text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}^+`$-meson consists of a c and a $`\overline{\mathrm{s}}`$ quark. It is stable in QCD and decays by an emission of a W+-boson into a lepton and a neutrino. The amplitude of this decay is characterized by the decay constant $`F_{\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}}`$ which is defined by the QCD matrix element

$$0|A_\mu (0)|\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}(\mathrm{p})=\mathrm{ip}_\mu \mathrm{F}_{\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}}$$
(1.1)
of the axial current $`A_\mu =\overline{\mathrm{s}}\gamma _\mu \gamma _5\mathrm{c}`$.

Given the CKM-matrix element $`V_{\mathrm{cs}}`$, $`F_{\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}}`$ can be measured experimentally by studying the branching ratio $`\text{BR}(\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}\mathrm{l}\nu )`$. The current status of the experimental determination of $`F_{\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}}`$ has been summarized in \[?\]. Currently, the most precise data come from the ALEPH experiment \[?\], $`F_{\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}}=(285\pm 19\pm 40)\mathrm{MeV}`$, and from CLEO \[?\], $`F_{\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}}=(280\pm 17\pm 25\pm 34)\mathrm{MeV}`$. In the next couple of years CLEO aims at reducing their error to two percent precision \[?\].

The status of lattice computations for $`F_{\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}}`$ \[?,?,?\] was reviewed in \[?,?\] with a world average of $`F_{\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}}=255\pm 30\mathrm{MeV}`$. With QCD sum rules one currently gets $`F_{\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}}=235\pm 24\mathrm{MeV}`$ \[?,?\].

The goal of this work is a computation on the lattice of the weak decay constant $`F_{\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}}`$ to 3 percent accuracy up to the quenched approximation. All the systematic and statistical errors will be analyzed and we will also estimate the size of the quenched scale ambiguity. A precise quenched calculation of $`F_{\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}}`$ together with precise experimental data supplies us with a test of quenched lattice QCD. This is of importance for the determination of the B-meson decay constant $`f_\mathrm{B}`$ from lattice QCD which is an essential input in the measurement of the third generation CKM-matrix elements.

## 2 Strategy

The decay constant $`F_{\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}}`$ is defined in terms of a QCD matrix element. To evaluate this matrix element we have to eliminate the bare parameters of the QCD Lagrangian, that is the bare gauge coupling $`g_0`$ and the bare masses of the relevant quarks, in favour of physical observables. One possible hadronic scheme, which has been summarized in \[?\] and developed in \[?,?,?\] is to use the decay constant $`F_\mathrm{K}=160\mathrm{MeV}`$ to set the scale111i.e. to compute the lattice spacing $`a`$ in physical units as a function of the bare coupling and eliminate the bare masses of the strange and charm quarks in favour of the masses of the K and the $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}`$-meson. Neglecting isospin breaking, the quark mass ratio $`M_s/\widehat{M}=24.4\pm 1.5`$ with $`\widehat{M}=\frac{1}{2}(M_u+M_d)`$ is taken from chiral perturbation theory \[?\].

The results in \[?,?,?\] are given in terms of the Sommer scale $`r_0`$ which is derived from the force between static colour sources. $`r_0/a`$ has been computed as a function of the bare coupling $`g_0`$ to a high precision for a wide range of cutoff values \[?,?,?\]. It is only affected by lattice artifacts of $`\mathrm{O}(a^2)`$ in the quenched theory \[?\]. The relation to other hadronic scales is known \[?\], $`r_0F_\mathrm{K}=0.415(9)`$, and $`r_0m_N2.6`$. This illustrates the inconsistency of the quenched approximation since the ratio $`F_\mathrm{K}/m_N`$ deviates by approximately 10$`\%`$ from its experimental value. This is the typical size of the quenched scale ambiguity. Setting the scale with $`F_\mathrm{K}=160\mathrm{MeV}`$ corresponds to setting $`r_0=0.5\mathrm{fm}`$ while $`m_N=938\mathrm{MeV}`$ corresponds to $`r_0=0.55\mathrm{fm}`$. Below we will estimate the size of the quenched scale ambiguity for the weak decay constant of the $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}`$-meson.

This work aims at a scaling study of $`F_{\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}}`$ on the lattice. Thus we keep the physical conditions constant and only vary the lattice spacing. We perform numerical simulations in $`\mathrm{O}(a)`$ improved lattice QCD using Schrödinger functional boundary conditions \[?,?\] on a $`L^3\times T`$ space time cylinder. The practical advantages of this approach are discussed in \[?\]. For unexplained notation we refer to \[?\].

In particular we define the meson sources

$$𝒪=a^6\underset{𝐲,𝐳}{}\overline{\zeta }_j(𝐲)\gamma _5\zeta _i(𝐳),𝒪^{}=a^6\underset{𝐲,𝐳}{}\overline{\zeta }_j^{}(𝐲)\gamma _5\zeta _i^{}(𝐳),$$
(2.2)
with flavour indices $`ij`$ at the $`x_0=0`$ and the $`x_0=T`$ boundary time slices, respectively. The correlation functions

$`f_\mathrm{A}(x_0)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}𝒪A_0(x),f_\mathrm{P}(x_0)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}𝒪P(x),f_1={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3L^6}}𝒪^{}𝒪`$ (2.3)
are then used to compute the decay constant $`F_{\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}}`$ at finite lattice spacing. Here $`A_\mu (x)=\overline{\psi }_i(x)\gamma _\mu \gamma _5\psi _j(x)`$ is the axial current and $`P(x)=\overline{\psi }_i(x)\gamma _5\psi _j(x)`$ is the pseudoscalar density. The leading $`\mathrm{O}(a)`$ cutoff effects in $`f_\mathrm{A}`$ are canceled by using a clover improved action \[?\] with coefficient $`c_{\mathrm{sw}}`$ and by improving the axial current,

$$A_\mu ^I(x)=A_\mu (x)+c_\mathrm{A}a\stackrel{~}{}_\mu P(x).$$
(2.4)
Both coefficients $`c_{\mathrm{sw}}`$ and $`c_\mathrm{A}`$ are known non perturbatively in the quenched approximation for bare couplings $`g_0^2=6/\beta 1`$ \[?\]. The improved correlation function $`f_\mathrm{A}^I`$ is then defined in analogy to $`f_\mathrm{A}`$.

On the lattice the axial current receives a multiplicative renormalization by the finite factor $`Z_\mathrm{A}`$. The renormalized axial current is thus given by

$$(A_\mathrm{R})_\mu =Z_\mathrm{A}\left(1+b_\mathrm{A}(am_{\mathrm{q},i}+am_{\mathrm{q},j})/2\right)A_\mu ^I+\mathrm{O}(a^2),$$
(2.5)
where the $`\mathrm{O}(a)`$ artifacts that are proportional to the bare subtracted quark masses $`am_\mathrm{q}`$ are canceled by the term proportional to $`b_\mathrm{A}`$.

The correlation functions $`f_\mathrm{A}^I`$ and $`f_\mathrm{P}`$ decay exponentially proportional to $`e^{x_0m_{\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}}}`$ when the excitations due to higher states are small enough. Thus the meson mass $`m_{\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}}`$, which has the experimental value $`r_0m_{\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}}=4.988`$ \[?\], can be obtained from the plateau average of the effective pseudoscalar mass

$$am_{\text{PS}}(x_0+a/2)=\mathrm{log}\frac{f_\mathrm{A}^I(x_0)}{f_\mathrm{A}^I(x_0+a)}.$$
(2.6)
The weak decay constant of the $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}`$-meson at finite lattice spacing can then be obtained through 222In \[?\] the first minus sign is missing.

$`F_{\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}}`$ $`=`$ $`2Z_\mathrm{A}(1+b_\mathrm{A}(am_{\mathrm{q},i}+am_{\mathrm{q},j})/2){\displaystyle \frac{f_\mathrm{A}^I}{\sqrt{f_1}}}(m_{\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}}L^3)^{1^/2}e^{(x_0T/2)m_{\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}}}`$ (2.7)
$`\times \left\{1\eta _A^{\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}}e^{x_0\mathrm{\Delta }}\eta _A^0e^{(Tx_0)m_\text{G}}\right\}+\mathrm{O}(a^2).`$
Here the factor $`(m_{\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}}L^3)^{1^/2}`$ takes into account the normalization of one particle states. The contribution $`f_1^{1/2}`$ cancels out the dependence on the meson sources. Because of the exponential decay of the correlation function $`f_\mathrm{A}^I`$ the product in (2.7) is expected to exhibit a plateau at intermediate times when the contribution $`\eta _A^{\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}}e^{x_0\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ of the first excited state and the contribution $`\eta _A^0e^{(Tx_0)m_\text{G}}`$ from the $`O^{++}`$ glueball both are small. A plateau average can then be performed to increase the signal and is understood in (2.7). Further explanations for equation (2.7) and details can be found in \[?\].

## 3 Numerical results

### 3.1 Parameters

Our choice of simulation parameters is shown in table 1.

The bare couplings and the hopping parameters for the strange quark are the same as used in \[?\], and the hopping parameters for the charm quark have been found in that work. The non perturbatively defined improvement coefficients $`c_{\mathrm{sw}}`$ and $`c_\mathrm{A}`$ are taken from \[?\]. $`b_\mathrm{A}`$ has been obtained non perturbatively in \[?\]. Since it is difficult to compute (cmp. \[?\]) and since we have to extrapolate their results slightly we have used one-loop perturbation theory \[?\] as well. The conversion to physical units is done with the Sommer scale $`r_0`$. From the fit function of \[?\] we infer that our lattice size $`L/a=16`$ at $`\beta =6.0`$ corresponds to $`L/r_0=2.98`$. The results of \[?\] show that at this volume the finite size effects may be neglected. The lattice spacing $`a`$ is varied from $`0.1\mathrm{fm}`$ to $`0.05\mathrm{fm}`$.

Furthermore we choose $`T/L=2`$ in contrast to $`T/L=2.5`$ used for the computation of the charm quark mass in \[?\] to reduce rounding effects, which would be the dominant systematic effects on $`F_{\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}}`$ otherwise.

The fourth column of table 1 shows that the above choice of simulation parameters corresponds to approximately constant physical box sizes. Also the mass of the $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}`$-meson takes its correct value up to small fluctuations. We have checked that these lead to negligible corrections for the decay constant $`F_{\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}}`$.

### 3.2 Computation of the $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}`$-meson decay constant

To compute the meson mass $`m_{\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}}`$ and the decay constant $`F_{\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}}`$ we calculate the combinations (2.6,2.7) of correlation functions. For all the parameter choices we find plateaus as functions of $`x_0`$. Our task is to find the plateau region such that the effect of excited states is negligible compared to our statistical error.

When dealing with heavy quark propagators on single precision machines there is always the danger of roundoff problems which might be the dominant uncontrolled systematic error. Since the computation of the decay constant $`F_{\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}}`$ involves propagators extending from the $`x_0=0`$ to the $`x_0=T`$ boundary in the correlation functions $`f_1`$ the discussion of these issues becomes even more important as for the computation of masses. From \[?\] we estimate that for $`T=2L`$ instead of $`T=2.5L`$ taken there the rounding errors for $`F_{\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}}`$ should be small enough. To show this we computed our observables on $`𝒪(10)`$ configurations at $`\beta =6.0`$ and $`6.45`$ in single as well as in double precision. This check reveals that the rounding errors for $`F_{\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}}`$ are of the order of one per mill.

From fits of $`F_{\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}}(x_0)`$ using an a priori chosen plateau range we extract the contributions $`\eta _A^{\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}}e^{x_0\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ and $`\eta _A^0e^{(Tx_0)m_\text{G}}`$ of the first excited state and the $`0^{++}`$ glueball excitation, respectively. The theory in \[?\] predicts relations between the prefactors and the corresponding prefactors for the pseudoscalar masses which are roughly 333In some cases the fit function is not determined precisely. Then we choose the fit function such that the contribution of the excited states is rather overestimated. Note that we do not attempt to measure $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ or $`\eta _A^{\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}}`$ but rather want to estimate our systematic effects. fulfilled.

All the systematic effects that deteriorate the plateau are added. With an a priori chosen upper bound $`\delta `$ for the maximal relative systematic error in a point $`F_{\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}}(x_0)`$ we define the time interval for the plateau region such that for all times in this interval the added systematic contribution is smaller than $`\delta `$. The systematic error for the plateau averaged observable is then even smaller. For the decay constant we took $`\delta =0.5\%`$. The plateaus defined in this way extend from $`4r_0`$ to $`5r_0`$ at the four $`\beta `$ values considered. For the pseudoscalar mass we used $`\delta =0.3\%`$.

### 3.3 Continuum limit

We perform the plateau averages of (2.7) and obtain the decay constant at finite lattice spacings as shown in table 2.

These data can be extrapolated to the continuum limit, leading to our main result. Since we employ $`\mathrm{O}(a)`$ improvement, the natural ansatz for the continuum extrapolation is linear in $`a^2`$. This extrapolation is shown in figure 1.

