text:
# Untitled Document

hep–th/0008230 DAMTP-2000-89

Discrete torsion orbifolds and D-branes

Matthias R. Gaberdiel e-mail: M.R.Gaberdiel@damtp.cam.ac.uk, mrg@mth.kcl.ac.uk

Address after 1 October 2000: Department of Mathematics, King’s College London, Strand, London WC2R 2LS, U.K.

Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics

University of Cambridge

Centre for Mathematical Sciences

Wilberforce Road, Cambridge CB3 0WA, U.K.

Abstract

D-branes on orbifolds with and without discrete torsion are analysed in a unified way using the boundary state formalism. For the example of the $`\text{ZZ}_2\times \text{ZZ}_2`$ orbifold it is found that both the theory with and without discrete torsion possess D-branes whose world-volume carries conventional and projective representations of the orbifold group. The resulting D-brane spectrum is shown to be consistent with T-duality.

Revised 10/2000

1. Introduction

Much has been learned in the last few years about D-branes in string theory, and this has deepened our understanding of many aspects of the theory. D-branes play a crucial rôle in testing the various duality relations between string theories. D-branes also provide new insights into the background geometry of string theory since the geometry can be analysed in terms of the low-energy theory on the world-volume of a brane probe.

The D-brane spectrum of a number of theories is understood in detail. These include the standard ten-dimensional Type IIA, IIB and I theory (see \[1\] for a review), as well as their non-supersymmetric cousins, Type 0A, 0B and 0 \[2,,3,,4\] (for an earlier non-supersymmetric orientifold construction see also \[5\]). It is understood how the D-brane spectrum is modified upon compactification on supersymmetric orbifolds and near ALE singularities \[6,,7,,8,,9,,10,,11,,12\]. There has also been progress in understanding the D-brane spectrum of Gepner models \[13,,14\], more general Calabi-Yau manifolds \[15,,16,,17,,18,,19,,20,,21,,22,,23\] and WZW models \[24,,25,,26,,27,,28,,29\].

Recently, D-branes on orbifolds and orientifolds with discrete torsion \[30,,31\] have attracted some interest \[32,,33,,10,,34,,35,,36,,37,,38,,39\]. The geometry of discrete torsion orbifolds is only partially understood \[31,,40,,41,,42\], and it is therefore interesting to study what can be learned about it from the analysis of D-brane probes. It was argued in \[32\] that D-branes in orbifolds with discrete torsion are characterised by the property that the representation of the orbifold group in the corresponding open string description is a projective representation. One such brane was analysed in detail, and it was found that its moduli space has a structure that is in agreement with the expectations based on \[31,,40\]. This analysis was extended in \[33\] to a more general class of orbifolds.

As was mentioned in \[33\], one of the models is T-dual to an orbifold without discrete torsion \[31\]. Since the orbifold with discrete torsion has a brane for which the orbifold group acts projectively on the Chan-Paton factors of the open string, this raises the question of what the T-dual of this brane in the theory without discrete torsion should be \[33\]. (Similarly, it also raises the question of what the images of the fractional branes of the theory without discrete torsion in the theory with discrete torsion are.) In this paper we propose an answer to both of these questions: we shall argue that both orbifolds with and without discrete torsion have D-branes for which the open string has a projective representation of the orbifold group; conversely, both orbifolds also have D-branes for which the open string has a proper representation of the orbifold group. Our analysis is based on the construction of boundary states that can be performed irrespective of whether the theory has discrete torsion or not. In fact, since discrete torsion is a relative concept, there does not seem to exist an abstract sense in which a given theory has discrete torsion or not; one should therefore expect that the standard analysis for branes on orbifolds without discrete torsion should equally apply for the case with discrete torsion. The D-brane spectrum we find is consistent with T-duality, it accounts for all the R-R charges of the theory, and it leads to open strings that satisfy the open-closed consistency condition.

The paper is organised as follows. In section 2 we review briefly the main concepts of discrete torsion, and in section 3 we describe a $`\text{ZZ}_2\times \text{ZZ}_2`$ orbifold with and without discrete torsion in detail. The boundary states for both orbifolds are constructed in section 4. In particular, we describe in some detail the boundary state description of the D-brane that leads to a projective representation of the orbifold group in the open string. We also explain why T-duality requires that orbifolds with discrete torsion also have branes that lead to conventional representations in the open string, and why, conversely, orbifolds without discrete torsion also have to have branes with projective open string representations. In section 5 we re-examine the consistency argument of Gomis \[37\] and explain why it is consistent with what we propose. Finally section 6 contains some conclusions. We have included an appendix where the relation between discrete torsion phases and the second cohomology of the orbifold group with coefficients in $`U(1)`$ is spelled out in some detail.

2. Discrete torsion

Let us briefly recall the definition of discrete torsion in orbifolds. Suppose we consider the orbifold of a closed string theory on $``$ by the (abelian) group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. As is well known \[43\], the orbifold theory consists of the invariant subspace of the original theory under the action of the orbifold group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. In addition, the theory has so-called twisted sectors that describe those closed strings that are only closed in $`/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, but not in $``$. For an abelian orbifold we have a twisted sector $`_h`$ for each element $`h\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Each twisted sector has to be projected again onto the states that are invariant under the orbifold group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$; the corresponding projector is of the form

$$P=\frac{1}{|\mathrm{\Gamma }|}\underset{g\mathrm{\Gamma }}{}g.$$

The total partition function of the theory is then

$$Z(q,\overline{q})=\frac{1}{|\mathrm{\Gamma }|}\underset{g,h\mathrm{\Gamma }}{}Z(q,\overline{q};g,h),$$

where

$$Z(q,\overline{q};g,h)=\text{Tr}__h(q^{L_0}\overline{q}^{\overline{L}_0}g).$$

The theory with discrete torsion \[30\] is characterised by the property that the partition function is

$$Z(q,\overline{q})=\frac{1}{|\mathrm{\Gamma }|}\underset{g,h\mathrm{\Gamma }}{}ϵ(g,h)Z(q,\overline{q};g,h),$$

where $`ϵ(g,h)`$ are phases. Modular invariance at one loop requires that

$$ϵ(g,h)=ϵ(g^ah^b,g^ch^d)\text{where }adbc=1\text{ and }a,b,c,d\text{ZZ}\text{.}$$

Furthermore modular invariance on higher genus surfaces, together with the factorization property of loop amplitudes, implies that the $`ϵ(g,h)`$ have to define a one-dimensional representation of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$,

$$ϵ(g_1g_2,h)=ϵ(g_1,h)ϵ(g_2,h).$$

The set of inequivalent different torsion theories are classified by the second cohomology group of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ with values in $`U(1)`$, $`H^2(\mathrm{\Gamma },U(1))`$. The following discussion follows closely \[37\]. This cohomology group consists of the two-cocycles $`c(g,h)U(1)`$ satisfying the cocycle condition

$$c(g_1,g_2g_3)c(g_2,g_3)=c(g_1g_2,g_3)c(g_1,g_2),$$

where we identify cocycles that differ by a coboundary,

$$c^{}(g,h)=\frac{c_gc_h}{c_{gh}}c(g,h).$$

(Here $`c_gU(1)`$ for each $`g\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.) Indeed, for each such cocycle one can define

$$ϵ(g,h)=\frac{c(g,h)}{c(h,g)}.$$

It follows immediately from this definition that

$$ϵ(g,g)=1ϵ(g,h)=ϵ(h,g)^1,$$

and a short calculation shows that (2.1) implies (2.1). Together with (2.1) this is then sufficient to prove (2.1) (see \[30\]). It is also manifest from (2.1) that the definition of $`ϵ(g,h)`$ is the same for cocycles that differ by a coboundary. Conversely, one can construct a cocycle $`c`$ for each consistent set of discrete torsion phases so that (2.1) is satisfied; this is described in detail in the appendix. Naively one may think that $`c(g,h)`$ can simply be defined by $`c(g,h)=ϵ(g,h)^{1/2}`$ since (2.1) and (2.1) imply that $`ϵ(g,h)=ϵ(h,g)^1`$, and therefore (2.1) reproduces $`ϵ(g,h)`$. In addition (2.1) implies that the square of the left hand side in (2.1) equals the square of the right hand side, but this only implies that (2.1) holds up to sign. In fact, there does not seem to exist a ‘natural’ sign conventions for the definition of $`c(g,h)=ϵ(g,h)^{1/2}`$ that lead to $`c(g,h)`$ satisfying (2.1). In the appendix we shall therefore follow a different route.

Because of the relation between (2.1) and (2.1), the modification of the partition function implies that the projection operator onto physical states in the sector $`_h`$ is modified to be

$$P|__h=\frac{1}{|\mathrm{\Gamma }|}\underset{g\mathrm{\Gamma }}{}ϵ(g,h)g|__h.$$

In particular, this implies that a physical state in the twisted sector $`_h`$ satisfies

$$g|s__h=ϵ(g,h)^{}|s__h.$$

Alternatively, one can interpret the theory with discrete torsion as the theory where $`g\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ acts on the $`_h`$ sector as

$$\widehat{g}|__h=ϵ(g,h)g|__h.$$

Because of (2.1) this gives a well-defined action of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ on each $`_h`$. From the point of view of conformal field theory, the orbifold with discrete torsion can therefore be thought of as a standard orbifold (without discrete torsion) where the elements of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ act as $`\widehat{g}`$ on the various sectors. In particular, this implies that (at least from this perspective) there is no abstract sense in which one can say that a given orbifold is an orbifold with discrete torsion; rather, discrete torsion is a relative concept that describes how to obtain a consistent orbifold from another consistent orbifold (in a way that does not modify the action of the orbifold group in the untwisted sector). One should therefore expect that D-branes on orbifolds ‘with torsion’ can be discussed and described using the same techniques as in the case ‘without torsion’. This is indeed what we shall find.

