}=l_{ji}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{l}_{ij}=\stackrel{~}{l}_{ji}`$. The three $`n\times n`$ matrix functions $`l,\stackrel{~}{l},m`$ are used to construct the canonical transformation on the infinite dimensional phase space. A brief calculation shows that the canonical transformations are

$`\pi _i(\sigma )`$ $`=`$ $`m_{ji}(x,\stackrel{~}{x}){\displaystyle \frac{d\stackrel{~}{x}^j}{d\sigma }}+l_{ij}(x,\stackrel{~}{x}){\displaystyle \frac{dx^j}{d\sigma }},`$ (2.5)
$`\stackrel{~}{\pi }_i(\sigma )`$ $`=`$ $`m_{ij}(x,\stackrel{~}{x}){\displaystyle \frac{dx^j}{d\sigma }}+\stackrel{~}{l}_{ij}(x,\stackrel{~}{x}){\displaystyle \frac{d\stackrel{~}{x}^j}{d\sigma }}.`$ (2.6)
The invertibility of the canonical transformation between $`P(T^{}M)`$ and $`P(T^{}\stackrel{~}{M})`$ requires $`m`$ to be an invertible matrix. This implies that $`\beta `$ is of maximal rank, *i.e.* a symplectic form444 It is possible for $`\beta `$ to be symplectic and have $`m=0`$ but this will not define an invertible canonical transformation between $`P(T^{}M)`$ and $`P(T^{}\stackrel{~}{M})`$. For example, if $`M`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ are symplectic manifolds with respective symplectic forms $`\omega `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }`$ then choose $`\beta =\stackrel{~}{\omega }\omega `$. on $`M\times \stackrel{~}{M}`$.

It is important to recognize that there are two very different symplectic structures in this problem. The first one is the standard symplectic structure on phase space $`P(T^{}M)`$ given by (2.1). The second one on $`M\times \stackrel{~}{M}`$ given by $`\beta `$ arises from the class of generating functions (2.2) we are considering. The generating function arguments are local and suggest that the symplectic structure on $`M\times \stackrel{~}{M}`$ may be generalized to a symplectic manifold $`P`$ which “contains” $`M\times \stackrel{~}{M}`$. In the cartesian product $`M\times \stackrel{~}{M}`$ you have natural cartesian projections $`\mathrm{\Pi }_c:M\times \stackrel{~}{M}M`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_c:M\times \stackrel{~}{M}\stackrel{~}{M}`$. The product structure can be generalized by the introduction of the concept of a bifibration. A $`2n`$ dimensional manifold $`P`$ is said to be a *bifibration* if there exists $`n`$ dimensional manifolds $`M`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ and projections $`\mathrm{\Pi }:PM`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}:P\stackrel{~}{M}`$ such that the respective fibers are diffeomorphic to coverings spaces of $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ and $`M`$ and they are also transverse. This means that if $`pP`$ then $`\mathrm{ker}\mathrm{\Pi }_{}|_p\mathrm{ker}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{}|_p=T_pP`$ where $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{}`$ are the differential maps of the projections. Note that the cartesian product manifold $`P=M\times \stackrel{~}{M}`$ is an example of a bifibration. If the product projection $`\mathrm{\Pi }\times \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}:PM\times \stackrel{~}{M}`$ is injective555The definition of a fiber bundle implies that $`\mathrm{\Pi }\times \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}`$ is surjective. then $`P=M\times \stackrel{~}{M}`$. A covering space example is given by $`P=^2`$ and $`M=\stackrel{~}{M}=S^1`$ with $`\mathrm{\Pi }:(x,\stackrel{~}{x})e^{ix}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}:(x,\stackrel{~}{x})e^{i\stackrel{~}{x}}`$.

We introduce the following terminology illustrated in Figure 1.

At a point $`pP`$ we have a splitting of the tangent space $`T_pP=H_pV_p`$ where the “horizontal tangent space” $`H_p`$ is tangent to the fiber of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}`$, and the “vertical tangent space” $`V_p`$ is tangent to the fiber of $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$. A symplectic form $`\beta `$ is said to be *bifibration compatible* if for every $`pP`$ one has the following nondegeneracy conditions:

1. Given $`YV_p`$, if for all $`XH_p`$ one has $`\beta (X,Y)=0`$ then $`Y=0`$.
2. Given $`XH_p`$, if for all $`YV_p`$ one has $`\beta (X,Y)=0`$ then $`X=0`$.

This is the coordinate independent way of stating that the matrix $`m_{ij}`$ is invertible. The reader can verify that the symplectic form given in footnote 4 fails the above. Our abstract scenario is a bifibration666It may be possible to generalize from a bifibration to a bifoliation. It is not clear to the author what is the most general formulation. with a bifibration compatible symplectic form. We will refer to such a manifold as a *special symplectic bifibration*. We believe that the formulation of canonical transformations in path space in terms of $`\beta `$ is probably more fundamental than the use of a generating function. This is probably analogous to the ascendant role the symplectic $`2`$-form has taken in symplectic geometry because of global issues. The $`2`$-form $`\beta `$ may play a role in the quantum aspects of duality maybe in some geometric quantization type of framework.

A scenario for how a natural generating function of type (2.2) might arise is the following. For any $`M`$, the cotangent bundle $`T^{}M`$ is a symplectic manifold. Firstly, one has to investigate whether the cotangent bundle admits a second fibration transverse to the defining one. Secondly, it may be necessary to deform the original symplectic structure. In the case of a Lie group $`G`$, the cotangent bundle is trivial and is thus a product $`T^{}G=G\times 𝔤`$ where we have used the metric on $`G`$ to identify the Lie algebra $`𝔤`$ with its vector space dual $`𝔤^{}`$.

## 3 Hamiltonian structure

The discussion in the Section 2 is general and makes no reference to the hamiltonian. The hamiltonian only played an indirect role because we chose a class of canonical transformations which are linear with respect to $`dx/d\sigma `$ and $`\pi (\sigma )`$ in anticipation of future application to the nonlinear sigma model. The nonlinear sigma model has target space a riemannian manifold $`M`$ with metric $`g`$ and a $`2`$-form field $`B`$. The hamiltonian density and the momentum density are respectively given by

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g^{ij}(x)\left(\pi _iB_{ik}{\displaystyle \frac{dx^k}{d\sigma }}\right)\left(\pi _jB_{jl}{\displaystyle \frac{dx^l}{d\sigma }}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_{ij}(x){\displaystyle \frac{dx^i}{d\sigma }}{\displaystyle \frac{dx^j}{d\sigma }},`$ (3.1)
$`𝒫`$ $`=`$ $`\pi _i(\sigma ){\displaystyle \frac{dx^i}{d\sigma }}.`$ (3.2)
We are interested whether we can find a canonical transformation with generating function of type (2.2) which will map the hamiltonian density and momentum density into that of another sigma model (the dual sigma model) characterized by target space $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$, metric tensor $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ and $`2`$-form $`\stackrel{~}{B}`$.