In the fit we neglect the point at $`\beta =6.0`$ which is farthest away from the continuum limit. We quote

$$r_0F_{\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}}=0.638(24)$$
(3.8)
as our final result. Using $`r_0=0.5\mathrm{fm}`$ this corresponds to $`F_{\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}}=252(9)\mathrm{MeV}`$. Using 1-loop perturbation theory for $`b_\mathrm{A}`$ instead of the results of \[?\] leads to

$$r_0F_{\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}}=0.631(24),$$
(3.9)
corresponding to $`F_{\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}}=249(9)\mathrm{MeV}`$.

### 3.4 Quenched scale ambiguity

To estimate the quenched scale ambiguity we consider $`r_0F_{\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}}`$ as a function $`f(z)`$ of $`z=r_0m_{\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}}`$ around the physical value of $`z`$. This is possible since in addition to the hopping parameters leading to the physical strange and charm quark masses we have computed our observables at five more hopping parameter values around the hopping parameter of the charm quark for each bare coupling considered. Here we will only use the two hopping parameters closest to the charm value and present further results in a separate publication.

We expand $`f(z)=f(z_0)+(zz_0)f^{}(z_0)+\mathrm{}`$ in a Taylor series around $`z_0=4.988`$. $`f^{}(z_0)`$ is estimated from a linear fit of $`r_0F_{\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}}`$ as a function of $`r_0m_{\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}}`$. A 10$`\%`$ increase of $`r_0`$ corresponds to $`zz_0=0.5.`$ Our estimate of the corresponding effect on $`r_0F_{\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}}`$ in the continuum limit is

$$0.5f^{}(z_0)=0.008(3).$$
(3.10)
Converting back to physical units (now using $`r_0=0.55\mathrm{fm}`$) we estimate that $`F_{\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}}`$ decreases by $`20\mathrm{MeV}`$ corresponding to eight percent.

## 4 Conclusions

Our main result is $`r_0F_{\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}}=0.638(24)`$. Using $`r_0=0.5\mathrm{fm}`$ this corresponds to $`F_{\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}}=252(9)\mathrm{MeV}`$. This is compatible with all the experimental data currently available and with most theoretical estimates as well. The precision of our result however matches the goal of precision of future experiments, for example CLEO.

Under a scale shift of 10$`\%`$, which is typical for quenched spectrum computations $`F_{\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}}`$ decreases by eight percent. Assuming that all the scale ambiguity comes from neglecting dynamical sea quark effects this might also give an idea of the unquenching effect for $`F_{\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{s}}`$ which however has to be probed in an unquenched simulation.

Since our complete data set consists also of simulations at larger quark masses we will be able to look at the functional dependence of the weak decay constant around the charm quark mass. Together with a new computation of the decay constant in the static approximation we will then interpolate to the $`B`$-meson mass and compute $`F_\mathrm{B}`$ with a better precision than is currently available. The corresponding analysis has still to be done and further simulations will be necessary so that these exciting results will be presented in another publication.

This work is part of the ALPHA collaboration research programme. It was supported by the European Community under the grant HPRN-CT-2000-00145 Hadrons/Lattice QCD and by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft in the SFB/TR 09 and the Graduiertenkolleg GK271. All the production runs were carried out on machines of the APE1000 series at DESY-Zeuthen. The checks of the rounding errors in double precision were done with a C-code based on the MILC collaboration’s public lattice gauge theory code, see \[?\]. This code ran on the IBM p690 system of the HLRN \[?\] and on the PC cluster at DESY-Zeuthen. We thank the staff at the computer centres for their help, and M. Della Morte, S. Sint, R. Sommer, and U. Wolff for useful discussions.


format: text

text:
# Shell Model Calculations with Modified Empirical Hamiltonian in 132Sn region

## 1 Introduction

Few - valence - particle neutron - rich nuclei above the strongest doubly closed 132Sn Blo:1  are interesting for many reasons. They provide opportunity to extract empirical N-N interaction, as well as to test theoretical shell model description of nuclear structure in this region. Structure properties of some of these nuclei are important inputs for astrophysical r - process model calculations.

In a previous attempt Sah:1 , we have studied some N=82 - 85 isotones in this region with two (1 + 2) - body nuclear Hamiltonians, namely, KH5082 and CW5082, using the shell model code OXBASH Oxb:1 . The KH5082 and CW5082 are described in detail in the work of Chou and Warburton Cho:1 . One important observation of our study Sah:1  was that both the interactions, especially the CW5082 worked reasonably well in predicting binding energy, level spectra and electromagnetic properties of nuclear states for some N = 82 - 83 isotones in the 132Sn region. But for N$``$ 84 isotones, the agreement of the calculated values with those from experiments were poor. We have pointed out that, particularly, the neutron ($`\nu `$)- $`\nu `$ two-body matrix elements (tbmes) of these interactions might be inappropriate and this has also been supported by some other very recent experimental and theoretical investigations Rad:1 ; Cor:1 . Thus KH5082 and thereby CW5082 Hamiltonians, obtained by $`A^{1/3}`$ scaling from Kuo - Herling Hamiltonian for the stable 208Pb region after some realistic modification, though works for the 132Sn region within limitations, must be changed on account of the relatively large neutron - richness in the 132Sn region. Sn, Sb isotopes above the 132Sn core are already about 10 - 11 neutrons away from their corresponding last stable isotopes.

We have initiated Dae:1  to modify the existing nuclear Hamiltonian CW5082 in the light of the recent data for this region. We have obtained remarkable improvement with a modified interaction by changing a few neutron - neutron and neutron \- proton matrix elements and report in this article some of the interesting results. Further improvement in the modified Hamiltonian is indicated by changing also a few proton-proton matrix elements.

## 2 Formalism: Model space and modified Hamiltonian

It has been mentioned above that the CW5082 predicts binding energies, level spectra and other properties for 50$``$Z$``$55 and $`N<84`$ nuclei reasonably well. So in the present attempt, we have modified the CW5082 interaction. We assume 132Sn as the inert core. The valence space consists of five proton orbitals, $`\pi `$ \[$`1g_{7/2}`$, $`2d_{5/2}`$, $`2d_{3/2}`$, $`3s_{1/2}`$, $`1h_{11/2}`$\] and six neutron orbitals $`\nu `$ \[$`1h_{9/2}`$, $`2f_{7/2}`$, $`2f_{5/2}`$, $`3p_{3/2}`$, $`3p_{1/2}`$, $`1i_{13/2}`$\], with energies in MeV, $`\pi `$ \[0. (-9.6629) Fog:99 , 0.9624, 2.4396, 2.6972, 2.7915\] and $`\nu `$ \[1.5609, 0.0 (-2.4553) Fog:99 , 2.0046, 0.8537, 1.6557, 2.6950\], respectively. Here we have replaced all the single particle energies (spes) of the proton and neutron orbitals in CW5082 by experimentally determined ones Bnl:1  (except $`\pi 3s_{1/2}`$ and $`\nu 1i_{13/2}`$ spes). $`\pi 3s_{1/2}`$ spe is obtained from the local systematics Cho:1  and $`\nu 1i_{13/2}`$ is taken from Urban et al. Urb:1 .

Five proton- neutron tbmes of CW5082 interaction were obtained by Chou and Warburton by adjusting them to reproduce the energies of $`I^\pi =0^{}`$ and $`1^{}`$ levels of 134Sb. It is important to note that a recent precise measurement of the binding energy of this $`0^{}`$ state by Fogelberg et al. Sah:1 ; Fog:99  has changed the previous value Wap:97  by a significant amount of about 200 keV. The recently measured Fog:99  binding energy of 132Sn is also different from the earlier value Wap:97 . So the $`\nu \pi `$ tbmes also need modification to incorporate these important changes.

We change the neutron-neutron and proton-neutron tbmes keeping the proton-proton tbmes the same as those in CW5082. The six $`\nu \nu `$ diagonal tbmes with $`I^\pi =0^+`$ were already noted to be too attractive in the work of Chou and Warburton Cho:1 . We multiply all these six tbmes by a factor of 0.48. This factor is obtained by reproducing the binding energy of 134Sn (-6.365). All the binding energies (in MeV) are with respect to 132Sn Fog:99 . Three excited states in 134Sn Kor:1 , predominantly from the $`(\nu 2f_{7/2})^2`$ multiplet, at energies 725.6, 1073.4, and 1247.4 keV are used to modify the $`\nu 2f_{7/2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}|V|\nu 2f_{7/2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}^{2^+,4^+,6^+}`$ tbmes. The $`\nu 1h_{9/2}2f_{7/2}|V|\nu 1h_{9/2}2f_{7/2}^{8^+}`$ tbme has been changed to reproduce the energy of $`8^+`$ level at 2508.9 keV.

Similarly, using binding energy (-12.952) and $`1^{}`$, $`2^{}`$, $`3^{}`$, $`4^{}`$, $`7^{}`$, $`8^{}`$, $`10^+`$, $`9^+`$, $`10^{}`$, $`11^{}`$ and $`12^{}`$ excited levels at energies 13.0, 330.7, 383.5, 554.8, 283.0 Sah:1 , 1073, 2434, 2126, 4094, 4425 and 4517 keV respectively, of 134Sb Sb:1 , we have modified 12 dominant proton-neutron tbmes. Thus we have changed only ten $`\nu \nu `$ tbmes and twelve $`\nu \pi `$ tbmes to obtain SMN5082 Hamiltonian from CW5082.

From the results of shell model calculations with CW5082 interaction it was found that its proton-proton tbmes were reasonable. So in obtaining SMN5082 the $`\pi \pi `$ tbmes have been not changed. Recently, the two valence proton nucleus $`{}_{}{}^{134}Te`$ Te:1  has been studied more extensively, compared to $`{}_{}{}^{134}Sn`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{135}Sb`$ nuclei. It is expected that inclusion of new experimental data of $`{}_{}{}^{134}Te`$ will further improve the interaction (SMN5082). We have initiated this effort by using a few 134Te data. We have used the binding energy of 134Te (-20.56) and its three excited levels $`2^+`$, $`4^+`$ and $`6^+`$ at energies 1279, 1576 and 1692 keV Te:1 , respectively, predominantly from the $`(\pi 1g_{7/2})^2`$ multiplet, to modify only four important $`\pi \pi `$ tbmes of SMN5082 and the resulting interaction is named as SMPN5082.

We shall refer to, for brevity, SMN5082 and SMPN5082 as SMN and SMPN, respectively. Thus, of the 2101 tbmes of the CW5082 Hamiltonian, we have changed only 22 tbmes for SMN and additional four proton-proton tbmes for SMPN.

### 2.1 Results and Discussions

With these new interactions, we have calculated binding energies, level spectra and B(E2) values for some N=84-87 Sn, Sb, Te and I isotopes. Two different calculations have been carried out with these two slightly differing interactions. It is seen that even with this minor change, the result for the binding energies with the SMPN interaction is consistently better than that of SMN. So we compare the binding energies calculated with both the interactions. It should be noted that the results for Sn and Sb isotopes should be the same for both the interactions. For 136Te and 137Te, 137I the results are expected to be slightly different with SMN and SMPN. The level spectra with the SMN interaction for 135Sb and 137I have been compared in (fig (a),(c)) with the experimental as well as that of the parent CW5082, to show the improvement. In fig(b) and (d) we give for comparison the experimental level spectra and those calculated with SMN and SMPN interactions for 136-137Te.

It is emphasised that the new SMN and SMPN interactions produce consistently good results also for the N=82-83 isotones of these and Xe, Cs nuclei, which we have studied earlier with CW5082 and KH5082 Sah:1 .

The calculated binding energies (table 1) can be largely affected if the spes contain errors. The $`\pi 3s_{1/2}`$ and $`\nu i_{13/2}`$ spes might have uncertainties because of the ways they are determined. These have small effect for the ground states of the nuclei considered. The binding energies (table 1) are well reproduced with the two new Hamiltonians for N = 82, 83 isotones. For N$``$85, Sn and Sb nuclei, the binding energies quoted as experimental are derived from the local systematics and therefore have large errors (table 1). Therefore, it is difficult to draw a definite conclusion regarding the agreement of the calculated binding energies with experimental values for these nuclei. But for N=84 isotones and 137Te85, slight over-binding can be noted for the calculated values. So we assume this over-binding to persist for $`N84`$, Sn and Sb isotopes also. With the CW5082, the calculated binding energies are relatively less over-bound compared to the SMN and SMPN for N$``$ 84. This is because the neutron spes of CW5082 were made less bound by adding 100 keV to each neutron spe. Our observation regarding this over-binding for $`N`$84 is that it has an approximate systematic property. Over-binding, with SMPN, is $`\mathrm{\Delta }\times (N82)`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }=`$ 0.1 and 0.175 MeV for I and Te respectively. For 135-137Sb this is 0.4(N-83) MeV and that in 135-137Sn, is 0.6(N-84) MeV except for even-even 136Sn. The over-binding decreases with increasing valence proton number. This systematics as well as the detailed consideration of the interacting $`\pi \pi `$, $`\pi \nu `$ and $`\nu \nu `$ pairs in the valence space of the $`N84`$ isotones suggest that the over-binding has a connection with the increasing neutron-richness or $`N/Z`$ ratio. The over-binding increases particularly with the increasing $`\nu \nu `$ pairs. This indicates the necessity of modification of more $`\nu \nu `$ and $`\nu \pi `$ tbmes beyond the dominant ones, which requires further data.