3. An example of an orbifold with discrete torsion

The simplest example of an orbifold where discrete torsion is possible is the $`\text{ZZ}_2\times \text{ZZ}_2`$ orbifold of Type II on $`T^6`$, where the generators of the orbifold group, $`g_1`$ and $`g_2`$ act as

$`x^3`$ $`x^4`$ $`x^5`$ $`x^6`$ $`x^7`$ $`x^8`$                          $`g_1`$ $`+`$ $`+`$ $``$ $``$ $``$ $``$             $`g_2`$ $``$ $``$ $`+`$ $`+`$ $``$ $``$             $`g_3`$ $``$ $``$ $``$ $``$ $`+`$ $`+`$

Table 1: The action of the orbifold group.

Here we have defined $`g_3=g_1g_2`$; a $`+`$ sign in the above table means that $`g_i`$ acts as the identity on the corresponding coordinate, whereas a $``$ sign indicates that $`g_i`$ acts as $`x^jx^j`$.

In this case, there are two possible choices for the signs $`ϵ(g,h)`$: either we choose $`ϵ(g,h)=+1`$ for all $`g,h\mathrm{\Gamma }\text{ZZ}_2\times \text{ZZ}_2`$, or we define

$$ϵ(g,h)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill +1& \text{if }g=e\text{}h=e\text{ or }g=h\hfill \\ \hfill 1& \text{otherwise.}\hfill \end{array}$$

The first solution corresponds to the trivial cocycle $`c(g,h)=+1`$ for all $`g,h\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, whereas (3.1) comes from

$$c(g,h)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill +1& \text{if }g=e\text{ or }h=e\text{ or }g=g_2\text{ or }h=g_1\hfill \\ \hfill 1& \text{otherwise.}\hfill \end{array}$$

In either case, the resulting manifold is a Calabi-Yau manifold \[31\], and the theory therefore preserves supersymmetry. This can be used to determine the relevant GSO-projections in the various sectors. For the case of the Type IIA orbifold, the correct GSO-projection is

$$\mathrm{𝐈𝐈𝐀}\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \frac{1}{4}(1+(1)^F)(1+(1)^{\stackrel{~}{F}})& \text{in all NS-NS sectors}\hfill \\ \hfill \frac{1}{4}(1+(1)^F)(1(1)^{\stackrel{~}{F}})& \text{in all R-R sectors,}\hfill \end{array}$$

while for the case of the Type IIB orbifold we have

$$\mathrm{𝐈𝐈𝐁}\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \frac{1}{4}(1+(1)^F)(1+(1)^{\stackrel{~}{F}})& \text{in all NS-NS sectors}\hfill \\ \hfill \frac{1}{4}(1+(1)^F)(1+(1)^{\stackrel{~}{F}})& \text{in all R-R sectors.}\hfill \end{array}$$

Alternatively, this can be determined using the approach of \[44\] (see further below). The GSO-projection is the same for either choice of $`ϵ`$.

The definition of $`g_i`$ in all sectors that have fermionic zero modes is a priori ambiguous; we choose the convention that on the ground states $`g_1`$ acts as The fermionic zero modes are normalised so that $`\{\psi _0^\mu ,\psi _0^\nu \}=\delta ^{\mu ,\nu }`$ and similarly for $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_0^\mu `$.

$$g_1=\underset{i𝒵}{}\left(\sqrt{2}\psi _0^i\right)\underset{i𝒵}{}\left(\sqrt{2}\stackrel{~}{\psi }_0^i\right),$$

where $`𝒵\{5,6,7,8\}`$ is the set of coordinates along which there are fermionic zero modes, and the ordering of the zero modes in the two products is the same. The formulae for $`g_2`$ and $`g_3`$ are analogous. There exists another natural definition for $`g_i`$, where $`g_1`$ acts on the ground states as

$$\widehat{g}_1=\underset{i𝒵}{}\left(2\psi _0^i\stackrel{~}{\psi }_0^i\right),$$

and $`\widehat{g}_2`$ and $`\widehat{g}_3`$ are analogously defined. These two definitions are precisely related by discrete torsion, namely

$$\widehat{g}_i|_{_{g_j}}=ϵ(g_i,g_j)g_i|_{_{g_j}},$$

where $`ϵ`$ is defined as in (3.1). In this example it is clear that it is a matter of convention which of the two theories one interprets as the orbifold with torsion, and which as the orbifold without torsion.

However, there is one statement that can be made irrespective of this convention: the T-dual of the IIA theory without torsion (where we T-dualise along $`x^3,x^5`$ and $`x^7`$, say) is the IIB theory with torsion and vice versa \[31\]. In fact, the theory where $`g_i`$ acts as in (3.1) has the Hodge diamond

$$\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 1\\ 0& 3& 51& 0\\ 0& 51& 3& 0\\ 1& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right),$$

while for the theory where $`g_i`$ acts as in (3.1) the Hodge diamond is

$$\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 1\\ 0& 51& 3& 0\\ 0& 3& 51& 0\\ 1& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right).$$

This suggests that the two theories are actually mirror partners of each other which is indeed the case \[31\]. Since we know how D-branes behave under T-duality, this example provides consistency conditions on the D-brane spectrum of theories with and without discrete torsion. We shall check later that our description of the D-brane spectrum satisfies this constraint.

4. Boundary states and D-branes

One method for the analysis of D-branes is the boundary state approach in which D-branes are described in terms of coherent (boundary) states of the underlying closed string theory \[45,,46,,2\] (see also \[47,,48,,49\] for reviews). For the case of the above orbifold (without discrete torsion), this analysis has been performed in \[22\], and we collect the relevant results here. Following \[12,,22\], we denote a Dirichlet $`p`$-brane as $`(r;s_1,s_2,s_3)`$ where $`p=r+s_1+s_2+s_3`$, provided that it has $`r+1`$ Neumann boundary conditions along the directions that have not been affected by the orbifold, i.e. $`x^0,x^1,x^2,x^9`$, and $`s_i`$ Neumann boundary conditions along the directions $`x^{2i+1}`$ and $`x^{2i+2}`$.

As is familiar in theories with world-sheet fermions, the actual boundary state is a linear combination of boundary states for different values of the parameter $`\eta `$ labelling the different spin structures. In each sector of the theory, there is a (up to normalisation) unique linear combination that is invariant under $`(1)^F`$; under the action of the various other operators (where the action of $`g_i`$ is defined as in (3.1)), this state transforms as follows:

$`(1)^{\stackrel{~}{F}}`$ $`g_1`$ $`g_2`$ $`g_3`$                      NS-NS;U $`+1`$ $`+1`$ $`+1`$ $`+1`$           R-R;U $`(1)^{r+s_1+s_2+s_3+1}`$ $`(1)^{s_2+s_3}`$ $`(1)^{s_1+s_3}`$ $`(1)^{s_1+s_2}`$                   NS-NS;T$`_{g_1}`$ $`(1)^{s_2+s_3}`$ $`(1)^{s_2+s_3}`$ $`(1)^{s_3}`$ $`(1)^{s_2}`$           R-R;T$`_{g_1}`$ $`(1)^{r+s_1+1}`$ $`+1`$ $`(1)^{s_1}`$ $`(1)^{s_1}`$                   NS-NS;T$`_{g_2}`$ $`(1)^{s_1+s_3}`$ $`(1)^{s_3}`$ $`(1)^{s_1+s_3}`$ $`(1)^{s_1}`$           R-R;T$`_{g_2}`$ $`(1)^{r+s_2+1}`$ $`(1)^{s_2}`$ $`+1`$ $`(1)^{s_2}`$                   NS-NS;T$`_{g_3}`$ $`(1)^{s_1+s_2}`$ $`(1)^{s_2}`$ $`(1)^{s_1}`$ $`(1)^{s_1+s_2}`$           R-R;T$`_{g_3}`$ $`(1)^{r+s_3+1}`$ $`(1)^{s_3}`$ $`(1)^{s_3}`$ $`+1`$

Table 2: The transformation properties of the boundary states $`(r;s_1,s_2,s_3)`$.

