format: text

text:
# Introduction

## Introduction

Since the discovery of the maximally supersymmetric plane wave solution in type IIB theory , great progress has been achieved in the AdS/CFT context in going beyond the supergravity approximation . It is known that pp-waves yield exact classical backgrounds for string theory since all curvature invariants vanish and therefore receive no $`\alpha ^{}`$ corrections. Hence, pp-wave spacetimes correspond to exact conformal field theories. This fact has been known for some time , and after the work of  the interest in them has been revived. Plane waves in particular provide simple toy models for studying string propagation and singularity issues because it has been shown that they lead to exactly solvable models in the light cone gauge  (see also ).

After reviewing how to obtain the maximally supersymmetric solutions of $`d=4`$, $`N=2`$ supergravity in sections 1 and 2, we present the $`\frac{1}{2}`$-BPS time dependent pp-wave backgrounds in section 3. In section 4 we develop a general method to study the conformal boundary of these time dependent solutions and then for a particular class of metrics the boundary is analyzed. We end with some conclusions and directions for future research.

## 1 Constraints from Maximal Supersymmetry

We first review the spacetimes of $`d=4`$, $`N=2`$ supergravity with maximal supersymmetry, this means spacetimes with 8 Killing spinors. The Killing spinor equation is 111See appendix for conventions.

$$\widehat{}\xi (d+\frac{1}{4}\omega \frac{i}{4}\overline{)}F\mathrm{\Gamma })\xi =0,$$
(1)
where $`d=_\mu dx^\mu `$, $`\omega =\omega _\mu ^{ab}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ab}dx^\mu `$, $`\overline{)}F=F^{ab}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ab}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Gamma }_ae_\mu ^adx^\mu `$. Maximal supersymmetry implies that the commutator of covariant derivatives as a spinor matrix must vanish

$$[\widehat{}_\mu ,\widehat{}_\nu ]\xi =0,\xi [\widehat{}_\mu ,\widehat{}_\nu ]_{ss^{}}=0.$$
(2)
Writing $`\widehat{}_\mu =D_\mu \frac{i}{4}\overline{)}F\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu `$ where $`D_\mu _\mu +\frac{1}{4}\omega _\mu ^{ab}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ab}`$ the commutator (2) takes the form

$$\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ab}R_{\mu \nu }^{ab}\frac{i}{4}D_\mu (\overline{)}F\mathrm{\Gamma }_\nu )+\frac{i}{4}D_\nu (\overline{)}F\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu )\frac{1}{16}[\overline{)}F\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ,\overline{)}F\mathrm{\Gamma }_\nu ]=0.$$
(3)
Expanding (3) in gamma matrices and setting to zero each independent coefficient we get for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ab},\mathrm{\Gamma }^\alpha ,\mathrm{\Gamma }^5\mathrm{\Gamma }^\alpha `$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^5`$

$$R_{\mu \nu }^{ab}e_{c\mu }e_{d\nu }(F^{ac}F^{bd}F^{bc}F^{ad}+\stackrel{~}{F}^{ac}\stackrel{~}{F}^{bd}\stackrel{~}{F}^{bc}\stackrel{~}{F}^{ad})=0$$
(4)
$$D_\mu F_{\nu \alpha }D_\nu F_{\mu \alpha }=0,$$
(5)
$$D_\mu \stackrel{~}{F}_{\nu \alpha }D_\nu \stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \alpha }=0,$$
(6)
$$\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \rho }F_\nu ^\rho \stackrel{~}{F}_{\nu \rho }F_\mu ^\rho =0,$$
(7)
where $`\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}\epsilon _{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }F^{\alpha \beta }`$. The set of equations (4)-(7) are the constraints that a maximally supersymmetric spacetime of $`d=4`$, $`N=2`$ supergravity must satisfy .

Equation (7) doesn’t impose any constraint (cf. eqn.(8) of ), it is trivially satisfied due to the identity $`F_\mu ^\rho \stackrel{~}{F}_\rho ^\nu =\frac{1}{4}\delta _\mu ^\nu F_{\rho \sigma }\stackrel{~}{F}^{\rho \sigma }`$.

Equations (5) and (6) imply, upon contracting with the covariant Levi-Civita tensor, the Bianchi identity and the equations of motion for $`F_{\mu \nu }`$. In particular, a strong constraint follows for the electromagnetic field, by substituting (5) into the Bianchi identity

$$D_\alpha F_{\mu \nu }+D_\mu F_{\nu \alpha }+D_\nu F_{\alpha \mu }=0,$$
(8)
one finds that maximal supersymmetry requires that the electromagnetic field must be covariantly constant

$$D_\alpha F_{\mu \nu }=0.$$
(9)
This is a natural property for a maximally supersymmetric “vacuum” solution.

The $`d=4`$ spaces admitting a covariantly constant 2-form were classified in , where it was shown that there exist two classes of solutions according to $`F`$ being either non-null (Robinson-Bertotti ) or null (pp-waves ,). One can check that the Robinson-Bertotti $`AdS_2\times S^2`$ solution satisfies the constraint (4) as is well known . So let’s move to the null electromagnetic field class of solutions.

## 2 Maximally Supersymmetric Plane Waves

To find the maximally supersymmetric plane wave solution , we start from the general pp-wave solution of the Einstein-Maxwell action

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`du(dv+H(u,\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })du)+d\zeta d\overline{\zeta },`$ (10)
$`F`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}du(_\zeta \varphi d\zeta +_{\overline{\zeta }}\overline{\varphi }d\overline{\zeta }),`$ (11)
where

$$H(u,\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })=f(u,\zeta )+\overline{f}(u,\overline{\zeta })\varphi (u,\zeta )\overline{\varphi }(u,\overline{\zeta }),F\frac{1}{2}F_{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu .$$
(12)
Here $`f(u,\zeta )`$ and $`\varphi (u,\zeta )`$ are two arbitrary holomorphic complex functions with complex conjugates $`\overline{f}(u,\overline{\zeta })`$ and $`\overline{\varphi }(u,\overline{\zeta })`$. Maximal supersymmetry constrains the functional form of $`f(u,\zeta )`$ and $`\varphi (u,\zeta )`$.

Having a covariantly constant electromagnetic field (9) implies that

$$\varphi (u,\zeta )=C(u)+\lambda \zeta .$$
(13)
The function $`C(u)`$ can be absorbed in $`f(u,\zeta )`$, and $`\lambda `$ can always be made real by a rotation in $`\zeta `$, so we get

$`H(u,\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })`$ $`=`$ $`f(u,\zeta )+\overline{f}(u,\overline{\zeta })\lambda ^2\zeta \overline{\zeta },`$ (14)
$`F`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{2}}du(d\zeta +d\overline{\zeta }).`$ (15)
The only independent non-zero components of the Riemann tensor for the spacetime (10) are

$$R_{uiuj}=\frac{1}{2}_i_jH(u,\zeta ,\overline{\zeta }),$$
(16)
where $`i,j=(\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })`$ refer to transverse space coordinates.

Equation (4) implies

$$_\zeta _{\overline{\zeta }}H=\lambda ^2,$$
(17)
$$_\zeta _\zeta H=_{\overline{\zeta }}_{\overline{\zeta }}H=0.$$
(18)
The first equation is automatically satisfied because it is just the Einstein equation222One can see that the contraction of the Riemann tensor (4) gives Einstein equations
$$R_{\mu \nu }=2(F_{\mu \alpha }F_{\nu \beta }g^{\alpha \beta }\frac{1}{4}g_{\mu \nu }F^2).$$
(19) . Equations (18) imply that the space should be conformally flat and then

$$f(u,\zeta )=A(u)+B(u)\zeta .$$
(20)
Here $`A(u),B(u)`$ are two arbitrary complex functions of the real variable $`u`$, but $`f(u,\zeta )`$ can be set to zero by a diffeomorphism. Eqn. (20) together with (13) imply that the maximally supersymmetric pp-wave solution belongs to the subclass of plane wave spacetimes. The maximally supersymmetric plane wave solution is then

$$ds^2=du(dv\lambda ^2\zeta \overline{\zeta }du)+d\zeta d\overline{\zeta },F=\frac{\lambda }{2}du(d\zeta +d\overline{\zeta }).$$
(21)
This is called the Brinkmann form of the plane wave . Despite its appearence the spacetime (21) is completely homogeneous, having a seven dimensional group of isometries 333The number comes as follows: to the usual $`2d3`$ killing vectors that any plane wave spacetime has , in our case 5, one must add, from $`H(u,\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })`$ being $`H(u,\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })=\lambda ^2\overline{\zeta }\zeta `$, translations in $`u`$ and rotations in the transverse space $`i(\zeta _\zeta \overline{\zeta }_{\overline{\zeta }})`$. The appearance of $`_u`$ as a Killing vector makes the spacetime homogeneous. . The isometry group of $`(,F)`$ is six dimensional and this coincides with the dimension of the isometry group of the Robinson-Bertotti solution. This observation was at the root of the connection between the homogeneous plane waves and the $`AdS\times S`$ via Penrose limits and group contractions .