It winds up that working in coordinates is not the best way of attacking the problem. It is best to use moving frames à la Cartan and Chern. Let $`(\theta ^1,\mathrm{},\theta ^n)`$ be a local orthonormal coframe777Because we will be working in orthonormal frames we do not distinguish an upper index from a lower index in a tensor. for $`M`$. The Cartan structural equations are

$`d\theta ^i`$ $`=`$ $`\omega _{ij}\theta ^j,`$
$`d\omega _{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`\omega _{ik}\omega _{kj}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}R_{ijkl}\theta ^k\theta ^l,`$
where $`\omega _{ij}=\omega _{ji}`$ is the riemannian connection888The riemannian connection is the unique torsion free metric compatible connection. A metric compatible connection will also be referred to as an orthogonal connection. In general an orthogonal connection can have torsion.. Next we define $`dx/d\sigma `$ in the orthonormal frame to be $`x_\sigma `$ by requiring that $`\theta ^i=x^i{}_{\sigma }{}^{}d\sigma `$. If $`\pi `$ is now the canonical momentum density in the orthonormal frame then in this frame (3.1) and (3.2) become

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\pi _iB_{ik}x^k{}_{\sigma }{}^{})(\pi _iB_{il}x^l{}_{\sigma }{}^{})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}x^i{}_{\sigma }{}^{}x_{}^{i}{}_{\sigma }{}^{},`$ (3.3)
$`𝒫`$ $`=`$ $`\pi _ix^i{}_{\sigma }{}^{}=(\pi _iB_{ij}x^j{}_{\sigma }{}^{})x^i{}_{\sigma }{}^{}.`$ (3.4)
In this coframe we can write (2.4) as

$$\beta =\frac{1}{2}l_{ij}(x,\stackrel{~}{x})\theta ^i\theta ^j+m_{ij}(x,\stackrel{~}{x})\stackrel{~}{\theta }^i\theta ^j+\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{l}_{ij}(x,\stackrel{~}{x})\stackrel{~}{\theta }^i\stackrel{~}{\theta }^j.$$
(3.5)
We use the same letters $`l,m,\stackrel{~}{l}`$ but the meaning above is different from (2.4). In this notation equations (2.5) and (2.6) become

$`\pi _i(\sigma )`$ $`=`$ $`m_{ji}(x,\stackrel{~}{x})\stackrel{~}{x}^j{}_{\sigma }{}^{}+l_{ij}(x,\stackrel{~}{x})x^j{}_{\sigma }{}^{},`$ (3.6)
$`\stackrel{~}{\pi }_i(\sigma )`$ $`=`$ $`m_{ij}(x,\stackrel{~}{x})x^j{}_{\sigma }{}^{}+\stackrel{~}{l}_{ij}(x,\stackrel{~}{x})\stackrel{~}{x}^j{}_{\sigma }{}^{},`$ (3.7)
In matrix notation the above may be written as

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}m^t& 0\\ \stackrel{~}{l}& I\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{x}_\sigma \\ \stackrel{~}{\pi }\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}l& I\\ m& 0\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}x_\sigma \\ \pi \end{array}\right)$$

Rewrite the above in the form

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}m^t& 0\\ \stackrel{~}{n}& I\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{x}_\sigma \\ \stackrel{~}{\pi }\stackrel{~}{B}\stackrel{~}{x}_\sigma \end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}n& I\\ m& 0\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}x_\sigma \\ \pi Bx_\sigma \end{array}\right),$$

where

$`n`$ $`=`$ $`lB,`$ (3.8)
$`\stackrel{~}{n}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{l}\stackrel{~}{B}.`$ (3.9)
The rewriting above is closely related to (A.2), see below. This equation is not very interesting in this form but it becomes much more interesting when rewritten as

$`\left(\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{x}_\sigma \\ \stackrel{~}{\pi }\stackrel{~}{B}\stackrel{~}{x}_\sigma \end{array}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}m^t& 0\\ \stackrel{~}{n}& I\end{array}\right)^1\left(\begin{array}{cc}n& I\\ m& 0\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}x_\sigma \\ \pi Bx_\sigma \end{array}\right)`$ (3.18)
$`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}(m^t)^1n& (m^t)^1\\ \stackrel{~}{n}(m^t)^1n+m& \stackrel{~}{n}(m^t)^1\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}x_\sigma \\ \pi Bx_\sigma \end{array}\right).`$ (3.23)
Notice that equation (3.23) gives us a linear transformation between $`(x{}_{\sigma }{}^{},\pi Bx{}_{\sigma }{}^{})`$ and $`(\stackrel{~}{x}{}_{\sigma }{}^{},\stackrel{~}{\pi }\stackrel{~}{B}\stackrel{~}{x}{}_{\sigma }{}^{})`$. The preservation of the hamiltonian density means that this linear transformation must be in $`\mathrm{O}(2n)`$. If in addition you want to preserve the momentum density then this transformation must be in $`\mathrm{O}_\mathrm{Q}(n,n)`$, the group of $`2n\times 2n`$ matrices isomorphic to $`\mathrm{O}(n,n)`$ which preserves the quadratic form

$$Q=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& I_n\\ I_n& 0\end{array}\right).$$
(3.24)
In the formula above, $`I_n`$ is the $`n\times n`$ identity matrix. Properties of $`\mathrm{O}_\mathrm{Q}(n,n)`$ and its relation with $`\mathrm{O}(2n)`$ are reviewed in Appendix A. They key observation999I do not understand geometrically why $`\beta `$ automatically induces this pseudo-orthogonal matrix. is that the matrix appearing in (3.23) is automatically in $`\mathrm{O}_\mathrm{Q}(n,n)`$ which means that our canonical transformation automatically preserves the canonical momentum density (3.4). As previously mentioned to preserve the hamiltonian density (3.3) is it necessary that the matrix above also be in $`\mathrm{O}(2n)`$. Thus the matrix

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}(m^t)^1n& (m^t)^1\\ \stackrel{~}{n}(m^t)^1n+m& \stackrel{~}{n}(m^t)^1\end{array}\right)$$
(3.25)
must be in $`\mathrm{O}(2n)\mathrm{O}_\mathrm{Q}(n,n)`$, a compact group locally isomorphic to $`\mathrm{O}(n)\times \mathrm{O}(n)`$, see Appendix A. Using the equations in the appendix we learn that the condition that (3.25) be in the intersection $`\mathrm{O}(2n)\mathrm{O}_\mathrm{Q}(n,n)`$ is that

$`mm^t`$ $`=`$ $`I\stackrel{~}{n}^2,`$ (3.26)
$`m^tm`$ $`=`$ $`In^2,`$ (3.27)
$`mn`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{n}m.`$ (3.28)
We can now simplify (3.25) to

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}(m^t)^1n& (m^t)^1\\ (m^t)^1& (m^t)^1n\end{array}\right)$$
(3.29)
To better understand the above is is worthwhile using the conjugation operation (A.4) and switch the quadratic from from $`Q`$ to

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}I& 0\\ 0& +I\end{array}\right).$$

Under this conjugation operation (3.23) becomes

$`\left(\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{x}{}_{\sigma }{}^{}(\stackrel{~}{\pi }\stackrel{~}{B}\stackrel{~}{x}{}_{\sigma }{}^{})\\ \stackrel{~}{x}{}_{\sigma }{}^{}+(\stackrel{~}{\pi }\stackrel{~}{B}\stackrel{~}{x}{}_{\sigma }{}^{})\end{array}\right)`$ (3.32)
$`=\left(\begin{array}{cc}(m^t)^1(I+n)& 0\\ 0& (m^t)^1(In)\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}x{}_{\sigma }{}^{}(\pi Bx{}_{\sigma }{}^{})\\ x{}_{\sigma }{}^{}+(\pi Bx{}_{\sigma }{}^{})\end{array}\right).`$ (3.37)
This leads to the pair of equations

$`(\stackrel{~}{\pi }\stackrel{~}{B}\stackrel{~}{x}{}_{\sigma }{}^{})+\stackrel{~}{x}_\sigma `$ $`=`$ $`+T_+[(\pi Bx{}_{\sigma }{}^{})+x{}_{\sigma }{}^{}],`$ (3.38)
$`(\stackrel{~}{\pi }\stackrel{~}{B}\stackrel{~}{x}{}_{\sigma }{}^{})\stackrel{~}{x}_\sigma `$ $`=`$ $`T_{}[(\pi Bx{}_{\sigma }{}^{})x{}_{\sigma }{}^{}],`$ (3.39)
where

$$T_\pm =(m^t)^1(In)\mathrm{O}(n).$$
(3.40)
An equivalent way of writing the above is $`m=T_\pm (I\pm n)`$. Also note that $`T_+`$ and $`T_{}`$ are not independent. They are related by $`T_{}^1T_+=(I+n)^1(In)`$ which is the Cayley transform of $`n`$. It is often convenient to think that (3.5) is determined by two orthogonal matrices $`T_\pm \mathrm{O}(n)`$ with