4.1. The theory without discrete torsion

Having collected this information, we can now describe the D-brane spectrum of these orbifold theories. Let us first consider the case ‘without torsion’ (i.e. the theory where $`g_i`$ acts as (3.1), rather than as (3.1) in the twisted sectors). We shall mainly concentrate on the BPS branes, although these theories also contain interesting (stable) non-BPS branes \[50,,51,,22\]. First of all the orbifold theory contains the familiar ‘fractional branes’; these branes are localised at one of the $`64`$ fixed planes of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, and their open string spectrum (of the open string that begins and ends on the same brane) is of the form

$$\frac{1}{8}(1+(1)^F)(1+g_1)(1+g_2).$$

The corresponding boundary state has a non-trivial component in all untwisted and twisted sectors (where the twisted sectors are all associated to the same fixed plane). In order for this to be possible, we have the following restriction on $`(r;s_1,s_2,s_3)`$:

$$\text{Fractional D-branes}\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \text{IIA:}& r\text{ even and }s_i\text{ even,}\hfill \\ \hfill \text{IIB:}& r\text{ odd and }s_i\text{ even.}\hfill \end{array}$$

Unlike what happens in simpler orbifold theories (such as the ones studied in \[51,,12\]), the lattice of D-brane charges is not generated by these fractional branes alone. Indeed, it is manifest from Table 2 that there is a boundary state in the untwisted R-R sector that is invariant under all projection operators provided that all $`s_i`$ are odd (i.e. equal to $`1`$) and that $`r`$ is odd for IIA and even for IIB. One can therefore construct an additional ‘bulk’ D-brane, i.e. a boundary state with only untwisted components \[22\]. However this bulk brane is not the minimally charged object. Indeed, one can construct an ‘almost fractional’ boundary state whose charge is half the charge of the bulk brane. The moduli space of the corresponding brane We propose to call branes of this type projective fractional D-branes. consists of the different fixed planes of $`g_1`$, $`g_2`$ or $`g_3`$. The boundary state description of the brane is slightly different for the different branches of the moduli space, and we shall in the following only give the explicit formula for the brane that stretches between the fixed planes of $`g_1`$ defined by $`x^6=x^8=0`$, where $`x^5`$ and $`x^7`$ take the values $`0`$, $`\pi R^5`$ and $`0`$, $`\pi R^7`$, respectively; the formulae for the other branches (and orientations) are analogous.

Let us denote by $`𝐲`$ the position of the brane in the directions that are unaffected by the orbifold action, by $`𝐚`$ the coordinates in the $`x^3,x^4`$ directions on the fixed planes of $`g_1`$, and by $`𝐛_𝐢,i=1,2,3,4`$ the coordinates (in the $`x^5,x^6,x^7,x^8`$ directions) of the four fixed planes. (So, for example, $`𝐛_\mathrm{𝟏}=(0,0,0,0)`$, $`𝐛_\mathrm{𝟐}=(\pi R^5,0,0,0)`$, $`𝐛_\mathrm{𝟑}=(0,0,\pi R^7,0)`$, $`𝐛_\mathrm{𝟒}=(\pi R^5,0,\pi R^7,0)`$.) The relevant boundary state is then of the form

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill |D(r;1,1,1);& 𝐲,𝐚,ϵ=|D(r;1,1,1);𝐲,𝐚_{\mathrm{NS}\mathrm{NS};\mathrm{U}}+ϵ|D(r;1,1,1);𝐲,𝐚_{\mathrm{R}\mathrm{R};\mathrm{U}}\hfill \\ & +\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}\left(|D(r;1,1,1);𝐲,𝐚_{\mathrm{NS}\mathrm{NS};\mathrm{T}_{g_1,𝐛_𝐢}}+ϵ|D(r;1,1,1);𝐲,𝐚_{\mathrm{R}\mathrm{R};\mathrm{T}_{g_1,𝐛_𝐢}}\right)\hfill \\ & +|D(r;1,1,1);𝐲,𝐚_{\mathrm{NS}\mathrm{NS};\mathrm{U}}+ϵ|D(r;1,1,1);𝐲,𝐚_{\mathrm{R}\mathrm{R};\mathrm{U}}\hfill \\ & \underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}\left(|D(r;1,1,1);𝐲,𝐚_{\mathrm{NS}\mathrm{NS};\mathrm{T}_{g_1,𝐛_𝐢}}+ϵ|D(r;1,1,1);𝐲,𝐚_{\mathrm{R}\mathrm{R};\mathrm{T}_{g_1,𝐛_𝐢}}\right),\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`r`$ is odd for Type IIA and even for Type IIB, and $`ϵ=\pm 1`$ distinguishes between the brane and the antibrane. For simplicity, we have here described the brane without Wilson line along $`x^5`$ and $`x^7`$ for which the signs of the contributions of the four twisted sectors is the same. It follows from the results of Table 2, together with the observation that both $`g_2`$ and $`g_3`$ act on $`𝐚`$ as $`𝐚𝐚`$ that the boundary state in (4.1) is invariant under the action of the whole orbifold group. The brane that is described by (4.1) can be thought to consist of a brane at $`(𝐲,𝐚)`$ together with an anti-brane at $`(𝐲,𝐚)`$ (where the untwisted R-R charges of the two branes are the same, whereas the charges with respect to the $`g_1`$-twisted sectors are opposite). The open string that corresponds to this boundary state has therefore a $`2\times 2`$ Chan-Paton matrix

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

where $`a`$ ($`d`$) labels the string that begins and ends at the brane at $`𝐚`$ ($`𝐚`$), whereas $`b`$ denotes the string that begins at $`𝐚`$ and ends at $`𝐚`$, and $`c`$ denotes the same string with the opposite orientation. In terms of the open string, the orbifold generators act on the Chan-Paton matrix by conjugation,

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ c& d\end{array}\right)\gamma (g_i)\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ c& d\end{array}\right)\gamma (g_i)^1.$$

We can read off from (4.1) how the Chan-Paton matrix transforms under the three orbifold actions, and we find that

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill g_1:& \left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ c& d\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ c& d\end{array}\right)\hfill \\ \hfill g_2:& \left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ c& d\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}d& \pm c\\ \pm b& a\end{array}\right)\hfill \\ \hfill g_3:& \left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ c& d\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}d& c\\ b& a\end{array}\right).\hfill \end{array}$$

For example, $`g_1`$ acts with a minus sign on the strings that run between the brane and the anti-brane, and $`g_2`$ and $`g_3`$ exchange the brane and the anti-brane. On the level of this discussion it is impossible to fix the signs on the off-diagonal elements in the action of $`g_2`$ and $`g_3`$, but consistency with the group relations, in particular $`g_2g_2=e`$, $`g_3g_3=e`$ and $`g_3=g_1g_2`$, determines the relative signs as above.

The matrices $`\gamma (g_i)`$ that implement the transformations described in (4.1) by conjugation as in (4.1) are

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \gamma (g_1)& =\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)\hfill \\ \hfill \gamma (g_2)& =\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \pm 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right)\hfill \\ \hfill \gamma (g_3)& =\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right).\hfill \end{array}$$

These matrices define a projective representation of $`\text{ZZ}_2\times \text{ZZ}_2`$; indeed, if we consider the upper sign in (4.1) we have

$$\gamma (g_i)\gamma (g_j)=c(g_i,g_j)\gamma (g_ig_j),$$

where $`c`$ is the cocycle that was defined in (3.1). The lower sign in (4.1) leads to a cocycle $`c^{}`$ that differs from $`c`$ by the coboundary $`c_e=c_{g_1}=1`$, $`c_{g_2}=c_{g_3}=+i`$. The existence of a brane with such properties was predicted in \[32,,33\]; their argument was based on the observation that the theory with discrete torsion has a brane that leads to a projective representation of the orbifold group, and that T-duality along $`x^3,x^5,x^7`$ maps the orbifold theory with discrete torsion to the one without discrete torsion \[31\].

4.2. The theory with discrete torsion

For the theory with discrete torsion, i.e. the theory where $`g_i`$ acts as $`\widehat{g_i}`$ on the twisted sectors, the analysis is completely analogous. Fractional branes exist now for

$$\text{Fractional D-branes}\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \text{IIA:}& r\text{ odd and }s_i\text{ odd,}\hfill \\ \hfill \text{IIB:}& r\text{ even and }s_i\text{ odd.}\hfill \end{array}$$

In addition, there are projective fractional branes (whose boundary state is given by a similar expression as in (4.1)) for

$$\text{Projective fractional D-branes}\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \text{IIA:}& r\text{ even and }s_i\text{ even,}\hfill \\ \hfill \text{IIB:}& r\text{ odd and }s_i\text{ even.}\hfill \end{array}$$

The fractional branes are the states in the theory that are charged under the massless fields from the twisted R-R sectors; if these branes did not exist, the theory would not possess any states that are charged under these fields.

The projective fractional D-branes were first discussed (in the uncompactified theory) in \[32,,33\], where it was also observed that their moduli space has three branches (at each of the fixed planes) as we have found above. Under T-duality along $`x^3,x^5`$ and $`x^7`$, say, the IIA (IIB) theory without discrete torsion is mapped to the IIB (IIA) with discrete torsion and vice versa. On D-branes, this T-duality transformation leaves $`r`$ invariant, and changes each $`s_i`$ by $`\pm 1`$. This is consistent with the D-brane spectrum of the two theories that we have found above.

5. Open-closed consistency condition

It was shown by Gomis \[37\] that the representations of the orbifold group that appear in the open string description are constrained in terms of the actual representation of the orbifold group on the various twisted sectors of the closed string theory; this is a consequence of the open-closed consistency condition that was first considered, in a slightly different context, in \[52\]. Superficially, the analysis of Gomis seems to imply that for orbifolds with discrete torsion only projective representations of the orbifold group can occur in the open string; as we have seen above, this would be in conflict with T-duality (and our discussion of Dirichlet branes in these theories). We shall now explain that his argument, correctly interpreted, is in precise accord with what we have found above.