In Figs. 1(a-d), we compare excitation spectra from our shell model calculations with CW5082, SMN and SMPN Hamiltonians with very recent experimental spectra. The agreement for all the nuclei is excellent, except for the 282 keV $`5/2^+`$ level in 135Sb, showing improvement achieved through the new Hamiltonians.

We compare our results for 135Sn, for which no experimental spectra is available yet, (except estimates from systematics for lowest few levels by Urban et al. Urb:3 ), with that predicted in Ref. Cor:1 . The energies with respect to the $`7/2^{}`$ ground state of the $`5/2^{}`$, $`3/2^{}`$, $`11/2^{}`$, $`9/2^{}`$, $`15/2^{}`$, $`3/2_2^{}`$, $`9/2_2^{}`$ and $`7/2_2^{}`$ levels are at 233, 353, 657, 701, 993, 1020, 1434 and 1535 keV in our calculation, whereas these levels are at 226, 356, 611, 706, 911, 643, 1093 and 1192 keV, respectively, in Ref. Cor:1 . The energies of the first five excited states of our calculation compare closely to the corresponding results of Ref. Cor:1  as well as with the estimates by Urban et al. Urb:3 . But the result starts deviating by more than 200 keV for higher excited levels with the calculation of Ref. Cor:1 .

Encouraged by the good agreement of our results with the available experimental data for all the nuclei, we predict also the spectra of 136Sn, an important nucleus for the r-process nucleosynthesis. The excitation energies with respect to the $`0^+`$ ground state of the $`2^+`$, $`4^+`$, $`4_2^+`$, $`6^+`$, $`2_2^+`$, $`5^+`$, $`8^+`$ and $`2_3^+`$ levels are 578, 886, 994, 1086, 1106, 1272, 1682 and 1696 keV, respectively. It is interesting to compare our prediction for the energy of the first excited $`2^+`$ state at 578 MeV with the estimate for it at about 600 keV from systematics by Urban et al Urb:3 .

The excitation spectra of 135Sb (Fig. 1a) studied through prompt gamma ray emission up to $`23/2^+`$ Pbh:1  is reproduced excellently in our shell model calculation using the new SMN Hamiltonian. But the $`5/2^+`$ level at 282 keV She:1  populated via beta decay of 135Sn is not reproduced in our calculation ($`E_{5/2^+}`$ = 690 keV). This behaviour is also noticed in other shell model calculations and have been discussed elaborately by Shergur et al. She:1  and references therein.

In 136Te a long lived isomeric $`12^+`$ level was expected Hof:1  from the analogy with 212Po, as well as from theoretical calculations Kor:2 . But it was not seen experimentally. Its non-existence was confirmed Kor:2  experimentally in an indirect way from the study of the neighbouring 137I nucleus. Our results in Fig. 1b excellently reproduces the experimental data confirming that the observed $`12^+`$ level at 3187 keV is indeed yrast and non-isomer. Thus the missing $`12^+`$ isomer issue Kor:2  is also resolved theoretically. The $`2_2^+`$ level in this nucleus is estimated at 1568 keV from systematics Hof:1 , whereas our result is 1591 keV (SMPN) and 1603 keV (SMN). The position of the lowest $`3^{}`$ level in 136Te, which is of considerable interest Hof:1  is also shown in Fig. 1b. to be at 3284 keV. This level, obviously involves many more unchanged tbmes of the original CW5082 and thus may have some uncertainty in the calculated energy.

The spectra of 137I Kor:2  and 137Te Urb:2  (Figs. 1c,d) show a kind of regularity indicating collectivity in their excitations. Clear indication of signature splitting is seen in the spectra of both 137I, Te nuclei. Our calculations reproduce this behaviour perfectly for 137I. But for 137Te, all the levels with signature $`1/2`$ (except for $`31/2^{}`$) are reproduced within $`50`$ keV, whereas the levels with +1/2 signature deviate by $`150200`$ keV.

The structures of the wave - functions of 137I energy levels show large configuration mixing leading to such collectivity. For example, with SMN, for the $`5/2^+`$ first excited state, 13 configurations contribute 75% to the wave-function and the rest is contributed by at least 25 other configurations. The most dominant $`(\pi 1g_{7/2})^3(\nu 2f_{7/2})^2`$ configuration contributes 35.5% to the wave function. One can compare this with the structure of the first excited state $`5/2^+`$ in 135I82 for which neutron shell is closed. Only 5 configurations contribute 98%, out of which 80% is contributed by the $`(\pi 1g_{7/2})^2(\pi 2d_{5/2})`$ configuration. This state is therefore, predominantly of single particle nature.

In 137Te there is an estimate of the energy of the first $`9/2^{}`$Urb:3  level from the experimental systematics at around 700 keV above the $`7/2^{}`$ ground state. This is close to our results in Fig. 1d (802 keV). Similarly, estimated $`(5/2^{},3/2^{})`$ level at around 100 keV of Urb:3  is most likely a $`5/2^{}`$ as shown by our calculation in the same Fig. 1d at 97 keV. Figs. 1c and d help resolving ambiguous $`I^\pi `$ of the levels in 137I and 137Te.

From the very good agreement of the calculated spectra with the experimental ones for all the nuclei compared here, one can hope that the new Hamiltonians, SMN and SMPN, can be useful for describing structure properties of at least low-lying yrast and near yrast states for all these few-valence-particle very neutron-rich nuclei in the $`{}_{}{}^{132}Sn`$ region.

To test the wave - functions corresponding to SMN Hamiltonian and to derive effective charges for this region, we have calculated the B(E2) values for the transitions $`2^+0^+`$, $`4^+2^+`$, $`6^+4^+`$ and $`8^+6^+`$ in 134Sn and obtained the values 73.2, 73.8, 36.5 and 4.8 in e2fm4, respectively, with neutron effective charge $`e_n^{eff}`$ = 0.72e. (B(E2) values are expressed throughout in e2fm4). This value of effective charge $`e_n^{eff}`$ = $`0.72_{}^{+0.06}{}_{0.08}{}^{}`$e, has been fixed by reproducing the experimental B(E2) value (36$`\pm 7`$) of $`6^+4^+`$ transition in 134Sn Sn:1 . The corresponding B(E2) values in Ref. Cor:1  with $`e_n^{eff}`$ = 0.70e are 70.1, 69.6, 35.8 and 4.9, respectively, showing very good agreement. Henceforth effective charges will be expressed in unit of $`\mathrm{`}e\mathrm{`}`$.

In table 2, we have compared the calculated and the available experimental B(E2) values Rad:1 ; Sn:1  for $`{}_{}{}^{134}Sn`$, $`{}_{}{}^{134,136}Te`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{135}Sb`$ nuclei with different sets of effective charges. For $`{}_{}{}^{135}Sb`$, only approximate value for the half-life is found in the literature Bnl:1 ; Pbh:1 . A B(E2) value $`45`$ has been extracted from the value of the half-life of the $`19/2^+`$ level using expression given in Ref. Law:1  and theoretical value of the internal conversion co-efficient Bnl:2 .

It is found that to reproduce the B(E2) value for the $`6^+4^+`$ transition in $`{}_{}{}^{134}Te`$ a proton effective charge as low as $`1.34\pm 0.01`$ is needed. Whereas, for $`0^+2^+`$ transition the corresponding proton effective charge is about $`1.54\pm 0.10`$. It is important to note that the proton effective charge of $`6^+4^+`$ transition gives B(E2) value for the $`0^+2^+`$ less than the experimental lower limit for it. The B(E2) value for the $`6^+4^+`$ transition appears to be more precise than the $`0^+2^+`$ transition. With $`e_p^{eff}`$=1.47, (a value in between, and used in literature Wil:1 ), $`\mathrm{}\omega =45A^{1/3}25A^{2/3}`$ as in Ref. Sah:1 , the calculated B(E2) values for the $`6^+4^+`$ and $`0^+2^+`$ transitions in 134Te (table 2) compare well with the experimental values.

However, the B(E2) values with $`e_n^{eff}`$ = 0.72 and $`e_p^{eff}`$ = 1.47, for the $`19/2^+15/2^+`$ and $`0^+2^+`$ transitions in $`{}_{}{}^{135}Sb`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{136}Te`$, are 84 and 2165, respectively. These are about double the corresponding experimental values 45 and 1030. This kind of result is also obtained with other Hamiltonians (CD-Bonn and SKX) and have been discussed by Radford et al. Rad:1 , and Shergur et al. She:1 . Recently, problems close to this has also been studied by Terasaki et al. Ter:1  in a schematic model. They attributed the anomalous behaviour of the $`0^+2^+`$ E2 transition in the 136Te to the reduction in neutron pairing above the N=82 magic gap. Thus effective charges extracted from the pure proton (134Te) and neutron (134Sn) systems can not reproduce the B(E2) values for the N=84, Sb and Te nuclei.

Now, let us consider 134Sn, $`{}_{}{}^{134}Te`$ and 136Te, keeping aside the N=84, 135Sb nucleus. For $`{}_{}{}^{136}Te`$, if we use the proton effective charge 1.47 from $`{}_{}{}^{134}Te`$, $`e_{n}^{}{}_{}{}^{eff}`$ needed is $``$ 0. This value is anomalously low compared to $`e_{n}^{}{}_{}{}^{eff}`$ (0.72) for 134Sn. Similarly, one can use $`e_{n}^{}{}_{}{}^{eff}`$ from 134Sn and vary $`e_{p}^{}{}_{}{}^{eff}`$ to fit B(E2) value of 136Te. In this case the $`e_{p}^{}{}_{}{}^{eff}`$ $``$ 0.80, which is anomalously low compared to that derived for 134Te.

But, if we include $`{}_{}{}^{135}Sb`$ also and consider the B(E2) values of three N = 84 isotones of Sn, Sb and Te, the following observations can be made. We find that $`e_{p}^{}{}_{}{}^{eff}`$ = 1.0 and $`e_{n}^{}{}_{}{}^{eff}`$ = $`0.51\pm 0.11`$ reproduces the B(E2) value, $`1030\pm 150`$ for the $`0^+2^+`$ transition in $`{}_{}{}^{136}Te`$. The same set of effective charges give B(E2) = $`42_{13}^{}{}_{}{}^{+14}`$ for the $`19/2^+15/2^+`$ transition in $`{}_{}{}^{135}Sb`$, and this is close to the experimental value. Similarly, with $`e_{p}^{}{}_{}{}^{eff}`$=1.0 and $`e_{n}^{}{}_{}{}^{eff}`$ = 0.54, which reproduces very closely the measured B(E2) value 45, for the $`19/2^+15/2^+`$ transition in $`{}_{}{}^{135}Sb`$, one gets a value 1070 for the $`0^+2^+`$ transition in $`{}_{}{}^{136}Te`$ and is within the experimental range. But $`e_{n}^{}{}_{}{}^{eff}`$ from these sets of effective charges give about half of experimental B(E2) value for the $`6^+4^+`$ transition in $`{}_{}{}^{134}Sn`$, (since $`e_{n}^{}{}_{}{}^{eff}`$ = 0.72). So for these N=84 isotones, only proton effective charge $``$ 1.0, with the neutron effective charge in the range (0.62-0.72) can bring all the calculated B(E2) values close to the experimental limits. It may be found from table 2 (column 7) that the most reasonable choice for a single set of effective charges for N=84 isotones is $`e_{p}^{}{}_{}{}^{eff}=1.0`$ and $`e_{n}^{}{}_{}{}^{eff}=0.62`$. With SMPN Hamiltonian similar results are obtained.

So this drastic reduction of proton effective charge for N=84 isotones compared to the N=82 isotones is quite interesting and needs further detailed experimental and theoretical investigations.

In $`{}_{}{}^{136}Sn`$, the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$v (seniority) $`=0`$, $`6^+4^+`$ transition between the pure $`(\nu 2f_{7/2})^4`$ multiplet levels is expected to be severely inhibited, as in $`{}_{}{}^{136}Xe`$ Sah:1 ; Law:1 ; Dal:1 . With SMN, the $`(\nu 2f_{7/2})^4`$ configuration is although dominant in the $`6^+`$ and $`4^+`$ levels in 136Sn (about 80% and 75.6%, respectively), yet due to configuration mixing the B(E2) value for this transition is not so severely inhibited. It is predicted to be 12.9 with $`e_n^{eff}`$=0.62. Measurement for this B(E2) value will be very helpful to conclude whether a further reduction of neutron effective charge is needed in this N=86 Sn isotope.

## 3 Conclusion

In summary, our calculations with the SMN Hamiltonian obtained by modifying CW5082 show several interesting results for this very neutron - rich region. We have found good agreement with experimental data for the excitation spectra of all the nuclei except for the first $`5/2^+`$ level at 282 keV in 135Sb. Our results clearly help in assigning spin and parity of some levels in these nuclei. Predictions for levels in $`{}_{}{}^{135}Sn`$ and 136Sn may motivate and provide a guidance for future experiments. Results for $`{}_{}{}^{136}Te`$ resolve theoretically the missing $`12^+`$ isomer issue and predict the position of $`3_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ level in it. The calculations for the A = 137, I and Te, reveal signature of collectivity. Calculated B(E2) values with usual e$`{}_{p}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{eff}`$ around 1.47 for $`{}_{}{}^{134}Te`$ isotope compare well with the very recent experimental data. But a drastic reduction in proton effective charge is required to reproduce B(E2) values for N=84 isotones. Neutron effective charge seems to lie in the range (0.62-0.72). Further modification of SMN is initiated in SMPN by modifying a few $`\pi \pi `$ tbmes. We are looking forward to change more $`\pi \pi `$ tbmes in SMPN using some already existing data and hope to modify more tbmes and spes using further experimental information which will be available in near future.