$$n=(T_++T_{})^1(T_+T_{}).$$
(3.41)
## 4 Gauge invariance

It is well known that the sigma model $`(M,g,B)`$ has a gauge invariance given by $`BB+dA`$ where $`A`$ is a $`1`$-form on $`M`$. We can manifest these gauge transformations within the class (3.40) of canonical transformation by considering $`\alpha (\alpha +A)`$ which transforms $`\pi `$ appropriately. An observation and a change of viewpoint will give us a manifestly gauge invariant formulation. Notice that both the left hand side and right hand side of equation (3.37) is manifestly gauge invariant. This suggests that $`m,n,\stackrel{~}{n}`$ may be gauge invariant. Looking at (3.8) and (3.9) and incorporating the remark about how we implement gauge invariance we see that $`n`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{n}`$ are gauge invariant quantities, *i.e.*, the gauge transformations are implemented by shifting $`l,\stackrel{~}{l}`$ respectively by $`dA`$ and $`d\stackrel{~}{A}`$. This suggest that instead of working with $`\beta `$ it may be worthwhile to work with $`\gamma `$ defined by

$$\gamma =\frac{1}{2}n_{ij}(x,\stackrel{~}{x})\theta ^i\theta ^j+m_{ij}(x,\stackrel{~}{x})\stackrel{~}{\theta }^i\theta ^j+\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{n}_{ij}(x,\stackrel{~}{x})\stackrel{~}{\theta }^i\stackrel{~}{\theta }^j$$
(4.1)
where $`\gamma `$ is not closed but satisfies

$$d\gamma =H\stackrel{~}{H}$$
(4.2)
where $`H=dB`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{H}=d\stackrel{~}{B}`$. More correctly one has $`d\gamma =\mathrm{\Pi }^{}H\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}^{}\stackrel{~}{H}`$. We have now achieved a gauge invariant formulation.

## 5 The geometry of $`P`$

To gain further insight into relations between the geometry of $`M`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ is it best to work in $`P`$ which you may think of it locally being $`M\times \stackrel{~}{M}`$. We can use the freedom of working in $`P`$ to simplify results and then project back to either $`M`$ or $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$.

There are two closely related ways of simplifying the geometry. One way is to work in the bundle of orthonormal frames. The other is to *adapt* the orthonormal frames to the problem at hand similar to the way one uses Darboux frames to study surfaces in classical differential geometry. The former gives a global formulation but the latter is more familiar to physicists hence we choose the latter. All our computations will be local and can be patched together to define global objects.

The first thing to observe is that the existence of the double fibration allows us to naturally define a riemannian metric on $`P`$ by pulling back the metrics on $`M`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ and declaring that the fibers are orthogonal to each other. In a similar fashion we pullback local coframes and get local coframes on $`P`$. These orthonormal coframes satisfy the Cartan structural equations

$`d\theta ^i`$ $`=`$ $`\omega _{ij}\theta ^j,`$ (5.1)
$`d\stackrel{~}{\theta }^i`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }_{ij}\stackrel{~}{\theta }^j,`$ (5.2)
$`d\omega _{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`\omega _{ik}\omega _{kj}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}R_{ijkl}\theta ^k\theta ^l,`$ (5.3)
$`d\stackrel{~}{\omega }_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }_{ik}\stackrel{~}{\omega }_{kj}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{~}{R}_{ijkl}\stackrel{~}{\theta }^k\stackrel{~}{\theta }^l.`$ (5.4)
Once we begin working on $`P`$ then we have the freedom to independently rotate $`\theta `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\theta }`$ at each point. Once we do this these coframes will no longer be pullbacks but this doesn’t matter because it does not change the metric on each fiber. We are going to exploit this freedom to relate the geometry of $`M`$ to that of $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ in a way similar to the way the intrinsic curvature of a submanifold is related to the total curvature of the space and the curvature of the normal bundle. Note that with these choices there is a natural group of $`\mathrm{O}(n)\times \mathrm{O}(n)`$ gauge transformations on the tangent bundle of $`P`$ which is compatible with the metric structure and the bifibration.

## 6 Constraints from the algebraic structure of $`\gamma `$

First we derive various constraints that follow from the algebraic constraints on $`\gamma `$ imposed by the preservation of $``$ and $`𝒫`$. Equations (3.27) and (3.28) tell us that

$$m=T(I+n)\text{and}\stackrel{~}{n}=TnT^t$$
(6.1)
where $`T\mathrm{O}(n)`$. Since $`T`$ “connects” a $`\theta `$ to a $`\stackrel{~}{\theta }`$ we see that its covariant differential is given by

$$dT_{ij}+\stackrel{~}{\omega }_{ik}T_{kj}+\omega _{jk}T_{ik}=+T_{ijk}\theta ^k\stackrel{~}{T}_{ijk}\stackrel{~}{\theta }^k,$$
(6.2)
where the components of the covariant differential in the $`M`$ direction is $`+T_{ijk}`$ and in the $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ direction is $`\stackrel{~}{T}_{ijk}`$. The negative sign is introduced for future convenience. Notice that $`T_{ijk}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{T}_{ijk}`$ are tensors defined on $`P`$ whose existence is guaranteed by the existence of the tensor $`T_{ij}`$ on $`P`$.

We now invoke a “symmetry breaking mechanism” to reduce the structure group of gauge transformations from $`\mathrm{O}(n)\times \mathrm{O}(n)`$ to $`\mathrm{O}(n)`$. At each point in $`P`$ we can rotate $`\stackrel{~}{\theta }`$ (or $`\theta `$) and make $`T=I`$ because under these gauge transformations $`T\stackrel{~}{R}TR^1`$ where $`(R,\stackrel{~}{R})\mathrm{O}(n)\times \mathrm{O}(n)`$. The isotropy group of $`T=I`$ is the diagonal $`\mathrm{O}(n)`$. This is no different than giving a scalar field a vacuum expectation value to break the symmetry. This symmetry breaking leads to an identification at each point of $`P`$ of the “vertical” and “horizontal” tangent spaces. This does not tell us that the metrics are the same but allows us to identify an orthonormal frame in one with an orthonormal frame in the other. Let us be a bit more precise and abstract on the reduction of the structure group and the identification of the “vertical” and “horizontal” tangent spaces. We already mentioned that at $`pP`$ one has $`T_pP=H_pV_p`$. The tensor $`m(p)`$ may be viewed as an element of $`V_p^{}H_p^{}`$. Because there is a metric on $`V_p`$ we can reinterpret $`m`$ as giving us an invertible linear transformation $`\stackrel{ˇ}{m}:H_pV_p`$. We also have a metric on $`H_p`$ and thus we can study the orbit of $`m(p)`$ under the action of $`\mathrm{O}(n)\times \mathrm{O}(n)`$. Our previous discussion shows that a “canonical” form for $`m(p)`$ may be taken to be $`m(p)=I+n(p)`$ with isotropy group being the diagonal $`\mathrm{O}(n)`$. If $`(e_1,\mathrm{},e_n)`$ is an orthonormal basis at $`H_p`$ and $`(\stackrel{~}{e}_1,\mathrm{},\stackrel{~}{e}_n)`$ is the corresponding orthonormal basis at $`V_p`$ then they are related by $`\stackrel{ˇ}{m}(p)e_i=\stackrel{~}{e}_j(\delta _{ji}+n_{ji}(p))`$.