Following \[37\], let us consider the disk diagram where we insert a closed string state in the $`g_i`$-twisted sector at the centre of the disk, and an open string vertex operator at the boundary. As is explained in \[37\], this amplitude is proportional to

$$\text{Tr}(\gamma (g_i)\lambda )V(\varphi \varphi \varphi ,0)V(\psi ,1),$$

where $`\lambda `$ denotes the Chan-Paton matrix of the open string field $`\psi `$, and $`\varphi `$$`\varphi `$$`\varphi `$ is the state in the $`g_i`$-twisted sector. Here $`\gamma (g_i)`$ arises because the state in the $`g_i`$-twisted sector generates a branch cut from the centre of the disk to the boundary along which fields jump by the action of $`g_i`$.

The consistency condition on the allowed representations in the open string arises from the constraint that this amplitude must be invariant under the action of the orbifold group. As we have argued before, the action of the orbifold group on the closed string twisted sectors is given by $`\widehat{g}`$ as in (2.1), where the action of $`g`$ on the twisted sectors is defined in some natural way, and $`ϵ`$ describes the relative discrete torsion with respect to the reference theory. This is where our analysis differs from that of Gomis: he assumes that the action of the orbifold group on the twisted sectors is unmodified for the case of discrete torsion, and that only the condition on physical states is modified as in (2.1). These two points of view are equivalent for the closed string sector of the theory, but they lead to different conclusions once open strings are considered as well. As we will see, our point of view reproduces the above D-brane spectrum that is consistent with T-duality. For general $`ϵ`$, the condition that the amplitude (5.1) is invariant under the action of the orbifold group therefore becomes

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \text{Tr}(\gamma (g_i)\lambda )V(\varphi \varphi \varphi ,0)V(\psi ,1)& =\text{Tr}(\gamma (g_i)\gamma (g_j)\lambda \gamma (g_j)^1)V(\widehat{g_j}\varphi \varphi \varphi ,0)V(g_j\psi ,1)\hfill \\ & =ϵ(g_j,g_i)\text{Tr}(\gamma (g_i)\gamma (g_j)\lambda \gamma (g_j)^1)V(g_j\varphi \varphi \varphi ,0)V(g_j\psi ,1),\hfill \end{array}$$

where we have used that the action on the open string Chan-Paton indices is defined by (4.1).

Let us consider an open string state $`\psi `$ that is invariant under the action of the orbifold group, $`g_j\psi =\psi `$, and let us denote by $`\delta _j(\varphi \varphi \varphi )`$ the eigenvalue of $`\varphi `$$`\varphi `$$`\varphi `$ under the action of $`g_j`$, $`g_j\varphi \varphi \varphi =\delta _j(\varphi \varphi \varphi )\varphi \varphi \varphi `$. If $`\varphi `$$`\varphi `$$`\varphi `$ is a physical state in the orbifold theory with relative discrete torsion $`ϵ`$, then we have to have $`\delta _j(\varphi \varphi \varphi )ϵ(g_j,g_i)=+1`$. If in addition the amplitude $`V(\varphi \varphi \varphi ,0)V(\psi ,1)`$ does not vanish, then the consistency condition implies that

$$\text{Tr}(\gamma (g_i)\lambda )=\text{Tr}(\gamma (g_i)\gamma (g_j)\lambda \gamma (g_j)^1).$$

The Chan-Paton matrix $`\lambda `$ is arbitrary, and this statement is therefore equivalent to

$$\gamma (g_j)\gamma (g_i)=\gamma (g_i)\gamma (g_j).$$

In particular, it then follows that the representation of the orbifold group defined by $`\gamma `$ is a proper (not a projective) representation. This conclusion applies to those open strings that have a non-vanishing coupling with physical states in the twisted sector of the orbifold theory. This is in particular the case for the fractional D-branes we have discussed above.

On the other hand, the situation that was considered by Gomis corresponds to the case when $`\delta _j(\varphi \varphi \varphi )=+1`$, i.e. when the open string state couples to a closed string state that is physical in the theory without discrete torsion, but unphysical provided that $`ϵ(g_i,g_j)1`$. Again under the assumption that the corresponding overlap does not vanish, an analogous argument then implies that

$$\gamma (g_j)\gamma (g_i)=ϵ(g_j,g_i)\gamma (g_i)\gamma (g_j).$$

If we rewrite $`ϵ(g_j,g_i)`$ in terms of the cocylce $`c`$ as in (2.1), this becomes

$$\gamma (g_j)\gamma (g_i)c(g_i,g_j)=c(g_j,g_i)\gamma (g_i)\gamma (g_j).$$

The representation of the orbifold group in the open string is then the projective representation described by

$$\gamma (g_i)\gamma (g_j)=c(g_i,g_j)\gamma (g_ig_j).$$

This analysis applies to the projective fractional branes for which the twisted closed string states to which the D-brane would normally couple are unphysical.

From this point of view, the question of whether the representation of the orbifold group on the open string Chan-Paton indices is a proper representation or a projective representation does not depend on whether the theory in question is an orbifold with or without discrete torsion; it only depends on the transformation properties of the twisted sector states to which the open string state couples.

6. Conclusions

In this paper we have re-examined the D-brane spectrum of a certain $`\text{ZZ}_2\times \text{ZZ}_2`$ orbifold with and without discrete torsion. We have argued, on general grounds, that the analysis for the two cases must be analogous, and we have shown that this leads to a D-brane spectrum that is consistent with T-duality that relates the theory with and without discrete torsion \[31\]. The picture that seems to be emerging is that the representation of the orbifold group in the open string description can either be a proper or a projective representation, irrespective of whether the orbifold theory has discrete torsion or not. The emergence of projective representations of the orbifold group is merely related to discrete torsion in the sense that only orbifold theories that admit discrete torsion also admit projective representations that are not equivalent to proper representations. Every such projective representation gives rise to a non-trivial co-cycle in $`H^2(\mathrm{\Gamma },U(1))`$. This conclusion is somewhat different from what was argued for in \[32,,33,,37\]. We have also given a boundary state description for branes that lead to projective open string representations, and we have found that their moduli space has the same structure as perdicted in \[32,,33\].

In this paper we have only analysed the $`\text{ZZ}_2\times \text{ZZ}_2`$ case that is special in that T-duality relates the theory with discrete torsion to the one without. It would be interesting to see how the findings of this paper generalise for more general orbifolds with (and without) discrete torsion; this is currently under consideration \[53\]. It would also be interesting to understand whether non-BPS D-branes can also have projective representations of the orbifold group, and how this fits together with the various decay processes of non-BPS branes into brane anti-brane pairs.

Acknowledgements

I thank Bogdan Stefański for drawing my attention to this problem, and for useful conversations. I am grateful to Andy Neitzke for useful conversations about group cohomology. I also thank Michael Douglas and Jaume Gomis for helpful correspondences.

I am grateful to the Royal Society for a University Research Fellowship. I also acknowledge partial support from the PPARC SPG programme, “String Theory and Realistic Field Theory”, PPA/G/S/1998/00613.

Appendix A. The construction of the two-cocycle

Let us first determine the most general set of phases $`ϵ(g,h)`$ that satisfy (2.1) and (2.1). Recall that every finitely generated abelian group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ can be written as (see for example \[30\])

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=\text{ZZ}_{m_1}\times \text{ZZ}_{m_2}\times \mathrm{}\times \text{ZZ}_{m_k},$$

where $`m_i`$ is a factor of $`m_{i+1}`$. Let us denote by $`\alpha _i`$ the generator of $`\text{ZZ}_{m_i}`$. Then every set of discrete torsion phases is uniquely determined by the set of phases

$$ϵ_{ij}=ϵ(\alpha _i,\alpha _j)\text{where }i<j\text{.}$$

Indeed, it is easy to check that (2.1) and (2.1) imply (2.1), and the second equation in (2.1) determines then $`ϵ`$ on all pairs of generators. Using the representation property (2.1) this finally fixes $`ϵ`$ for all pairs $`(g,h)`$. Provided that $`ϵ_{ij}`$ is a $`m_i`$th root of unity, this construction is well-defined. Since the resulting phases satisfy by construction (2.1) and (2.1), it follows by the same arguments as in the main part of the paper that they also satisfy (2.1). We have therefore shown that the set of possible discrete torsion phases is given by

$$\text{ZZ}_{m_1}^{k1}\times \text{ZZ}_{m_2}^{k2}\times \mathrm{}\times \text{ZZ}_{m_{k1}}.$$

The set of possible discrete torsion phases is actually a group since the product of two sets of discrete torsion phases defines another set of discrete torsion phases. This group is generated by the primitive discrete torsion phases for which $`ϵ_{ij}=1`$ for all but one pair $`i<j`$ for which $`ϵ_{ij}`$ is a primitive $`m_i`$th root of unity.

The set of cocylces is also an abelian group (where the group multiplication is also given by pointwise multiplication). In order to construct a cocycle $`c`$ for each set of discrete torsion phases $`ϵ`$ (so that $`ϵ`$ is determined in terms of $`c`$ by (2.1)), it is therefore sufficient to construct such a cocycle for the primitive discrete torsion phases only. This can be done indirectly, by constructing a certain projective representation of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ \[33\].