We have seen that maximal supersymmetry for $`d=4`$, $`N=2`$ supergravity implies that the spacetime must be conformally flat. This statement extends to $`d=6,10`$ but not to $`d=5,11`$ ,.

## 3 $`\frac{1}{2}`$-BPS Time Dependent Plane Wave Solutions

Now we are going to find some new time dependent $`\frac{1}{2}`$-BPS solutions which can be used in $`d=10`$ as string backgrounds leading to gaussian models in the light-cone gauge.

The Killing spinor equations (1) for the background (10)-(11) take the form

$`\left(_\zeta {\displaystyle \frac{i}{8}}_\zeta \varphi \mathrm{\Omega }\right)\xi `$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (22)
$`\left(_{\overline{\zeta }}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{8}}_{\overline{\zeta }}\overline{\varphi }\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\right)\xi `$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (23)
$`\left(_u+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\right)\xi `$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (24)
$`_v\xi `$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (25)
where

$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^1\mathrm{\Gamma }^2\mathrm{\Gamma }^{},`$ (26)
$`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^2\mathrm{\Gamma }^1\mathrm{\Gamma }^{},`$ (27)
$`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(_\zeta H\mathrm{\Gamma }^1+_{\overline{\zeta }}H\mathrm{\Gamma }^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}(_\zeta \varphi \mathrm{\Gamma }^1+_{\overline{\zeta }}\overline{\varphi }\mathrm{\Gamma }^2)\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^+.`$ (28)
The spinor projection444The coodinate independent way of expressing (29) is $`(l\mathrm{\Gamma })\xi =0`$ where $`l`$ is the covariantly constant null vector of the pp-wave .

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}\xi =0,$$
(29)
was used in ,. We now further impose the constraint

$$\varphi (u,\zeta )=g(u)\zeta ,$$
(30)
where $`g(u)`$ is an arbitrary complex function and show that we have $`\frac{1}{2}`$-supersymmetry. Using the constraint (29), the system (22)-(25) reduces to

$$_v\xi =_\zeta \xi =_{\overline{\zeta }}\xi =0,$$
(31)
$$\left(_u+\frac{i}{2}(_\zeta \varphi \mathrm{\Gamma }^1+_{\overline{\zeta }}\overline{\varphi }\mathrm{\Gamma }^2)\right)\xi =0,$$
(32)
and we see that a consistent $`\frac{1}{2}`$-BPS solution is found if (30) is satisfied.

From now on we take $`g(u)`$ to be real. The solution for the Killing spinors is

$$\xi =e^{\frac{i}{2}(\mathrm{\Gamma }^1+\mathrm{\Gamma }^2)𝒢(u)}\xi _0,$$
(33)
where $`𝒢(u)=_{u_0}^u𝑑u^{}g(u^{})`$ and $`\xi _0`$ satisfies (29). The exponential in (33) can be resummed using the parametrization for the gamma matrices given in the appendix, obtaining

$$\xi =\left\{\mathrm{cos}(𝒢(u))+\gamma ^2\mathrm{sin}(𝒢(u))\right\}\xi _0.$$
(34)
This shows that the Killing spinors obtained by the proyection (29) always depend on the “time-like” $`u`$ coordinate, are independent of the transverse coordinates and correspond to kinematical supersymmetries .

For the maximally supersymmetric solutions $`g(u)`$ is constant, $`𝒢(u)`$ becomes linear and then half of the spinors are periodic in the $`u`$ coordinate. Explicitly, the Killing spinors are given by

$$\xi =(1+\frac{i\lambda }{8}(\mathrm{\Omega }\zeta +\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\overline{\zeta }))e^{\frac{i\lambda u}{8}(\mathrm{\Gamma }^1+\mathrm{\Gamma }^2)\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^+}\xi _0.$$
(35)
Using the parametrization given in the appendix, the exponential can be resummed obtaining

$$\xi =(1+\frac{i\lambda }{8}(\mathrm{\Omega }\zeta +\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\overline{\zeta }))(A\mathrm{cos}\lambda uiB\mathrm{sin}\lambda u)\xi _0,$$
(36)
(expressions for $`A`$ and $`B`$ are given in the appendix). Eqn. (36) shows the periodicity of the spinors in the $`u`$ coordinate and from the eigenvalues of $`A`$ and $`B`$ one gets that only half of the spinors depend explicitly on $`u`$.

## 4 Conformal Boundary

From the discussion of the last section we know that a $`\frac{1}{2}`$-BPS family of solutions is obtained by the ansatz (30)

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`dudvg^2(u)x_i^2du^2+dx_i^2,`$ (37)
$`F`$ $`=`$ $`g(u)dudx_1,`$ (38)
here $`i=1,2`$ refers to the real transverse directions. Computing the curvature of (10), one notices that the only nontrivial pp-waves which are non-singular are precisely of the form (37) with smooth $`g(u)`$ . In the $`g(u)=const.`$ case, supersymmetry gets enhanced and we get the fully supersymmetric solution (21).

From the form (37) we see that the spacetime is foliated by null hypersurfaces $`u=const.`$ and the vector $`t=_u`$ connecting these is timelike everywhere except at the origin of the transverse space.

We will now analyse the conformal boundary of the solution (37) for particular choices of $`g(u)`$. The plan is, given that the solutions are conformally flat, to embed them into the Einstein Static Universe (ESU) and study where the conformal factor blows up. This is done by going from Brinkman (37) to Rosen coordinates  where the metric takes the form555The change of coordinates to go from (38) to (39) is $`v=\stackrel{~}{v}p(u)\dot{p}(u)\stackrel{~}{x}_i^2,x_i=p(u)\stackrel{~}{x}_i`$ where the index $`i=1,2`$ refers to the transverse space coordinates. $`p(u)`$ is a solution of (40) which can be interpreted as a harmonic oscillator with time dependent frequency.

$$ds^2=dud\stackrel{~}{v}+p^2(u)d\stackrel{~}{x}_i^2,$$
(39)
here $`p(u)`$ is given by the solution of

$$\ddot{p}(u)=g^2(u)p(u).$$
(40)
Factorizing out $`p(u)^2`$ in (39) one obtains the conformally flat expression

$$ds^2=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Pi }^2(\stackrel{~}{u})}(d\stackrel{~}{u}d\stackrel{~}{v}+d\stackrel{~}{x}_i^2).$$
(41)
where $`1/\mathrm{\Pi }^2(\stackrel{~}{u})=p^2(u(\stackrel{~}{u}))`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{u}=\frac{1}{p^2(u)}𝑑u`$. Now using the standard coordinate transformations

$$\stackrel{~}{u}=\frac{\mathrm{sin}\psi +\mathrm{sin}\xi \mathrm{cos}\theta }{\mathrm{cos}\psi +\mathrm{cos}\xi },\stackrel{~}{v}=\frac{\mathrm{sin}\psi +\mathrm{sin}\xi \mathrm{cos}\theta }{\mathrm{cos}\psi +\mathrm{cos}\xi },\stackrel{~}{x}_1=\frac{\mathrm{sin}\xi \mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi }{\mathrm{cos}\psi +\mathrm{cos}\xi },\stackrel{~}{x}_2=\frac{\mathrm{sin}\xi \mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\varphi }{\mathrm{cos}\psi +\mathrm{cos}\xi },$$
(42)
one can embed (41) into the ESU. The result is

$$ds^2=\frac{1}{(\mathrm{cos}\psi +\mathrm{cos}\xi )^2\mathrm{\Pi }^2(\stackrel{~}{u})}(d\psi ^2+d\xi ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\xi (d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2)).$$
(43)
The conformal boundary is defined as the set of points where the conformal factor