## 4 Acknowledgment

The authors thank Prof. Sudeb Bhattacharya and Prof. B. Dasmahapatra for encouragement.

FIGURE CAPTIONS

* Fig. 1 Comparison of calculated and experimental excitation energies for N=84,85 isotones, (a) $`{}_{}{}^{135}Sb`$, (b) $`{}_{}{}^{136}Te`$, (c) $`{}_{}{}^{137}I`$, (d) $`{}_{}{}^{137}Te`$.


text:
# D-braneworld cosmology

## I Introduction

One of the motivation for the braneworld is originated by the genius of a D-brane, that is, open strings describing the Standard Model particles stick to the brane. So if one is serious about this, we must employ the effective action for the D-brane, the Born-Infeld action, not the Nambu-Goto membrane actionBI . In the presence of the matters on the brane, the difference between the above two actions will appear.

The simplest braneworld model was proposed by Randall and SundrumRSI ; RSII  and subsequently extended to the cosmology by many peoplesTess ; Roy ; cosmos . However, the action for the brane is often assumed to be the Nambu-Goto action and the action for the matters on the brane is simply added by direct sum. In this paper we explore the cosmology on the D-brane (Related to the tachyon condensation, the tachyon matter on the brane has been also considered in the braneworldMukohyama ). As seen soon, our starting point is the 5-dimensional Einstein-Hilbert action plus the Born-Infeld action (we call this D-braneworld). Then we consider the radiation dominated universe on the D-brane. In this situation the brane action is described by Born-Infeld one where the matter term is automatically included.

Here reminded that there is a non-trivial aspect for the interpretation on the D-brane. According to Seiberg and WittenSW , the metric for the gauge field on the brane is given by $`\underset{\mu \nu }{\overset{s}{g}}=g_{\mu \nu }(2\pi \alpha ^{})^2(F^2)_{\mu \nu }`$, not just the induced metric $`g_{\mu \nu }`$. $`F`$ represents the field strength of the gauge fields on the brane. For this we will discuss the cosmology in the both metric. See Ref. Causal  for the causality issue.

Another motivation to think of the D-braneworld is the magnetogenesis in the very early universe (See Ref. PMF  for the comprehensive review and references). The coherent magnetic field over the horizon scale currently has the limit $`B<10^9\mathrm{Gauss}`$ from the cosmic microwave background anisotropySilk . If such magnetic field with long coherent length actually exists, we must seek for its primordial origin, especially in the inflating stage of the universe. It is well-known that the magnetic field cannot be generated due to the conformal invariance of the Maxwell theory in four dimensionParker . But, the conformal invariance is broken due to the non-linearity in the Born-Infeld theory. Thus we might be able to have a magnetogenesis scenario during the inflation on the D-braneworld.

The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II, we describe the setup for D-braneworld. We also comment on a holographic aspects in the D-braneworld. In Sec. III, we will focus on the radiation dominated cosmology in the induced metric. First, we will average the energy-momentum tensor over the volume to obtain the equation of state. And then we will see that the universe may be accelerating at the very early stage and the closed universe could avoid the initial singularities. In Sec. IV, we briefly reconsider the cosmology in the open string metric. In Sec. V, we give the summary and discussion. See Refs. BIcosmos ; BIcosmos2 ; BIBH  for other issues on the Born-Infeld cosmology/black holes and Ref. Gas  for the D-brane effect in the different context.

## II Setup

The total action is composed of the bulk and the D-brane action:

$`S=S_{\mathrm{bulk}}+S_{\mathrm{BI}},`$ (1)
where $`S_{\mathrm{bulk}}`$ is the 5-dimensional Einstein-Hilbert action with the negative cosmological constant and $`S_{\mathrm{BI}}`$ is the Born-Infeld action for a D-brane:

$`S_{\mathrm{BI}}=\sigma {\displaystyle d^4x\sqrt{\mathrm{det}(g_{\mu \nu }+(2\pi \alpha ^{})F_{\mu \nu })}},`$ (2)
where $`F_{\mu \nu }`$ is the field strength of the Maxwell theory on the brane. So $`F_{\mu \nu }`$ will correspond to the cosmic microwave background radiation if one thinks of the homogeneous and isotropic universe as discussed later. In the Born-Infeld action the matter part is automatically included. In the usual braneworld, on the other hand, we assume that the action on the brane is given by the Nambu-Goto action, $`S_{\mathrm{NG}}\sigma d^4\sqrt{g}`$, plus the matter action $`S_{\mathrm{matter}}`$, in particular, $`S_{\mathrm{matter}}d^4x\sqrt{g}F^2`$ for the Maxwell field on the brane.

In four dimensions $`S_{\mathrm{BI}}`$ becomes

$`S_{\mathrm{BI}}`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma {\displaystyle }d^4x\sqrt{g}[1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(2\pi \alpha ^{})^2\mathrm{Tr}(F^2)`$ (3)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}(2\pi \alpha ^{})^4\left(\mathrm{Tr}(F^2)\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(2\pi \alpha ^{})^4\mathrm{Tr}(F^4)]^{1/2}`$
$`=`$ $`\sigma {\displaystyle }d^4x\sqrt{g}[1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(2\pi \alpha ^{})^2\mathrm{Tr}(F^2)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{32}}(2\pi \alpha ^{})^4\left(\mathrm{Tr}(F^2)\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}(2\pi \alpha ^{})^4\mathrm{Tr}(F^4)`$
$`+O(\alpha ^6)].`$
From the first to the second line we expanded the square root and wrote down the expression up to the order of $`O(\alpha ^4)`$. For the practice and simplicity, hereafter, we employ this approximated action to discuss the whole history of cosmology. Since the action for self-gravitationg D-brane is not still known, the present treatment is conservative. The energy-momentum tensor on the brane is given by

$`\underset{\mu \nu }{\overset{\left(\mathrm{BI}\right)}{T}}`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma g_{\mu \nu }+4\pi \sigma (2\pi \alpha ^{})^2\underset{\mu \nu }{\overset{\left(\mathrm{em}\right)}{T}}`$ (4)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\sigma (2\pi \alpha ^{})^4\mathrm{Tr}(F^2)\left[(F^2)_{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}g_{\mu \nu }\mathrm{Tr}(F^2)\right]`$
$`\sigma (2\pi \alpha ^{})^4\left[(F^4)_{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}g_{\mu \nu }\mathrm{Tr}(F^4)\right]`$
$`=:`$ $`\sigma g_{\mu \nu }+T_{\mu \nu },`$
where

$`\underset{\mu \nu }{\overset{\left(\mathrm{em}\right)}{T}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}(F_\mu ^\alpha F_{\nu \alpha }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}g_{\mu \nu }F_{\alpha \beta }F^{\alpha \beta }).`$ (5)
Hereafter we call $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ the energy-momentum tensor of the Born-Infeld matter. To regard the above $`\underset{\mu \nu }{\overset{\left(\mathrm{em}\right)}{T}}`$ as the energy-momentum tensor of the usual Maxwell field on the brane, we set

$`\sigma (2\pi \alpha ^{})^2=1.`$ (6)
At the low energy limit $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ becomes $`T_{\mu \nu }\sigma g_{\mu \nu }+\underset{\mu \nu }{\overset{\left(\mathrm{em}\right)}{T}}`$ which is often used in the usual braneworld.

Since we are interested in what happens on the brane, it is useful to consult with the gravitational equation on the braneTess  (See also Roy ):

$`{}_{}{}^{(4)}G_{\mu \nu }^{}=8\pi GT_{\mu \nu }+\kappa ^4\pi _{\mu \nu }E_{\mu \nu },`$ (7)
where

$`8\pi G={\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2}{\mathrm{}}},`$ (8)
$$\pi _{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{4}T_{\mu \alpha }T_\nu ^\alpha +\frac{1}{12}TT_{\mu \nu }+\frac{1}{8}g_{\mu \nu }T_\beta ^\alpha T_\alpha ^\beta \frac{1}{24}g_{\mu \nu }T^2$$
(9)
and

$`E_{\mu \nu }=C_{\mu \alpha \nu \beta }n^\alpha n^\beta .`$ (10)
In the above we supposed the Randall-Sundrum fine-tuning, that is,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{}}}={\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2}{6}}\sigma ,`$ (11)
where $`\mathrm{}`$ is the curvature length of the five dimensional anti-deSitter spacetime. Under this tuning, the net-cosmological constant on the brane vanishes. We stress, however, that the tuning is not necessary for the discussion in this paper.

In general the above system is not closed on the brane except for the homogeneous-isotropic universe due to the presence of a part of the five dimensional Weyl tensor $`E_{\mu \nu }`$. In the weak field limit, we can check that the four dimensional Einstein gravity can be recoveredTama .

Finally, it is worth noting that the trace-part of $`\pi _{\mu \nu }`$ is related to the trace part of $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^4}{3}}\pi _\mu ^\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2}{\mathrm{}}}T_\mu ^\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^4}{12}}\left[\mathrm{Tr}(F^4){\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(\mathrm{Tr}(F^2)\right)^2\right].`$ (12)
This is a realisation of the holography in the braneworld, that is, $`\pi _\mu ^\mu `$ represents a part of the quantum correction to the electromagnetic field theory. This is because the Born-Infeld theory is a sort of phenomenological one for the quantum electrodynamicsHei . In some cases we can show that $`\pi _\mu ^\mu `$ is identical to the trace-anomaly of the quantum field theory on the braneholo1 ; holo2 .

## III Cosmological models

Let us focus on the homogeneous and isotropic universe. For simplicity, we consider the single brane model. Then the metric on the brane is

$`ds^2=dt^2+a^2(t)\gamma _{ij}dx^idx^j,`$ (13)
where $`\gamma _{ij}`$ is the metric of three dimensional unit sphere or unit hyperboloid or flat space. In this case we know $`E_\nu ^\mu =a^4\mathrm{diag}(3\mu ,\mu ,\mu ,\mu )`$ and $`\mu `$ is proportional to the mass of the five-dimensional Schwarzschild-anti-deSitter spacetime which is the bulk geometry. Moreover, the gravitational equation is closed on the brane, that is, it is completely written in terms of the four dimensional quantities on the brane. From now on we set $`\mu =0`$ which means that the bulk geometry is exactly the anti-deSitter spacetime111If the deviation from the anti-deSitter or Schwarzschild-anti-deSitter spacetime is, the gravitational equation is not closed on the braneTess .. Thus, the modified Friedmann equation becomes

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}}{a}}\right)^2={\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2}{3\mathrm{}}}\rho _{\mathrm{BI}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^4}{36}}\rho _{\mathrm{BI}}^2{\displaystyle \frac{K}{a^2}},`$ (14)
and

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{a}}{a}}={\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2}{6\mathrm{}}}(\rho _{\mathrm{BI}}+3P_{\mathrm{BI}}){\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^4}{36}}\rho _{\mathrm{BI}}(2\rho _{\mathrm{BI}}+3P_{\mathrm{BI}}).`$ (15)
By defining the electric and magnetic fields by

$`E^i=F_0^i,\mathrm{and}B^i={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ^{ijk}F_{jk},`$ (16)
$`T_{\mu \nu }`$ can be rewritten as

$`T_{00}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(E^2+B^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2\mathrm{}}{12}}(E_iB^i)^2`$ (17)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2\mathrm{}}{12}}(E^2B^2)\left[E^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(E^2B^2)\right],`$
$`T_{0i}=ϵ_{ijk}E^jB^k\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2\mathrm{}}{12}}(E^2B^2)\right],`$ (18)
and

$`T_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[E_iE_j+B_iB_j{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_{ij}(E^2+B^2)\right]`$ (19)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2\mathrm{}}{12}}(E^2B^2)[E_iE_j+B_iB_jB^2g_{ij}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}g_{ij}(E^2B^2)]{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2\mathrm{}}{12}}g_{ij}(E_kB^k)^2.`$
Since we identify the Maxwell field as the background radiation, the energy density and the pressure of the Born-Infeld matter should be evaluated by averaging over volume as222If we consider full order terms of $`\alpha ^{}`$, the avegared energy-momentum tensor will be written by infinite number of terms and cannot be represented by elementary functions. This is because averaging is not commutative with the expansion in the operation. As stressed before we will not consider the whole terms because we do not know the action for the self-gravitationg D-brane. The action which we know is only for probe one.