In order to simplify notation, let us consider the case where the primite discrete torsion phases are defined by $`ϵ_{12}1`$, with $`ϵϵ_{12}`$ a primitive $`mm_1`$th root of unity. There are two cases to consider: if $`m`$ is odd, we construct a $`m`$-dimensional projective representation by

$$\gamma (\alpha _1)=\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}& 0& 1& 0& \mathrm{}& 0\\ & 0& 0& 1& \mathrm{}& 0\\ & \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ & 0& 0& \mathrm{}& 0& 1\\ & 1& 0& 0& \mathrm{}& 0\end{array}\right)\gamma (\alpha _2)=\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}& 0& ϵ& 0& \mathrm{}& 0\\ & 0& 0& ϵ^2& \mathrm{}& 0\\ & \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ & 0& 0& \mathrm{}& 0& ϵ^{m1}\\ & 1& 0& 0& \mathrm{}& 0\end{array}\right),$$

together with $`\gamma (\alpha _j)=\mathrm{𝟏}_m`$. On the other hand, if $`m`$ is even, $`\gamma (\alpha _j)`$ for $`j2`$ is as above, and we define

$$\gamma (\alpha _2)=\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}& 0& \delta & 0& \mathrm{}& 0\\ & 0& 0& \delta ^3& \mathrm{}& 0\\ & \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ & 0& 0& \mathrm{}& 0& \delta ^{2m3}\\ & \delta ^{2m1}& 0& 0& \mathrm{}& 0\end{array}\right),\text{(}m\text{ even)}$$

where $`\delta ^2=ϵ`$. This construction guarantees that $`\gamma (\alpha _j)^m=\mathrm{𝟏}`$ for all $`j`$. Furthermore we have

$$\gamma (\alpha _1)\gamma (\alpha _2)=ϵ\gamma (\alpha _2)\gamma (\alpha _1),$$

while all other generators commute pairwise.

Next we extend this to a (projective) representation of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ by defining

$$\gamma (g)=\underset{j}{}\gamma (\alpha _{i_j}),$$

where we choose for each element $`g\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ a realisation as $`g=_j\alpha _{i_j}`$, and we pick a specific order for the $`\gamma (\alpha _{i_j})`$ on the right-hand-side of (A.1). Because of the commutation relations and the property that $`\gamma (\alpha _j)^m=\mathrm{𝟏}`$ for all $`j`$, we then find that

$$\gamma (g)\gamma (h)=c(g,h)\gamma (gh),$$

where $`c(g,h)`$ are certain phases. These phases satisfy the cocycle condition (2.1) since the representation of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is associative.

It follows directly from (A.1) that $`ϵ(g,h)`$, defined by (2.1), satisfies $`ϵ(\alpha _i,\alpha _j)=1`$ unless $`(i,j)=(1,2)`$ or $`(i,j)=(2,1)`$, and that $`ϵ(\alpha _1,\alpha _2)=ϵ`$. Since each cocylce defines a set of phases that satisfy (2.1) and (2.1), it therefore follows that the above cocycle reproduces indeed the desired discrete torsion phases.

Finally, in order to prove that the correspondence between discrete torsion phases and cocycles is one-to-one, it remains to check that the map defined by (2.1) is injective. Let us therefore assume that for a given cocycle $`c(g,h)`$, all $`ϵ(g,h)=+1`$, i.e. that $`c(g,h)=c(h,g)`$ for all $`g,h\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. We want to show that we can find a coboundary so that $`c^{}`$, as defined in (2.1), satisfies $`c^{}(g,h)=1`$ for all $`g,h\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

Without loss of generality (by choosing $`c_e=c(e,e)^1`$) we may assume that $`c(e,e)=1`$. The cocycle condition (2.1) then implies that $`c(e,g)=c(g,e)=1`$ for all $`g\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Let us then define $`c_g`$ for all $`g\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in terms of $`c_{\alpha _i}`$ by the formula

$$c_{\alpha _{i_1}\mathrm{}\alpha _{i_l}}=c(\alpha _{i_1}\mathrm{}\alpha _{i_{l1}},\alpha _{i_l})c(\alpha _{i_1}\mathrm{}\alpha _{i_{l2}},\alpha _{i_{l1}})\mathrm{}c(\alpha _{i_1}\alpha _{i_2},\alpha _{i_3})c(\alpha _{i_1},\alpha _{i_2})\underset{j=1}{\overset{l}{}}c_{\alpha _{i_j}}.$$

Using the cocycle condition (2.1) and the property that $`c(g,h)=c(h,g)`$ it is easy to see that this definition is independent of the order of the $`\alpha _i`$. In order to show that it respects the group relations, we observe that

$$c_{\alpha _{i_1}\mathrm{}\alpha _{i_l}\alpha _{j_1}\mathrm{}\alpha _{j_m}}=c(\alpha _{i_1}\mathrm{}\alpha _{i_l},\alpha _{j_1}\mathrm{}\alpha _{j_m})c_{\alpha _{i_1}\mathrm{}\alpha _{i_l}}c_{\alpha _{j_1}\mathrm{}\alpha _{j_m}},$$

where we have again used the cocycle condition. We can choose $`c_{\alpha _i}`$ so that $`c_{\alpha _i\mathrm{}\alpha _i}`$, as defined by the right-hand-side of (A.1), satisfies

$$c_{\underset{m_i}{\underset{}{\alpha _i\mathrm{}\alpha _i}}}=c_e=1.$$

Because of (A.1) and the fact that $`c(e,g)=c(g,e)=1`$, this then implies that (A.1) respects the group relations. Finally, it is manifest from (A.1) that $`c^{}(g,h)`$, defined by (2.1), satisfies then $`c^{}(g,h)=1`$ for all $`g,h\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

