text:
# Perturbative bosonization from two-point correlation functions

## 1 Introduction

One among many dreams of the theoretical physicists nowadays is the possibility of extending to higher dimensions ($`D>2`$) the bosonization of fermionic models. This can be justified by some good properties of one formulation in contrast with the other one. For instance, strong coupling physics in one model corresponds to weak coupling in the other one. A classic example is the map between the massive Thirring and Sine-Gordon models in $`D=2`$. Another interesting aspect of such map is the fact that the usual electromagnetic charge in the fermionic model corresponds to the topological charge of the associated soliton field. Furthermore, we can have a map between a linear theory like massive free fermions and a nonlinear one (Sine-Gordon at $`\beta ^2=4\pi `$) on the other side.

In view of these and other interesting properties a lot of work has been devoted to the issue of bosonization  ( see also  ). There has also been many attempts to generalize those ideas to higher dimensions \[5-22\]. For massive fermions in $`D=2`$ most of the methods is based on expansions around massless fields which are local conformal theories. In $`D=3`$, although the case of massless free fermions can still be mapped into a bosonic theory ( see  ) such theory is nonlocal. Besides, the conformal group is finite in $`D=3`$ and not so powerful as in $`D=2`$ which makes expansions around the massless case nontrivial. The other possibility is to employ functional methods. Once again the case of massless fermions is easier to deal with since the fermionic determinant can be exactly calculated for $`m=0`$. For massive fermions in $`D=2`$ a nontrivial Jacobian under chiral transformations plays a key role in deriving the Sine-Gordon model ( see \[26-30\]). In $`D=3`$, chiral transformations play no role and although some nonperturbative information is known  about the fermionic determinant we are basically left with approximate methods like the one used in this work. On one hand, the method used here is inspired in the approach carried out in  which is rather simple and based on two point correlation functions. On the other hand, our bosonization rules departure from those in  in the sense that they are independent of the interactions. We extend the approach of  by introducing an eletromagnetic interaction and making use of the $`1/N`$ expansion which allows us to go beyond the lowest-order in the coupling constants. In the next section we introduce the model we are working with and obtain a general expression for the generating funtional of the current and gauge field correlators. The expression is valid for arbitrary dimensions and depends on the vacuum polarization tensor. In sections 3 and 4 we make the calculations explicit in $`D=2`$ and $`D=3`$ dimensions respectively. We first obtain in the fermionic theory the two point current correlation functions involving also the gauge field and then we write the current in terms of bosonic fields and derive the corresponding action for such fields which reproduces their correlators. In the final section we draw some conclusions and comment on similar approaches in the literature.

## 2 Generating Functionals

We start by introducing the notation which will be used in both $`D=2`$ and $`D=3`$. The generating functional for a generalized QED with Thirring self-interaction is given by

$`Z[J_\mu ^r,K_\mu ]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }𝒟A_\mu {\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{N}{}}}𝒟\psi _r𝒟\overline{\psi }_rexp\{i{\displaystyle }d^Dx[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_{\mu \nu }^2+\overline{\psi }_r(i/m{\displaystyle \frac{e}{\sqrt{N}}}A/)\psi _r`$ (1)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{2N}}(\overline{\psi }_r\gamma ^\mu \psi _r)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{2}}\left(_\mu A^\mu \right)^2+J_\mu ^r\left(\overline{\psi }_r\gamma ^\mu \psi _r\right)+K_\mu A^\mu ]\},`$
where $`N`$ is the number of fermion flavors and summation over the repeated flavor index $`r`$ ($`r=1,2,\mathrm{},N`$) is assumed. It is convenient to introduce an auxiliary vector field $`B_\mu `$ and work with the physically equivalent generating functional:

$`Z[J_\mu ^r,K_\mu ]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }𝒟A_\mu 𝒟B_\mu {\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{N}{}}}𝒟\psi _r𝒟\overline{\psi }_rexp\{i{\displaystyle }d^Dx[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_{\mu \nu }^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}B_\mu B^\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{2}}\left(_\mu A^\mu \right)^2+`$ (2)
$`+\overline{\psi }_r(i/m{\displaystyle \frac{e}{\sqrt{N}}}A/{\displaystyle \frac{g}{\sqrt{N}}}B/+J/^r)\psi _r+K_\mu A^\mu ]\},`$
Integrating over the fermionic fields we obtain

$`Z[J_\mu ^r,K_\mu ]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }𝒟A_\mu 𝒟B_\mu \mathrm{exp}\left\{i{\displaystyle }d^nx[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F_{\mu \nu }^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}B_\mu B^\mu +2K_\mu A^\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{2}}\left(_\mu A^\mu \right)^2]\right\}\times `$ (3)
$`\times \mathrm{\Pi }_{r=1}^Ndet[i/m{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}}(eA/+gB/)+J/^r].`$
Now we compute the fermionic determinant keeping terms of order $`(1/N)^0`$ and $`(1/N)^{1/2}`$. Higher order terms will be neglected. Furthermore, since we are only interested in two point correlators, the terms higher than quadratic in the sources $`J_\mu ^r`$ will not be taken into account either. This amounts to the quadratic approximation for the fermionic determinant which gives

$`Z[J_\mu ^r,K_\mu ]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }𝒟A_\mu 𝒟B_\mu \mathrm{exp}{\displaystyle \frac{ı}{2}}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^Dk}{(2\pi )^D}}\{\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu [\theta ^{\mu \nu }k^2(1\lambda )+\lambda k^2g^{\mu \nu }]\stackrel{~}{A}_\nu +\stackrel{~}{B}^\mu \stackrel{~}{B}_\mu `$ (4)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{N}{}}}(e{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu }{\sqrt{N}}}+g{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{B}_\mu }{\sqrt{N}}}\stackrel{~}{J}_\mu ^r)\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mu \nu }(k^2)(e{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{A}_\nu }{\sqrt{N}}}+g{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{B}_\nu }{\sqrt{N}}}\stackrel{~}{J}_\nu ^r)+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\stackrel{~}{K}_\mu \stackrel{~}{A}^\mu \},`$
where $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }=g^{\mu \nu }\frac{k^\mu k^\nu }{k^2}`$ and the tilde over the fields represent their Fourier transformations in momentum space. The quantity $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mu \nu }`$ is the vacuum polarization tensor:

$$\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mu \nu }(k)=i\frac{d^Dp}{(2\pi )^D}tr\left[\frac{1}{p/m+iϵ}\gamma ^\mu \frac{1}{(p/+k/)m+iϵ}\gamma ^\nu \right].$$
(5)
In order to proceed further we have to calculate $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mu \nu }`$ which depends on the dimensionality of the space-time.

## 3 Bosonization from two point correlators in $`D=2`$

In this section we restrict ourselves to the $`D=2`$ case. Using dimensional regularization we obtain, below the pair creation threshold ($`z\frac{k^2}{4m^2}<1`$), :

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}(k^2)\theta _{\mu \nu }$$
(6)
with

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}(k^2)=\frac{1}{\pi }\left[1\frac{1}{\left[z\left(1z\right)\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}}\mathrm{arctan}\sqrt{\frac{z}{1z}}\right];\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}0}<z<\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1},$$
(7)
$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}(k^2)=\frac{1}{\pi }\left[1\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{\sqrt{z(z1)}}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\sqrt{(1z)}+\sqrt{z}}{\sqrt{(1z)}\sqrt{z}}\right)\right];z<\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}.$$
(8)
Once the tensor $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mu \nu }`$ is calculated one is left with a gaussian integral over the vector fields $`A_\mu `$ and $`B_\mu `$ from which a generating functional quadratic in the sources is derived. Such generating functional furnishes the following two point correlators111More precisely, we should have written explicitly the two point functions in the form $`<G(k)H(p)>=I(k)\delta ^{(2)}(k+p)`$ but in this article we will not display the delta function for a matter of convenience. Notice also that when we write $`A_{rs}=F+G\delta _{rs}`$ it is assumed that $`F`$ multiplies a $`N\times N`$ matrix where all entries are equal to one.

$`<j_\mu ^r\left(k\right)j_\nu ^s\left(k\right)>`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}^2\left(e^2k^2g^2\right)}{ND}}\theta ^{\mu \nu }+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}\theta ^{\mu \nu }\delta ^{rs},`$ (9)
$`<j_\mu ^r\left(k\right)A_\nu \left(k\right)>`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}}{\sqrt{N}D}}\theta ^{\mu \nu },`$ (10)
$`<A^\mu \left(k\right)A^\nu \left(k\right)>`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda k^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1+g^2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}}{D}}\right)\theta ^{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{g^{\mu \nu }}{\lambda k^2}},`$ (11)
where

$$D=\left[\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}e^2k^2\left(1+g^2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}\right)\right].$$
(12)
The tensor structure of the above correlation functions are in full agreement with the corresponding Ward identities based on the $`U\left(1\right)`$ symmetry and it will play a key role in our bosonization procedure. At this point it is important to stress that our approach deviates from that of reference . The $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}/N`$ expansion we have relied upon, which coincides with the quadratic approximation for the fermionic determinant, is not equivalent to the second order weak coupling expansion used in .

Now, in order to derive a bosonized expression for the currents $`j_\mu ^r=\overline{\psi }_r\gamma _\mu \psi _r`$, we write down the most general decomposition for a vector in the momentum space:

$$j_\beta ^r(k)=ϵ_{\beta \delta }k^\delta \varphi ^r(k)+k_\beta \phi ^r(k).$$
(13)
Substituting it in (9) and using the identity $`ϵ_{\beta \delta }k^\delta ϵ_{\alpha \gamma }k^\gamma =k^2\theta _{\alpha \beta }`$ we obtain

$`<j_\alpha ^r\left(k\right)j_\beta ^s\left(k\right)>`$ $`=`$ $`k^2\theta _{\alpha \beta }<\varphi ^r\left(k\right)\varphi ^s\left(k\right)>k_\alpha k_\beta <\phi ^r\left(k\right)\phi ^s\left(k\right)>`$ (14)
$``$ $`ϵ_{\alpha \delta }k^\delta k_\beta <\varphi ^r\left(k\right)\phi ^s\left(k\right)>ϵ_{\beta \gamma }k^\gamma k_\alpha <\phi ^r\left(k\right)\varphi ^s\left(k\right)>`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}^2\left(e^2k^2g^2\right)}{ND}}\theta _{\alpha \beta }+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}\theta _{\alpha \beta }\delta ^{rs}.`$
From the above it is not difficult to derive

$`<\phi ^r\left(k\right)\phi ^s\left(k\right)>`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (15)
$`<\varphi ^r\left(k\right)\phi ^s\left(k\right)>`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (16)
$`<\varphi ^r\left(k\right)\varphi ^s\left(k\right)>`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}^2\left(e^2k^2g^2\right)}{ND}}+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}\delta ^{rs}\right],`$ (17)
from which one can safely set $`\phi =0`$. On the other hand, substituting a general decomposition

$$<\varphi \left(k\right)A_\mu \left(k\right)>=M_{\mu \delta }k^\delta +Qk_\mu ,$$
(18)
in the mixed correlation functions $`<j_\mu ^r(k)A_\nu (k)>`$ given in (10) we conclude that

$$<\varphi ^r\left(k\right)A_\mu \left(k\right)>=\frac{e\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}}{\sqrt{N}k^2D}ϵ_{\mu \delta }k^\delta ;$$
(19)
Now we are in a position to derive the bosonic Lagrangian density $`_B(A_\mu ,\varphi ^r)`$ which is compatible with the correlation functions (11),(17) and (19). For this purpose we start from the following Ansatz

$$_B(A_\mu ,\varphi ^r)=\varphi ^rR_{rs}\varphi ^s+2S_r\varphi ^rϵ_{\mu \nu }k^\nu A^\mu +A^\mu A^\nu \left(T_1\theta _{\mu \nu }+T_2g_{\mu \nu }\right),$$
(20)
where $`R_{rs},S_r,T_1`$ and $`T_2`$ will be determined as follows. We introduce the external sources $`X^r`$ and $`K_\mu `$ and define the generating functional

$$Z_B[X_r,K_\mu ]=\underset{r=1}{\overset{N}{}}𝒟\varphi ^r𝒟A_\mu e^{i{\scriptscriptstyle d^2x\left[_B(A_\mu ,\varphi ^r)+X_r\varphi ^r+K_\mu A^\mu \right]}}.$$
(21)
Assuming that $`R_{rs}`$ is a symmetric non-singular matrix we have performed the gaussian integrals in (21) and obtained an explicit formula for $`Z_B[X^r,K_\mu ]`$ from which the two-point correlators can be obtained. By matching these correlators with (11),(17) and (19) we determine the bosonic Lagrangian uniquely :