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(x^\mu )=(\mathrm{cos}\psi +\mathrm{cos}\xi )\mathrm{\Pi }(\stackrel{~}{u}),$$
(44)
vanishes. The normal to the hypersurfaces $`\mathrm{\Omega }(x^\mu )=const.`$ is given by $`n_\mu =_\mu \mathrm{\Omega }`$ and the nature of the boundary can be analysed by computing

$$n^2=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Pi }(\stackrel{~}{u})\left(\mathrm{\Pi }(\stackrel{~}{u})(\mathrm{cos}2\psi \mathrm{cos}2\xi )+4\dot{\mathrm{\Pi }}(\stackrel{~}{u})(\mathrm{sin}\psi \mathrm{cos}\xi \mathrm{cos}\psi \mathrm{sin}\xi \mathrm{cos}\theta )\right).$$
(45)
and evaluating it at $`\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$.

i) Minkowski space: This very well known case corresponds to $`g(u)=0`$ in (37). In Rosen coordiantes we get $`p(u)=A+Bu`$, where $`A,B`$ are two arbitrary constants. By taking $`B=0`$ we end up in ESU with the standard expression

$$ds^2=\frac{1}{(\mathrm{cos}\psi +\mathrm{cos}\xi )^2}(d\psi ^2+d\xi ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\xi (d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2)).$$
(46)
In this case $`\mathrm{\Pi }(\stackrel{~}{u})=1`$ and computing (45) on $`\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$ we see that the boundary is a null co-dimension 1 hypersurface.

A non standard expression for the conformal compactification of Minkowski space is obtained by choosing $`A=0`$ and $`B=1`$, this is

$$ds^2=\frac{1}{(\mathrm{sin}\psi +\mathrm{sin}\xi \mathrm{cos}\theta )^2}(d\psi ^2+d\xi ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\xi (d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2)).$$
(47)
Here we get $`\mathrm{\Pi }(\stackrel{~}{u})=\stackrel{~}{u}`$ and of course we obtain again a co-dimension 1 null boundary

Picturing the $`S^3`$ parametrized by $`(\xi ,\theta ,\varphi )`$ as $`z_1^2+z_2^2+z_3^2+z_4^2=1`$ where

$$z_1=\mathrm{sin}\xi \mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi ,z_2=\mathrm{sin}\xi \mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\varphi ,z_3=\mathrm{sin}\xi \mathrm{cos}\theta ,z_4=\mathrm{cos}\xi ,$$
(48)
one sees that the conformal factors in (46) or (47) correspond to the slicing of the $`S^3`$ by $`z_4=\mathrm{cos}\psi `$ or $`z_3=\mathrm{sin}\psi `$ respectively. This gives rise to the pictorial representation of compactified Minkowski space as the interior of a cone followed by an inverted cone (see figure 1.(a)).

ii) Maximally supersymmetric homogeneous plane wave (Hpw): The conformal boundary for this spacetime in the $`d=10`$ case has been studied in  (see also ). Setting $`g(u)=1`$ by an appropiate change of coordinates, we obtain

$$ds^2=\frac{1}{(\mathrm{cos}\psi +\mathrm{cos}\xi )^2+(\mathrm{sin}\psi +\mathrm{sin}\xi \mathrm{cos}\theta )^2}(d\psi ^2+d\xi ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\xi (d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2)).$$
(49)
We get $`\mathrm{\Pi }(\stackrel{~}{u})=\sqrt{1+\stackrel{~}{u}^2}`$ and by (45) we see again that the boundary is a null surface. In this example, however, the conformal boundary is 1-dimensional and this comes about because we must look for the intersection of the two null hypersurfaces $`𝒮_1(x^\mu )=\mathrm{cos}\psi +\mathrm{cos}\xi =0`$ and $`𝒮_2(x^\mu )=\mathrm{sin}\psi +\mathrm{sin}\xi \mathrm{cos}\theta =0`$. Naïvely one would expect a co-dimension 2 surface (co-dimension $`D2`$ in the general case), but in this particular case the intersection of the two hypersurfaces $`𝒮_1(x^\mu )=\mathrm{cos}\psi +z_4=0`$ and $`𝒮_2(x^\mu )=\mathrm{sin}\psi +z_3=0`$ occurs for any value of $`\psi `$ at the north/south pole of the $`S_{\theta ,\varphi }^2`$, where the fiber corresponding to the $`\varphi `$ coordinate in (43) collapses. In other words this means that at any given fixed time $`\psi `$ the intersection of the two null hypersurfaces is just one point. In the higher dimensional cases this same phenomenon happens and the conformal null boundary of the maximally supersymmetric plane waves is again 1-dimensional (see figure 1.(b)).

iii) Minkowski$``$Hpw$``$Minkowski plane wave (MHMpw): An analytically tractable example is obtained by choosing $`g(u)`$ of the form

$$g(u)=\frac{1}{1+a^2u^2}.$$
(50)
For large absolute values values of $`u`$ we asymptotically get Minkowski spacetime and the homogeneous plane-wave region appears for $`u0`$. In particular in the limit $`a\mathrm{}`$ we get Minkowski space and for $`a0`$ we get the homogeneous plane wave (49).

The solution to (40) is

$$p(u)=A_1\sqrt{1+a^2u^2}\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{\sqrt{1+a^2}}{a}\mathrm{arctan}(au)+A_2\right).$$
(51)
Without loss of generality we can take $`A_1=1`$ and $`A_2=0`$, the expression for $`\mathrm{\Pi }(\stackrel{~}{u})`$ is666After an obvious rescaling in $`\stackrel{~}{u}`$.

$$\mathrm{\Pi }^2(\stackrel{~}{u})=\frac{1+\stackrel{~}{u}^2}{1+\mathrm{tan}^2\left(\frac{1}{\eta }\mathrm{arctan}\stackrel{~}{u}\right)},$$
(52)
where $`\eta =\frac{\sqrt{1+a^2}}{a}>1`$. (Minkowski spacetime is obtained for $`\eta =1`$ and the maximally supersymmetric Hpw for $`\eta =\mathrm{}`$.) The embedding in ESU takes the form

$$ds^2=\frac{1+\mathrm{tan}^2\left(\frac{1}{\eta }\mathrm{arctan}\left(\frac{\mathrm{sin}\psi +\mathrm{sin}\xi \mathrm{cos}\theta }{\mathrm{cos}\psi +\mathrm{cos}\xi }\right)\right)}{(\mathrm{cos}\psi +\mathrm{cos}\xi )^2+(\mathrm{sin}\psi +\mathrm{sin}\xi \mathrm{cos}\theta )^2}ds_{ESU}^2.$$
(53)
From this expression it is clear that the conformal boundary will be given by the set of points corresponding to the 1-d “helix” described in the last subsection, where the denominator vanishes, plus the ones which make the numerator of (53) blow up, this means the argument of the tangent in the numerator of (53) being equal to $`\frac{\pi }{2}+n\pi `$.