References

relax J. Polchinski, String Theory, Volume 2, Superstring Theory and Beyond, CUP 1998. relax O. Bergman, M.R. Gaberdiel, A non-supersymmetric open string theory and S-duality, Nucl. Phys. B499, 183 (1997); hep-th/9701137. relax I.R. Klebanov, A.A. Tseytlin, D-branes and dual gauge theories in type 0 strings, Nucl. Phys. B546, 155 (1999); hep-th/9811035. relax O. Bergman, M.R. Gaberdiel, Dualities of Type 0 strings, JHEP 9907, 022 (1999); hep-th/9906055. relax M. Bianchi, A. Sagnotti, On the systematics of open string theories, Phys. Lett. B247, 517 (1990); Twist symmetry and open string Wilson lines, Nucl. Phys. B361, 519 (1991). relax M.R. Douglas, G. Moore, D-branes, quivers and ALE instantons, hep-th/9603167. relax A. Sen, BPS D-branes on non-supersymmetric cycles, JHEP 9812, 021 (1998); hep-th/9812031. relax O. Bergman, M.R. Gaberdiel, Non-BPS states in Heterotic -- Type IIA duality, JHEP 9903, 013 (1999); hep-th/9901014. relax D-E. Diaconescu, M.R. Douglas, J. Gomis, Fractional branes and wrapped branes, JHEP 9802, 013 (1998); hep-th/9712230. relax D.-E. Diaconescu, J. Gomis, Fractional branes and boundary states in orbifold theories, hep-th/9906242. relax M.R. Gaberdiel, A. Sen, Non-supersymmetric D-Brane configurations with Bose-Fermi degenerate open string spectrum, JHEP 9911, 008 (1999); hep-th/9908060. relax M.R. Gaberdiel, B. Stefański, Dirichlet branes on orbifolds, Nucl. Phys. B578, 58 (2000); hep-th/9910109. relax A. Recknagel, V. Schomerus, D-branes in Gepner models, Nucl. Phys. B531, 185 (1998), hep-th/9712186. relax M. Gutperle, Y. Satoh, D0-branes in Gepner models and N=2 black holes, Nucl. Phys. B555, 477 (1999); hep-th/9902120. relax I. Brunner, M.R. Douglas, A. Lawrence, C. Römelsberger, D-branes on the quintic, hep-th/9906200. relax D.-E. Diaconescu, C. Römelsberger, D-Branes and bundles on elliptic fibrations, Nucl. Phys. B574, 245 (2000); hep-th/9910172. relax P. Kaste, W. Lerche, C. A. Lutken, J. Walcher, D-branes on K3-fibrations, hep-th/9912147. relax E. Scheidegger, D-branes on some one- and two-parameter Calabi-Yau hypersurfaces, JHEP 0004, 003 (2000); hep-th/9912188. relax I. Brunner, V. Schomerus, D-branes at singular curves of Calabi-Yau compactifications, JHEP 0004, 020 (2000); hep-th/0001132. relax M. Naka, M. Nozaki, Boundary states in Gepner models, JHEP 0005, 027 (2000); hep-th/0001037. relax M.R. Douglas, B. Fiol, C. Römelsberger, The spectrum of BPS branes on a noncompact Calabi-Yau, hep-th/0003263. relax B. Stefański, Dirichlet Branes on a Calabi-Yau three-fold orbifold, hep-th/0005153. relax D.-E. Diaconescu, M.R. Douglas, D-branes on stringy Calabi-Yau manifolds, hep-th/0006224. relax G. Pradisi, A. Sagnotti, Ya. S. Stanev, Planar duality in $`SU(2)`$ WZW models, Phys. Lett. B354, 279 (1995); hep-th/9503207. relax G. Pradisi, A. Sagnotti, Ya. S. Stanev, The open descendants of non-diagonal $`SU(2)`$ WZW models, Phys. Lett. B356, 230 (1995); hep-th/9506014. relax A. Alekseev, V. Schomerus, D-branes in the WZW model, Phys. Rev. D60, 061901 (1999); hep-th/9812193. relax A. Alekseev, A. Recknagel, V. Schomerus, Non-commutative world-volume geometries: branes on $`SU(2)`$ and fuzzy spheres, JHEP 9909, 023 (1999); hep-th/9908040. relax G. Felder, J. Fröhlich, J. Fuchs, Ch. Schweigert, The geometry of WZW branes, J. Geom. Phys. 34, 162 (2000); hep-th/9909030. relax Y. Hikida, M. Nozaki, T. Takayanagi, Tachyon condensation on fuzzy sphere and noncommutative solitons, hep-th/0008023. relax C. Vafa, Modular invariance and discrete torsion on orbifolds, Nucl. Phys. B273, 592 (1986). relax C. Vafa, E. Witten, On orbifolds with discrete torsion, J. Geom. Phys. 15, 189 (1995); hep-th/9409188. relax M.R. Douglas, D-branes and discrete torsion, hep-th/9807235. relax M.R. Douglas, B. Fiol, D-branes and discrete torsion II, hep-th/9903031. relax S. Mukhopadhyay, K. Ray, D-branes on fourfolds with discrete torsion, Nucl. Phys. B576, 152 (2000); hep-th/9909107. relax C. Angelantonj, I. Antoniadis, G. D’Appollonio, E. Dudas, A. Sagnotti, Type I vacua with brane supersymmetry breaking, Nucl.Phys. B572, 36 (2000); hep-th/9911081. relax D. Berenstein, R.G. Leigh, Discrete torsion, AdS/CFT and duality, JHEP 0001, 038 (2000); hep-th/0001055. relax J. Gomis, D-branes on orbifolds with discrete torsion and topological obstruction, JHEP 0005, 006 (2000); hep-th/0001200. relax M. Klein, R. Rabadan, Orientifolds with discrete torsion, JHEP 0007, 040 (2000); hep-th/0002103. relax A. Hanany, B. Kol, On orientifolds, discrete torsion, branes and M theory, JHEP 0006, 013 (2000); hep-th/0003025. relax P.S. Aspinwall, D.R. Morrison, Stable singularities in string theory, Commun. Math. Phys. 178, 115 (1996); hep-th/9503208. relax E.R. Sharpe, Discrete torsion and gerbes I & II, hep-th/9909108 and 9909120. relax E.R. Sharpe, Discrete torsion, hep-th/0008154. relax L. Dixon, J. Harvey, C. Vafa, E. Witten, Strings on orbifolds I and II, Nucl. Phys. B261, 678 (1985) and Nucl. Phys. B274, 295 (1986). relax O. Bergman, M.R. Gaberdiel, Consistency of orbifolds, Phys. Lett. B481, 379 (2000); hep-th/0001130. relax J. Polchinski, Y. Cai, Consistency of open superstring theories, Nucl. Phys. B296, 91 (1988). relax C. Callan, C. Lovelace, C. Nappi, S. Yost, Loop corrections to superstring equations of motion, Nucl. Phys. B308, 221 (1988). relax A. Lerda, R. Russo, Stable non-BPS states in string theory: a pedagogical review, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A15, 771 (2000); hep-th/9905006. relax P. Di Vecchia, A. Liccardo, D branes in string theory, I & II, hep-th/9912161 and hep-th/9912275. relax M.R. Gaberdiel, Lectures on Non-BPS Dirichlet branes, hep-th/0005029. relax A. Sen, Stable non-BPS bound states of BPS D-branes, JHEP 9808, 010 (1998); hep-th/9805019. relax O. Bergman, M.R. Gaberdiel, Stable non-BPS D-particles, Phys. Lett. B441, 133 (1998); hep-th/9806155. relax J. Polchinski, Tensors from K3 orientifolds, Phys. Rev. D55, 6423 (1997); hep-th/9606165. relax B. Craps, M.R. Gaberdiel, in preparation.


format: text

text:
# The Debye-Waller factor of liquid silica: Theory and simulation

## Abstract

We show that the prediction of mode-coupling theory for a model of a network-forming strong glass-former correctly describes the wave-vector dependence of the Debye-Waller factor. To obtain a good description it is important to take into account the triplet correlation function $`𝐜_3`$, which we evaluate from a computer simulation. Our results support the possibility that this theory is able to accurately describe the non-ergodicity parameters of simple as well as of network-forming liquids.

The quantitative description of the glassy dynamics in liquids is one important goal of modern research in condensed matter. Work in the last decade has provided evidence  that the so-called mode-coupling theory (MCT)  is able to describe the slow dynamics of fragile liquids in the weakly supercooled state. Detailed theoretical predictions for model systems — including hard sphere systems, simple binary liquids, and molecular liquids — have been found to be in remarkable agreement with experimental measurements as well as with simulation results . E.g. the full $`q`$-dependence of the Lamb-Mössbauer and of the Debye-Waller factors is predicted well by the theory.

Recently, it has been shown that also intermediate and strong glass-formers, such as glycerol or silica (SiO2, show features that are in qualitative agreement with the predictions of MCT. However, in the case of silica, a detailed comparison between theory and numerical data has questioned the ability of MCT to describe correctly the Debye-Waller factors of this important network-forming material . In this Letter we show that the disagreement between MD-results and theoretical predictions — for the case of silica — were not due to failure of MCT to describe caging in this network forming liquid but to a further approximation which is assumed for the sake of simplicity in the commonly-used MCT equations. We show that, once this approximation is avoided, MCT is able to describe accurately the cages in silica, opening the way for a full description of dynamics in network forming liquids above the critical temperature of MCT.

To start we briefly review the MCT equations. The central quantity is the coherent intermediate scattering function $`𝐅(𝐪,t)`$, which for binary system can be written as a $`2\times 2`$ matrix with entries $`F_{ij}(𝐪,t)=\delta \rho _i(𝐪,0)\delta \rho _j^{}(𝐪,t)`$. Here $`\rho _i(𝐪,t)`$ is the density fluctuations for wave-vector $`𝐪`$, and $`i`$ is the label for the species.

The equation of motion for $`𝐅(𝐪,t)`$ is given by

$$\ddot{𝐅}(𝐪,t)+𝛀^2(q)𝐅(𝐪,t)+_0^t𝑑\tau 𝐌(𝐪,t\tau )\dot{𝐅}(𝐪,\tau )=0,$$
(1)
where the frequency matrix is given by $`\left[𝛀^2(q)\right]_{ij}=q^2k_BT(x_i/m_i)_k\delta _{ik}\left[𝐒^1(q)\right]_{kj}`$. Here $`q=|𝐪|`$, $`x_i`$ is the concentration of species $`i`$, $`m_i`$ is their mass, and $`𝐒`$ is the partial structure factor matrix. Within the framework of MCT, the memory function $`𝐌`$ is given by $`M_{ij}=x_ik_BTN_{ij}/m_i`$, where the matrix $`N_{ij}`$ is a quadratic form in $`F_{ij}(𝐪,t)`$:

$`N_{ij}(𝐪,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2nx_ix_j}}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d𝐤}{(2\pi )^3}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha \beta }{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ^{}\beta ^{}}{}}V_{i\alpha \beta }(𝐪,𝐤)\times `$ (3)
$`V_{j\alpha ^{}\beta ^{}}(𝐪,𝐪𝐤)F_{\alpha \alpha ^{}}(𝐤,t)F_{\beta \beta ^{}}(𝐪𝐤,t).`$
Here $`n`$ is the particle density, and the vertices $`V_{i\alpha \beta }(𝐪,𝐤)`$ are given by

$`V_{i\alpha \beta }(𝐪,𝐤)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{𝐪𝐤}{q}}\delta _{i\beta }c_2^{i\alpha }(𝐤)+{\displaystyle \frac{𝐪(𝐪𝐤)}{q}}\delta _{i\alpha }c_2^{i\beta }(𝐪𝐤)`$ (5)
$`+nqc_3^{i\alpha \beta }(𝐪,𝐪𝐤)x_i.`$
The function $`c_2^{ij}(𝐪)=\delta _{ij}/x_i\left[𝐒^1(𝐪)\right]_{ij}`$ is the direct correlation function, and $`c_3^{i\alpha \beta }(𝐪,𝐤)`$ is the triple correlation function, which is related to the triple density fluctuations via

$`\delta \rho _\alpha (𝐪)\delta \rho _\beta (𝐤)\delta \rho _\gamma ^{}(𝐪+𝐤)`$ $`=`$ $`N{\displaystyle \underset{ϵ\sigma \eta }{}}S_{\alpha ϵ}(q)S_{\beta \sigma }(k)`$ (6)
$`\times S_{\gamma \eta }(|𝐪+𝐤|)`$ $`(\delta _{ϵ\sigma }\delta _{ϵ\eta }\delta _{\eta \sigma }/x_ϵ^2+n^2c_3^{ϵ\sigma \eta }(𝐪,𝐤)).`$ (7)
The only input required by MCT are the static quantities $`𝐒`$, $`𝐜_3`$, and $`n`$. Temperature enters the equations only through the explicit $`T`$-dependence of $`𝛀^2(q)`$ and the implicit $`T`$-dependence of the static quantities. The solution of this type of equation shows at low $`T`$ a two-step relaxation dynamics, if $`T`$ is above $`T_c`$, the so-called critical temperature of MCT . Below $`T_c`$ the time correlation functions do not decay to zero anymore, thus signaling that the system is not longer ergodic. Hence the height of the plateau in a time correlation function is usually called the non-ergodicity parameter (NEP) since it measures that fraction of the correlation that does not decay to zero even at long times. The physical relevance of the NEP can be inferred from the fact that it can be directly measured in light and neutron scattering experiments. For the case of $`F(𝐪,t)`$ the NEP is $`𝐅_c(q)`$, the Debye-Waller factor for wave-vector $`q`$.