$`_B(A_\mu ,\varphi ^r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[{\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\varphi ^r{\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}}}\varphi ^r+{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{N}}k^2\left({\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\varphi ^r\right)\left({\displaystyle \underset{s=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\varphi ^s\right)\right]`$ (22)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{A^\alpha A^\beta }{2}}\left[(1\lambda )k^2\theta _{\alpha \beta }+\lambda k^2g_{\alpha \beta }\right]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{e}{\sqrt{N}}}ϵ_{\mu \nu }A^\mu k^\nu \left({\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\varphi ^r\right).`$
All the steps which lead us to (22) are technically simple and not very elucidating. We should only mention that no expansions on either $`1/N`$ or any of the coupling constants have been made in those intermediate calculations. Furthermore, notice that if we quantize $`_B(A_\mu ,\varphi ^r)`$ and integrate over the scalar fields $`\varphi ^r`$ in (22) this will lead to a nonlocal effective action for the photon which was studied in  where we concluded that, although nonlocal, the theory is free of tachyons. Next, by comparing with the Lagrangian density written in terms of fermionic fields in (1) we have the bosonization formulae for each fermion flavor (no sum over repeated roman indices below) :

$`\overline{\psi }_r\gamma _\mu \psi _r(k)`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_{\mu \nu }k^\nu \varphi ^r(k),`$ (23)
$`\overline{\psi }_r(k)(k/+m)\psi _r(k)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\varphi ^r{\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}}}\varphi ^r.`$ (24)
Now some comments are in order. First of all, if for some given flavor we do a $`U(1)`$ transformation ($`\psi _re^{i\alpha }\psi _r`$ ) in the expectation value $`<j_\mu ^r>`$ and use any regularization scheme preserving the $`U(1)`$ symmetry it will be easy to derive the Ward identity $`<j_\mu ^r^\nu j_\nu ^r>=0`$ which implies the tensor structure $`<j_\mu ^rj_\nu ^r>\theta _{\mu \nu }`$ and consequently we will have (23). So the current is topological due to the $`U(1)`$ global symmetry and that must hold non-perturbatively. On the other hand, the bosonization rule (24) is only approximate since the full expression would require, in our approach, the complete knowledge of the fermionic determinant which is only possible for $`m0`$. In this case $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}1/\pi `$ and we end up with $`N`$ massless scalar fields topologically coupled to the gauge field. Integration over the gauge field leads to $`N1`$ massless scalar modes and one mode with $`m^2=e^2/(N\pi +g^2)`$. Thus, reproducing the particular case of the so called Schwinger-Thirring model for $`N=1`$ , as well as the Schwinger model result $`m^2=e^2/\pi `$ for $`g0`$ and $`N=1`$. In the opposite limit of large mass ($`z0`$) we have $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }2z/3`$ at leading order. Substituting back in (22) we arrive at a divergent result at $`m\mathrm{}`$ which is in agreement with the $`m\mathrm{}`$ limit of the corresponding Sine-Gordon model. See  for a similar comparison in the case of the massive Thirring model without eletromagnetic coupling.

## 4 Bosonization from two-point correlators in $`D=3`$

In $`D=3`$ dimensions the vacuum polarization tensor (5) calculated by means of dimensional regularization is given by :

$$\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mu \nu }(k)=i\mathrm{\Pi }_1E^{\mu \nu }+\mathrm{\Pi }_2k^2\theta ^{\mu \nu },$$
(25)
with $`E^{\mu \nu }ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho }k_\rho `$ and, in the range $`0z<\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}`$,

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_1=\frac{1}{8\pi z^{1/2}}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{1+z^{1/2}}{1z^{1/2}}\right);\mathrm{\Pi }_2=\frac{1}{16\pi mz}\left[1\left(\frac{1+z}{2z^{1/2}}\right)\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{1+z^{1/2}}{1z^{1/2}}\right)\right].$$
(26)
While for $`z<0`$ we have

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_1=\frac{1}{4\pi (z)^{1/2}}\mathrm{arctan}\sqrt{z};\mathrm{\Pi }_2=\frac{1}{16\pi mz}\left[1\left(\frac{1+z}{2(z)^{1/2}}\right)\mathrm{arctan}\sqrt{z}\right].$$
(27)
In fact the $`\mathrm{\Pi }_1`$ amounts to a regularization dependent finite term , which was taken equals to zero due the dimensional regularization used.

Substituting (25) in the general expression (4) we can obtain the two-point functions:

$`<j_\mu ^r(k)j_\nu ^s(k)>`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}\left[k^2\left(\mathrm{\Pi }_2+{\displaystyle \frac{P}{\stackrel{~}{Q}}}\right)\theta _{\mu \nu }+i\mathrm{\Pi }_1\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{\stackrel{~}{Q}}}\right)E_{\mu \nu }\right]`$ (28)
$`+`$ $`\left(k^2\mathrm{\Pi }_2\theta _{\mu \nu }+i\mathrm{\Pi }_1E_{\mu \nu }\right)\delta _{rs},`$
$`<j_\mu ^r\left(k\right)A_\nu \left(k\right)>`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e}{\stackrel{~}{Q}\sqrt{N}}}\left[P\theta _{\mu \nu }i\mathrm{\Pi }_1E_{\mu \nu }\right],`$ (29)
$`<A_\mu \left(k\right)A_\nu \left(k\right)>`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_{\mu \nu }}{\lambda k^2}}+\left[{\displaystyle \frac{e^2P}{k^2\stackrel{~}{Q}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1+\lambda )}{\lambda k^2}}\right]\theta _{\nu \mu }{\displaystyle \frac{ie^2\mathrm{\Pi }_1}{k^2\stackrel{~}{Q}}}E_{\mu \nu },`$ (30)
where we found convenient to define

$`P`$ $`=`$ $`(e^2k^2g^2)(k^2\mathrm{\Pi }_2^2\mathrm{\Pi }_1^2)k^2\mathrm{\Pi }_2,`$ (31)
$`\stackrel{~}{Q}`$ $`=`$ $`k^2\left[(e^2k^2g^2)\mathrm{\Pi }_21\right]^2(e^2k^2g^2)^2\mathrm{\Pi }_1^2.`$ (32)
In Analogy to the $`D=2`$ case, we use for the $`U(1)`$ current a general decomposition in the momentum space :

$$j_\alpha ^r(k)=ϵ_{\alpha \beta \gamma }k^\beta B_r^\gamma (k)+k_\alpha \varphi ^r(k),$$
(33)
from which we get

$`<j_\alpha ^r\left(k\right)j_\beta ^s\left(k\right)>`$ $`=`$ $`k_\alpha k_\beta <\varphi ^r\left(k\right)\varphi ^s\left(k\right)>+E_{\alpha \gamma }E_{\delta \beta }<B_r^\gamma \left(k\right)B_s^\delta \left(k\right)>`$ (34)
$`+`$ $`k_\alpha E_{\beta \delta }<\varphi ^r\left(k\right)B_s^\delta \left(k\right)>+k_\beta E_{\alpha \gamma }<B_r^\gamma \left(k\right)\varphi _s\left(k\right)>.`$
Multiplying the last expression by $`k^\alpha k^\beta `$ we conclude that $`<\varphi ^r\left(k\right)\varphi ^s\left(k\right)>=0`$. Now, multiplying the resulting expression by $`k^\alpha `$ we have $`E_{\alpha \beta }<\varphi ^r(k)B_s^\beta (k)>=0`$. A similar manipulation was used in the last section to derive (15),(16) and (17). Concluding, we can certainly neglect the scalar fields $`\varphi ^r=0`$ and minimally bosonize the $`U(1)`$ current in $`D=3`$ in terms of a bosonic vector field. The bosonic version of the current is once again of topological nature and identically conserved. As in $`D=2`$ case this happens because of the $`U(1)`$ global symmetry of the fermionic Lagrangian. Taking $`\varphi ^r=0`$ and substituting the decomposition (33) in (28) and (29), after some trivial manipulations, we end up with

$`<B_r^\gamma (k)B_s^\delta (k)>`$ $`=`$ $`C_{rs}g^{\gamma \delta }+\left(C{\displaystyle \frac{H_2}{k^2}}\right)_{rs}\theta ^{\gamma \delta }{\displaystyle \frac{(H_1)_{rs}}{k^2}}E^{\gamma \delta },`$ (35)
$`<A^\nu (k)B_s^\mu (k)>`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{ie\mathrm{\Pi }_1}{\sqrt{N}\stackrel{~}{Q}}}+D\right)_sg^{\nu \mu }\left({\displaystyle \frac{eP}{\sqrt{N}\stackrel{~}{Q}k^2}}\right)_sE^{\nu \mu }+D_s\theta ^{\nu \mu },`$ (36)
where $`C_{rs}`$ and $`D_s`$ are arbitrary and

$`(H_1)_{rs}`$ $`=`$ $`i\mathrm{\Pi }_1\delta _{rs}+{\displaystyle \frac{i\mathrm{\Pi }_1}{N}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{\stackrel{~}{Q}}}1\right),`$ (37)
$`(H_2)_{rs}`$ $`=`$ $`k^2\mathrm{\Pi }_2\delta _{rs}{\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{N}}\left(\mathrm{\Pi }_2+{\displaystyle \frac{P}{\stackrel{~}{Q}}}\right).`$ (38)
The arbitrariness of $`C_{rs}`$ and $`D_s`$ shows that the bosonization fields $`B_r^\mu `$ must be gauge fields but the corresponding gauge symmetry is independent of the eletromagnetic one. Analogous to the last section, we next derive a Lagrangian density compatible with the two-point correlators (35),(36) and (30). Let us suppose we have a bosonic Lagrangian density $`_B(A_\mu ,B_r^\nu )`$ of the form

$$_B(A_\mu ,B_r^\nu )=B_r^\mu 𝒪_{\mu \nu }^{rs}B_s^\nu +u^sB_s^\mu E_{\mu \nu }A^\nu +A_\mu A_\nu \left(v_1\theta _{\mu \nu }+v_2g_{\mu \nu }\right),$$
(39)
Where $`𝒪_{\mu \nu }^{rs}`$ has a general tensor structure in both momentum and flavor space,

$$𝒪_{\mu \nu }^{rs}=a^{rs}\theta _{\mu \nu }+b^{rs}E_{\mu \nu }+d^{rs}g_{\mu \nu }$$
(40)
The quantities $`a^{rs},b^{rs},d^{rs},u^s,v_1,v_2`$ will be determined by matching the two-point correlators derived from the generating functional :

$$Z_B[Y_\nu ^r,K_\mu ]=\underset{r=1}{\overset{N}{}}𝒟B_r^\mu 𝒟A_\mu e^{i{\scriptscriptstyle d^2x\left(_B(A_\mu ,B_r^\nu )+Y_\mu ^rB_r^\mu +K_\mu A^\mu \right)}},$$
(41)
with the correlators (35),(36) and (30). Assuming that the matrices $`a^{rs},b^{rs},d^{rs}`$ are symmetric and non-singular, our first step is to perform the gaussian integrals over the $`N`$ vector fields $`B_r^\nu `$ which furnishes:

$$Z_B[Y_\nu ^r,K_\mu ]=𝒟A_\mu e^{i{\scriptscriptstyle d^2x\left[{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(Y_r^\mu +u_rA_\beta E^{\beta \mu }\right)(𝒪^1)_{\mu \nu }^{rs}\left(Y_s^\nu +u_sE^{\nu \beta }A_\beta \right)+A^\mu A^\nu \left(v_1\theta _{\mu \nu }+v_2g_{\mu \nu }\right)+K_\mu A^\mu \right]}}.$$
(42)
The inverse operator $`𝒪^1`$ has the same structure of (40): $`(𝒪^1)_{\mu \nu }^{rs}=\stackrel{~}{a}^{rs}\theta _{\mu \nu }+\stackrel{~}{b}^{rs}E_{\mu \nu }+\stackrel{~}{d}^{rs}g_{\mu \nu }`$ where the tilde variables are functions of the non-tilde ones. In particular, $`\stackrel{~}{d}_{rs}=(d^1)_{rs}`$. Since we have the contractions $`E^{\mu \nu }E_{\nu \alpha }=k^2\theta _\alpha ^\mu `$; $`E^{\mu \nu }\theta _{\nu \alpha }=E_\alpha ^\mu `$ it becomes clear from (42), with a little thought, that even after integrating over $`A_\mu `$ the only term in $`logZ_B`$ quadratic in the sources $`Y_r^\mu `$ and contracted via the metric tensor is : $`\frac{1}{4}Y_r^\mu Y_s^\nu \stackrel{~}{d}^{rs}g_{\mu \nu }`$. Therefore the two point functions (35) will require the identification $`C^{rs}=(\stackrel{~}{d}/2)^{rs}=(d^1/2)^{rs}`$.