To understand the conformal boundary of (53) it is necessary to understand how the $`\stackrel{~}{u}=const.`$ null hypersurfaces in (41) get compactified when we go go to the ESU (recall that the argument of $`\mathrm{arctan}`$ is just $`\stackrel{~}{u}`$ see eqn.(42)). It is important to have in mind that these null hypersurfaces which we will take to be $`\stackrel{~}{u}=t+\stackrel{~}{x}_3`$ correspond to plane fronts and should be distinguished from the ones in Penrose’s compactification which are spherical fronts $`\stackrel{~}{u}=t+r`$. By looking at the hypersurfaces as $`\psi `$-dependent intersections of the $`S^3`$ parametrized by $`(\xi ,\theta ,\varphi )`$, from (42) and (48) we get that they correspond to the slicing

$$z_3=\mathrm{tan}\alpha z_4+\frac{\mathrm{sin}(\alpha \psi )}{\mathrm{cos}\alpha }$$
(54)
where $`\stackrel{~}{u}=\mathrm{tan}\alpha `$. A visualization for the $`\stackrel{~}{u}=0`$ case is given in figure 2. In the general case the null hypersurface consists of three parts, two 1-dimensional sectors represented in figure 2 by the lines ‘ab’ and ‘gh’ and one 3-dimensional between points ‘b’ and ‘g’. As $`\stackrel{~}{u}`$ becomes negative the points ‘b’ and ‘g’ approach ‘a’ and ‘f’ respectively, and the points ‘d’ and ‘e’ get closer to ‘f’. In the case of $`\stackrel{~}{u}`$ becoming positive all the points mentioned before move in opposite direction. With this picture in mind one concludes that the top and bottom cones in the figure 1.(a) should be identified with the $`\stackrel{~}{u}=\pm \mathrm{}`$ respectively. Furthermore, from this viewpoint one recognizes the conformal boundary of the Hpw as nothing but the intersection of the boundary of Minkowski spacetime (figure 1.(a)) with the $`\stackrel{~}{u}=const<\mathrm{}`$ null hyperplane (cf. with the definitions in terms of $`𝒮_{1,2}`$ in (ii)).

Returning to (53) one immediately realizes that for $`\eta >1`$ there exists no value of $`\stackrel{~}{u}(\mathrm{},\mathrm{})`$ making the numerator blow up. However, an important point is worth mentioning: when going from (37) to the conformally embedded expression (43) taking (50), one can see that the coordinate range $`\stackrel{~}{u}(\mathrm{},\mathrm{})`$, used as an intermediate step to obtain (53), only covers the patch $`|u|<\frac{1}{a}\mathrm{tan}(\frac{a}{\sqrt{1+a^2}}\frac{\pi }{2})`$ of the original Brinkman coordinate system. This fact is manifested mathematically in (53) by the presence of the $`\mathrm{arctan}`$ function which should then be analytically continued in order to cover the original geodesically complete spacetime. To be precise: for $`\psi (2n\pi ,(2n+2)\pi )`$ the value of $`\mathrm{arctan}`$ should be restricted to be within $`((\frac{1}{2}+n)\pi ,(\frac{1}{2}+n)\pi )`$. With this prescription it becomes clear that the conformal boundary of the spacetime (53) will consist of two null $`\stackrel{~}{u}=const`$ hypersurfaces (see figure 2) where the numerator of (53) will blow up, joined by the 1-dimensional null line depicted in figure 1.(b), where the denominator in (53) vanishes. One may say that the two cones present in the conformal compactification of Minkowski space and intersecting at $`i_0`$ have now been separated and joined by the null 1-dimensinal helix (see figure 3). The $`\psi `$ separation between the two null hypersurfaces is related to the value of $`\eta `$ in (53). As $`\eta `$ becomes bigger and bigger, the two null hypersurfaces become more and more separated. The opposite behaviour occurs when $`\eta `$ approaches 1.

## Conclusion and Discussion

We have obtained new $`\frac{1}{2}`$-BPS time dependent backgrounds which when extended to $`d=10`$ will give gaussian models with “time dependent masses” in the light-cone gauge.

A general procedure for analyzing the conformal boundary of the time dependent spacetimes was developed and applied to a particular example.

It may perhaps be worth noticing that for the particular class of spacetimes (37) the only non-zero Ricci component is $`R_{uu}`$, this means that they can be supported by any p-form of the form $`F=g(u)du\phi `$ where $`\phi `$ is a constant (p-1)-form in the transverse flat space. The resulting background can then be choosen to be soported by Neveu-Schwarz or Ramond-Ramond field with constant dilaton field. For the particular case of $`g(u)=const`$ the background supported by the NS 3-form field strength was obtained long ago by a WZW construction over a generalized Heisenberg group .

The study of strings propagating on these backgrounds is under investigation.

N.B: While this work was being written up, the paper  appeared where similar issues are discussed.

Acknowledgments

It is pleasure to thank Pascal Bain, Sean Hartnoll, Venkata Suryanarayana Nemani, Carlos Núñez, Rubén Portugués and especially Gary Gibbons for many fruitful conversations. Research supported by CONICET and Fundación Antorchas, Argentina.

## Appendix

### General pp-wave solution

The covariantly constant null vector of (10) is $`l=l^\mu _\mu =/v`$ and we have used light-cone coordinates $`(u,v)`$ and complex coordinates $`(\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })`$ related to the usual cartesian ones by $`\zeta =x_1+ix_2`$. The Riemann tensor for the spacetime (10) can be written as $`R_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }=l_{[\mu }k_{\nu ][\rho }l_{\sigma ]}`$ where $`l_\mu `$ are the covariant components of the null constant vector and the symmetric tensor $`k_{\mu \nu }`$ is non-zero only for the transverse coordinates $`i,j=\zeta ,\overline{\zeta }`$ and has the form $`k_{ij}=\frac{1}{2}_i_jH`$. The electromagnetic field (11) can be written as $`F_{\mu \nu }=l_{[\mu }s_{\nu ]}`$ where $`s_\mu =\sqrt{2}(_\zeta \varphi ,_{\overline{\zeta }}\overline{\varphi },0,0)`$ in the $`x^\mu =(\zeta ,\overline{\zeta },u,v)`$ coordinate system. Note that $`ls=0`$.

The metric (21) can also be obtained from a Wess-Zumino-Witten construction over the Heisenberg-Cangemi-Jackiw (HCJ) group  (the $`d=6,10`$ maximally supersymmetric plane waves can be obtained as well as the bi-invariant metrics over generalized HCJ-groups via a WZW construction ). The expresion found by Nappi-Witten is obtained by making in (21) the change of coordinates $`\zeta =e^{i\lambda u}\omega `$

$$ds^2=dudv+i\lambda (\overline{\omega }d\omega \omega d\overline{\omega })du+d\omega d\overline{\omega },F=\frac{\lambda }{2}du(e^{iCu}d\omega +e^{iCu}d\overline{\omega }).$$
(55)
In cartesian coordinates $`\omega =y_1+iy_2`$ this takes the form

$$ds^2=dudv+2\lambda (y_2dy_1y_1dy_2)du+dy_1^2+dy_2^2,F=\lambda du(\mathrm{cos}(\lambda u)dy_1+\mathrm{sin}(\lambda u)dy_2)$$

Note that the maximally supersymmetric solution is supported by a 1-form gauge field instead of a 2-form gauge fields. The $`d=10`$ case works along the same lines, with the metric supported by the self-dual RR 5-form and having constant dilaton.

### Tetrads, spin connections and gamma matrices conventions

My conventions for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ matrices are: $`\{\mathrm{\Gamma }_a,\mathrm{\Gamma }_b\}=2\eta _{ab}`$ with $`\eta _{ab}`$ mostly plus, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ab}=\frac{1}{2}[\mathrm{\Gamma }_a,\mathrm{\Gamma }_b]`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^5=\frac{i}{4!}ϵ_{abcd}\mathrm{\Gamma }^a\mathrm{\Gamma }^b\mathrm{\Gamma }^c\mathrm{\Gamma }^d`$ and $`ϵ_{0123}=1`$. $`a,b\mathrm{}`$ are flat indices while $`\mu ,\nu \mathrm{}`$ are spacetime indices.