In one of the first attempts to solve the MCT equations for soft spheres, the possibility of setting in Eq. (5) $`𝐜_3=0`$ was considered . This approximation corresponds to a factorization of the triple density correlation in $`q`$-space in product of the three pair density correlation. It was found that for this simple liquid, this approximation does not significantly affect the MCT predictions. All further works have build on this information. In this Letter we check the validity of this approximation for network-forming liquids. We use molecular dynamics (MD) simulations to determine the triple correlation function for silica and use these functions to solve the full MCT equations. This calculation allows us to determine for the first time whether or not MCT is able to give a quantitative description of the cages of strong glass-formers. For completeness, we perform the same study for a well studied binary mixture of Lennard-Jones particles (BMLJ).

In the past, the dynamics of both systems has been carefully analyzed and it has been shown that the relaxation dynamics shows the qualitative features predicted by the MCT . For the case of the BMLJ also a quantitative comparison has been made in that $`𝐅_c(q)`$ has been calculated theoretically (assuming $`𝐜_3=0`$) and compared with simulation data. This comparison showed that very good agreement between theory and simulation is obtained, even if $`𝐜_3=0`$ is assumed, in agreement with the conclusions of Barrat and Latz . But for the case of SiO2 a similar comparison showed that the MCT prediction for $`𝐅_c(q)`$ does not describe properly the confining cage if $`𝐜_3=0`$ .

In order to investigate the influence of $`𝐜_3`$ it is necessary to determine $`c_3^{ϵ\sigma \eta }(𝐪,𝐤)`$ with high precision. For this we calculated $`\delta \rho _\alpha (𝐤)\delta \rho _\beta (𝐩)\delta \rho _\gamma ^{}(𝐪)`$ with $`𝐪=𝐤+𝐩`$ for all triplets of values $`|𝐤|`$,$`|𝐩|`$,$`|𝐪|`$, with $`|𝐩||𝐤|`$ and $`|𝐩𝐤|<|𝐪|<|𝐩+𝐤|`$, and then used Eq. (7) to determine $`𝐜_3`$. We have selected a mesh size $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ was $`0.154`$Å-1 and $`0.334`$ for the case of SiO2 and BMLJ, respectively. Only wavevectors with modulus less than $`100\mathrm{\Delta }`$ have been considered. For each triplet of value for $`|𝐤|`$,$`|𝐩|`$, $`|𝐪|`$ we randomly selected up to $`10^2`$ combinations of wave-vectors $`𝐤`$, $`𝐩`$, $`𝐪`$, calculated for these the density fluctuations and then the triple density correlation function. For BMLJ this was done for 12309 completely independent configurations, corresponding to 100 million time steps in the simulation. For SiO2 we analyzed 8577 configurations (20 million time steps). Note that this very large number of independent configurations was needed in order to determine $`𝐜_3`$ with sufficient high accuracy to make sure that the final results for the NEP do not depend anymore on the noise in $`𝐜_3`$. We mention that using only 1000 independent configurations was, e.g., not sufficient to guarantee this. Due to the large effort needed to generate the configurations and to analyze them, we determined $`𝐜_3`$ only for one temperature, namely $`T=1.0`$ (BMLJ) and $`T=4000`$K SiO2. Thus in the calculation of the MCT vertices in Eq. (5) we assumed that the direct correlation functions depend on temperature but that the $`T`$-dependence of $`𝐜_3`$ can be neglected.

From the equations of motion, Eqs. (1)-(5), we determined $`T_c`$ and $`𝐅_c(q)`$, using the iteration procedure from Ref. . The results obtained are presented in Figs. 1 and 2 were we show the three components of the NEP for the case of the BMLJ and silica, respectively. In each panel three curves are shown: the data from the simulation (filled circles) , the theoretical prediction if $`𝐜_3=0`$ (curves labeled with “$`c_2`$”), and the theoretical prediction if $`𝐜_3`$ is taken into account (curves labeled with “$`c_3`$”) . From Fig. 1 we see that the curves for $`c_2`$ and $`c_3`$ are very close together, from which we conclude that in the case of the BMLJ the inclusion of $`𝐜_3`$ changes the prediction of the theory only weakly. The main difference between the two curves is in the $`BB`$ correlation, since the $`c_3`$-curve describes the simulation data even better than the $`c_2`$-curve. Also the theoretical prediction for $`T_c`$ is essentially independent of whether or not $`𝐜_3`$ is neglected, in that $`T_c`$ decreases from $`T_c=0.922`$ to $`T_c=0.910`$ if $`𝐜_3`$ is taken into account. These results are in agreement with the findings of Ref. .

From Fig. 2 we recognize that for the case of SiO2 the influence of $`𝐜_3`$ on the NEP is much stronger than for the BMLJ system. For this network-forming liquid the inclusion of $`𝐜_3`$ into the vertices leads to predicted $`𝐅_c(q)`$ which are in substantially better agreement with the ones from the simulation than the ones from the $`c_2`$-theory. The improvement is particularly noticeable for $`q`$ above the location of the first peak, a length scale that corresponds to the distance between two neighboring tetrahedra. E.g. in the case of the Si-Si correlation the relative difference between the theoretical curve and the MD data is decreased by a factor around five. The remaining difference is now only on the order of the error of the MD data. Note that $`𝐅_c(q)`$ provides information on the cage in which a particles is confined and which is formed by its neighboring particles. The fact that in the vicinity of the first maximum the two theoretical curves as well as the MD data are very close together shows that already the $`c_2`$-theory is able to capture the structure of the cage on this length scale. For larger wave-vectors the $`c_2`$-curve is too high, which means that the size of the cage is underestimated. Only if the terms due to $`𝐜_3`$ are taken into account, a reliable description for the cage is obtained.

For the Si-Si correlation the mentioned decrease of the NEP is more pronounced than for the two other correlation functions, which is reasonable since it is the Si-atoms that sit in the center of the tetrahedra, i.e. that make up the network structure, and hence it can be expected that the inclusion of the $`𝐜_3`$-terms is important. Nevertheless, from the figure we see that the inclusion of these terms lead also to a significant improvement of the theoretical prediction for the NEPs for Si-O and O-O if $`q`$ is larger than the location of the first peak. E.g. for the case of O-O the relative error of the $`c_3`$-curve for $`q2.0`$Å is only half as large as the one for the $`c_2`$-curve. Thus we conclude that the $`c_2`$-MCT is able to give a good description of the cage for the oxygens only on the length scale corresponding to the first maximum of $`F(q,0)`$.

The strong influence of the $`𝐜_3`$-terms on $`𝐅_c(q)`$ is also found in the value of $`T_c`$. If one sets $`𝐜_3=0`$ one finds $`T_c=3962`$K, whereas the $`c_3`$-theory predicts $`T_c=4676`$K. Thus, whereas for the BMLJ system we found only a change of the order of 1%, we now find a change around 18%. We mention, however, that MCT usually overestimates the value of $`T_c`$, and indeed we have $`T_c^{MD}=0.435`$ and $`T_c^{MD}=3330`$K for BMLJ and SiO2, respectively .

Finally we show in Fig. 3 the $`q`$-dependence of $`N_{\mathrm{AA}}`$ and $`N_{\mathrm{SiSi}}`$ from Eq. (3) for the corresponding $`T_c`$. From this figure we see that for the BMLJ case the $`c_2`$-memory function is very similar to the one in which $`𝐜_3`$ is taken into account and thus it is not surprising that also the NEP and the $`T_c`$ are not changing. This is in stark contrast to the SiO2 system, for which the memory functions from the $`c_2`$\- and $`c_3`$-theory are very different. Note that in a binary mixture each component of the memory function has contributions from 16 different terms (see Eq. (3)). We found that in the case of SiO2 the inclusion of the $`𝐜_3`$-terms leads to a significant change of the contribution involving the off-diagonal terms. In the $`c_2`$-case these contributions are negative, thus they drive the transition to lower temperatures. If the $`𝐜_3`$-terms are taken into account, these contributions become less negative and hence the transition takes place already at higher temperatures.

In summary, the present calculation shows that MCT is able to give an accurate quantitative description of the NEP for a strong glass-former. This opens the way for a detailed description of the dynamics in the MCT region for this class of materials. Hence our results support the possibility that MCT is able to make quantitative predictions for all types of glass-formers.