Given that the matrix $`C^{rs}`$ is arbitrary, in order to simplify the calculations, we have chosen it proportional to the identity and consequently we reduce the undetermined parameters in our original Ansatz for the bosonic lagrangian since $`d^{rs}=d\delta ^{rs}`$. For analogous reasons, after integrating over $`A_\mu `$, the crossed terms in the sources $`Y_r^\mu `$ and $`K^\nu `$ will be only contracted by tensors $`E_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`\theta _{\mu \nu }`$. Thus, the term proportional to $`g^{\nu \mu }`$ on the right handed side of the correlation functions (36) must vanish, which fixes $`D=\frac{ie\mathrm{\Pi }_1}{\sqrt{N}\stackrel{~}{Q}}`$. Finally, comparing the other parts of the correlators (35), (36) and (30) with the final expression for $`\mathrm{log}Z_B`$ one can determine the quantities $`a^{rs},b^{rs}`$ and $`u^s`$ as functions of “d” which remains unfixed. We spare the reader the lengthy details since they are totally technical and not very illuminating. We only stress that no further simplification hypothesis is used and no expansion is made in neither $`1/N`$ nor in any of the coupling constants. In those intermediate steps all correlators are treated as if they were exact.

In order to make the final answer for the bosonic Lagrangian density more familiar we have redefined the unfixed parameter $`d\stackrel{~}{\lambda }k^2/2`$. In the momentum space we have:

$`_B(A_\mu ,B_r^\alpha )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[{\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{B_r^\alpha \left(k^2\mathrm{\Pi }_2\theta _{\alpha \beta }+i\mathrm{\Pi }_1ϵ_{\alpha \beta \gamma }k^\gamma \right)B_r^\beta }{k^2\mathrm{\Pi }_2^2\mathrm{\Pi }_1^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{N}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{N}{}}}B_r^\alpha \right)k^2\theta _{\alpha \beta }\left({\displaystyle \underset{s=1}{\overset{N}{}}}B_s^\beta \right)\right]`$ (43)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{A^\alpha A^\beta }{2}}\left[(1\lambda )k^2\theta _{\alpha \beta }+\lambda k^2g_{\alpha \beta }\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{e}{\sqrt{N}}}ϵ_{\mu \nu \gamma }k^\gamma A^\mu {\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{N}{}}}B_r^\nu `$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{B_r^\alpha B_r^\beta }{2}}\left[\stackrel{~}{\lambda }k^2\theta _{\alpha \beta }\stackrel{~}{\lambda }k^2g_{\alpha \beta }\right].`$
Notice that $`\lambda `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }`$ are interpreted as independent gauge fixing parameters such that the generating functional (41) reproduces the correlation functions (30),(35) and (36) with

$`C_{rs}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }k^2}}\delta _{rs}`$ (44)
$`D`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ie\mathrm{\Pi }_1}{\sqrt{N}\stackrel{~}{Q}}}`$ (45)
Integration over the vector fields $`B_r^\alpha `$ will lead to an effective eletromagnetic theory which was also studied in  ( see also  ) where we have analysed its pole structure and concluded that no tachyons appear just like in its two dimensional couterpart (22).

Comparing (43) with the original Lagrangian (1) written in terms of fermionic fields we have the bosonization rules for each fermion flavor ($`r=1,2,\mathrm{},N`$):

$`\overline{\psi }_r\gamma _\mu \psi _r(k)`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_{\mu \nu \alpha }k^\nu B_r^\alpha (k),`$ (46)
$`\overline{\psi }_r(k)(k/+m)\psi _r(k)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}B_r^\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{\left(k^2\mathrm{\Pi }_2\theta _{\alpha \beta }+i\mathrm{\Pi }_1E_{\alpha \beta }\right)}{k^2\mathrm{\Pi }_2^2\mathrm{\Pi }_1^2}}B_r^\beta .`$ (47)
Similarly to the $`D=2`$ case, we have obtained (46) from the fact that for each fermion flavor we have the tensor structure $`<j_\mu j_\nu >a\theta _{\mu \nu }+bE_{\mu \nu }`$, which has been derived by calculating the fermionic determinant up to the quadratic order. However, this tensor structure must hold beyond that approximation ( non-perturbatively ) as a consequence of the Ward identity $`<j_\mu ^\nu j_\nu >=0`$ which must be true also in $`D=3`$ by using a gauge invariant regularization. On the other hand, the bosonization rule (47) holds as a consequence of the quadratic approximation for the fermionic determinant. Taking $`m0`$ (or $`z\mathrm{}`$) in the expressions (27) we have $`\mathrm{\Pi }_10`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_21/(16\sqrt{k^2})`$. Plugging back in (46) and (47) we recover the result of  with $`\beta =1/4`$ and $`\theta =0`$ in that reference which deals with massless fermions. Our rules (46) and (47) also agree with the case of massive fermions treated in . We stress however, that in both  and  only free fermions have been considered while our results have been derived for an interacting theory with Thirring and eletromagnetic couplings. This indicates that our bosonization rules are rather universal at the quadratic level. In the opposite limit of heavy fermions $`(k^2/4m^2)=z0`$ in (26) we have, at leading order, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_20`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_11/(4\pi )`$ which leaves us, see (47), with a bosonic local and topological Chern-Simons Lagragian for the field $`B_r^\mu `$ in agreement with the findings of  (see also  and  for higher orders ).

## 5 Conclusions

We have derived bosonization maps for the $`U(1)`$ currents and the fermion Lagrangian densities for both $`QED_2`$ and $`QED_3`$ with $`N`$ fermion flavors and Thirring self-interaction. Both results hold for finite fermion masses and no derivative expansion on $`\frac{k}{m}`$ is made as in . By turning off the interactions we can reproduce the results of  for a particular choice of the regularization parameter in that reference. Our calculations show that the $`U(1)`$ currents, when written in terms of bosons, must be identically conserved (topological) as a direct consequence of the Ward-identity $`<j_\mu ^\nu j_\nu >=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$ which is true non-perturbatively if there is no $`U(1)`$ anomaly. In particular, there is no need for looking at higher point functions or compute the fermionic determinant beyond the quadratic approximation to confirm that. On the other hand, our maps for the Lagrangian densities (24) and (47), which are also independent of the interactions, hold only perturbatively due to our quadratic approximation for the fermionic determinant which amounts to neglect terms of order higher than $`(1/N)^{1/2}`$ in the fermionic determinant and consider at most two point current correlators to derive the bosonization rules.

Finally, we should mention that the results derived here could have been obtained by a technically more direct way along the lines of  (see also ) but the approach used here does not use any auxiliary field and clarifies the fundamental role of the two point correlators. Besides, it might be also useful (work in progress) for deriving approximate bosonic maps for other fermion bilinears like the mass term $`\overline{\psi }\psi `$ in $`D=3`$, which apparently could not be done by using the approach of .

## 6 Acknowledgements

This work was partially supported by CNPq and FAPESP, Brazilian research agencies.


format: text

text:
# Search for the Jacobi shape transition in light nuclei

## 1 Introduction

It is known that an atomic nucleus may change its equilibrium shape from spherical (or prolate) to oblate with increasing angular momentum. In hot nuclei the size of the oblate deformation increases with the angular momentum and at certain critical value of spin an abrupt change of the equilibrium shape is expected, with the nucleus following a series of triaxial and more and more elongated shapes. This phenomenon, called nuclear Jacobi transition Beringer  was studied in the past using, among others, classical and semi-classical models; for a recent discussion see e.g. Ref. Sw\_2001  and references therein. Recently developed LSD (Lublin-Strasbourg Drop) model LSD  has been used to calculate the Jacobi transition mechanism in the 46Ti nucleus; the results are illustrated in Fig. 1.

The experimental signatures of such an abrupt change of the nuclear shape is expected to be found in observables related to the moment of inertia. Especially promising for the search of the Jacobi nuclear shape transitions are: i) the $`\gamma `$-decay of the Giant Dipole Resonance (GDR) built on such states; ii) the giant backbend of the E2 $`\gamma `$-transition energies Ward\_2002 ; iii) the angular distribution of the emitted charged particles.

So far, the problem of Jacobi transition in light nuclei has been addressed by studying the GDR $`\gamma `$-decay from compound nuclei 45Sc MKH\_GR93  and 46Ti Maj\_Osaka ; Maj\_Warszawa . In both cases the data indicate the presence of large deformations that could be related to the Jacobi transition. Let us mention that in the case of 45Sc the GDR measurement was inclusive, while for 46Ti it was associated with different $`\gamma `$-multiplicity values.

In medium-mass nuclei the possible giant backbend of the quasi-continuous E2-radiation due to the Jacobi transition was investigated recently by Ward et al. Ward\_2002 .

In order to address the interesting question of the Jacobi shape transition in more detail, and to obtain simultaneous information on the GDR decay, the E2 quasi-continuum and charged particle angular distribution, a new experiment for 46Ti has been recently performed. In addition in this experiment, we were studying the fission limits imposed by the angular momentum. Some results from this measurement are presented here and discussed.

## 2 The experiment

The experiment was performed at the VIVITRON accelerator of the IReS Laboratory of Strasbourg (France), using the EUROBALL IV Ge-array coupled to the HECTOR array Maj94  and the charged particle detector EUCLIDES. The 46Ti compound nucleus was populated in the 18O+28Si reaction at 105 MeV bombarding energy. The excitation energy of the 46Ti was 86 MeV and the maximum angular momentum l$`{}_{max}{}^{}`$34$`\mathrm{}`$. For this experiment the EUROBALL consisted of 26 Germanium clover and 15 cluster detectors (all with the BGO anti-Compton shields), and 75% of the Inner-ball consisting of 83 BGO crystals, which together with the germanium detectors resulted in the 65% efficiency for the multiplicity determination. The 8 large volume BaF2 detectors of the HECTOR were placed in the forward hemisphere, together with 4 small BaF2 detectors which provided a good time reference signal. The EUCLIDES was consisting of 40 Silicon telescope detectors covering approximately 90% of the solid angle. The trigger condition was such that events having at least 2 clean Ge signals and one high-energy $`\gamma `$-ray were accepted. The EUCLIDES was running in the ”slave” mode, i.e. its events were accepted only if the trigger condition was fulfilled. A total number of 108 events was collected, in which the $`\gamma `$-ray energy in the Ba$`F_2`$ detector was E$`{}_{\gamma }{}^{}>`$4 MeV.