From now on we assume we have adapted our coframes such that $`T=I`$ and

$`m_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{ij}+n_{ij},`$ (6.3)
$`n_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{n}_{ij}.`$ (6.4)
In this frame, $`\gamma `$ simplifies to

$$\gamma =\stackrel{~}{\theta }^i\theta ^i+n_{ij}\stackrel{~}{\theta }^i\theta ^j\frac{1}{2}n_{ij}\theta ^i\theta ^j\frac{1}{2}n_{ij}\stackrel{~}{\theta }^i\stackrel{~}{\theta }^j.$$
(6.5)
The duality equations are particularly simple now and they are given by

$`(\stackrel{~}{\pi }\stackrel{~}{B}\stackrel{~}{x}{}_{\sigma }{}^{})+\stackrel{~}{x}_\sigma `$ $`=`$ $`(\pi Bx{}_{\sigma }{}^{})+x{}_{\sigma }{}^{},`$ (6.6)
$`(\stackrel{~}{\pi }\stackrel{~}{B}\stackrel{~}{x}{}_{\sigma }{}^{})\stackrel{~}{x}_\sigma `$ $`=`$ $`T_{}[(\pi Bx{}_{\sigma }{}^{})x{}_{\sigma }{}^{}],`$ (6.7)
Where the orthogonal matrix $`T_{}`$ is the Cayley transform of $`n`$:

$$T_{}=\frac{I+n}{In}.$$
(6.8)
The matrix $`T_{}`$ is not arbitrary because there are constraints on $`n_{ij}`$ as we will see later on. Without constraints on $`T_{}`$ there are interesting solutions to (6.6) and (6.7) which map spaces of constant positive curvature into spaces of negative constant curvature or more generally dual symmetric spaces101010O. Alvarez, unpublished..

We can now exploit equation (6.2) to relate the connections in the adapted coframing. Inserting $`T=I`$ into the above leads to

$$\stackrel{~}{\omega }_{ij}\omega _{ij}=+T_{ijk}\theta ^k\stackrel{~}{T}_{ijk}\stackrel{~}{\theta }^k.$$
(6.9)
Thus we see that in the reduction of the structure group we have generated torsion and that this torsion satisfies $`T_{ijk}=T_{jik}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{T}_{ijk}=\stackrel{~}{T}_{jik}`$. We now define an orthogonal connection on our adapted frames by

$$\psi _{ij}=\omega _{ij}+T_{ijk}\theta ^k=\stackrel{~}{\omega }_{ij}+\stackrel{~}{T}_{ijk}\stackrel{~}{\theta }^k.$$
(6.10)
First we define the components of the covariant derivatives of $`T`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{T}`$ by

$`dT_{ijk}+(\omega T)_{ijk}`$ $`=`$ $`T_{ijkl}^{}\theta ^l+T_{ijkl}^{\prime \prime }\stackrel{~}{\theta }^l,`$ (6.11)
$`d\stackrel{~}{T}_{ijk}+(\stackrel{~}{\omega }\stackrel{~}{T})_{ijk}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{T}_{ijkl}^{}\theta ^l+\stackrel{~}{T}_{ijkl}^{\prime \prime }\stackrel{~}{\theta }^l.`$ (6.12)
In the above $`(\omega T)`$ and $`(\stackrel{~}{\omega }\stackrel{~}{T})`$ are abbreviations for standard expressions. We have chosen to use the connections $`\omega `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }`$ rather than $`\psi `$ in the definition of the covariant derivative for the following reasons: if $`T_{ijk}`$ is the pullback of a tensor on $`M`$ then $`T_{ijkl}^{\prime \prime }=0`$; if $`\stackrel{~}{T}_{ijk}`$ is the pullback of a tensor on $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ then $`\stackrel{~}{T}_{ijkl}^{}=0`$. A notational remark is that a primed tensor denoted the covariant derivative in the $`M`$ direction and a doubly primed tensor denotes the covariant derivative in the $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ direction. Doubly primed does not mean second derivative.

The curvature of this connection may be computed by either using the expression involving $`\omega `$ or the one involving $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }`$. A straightforward computation of the curvature matrix $`2`$-form

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{ij}=d\psi _{ij}+\psi _{ik}\psi _{kj}$$
(6.13)
in these two ways leads to the following expressions

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`T_{ijlm}^{\prime \prime }\theta ^l\stackrel{~}{\theta }^m`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[R_{ijlm}(T_{ijlm}^{}T_{ijml}^{})+(T_{ikl}T_{kjm}T_{ikm}T_{kjl})\right]\theta ^l\theta ^m,`$
and

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{T}_{ijlm}^{}\stackrel{~}{\theta }^l\theta ^m`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[\stackrel{~}{R}_{ijlm}(\stackrel{~}{T}_{ijlm}^{\prime \prime }\stackrel{~}{T}_{ijml}^{\prime \prime })+(\stackrel{~}{T}_{ikl}\stackrel{~}{T}_{kjm}\stackrel{~}{T}_{ikm}\stackrel{~}{T}_{kjl})\right]\stackrel{~}{\theta }^l\stackrel{~}{\theta }^m.`$
Comparing these two expression we learn that the curvature two form matrix is given by

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{ij}=d\psi _{ij}+\psi _{ik}\psi _{kj}=T_{ijlm}^{\prime \prime }\theta ^l\stackrel{~}{\theta }^m.$$
(6.14)
The following constraints must also hold

$`R_{ijlm}(T_{ijlm}^{}T_{ijml}^{})+(T_{ikl}T_{kjm}T_{ikm}T_{kjl})`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (6.15)
$`\stackrel{~}{R}_{ijlm}(\stackrel{~}{T}_{ijlm}^{\prime \prime }\stackrel{~}{T}_{ijml}^{\prime \prime })+(\stackrel{~}{T}_{ikl}\stackrel{~}{T}_{kjm}\stackrel{~}{T}_{ikm}\stackrel{~}{T}_{kjl})`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (6.16)
$`T_{ijlm}^{\prime \prime }+\stackrel{~}{T}_{ijml}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (6.17)
Form (6.14) is reminiscent of a Kähler manifold where the curvature is of type $`dzd\overline{z}`$ and there are no $`dzdz`$ or $`d\overline{z}d\overline{z}`$ components. The absence of these many curvature components is due to the reduction of the structure group from $`\mathrm{O}(2n)`$ to $`\mathrm{O}(n)`$ at the expense of generating torsion.

There are a variety of equivalent ways of interpreting the above. The most geometric is to observe that $`\psi _{ij}`$ defines a connection on $`P`$ and thus a connection when restricted to any of the fibers. For example, let $`M_{\stackrel{~}{x}}=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}^1(\stackrel{~}{x})`$ be a horizontal fiber. Notice that along this fiber $`\stackrel{~}{\theta }=0`$ and thus $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{ij}=0`$. Since $`M_{\stackrel{~}{x}}`$ is isometric to $`M`$ we have found a flat orthogonal connection (generally with torsion) on $`M`$. Note that this is true for all horizontal fibers. One can make a similar statement about the vertical fibers. We have our first major result.

> Target space duality requires that the manifolds $`M`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ respectively admit flat orthogonal connections. The connection $`\psi _{ij}`$ is flat when restricted to either $`M`$ or $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$.

At a more algebraic level equations (6.15) and (6.16) are the standard equations for “parallelizing” the curvature by torsion. A manifold $`M`$ is said to be parallelizable if the tangent bundle is a product bundle $`TM=M\times ^n`$. This means that you can globally choose a frame on $`M`$. The existence of a flat connection on a manifold does not imply parallelizability. The reason is that in a non-simply connected manifold there is an obstruction to globally choosing a frame if there is holonomy. If the manifold is simply connected and the connection is flat then it is parallelizable. Finally we observe that if a manifold is parallelizable then there are an infinite number of other possible parallelizations111111I would like to thank I.M. Singer for the ensuing argument.. Assume we have an orthogonal parallelization, *i.e.*, a choice of orthonormal frame at each point. Given any other orthogonal parallelization we can always make a rotation point by point so that both frames agree at the point. Thus the space of all orthogonal parallelizations is given by the set of maps from $`M`$ to $`\mathrm{O}(n)`$.

Note that given two distinct points $`\stackrel{~}{x}_1,\stackrel{~}{x}_2\stackrel{~}{M}`$, the tensor $`T_{ijk}`$ on the respective horizontal fibers $`M_{\stackrel{~}{x}_1}`$ and $`M_{\stackrel{~}{x}_2}`$ do not have to be the same. There are many flat orthogonal connections on $`M`$ as can be seen by a variant parallelizability argument. In fact you could in principle have a multiparameter family parametrized by $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$.