For the general pp-wave solution (10) I choose the tetrads

$$e^1=d\zeta ,e^2=d\overline{\zeta },e^{}=du,e^+=dv+H(u,\zeta ,\overline{\zeta })du,$$
(56)
which have the tangent space inverse metric

$$\eta ^{ab}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0\hfill & \hfill 2& \hfill 0& \hfill 0\\ 2\hfill & \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 0\\ 0\hfill & \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 2\\ 0\hfill & \hfill 0& \hfill 2& \hfill 0\end{array}\right).$$
(57)
Here $`a,b=1,2,,+`$. The spin connections are given by

$$\omega _1=\frac{1}{2}_\zeta Hdu,\omega _2=\frac{1}{2}_{\overline{\zeta }}Hdu.$$
(58)
A real representation of the gamma matrices satisfying $`\{\mathrm{\Gamma }^a,\mathrm{\Gamma }^b\}=2\eta ^{ab}`$ is given by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^1=i\gamma ^2+\gamma ^3,\mathrm{\Gamma }^2=i\gamma ^2\gamma ^3,\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}=\gamma ^0+\gamma ^1,\mathrm{\Gamma }^+=\gamma ^0\gamma ^1,$$
(59)
where $`\gamma ^\mu `$ are the standard chiral representation for the gammas with mostly minus flat metric given by

$$\gamma ^\mu =\left(\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & \hfill \sigma ^\mu \\ \overline{\sigma }^\mu \hfill & \hfill 0\end{array}\right),$$
(60)
$`\sigma ^\mu =(I_2,\stackrel{}{\sigma }),\overline{\sigma }^\mu =(I_2,\stackrel{}{\sigma })`$. The relation between curved and tangent space gamma matrices $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu =e_{a\mu }\mathrm{\Gamma }^a`$ gives

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\zeta =\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }^2,\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{\zeta }}=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }^1,\mathrm{\Gamma }_u=\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{\Gamma }^++H\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}),\mathrm{\Gamma }_v=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}$$
(61)
The matrices (26)-(27) take the explicit form

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & \hfill 0\\ 4(I_2\sigma ^1)\hfill & \hfill 0\end{array}\right),\mathrm{\Omega }^{}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & \hfill 4(I_2+\sigma ^1)\\ 0\hfill & \hfill 0\end{array}\right).$$
(62)
The matrices $`A`$ and $`B`$ appearing in (36) are

$$A=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}I_2+\sigma ^1\hfill & \hfill 0\\ 0\hfill & \hfill I_2\sigma ^1\end{array}\right),B=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & \hfill \sigma ^3+i\sigma ^2\\ \sigma ^3i\sigma ^2\hfill & \hfill 0\end{array}\right).$$
(63)
Both $`A,B`$ are hermitian and commute between themselves. $`A`$ has eigenvalues $`\lambda _A=0,0,1,1`$ whereas $`B`$ has $`\lambda _B=0,0,1,1`$. In other words, $`A`$ and $`B`$ have simultaneously 4 null eigenvectors.


text:
# Mesoscopic theory of microcracks

## 1. A model of microcracks

Macroscopic failure of brittle materials is initiated by the propagation of microcracks. In a simple model the microcrack is described as a flat, rotation symmetric surface, a so called penny shaped crack. In addition we make here the following simplifying assumptions:

1. The diameter of the cracks is much smaller than the linear dimension of the continuum element. Under this assumption the cracks can be treated as an internal structure of the continuum element. The cracks are assumed small enough that there is a whole distribution of crack sizes and orientations in the volume element.
2. The cracks are fixed to the material. Therefore their motion is coupled to the motion of representative volume elements.
3. The cracks cannot rotate independently of the material, i. e. if they have a nonzero rotation velocity at all, this rotation velocity is determined by the antisymmetric part of the time derivative of the deformation gradient of the surrounding material and it does not depend on crack length and orientation. All cracks within a volume element move and rotate with the same velocity.
4. The number of cracks is fixed, there is no production of cracks, but very short cracks are preexisting in the virgin material.
5. The cracks cannot decrease area, but can only enlarge, meaning that cracks cannot heal.

To summarize our model the microcrack is characterized by a unit vector $`𝒏`$ representing the orientation of the surface normal and by the radius $`l`$ of the spherical crack surface. These parameters will be taken as the additional variables in the mesoscopic theory.

## 2. Different approaches to damage mechanics and the mesoscopic concept

There are two principally different possibilities to deal with complex materials within continuum mechanics: The first way is to introduce additional fields depending on position and time. These fields can be any kind of internal variables , or damage parameters , and damage tensors (fabric tensors) . In damage mechanics such additional macroscopic variables have been introduced in many different cases of materials with internal structure like liquid crystals , polymer solutions  and others. The other way is a so called mesoscopic theory. The idea is to enlarge the domain of the field quantities by an additional variable, characterizing the internal degree of freedom connected to the internal structure of the material. Field quantities are introduced, which are defined on an enlarged space $`_x^3\times _t\times M`$. The manifold $`M`$ is given by the set of values the internal degree of freedom can take. In our case the internal degrees of freedom are the different sizes $`l`$ and orientations $`𝒏`$ of microcracks. We call this way of dealing with the internal structure of complex materials a mesoscopic theory, because it includes more information than a macroscopic theory on $`_x^3\times _t`$, but less than a microscopic one on the molecular level. The domain of the mesoscopic field quantities $`_x^3\times _t\times M`$ is called mesoscopic space.

Macroscopic quantities are calculated from mesoscopic ones as averages over crack sizes and crack orientations. The spatial distribution of cracks is not relevant in the sense that the resulting macroscopic quantities are still field quantities depending on position and time. For a treatment of the spatial distribution of cracks and a possible coarsening process see .

In contrast to spatial averaging introduced in , a nonlocal generalization of the classical Weibull-theory, the averages in mesoscopic theory are local in space. They are averages over different microcrack sizes and orientations in a volume element.

Scaling properties  are completely out of scope of the whole mesoscopic theory. They result from microscopic statistical considerations. Statistical theories of fracture describe the breakdown of material as a second order phase transition , as well as a first order phase transition .

We will apply now the mesoscopic concept to damaged material with microcracks. The crack length can take values between a minimal length $`l_m`$ of the smallest preexisting cracks and a maximal length $`l_M`$, which is limited by the linear dimension of the continuum element. The orientation of the unit vector $`𝒏`$ can be given by an element of the unit sphere $`S^2`$. Therefore in the example of microcracks the manifold $`M`$ is given by $`[l_m,l_M]\times S^2`$. The change velocities of the mesoscopic variables $`\dot{l}`$ and $`𝒖:=\dot{𝒏}`$ are defined in such a way that for $`\mathrm{\Delta }t0`$ we have

(2.1)
$$l(t+\mathrm{\Delta }t)=l(t)+\dot{l}\mathrm{\Delta }t,𝒏(t+\mathrm{\Delta }t)=𝒏(t)+𝒖\mathrm{\Delta }t$$

at later times $`t+\mathrm{\Delta }t`$. The rotation velocity $`𝒖`$ and the length change velocity $`\dot{l}`$ are the components in spherical coordinates of the crack velocity $`𝒗_l`$ introduced in . In this previous paper  the set of additional mesoscopic variables $`𝒏`$ and $`l`$ was called directional variable.

Beyond the use of additional variables the mesoscopic concept introduces a statistical element, the so-called mesoscopic distribution function. In our case this is a distribution of crack lengths and orientations in the continuum element at position $`𝒙`$ and time $`t`$, called here crack distribution function (CDF). The distribution function is the probability density of finding a crack of length $`l`$ and orientation $`𝒏`$ in the continuum element.

## 3. Mesoscopic balance equations

Now fields as mass density, momentum density, angular momentum density, and energy density are defined on the mesoscopic space. For distinguishing these fields from the macroscopic ones we add the word “mesoscopic“. In addition we introduce the crack number density $`N`$ as an extensive quantity. The mesoscopic crack number density $`N(l,𝒏,𝒙,t)`$ is the number density, counting only cracks of length $`l`$ and orientation $`𝒏`$. For this crack number density there is a balance equation too, as it is an extensive quantity. The crack number density can be prescribed independently of the mass density, although the motion of cracks is coupled to the motion of surrounding material in our model. Therefore we distinguish here between the two fields mass density $`\rho `$ and number density $`N`$, although they have the same equation of motion and where not distinguished in an earlier paper .