$`\rho _{\mathrm{BI}}`$ $`:=`$ $`T_{00}`$ (20)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(E^2+B^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2\mathrm{}}{36}}B^2E^2`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2\mathrm{}}{12}}(E^2B^2)\left[E^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(E^2B^2)\right],`$
and

$`P_{\mathrm{BI}}`$ $`:=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}T_i^i`$ (21)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}(E^2+B^2){\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2\mathrm{}}{36}}B^2E^2`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2\mathrm{}}{144}}(E^2B^2)(E^25B^2).`$
We assumed that the $`E_i`$ and $`B_i`$ are random fields and the coherent lengths are much shorter than the cosmological horizon scales. In the above we assumed $`E_iE_j=(1/3)g_{ij}E^2`$, $`B_iB_j=(1/3)g_{ij}B^2`$, $`E_i=B_i=0`$ and $`E_iB_j=0`$ which are natural in the homogeneous and isotropic universe. In addition, it is natural to assume “equipartition”333Propery speaking, we must confirm this following the process to the equilibrium state based on the Boltzmann-like equation. 444If $`F_{\mu \nu }`$ corresponds to the primordial magnetic field, it is natural to assume $`E^2=0`$ and $`B^2=2ϵ0`$. In this situation, the energy density and pressure are given by $`\rho _{\mathrm{BI}}=ϵ\frac{\kappa ^2\mathrm{}}{12}ϵ^2`$ and $`P_{\mathrm{BI}}=\frac{1}{3}ϵ\frac{5\kappa ^2\mathrm{}}{36}ϵ^2`$. In Ref. BIcosmos  similar Born-Infeld fluid has been considered, but the authors did not considered the D-braneworld. Just cosmology with the non-linear Maxwell field.:

$`E^2(t)=B^2(t)=:ϵ.`$ (22)
Thus the energy density and the pressure are simply given by

$`\rho _{\mathrm{BI}}=ϵ+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2\mathrm{}}{36}}ϵ^2,`$ (23)
and

$`P_{\mathrm{BI}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2\mathrm{}}{36}}ϵ^2.`$ (24)
By combining Eqs. (23) and (24), we obtain the equation of state

$`P_{\mathrm{BI}}=(\gamma _{BI}1)\rho _{BI},`$ (25)
with an effective adiabatic index

$`\gamma _{BI}={\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+\frac{\kappa ^2\mathrm{}}{36}ϵ}}.`$ (26)
At the low energy scale such $`ϵ36/\kappa ^2\mathrm{}`$, the Born-Infeld matter behaves as just radiation fluid with $`\gamma _{BI}4/3`$ and $`\rho _{\mathrm{BI}}(1/3)P_{\mathrm{BI}}`$. Note that the Born-Infeld matter looks like the time-dependent cosmological constant if the second terms are dominated, i.e., $`\gamma _{BI}0`$.

Now we have the equations of motion (14) and (15) and the equation of state (25) for the Born-Infeld matter. It should be noted that these equations can be scaled by defining new variables $`\overline{t}:=t/\mathrm{}`$, $`\overline{K}:=K\mathrm{}^2`$, $`\overline{ϵ}:=\kappa ^2\mathrm{}ϵ`$, $`\overline{\rho }_{BI}:=\kappa ^2\mathrm{}\rho _{BI}`$ and $`\overline{P}_{BI}:=\kappa ^2\mathrm{}P_{BI}`$. We can see the scale factor dependence of the energy density using the energy-conservation law, $`\dot{\rho }_{\mathrm{BI}}+3H(\rho _{\mathrm{BI}}+P_{\mathrm{BI}})=0`$, on the brane:

$`\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2\mathrm{}}{18}}ϵ\right)\dot{ϵ}=4Hϵ.`$ (27)
It is easy to integrate the above equation and then

$`ϵe^{\frac{\kappa ^2\mathrm{}}{18}ϵ}={\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_0}{a^4}}.`$ (28)
See Fig. 1 for $`ϵ`$. Therein we also draw the ordinary radiation case of $`ϵa^4`$. In the early universe, the Born-Infeld matter is significantly suppressed compared to the ordinary radiation fluid. We would stress that the drastic changes from the ordinary braneworld come from these features of the equation of state and the scale factor dependence of the energy density $`ϵ`$. For example, if one considers the radiation dominated cosmology in the ordinary braneworld, the correction terms to the Friedmann equation will be given by $`\pi _\nu ^\mu =\frac{\rho ^2}{12}(1,1,1,1)`$ and it will not play role as a vaccum energy.

Here note that the matter does not always satisfy the “strong energy condition” $`\rho +3P0`$. For the D-brane matter,

$`\rho _{\mathrm{BI}}+3P_{\mathrm{BI}}=2ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2\mathrm{}}{18}}ϵ^2,`$ (29)
and

$`2\rho _{\mathrm{BI}}+3P_{\mathrm{BI}}=3ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2\mathrm{}}{36}}ϵ^2.`$ (30)
When $`\gamma _{BI}<2/3`$, i.e., $`ϵ>36/\kappa ^2\mathrm{}(10^3\mathrm{GeV})^4(M_5/10^8\mathrm{GeV})^6`$, the “strong energy condition” is presumably broken555$`M_5`$ is the fundamental scale of five dimensional gravity and then $`M_5\kappa ^{1/3}(M_{\mathrm{pl}}^2\mathrm{}^1)^{1/3}10^8(1\mathrm{m}\mathrm{m}/\mathrm{})^{1/3}\mathrm{GeV}`$ in the single brane models. The string length becomes $`\mathrm{}_s=\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}\sigma ^{1/4}(\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{pl}}\mathrm{})^{1/2}10^{17}\times (\mathrm{}/1\mathrm{m}\mathrm{m})^{1/2}\mathrm{cm}`$. Thus the universe is accelerating during such period, $`\ddot{a}/a>0`$. Furthermore, we have the opportunity that the initial singularity can be avoided.

To see the quantitative feature of the dynamics of cosmology it is useful to write down the generalized Friedmann equation as usual:

$`\dot{a}^2+V(a)=K,`$ (31)
where

$`V(a):={\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2}{3\mathrm{}}}a^2\rho _{\mathrm{BI}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2\mathrm{}}{12}}\rho _{\mathrm{BI}}\right).`$ (32)
See Fig. 2 for the potential profile. Surprisingly, there is the minimum. In addition, as shown analytically, the potential is zero at $`a=0`$. Let us look at around $`a=0`$. $`ϵ`$ can be approximately solved as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2\mathrm{}}{18}}ϵ4\mathrm{l}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{g}a.`$ (33)
We can see that the potential, indeed, is zero at $`a=0`$ as seen in Fig. 2. In the current approximation, we see

$`V(a){\displaystyle \frac{576}{\mathrm{}^2}}a^2(\mathrm{log}a)^40,(a0).`$ (34)
As a result the closed universes is bounced around $`a=0`$! The flat or open universe has the initial singularity. Near $`a=0`$, the behavior of the scale factor in the flat universe becomes

$`a(t)e^{\frac{\mathrm{}}{24t}},`$ (35)
and then $`\ddot{a}/a\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{576}\frac{1}{t^2}>0`$, that is, the universe is accelerating. The bouncing behabior of the closed universe is owing to the existence of the BI field as we can observe the similar form of the potential without the quadratic terms $`\pi _\nu ^\mu `$ in Fig. 2. As we will see soon, however, the quantative behavior of the scale factor is quite different eqpecially around the bouncing, where the energy density becomes large.

For $`ϵ36/\kappa ^2\mathrm{}`$, as should be so, the universe is described by the ordinary radiation dominated model. See Fig. 3 for the behavior of the scale factor.

## IV Cosmology in stringy view

So far we investigated the D-braneworld in terms of the induced metric $`g_{\mu \nu }`$. For the gauge field on the brane like photons, however, the propagation of the field is described by the metric

$`\underset{\mu \nu }{\overset{s}{g}}=g_{\mu \nu }(2\pi \alpha ^{})^2(F^2)_{\mu \nu }.`$ (36)
Hence it is fair to consider the gravitational equation and cosmology in terms of $`\underset{\mu \nu }{\overset{s}{g}}`$. In the case of the radiation dominated universe, the corresponding metric is given by

$`d\stackrel{~}{s}^2`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{\mu \nu }{\overset{s}{g}}dx^\mu dx^\nu `$ (37)
$`=`$ $`d\stackrel{~}{t}^2+\stackrel{~}{a}(\stackrel{~}{t})^2\gamma _{ij}dx^idx^j,`$
$`=`$ $`\left[1+(2\pi \alpha ^{})^2(F^2)_{00}\right]dt^2`$
$`+\left[g_{ij}(2\pi \alpha ^{})^2(F^2)_{ij}\right]dx^idx^j,`$
$`=`$ $`\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2\mathrm{}}{6}}ϵ\right)dt^2`$
$`+a^2\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2\mathrm{}}{18}}ϵ\right)\gamma _{ij}dx^idx^j,`$
where $`\stackrel{~}{t}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{a}(\stackrel{~}{t})`$ are the cosmic time and the scale factor of the open string metric, respectively. As discussed in Ref. Causal , the light-cone with respect to the open string metric is smaller than that in the induced metric. Let $`n^\mu `$ to be null vector for the induced metric. For the concreteness, $`n=_t+(1/a)_x`$. Then

$`\underset{\mu \nu }{\overset{s}{g}}n^\mu n^\nu `$ $`=`$ $`(2\pi \alpha ^{})^2(F^2)_{\mu \nu }n^\mu n^\nu ,`$ (38)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\kappa ^2\mathrm{}}{9}}ϵ>0,`$
and this means that $`n`$ is the spacelike in the open string metric.

We point out that the singularity appears at the finite value of $`ϵ=ϵ_c:=\frac{12}{\kappa ^2\mathrm{}}`$. The physical energy measured also diverges because it is proportional to $`1/\sqrt{1\kappa ^2\mathrm{}ϵ/12}`$. Anyway the universe evolves keeping $`ϵ<ϵ_c`$. This means that there is no drastic changes in the open string metric, but slight modifications from the ordinary radiation dominated universe.

At first glance, we cannot examine the interesting region where the feature of Born-Infeld becomes essential. However, it might be better to say that this is because of the limitation of the stringy metric.

## V Summary and discussion

In this paper we have considered the Randall-Sundrum D-braneworld cosmology. Therein the matter on the brane is described by the Born-Infeld action. As a first step, we considered only the $`U(1)`$ gauge field and treated it as a sort of radiation fluids. Then we examined the radiation dominated universe on the D-brane. We found that the strong energy condition is broken in the very early stage and the universe is more accelerated than the ordinary inflation. Furthermore the initial singularity is avoided in closed universes. Thus we can conclude that we have the different history about the early stage from the ordinary braneworld scenario if we are living on the D-brane, not on the Nambu-Goto membrane. In the acceleration phase, the ratio of the two scale factors at different times is given by $`a(t_f)/a(t_i)e^{\frac{\kappa ^2\mathrm{}}{72}(ϵ_iϵ_f)}`$. For the horizon problem $`a(t_f)/a(t_i)>10^{13}\times (100\mathrm{k}\mathrm{m}/s/\mathrm{Mpc}/H_0)(T/10^3\mathrm{GeV})`$ is required. Then if $`\frac{\kappa ^2\mathrm{}}{72}\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ>30`$ the horizon problem is solved. However, the origin of the density fluctuation is not provided just in this scenario.

We should remark that we employed the approximated action in the second line of Eq. (3). We discussed the high energy regime where the expansion is broken and the approximated action may not be appropriate. Without such approximation, however, we must treat the infinite series expansion due to the volume averaging. Although our treatment contains this kind of problem, we could obtain the important tendency. The future improvement for the treatment of the higher derivative terms is desired.

We also addressed the D-braneworld in the open string metric, that is, stringy view. As a result, the singularity appears just at the time when the non-trivial effects of the D-brane are dominated. In this sense we might not be able to expect the significant contribution from the D-braneworld specialties in the stringy view.

Since we obtained the nature that the Born-Infeld matter contains vacuum/dark energy part, the current accelerating universe can be explained in the D-braneworld without introducing the additional exotic fields like quitessence.

## Acknowledgments

TS would like to thank Kouji Hashimoto, Kei-ichi Maeda and Norisuke Sakai for fruitful discussions. To complete this work, the discussion during and after the YITP workshops YITP-W-01-15 and YITP-W-02-19 were useful. TS’s work is supported by Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture of Japan (No. 13135208, No.14740155 and No.14102004).

## References


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The four–dimensional Melvin universe  describes a gravitating magnetic fluxtube which, in the context of Kaluza–Klein theory , can be obtained from five–dimensional Minkowski space by identifying coordinates in a non–standard way . By adding six flat spectator dimensions, one obtains  a seven–dimensional fluxbrane (the F7-brane) which can be generated *via* a similar identification of points in eleven–dimensional Minkowski space. The F7-brane, and its intersecting cousins to be considered below, are thus expected to be exact solutions of M-theory, including all curvature corrections. For the same reason, string theory on the similar solution with Neveu–Schwarz–Neveu–Schwarz (NS–NS) flux obtained from ten–dimensional Minkowski space is exactly solvable .

One can further generate spherical branes immersed within the background of a single fluxbrane , spherical D6-branes within the context of string theory, and supergravity solutions  describing the dielectric effect of Myers . Of course, a spherical brane is held only in metastable equilibrium by the ambient flux; it is easy to see that the fluxbrane itself will be unstable to the semi–classical nucleation of just such a spherical brane. In fact, there is a second decay mode , corresponding to Witten’s bubble of nothing .