There is a special case of interest when $`T_{ijk}`$ is the pullback of a tensor on $`M`$. In this case a previous remark tells us that $`T_{ijkl}^{\prime \prime }=0`$ and consequently by (6.17) we also have $`\stackrel{~}{T}_{ijkl}^{}=0`$. Therefore $`\stackrel{~}{T}_{ijk}`$ is also the pullback of a tensor on $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$. This means that the same torsion tensors make the connection flat on all the fibers. Note that in this case $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{ij}=0`$ and the orthogonal connection $`\psi _{ij}`$ is a flat connection on $`P`$.

> If $`T_{ijk}`$ is the pullback of a tensor on $`M`$ then $`\stackrel{~}{T}_{ijk}`$ is the pullback of a tensor on $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{ij}=0`$. In this case $`\psi _{ij}`$ is a flat connection on $`P`$.

## 7 Simple examples

The equation $`d\gamma =H\stackrel{~}{H}`$ introduces relations among $`H,\stackrel{~}{H},T_{ijk}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{T}_{ijk}`$. First we point out some facts.

### 7.1 The case of $`n_{ij}=0`$

As a warmup we study the case where $`n_{ij}=0`$. In this case $`\gamma =\stackrel{~}{\theta }^i\theta ^i`$ and we compute $`d\gamma `$ by using the Cartan structural equations (5.1), (5.2) and the condition which follows from the reduction of the symmetry group (6.9). A brief computation yields

$$d\gamma =T_{kij}\theta ^i\theta ^j\stackrel{~}{\theta }^k\stackrel{~}{T}_{ijk}\theta ^i\stackrel{~}{\theta }^j\stackrel{~}{\theta }^k.$$

First we learn that the $`3`$-forms $`H`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ vanish. Next we see that $`T_{kij}=T_{kji}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{T}_{ijk}=\stackrel{~}{T}_{ikj}`$. We remind the reader that a tensor $`S_{ijk}`$ which is skew symmetric under $`ij`$ and symmetric under $`jk`$ is zero. Thus we conclude that $`T_{ijk}=\stackrel{~}{T}_{ijk}=0`$. It follows from equations (6.15) and (6.16) that $`R_{ijkl}=\stackrel{~}{R}_{ijkl}=0`$. Since the Riemannian curvatures vanish we know that $`M`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ are manifolds with universal cover $`^n`$. There are no other possibilities if $`n_{ij}=0`$. For example you can have $`M=𝕋^k\times ^{nk}`$. This is the case of abelian duality. Other potential singular cases of interest are orbifolds or cones which are flat but have holonomy due to the presence of singularities.

### 7.2 The case of a Lie group

We verify that the standard nonabelian duality results are reproducible in this formalism. We present a schematic discussion here because the Lie group example is a special case of a more general result presented in Section II-2.2.1. Let $`G`$ a compact simple Lie group with Lie algebra $`𝔤`$. Let $`(e_i,\mathrm{},e_n)`$ is an orthonormal basis for $`𝔤`$ with respect to the Killing form. The structure constants $`f_{ijk}`$ are defined by $`[e_i,e_j]=f_{kij}e_k`$. In this case the structure constants are totally antisymmetric. Let $`\theta ^i`$ be the associated Maurer-Cartan forms satisfying the Maurer-Cartan equations

$$d\theta ^i=\frac{1}{2}f_{ijk}\theta ^j\theta ^k.$$
(7.1)
Because of the Killing form we can identify the Lie algebra $`𝔤`$ with its vector space dual $`𝔤^{}`$. We choose $`P`$ to be the cotangent bundle $`T^{}G`$ which is a product bundle $`T^{}G=G\times 𝔤^{}=G\times 𝔤`$. If $`(p_1,\mathrm{},p_n)`$ are the standard coordinates on the cotangent bundle with respect to the orthonormal frame then the we take $`\alpha `$ in (2.2) to be $`\alpha =p_i\theta ^i`$, the canonical $`1`$-form on $`T^{}G`$. Therefore $`\beta =d\alpha `$ is the standard symplectic form on $`T^{}G`$ given by

$$\beta =dp_i\theta ^i\frac{1}{2}p_if_{ijk}\theta ^j\theta ^k.$$
(7.2)
By looking at reference  one can see that the orthonormal coframe $`(\stackrel{~}{\theta }^1,\mathrm{},\stackrel{~}{\theta }^n)`$ on the fiber $`𝔤^{}`$ is given by $`dp_j=\stackrel{~}{\theta }^i(\delta _{ij}+f_{kij}p_k)`$. This suggests that $`m_{ij}=(\delta _{ij}+f_{kij}p_k)`$ and that in this basis the symmetry breaking is manifest and thus $`n_{ij}=f_{kij}p_k`$. Thus we expect that $`\gamma `$ is given by

$$\gamma =\frac{1}{2}f_{kij}p_k\theta ^i\theta ^j+(\delta _{ij}+f_{kij}p_k)\stackrel{~}{\theta }^i\theta ^j\frac{1}{2}f_{kij}p_k\stackrel{~}{\theta }^i\stackrel{~}{\theta }^j.$$
(7.3)
Note that $`d\gamma =\stackrel{~}{H}`$ because the modification of going from the closed form $`\beta `$ to $`\gamma `$ involved a term of the type $`n_{ij}\stackrel{~}{\theta }^i\stackrel{~}{\theta }^j`$. To verify this we observe that $`\stackrel{~}{\theta }^i=dp_jm_{ji}^1`$ and thus $`n_{ij}\stackrel{~}{\theta }^i\stackrel{~}{\theta }^j`$ only depends on $`p`$ and $`dp`$, therefore, its exterior derivative can only be of type $`dpdpdp\stackrel{~}{\theta }\stackrel{~}{\theta }\stackrel{~}{\theta }`$. In fact $`\frac{1}{2}f_{kij}p_k\stackrel{~}{\theta }^i\stackrel{~}{\theta }^j`$ is the standard representation for the $`2`$-form $`\stackrel{~}{B}`$.

If we write $`d\stackrel{~}{\theta }^i=\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{f}_{ijk}\theta ^j\theta ^k`$ then a straightforward exercise shows that

$$\stackrel{~}{f}_{ijk}=(m_{jm}f_{mkl}m_{km}f_{mjl})m_{li}^1.$$

By using (B.1) one can compute $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }_{ij}`$. It is now an algebraic exercise to compute parallelizing torsions $`T_{ijk}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{T}_{ijk}`$.

## 8 The case of a general connection $`\psi `$

### 8.1 General theory

We already saw that the connection $`\psi _{ij}`$ on $`P`$ gives a flat connection on both $`M`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$, a necessary condition for $`M`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ to be target space duals of each other. We are going to take the following approach. Assume we are given a $`\psi _{ij}`$ on $`P`$, how do we determine $`n_{ij}`$? We will derive PDEs that $`n_{ij}`$ must satisfy. If there exist solutions to these PDEs then we automatically have a duality between the sigma model on $`M`$ and the one on $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$. for It is worthwhile to rewrite the Cartan structural equations in terms of $`\psi _{ij}`$:

$`d\theta ^i`$ $`=`$ $`\psi _{ij}\theta ^j{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}f_{ijk}\theta ^j\theta ^k,`$ (8.1)
$`d\stackrel{~}{\theta }^i`$ $`=`$ $`\psi _{ij}\stackrel{~}{\theta }^j{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{~}{f}_{ijk}\stackrel{~}{\theta }^j\stackrel{~}{\theta }^k,`$ (8.2)
$`d\psi _{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`\psi _{ik}\psi _{kj}T_{ijlm}^{\prime \prime }\theta ^l\stackrel{~}{\theta }^m.`$ (8.3)
where $`f_{ijk}=f_{ikj}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{f}_{ijk}=\stackrel{~}{f}_{ikj}`$ and $`T_{ijkl}^{\prime \prime }=T_{jikl}^{\prime \prime }`$. The structure functions $`f_{ijk}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{f}_{ijk}`$ are related to $`T_{ijk}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{T}_{ijk}`$ by