Acknowledgment: We thanks L. Fabbian and M. Nauroth for contributing to the early development of this research, and J. Horbach for providing the SiO2 NEPs. Part of this work was supported by the DFG through SFB 262. F.S. acknowledges support from INFM-PRA-HOP and MURST-PRIN98. W. K. thanks the Universitá La Sapienza for a visiting professorship during which part of this work was carried out.


text:
# Meson Mixing and Dilepton Production in Heavy Ion Collisions

## Abstract

We study the possibility of $`\rho a_0`$ mixing via N-N excitations in dense nuclear matter. This mixing is found to induce a peak in the dilepton spectra at an invariant mass equal to that of the $`a_0`$. We calculate the cross section for dilepton production through mixing and we compare its size with that of $`\pi \pi `$ annihilation. In-medium masses and mixing angles are also calculated. Some preliminary results of the mixing effect on the dilepton production rates at finite temperature are also presented.

Electromagnetic radiation, especially lepton pairs, constitutes a class of valuable probes in the context of heavy ion collisions. This owes to the fact that the leptons couple to hadrons via vector mesons and therefore hadronic processes involving $`\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ in the final channel are expected to reveal their properties in the dilepton spectra. Furthermore, the $`\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ pairs suffer minimum final state interactions and are thus likely to bring information to the detectors essentially unscathed. We will only consider dielectrons in this work.

Several experiments have measured, or are planning to measure, the lepton pairs produced in nucleus-nucleus collisions. They have been carried out by the DLS at LBL dls , and by HELIOS hel  and CERES ceres  at CERN. Two new initiatives that will focus on electromagnetic probes will be PHENIX at RHIC phenix  and HADES at GSI hades . The density-dependent characteristics of vector mesons can also be highlighted through experiments performed at TJNAF tjnaf .

We explore here the possibility of $`\rho `$-$`a_0`$ mixing via n-n excitations in nuclear matter. This is a pure density-dependent effect and is forbidden in free space on account of Lorentz symmetry. We show that such a mixing opens up a new channel in dilepton production and will modify the spectrum in the $`\varphi `$ mass region. The details of the calculation will only be sketched here. The interested reader is invited to consult tdmg .

The interaction Lagrangian we will use can written as

$`_{int}`$ $`=`$ $`g_\sigma \overline{\psi }\varphi _\sigma \psi +g_{a_0}\overline{\psi }\varphi _{a_0,a}\tau ^a\psi +g_{\omega NN}\overline{\psi }\gamma _\mu \psi \omega ^\mu `$ (1)
$`+`$ $`g_\rho [\overline{\psi }\gamma _\mu \tau ^\alpha \psi +{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _\rho }{2m_n}}\overline{\psi }\sigma _{\mu \nu }\tau ^\alpha ^\nu ]\rho _\alpha ^\mu ,`$
where $`\psi `$, $`\varphi _\sigma `$, $`\varphi _{a_0}`$, $`\rho `$ and $`\omega `$ correspond to nucleon, $`\sigma `$, $`a_0`$ , $`\rho `$ and $`\omega `$ fields, and $`\tau _a`$ is a Pauli matrix. The values used for the coupling parameters are obtained from Ref. mach89 .

The polarization vector through which the $`a_0`$ couples to $`\rho `$ via the n-n loop is given by

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_\mu (q_0,|\stackrel{}{q}|)`$ $`=`$ $`2ig_{a_0}g_\rho {\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\text{Tr}[G(k)\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu G(k+q)]}.,`$ (2)
where 2 is an isospin factor and the vertex for $`\rho `$-nn coupling is

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu =\gamma _\mu {\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _\rho }{2m_n}}\sigma _{\mu \nu }q^\nu .`$ (3)
$`G(k)`$ is the in-medium nucleon propagator sewal .

With the evaluation of the trace and after a little algebra Eq. (2) could be cast into a suggestive form:

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_\mu (q_0,|q|)={\displaystyle \frac{g_\rho g_{a_0}}{\pi ^3}}2q^2(2m_n^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa q^2}{2m_n}}){\displaystyle _0^{k_F}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^3k}{E^{}(k)}}{\displaystyle \frac{k_\mu \frac{q_\mu }{q^2}(kq)}{q^44(kq)^2}}.`$ (4)
It easily can be seen that it obeys current conservation: $`q^\mu \mathrm{\Pi }_\mu =0=\mathrm{\Pi }_\nu q^\nu `$. This implies that only one component of $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\mu `$ is independent. In fact, only the longitudinal component of the $`\rho `$ meson couples to the scalar meson while the transverse mode remains unaltered.

In presence of mixing the combined meson propagator might be written in a matrix form where the dressed propagator would no longer be diagonal:

$`𝒟=𝒟^0+𝒟^0\mathrm{\Pi }𝒟𝒟^0=\left(\begin{array}{cc}D_{\mu \nu }^0& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{\Delta }_0\end{array}\right).`$ (5)
The noninteracting propagator for the $`a_0`$ and $`\rho `$ are given respectively by

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_0(q)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{q^2m_{a_0}^2+iϵ}},D_{\mu \nu }^0(q)={\displaystyle \frac{g_{\mu \nu }+\frac{q_\mu q_\nu }{q^2}}{q^2m_\rho ^2+iϵ}}.`$ (6)
The mixing is characterised by the polarization matrix which contains non-diagonal elements

$$\mathrm{\Pi }=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^\rho (q)& \mathrm{\Pi }_\nu (q)\\ \mathrm{\Pi }_\mu (q)& \mathrm{\Pi }^{a_0}(q)\end{array}\right).$$
(7)
$`\mathrm{\Pi }^{a_0}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^\rho `$ refer to the diagonal self-energies of the $`a_0`$ and $`\rho `$ meson induced by the n-n polarization.

The $`\rho `$ meson being a vector, one can write the longitudinal and transverse polarization as $`\mathrm{\Pi }_L=\mathrm{\Pi }_{00}+\mathrm{\Pi }_{33}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_T=\mathrm{\Pi }_{11}=\mathrm{\Pi }_{22}`$. To determine the collective modes and their dispersion relation, one can define the dielectric function and look for its zeroes chin77 .

The left panel of Fig. 1 shows the relevant dispersion curves with and without mixing at density $`\rho `$=2.5$`\rho _0`$. As only the L mode mixes with the scalar mode, we do not consider the T mode. The later in fact is the same as presented in Ref. abhee97  for the $`\rho `$ meson, and in Ref. saito98  for $`\sigma \omega `$ mixing. The effect of mixing on the pole masses, as evident from Fig. 1, are found to be small. However, the mixing could be large when the mesons involved go off-shell.

To calculate the mixing angle, one diagonalises the mass matrixabhee97

with the mixing and obtains

$`\theta _{mix}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{arctan}({\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{\Pi }_{mix}^{\rho a_0}}{m_{a_0}^2m_\rho ^2\mathrm{\Pi }_L^\rho +\mathrm{\Pi }^{a_0}}})`$ (8)
In Eq. (8) $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{mix}^{\rho a_0}=M_i/|\stackrel{}{q}|\mathrm{\Pi }_0`$ which increases with density. $`\mathrm{\Pi }_0`$ is the zero’th component of Eq. (4). The momentum dependence for a density of 1.5 times higher than the normal nuclear matter density is shown in the right panel of Fig. 1. This shows that for momenta beyond $`|\stackrel{}{q}|0.2`$ GeV/c the mixing is quite appreciable. It should also be noted that the mixing angle vanishes at $`|\stackrel{}{q}|`$ = 0 as it should.

The $`\rho `$-$`a_0`$ mixing opens a new channel, $`\pi +\eta e^++e^{}`$, in dense nuclear matter through n-n excitations . The cross-section for this process is expressed in terms of the mixing amplitude ($`\mathrm{\Pi }_0`$) tdmg  and is plotted in Fig. 2.

One can notice in Fig. 2 that the process, $`\pi +\eta e^++e^{}`$, at densities higher than $`\rho _\mathrm{𝟎}`$, not only enhances the overall production of lepton pairs but also induces an additional peak near the $`\varphi `$ mass region. The contribution at the $`a_0`$ mass is comparable to that of $`\pi +\pi e^++e^{}`$ near the $`\rho `$ peak, for densities higher than $`\rho _\mathrm{𝟎}`$. Fig. 2 also shows that as the density goes even higher the dilepton yield arising out of the mixing also increases further.

Further studies are in progress to assess finite temperature effects and to incorporate the necessary many-body machinery. We will show here only some preliminary results for the dilepton production rate including the effect of $`\rho a_0`$ mixing. We work the independent particle approximation of kinetic theory. We assume a thermal gas of mesons at $`T=50MeV`$. Fig. 3 shows the dilepton production rate as compared with the standard $`\pi \pi `$ and $`K\overline{K}`$ annihilation. One can observe from Fig 3 that even at density $`\rho /\rho _0=1.5`$ the contribution of the mixing wins over the $`\pi `$-$`\pi `$ annihilation rate in the vicinity of M = 1.0 GeV. Naturally at higher density this goes up as evident from the right panel of Fig. 3.

We have highlighted the possibility of $`\rho `$-$`a_0`$ mixing in dense nuclear matter. We observe the appearance of an additional peak at a dilepton invariant mass that corresponds to that of the $`a_0`$. With sufficient experimental resolution, this effect could be observed. Maybe not as an individual peak, but probably more realistically as a shoulder in the $`\varphi `$ spectrum. This feature would then be exclusively temperature and density-dependent and would thus be the reflection of a genuine in-medium effect.

This work was supported in part by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and in part by the Fonds FCAR of the Québec Government.