## 3 Results and discussion

The results of the previous measurement Maj\_Osaka ; Maj\_Warszawa  correspond to the data gated only by $`\gamma `$-ray multiplicity; here we focus on the partial results from the new experiment, obtained with more restrictive condition allowing for a good identification of the fusion-evaporation channel. In particular, the data shown in Fig. 2 were obtained by gating with the known transitions in 42Ca - the residual nucleus originating in the decay of the 46Ti compound nucleus at the highest angular momenta. The left-hand side of the figure shows the spectrum on a logarithmic scale, together with the statistical model calculation, in which the GDR strength function was assumed to be a superposition of 3 Lorentzian components. The upper right part shows the extracted absorption cross-section using the method described in e.g. MKH\_GR93 . The lower right part shows the results of the shape averaging (see e.g. Maj\_Warszawa ) assuming a shape distribution following the LSD potential energy calculations for I=22$`\mathrm{}`$ (oblate equilibrium shape) and I=30$`\mathrm{}`$ (elongated 3-axial equilibrium shape due to the Jacobi transition - see Fig. 1). As can be seen, the prediction for I=30$`\mathrm{}`$ resembles remarkably well the data, therefore suggesting the presence of the Jacobi transition in hot 46Ti. Further analysis, concentrating on the E2 quasi-continuum and the angular distributions of charged particles is in progress. This is expected to provide a more consistent picture. While the GDR $`\gamma `$-decay and charged particles are mainly probing the hot part of the phase space, with the analysis of the E2 continuum we expect to determine whether or not the Jacobi shape transition is still present near the yrast line.

Work supported by the Polish Committee for Scientific Research (KBN Grants No. 2 P03B 118 22 and No. 2 P03B 115 19), the European Commission contract EUROVIV, Danish Research Council and INFN.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Penrose showed  that any spacetime, in the neighbourhood of a null geodesic containing no conjugate points, has a plane wave limit spacetime. This limit is essentially local, and may be thought of physically as the spacetime seen by an observer approaching the speed of light at a given point, along a particular null geodesic, and recalibrating his clock to its affine parameter. It can thus be understood as a null Lorentz boost together with a (singular) uniform rescaling of the coordinates which leaves the affine parameter along the chosen null geodesic invariant. Güven  extended the concept to supergravity theories: given a solution of the supergravity equations of motion, there exists a limit of this solution which also satisfies these equations and has a plane-wave spacetime.
It has long been known that string theory on gravitational wave backgrounds is exact and potentially solvable , mainly because all of the curvature invariants of these spaces vanish . The recently discovered  (BFHP) maximally supersymmetric plane-wave solution of IIB string theory was shown to be exactly solvable . The fact that this maximally supersymmetric plane-wave, together with its 11-dimensional analogue  (KG), arise as Penrose limits of $`AdS\times S`$ spacetimes , suggests one could probe into the string or M-theories of the latter. This idea was vindicated by the BMN proposal , or plane-wave/CFT correspondence.
One should not forget however that $`AdS\times S`$ spacetimes, though maximally supersymmetric solutions of supergravity or IIB string theory by themselves, also essentially arise in these theories as near-horizon limits of extremal branes. These branes also are fundamental dynamical objects which maybe in essence should be thought of as canditates for “world-volumes”. The AdS/CFT correspondance together with the BMN correspondance certainly give an insight into gravity theories on the extremal branes whose near horizon geometry is of $`AdS\times S`$ type, but what if the geometry of these branes were perturbed ?
In  and , the near-horizon geometries of non-dilatonic extremal branes with a pp-wave propagating in the world-volume were analysed, and it was found that in the most simple case one gets a product of a sphere and a homogeneous space of constant negative cosmological constant which generalizes the 4 dimensional Kaigorodov space . We will show in fact that the near horizon configurations of these particular M2, M5 and D3-pp-branes are also solutions of D=11 supergravity or D=10 IIB supergravity, and are analogous to the $`AdS\times S`$ spaces. Therefore it seems interesting to find the Penrose limits of these spaces, not for the mere sake of geometry, but rather to find backgrounds to study string theory which naturally arise from perturbed branes.
Indeed, string theory was explicitly solved in the light-cone gauge not only in the time-independent Cahen-Wallach spaces, but also recently in some time dependent plane-wave backgrounds (, and earlier references therein). The quantization of strings and particles gives rise to time-dependent harmonic oscillators, and whenever the plane-wave spaces are homogeneous, it seems the equations of motion can be solved explicitly (for the particle case see ). It turns out that one of the plane-wave spaces we derive is very similar to that in , and on these grounds should admit an explicitly solvable string theory, though one of the oscillators has negative mass. The article is organized as follows.

In section 2 we first briefly review how Kaigorodov spaces arise as near horizon limits of M2, D3, and M5 pp-branes . We show that the near-horizon geometries of type $`K_{n+3}\times S^d`$ together with their fluxes, satisfy the equations of supergravity or IIB theory in the respective cases. In fact, these configurations can be thought of as perturbed $`AdS\times S`$ spaces. We then briefly describe the geometry of the Kaigorodov space $`K`$. This non-conformally flat homogeneous Einstein spacetime can be interpreted  as an $`AdS`$ space with a propagating gravitational wave. Although it is non-static and has a pp-singularity, we show that it is stably causal in the sense of . In fact, the gravitational wave will be reminiscent in the non-trivial Penrose limit spaces we find. In section 3 we derive the Penrose limit plane-wave spaces of the Kaigorodov space alone, and analyse the symmetries of a particular limit space which is homogeneous. An Inönü-Wigner contraction of the group of bosonic symmetries is shown to occur although there is an enhancement of 1 symmetry in the limit. We then derive in section 4 the Penrose limits of the uncompactified $`K_{n+3}\times S^d`$ spacetimes and their associated field-strengths, by considering both the null geodesics which wind around the sphere and those which do not. As opposed to the $`AdS\times S`$ case, we get non-trivial limits even in the non-winding case. These provide homogeneous plane-wave backgrounds with solvable string theories which have vanishing field strength and constant dilaton. The non-winding case yields non-homogeneous plane-waves whose matrix $`A_{ij}`$ in Brinkman coordinates is not diagonal.

## 2 Kaigorodov spaces in M/String theory

### 2.1 Near-horizon limits of perturbed branes

We first review in detail the near horizon geometry of an M2-brane with a gravitational wave propagating in one of its world volume directions, and then give the general expressions of the metrics and derive the field strengths of the near horizon geometries in the 3 cases of the M2, D3, and M5 pp-branes. The pp-wave or brane-wave solutions actually arise as intersections of branes  .
Following , a $`D=11`$ supergravity solution describing a non-dilatonic extremal M2-brane with a pp-wave is given by

$`ds_{11}^2`$ $`=`$ $`H^{2/3}(K^1dt^2+K(dx_1+(K^11)dt)^2+dx_2^2)+H^{1/3}(dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_7^2),`$
$`F_4`$ $`=`$ $`dtdx_1dx_2dH^1,`$
$`H`$ $`=`$ $`1+{\displaystyle \frac{Q_1}{r^6}},K=1+{\displaystyle \frac{Q_2}{r^6}},`$
where $`r`$ is the distance to the brane in the bulk. The affine change of coordinates $`t^{}+x^{}/2=t,t^{}+3x^{}/2=x_1`$ yields a simpler expression, similar to the formalism used in :

$`ds_{11}^2`$ $`=`$ $`H^{2/3}(2dt^{}dx^{}+(K+1)dx_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+dx_2^2)+H^{1/3}(dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_7^2),`$ (1)
$`F_4`$ $`=`$ $`dt^{}dx^{}dx_2dH^1,`$
and one can change $`K`$ into $`K1`$ by further coordinate transformation. This shows that from the brane point of view, the gravitational wave propagates along the $`t^{}`$ null direction and is uniformly distributed along the world-volume directions, but although this solution is often denoted as a pp-brane, the metric (1) does not possess a covariantly constant null Killing vector: it merely arises as the intersection of a membrane with an 11 dimensional pp-wave. Note that the wave is not localized on the brane since $`K(r)`$ depends on $`r`$, but spacetime is asymptotically flat away from the brane. The near horizon limit $`r0`$ together with rescalings of the coordinates by powers of $`Q_1`$ and $`Q_2`$, and the change of variable $`\rho =\mathrm{ln}r`$, induce the following metric and field strength:

$`ds_{11}^2`$ $``$ $`Q_1^{1/3}\left(e^{2\rho }dx_{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{2}+e^{4\rho }(2dt^{\prime \prime }dx^{\prime \prime }+dx_{2}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{2})+d\rho ^2+d\mathrm{\Omega }_7^2\right)`$ (2)
$`F_4`$ $``$ $`6Q_1^{1/2}e^{6\rho }dt^{\prime \prime }dx^{\prime \prime }dx_2^{\prime \prime }d\rho `$ (3)
This is the metric of the product space of a 4 dimensional Kaigorodov space  of negative cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=12Q_1^{1/3}`$ and a 7-sphere of radius $`R^2=Q_1^{1/3}`$. It will be denoted $`K_4\times S^7`$.
The cases of the near horizon geometries of the M-5 supergravity brane and the D-3 type IIB brane are obtained in a similar way. They yield $`K_{n+3}\times S^d`$ spaces, with $`K_{n+3}`$ the $`n+3`$-dimensional generalisation of $`K_4`$, and $`S^d`$ the $`d`$-dimensional sphere. The (negative) cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ of $`K_{n+3}`$ and the radius of the sphere $`R_{S^d}`$ depend on the charges of the initial branes. It turns out these can be expressed quite simply combining results of  and .

### 2.2 $`K_{n+3}\times S^d`$ spaces as solutions of supergravity

In $`n+3+d=11`$, $`10`$ or $`11`$ dimensions, for $`n=1`$, $`2`$, $`4`$ respectively (M2, D3, M5 pp-brane), the near horizon geometry is a (topological) product of the Kaigorodov space $`K_{n+3}`$ of cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=4(n+2)L^2`$ and a $`d`$-sphere $`S^d`$ of radius $`R=1/(Ln)`$, with $`L`$ depending on the charges of the brane. If we call $`Q`$ the charge of the extremal brane, in the sense that its harmonic function is $`H(r)=1+Q/r^{(d1)}`$, then the Kaigorodov parameter $`L`$ of the horizon geometry is $`L=(1/n)Q^{\frac{1}{d1}}`$, with $`d`$ the dimension of the $`S^d`$. After rescaling the colatitude coordinate $`\psi `$ of $`S^d`$ by a factor of $`1/(Ln)`$, the 3 metrics read:

$$ds_{n+3+d}^2=e^{2Ln\rho }dx^2+e^{4L\rho }(2dxdt+dy^idy^i)+d\rho ^2+d\psi ^2+(Ln)^2\mathrm{sin}^2(Ln\psi )d\mathrm{\Omega }_{d1}^2$$
(4)
Here $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_{d1}^2`$ is the surface element of a $`(d1)`$-sphere of unit radius, and $`i\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$. Neither  nor  give the expressions of the fluxes in the limit. In our coordinate system, restoring $`n=1`$, $`2`$, $`4`$ for the M2, D3, M5-pp-branes respectively, the field strengths are :

$`F_4`$ $`=`$ $`6Le^{6L\rho }d\rho dxdtdy^1(K_4\times S^7)`$
$`F_5`$ $`=`$ $`8Le^{8L\rho }d\rho dxdtd^2y^i+[8Le^{8L\rho }d\rho dxdtd^2y^i](K_5\times S^5)`$
$`[F_4]`$ $`=`$ $`12Le^{12L\rho }d\rho dxdtd^4y^i(K_7\times S^4)`$
The field equations of supergravity  with the fermionic fields set to zero, in the conventions used in , read:

$`R_{MN}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}(F_{MPQR}F_{N}^{}{}_{}{}^{PQR}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}g_{MN}F_{PQRS}F^{PQRS})`$ (6)
$`\text{d}F`$ $`=0`$ (7)
$`\text{d}(F)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}FF`$ (8)
Calling $`g(K_{n+3})`$ the determinant of the metric of the Kaigorodov space $`K_{n+3}`$, we see that $`\sqrt{g(K_{n+3})}=e^{2L(n+2)\rho }`$. Thus the flux $`F_4`$ is proportional to the volume form on $`K_4`$ arising from the metric, hence is closed (7) and co-closed. As $`F_4F_4=0`$, $`F_4`$ satisfies (8). The Einstein equation (6) follows since $`K_4`$ and $`S^7`$ are Einstein spaces. In detail, with $`\mu ,\nu `$ labelling the coordinates of $`K_4`$ and $`a,b`$ those of $`S^7`$, the right-hand-side of (6) expands to:

$`R_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=18L^2g_{\mu \nu }+6L^2g_{\mu \nu }`$
$`R_{ab}`$ $`=6L^2g_{ab}`$
For Kaigorodov spaces $`R_{\mu \nu }=4(n+2)L^2g_{\mu \nu }`$ (see next section) and for $`d`$-dimensional spheres of radius $`R`$, $`R_{ab}=(d1)R^2g_{ab}`$, but here $`R=(Ln)^1`$. Hence (6) is satisfied, and $`(K_4\times S^7,F_4)`$ is a solution of supergravity.
Similarly, since $`[F_4]`$ is proportional to the volume form of $`K_7`$, $`\stackrel{~}{F_4}([F_4])`$ is closed and co-closed, and proportional to the volume form of $`S^4`$. In fact $`\stackrel{~}{F_4}=+12L\text{Vol}_{S^4}`$, thus $`R_{\mu \nu }=24L^2g_{\mu \nu }`$ (on $`K_7`$) and $`R_{ab}=48L^2g_{ab}=(41)(4L)^2`$ (on $`S^4`$). Hence $`(K_7\times S^4,\stackrel{~}{F_4})`$ is a solution of supergravity. $`F_5`$ is proportional to the self dualized volume form of $`K_5`$ or $`S^5`$, and the same computations show that $`(K_5\times S^5,F_5)`$ is a solution of the field equations  of chiral $`N=2`$ $`D=10`$ supergravity. These solutions are completetly analogous to the 3 $`AdS_{n+3}\times S^d`$ configurations, in the same way as the M2, M5 and D3-pp-branes are analogous to their “flat” versions. We now review some important geometric features of Kaigorodov spaces.

### 2.3 Kaigorodov spaces versus $`AdS`$ spaces

Some general properties of Kaigorodov spaces can be found in  and . In $`n+3`$ spacetime dimensions, letting $`L=\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\mathrm{\Lambda }/(n+2)}`$, their metric reads:

$$ds_{n+3}^2=e^{2nL\rho }dx^2+e^{4L\rho }(2dxdt+\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}dy_{}^{i}{}_{}{}^{2})+d\rho ^2$$
(9)
These spaces are solutions of Einstein pure gravity with cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$; they admit $`\frac{1}{2}n(n+3)+3`$ Killing vectors and are homogeneous spaces. They are not static, and are $`1/4`$ supersymmetric. We show in section 3.1 that they are stably causal in the sense of Hawking .
The change of coordinates

$$z=e^{\rho /R},x=Rx^+,t=Rx^{},y^i=Rx^i$$

where $`R=1/(2L)`$, takes the metric to a horospherical-type form ($`z>0`$ only)

$$ds_{n+3}^2=\frac{R^2}{z^2}\left(2dx^+dx^{}+z^{n+2}(dx^+)^2+dx^idx^i+dz^2\right)$$
(10)
In this appendix, starting from this expression of the metric, we find an isometric embedding of the Kaigorodov space $`K_{n+3}`$ into a space of signature $`(2,n+3)`$. In this coordinate system, the metric of the uncompactified $`K_{n+3}\times S^d`$ spaces (4), with the radii of the spheres $`1/(Ln)`$, read:

$$ds_{n+3+d}^2=\frac{R^2}{z^2}\left(2dx^+dx^{}+z^{n+2}(dx^+)^2+dx^idx^i+dz^2\right)+\left(\frac{2}{n}\right)^2R^2(d\stackrel{~}{\psi }^2+(\mathrm{sin}\stackrel{~}{\psi })^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_{d1}^2)$$

Podolský  argued that the Siklos spaces (a general family of spacetimes containing the Kaigorodov space) can be viewed as an $`AdS`$ space-time with a propagating gravitational wave, whose spatial direction rotates at a constant velocity in orthonormal frames parellely transported along timelike geodesics. He also showed that these spaces have a pp-singularity at $`z=+\mathrm{}`$: the geodesic deviation equation becomes singular, but the square of the Riemann tensor remains finite. This occurs at $`r=0`$ in (1), which corresponds to the brane horizon for us. We shall show in section 3.2 that this pp-singularity, which represents the divergence of tidal forces as one approaches the brane, can remain after taking the Penrose limit.

Clearly (10) can be interpreted as a wave propagating on the horospheres of $`AdS_{n+3}`$, but $`_x^{}`$ is not covariantly constant. However this form of the metric suggests the rescalings:

$$(x^{},x^+,x^i,z)(x^{},\mathrm{\Omega }^2x^+,\mathrm{\Omega }x^i,\mathrm{\Omega }z)$$
(11)
whereupon taking the singular limit $`\mathrm{\Omega }0`$ the metric becomes that of $`AdS_{n+3}`$ in horospherical coordinates

$$ds_{n+3}^2=\frac{R^2}{z^2}\left(2dx^+dx^{}+dx^idx^i+dz^2\right)$$

Although $`_x^{}`$ is null, Killing and hence geodetic, this is not a Penrose limit, since the metric is not rescaled by $`\mathrm{\Omega }^2`$ to yield conservation of the affine parameter along $`_x^{}`$. The corresponding Penrose limit, as explained in the next section, yields flat space. Thus (11) can be interpreted as an infinite unrescaled boost of the Kaigorodov spacetime, which yields $`AdS`$. The dynamical interpretation of this boost is unclear though. (One also gets the $`AdS`$ metric by rescaling all the coordinates by $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and letting $`\mathrm{\Omega }0`$). In , it is shown that the boundary CFT energy-momentum tensor of the Kaigorodov space is a constant null momentum density, therefore it is the Kaigorodov space which should be thought of as an infinitely boosted $`AdS`$ spacetime, and not the reverse. It will be more relevant in our analysis to consider Kaigorodov spaces just as $`AdS`$ spacetimes with a gravitational wave perturbation.

In this sense, the near horizon limits: M/D-brane $`AdS\times S`$ and M/D-pp-brane $`K\times S`$ show a nice geometric behaviour of the world-volume gravitational waves under the limiting procedure: indeed the null direction of propagation of the wave on the brane, $`t^{}`$ in (1), becomes that of the wave on the Kaigorodov space, ie $`t`$ in (9) or $`x^{}`$ in (10). In a way these perturbations on the branes can be added either before or after the near horizon limiting procedure, and yield a perturbed $`AdS`$ spacetime. This may be viewed as a decoupling of the perturbation.
On the Penrose limit point of view, any 10 or 11 dimensional plane-wave spacetime we will obtain can trivially be thought of as flat space or a maximally supersymmetric plane-wave space, with a superposed gravitational wave breaking some of the symmetries. Formally, the analogy between flat membranes and membranes with a gravitational wave remains both after taking the near-horizon limit and then taking a Penrose limit which is not trivial. We now derive the Penrose limits of $`K_{n+3}`$, and analyse a particular homogeneous plane-wave we get.

## 3 Penrose Limits of $`K_{n+3}`$

### 3.1 Construction

To classify all the possible Penrose limits of $`K_{n+3}`$, we could follow the method of “celestial spheres” , consisting of looking at the orbits of the tangent vectors at a point under the isotropy subgroup, but this requires finding a group representation of the Killing vectors. We shall just mention it before considering a particular limit. Clearly starting from the metric (9) the null geodesics of $`K_{n+3}`$ which are going to give non-trivial Penrose limit spaces are those for which $`\rho `$ varies with the affine parameter. Otherwise the $`\rho `$ dependence of the metric vanishes in the limit and we get flat Minkowski space. In particular, the limit along the null geodesic of tangent vector $`_t`$, ie along $`_x^{}`$ the direction of propagation of the gravitational wave in the horospheres of (10), yields flat space.
Because null hypersurfaces play a crucial role in finding coordinates adapted to taking Penrose limits , we adopt the Hamilton-Jacobi formulation. The following formalism is not explained in , and it seems that it provides a general way of finding adapted coordinates of type (15). Let $`S(x,t,\rho ,(y^i))`$ be such that $`g^{\mu \nu }_\mu S_\nu S=0`$. Introducing the conserved “momenta” $`p_x,E,p_i`$, we find that

$$S(x,t,\rho ,(y^i))=p_xx+Et+\rho ^{}+p_iy^i$$
(12)
where

$$\rho ^{}(\rho ,p_x,E,p_i)=\sqrt{e^{4L\rho }(E^2e^{(2Ln+4L)\rho }2Ep_xp_ip_i)}\text{d}\rho f^{}(\rho )\text{d}\rho $$
(13)
Equivalently, the Lagrangian formulation $`L=g_{\mu \nu }\dot{x}^\mu \dot{x}^\nu =m^2`$ yields

$`\dot{x}`$ $`=`$ $`Ee^{4L\rho },\dot{y}_i=p_ie^{4L\rho },`$
$`\dot{t}`$ $`=`$ $`e^{4L\rho }(p_xEe^{(4L+2Ln)\rho }),`$
$`\dot{\rho }^2`$ $`=`$ $`E^2e^{(8L+2Ln)\rho }(2Ep_x+p_ip_i)e^{4L\rho }m^2`$
where $`m=0`$ for null geodesics. We see that $`E0`$ is necessary to find null geodesics for which $`\rho `$ varies. It is sufficient provided $`\rho `$ stays small enough.
We can easily show here that Kaigorodov spaces admit a time function, or indeed, because they are time and space orientable, they are stably causal in the sense of Hawking . The following argument is adapted from the $`4`$-dimensional case in .We write the metric (9) as

$$ds_{n+3}^2=(e^{4L\rho +Ln\rho }dt)^2+(e^{4L\rho +Ln\rho }dt+e^{Ln\rho }dx)^2+(e^{2L\rho }dy^i)^2+d\rho ^2$$

and require for timelike or null future-directed geodesics:

$$g_{\mu \nu }\dot{x}^\mu \dot{x}^\nu 0\text{and}e^{4L\rho +Ln\rho }\dot{t}0.$$

If $`e^{4L\rho +Ln\rho }\dot{t}`$ vanishes at one point, then using equations (LABEL:lagrange) we see that $`\dot{\rho }^20`$ implies $`p_x=p_i=E=m=0`$ and the $`x^\mu `$’s must all be constant. Since this is not an acceptable solution, $`\dot{t}>0`$ for every timelike or null future-directed geodesic, and hence $`t(\lambda )`$ provides a suitable time function.