$`f_{ijk}=T_{ijk}T_{ikj},`$ $`T_{ijk}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(f_{ijk}f_{jik}f_{kij}),`$ (8.4)
$`\stackrel{~}{f}_{ijk}=\stackrel{~}{T}_{ijk}\stackrel{~}{T}_{ikj},`$ $`\stackrel{~}{T}_{ijk}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\stackrel{~}{f}_{ijk}\stackrel{~}{f}_{jik}\stackrel{~}{f}_{kij}).`$ (8.5)
We define the components $`n_{ijk}^{},n_{ijk}^{\prime \prime },f_{ijkl}^{},f_{ijkl}^{\prime \prime },\stackrel{~}{f}_{ijkl}^{},\stackrel{~}{f}_{ijkl}^{\prime \prime }`$ of the covariant derivatives of $`n_{ij},f_{ijk},\stackrel{~}{f}_{ijk}`$ with respect to the connection $`\psi _{ij}`$ by

$`dn_{ij}+\psi _{ik}n_{kj}+\psi _{jk}n_{ik}`$ $`=`$ $`n_{ijk}^{}\theta ^k+n_{ijk}^{\prime \prime }\stackrel{~}{\theta }^k.`$ (8.6)
$`df_{ijk}+\psi _{il}f_{ljk}+\psi _{jl}f_{ilk}+\psi _{kl}f_{ijl}`$ $`=`$ $`f_{ijkl}^{}\theta ^l+f_{ijkl}^{\prime \prime }\stackrel{~}{\theta }^l,`$ (8.7)
$`d\stackrel{~}{f}_{ijk}+\psi _{il}\stackrel{~}{f}_{ljk}+\psi _{jl}\stackrel{~}{f}_{ilk}+\psi _{kl}\stackrel{~}{f}_{ijl}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{f}_{ijkl}^{}\theta ^l+\stackrel{~}{f}_{ijkl}^{\prime \prime }\stackrel{~}{\theta }^l.`$ (8.8)
There are several important constraints which follow from $`d^2\theta =d^2\stackrel{~}{\theta }=0`$:

$`\left(f_{ijkl}^{}+f_{mjk}f_{iml}\right)\theta ^j\theta ^k\theta ^l`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (8.9)
$`f_{ijkl}^{\prime \prime }`$ $`=`$ $`T_{ijkl}^{\prime \prime }T_{ikjl}^{\prime \prime },`$ (8.10)
$`\left(\stackrel{~}{f}_{ijkl}^{\prime \prime }+\stackrel{~}{f}_{mjk}\stackrel{~}{f}_{iml}\right)\stackrel{~}{\theta }^j\stackrel{~}{\theta }^k\stackrel{~}{\theta }^l`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (8.11)
$`\stackrel{~}{f}_{ijkl}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`(T_{ijlk}^{\prime \prime }T_{iklj}^{\prime \prime }).`$ (8.12)
Note that $`T_{ijkl}^{\prime \prime }=0`$ if and only if $`f_{ijkl}^{\prime \prime }=\stackrel{~}{f}_{ijkl}^{}=0`$, *i.e.*, $`f_{ijk}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{f}_{ijk}`$ are respectively pullbacks in accord with a previous remark. The $`d^2\psi _{ij}=0`$ constraints are not used in this report and will not be given.

To derive the PDE satisfied by $`n_{ij}`$ we compute $`d\gamma `$:

$`d\gamma `$ $`=`$ $`H\stackrel{~}{H}`$ (8.13)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}n_{i}^{}{}_{j}{}^{}{}_{k}{}^{}\theta ^i\theta ^j\theta ^k+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}f_{i}^{}{}_{j}{}^{}{}_{k}{}^{}n_l^i\theta ^j\theta ^k\theta ^l`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}n_{i}^{\prime \prime }{}_{j}{}^{}{}_{k}{}^{}\theta ^i\theta ^j\stackrel{~}{\theta }^kn_{i}^{}{}_{j}{}^{}{}_{k}{}^{}\theta ^i\theta ^k\stackrel{~}{\theta }^j`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}f_{i}^{}{}_{j}{}^{}{}_{k}{}^{}\theta ^j\theta ^k\stackrel{~}{\theta }^i{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}f_{i}^{}{}_{j}{}^{}{}_{k}{}^{}n_l^i\theta ^j\theta ^k\stackrel{~}{\theta }^l`$
$`+`$ $`n_{i}^{\prime \prime }{}_{j}{}^{}{}_{k}{}^{}\theta ^i\stackrel{~}{\theta }^j\stackrel{~}{\theta }^k{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}n_{i}^{}{}_{j}{}^{}{}_{k}{}^{}\theta ^k\stackrel{~}{\theta }^i\stackrel{~}{\theta }^j`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{~}{f}_{i}^{}{}_{j}{}^{}{}_{k}{}^{}\theta ^i\stackrel{~}{\theta }^j\stackrel{~}{\theta }^k{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{~}{f}_{i}^{}{}_{j}{}^{}{}_{k}{}^{}n_l^i\theta ^l\stackrel{~}{\theta }^j\stackrel{~}{\theta }^k`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}n_{i}^{\prime \prime }{}_{j}{}^{}{}_{k}{}^{}\stackrel{~}{\theta }^i\stackrel{~}{\theta }^j\stackrel{~}{\theta }^k+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{~}{f}_{i}^{}{}_{j}{}^{}{}_{k}{}^{}n_l^i\stackrel{~}{\theta }^j\stackrel{~}{\theta }^k\stackrel{~}{\theta }^l.`$
If we write the closed $`3`$-forms in components as

$$H=\frac{1}{3!}H_{ijk}\theta ^i\theta ^j\theta ^k,\stackrel{~}{H}=\frac{1}{3!}\stackrel{~}{H}_{ijk}\stackrel{~}{\theta }^i\stackrel{~}{\theta }^j\stackrel{~}{\theta }^k,$$
(8.14)
where $`H_{ijk}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{H}_{ijk}`$ are totally skew symmetric then we immediately see that

$`n_{ijk}^{}+n_{jki}^{}+n_{kij}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`H_{ijk}+(f_{lij}n_{lk}+f_{ljk}n_{li}+f_{lki}n_{lj}),`$ (8.15)
$`n_{ijk}^{\prime \prime }+n_{jki}^{\prime \prime }+n_{kij}^{\prime \prime }`$ $`=`$ $`+\stackrel{~}{H}_{ijk}+(\stackrel{~}{f}_{lij}n_{lk}+\stackrel{~}{f}_{ljk}n_{li}+\stackrel{~}{f}_{lki}n_{lj}),`$ (8.16)
$`(n_{kij}^{}n_{kji}^{})n_{ijk}^{\prime \prime }`$ $`=`$ $`(f_{kij}n_{lk}f_{lij})=m_{kl}f_{lij},`$ (8.17)
$`n_{ijk}^{}+(n_{kij}^{\prime \prime }n_{kji}^{\prime \prime })`$ $`=`$ $`+(\stackrel{~}{f}_{kij}+n_{lk}\stackrel{~}{f}_{lij})=\stackrel{~}{f}_{lij}m_{lk}.`$ (8.18)
The number of linearly independent equations above is $`\frac{1}{3}n(n1)(2n1)`$. The best way to see this is that if we define $`\xi _\pm ^i=(\theta ^i\stackrel{~}{\theta }^i)`$ then the term containing $`n_{ij}`$ in $`\gamma `$ is basically $`n_{ij}\xi _+^i\xi _+^j`$. If the components of the covariant derivatives of $`n_{ij}`$ in this basis are $`n_{ijk}^\pm `$ then $`d(n_{ij}\xi _+^i\xi _+^i)n_{ijk}^+\xi _+^k\xi _+^i\xi _+^j+n_{ijk}^{}\xi _{}^k\xi _+^i\xi _+^j\mathrm{}`$. The stuff in ellipsis does not involves derivatives of $`n_{ij}`$. Since $`n_{ijk}^+`$ is linearly independent of $`n_{ijk}^{}`$ we see that the number of equations we get is $`\frac{1}{3!}n(n1)(n2)+n\times \frac{1}{2}n(n1)`$. The first remark we make is that the PDEs given by (8.6) generally make an overdetermined system if $`n>1`$. The reason is that there are $`\frac{1}{3}n(n1)(2n1)`$ equations for $`\frac{1}{2}n(n1)`$ functions $`n_{ij}`$. This means that for a solution to exist integrability conditions arising from $`d^2n_{ij}=0`$ must be satisfied.