### 3.1. Definition of the distribution function

Due to its definition as probability density the distribution function is the number fraction

(3.2)
$$f(l,𝒏,𝒙,t)=\frac{N(l,𝒏,𝒙,t)}{N(𝒙,t)},$$

in volume elements, where the number density $`N(𝒙,t)`$ is non-zero. Here $`N(𝒙,t)`$ is the macroscopic number density of cracks of any length and orientation. As the distribution function in equation (3.2) is not well defined if $`N(𝒙,t)=0`$, we define in addition that in this case $`f(l,𝒏,𝒙,t)=0`$. As there is no creation of cracks in our model the distribution function will be zero for all times in these volume elements. In all other volume elements with a nonzero crack number it is normalized

(3.3)
$$_{l_m}^{l_M}_{S^2}f(l,𝒏,𝒙,t)l^2d^2n𝑑l=1.$$

### 3.2. Balance equations of mass, momentum, angular momentum, and energy

For the mesoscopic densities local balance equations have been derived from the macroscopic global ones . The macroscopic balance equations express the fact that the extensive macroscopic quantities within a region $`G`$ can change due to a flux over the boundary $`G`$ and due to production and supply within $`G`$. This results in the general form of a global balance equation

(3.4)
$$\frac{d}{dt}_G𝑿d^3x𝑑𝒏l^2𝑑l=_G\mathit{\varphi }_𝑿()𝑑a+_G\mathrm{\Sigma }_X()d^3x𝑑𝒏l^2𝑑l.$$

A generalized Reynolds transport theorem on the mesoscopic space, analogous to the one in , is used to transform the time derivative, and a generalized Gauss theorem is applied. The boundary $`G`$ of $`G`$ consists of parts in position space, in orientation space, and in the length interval. In regular points of the continuum we get the general form of a local mesoscopic balance equation  with the abbreviation $`()=(l,𝒏,𝒙,t)`$:

$$\frac{}{t}𝑿()+_x[𝒗()𝑿()𝑺()]+_n[𝒖()𝑿()𝑹()]+\frac{1}{l^2}\frac{}{l}\left(l^2\dot{l}()𝑿()𝑹_𝒍()\right)=𝚺()$$

where $`𝑹`$ and $`𝑹_𝒍`$ are the non-convective fluxes over the orientational and length part of the boundary of $`G`$, and $`G`$ is a region in $`^3\times S^2\times [l_m,l_M]`$. The derivative with respect to the mesoscopic variable $`(l,𝒏)`$ is represented in spherical coordinates. In the derivation of the local balance equation it has been supposed that there is no flux over the boundary of the total mesoscopic space:

(3.5)
$$_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}_{S^2}_{l_m}^{l^M}\mathit{\varphi }_𝑿()d^3x𝑑𝒏l^2𝑑l=0$$

Otherwise such a non-zero flux term (3.5) could be interpreted as an additional source term on the right hand side of the equation.

Explicitly we have:
Balance of mass

(3.6)
$$\frac{}{t}\varrho ()+_x\{\varrho ()𝒗(𝒙,t)\}+_n\{\varrho ()𝒖(𝒙,t)\}+\frac{1}{l^2}\frac{}{l}\left(l^2\dot{l}\varrho ()\right)=0.$$

Balance of momentum

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}[\varrho ()𝒗(𝒙,t)]+_x\left[𝒗(𝒙,t)\varrho ()𝒗(𝒙,t)𝒕^{}()\right]+`$
$`+_n\left[𝒖(𝒙,t)\varrho ()𝒗(𝒙,t)𝑻^{}()\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{l^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{l}}\left(l^2\dot{l}\varrho ()𝒗(𝒙,t)𝝉()\right)`$
(3.7) $`=\varrho ()𝒇().`$
Here $`𝒇()`$ is the external acceleration density, $`𝒕^{}()`$ the transposed mesoscopic stress tensor, and $`𝑻^{}()`$ the transposed stress tensor on orientation space (non-convective momentum flux in orientation space), $`\tau ()`$ is the momentum flux vector with respect to the crack length variable. We introduced already the assumption that the material velocity $`𝒗`$ and the rotational velocity $`𝒖`$ are the same for cracks of all orientations and lengths.

Angular Momentum
The balance of angular momentum has to be taken into account as an additional equation independent from the balance of momentum, because there is an internal angular momentum due to crack rotations. The total angular momentum

(3.8)
$$𝑺(𝒙,t):=𝒙\times 𝒗(𝒙,t)+𝒔(),$$

is the sum of the moment of momentum and the internal angular momentum.

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}[\varrho ()𝑺()]+_x\left[𝒗(𝒙,t)\varrho ()𝑺()(𝒙\times 𝑻())^{}𝚷^{}()\right]+`$
$`+_n\left[𝒖(𝒙,t)\varrho ()𝑺()(𝒙\times 𝝉\mathbf{(}\mathbf{}\mathbf{)})^{}𝝅^{}()\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{l^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{l}}\left(l^2\dot{l}\varrho ()𝑺()𝝎()\right)=`$
(3.9) $`=\varrho ()𝒙\times 𝒌()+\varrho ()𝒈.`$
Here $`𝒏\times 𝒈`$ is the vector of couple forces (acting on crack orientation), the tensor $`𝚷`$ is the surface torque, and $`𝝅`$ is the analogue with respect to orientation, and $`\omega `$ is the analogue with respect to crack length. These constitutive quantities appear in the non-convective fluxes in position space, orientation space, and in the length interval, respectively. This equation can be simplified with the assumptions that the material velocity and the rotation velocity depend only on position and time $`𝒗(𝒙,t)`$ and $`𝒖(𝒙,t)`$.

However, the spin is only relevant, if the model allows for crack rotations independently from the rotations of material elements, and this is not the case in our simplified example dynamics.

Similarly the balance of energy can be given, which is omitted here and can be found in . In all balance equations in addition to the flux with respect to the position variable there appear additional flux terms with respect to the additional mesoscopic variables crack orientation and length.

Balance of crack number
In our model the cracks move together with the material element. Therefore their flux is the convective flux, having a part in position space, a part in orientation space, and a part in the length interval. There is no production and no supply of crack number. Therefore we have for the crack number density $`N`$:

(3.10)
$$\frac{}{t}N()+_x\{N()𝒗(𝒙,t)\}+_n\{N()𝒖(𝒙,t)\}+\frac{1}{l^2}\frac{}{l}\left(l^2\dot{l}N()\right)=0.$$

In a fixed volume element this crack number density is proportional to the mass density, and therefore these two fields where not distinguished in an earlier paper .

We obtain from the mesoscopic balance of crack number density (3.10) a balance of the CDF $`f(l,𝒏,𝒙,t)`$, by inserting its definition (3.2):

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}f(l,𝒏,𝒙,t)+_x\left(𝒗(𝒙,t)f(l,𝒏,𝒙,t)\right)+`$
$`_n\left(𝒖(𝒙,t)f(l,𝒏,𝒙,t)\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{l^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{l}}\left(l^2\dot{l}f(l,𝒏,𝒙,t)\right)`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{f(l,𝒏,𝒙,t)}{N(𝒙,t)}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}+𝒗(𝒙,t)_x\right)N(𝒙,t)`$
(3.11) $`={\displaystyle \frac{f(l,𝒏,𝒙,t)}{N(𝒙,t)}}{\displaystyle \frac{dN(𝒙,t)}{dt}}=0.`$
The right hand side is equal to zero, as for the co-moving observer the total number of cracks in a volume element does not change in time, as in our model no cracks are created. In our model all cracks in a volume element move with the translational velocity of the volume element $`𝒗(𝒙,t)`$ and rotate with the velocity $`𝒖=\times 𝒗(𝒙,t)`$. Therefore the first three terms on the left hand side can be summarized as a co-moving time derivative of the distribution function (the time derivative of an observer moving with the material elements) with the abbreviation $`\frac{d^c}{dt}`$:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}f(l,𝒏,𝒙,t)+𝒗(𝒙,t)_xf(l,𝒏,𝒙,t)+`$
(3.12) $`𝒖(𝒙,t)_nf(l,𝒏,𝒙,t)={\displaystyle \frac{d^cf(l,𝒏,𝒙,t)}{dt}}.`$
If we assume in addition an incompressible motion $`_x𝒗=0`$, we end up with the equation of motion for the CDF:

(3.13)
$$\frac{d^cf(l,𝒏,𝒙,t)}{dt}+\frac{1}{l^2}\frac{}{l}\left(l^2\dot{l}f(l,𝒏,𝒙,t)\right)=0$$

This is not yet a closed differential equation for the CDF as long as no expression for the length change velocity of the crack $`\dot{l}`$ is given. An example of such a closed equation will be discussed later.