We now find the general Penrose limit of (9) about the geodesic of tangent vector $`g^{\mu \nu }_\nu S=(\text{grad}S)^\mu _v`$, where $`v`$ is the affine parameter along the chosen null geodesic and the future null geodesic congruence. Note that $`_v`$ is both orthogonal to the null hypersurfaces $`S=u`$ and null, hence is tangent to them. It is easier to find an integrable system of coordinates using covectors or one-forms rather than coordinate vectors, since the integrability conditions of one forms are just that they be total derivatives. We want to put (9) in the form

$$ds^2=2du(dv+\frac{1}{2}adu+b_\alpha dx^\alpha )+g_{\alpha \beta }dx^\alpha dx^\beta $$
(15)
with $`a`$, $`b_\alpha `$ and $`g_{\alpha \beta }`$ functions of the coordinates.This is equivalent to looking for coordinates $`u`$, $`v`$, $`x^\alpha `$ such that

$$g^{uu}=0,g^{uv}=1,g^{u\alpha }=0$$

or coordinate-forms such that

$$du|du=0,du|dv=1,du|dx^\alpha =0$$
(16)
A solution to this system is

$`du`$ $`=`$ $`p_xdx+Edt+f^{}(\rho )d\rho +p_idy_i`$
$`dv`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d\rho }{f^{}(\rho )}}`$ (17)
$`dz`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{E}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{4L\rho }}{f^{}(\rho )}}d\rho `$
$`dx^i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{dy^i}{p_i}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{4L\rho }}{f^{}(\rho )}}d\rho `$
The line element then reads:

$`ds_{n+3}^2`$ $`=`$ $`2du\left(dv+e^{4L\rho }dz\right)+\left(E^2e^{2Ln\rho }2Ep_xe^{4L\rho }\right)dz^2`$ (18)
$`2e^{4L\rho }p_idzdx^i+e^{4L\rho }p_i^2(dx^i)^2`$
where $`\rho `$ is a function of $`v`$ defined by (17). The Penrose limit is taken  by letting $`\mathrm{\Omega }0`$ in the following coordinate rescalings:

$$vv,u\mathrm{\Omega }^2u,z\mathrm{\Omega }z,x^i\mathrm{\Omega }x^i.$$

The metric is also rescaled by a factor of $`\mathrm{\Omega }^2`$. Thus the general metric of all non-trivial Penrose limits of $`K_{n+3}`$ is

$`ds_{n+3}^2`$ $`=`$ $`2dudv+\left(E^2e^{2Ln\rho }2Ep_xe^{4L\rho }\right)dz^2`$ (19)
$`2e^{4L\rho }p_idzdx^i+e^{4L\rho }p_i^2(dx^i)^2`$
Although this formula breaks down when one $`p_i=0`$, it is easy to see that it is equivalent to cancelling the $`dzdx^i`$ cross term and keeping the $`(dx^i)^2`$ term with $`p_i=1`$. Furthermore, it is clear that we recover Minkowski space if $`\rho (v)`$ is constant, but unlike the $`AdS`$ case, we also get non-trivial limits.
Explicit solutions can be found by integrating and inverting (17), where $`f^{}(\rho )`$ is defined in (13). As explained in , Penrose limits taken along null geodesics related by an isometry are themselves isometric. Thus given a point in the initial space, it is sufficient to look at the limits along one (rescaled) null vector of each orbit of the “celestial sphere” of null vectors under the isotropy subgroup of the point. As $`K_{n+3}`$ is homogeneous, one can choose the origin of the coordinate system in (9), whereupon it is easily seen using the expression of the Killing vectors in (LABEL:killingvectors) that the isotropy subgroup is generated by the $`L_i`$’s and $`L_{ij}`$’s, and hence is isomorphic to $`^n𝒮𝒪(n)`$. A simple computation shows that the action of the $`L_i`$’s suffices to independently set all the $`p_i`$’s to zero, but not $`p_x`$. One can set $`p_x=0`$ keeping one $`p_i0`$, and the equations are then related to those in section 4.2.
For now, we consider the null geodesic with $`p_x=p_i=0`$. We get

$$\rho (v)=\frac{1}{L(n+4)}\mathrm{ln}\left(EL(n+4)v\right)$$

and after various rescalings of the coordinates the metric reads:

$$ds_{n+3}^2=2dudv+\left(\frac{1}{v}\right)^{\frac{2n}{n+4}}dz^2+v^{\frac{4}{n+4}}dx^idx^i$$
(20)
Note that this metric has a scaling symmetry:

$$v\lambda v,u\lambda ^1u,z\lambda ^{\frac{n}{n+4}}z,x^i\lambda ^{\frac{2}{n+4}}x^i.$$
(21)
The Penrose limit obtained here is valid globally for $`v>0`$ and $`u,z,x^i`$ : although the limiting process is defined locally, the coordinate system used to obtain (20) describes the whole initial spacetime. However the plane-wave metric is well defined for $`v<0`$, so the question of coordinate extension through $`v=0`$ should be raised: the vanishing of the determinant of the metric at $`v=0`$ merely signals the presence of conjugate points. The coordinate extension is usually done by going to Brinkman coordinates. Indeed, for the maximally supersymmetric solutions, the $`\mathrm{cos}v`$ coordinate singularity in Rosen coordinates disappears in Brinkman coordinates .

### 3.2 Geometry and symmetries of the pp-wave

It is simple to express (20) in Brinkman coordinates as the tranverse part of the metric is diagonal. Consider the following change of coordinates

$$v=2x^{},u=x^+\frac{1}{2(n+4)x^{}}\left(n(y^0)^22\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}y_{}^{i}{}_{}{}^{2}\right),$$

$$z=(2x^{})^{\frac{n}{n+4}}y^0,x^i=(2x^{})^{\frac{2}{n+4}}y^i$$

where upon (20) becomes

$$ds_{n+3}^2=2dx^+dx^{}+\frac{2n+4}{(n+4)^2}\frac{1}{x_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}\left(n(y^0)^2\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}y_{}^{i}{}_{}{}^{2}\right)(dx^{})^2+\underset{i=0}{\overset{n}{}}dy_{}^{i}{}_{}{}^{2}$$
(22)
The dependence on $`n`$ cannot be scaled out. It is easily seen, as was expected, that this plane-wave metric satisfies the Einstein vacuum equations with zero cosmological constant: the $`(dx^{})^2`$ term, written as $`A_{\mu \nu }y^\mu y^\nu `$, satisfies $`\text{Tr}(A)=0`$. It describes a gravitational wave propagating in the null direction $`x^+`$, distributed along the $`y^\mu `$’s. The null Killing vector $`_{x^+}`$ is convariantly constant. We notice that the coordinate singularity at $`v=2x^{}=0^+`$ remains, but although (22) is ill-defined and the components of the Riemann tensor diverge as $`x^{}0`$, the square of the Riemann tensor vanishes. The singularity is a so-called pp-singularity.

$$R_{\alpha \beta }=_\alpha _\beta \left\{\frac{2n+4}{(n+4)^2}\frac{1}{x_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}\left(n(y^0)^2\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}y_{}^{i}{}_{}{}^{2}\right)\right\}\frac{1}{x_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}$$
(23)
Actually $`x^{}0^+`$ corresponds to $`\rho \mathrm{}`$ in Kaigorodov space, so to the pp-singularity initially present in spacetime. In a sense it remains after taking the Penrose limit.
This singularity can be reached in a finite time , thus the spacetime is geodesically incomplete. However, the extra scaling symmetry (21), or $`x^+\sigma x^+`$ and $`x^{}\sigma ^1x^{}`$ in (22), makes this spacetime homogeneous. We now analyse its Lie algebra of symmetries, explain why the space is a Lorentzian homogeneous space. We then exhibit an Inönü-Wigner contraction of the Lie algebra of the initial space into a subalgebra of the symmetries of the plane-wave spacetime.

Applying the general procedure of  the plane-wave metric (20) admits, in addition to the $`n(n1)/2`$ Killing vectors $`e_{ij}`$ generating the $`𝒮𝒪(n)`$ symmetry algebra of the $`x^i`$’s, $`2n+3`$ Killing vectors spanning a Heisenberg algebra. Moreover, the scaling symmetry (21) provides an extra Killing vector, $`e^{}`$. In the Rosen coordinates of (20) these vectors read:

$`e_+`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{}{u}},e_0={\displaystyle \frac{}{z}},e_i={\displaystyle \frac{}{x^i}},`$
$`e_0^{}`$ $`=z{\displaystyle \frac{}{u}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{n+4}{3n+4}}\right)v^{\frac{3n+4}{n+4}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{z}},e_i^{}=x^i{\displaystyle \frac{}{u}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{n+4}{n}}\right)v^{\frac{n}{n+4}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{x^i}}`$
$`e_{ij}`$ $`=x^i{\displaystyle \frac{}{x^j}}x^j{\displaystyle \frac{}{x^i}}`$
$`e_{}`$ $`=v{\displaystyle \frac{}{v}}u{\displaystyle \frac{}{u}}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{n}{n+4}}\right)z{\displaystyle \frac{}{z}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{n+4}}\right)x^i{\displaystyle \frac{}{x^i}}`$
The non trivial commutation relations are $`(i,j,k,l=1,\mathrm{},n)`$:

$`[e_\mu ,e_\nu ^{}]`$ $`=\delta _{\mu \nu }e_+,\text{for}\mu ,\nu =0,1,\mathrm{},n.`$ (25)
$`[e_{},e_+]`$ $`=e_+,[e_{},e_0]=\left({\displaystyle \frac{n}{n+4}}\right)e_0,[e_{},e_i]=\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{n+4}}\right)e_i,`$
$`[e_{},e_o^{}]`$ $`=\left({\displaystyle \frac{2n+4}{n+4}}\right)e_0^{},[e_{},e_i^{}]=\left({\displaystyle \frac{n+2}{n+4}}\right)e_i^{},`$ (26)
$`[e_{ij},e_{kl}]`$ $`=\delta _{ik}e_{jl}+\delta _{jk}e_{il}\delta _{jl}e_{ik}+\delta _{il}e_{jk},`$
$`[e_{ij},e_k]`$ $`=\delta _{jk}e_i\delta _{ik}e_j,[e_{ij},e_k^{}]=\delta _{jk}e_i^{}\delta _{ik}e_j^{}.`$ (27)
Thus $`=<e^+,e_\mu ,e_\nu ^{}>`$ is a $`2n+3`$ dimensional Heisenberg algebra of central element $`e^+`$, and $`𝒮𝒪(n)`$ acts on the $`e_i`$’s and $`e_i^{}`$’s as on vectors. We notice that $``$ and $`SO(n)`$ generate a Lie algebra $`𝒢=(2n+3)𝒮𝒪(n)`$ of dimension $`n(n+3)/2+3`$, which is precisely the same dimension as $`𝒦`$, the symmetry algebra of $`K_{n+3}`$.
However, there is an extra Killing vector $`e^{}`$, which acts on $`𝒢`$ as an outer automorphism. The maximal Lie algebra of symmetries of the plane-wave can be written as $`\stackrel{~}{𝒢}=(2n+3)\left(𝒮𝒪(n)\right)`$, as $`e^{}`$ acts non-trivially only on $``$. There is an enhancement of 1 bosonic symmetry in the Penrose limit, while the fraction of supersymmetry goes from 1/4 to 1/2.
In the same way as homogeneity of the CW-spaces relies on the extra Killing vector $`_x^{}`$, the existence of the Killing vector $`e_+`$ or $`X=x^+_+x^{}_{}`$ implies that the plane-wave spacetime (22) is (Lorentzian) homogeneous since the other Killing vectors are clearly transitive on the plane of constant $`v`$ in (20). Homogeneity is not hereditary in Penrose limits, and can be lost as we shall see in the next section. Strictly speaking though, one must remove the hyperplane $`x^{}=0`$ because it is invariant under the action of $`X`$, but it precisely corresponds to the pp-singularity of the plane-wave and the initial space. Moreover, $`x^{}>0`$, $`x^+,y^\mu `$ covers the whole initial Kaigorodov space.