Let $`t_{ijk}=t_{jik}`$ be a tensor in $`(^2V)V`$ for some $`n`$ dimensional vector space $`V`$ with inner product. The vector space $`(^2V)V`$ has an orthogonal decomposition into $`(^3V)((^2V)V)_{\mathrm{mixed}}`$ where the latter are the tensors of mixed symmetry under the permutation group. The orthogonal projectors $`𝔄`$ (antisymmetrization) and $`𝔐`$ (mixed) that respectively project onto $`^3V`$ and $`((^2V)V)_{\mathrm{mixed}}`$ are

$`(𝔄t)_{ijk}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}(t_{ijk}+t_{jki}+t_{kij}),`$ (8.19)
$`(𝔐t)_{ijk}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}(2t_{ijk}t_{jki}t_{kij}).`$ (8.20)
A detailed analysis (see below) of equations (8.15), (8.16), (8.17) and (8.18) shows that they determine $`𝔄n^{}`$, $`𝔄n^{\prime \prime }`$ and $`𝔐(n^{}+n^{\prime \prime })`$. These equations do not provide information about $`𝔐(n^{}n^{\prime \prime })`$.

To solve the equations above it is best on introduce the following auxiliary tensors:

$`V_{ijk}`$ $`=`$ $`H_{ijk}(f_{lij}n_{lk}+f_{ljk}n_{li}+f_{lki}n_{lj}),`$ (8.21)
$`\stackrel{~}{V}_{ijk}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{H}_{ijk}+(\stackrel{~}{f}_{lij}n_{lk}+\stackrel{~}{f}_{ljk}n_{li}+\stackrel{~}{f}_{lki}n_{lj}),`$ (8.22)
$`W_{ijk}`$ $`=`$ $`(f_{kij}n_{lk}f_{lij})=m_{kl}f_{lij},`$ (8.23)
$`\stackrel{~}{W}_{ijk}`$ $`=`$ $`(\stackrel{~}{f}_{kij}+n_{lk}\stackrel{~}{f}_{lij})=\stackrel{~}{f}_{lij}m_{lk}.`$ (8.24)
They are all skew symmetric under the interchange $`ij`$ and $`V,\stackrel{~}{V}`$ are totally antisymmetric. Given a value for $`n_{ij}`$, these tensor are determined by the geometric data which specifies the sigma models. This data is not independent because these tensors are linearly related due to the right hand sides of (8.15), (8.16), (8.17) and (8.18).

A little algebra shows that

$$n^{}+n^{\prime \prime }=WV=\stackrel{~}{W}+\stackrel{~}{V}.$$
(8.25)
All the content of (8.15), (8.16), (8.17) and (8.18) is contained in (8.15), (8.16) and (8.25). These equations place constraints on $`V,\stackrel{~}{V},W,\stackrel{~}{W}`$. Immediate conclusions are that

$`W+\stackrel{~}{W}`$ $`=`$ $`V+\stackrel{~}{V},`$ (8.26)
$`𝔐(W+\stackrel{~}{W})`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (8.27)
$`𝔄W`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}V+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\stackrel{~}{V},`$ (8.28)
$`𝔄\stackrel{~}{W}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}V+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\stackrel{~}{V}.`$ (8.29)
In deriving the last two equation we used (8.15), (8.16) and applied the $`𝔄`$ operator to (8.25). The equations above imply linear algebraic relations among the data that defines the sigma models. They tell us that there exists a tensor $`U_{ijk}`$ of mixed symmetry, *i.e.*, $`U_{ijk}=U_{jik}`$ and $`𝔄U=0`$ such that

$`W`$ $`=`$ $`+U+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}V+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\stackrel{~}{V},`$ (8.30)
$`\stackrel{~}{W}`$ $`=`$ $`U+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}V+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\stackrel{~}{V}.`$ (8.31)
Collating all our information we can now write down the $`\frac{1}{3}n(n1)(2n1)`$ first order linear PDEs that determine $`n_{ij}`$:

$`𝔄n^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}V,`$ (8.32)
$`𝔄n^{\prime \prime }`$ $`=`$ $`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\stackrel{~}{V},`$ (8.33)
$`𝔐(n^{}+n^{\prime \prime })`$ $`=`$ $`+U.`$ (8.34)
There is no equation for $`𝔐(n^{}n^{\prime \prime })`$. It is worthwhile to note that

$`n^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}U+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}𝔐(n^{}n^{\prime \prime }){\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}V,`$ (8.35)
$`n^{\prime \prime }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}U{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}𝔐(n^{}n^{\prime \prime })+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\stackrel{~}{V}.`$ (8.36)
You can envision using this formalism in four basic scenarios.

1. Test to see if two sigma models $`(M,g,B)`$ and $`(\stackrel{~}{M},\stackrel{~}{g},\stackrel{~}{B})`$ are dual to each other. This entails the construction of the symplectic manifold $`P`$.
2. Given a sigma model $`(M,g,B)`$ and a symplectic manifold $`P`$, naturally associated with $`M`$, can you construct the dual sigma model $`(\stackrel{~}{M},\stackrel{~}{g},\stackrel{~}{B})`$?
3. Given a symplectic manifold $`P`$ that admits a bifibration, attempt to construct dual sigma models.
4. Find all symplectic manifolds $`P`$ that admit dual sigma models.

### 8.2 Covariantly constant $`n_{ij}`$

Here we show that the assumption of covariantly constant $`n_{ij}`$ leads to a flat connection on $`P`$. Assume that in our adapted coframes the $`n_{ij}`$ are covariantly constant with respect to the $`\psi `$ connection, *i.e.*, $`n_{ijk}^{}=n_{ijk}^{\prime \prime }=0`$. In this case it is immediate from (8.17) and (8.18) that $`f_{ijk}=\stackrel{~}{f}_{ijk}=0`$. Subsequently we see from (8.15) and (8.16) that $`H=\stackrel{~}{H}=0`$. From (8.10) we see that $`T_{ijkl}^{\prime \prime }=0`$ and thus the curvature vanishes, $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{ij}=0`$. We are mostly interested in local properties so we might as well assume $`P`$ is parallelizable. We can use parallel transport with respect to this connection to get a global framing. In this special framing the connection coefficients vanish and thus we can make the substitution $`\psi _{ij}=0`$ in all the equations in Section 8.1. Note that the orthonormal coframes satisfy $`d\theta ^i=d\stackrel{~}{\theta }^i=0`$ and thus $`M`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ are manifolds with cover $`^n`$. Following up on remarks made in Section 7.1 we see that this is the case of abelian duality but with constant $`n_{ij}`$ in the adapted frames corresponding to constant $`B_{ij}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{B}_{ij}`$.