Macroscopic quantities are obtained from mesoscopic ones as averages with the CDF as probability density:

(3.14)
$$A(𝒙,t)=_{l_m}^{l_M}_{S^2}A(l,𝒏,𝒙,t)f(l,𝒏,𝒙,t)d^2nl^2𝑑l$$

Entropy balance
Besides these mesoscopic balances the entropy balance is necessary for introducing the second law of thermodynamics. Because the production of mesoscopic entropy is not necessarily positive for each crack length and orientation, the entropy balance is only interesting in its macroscopic form.

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}[\varrho (𝒙,t)\eta (𝒙,t)]+_x[\varrho (𝒙,t)\eta (𝒙,t)𝒗(𝒙,t)+\mathit{\varphi }(𝒙,t)]=`$
(3.15) $`=\varrho (𝒙,t)\sigma (𝒙,t)`$
($`\eta `$ = specific entropy density, $`\mathit{\varphi }`$ = entropy flux density, $`\sigma `$ = entropy production density). The second law is expressed by the dissipation inequality

(3.16)
$$\sigma (𝒙,t)0.$$

The set of balance equations is not a closed system of equations, constitutive equations for mesoscopic quantities are needed. The domain of the constitutive mappings is the state space; here a mesoscopic one. There are the possibilities that the mesoscopic state space includes only  mesoscopic quantities, or that it includes mesoscopic and macroscopic quantities, and there are examples where such mixed state spaces cannot be avoided . (For instance in the case of liquid crystals the macroscopic alignment tensor is included in a mesoscopic state space. This is necessary to account for the orienting mean field of surrounding ordered particles. Otherwise it is not possible to describe the phase transition from the isotropic phase to the ordered liquid crystalline phase.) Constitutive equations have to be such that the second law of thermodynamics is fulfilled by any solution of the macroscopic balance equations with the constitutive equations inserted . This requirement restricts the possible constitutive functions.

Finally, even for the exploitation of the dissipation inequality, which is possible only on the macroscopic level, the choice of variables can be motivated by the mesoscopic background . A relevance of these variables could not be guessed from a purely macroscopic theory.

### 3.3. Damage parameter and order parameters

### 3.4. Definition of a damage parameter

The damage parameter is introduced as a macroscopic quantity growing with progressive damage in such a way that it should be possible to relate the change of material properties to the growth of the damage parameter. We define the damage parameter as the fraction of cracks, which have reached a certain length $`L`$. The idea is that cracks of this and larger sizes considerably decrease the strength of the material, and therefore their fraction is a measure of the damage. This idea is related to the slender bar model of Krajcinovic , where the damage parameter is introduced as the number of ‘broken bars‘ in the sample .

(3.17)
$$D(𝒙,t)=_L^{\mathrm{}}_{S^2}f(l,𝒏,𝒙,t)d^2nl^2𝑑l.$$

In this definition of the damage parameter the possibility of cracks of any length ($`l_M\mathrm{}`$) is included. This is consistent with many possible laws of crack growth, where the crack does not stop growing.

More sophisticated definitions, taking into account the orientational distribution too, are possible and will be discussed elsewhere. Another measure of damage, which could be introduced is the average crack length .

### 3.5. Length order parameters

From the mesoscopic distribution function two different kinds of moment series can be built because of the dependence on crack length and on crack orientation: We can introduce moments of the distribution function with respect to crack length:

(3.18)
$$_{l_m}^{l_M}f(l,𝒏,𝒙,t)P_k(l)l^2dl=:p_k(𝒏,𝒙,t)$$

where $`P_k(l)`$ are polynomials being orthogonal with respect to the measure $`l^2dl`$:

(3.19)
$$_{l_m}^{l_M}P_i(l)P_j(l)l^2𝑑l=\delta ij.$$

The moments introduced in equation (3.18) still depend on crack orientation. Averaging over all orientations gives macroscopic fields, the length order parameters:

(3.20)
$$\pi _k(𝒙,t)=_{S^2}P_k(𝒏,𝒙,t)d^2n.$$

In the following we will investigate the moments of the distribution function with respect to crack orientation.

### 3.6. Orientational order parameters

We can introduce the following set of alignment-fabric tensors of successive tensorial order

(3.21)
$$a^{(k)}(𝒙,t):=_{l_m}^{l_M}_{S^2}f(l,𝒏,𝒙,t)\stackrel{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}{\underset{k}{\underset{}{𝒏\mathrm{}𝒏}}}l^2dld^2n$$

where $`\stackrel{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}{\mathrm{}}`$ denotes the symmetric irreducible part of a tensor . Remarkable, that only the even order tensors appear in the series because the microcracks are represented by axial vectors, the unit normal to the crack surface, i.e. $`𝒏`$ and $`𝒏`$ are not distinguished. Due to this symmetry all odd order moments vanish. The tensors defined above are macroscopic quantities. We want to call them alignment-fabric-tensors. Originally tensorial damage parameters where introduced on a purely statistical ground, without a mesoscopic foundation and where called ’fabric tensors of the second kind’ in damage mechanics (see Kanatani  or Krajcinovic ). The alignment-fabric-tensors represent the orientational distribution of microcracks, but do not take into account their lengths. They have to be distinguished from the scalar damage parameter which is a measure of the growth of cracks. These alignment-fabric tensors form a whole set of internal variables in the sense of thermodynamics.

The alignment-fabric tensors are a measure of the deviation of the crack orientation distribution from isotropy. They are all zero, if all crack orientations are equally probable, and at least some alignment-fabric tensors are nonzero in case of anisotropic distributions. The orientation distribution of cracks and therefore the alignment-fabric tensors become important in the dynamics of the crack distribution. There are usually the specimen geometry and loading conditions rotation symmetric around an axis $`𝒅`$ (uniaxial conditions). It is reasonable to assume that also the distribution of crack orientations is rotation symmetric around the same axis $`𝒅`$. Then, for symmetry reasons, all alignment-fabric tensors of different orders can be expressed in terms of scalar orientational order parameters $`S^{(k)}`$ and the unit vector $`𝒅`$ in the following way:

(3.22)
$$a^{(k)}=S^{(k)}\underset{k}{\underset{}{\stackrel{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}{𝒅\mathrm{}𝒅}}}(k=2,4,\mathrm{}),$$

where the order parameters $`S^{(k)}`$ are one in case of total alignment (the microcracks stand parallel) and zero for randomly oriented cracks.

### 3.7. Equations of motion for the alignment-fabric tensors and for the damage parameter

In general a coupled set of equations of motion for the alignment-fabric tensors of different order can be derived from the differential equation for the crack distribution function by taking moments of this equation, i.e. multiplying with the dyadic product $`\stackrel{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}{\underset{k}{\underset{}{𝒏\mathrm{}𝒏}}}`$ and integrating over all orientations $`𝒏S^2`$. This set of equations is analogous to the differential equations for the alignment tensors in liquid crystal theory  and will be discussed elsewhere in more detail. In general the equations for the different tensor orders are coupled.