### 3.3 Inönü-Wigner contraction

Although symmetry is enhanced, we can try to relate $`𝒦`$ to $`𝒢`$, since they have the same dimension. The rescalings of the coordinates by $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ in the Penrose Limit suggest an Inönü-Wigner contraction  of $`𝒦`$ into $`𝒢`$. The forthcoming contraction is very similar to

$$𝒮𝒪(3,2)𝒮𝒪(8)(19)(𝒮𝒪(3)𝒮𝒪(6))$$

in the Penrose limit $`AdS_4\times S^7CW_{maxSUSY}`$, and the other similar types, apart from the fact that we cannot take the outer automorphism of the plane-wave algebra since it stems from a symmetry enhancement.
$`𝒦`$ is spanned by the following Killing vectors  expressed in the coordinates of (9):

$`K_0`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{}{t}},K_x={\displaystyle \frac{}{x}},K_i={\displaystyle \frac{}{y^i}},`$
$`L_i`$ $`=x{\displaystyle \frac{}{y^i}}y^i{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}},L_{ij}=y^i{\displaystyle \frac{}{y^j}}y^j{\displaystyle \frac{}{y^i}},`$
$`J`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{}{\rho }}(n+4)Lt{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}+nLx{\displaystyle \frac{}{x}}2Ly^i{\displaystyle \frac{}{y^i}}`$
We define $`P_\pm =K_0\pm K_x`$ and consider

$$P_+\mathrm{\Omega }^2P_+,P_{}\mathrm{\Omega }P_{},J\mathrm{\Omega }J,$$

$$K_i\mathrm{\Omega }K_i,L_j\mathrm{\Omega }L_j,L_{ij}\mathrm{\Omega }L_{ij}$$

Taking $`\mathrm{\Omega }0`$, the commutation relations of $`𝒦`$ (see ) yield those of $`𝒢`$, where we further make the following association

$$e_+=P_+,e_0=P_{},e_0^{}=\frac{J}{(n+2)L},$$

$$e_i=2K_i,e_i^{}=L_i,e_{ij}=L_{ij}.$$
(29)
Thus we get the Inönü-Wigner contraction $`𝒦(2n+3)𝒮𝒪(n)`$. However one could perfectly interchange $`P_+`$ and $`P_{}`$ and get $`P_{}`$ as the central element of the contracted algebra: it is not clear whether $`𝒦`$ really “undergoes” a contraction in the Penrose limit, as the latter is not uniquely defined. The similar feature arises in the maximally supersymmetric cases. Nevertheless, one likes to think of Penrose limits as yielding approximations of spacetimes, and the trivialization of any algebra of symmetries into a Heisenberg type algebra certainly “happens”. On the dynamical point of view, a precise understanding of what happens group theoretically should help to explain how the degrees of motion of a particle or a string decouple to yield independent harmonic oscillators in the plane-wave limit. We now consider possible limits of the whole supergravity or IIB spacetimes, topological products of Kaigorodov spaces and spheres.

## 4 Penrose limits of $`K_{n+3}\times S^d`$spaces

We want to find a coordinate system which singles out a particular null geodesic congruence of the following metrics, for $`n+3+d=10`$ or 11:

$$ds^2=e^{2Ln\rho }dx^2+e^{4L\rho }(2dxdt+dy^idy^i)+d\rho ^2+d\psi ^2+(Ln)^2\mathrm{sin}^2(Ln\psi )d\mathrm{\Omega }_{d1}^2$$
(30)
Again we adopt the Hamilton-Jacobi formulation, with $`S(x,t,\rho ,(y^i),\psi )`$ a function of the coordinates satisfying $`g^{\mu \nu }_\mu S_\nu S=0`$. Introducing $`l`$, angular momentum about $`\psi `$, in addition to the same conserved quantities as before, we find

$$S(x,t,\rho ,(y^i),\psi )=p_xx+Et+p_iy^i+\rho ^{}+l\psi $$
(31)
where now

$$\rho ^{}(\rho ,p_x,E,p_i,l)=\sqrt{e^{4L\rho }(E^2e^{(2Ln+4L)\rho }2Ep_x(p_i)^2)l^2}\text{d}\rho f^{}(\rho )\text{d}\rho $$
(32)
### 4.1 Non-winding geodesics

We will first consider the case where the chosen null geodesic of tangent vector $`g^{\mu \nu }_\nu S=(\text{grad}S)^\mu _v`$ does not wind around the sphere, ie $`l=0`$, $`E0`$. In this case, the spherical part of the metric yields flat space, and the limits of $`K_{n+3}`$ where found in the previous section. In the particular case $`p_x=p_i=0`$, using (22), the limit metric is simply:

$$ds_{n+3+d}^2=2dx^+dx^{}+\frac{2n+4}{(n+4)^2}\frac{1}{x_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}\left(n(y^0)^2\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}y_{}^{i}{}_{}{}^{2}\right)(dx^{})^2+\underset{i=0}{\overset{n}{}}dy_{}^{i}{}_{}{}^{2}+ds_{𝐑^d}^2$$
(33)
The field strength Güven  limit $`F_{p+1}^{}=lim_{\mathrm{\Omega }0}\mathrm{\Omega }^pF_{p+1}`$ yields $`F_4=0`$ for $`K_4\times S^7`$, whatever $`p_x`$, $`p_1`$, provided that $`E0`$ and $`l=0`$. Indeed

$$F_4e^{6L\rho }f^{}(\rho )dudzdy^1dv$$

so $`F_4`$ goes as $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ in the limit and vanishes. The same is true for the field strengths $`[F_4]`$ and $`F_5`$. This merely reflects the fact that Kaigorodov spaces are solutions of Einstein pure gravity. Indeed, as a consequence, their Penrose limits, and hence the Penrose limits of $`K\times S`$ spaces along *non winding* geodesics, satisfy Einstein pure gravity too. Therefore, all the plane-wave spaces of type (33) for $`n+3+d=11`$ or 10 are trivial solutions of supergravity (with vanishing field strengths). They describe a gravitational wave propagating in $`n+3`$ dimensions. However, they only arise as limits of brane-like solutions for $`n=1`$, 2 or 4.
As all generic pp-waves, the spaces (33) preserve $`1/2`$ of the supersymmetries, merely the constant spinors $`ϵ`$ satisfying $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_+ϵ=0`$ in the light-cone vielbein formalism (see  for example). Since the field strengths vanish, there are no non-constant solutions and these are the only solutions. Comparing with the $`AdS\times S`$ Penrose limits, we here have non-trivial gravitational waves even in the non-winding case. They are essentially $`n+3`$ dimensional, and thus can be viewed as consequences of the waves perturbing the initial branes and their near horizon geometries. Formally one can write (33) as a Minkowski metric (Penrose limit of the $`AdS\times S`$ along non-winding geodesics) “perturbed” by an $`n+3`$ dimensional wave.
In fact these plane-wave spacetimes, as their $`n+3`$ dimenesional analogues (22), are Lorentzian homogeneous spaces. In 10 dimensions, with a constant dilaton field, they can provide a time dependent background on which string theory is exact and solvable . However, the term $`n(y^0)^2`$ will give rise to a negative mass harmonic oscillator. Fixing $`y^0=0`$ corresponds to the background studied in .

### 4.2 Winding geodesics

Whereas in the previous case the plane-wave obtained propagated in $`n+3`$ dimensions only, we might expect as in the $`AdS\times S`$ cases  to find an essentially 11(or 10)-dimensional plane-wave by taking a null geodesic which winds around an equator of the sphere. Anagously to section (3.1) a possible coordinate transformation for $`E0`$, $`l0`$, $`p_x=p_i=0`$ is given by :

$`du`$ $`=`$ $`Edt+f^{}(\rho )d\rho +ld\psi `$
$`dv`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d\rho }{f^{}(\rho )}}`$
$`dw`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d\rho }{f^{}(\rho )}}+{\displaystyle \frac{d\psi }{l}}`$
$`dz`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{E}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{4L\rho }}{f^{}(\rho )}}d\rho `$
$`dy^i`$ $`=`$ $`dy^i`$
This is only valid for $`\rho \frac{1}{2Ln+8L}\mathrm{ln}(\frac{E}{l})^2\rho _0`$, because greater values of $`\rho `$ are not reached by the chosen geodesic congruence, as can be seen by analysing (32). Again the Hamilton-Jacobi formalism to find null hypersurfaces and therefore possible null geodesic congruences, together with the orthogonality conditions on the coordinate-forms (16), yield this non-trivial (integrable) change of coordinates. The metric then reads

$`ds_{n+3+d}^2`$ $`=`$ $`2du(dv+e^{4L\rho (v)}dz)+E^2e^{2Ln\rho (v)}dz^2+e^{4L\rho (v)}(2l^2dzdw+dy^idy^i)`$ (34)
$`+l^2dw^2+\mathrm{sin}^2(Lnl(w+v))d\mathrm{\Omega }_{d1}^2,\text{where}`$
$`\rho (v)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2Ln+8L}}\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{cos}^2\left(l(4L+Ln)v\right)+\rho _0`$ (35)
To find $`\rho (v)`$ one must set $`0l(4L+Ln)v\pi /2`$ during inetegration, however (35) stays valid for all $`v`$ if we accept $`\rho `$ periodic in $`v`$ on the range $`(\mathrm{},\rho _0]`$, and the remaining coordinate transforms still make sense. Note that (34) does not cover the whole of $`K_{n+3}\times S^d`$, but at any given point (so any $`\rho _0`$), we can pick $`E`$ and $`l`$ so as to cover a neighbourhood of that point with null geodesic congruence coordinates which break down when $`\mathrm{cos}(l(4L+Ln)v)=0`$. The coordinates of (34) cannot be used to discuss global properties of $`K_{n+3}\times S^d`$ spacetimes.

As usual we define the following rescalings of the coordinates, the metric and the field strength:

$`v`$ $`v,u\mathrm{\Omega }^2u,(z,w,y^i)(\mathrm{\Omega }z,\mathrm{\Omega }w,\mathrm{\Omega }y^i),`$
$`g`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }^2g,F_{p+1}\mathrm{\Omega }^pF_{p+1},`$
The Penrose-Güven limit is obtained by taking $`\mathrm{\Omega }0`$. Using (35) and $`f^{}(\rho )=l\mathrm{tan}(l(4L+Ln)v)`$, (take $`l0`$) this yields:

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`2dudv+E^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{E^2}{l^2}}\mathrm{cos}^2(l(Ln+4L)v)\right)^{\frac{n}{4+n}}dz^2+l^2dw^2+\mathrm{sin}^2(Lnlv)ds_{𝐑^{d1}}^2`$ (36)
$`+\left({\displaystyle \frac{E^2}{l^2}}\mathrm{cos}^2(l(Ln+4L)v)\right)^{\frac{2}{4+n}}(2l^2dzdw+dy^idy^i)`$
$`F_4`$ $`=`$ $`6Ll^2f^{}(\rho )e^{6L\rho }dvdwdzdy^1`$
$`=`$ $`6Ll^3\mathrm{tan}(l(4L+Ln)v)\left({\displaystyle \frac{E^2}{l^2}}\mathrm{cos}^2(l(4L+Ln)v)\right)^{\frac{3}{n+4}}dvdwdzdy^1`$
After rescaling the coordinates appropriately by powers of $`E`$ and $`l`$, we get the following plane-wave spacetime, where the flux term $`F_4`$ is only relevant in the $`n=1`$ case (limit of $`K_3\times S^7)`$:

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`2dudv+\left(\mathrm{cos}v\right)^{\frac{2n}{4+n}}dz^2+\left(\mathrm{cos}v\right)^{\frac{4}{4+n}}(2dzdw+dy^idy^i)`$ (37)
$`+dw^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\left((n/(n+4))v\right)ds_{𝐑^{d1}}^2`$
$`F_4`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{6}{n+4}}\mathrm{tan}v\left(\mathrm{cos}v\right)^{\frac{6}{n+4}}dvdwdzdy^1`$ (38)
These Rosen coordinates are valid for $`0v\pi /2`$. Similarly we obtain from (LABEL:fluxes) the limits of $`[F_4]`$ and $`F_5`$ for the $`n=4`$ and $`2`$ cases respectively:

$`[F_4]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{12}{n+4}}\mathrm{tan}v\left(\mathrm{cos}v\right)^{\frac{12}{n+4}}dvdwdzd^4y^i(n=4)`$ (39)
$`F_5`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8}{n+4}}\mathrm{tan}v\left(\mathrm{cos}v\right)^{\frac{8}{n+4}}dvdwdzd^2y^i`$ (40)
$`+[{\displaystyle \frac{8}{n+4}}\mathrm{tan}v\left(\mathrm{cos}v\right)^{\frac{8}{n+4}}dvdwdzd^2y^i](n=2)`$
Note that the metrics and the field strengths obtained are independent of $`E`$, $`l`$, and also the Kaigorodov parameter $`L`$. Only the region of the initial space covered by $`0v\pi /2`$ depends on them. The limit spaces do not depend on the charges of the initial pp-branes.