### 8.3 Case of $`\stackrel{~}{f}_{ijk}=0`$.

What is the most general manifold $`M`$ whose dual $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ has cover $`^n`$? Note that by (8.5) we have that $`\stackrel{~}{T}_{ijk}=0`$ and thus $`T_{ijlm}^{\prime \prime }=\stackrel{~}{T}_{ijml}^{}=0`$. This means that the curvature (6.14) of the connection $`\psi _{ij}`$ vanishes. Again using the remarks just made we can choose a parallel framing such that $`\psi _{ij}=0`$. Since $`\stackrel{~}{f}_{ijk}=0`$ we have that $`d\stackrel{~}{\theta }^i=0`$ and thus locally there exists functions $`\stackrel{~}{x}^i`$ such that $`\stackrel{~}{\theta }^i=d\stackrel{~}{x}^i`$. We also have that $`d\theta ^i=\frac{1}{2}f_{ijk}\theta ^j\theta ^k`$. Previous arguments also tell us that $`f_{ijk}`$ is the pullback of a tensor on $`M`$. From (8.22) we see that $`\stackrel{~}{V}=\stackrel{~}{H}`$ and from (8.24) we have that $`\stackrel{~}{W}=0`$. Equation (8.31) tells us that $`U=0`$ and $`V=2\stackrel{~}{V}=2\stackrel{~}{H}`$. Inserting into (8.30) we find that

$$W_{ijk}=m_{kl}f_{lij}=(\delta _{kl}+n_{kl})f_{lij}=\stackrel{~}{H}_{ijk}.$$
(8.37)
An elementary consequence of this equation is that if $`\stackrel{~}{H}=0`$ then $`f_{ijk}=0`$ and $`M`$ is also a manifold with cover $`^n`$. Inserting the above into (8.21) we find that

$$\stackrel{~}{H}_{ijk}=H_{ijk}(f_{ijk}+f_{jki}+f_{kij}).$$
(8.38)
The left hand side is the pullback of a tensor on $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ and the right hand side is the pullback of a tensor on $`M`$ thus each side must be constant. We have learned that $`\stackrel{~}{H}_{ijk}`$ are constants. We assume that $`n_{ij}`$ are not constant (see Section 8.2). From (8.37) we expect the $`f_{ijk}`$ not to be constant. Let $`\mu _{ijk}`$ be a tensor of mixed symmetry then from (8.35) and (8.36) we see that

$$dn_{kl}=\left(\mu _{klm}\frac{2}{3}\stackrel{~}{H}_{klm}\right)\theta ^m+\left(\mu _{klm}+\frac{1}{3}\stackrel{~}{H}_{klm}\right)\stackrel{~}{\theta }^m.$$
(8.39)
The answer to the question, “What is the most general manifold $`M`$ whose dual $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ has cover $`^n`$?” and the construction of the duality transformation is given by the general solution to the following system of exterior differential equations:

$`(\delta _{kl}+n_{kl})d\theta ^l`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{~}{H}_{kij}\theta ^i\theta ^j,`$ (8.40)
$`d\stackrel{~}{\theta }^i`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (8.41)
$`dn_{kl}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\mu _{klm}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\stackrel{~}{H}_{klm}\right)\theta ^m+\left(\mu _{klm}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\stackrel{~}{H}_{klm}\right)\stackrel{~}{\theta }^m.`$ (8.42)
As an example consider the special case of $`\stackrel{~}{H}=0`$. From (8.37) we have that $`f_{ijk}=0`$. We are now asking, “What is the most general duality transformation between manifolds with cover $`^n`$?” The equations above tell us that there exists functions $`x^i`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{x}^j`$ such that $`\theta ^i=dx^i`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\theta }^j=d\stackrel{~}{x}^j`$. Equation (8.42) becomes $`dn_{kl}=\mu _{klm}dy^m`$ where $`y^i=x^i\stackrel{~}{x}^i`$. We learn that $`n_{ij}`$ is a function of $`y`$ only. Since the tensor $`\mu `$ has mixed symmetry we see that $`d(n_{ij}(y)dy^idy^j)=0`$ and thus we conclude that locally there exists functions $`r_i`$ of the independent variables $`y^j`$ such that

$$\frac{1}{2}n_{ij}(y)dy^idy^j=d\left(r_i(y)dy^i\right).$$

We now have all the information required to construct the duality transformation. The duality transformations are given by

$`\stackrel{~}{\pi }+\stackrel{~}{x}_\sigma `$ $`=`$ $`\pi +x{}_{\sigma }{}^{},`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\pi }\stackrel{~}{x}_\sigma `$ $`=`$ $`T_{}(x\stackrel{~}{x})[\pi x{}_{\sigma }{}^{}]`$
with $`T_{}(y)=(I+n(y))(In(y))^1`$. By taking the sum and difference of the equations above one gets ODEs that can be solved for $`(\stackrel{~}{x}(\sigma ),\stackrel{~}{\pi }(\sigma ))`$ given $`(x(\sigma ),\pi (\sigma ))`$.

## Acknowledgments

I would like to thank O. Babelon, L. Baulieu, T. Curtright, L.A. Ferreira, D. Freed, S. Kaliman, C-H Liu, R. Nepomechie, N. Reshetikhin, J. Sánchez Guillén, N. Wallach and P. Windey for discussions on a variety of topics. I would also like to thank Jack Lee for his *Mathematica* package Ricci that was used to perform some of the computations. I am particularly thankful to R. Bryant and I.M. Singer for patiently answering my many questions about differential geometry. This work was supported in part by National Science Foundation grant PHY–9870101.

Appendices

## Appendix A Facts about orthogonal groups

We collate some basic properties of orthogonal groups in this section. An orthogonal matrix in $`\mathrm{O}(n,n)`$ may be written in terms of $`n\times n`$ blocks as

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}A& B\\ C& D\end{array}\right)$$

where $`A^tA+C^tC=I`$, $`B^tB+D^tD=I`$ and $`B^tA+D^tC=0`$. A matrix in the Lie algebra $`𝔰𝔬(n,n)`$ may be written as

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ c& d\end{array}\right)$$

where $`a=a^t`$, $`d=d^t`$ and $`c=b^t`$.

The group $`\mathrm{O}_\mathrm{Q}(n,n)\mathrm{GL}(2n,)`$ is defined to be the linear transformations which leave

$$Q=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& I_n\\ I_n& 0\end{array}\right).$$

invariant. A matrix in $`\mathrm{O}_\mathrm{Q}(n,n)`$ may be written in $`n\times n`$ blocks as

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}W& X\\ Y& Z\end{array}\right)$$
(A.1)
where $`W^tZ+Y^tX=I`$, $`W^tY+Y^tW=0`$ and $`X^tZ+Z^tX=0`$. It is very important to observe that matrices of the form

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}I& 0\\ Y& I\end{array}\right)$$
(A.2)
where $`Y=Y^t`$ are in $`\mathrm{O}_\mathrm{Q}(n,n)`$. A matrix in the Lie algebra $`𝔰𝔬_\mathrm{Q}(n,n)`$ may be written as

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}w& x\\ y& z\end{array}\right)$$
(A.3)
where $`z=w^t`$, $`y=y^t`$ and $`x=x^t`$.

Conjugating by the orthogonal matrix

$$T=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}I_n& I_n\\ I_n& I_n\end{array}\right)$$

leads one to the observation that

$$T\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& I_n\\ I_n& 0\end{array}\right)T^1=\left(\begin{array}{cc}I_n& 0\\ 0& I_n\end{array}\right).$$
(A.4)
Therefore the group $`\mathrm{O}_\mathrm{Q}(n,n)`$ is isomorphic to $`\mathrm{O}(n,n)`$.

We will also need to identify the compact group $`\mathrm{O}(2n)\mathrm{O}_\mathrm{Q}(n,n)`$. To do this we observe that at the Lie algebra level $`𝔰𝔬(2n)𝔰𝔬_\mathrm{Q}(n,n)`$ is given by matrices of the form

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ b& a\end{array}\right)$$

where $`a^t=a`$ and $`b^t=b`$. Conjugating by $`T`$ one sees that

$$T\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ b& a\end{array}\right)T^1=\left(\begin{array}{cc}ab& 0\\ 0& a+b\end{array}\right).$$

Therefore, the intersection $`𝔰𝔬(2n)𝔰𝔬_\mathrm{Q}(n,n)`$ is conjugate to $`𝔰𝔬(n)𝔰𝔬(n)`$.

## Appendix B On the structure functions

In a local orthonormal coframe one has the Cartan structural equations (5.1). Locally one can always write $`d\theta ^i=\frac{1}{2}f_{ijk}\theta ^j\theta ^k`$ for some “structure functions” $`f_{ijk}`$ which are skew symmetric in $`jk`$. If we write the riemannian connection as $`\omega _{ij}=\omega _{ijk}\theta ^k`$ then

$$\omega _{ijk}=\frac{1}{2}(f_{kij}f_{ijk}+f_{jik}).$$
(B.1)
This allows us to reconstruct all the local Riemannian geometry of the manifold in terms of the structure functions.