More explicitly, to obtain a flux $`(D4)`$-brane from $`D`$ dimensional flat space in terms of cylindrical polar coordinates, one dimensionally reduces by identifying points separated by $`2\pi R`$ along the closed orbits of the Killing vector

$$K=\frac{}{z}+B\frac{}{\varphi },$$
(1.1)
where the parameter $`B`$ becomes the magnetic field in the reduced theory. In other words, the identification of points is

$$zz+2\pi nR,\varphi \varphi +2\pi nBR+2\pi mn,m.$$
(1.2)
These identifications are unchanged under $`BB+n/R`$, for some integer $`n`$, so physically inequivalent spacetimes have

$$\frac{1}{2R}B<\frac{1}{2R}.$$
(1.3)
In a theory with fermions, however, one must be more careful . Fermionic boundary conditions are unchanged only under $`BB+2n/R`$, so we should consider the magnetic field to lie in the range

$$\frac{1}{R}B<\frac{1}{R}.$$
(1.4)
This becomes clearer when one thinks about spin structures . The original $`D`$–dimensional space is topologically $`𝕄^{D1}\times S^1`$, so there are two distinct spin structures; under parallel transport around the orbits of $`K`$, spinors pick up a phase

$$+e^{\pi RB\mathrm{\Gamma }}\mathrm{or}e^{\pi RB\mathrm{\Gamma }},$$
(1.5)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is an element of the Lie algebra of $`\mathrm{Spin}(1,D1)`$ which generates rotations along $`\varphi `$ and has $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^2=1`$. As in the usual Kaluza–Klein scenario , we are free to choose the overall sign. For $`B=0`$, and in the string theory context, the first choice corresponds to the type IIA theory with supersymmetric boundary conditions and the second corresponds to the non–supersymmetric type 0A theory . By continuity we make the same assignments for non–zero $`B`$.

Since the twisted identifications (1.2) break all supersymmetry, there is no immediate obstruction to decay processes. The two semi–classical decay modes of the fluxbrane  are determined by choosing a spin structure . In both cases , the relevant instanton is the Euclidean version of the $`D`$–dimensional Kerr black hole found by Myers & Perry . We denote this as Kerr$`(\mathrm{\Omega })`$, where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the Euclidean “rotation” parameter.

To avoid a conical singularity in Kerr$`(\mathrm{\Omega })`$, the Euclidean time coordinate must be periodic in the usual way. But one must also identify coordinates as in (1.2), with $`B=\mathrm{\Omega }`$, where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ lies in the range

$$\frac{1}{R}<\mathrm{\Omega }<\frac{1}{R}.$$
(1.6)
Reducing Kerr$`(\mathrm{\Omega }=B)`$ along

$$K=\frac{}{z}+B\frac{}{\varphi },$$
(1.7)
thus gives a $`(D1)`$–dimensional solution with the same asymptotic magnetic field, $`B`$, as reducing Kerr$`(\mathrm{\Omega }=B1/R)`$ along

$$K^{}=K\pm \frac{1}{R}\frac{}{\varphi }.$$
(1.8)
The latter is the “shifted instanton” of , and we use the upper (lower) sign if $`B`$ is positive (negative). As far as the bosonic fields are concerned, one would thus conclude that a fluxbrane with magnetic field $`B`$ has two decay modes, corresponding to the shifted and unshifted instanton. However, due to the shift in $`B`$, the two $`(D1)`$–dimensional theories will have opposite spin structures. To determine which is which , note that under parallel transport around integral curves at infinity of (1.7), spinors in Kerr$`(\mathrm{\Omega }=B)`$ pick up a phase $`\mathrm{exp}\left(\pi RB\mathrm{\Gamma }\right)`$ so, in the string theory context, this corresponds to the 0A theory. On the other hand, under parallel transport around integral curves at infinity of (1.8), spinors in Kerr$`(\mathrm{\Omega }=B1/R)`$ pick up a phase $`\mathrm{exp}\left(\pi R(B1/R)\mathrm{\Gamma }\right)=+\mathrm{exp}\left(\pi RB\mathrm{\Gamma }\right)`$, which corresponds to the IIA theory.

We thus have the following picture . Reducing Kerr$`(\mathrm{\Omega }=B)`$ along $`K`$ gives the decay mode relevant to the F7-brane in the 0A theory; the fixed point set of $`K`$ is a nine–sphere so, upon analytically continuing one of the ignorable angles, this describes a deformed version of Witten’s bubble of nothing . Reducing instead Kerr$`(\mathrm{\Omega }=B1/R)`$ along $`K^{}`$ gives the decay mode relevant to the F7-brane in the IIA theory; the fixed point set of $`K^{}`$ gives rise to an expanding six–sphere upon analytic continuation.

As we will review below, intersecting fluxbranes can be constructed *via* a similar twisted reduction of flat Minkowski space; one simply adds extra rotations to the Killing vector along which one dimensionally reduces . But here there is a surprise, in that supersymmetry can be preserved for specific values of the magnetic fields associated with each of the individual fluxbranes. In the ten–dimensional context of two intersecting F7-branes, this was first pointed out in  and a complete classification of the ten–dimensional supersymmetric fluxbrane configurations was made in . Yet instantons describing the semi–classical decay modes of intersecting fluxbranes certainly exist, having already been discussed in ; they are constructed from the Euclideanized Myers–Perry black holes  with more than one plane of rotation111Upon a further analytic continuation of one of the ignorable angles, and after dimensional reduction, these spaces describe the evolution of intersecting fluxbranes after they decay but, prior to dimensional reduction, they are interesting potential string theory backgrounds in their own right ..

The question we want to address here is what happens to the instantons describing these decay modes for the cases in which supersymmetry is preserved. Some mention of these issues has already appeared in , where string theory on intersecting NS–NS fluxbranes is shown to be solvable, just as for the single fluxbrane. As in that paper, one can argue that the semi–classical amplitude for the decay of a supersymmetric solution must vanish, due to the presence of fermion zero–modes. For the dual solution in type 0A however, there is no supersymmetry, so stability does not arise from fermion zero modes. For this reason we calculate the action of the instantons, showing that in the supersymmetric case the action diverges, giving a vanishing semi–classical decay amplitude.

This note is organized as follows. In the next section, we briefly review the construction of the flux $`(D6)`$-brane (two intersecting flux $`(D4)`$-branes), before turning to consider the instantons describing the various decay modes in section 3. We discuss spin structures and how they determine the possible decay modes in section 4 and compute the action for the instanton in section 5. We conclude in section 6. We try to be dimension–independent although, since we will ultimately be interested in string theory, we will sometimes specialize to the ten–dimensional case.

## 2 Intersecting fluxbranes

Although most of what we discuss here can be made more general, we will concentrate on the case of two flux $`(D4)`$-branes intersecting over a flux $`(D6)`$-brane. To generate such a solution , we start with $`D`$–dimensional Minkowski space written as

$$\mathrm{d}s_D^2=\mathrm{d}s^2(𝕄^{D5})+\underset{i=1,2}{}\left(\mathrm{d}\rho _i^2+\rho _i^2\mathrm{d}\varphi _i^2\right)+\mathrm{d}z^2,$$
(2.1)
and, with $`i=1,2`$, make the identifications

$$zz+2\pi nR,\varphi _i\varphi _i+2\pi nB_iR+2\pi m_in,m_i.$$
(2.2)
At least as far as the bosons are concerned, inequivalent spacetimes are thus obtained for both

$$\frac{1}{2R}B_i<\frac{1}{2R}.$$
(2.3)
Geometrically, we dimensionally reduce along the closed orbits of the Killing vector

$$K=\frac{}{z}+B_1\frac{}{\varphi _1}+B_2\frac{}{\varphi _2},$$
(2.4)
which in practice involves introducing coordinates

$$\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_i=\varphi _iB_iz,\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_i\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_i+2\pi m_i,$$
(2.5)
with standard periodicity and which are constant along orbits of $`K`$, $`K(\stackrel{~}{\varphi })=0`$. In these coordinates, the Killing vector is simply $`K=/z`$.

To show that this identification need not break supersymmetry , we work with the shifted coordinates $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ in the obvious orthonormal basis. Then it is easy to see that Killing spinors must have the form

$$ϵ(\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_i,z)=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{2}(\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_1\mathrm{\Gamma }_1+\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_2\mathrm{\Gamma }_2)\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{2}(B_1\mathrm{\Gamma }_1+B_2\mathrm{\Gamma }_2)z\right)\xi _0,$$
(2.6)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i`$ being the element of the Lie algebra of $`\mathrm{Spin}(1,10)`$ which generates rotations along $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi _i}`$ and has $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i^2=1`$ and where $`\xi _0`$ is an arbitrary constant spinor. We can thus preserve one–half of the $`D`$–dimensional supersymmetries if and only if $`B_2=\pm B_1`$, the identifications (2.2) preserving those spinors which satisfy the projection condition

$$\left(1\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\mathrm{\Gamma }_2\right)\xi _0=0.$$
(2.7)
Reducing along orbits of $`K`$, the $`(D1)`$–dimensional solution describing the two–element intersecting fluxbrane is, in the Einstein frame ,

$`\mathrm{d}s_{D1}^2`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\frac{1}{D3}}\left(\mathrm{d}s^2(𝕄^{D5})+\mathrm{d}\rho _1^2+d\rho _2^2\right)+\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\frac{D4}{D3}}\left(\rho _1^2\mathrm{d}\varphi _1^2+\rho _2^2\mathrm{d}\varphi _2^2+\rho _1^2\rho _2^2\left(B_2\mathrm{d}\varphi _1B_1\mathrm{d}\varphi _2\right)^2\right),`$
$`A`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^1\left(\rho _1^2B_1\mathrm{d}\varphi _1+\rho _2^2B_2\mathrm{d}\varphi _2\right),`$ (2.8)
$`e^{\frac{4\varphi }{\sqrt{D2}}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }1+B_1^2\rho _1^2+B_2^2\rho _2^2.`$
For $`D=11`$, this has been referred to as an F5-brane in the literature , due to the Poincaré invariance in a six–dimensional “worldvolume”, although strictly speaking this terminology has been applied only to the supersymmetric case; the polarization of D-branes due to an F5-brane was studied in . The field strength222In the same way that the single fluxbrane describes a “constant” two–form magnetic field in general relativity, one might think that the above intersecting fluxbrane in some sense describes a “constant” four–form magnetic field and this, of course, is consistent with the terminology. However, there is only ever a two–form in the game, so it is unclear to what extent the intersecting fluxbrane is an independent entity.

has non–vanishing second Chern class

$$_{^2\times ^2}FF=_{S_{\mathrm{}}^3}A\mathrm{d}A=\frac{(2\pi )^2}{B_1B_2}.$$
(2.9)
As for the single fluxbrane , the intersecting solution should be thought of as a good description of the configuration of magnetic fields only when they are, in some sense, small. For the $`(D1)`$–dimensional solution to be weakly curved, and, when $`D=11`$, for string theory to be weakly coupled, we need both the $`\rho _i<<B_i`$. But for the Kaluza–Klein ansatz to be valid, we need all length scales to be much larger than the radius of compactification; that is, $`\rho _i>>R`$. Thus, the ten–dimensional solution is valid only for both $`B_i<<1/R`$. For either $`B_i1/R`$, and to keep weak curvature and string coupling, we need $`\rho _i>>R`$, so the ten–dimensional description is no longer a good one.

There is an interesting way to view the *supersymmetric* intersecting fluxbrane , which is worth making explicit, and shows why it preserves supersymmetry in the first place. To see this, take flat Minkowski space as in (2.1). Think of the $`^4`$ spanned by $`\{\rho _i,\varphi _i\}`$ as $`\times S^3`$ and the $`S^3`$ as an $`U(1)`$ bundle over $`S^2`$. Then one can show that the Killing vector

$$K=B\left(\frac{}{\varphi _1}+\frac{}{\varphi _2}\right),$$
(2.10)
generates translations along the $`U(1)`$ Hopf fibre . In fact, identifying points along the closed orbits of $`K`$ gives the near–core geometry of Taub–NUT space . Introduce the coordinates

$$\psi =\frac{\varphi _1}{B},\varphi =\varphi _2B\psi ,$$
(2.11)
so that $`K=/\psi `$. Then, upon setting

$$\rho _1=\frac{1}{B}\sqrt{\frac{r}{\mu }}\mathrm{cos}(\theta /2),\rho _2=\frac{1}{B}\sqrt{\frac{r}{\mu }}\mathrm{sin}(\theta /2),$$
(2.12)
and taking $`B=1/(2\mu )`$, the metric (2.1) becomes

$$\mathrm{d}s_D^2=\mathrm{d}s^2(𝕄^{D5})+\mathrm{d}z^2+V^1\left(\mathrm{d}\psi +\mu (1\mathrm{cos}\theta )\mathrm{d}\varphi \right)^2+V(\mathrm{d}r^2+r^2\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2),$$
(2.13)
where $`V=\mu /r`$. This is easily recognized as the near–core geometry of the $`D`$–dimensional Kaluza–Klein monopole , with points identified along orbits of $`K=/\psi `$ *i.e.* along the Hopf fibre as promised.