One can easily find the Killing vectors of the metric (37) which generate a Heisenberg algebra of dimension $`2(n+d+1)+1`$, together with those which span the $`𝒮𝒪(n)`$ and $`𝒮𝒪(d1)`$ algebras respectively (see  for example). Counting these symmetries, and since $`K_{n+3}\times S^d`$ has $`n(n+3)/2+3+(d+1)d/2`$ Killing vectors, there is an enhancement of at least 1 bosonic symmetry in the Penrose limit, and in fact no more. This is true in the three cases. There is no obvious additional scaling symmetry as we had in (20). As suggested in , it is often easier to see that in Brinkman coordinates.

### 4.3 Brinkman coordinates

The change of coordinates between Rosen and Brinkman coordinates has been known for a long time. It is reviewed in   for example. We relabel the coordinates of (37) by $`z=x_0`$, $`w=x_1`$, $`y_i=x_{i+1}`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$, and also call $`x_i`$, for $`i=n+2,\mathrm{},n+d`$, the coordinates of $`^{d1}`$. From now on latin indices range from 0 to $`n+d`$. The spatial part of (37), denoted $`C_{ij}(v)dx^idx^j`$, is not diagonal, and cannot be made so by staying in Rosen type coordinates. Thus the change of coordinates involves a particular inverse vielbein field $`Q_{}^{i}{}_{j}{}^{}`$ of $`C_{ij}`$ which non-trivially rotates the $`z=x_0`$ and $`w=x_1`$ coordinates. Formally, the solution can be written:

$`v=x^{},y^i=Q_{}^{i}{}_{j}{}^{}z^j,`$
$`u=x^+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}C_{ij}\dot{Q}_{}^{i}{}_{k}{}^{}Q_{}^{j}{}_{l}{}^{}z^kz^l,`$ (41)
with $`Q`$ satisfying $`Q^TCQ=𝕀`$ and $`\dot{Q}^TCQ=Q^TC\dot{Q}`$, where the dot denotes differenciation with respect to $`x^+`$. This yields the plane-wave metric:

$`ds^2=`$ $`2dx^+dx^{}+A_{ij}(x^{})z^iz^j(dx^{})^2+dz^idz^i`$
$`\text{where}A_{kl}=(\dot{C_{ij}\dot{Q_k^i}})Q_{}^{j}{}_{l}{}^{}`$ (42)
A possible solution is given by $`Q(v)`$ whose only non-vanishing components are:

$$Q_{}^{0}{}_{0}{}^{}(v)=(\mathrm{tan}v)^1(\mathrm{cos}v)^{\frac{4}{n+4}}\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{2v}{n+4}\right),$$

$$Q_{}^{0}{}_{1}{}^{}(v)=(\mathrm{tan}v)^1(\mathrm{cos}v)^{\frac{4}{n+4}}\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{2v}{n+4}\right)$$

$$Q_{}^{1}{}_{0}{}^{}(v)=(\mathrm{tan}v)^1\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{2v}{n+4}\right)\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{2v}{n+4}\right),$$

$$Q_{}^{1}{}_{1}{}^{}(v)=(\mathrm{tan}v)^1\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{2v}{n+4}\right)+\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{2v}{n+4}\right)$$

$$Q_{}^{i}{}_{i}{}^{}(v)=(\mathrm{cos}v)^{\frac{2}{4+n}}\text{for}i=2,\mathrm{},n+1$$

$$Q_{}^{i}{}_{i}{}^{}(v)=\mathrm{sin}^1\left(\frac{nv}{n+4}\right)\text{for}i=n+2,\mathrm{},n+d.$$

The expression for $`A_{ij}`$ given by (42) turns out complicated (and non-diagonal) for $`i,j\{0,1\}`$. For the diagonal terms $`(i,j>1)`$, $`A_{ij}(x^{})=\frac{\ddot{\sqrt{C_{ii}}}}{\sqrt{C_{ii}}}\delta _{ij}`$ reads:

$`A_{ii}`$ $`=\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{n+4}}\right)^2\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{n+2}{2}}\mathrm{cos}^2x^{}\right)\text{for}i=2,\mathrm{},n+1`$
$`A_{ii}`$ $`=\left({\displaystyle \frac{n}{n+4}}\right)^2\text{for}i=n+2,\mathrm{},n+d.`$
Then letting $`a,b\{0,1\}`$, and defining $`\stackrel{~}{A}_{ab}(x^{})=A_{ab}(x^{})+(\frac{2}{n+4})^2\delta _{ab}`$, the metric reads:

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`2dx^+dx^{}\left({\displaystyle \frac{n}{n+4}}\right)^2\left\{\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{n}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{n+1}{}}}(z^i)^2+{\displaystyle \underset{i=n+2}{\overset{n+1+d}{}}}(z^i)^2\right\}(dx^{})^2+dz^idz^i`$ (43)
$`+\left\{\stackrel{~}{A}_{ab}(x^{})z^az^b{\displaystyle \frac{2n+4}{(n+4)^2}}\mathrm{cos}^2x^{}{\displaystyle \underset{i=2}{\overset{n+1}{}}}(z^i)^2\right\}(dx^{})^2.`$
Introducing $`\stackrel{~}{A}_{ab}`$ seems unecessary. However, the *first line* of (43) describes the maximally supersymmetric plane-waves (when supported by appropriate field strengths of course). Indeed, for $`n=1`$ or $`n=4`$ in 11 dimensions, ($`(2/n)^2=4`$ or $`1/4`$), it corresponds to the Kowalski-Glikman solution  (also described in ), while for $`n=2`$ in 10 dimensions, it is the metric of the BFHP maximally supersymmetric type IIB plane-wave . Although we could say of any plane-wave that it consists of the sum of a maximally supersymmetric Cahen-Wallach space and another plane-wave, the argument seems illuminating here in the context of Penrose limits of particular brane solutions. Indeed, the Penrose limits of the $`AdS\times S`$ spaces along geodesics which wind round the sphere  yield the maximally supersymmetric plane-waves. Here, starting from a $`K_{n+3}\times S^d`$ geometry, or an $`AdS_{n+3}\times S^d`$ spacetime perturbed with an $`(n+3)`$-dimensional gravitational wave, we exhibit a Penrose limit space which can quite naturally be interpreted as a maximally supersymmetric plane-wave together with an additional gravitational wave. When solving the Kiling equations , we see that (43) does not admit a Killing vector with non-vanishing $`_x^{}`$ component. Indeed, the diagonal terms $`A_{ii}`$ for $`i=2,\mathrm{},n+1`$ are neither constants nor proportional to $`(1/x^{})^2`$. Hence the plane-wave we obtain is not homogeneous. Moreover, (43) tells us that the plane-wave limit has a pp-singularity at $`v=\pi /2`$. As in the non-winding case, this singularity stems from the pp-singularity of the Kaigorodov space, which itself corresponds to the divergence of the tidal forces as one approaches the pp-branes of the initial geometries.

## 5 Conclusion

The plane-wave spacetimes obtained in this paper should really be thought of as arising from Penrose limits of Kaigorodov spaces, themselves near horizon limits of M2, M5 or D3-pp-branes. In this sense they are dynamically relevant. Moreover $`K_{n+3}\times S^d`$ spaces provide themselves interesting solutions of supergravity which are analogous to the $`AdS\times S`$ configurations. In  and  evidence was given that gravity in the Kaigorodov space is dual to a CFT in the infinite momentum frame with constant (null) momentum density, and that therefore one can consider the Kaigorodov space as an infinitely boosted version of $`AdS`$. When taking Penrose limits, it seems difficult to keep track of this fact. However, when we think of $`K`$ as an $`AdS`$ space perturbed by a gravitational wave, the picture seems clearer. The plane-waves (33) and (43) can be naturally interpreted as the corresponding Penrose limits of $`AdS\times S`$ spaces along non-winding and winding null geodesics, perturbed by a gravitational wave. This decoupling, similar to the one occuring when taking the near horizon geometries of pp-branes, needs to be investigated further.

Our analysis of various Penrose limits certainly illustrates the variety of possible symmetry enhancements. The example of the Kaigorodov space limit is worth noting: an enhancement of one bosonic symmetry, but nevertheless an Inönü-Wigner contraction of the initial algebra of symmetries to a subalgebra of the plane-wave symmetries. Note that since all plane-wave Lie algebras have the same structure (up to a possible extra outermorphism), the contraction of the algebra of $`K_{n+3}`$ into $`(2n+3)𝒮𝒪(n)`$ can be shown to occur systematically in all cases. The loss of homogeneity when taking the limit of $`K\times S`$ spaces along winding geodesics might seem striking, but is linked to the fact that the limiting process is essentially local. In addition, although the number of Killing vectors is conserved or increases , their action often becomes redundant. For example, in the typical $`2d+1`$-dimensional plane-wave Heisenberg algebra, possibly enlarged by a semi-direct product of rotations, only $`d+1`$ symmetries yield motions of the spacetime in independent dimensions. The question of homogeneity becomes important when one wants to solve string theories in plane-wave backgrounds in view of possibly relating them to a certain CFTs, since the extra conserved quantity simplifies the equations . The precise understanding of what the algebra (and super-algebra) of symmetries incurs in the limit, should help to understand how the degrees of motion of strings and particles moving in a given background decouple to yield, in the bosonic part for example, independent harmonic oscillators, and then better relate their simple dynamics to that of the initial space.

## Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Gary Gibbons for motivating discussions and insightful comments, and also the EPSRC, the DAMTP, and the Cambridge European Trust for financial support. I am also grateful to the referees for some useful comments.

## Appendix A Isometric embedding of the Kaigorodov space

It seems natural to look for an embedding of $`K_{d+1}`$ which resembles that of $`AdS_{d+1}`$ in Minkowski space of signature $`(2,d)`$. Consider the $`(2,d)`$-signature space of metric ($`i\{1,\mathrm{},d2\}`$):

$$ds^2=dUdV+dX^+dX^{}+dX^idX^i+R^d\left(\frac{dX_{}^{+}{}_{}{}^{2}}{U^d}+\frac{X_{}^{+}{}_{}{}^{2}}{U^{d+2}}du^22\frac{X^+}{U^{d+1}}dUdX^+\right)$$
(44)
One can isometrically embed the hyperboloid-like hypersurface defined by:

$$UV+X^+X^{}+(X^i)^2=R^2$$
(45)
Analogously to the $`AdS`$ case we define horospherical coordinates on this hypersurface:

$$z=\frac{R}{U},x^\pm =X^\pm \frac{z}{R},x^i=X^i\frac{z}{R}$$

and replace $`V(U,X^\pm ,X^i)`$ with (45). The induced metric on the hypersurface is then that of $`K_{d+1}`$ in horospherical-like coordinates, for $`z>0`$ :

$$ds_{d+1}^2=\frac{R^2}{z^2}\left(2dx^+dx^{}+z^d(dx^+)^2+\underset{i=1}{\overset{d2}{}}dx_{}^{i}{}_{}{}^{2}+dz^2\right)$$
(46)
One might think that a simpler embedding space could be found by changing the right-hand-side of (45) by a function $`f(U,X^+)`$, but in fact it only amounts to a change of coordinates in the embedding space. The embedding space satisfies the Einstein vacuum field equations, is Ricci flat, and its Riemann and Weyl tensors only have the following independent non-vanishing components:

$$R_{UX^+UX^+}=C_{UX^+UX^+}\frac{1}{U^{d+2}}$$

Therefore this space is not a symmetric space (the Riemann tensor is not covariantly constant). As a side remark, solving Killing’s equations of (44) should not be difficult, and finding the Killing vectors which survive on the hypersurface might give a deeper insight into the Lie group of motions of the generalized Kaigorodov spaces, as an intersection of the anti-de-Sitter group and the group of motions of (44).