To generate the two intersecting fluxbranes, we simply add a translation along $`z`$ to the Killing vector $`K`$, identifying points along orbits of

$$K^{}=\frac{}{z}+K=\frac{}{z}+\frac{}{\psi }.$$
(2.14)
Since the double twist involved in generating the above fluxbrane intersection is in the Hopf fibre direction $`\psi `$, supersymmetry is guaranteed; none of the Killing spinors of (the near–core region of) Taub–NUT space are broken by the twist. If we now set $`\tau =\psi z`$ such that $`K^{}(\tau )=0`$, and reduce along orbits of $`K^{}=/z`$ as above, we find, in the Einstein frame

$`\mathrm{d}s^2`$ $`=`$ $`H^{\frac{1}{D3}}V^{\frac{D4}{D3}}\left(V^1\mathrm{d}s^2(𝕄^{D5})+(HV)^1\left(\mathrm{d}\tau +\omega \right)^2+\mathrm{d}s^2(𝔼^3)\right),`$
$`A`$ $`=`$ $`H^1\left(\mathrm{d}\tau +\omega \right),`$ (2.15)
$`e^{\frac{4\varphi }{\sqrt{D2}}}`$ $`=`$ $`HV^1,`$
where $`H=1+V`$, $`V=\mu /r`$, $`\omega =\mu (1\mathrm{cos}\theta )\mathrm{d}\varphi `$ and we have again taken $`B=1/(2\mu )`$. As discussed in , for $`D=11`$, this form of the F5-brane is reminiscent of that describing bound states of D6-branes and Kaluza–Klein monopoles found in  where the charges, $`\mu `$, of both elements are equal. The function $`V`$ would be associated with the D6-brane, and the function $`H`$ with the monopole, so the D6-brane is actually wrapped on the monopole circle. However, the match cannot be made exact and we have also gone to the near–core of the D6-brane, but not of the monopole, despite the fact that the charges are the same. In fact, the above form of the F5-brane is what one would find by taking this “near–core” limit of the fluxbranes considered in . In these papers, supersymmetric fluxbranes on curved space were found *via* twisted reductions of the Taub–NUT geometry, whereas to generate the F5-brane itself, one simply starts instead with the near–core limit of the Taub–NUT space.

## 3 Instantons for intersecting fluxbranes

In general, one should expect similar instabilities of the intersecting fluxbrane solution as for the single fluxbrane. Indeed, the relevant decay modes and corresponding instantons have already been briefly described : decay *via* Witten’s bubble of nothing; nucleation of a locally charged $`(D5)`$–sphere in either one of the fluxbrane elements; or nucleation of an uncharged $`(D7)`$–sphere in the intersecting region 333With $`D=11`$, one should have a nice interpretation of this four–sphere in terms of branes, but it is unclear to us as to what this should be. One clue is the reduction of the ten–dimensional Euclidean Schwarzschild solution with a trivial time direction. In the case of a single twist, this gives a six–sphere held in metastable equilibrium by the background flux . By going near the core, one can see explicitly that this is a spherical D6-brane. We have looked at the case with two twists instead, in which one can indeed identify a four–sphere in the region of intersection, but have been unable to give this a satisfactory interpretation in terms of branes. This is related to our discussion of the F5-brane in section 2 which is similar to a bound state of D6-branes and monopoles.. However, the authors of  did not appreciate that, for $`B_1=\pm B_2`$, the intersecting solution is supersymmetric. In this case, we would expect stability, and so would not expect to find such instantons 444Of course, we are concerned here with non–perturbative stability. One should also expect perturbative stability of the supersymmetric intersecting solutions. However, they are not asymptotically flat so, as for supersymmetric plane waves , it is unclear as to what extent the presence of Killing spinors guarantees stability..

Our starting point is the Myers–Perry  black hole in arbitrary odd dimension $`D=1+N`$, with angular momenta, $`a_i`$, in two orthogonal planes. Ultimately, we will be interested in taking $`D=11`$. Analytically continuing $`tiz`$ and $`a_ii\alpha _i`$, the Euclidean metric is

$$\mathrm{d}s_D^2=\mathrm{d}z^2+(r^2\alpha _1^2)\left(\mathrm{d}\mu _1^2+\mu _1^2\mathrm{d}\varphi _1^2\right)+(r^2\alpha _2^2)\left(\mathrm{d}\mu _2^2+\mu _2^2\mathrm{d}\varphi _2^2\right)+r^2\underset{i=3}{\overset{N/2}{}}\left(\mathrm{d}\mu _i^2+\mu _i^2\mathrm{d}\varphi _i^2\right)$$

$$\frac{\mu r^2}{\mathrm{\Pi }F}\left(\mathrm{d}z+\alpha _1\mu _1^2\mathrm{d}\varphi _1+\alpha _2\mu _2^2\mathrm{d}\varphi _2\right)^2+\frac{\mathrm{\Pi }F}{\mathrm{\Pi }\mu r^2}\mathrm{d}r^2,$$
(3.1)
where the direction cosines are constrained as

$$\mu _1^2+\mu _2^2+\underset{i=3}{\overset{N/2}{}}\mu _i^2=1,$$
(3.2)
and

$$\mathrm{\Pi }=r^{N4}(r^2\alpha _1^2)(r^2\alpha _2^2),F=1+\frac{\alpha _1^2\mu _1^2}{(r^2\alpha _1^2)}+\frac{\alpha _2^2\mu _2^2}{(r^2\alpha _2^2)}.$$
(3.3)
There is a “bolt” at the origin, $`r=r_H`$, of polar coordinates, given by the largest root of $`\mathrm{\Pi }(r_H)=\mu r_H^2`$, so that

$$\mu =r_H^{N6}(r_H^2\alpha _1^2)(r_H^2\alpha _2^2),$$
(3.4)
and where $`\mu 0`$. To avoid a conical singularity at $`r=r_H`$, we have to identify the coordinates as

$$zz+2\pi R,\varphi _1\varphi _1+2\pi n\mathrm{\Omega }_1R+2\pi m_1,\varphi _2\varphi _2+2\pi n\mathrm{\Omega }_2R+2\pi m_2,$$
(3.5)
where the radius of the $`z`$ circle is given by

$$R=\frac{2\mu r_H^2}{\mathrm{\Pi }^{}(r_H)2\mu r_H}=2\mu \frac{1}{r_H^{N5}}\left((N2)r_H^2(N4)(\alpha _1^2+\alpha _2^2)+(N6)\frac{\alpha _1^2\alpha _2^2}{r_H^2}\right)^1,$$
(3.6)
and the “Euclidean angular velocities” are

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _1}{r_H^2\alpha _1^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _1}{\mu }}(r_H^2\alpha _2^2)r_H^{N6},`$ (3.7)
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _2}{r_H^2\alpha _2^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _2}{\mu }}(r_H^2\alpha _1^2)r_H^{N6}.`$ (3.8)
Asymptotically, the solution tends to flat space, but with the non–standard identifications (3.5). In other words, asymptotically the solution looks like the Euclidean version of the $`D`$–dimensional intersecting fluxbrane solution considered above. We simply identify the magnetic fields as

$$B_1=\mathrm{\Omega }_1,B_2=\mathrm{\Omega }_2,$$
(3.9)
and we have the correct asymptotics for this to be a valid instanton describing various decay modes of the intersecting fluxbrane.

An important question concerns the parameter space of this instanton. That is, what are the possible ranges of the $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i`$? To analyse this, we first consider the two obvious limits:

$$(i)\alpha _1\pm \mathrm{},\alpha _2=\mathrm{constant}<<\alpha _1,$$
(3.10)
$$(ii)\alpha _2\pm \mathrm{},\alpha _1=\mathrm{constant}<<\alpha _2.$$
(3.11)
From (3.4), we must have $`r_H|\alpha _1|`$ ($`r_H|\alpha _2|`$) in case $`(i)`$ ($`(ii)`$). Then, from (3.6), we can keep the radius fixed if we take $`\mu R|\alpha _2|^{N3}`$ ($`\mu R|\alpha _1|^{N3}`$) in case $`(i)`$ ($`(ii)`$). This gives

$$(i)\mathrm{\Omega }_1R\pm 1,\mathrm{\Omega }_20,$$
(3.12)
$$(ii)\mathrm{\Omega }_2R\pm 1,\mathrm{\Omega }_10.$$
(3.13)
These are the two limits in which the parameters effectively reduce to those of the case with a single rotation, with one of the $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i=0`$.

To understand what happens in the intermediate cases, the obvious limit to take is that in which both $`\alpha _1`$ and $`\alpha _2`$ go to infinity at the same rate, namely

$$\alpha _1=\alpha _2\alpha \mathrm{}.$$
(3.14)
Then (3.4) gives $`r_H\alpha `$ as before, but the radius (3.6) would seem to be ill-defined. To analyse this case further, and with an eye on the evaluation of the action in the following section, we introduce the dimensionless parameters

$$\widehat{\alpha }_i=\frac{\alpha _i}{r_H},\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_i=\mathrm{\Omega }_ir_H,\widehat{\mu }=\frac{\mu }{r_H^{N2}},\widehat{R}=\frac{R}{r_H},$$
(3.15)
in terms of which

$`\widehat{\mu }`$ $`=`$ $`(1\widehat{\alpha }_1^2)(1\widehat{\alpha }_2^2),\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_i={\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{\alpha }_i}{1\widehat{\alpha }_i^2}},`$ (3.16)
$`\widehat{R}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\widehat{\mu }}{N2(N4)(\widehat{\alpha }_1^2+\widehat{\alpha }_2^2)+(N6)\widehat{\alpha }_1^2\widehat{\alpha }_2^2}},`$ (3.17)
so that

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_1R=\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_1\widehat{R}=2\widehat{\alpha }_1(1\widehat{\alpha }_2^2)\left(N2(N4)(\widehat{\alpha }_1^2+\widehat{\alpha }_2^2)+(N6)\widehat{\alpha }_1^2\widehat{\alpha }_2^2\right)^1,$$
(3.18)
$$\mathrm{\Omega }_2R=\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_2\widehat{R}=2\widehat{\alpha }_2(1\widehat{\alpha }_1^2)\left(N2(N4)(\widehat{\alpha }_1^2+\widehat{\alpha }_2^2)+(N6)\widehat{\alpha }_1^2\widehat{\alpha }_2^2\right)^1.$$
(3.19)
Note that for $`\mu 0`$, we need either both $`|\widehat{\alpha }_i|1`$ or both $`|\widehat{\alpha }_i|1`$, but for $`\widehat{R}`$ positive we are restricted to $`|\widehat{\alpha }_i|1`$. Of the four possible combinations of limiting cases ($`\widehat{\alpha }_1\pm 1`$, $`\widehat{\alpha }_2\pm 1`$) we shall consider the limit $`\widehat{\alpha }_1\widehat{\alpha }_21`$, so take

$$\widehat{\alpha }_1=1ϵ_1,\widehat{\alpha }_2=1ϵ_2,$$
(3.20)
where $`ϵ_1,ϵ_2`$ are small and positive. We then find that

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_1R=\frac{ϵ_2}{ϵ_1+ϵ_2},\mathrm{\Omega }_2R=\frac{ϵ_1}{ϵ_1+ϵ_2},$$
(3.21)
This shows that the limit $`\widehat{\alpha }_1\widehat{\alpha }_21`$ corresponds to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1R+\mathrm{\Omega }_2R=1`$. Taking the other three possibilities for the $`\widehat{\alpha }_i`$ limits we find that the $`\mathrm{\Omega }_iR`$ are bounded to lie in the diamond region defined by the vertices $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_1R,\mathrm{\Omega }_2R)=(0,\pm 1),(\pm 1,0)`$.

To higher order one finds that

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_1R+\mathrm{\Omega }_2R=1ϵ_1ϵ_2(N=4),`$ (3.22)
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_1R+\mathrm{\Omega }_2R=1(N4){\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_1ϵ_2}{ϵ_1+ϵ_2}}(N>4).`$ (3.23)
If we wish to reach the boundary ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_1R+\mathrm{\Omega }_2R=1`$) with both $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1R`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2R`$ non-zero then we see from (3.21) that we can take $`ϵ_1=\kappa ϵ_2`$ and then take $`ϵ_20`$. So, in the sense of a limiting procedure, we may find the instanton which has parameters on the boundary of the fundamental region defined by the diamond with vertices $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_1R,\mathrm{\Omega }_2R)=(0,\pm 1),(\pm 1,0)`$; this will be relevant when we consider the supersymmetric intersections.

## 4 Spin structures and decay modes

At any rate, just as in the case of a single rotation, there are various possibilities when we come to dimensionally reduce the instanton . In each case, demanding that the $`(D1)`$–dimensional solution be free from conical singularities will restrict the magnetic field. Since we can shift either of the $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_i`$ by at most $`\pm 1`$, there are four cases to consider. Each describes a different decay mode, one relevant to either the IIA or 0A theory. To describe the subsequent evolution of the intersecting fluxbranes, we should analytically continue one of the ignorable angles into time, $`t`$. The fixed point set of the Killing vector along which we reduce in each case, restricted to the initial $`t=0`$ surface, will give rise to a naked singularity, which can be interpreted as the “worldvolume” of a brane in the usual way.

* Reduction along

$$K=\frac{}{z}+\mathrm{\Omega }_1\frac{}{\varphi _1}+\mathrm{\Omega }_2\frac{}{\varphi _2},$$

will give a magnetic field $`B_1=\mathrm{\Omega }_1,B_2=\mathrm{\Omega }_2`$ and a fixed point set corresponding to the entire origin, a $`(D2)`$–sphere on the $`t=0`$ surface. This is Witten’s bubble of nothing .
* Reduction along

$$K^{}=K\frac{1}{R}\frac{}{\varphi _1},$$

will give a magnetic field of $`B_1=\mathrm{\Omega }_11/R`$, $`B_2=\mathrm{\Omega }_2`$ and the fixed point set will be a $`(D5)`$–sphere expanding in one of the fluxbranes (the one associated with $`B_1`$).
* Reduction along

$$K^{}=K\frac{1}{R}\frac{}{\varphi _2},$$

will give a magnetic field of $`B_1=\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$, $`B_2=\mathrm{\Omega }_21/R`$ and the fixed point set will again be a $`(D5)`$–sphere, but now expanding in the fluxbrane associated with $`B_2`$.
* Reduction along

$$K^{}=K\frac{1}{R}\frac{}{\varphi _1}\frac{1}{R}\frac{}{\varphi _2},$$

will give a magnetic field of $`B_1=\mathrm{\Omega }_11/R`$, $`B_2=\mathrm{\Omega }_21/R`$ and the fixed point set will now be a $`(D7)`$–sphere expanding in the region of intersection.

Again, as for the case of a single rotation , the spin structures determine which of these particular decay modes is allowed for any given solution. To see this, we compute the phase which a spinor picks up under parallel transport at infinity around the orbits of the Killing vector $`K`$. We first define the shifted angular coordinates analogous to (2.5)

$$\varphi _1=\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_1+\mathrm{\Omega }_1z,\varphi _2=\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_2+\mathrm{\Omega }_2z,$$
(4.1)
so that $`K=/z`$ and then send $`r\mathrm{}`$ in the metric (3.1). The covariant derivative is then

$$D_z=_z+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }_1\mathrm{\Gamma }_1+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Omega }_2\mathrm{\Gamma }_2.$$
(4.2)
Parallel transport around a closed loop thus gives

$$\psi (2\pi R)=\mathrm{exp}\left(\pi R(\mathrm{\Omega }_1\mathrm{\Gamma }_1+\mathrm{\Omega }_2\mathrm{\Gamma }_2)\right)\psi _0,$$
(4.3)
where, since the instanton is simply connected (it is topologically $`^2\times S^{D2}`$) , there is a unique spin structure; the overall minus sign can be determined by continuity with the $`D`$–dimensional Euclidean Schwarzschild solution.

Now we see how the spin structure determines the allowed decay modes 1–4 above, since under each independent shift of the Killing vector, the phase picks up an extra overall minus sign. Thus, decay mode 1 will just see the phase (4.3). For $`D=11`$, it corresponds to the non–supersymmetric spin structure of the 0A theory. Decay modes 2 and 3, however, have an extra overall minus sign, so correspond to the supersymmetric spin structure of the IIA theory. Finally, the decay mode 4 picks up a further minus sign, and so is again only allowed in the 0A theory. We thus arrive at the following conclusions; the F5-brane in the IIA theory can decay via nucleation of a spherical D6-brane, which expands into one of the two elements of the intersection (that with the larger of the magnetic fields); and the F5-brane in the 0A theory can decay via Witten’s bubble of nothing  or via the nucleation of a four–sphere in the intersection region. Note that the final, perhaps most interesting, decay mode is pertinent to the non–supersymmetric 0A theory only.

We still have not answered the question as to how the decay of the supersymmetric F5-brane, with $`B_1=\pm B_2`$, is eliminated. To show that it is not allowed, we consider the action for the above instanton. We want to compute the action for the range of possible parameters, that is for each of the above four cases. We will be especially interested in what happens when $`B_1=\pm B_2`$ for, in that case, we do not expect any decay modes to be possible at all.

## 5 The action

Since the metric (3.1) is Ricci–flat, the only contribution to the action is the boundary term

$$I_D=\frac{1}{8\pi G_D}_r\mathrm{}\mathrm{d}^Nx\sqrt{h}(KK_0),$$
(5.4)
where $`h`$ is the determinant of the metric induced on surfaces of constant $`r`$ and $`K`$ is the extrinsic curvature of this surface. $`K_0`$ is the curvature of a reference background, which in this case is just flat space, corresponding to $`\mu =0`$.

To compute the action, we have to take account of the constraint (3.2) on the $`\mu _i`$, so we substitute for

$$\mu _{N/2}^2=1\left(\mu _1^2+\mu _2^2+\underset{i=3}{\overset{N/21}{}}\mu _i^2\right),$$
(5.5)
and write the metric as

$$\mathrm{d}s_D^2|_{r=\mathrm{const}}=\left(1\frac{\mu r^2}{\mathrm{\Pi }F}\right)\mathrm{d}z^2+\underset{i,j=1,2}{}\left((r^2\alpha _i^2)\mu _i^2\delta _{ij}\frac{\mu r^2}{\mathrm{\Pi }F}\alpha _i\alpha _j\mu _i^2\mu _j^2\right)\mathrm{d}\varphi _i\mathrm{d}\varphi _j$$

$$2\frac{\mu r^2}{\mathrm{\Pi }F}\underset{i,j=1,2}{}\alpha _i\mu _i^2\mathrm{d}\varphi _i\mathrm{d}z+\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{N/21}{}}\left((r^2\alpha _i^2)\delta _{ij}+r^2\frac{\mu _i\mu _j}{\mu _{N/2}^2}\right)\mathrm{d}\mu _i\mathrm{d}\mu _j+r^2\underset{i=3}{\overset{N/2}{}}\mu _i^2\mathrm{d}\varphi _i^2,$$
(5.6)
where in the second to last term, we have to remember only $`\alpha _1`$ and $`\alpha _2`$ are non–zero. It is easy to compute the determinant of the metric in the $`\{z,\varphi _1,\varphi _2\}`$ directions explicitly, and one can use the identity involving alternating tensors to compute the determinant in the $`\mu _i`$ directions. The result is

$$h=(\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{N/21})^2\frac{\mathrm{\Pi }^2F}{r^2}\left(1\frac{\mu r^2}{\mathrm{\Pi }}\right).$$
(5.7)
We now proceed as in , using the fact that $`\sqrt{h}K=n(\sqrt{h})`$, where $`n`$ is the unit normal

$$n=\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Pi }\mu r^2}{\mathrm{\Pi }F}}\frac{}{r},$$
(5.8)
which, with a prime denoting $`/r`$, gives

$$\sqrt{h}K=\frac{1}{2}\frac{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{N/21}}{r^2}\left(2\mathrm{\Pi }+r\frac{F^{}}{F}(\mathrm{\Pi }\mu r^2)+r\frac{\mathrm{\Pi }^{}}{\mathrm{\Pi }}(2\mathrm{\Pi }\mu r^2)\right).$$
(5.9)
Since

$$\underset{r\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{\sqrt{h}}{\sqrt{h}|_{\mu =0}}=1\frac{1}{2}\frac{\mu }{r^{N2}},$$
(5.10)
we have

$`\underset{r\mathrm{}}{lim}\sqrt{h}(KK_0)`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{r\mathrm{}}{lim}\left(n(\sqrt{h})n(\sqrt{h})|_{\mu =0}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{r^{N2}}}n(\sqrt{h})|_{\mu =0}\right)`$ (5.11)
$`=`$ $`\underset{r\mathrm{}}{lim}\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{\mu }}n(\sqrt{h})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^{N2}}}n(\sqrt{h})|_{\mu =0}\right)\mu .`$
This gives

$`\underset{r\mathrm{}}{lim}\sqrt{h}(KK_0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{N/21}\underset{r\mathrm{}}{lim}\left(r{\displaystyle \frac{F^{}}{F}}(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Pi }}{r^N}})+r{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Pi }^{}}{\mathrm{\Pi }}}(1{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Pi }}{r^N}})+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Pi }}{r^N}}\right)`$ (5.12)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{N/21}\right)\mu .`$
We are ultimately interested in the $`(D1)`$–dimensional interpretation as a decay of magnetic fields so we should consider $`G_{D1}=2\pi RG_D`$ as a constant, giving

$$I_D=\frac{1}{16\pi }\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_{N1}}{G_N}\mu ,$$
(5.13)
where the volume, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{N1}`$, of the unit $`(N1)`$–sphere comes from the factor

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{N1}=_0^{2\pi }d\varphi _1\mathrm{}d\varphi _{N/2}d\mu _1\mathrm{}d\mu _{N/21}\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{N/21}.$$
(5.14)
We also want to hold the string coupling constant fixed so the dimensionless parameter of interest is actually

$$\widehat{I}=\frac{\kappa _N^2}{R^{N2}}\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Omega }_{N1}}I=\frac{1}{2}\frac{\mu }{R^{N2}}=\frac{1}{2}\frac{\widehat{\mu }}{\widehat{R}^{N2}},$$
(5.15)
which is the quantity we will plot.

This is a numerical problem; we pick values of $`(\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_1\widehat{R},\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}_2\widehat{R})`$ within the region of inequivalent spacetimes, $`\frac{1}{R}B_i<\frac{1}{R}`$, then solve the equations (3.18) and (3.19) for $`(\widehat{\alpha }_1,\widehat{\alpha }_2)`$, and finally evaluate the action for these quantities. This numerical approach confirms the earlier argument that solutions are restricted to lie in a diamond region. Consider, first, the cases 2 and 3 of section 4, those relevant to the type IIA theory. The action as a function of $`RB_i`$ is in these cases is plotted in Fig. 2 and 3. Taken together they show that an instanton exists for every value of $`1<RB_i<1`$, *i.e.* all inequivalent fluxbranes have an instanton solution. Also note that Fig. 2 governs instanton solutions with $`|B_1|>|B_2|`$. As such, the relevant instanton for $`|B_1|>|B_2|`$ is case 2, *i.e.* the decay of the fluxbrane with magnetic field $`B_1`$. Fig. 5 shows the complete case for IIA, combining cases 2 and 3: the action for $`B_1=\pm B_2`$ diverges.

Similarly, cases 1 and 4, plotted in Fig. 1 and 4, together give the complete picture for decay in type 0A, shown in Fig. 6. Each case covers a different part of $`RB_i`$ parameter space and together they give the complete space, showing that an instanton exists for every inequivalent value of $`RB_i`$. The action now diverges along $`RB_1=\pm 1\pm RB_2`$, these values being the type 0A dual of the supersymmetric IIA solutions. We can thus predict that there are stable intersecting fluxbranes in the type 0A theory for these values of the magnetic fields.

To see how the action behaves near the supersymmetric point, consider the limit (3.20). In that case, the action is found to be

$$\frac{\widehat{\mu }}{\widehat{R}^{N2}}=4ϵ_1ϵ_2\left(\frac{ϵ_1+ϵ_2}{ϵ_1ϵ_2}\right)^{N2},$$
(5.16)
and if we look near a point on the boundary by taking $`ϵ_1=\kappa ϵ_2`$ we see that

$$\frac{\widehat{\mu }}{\widehat{R}^{N2}}=4\kappa \left(\frac{1+\kappa }{\kappa }\right)^{N2}\frac{1}{ϵ_2^{N4}}.$$
(5.17)
So, as the boundary is approached ($`ϵ_2=0`$) the action diverges (if $`N>4`$) and the semi–classical decay probability goes to zero. In the special case of $`N=4`$ we note that the action has a finite limit as we approach the boundary, so how do we square this with the fact that this situation should be supersymmetric? As discussed earlier we expect that the fermion zero modes, which are present due to supersymmetry, will cause the decay amplitude to vanish. Exactly what happens in the dual type 0A case is unclear and is under investigation. It is not unexpected that the case $`N=4`$ is singled out, because the two independent rotation planes use up the whole space. It is possible therefore that similar effects would occur in higher dimensions when there are more intersecting fluxbranes.

## 6 Conclusions

We have discussed the instantons relevant to the semi–classical decay of intersecting fluxbranes. Although we have concentrated on the two–element intersection, we suspect that similar results hold in general. The action, as a function of more than two variables, however, would soon become difficult to picture. We have argued that the parameter space of the instanton includes the supersymmetric solutions, with $`B_1=\pm B_2`$, but that the action diverges for such solutions.

Of course, due to the presence of fermion zero–modes in the supersymmetric cases, one can argue that the amplitude for their decay must vanish identically. However, it is difficult to verify this without an explicit computation. Moreover, by analysing the instanton, we have been able to argue that stable intersecting fluxbranes in type 0A string theory (with $`B_1=\pm 1/R\pm B_2`$) should exist, and arguments about fermion zero–modes due to supersymmetry would have missed this. It would be of interest to think further about the implications of these stable configurations of the 0A string theory.

It would also be of interest to see if the interpretation of the F5-brane in terms of D6-branes and monopoles can be made clearer. This would give a better understanding of what it is that is actually nucleated in region of intersection (decay mode 4 of section 4), and might provide a hints as to a possible “worldvolume” theory of the F5-brane. We have also tried to analyse the late–time limit of the post–decay evolution of the F5-brane, along the lines of , but the complicated metric makes it difficult to extract any interesting results. Finally, it would be nice to understand the parameter space of the Euclidean Myers–Perry black holes for more than two rotation parameters, in relation to intersecting fluxbranes with more than two elements.

Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Joan Simón for collaboration during the early stages of this project, and for many useful discussions. We would also like to thank Roberto Emparan, Michael Gutperle and David Mateos for correspondence. DB is grateful for the hospitality of the Perimeter Institute, where much of this work was carried out, and is supported in part by NSERC. PMS is supported by PPARC.