As in our model all cracks in a volume element have the same angular velocity, namely that of the surrounding material, this set of equations simplifies to a set of very special balance type equations without production, and without non-convective flux, which are not coupled:

(3.23) $`{\displaystyle \frac{a^{(k)}}{t}}+𝒗(𝒙,t)a^{(k)}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\times 𝒗\right)a^{(k)}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}a^{(k)}\left(\times 𝒗\right)=0`$
(3.24) $`\text{or }\stackrel{\mathbf{˚}}{𝒂}^{(k)}=0`$
for any tensor order $`k`$. This special form arises due to the model assumption of a fixed crack number and in addition cracks not moving and rotating independently of the surrounding material. Therefore for an observer co-moving with the material the orientation distribution and the alignment-fabric tensors do not change. These equations are the equations of motion for the internal variables, which have to be postulated in a purely macroscopic theory. For our simplified crack dynamics the dynamics of the alignment-fabric tensors is not independent of the motion of the material elements. Therefore the change of the alignment tensors in time is not relevant to be considered in our simplified model, as it is completely determined by the motion of the surrounding material. However, the situation is different for other, more complicated crack dynamics. In any case, even if the dynamics of the tensorial damage parameters is not interesting, the orientation distribution itself is relevant, because of the dependence of the effective stress on crack orientation (see below). This effective stress determines the dynamics, as it appears for instance in the Griffith-criterion for the onset of growth, and it also appears in the expressions for the length change velocity discussed in the examples below.

Orientation dependence of the effective stress
In an experiment with uniaxial tension $`\sigma `$ applied to the sample (see figure 4.2) the stress component $`\sigma _n`$, normal to the crack surface, depends on crack orientation.

Let us assume that in an experiment a uniaxial tension $`\sigma `$ is applied along the $`z`$-direction. Then the stress component in the direction $`𝒏`$, acting on a crack surface with surface unit normal $`𝒏`$ is

(3.25)
$$\sigma _{eff}=\sigma (𝒆_z𝒏)^2$$

where $`𝒆_z`$ is the unit vector in $`z`$-direction. This dependence of the effective stress on crack orientation leads after averaging over all orientations to

$`{\displaystyle _{S^2}}\sigma _{eff}f(l,𝒏,𝒙,t)d^2n={\displaystyle _{S^2}}\sigma (𝒆_z𝒏)^2f(l,𝒏,𝒙,t)d^2n`$
$`=\left({\displaystyle _{S^2}}\sigma \left(𝒏𝒏{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}𝜹\right)f(l,𝒏,𝒙,t)d^2n+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}𝜹{\displaystyle _{S^2}}\sigma f(l,𝒏,𝒙,t)d^2n\right):𝒆_z𝒆_z`$
(3.26) $`=\sigma \left(𝒂+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}𝜹\right):𝒆_z𝒆_z=\sigma \left(a_{zz}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\right),`$
where $`a_{zz}`$ is the $`zz`$-component of the second order alignment-fabric-tensor $`𝒂`$. This dependence of the effective stress on the alignment-fabric-tensor leads to a dependence of the crack dynamics (for instance the critical length) on the orientational order. Thus macroscopic equations of motion of damage parameters depend on the orientational order characterized macroscopically by the alignment-fabric tensors. Hence it would be interesting to study the dynamics of the alignment-fabric-tensors, too.

### 3.8. Differential equation for the damage parameter

Differentiating the definition of the damage parameter equation (3.17) with respect to time we get the following differential equation for the damage parameter:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dD(𝒙,t)}{dt}}={\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}{\displaystyle _L^{l_M}}{\displaystyle _{S^2}}f(l,𝒏,𝒙,t)d^2nl^2𝑑l`$
$`={\displaystyle _L^{l_M}}{\displaystyle _{S^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}f(l,𝒏,𝒙,t)l^2+f(l,𝒏,𝒙,t)2l\dot{l}\right)d^2n𝑑l`$
$`={\displaystyle _L^{l_M}}{\displaystyle _{S^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{l}}\left(l^2f(l,𝒏,𝒙,t)\dot{l}\right)+f(l,𝒏,𝒙,t)2l\dot{l}\right)d^2n𝑑l`$
(3.27) $`=\left[l^2f(l,𝒏,𝒙,t)\dot{l}\right]_L^{l_M}+2{\displaystyle _L^{l_M}}{\displaystyle _{S^2}}f(l,𝒏,𝒙,t)l\dot{l}d^2n𝑑l`$
The differential equation for the damage parameter depends on the crack distribution function itself, and therefore also on the initial crack distribution, and it also depends on the dynamical equation for the crack length.

## 4. Examples of closed differential equations for the distribution function

Some model on the growth velocity of a single crack is needed in order to make a closed differential equation for the length and orientation distribution function out of equation (3.11). Two different dynamics of crack extension from the literature will be given here as examples. In the second example we suppose that for a given load not all cracks start growing, but only cracks exceeding a certain critical length $`l_c`$, which is given by the Griffith-criterion. As in many examples of a crack length change dynamics the cracks do not stop growing, but extend infinitely, in all these cases the maximal crack length has to be set to $`l_M=\mathrm{}`$. However, when the cracks become macroscopic their growth dynamics becomes more complicated (showing for instance branching) than our example dynamics.

### 4.1. Mott extension of Griffiths energy criterion including a kinetic crack energy

When the cracks are growing the system has a kinetic energy due to the growth by virtue of the inertia of the material surrounding the separating crack surfaces. This extension of the original Griffith energy concept (see below) by a kinetic energy term goes back to Mott : A kinetic energy term is added to the sum of the crack surface energy and the elastic deformation energy of the surrounding elastic material, and the crack length is such that the total energy of the system is constant. Two different loading conditions are especially interesting: fixed loading (’dead weight’) and ’fixed grips’ conditions. In both experiments uniaxial symmetry is assumed. In the first case a constant force is applied to the ends of the specimen, leading to a tensile stress. In the second case a fixed displacement is prescribed at the outer boundaries of the specimen. For these two loading conditions, requiring a constant total energy and an argument based on geometrical similarity, the following expressions for the crack length change velocity have been derived (p93):
’Dead weight’:

(4.28)
$$\dot{l}=\dot{l}_T(1\frac{l_0}{l})),$$

where $`\dot{l}_T`$ is the so called terminal velocity, not depending on crack length, but on the applied load $`\sigma _{eff}`$, and therefore on crack orientation. $`l_0`$ is the initial crack length.
’Fixed grips’:

(4.29)
$$\dot{l}=\dot{l}_T\left(1\frac{l_0}{l}\left(2\frac{l_0}{l}\right)\left(\frac{1+\alpha \frac{l^2}{l_0^2}}{(1+\alpha )^2}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\right),$$

where the parameter $`\alpha `$ is defined as

(4.30)
$$\alpha =\frac{8\pi l_0^2}{A}.$$

It is the ratio of the initial crack area to the surface area $`A`$ of a cross section of the specimen. In the ’fixed grips’ geometry the crack extension might stop again after a certain growth. This can be understood, because of the increase in compliance associated with crack extension in a finite specimen. This leads to a diminishing applied force and decreasing tendency of the crack growth.

From the mesoscopic point of view the growth laws equations (4.30) as well as (4.28) are mesoscopic constitutive equations relating the length growth velocity $`\dot{l}`$ to the external load in a material dependent manner.

In both loading conditions discussed here the crack velocities have been derived for single cracks. If we apply these growth velocities in our differential equation for the length distribution function, eq. (3.11) this means that we neglect interaction between cracks. However, crack interactions can be taken into account by more sophisticated expressions for the length change velocity.

Inserting the length change velocities of the previous section into the differential equation for the crack distribution function, and integrating over all orientations leads to the following closed differential equations:
’Dead weight’:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{df(l,𝒙,t)}{dt}}=`$
(4.31) $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{l^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{l}}\left(l^2f(l,𝒙,t)\dot{l}_T\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{l_0}{l}}\right)\right).`$
The parameter $`\dot{l}_T`$ depends on the effective load $`\sigma _{eff}`$ and therefore on the second order alignment-fabric tensor.
’Fixed grips’:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{df(l,𝒙,t)}{dt}}=`$
(4.32) $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{l^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{l}}\left(l^2f(l,𝒙,t)\dot{l}_T\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{l_0}{l}}\left(2{\displaystyle \frac{l_0}{l}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+\alpha \frac{l^2}{l_0^2}}{(1+\alpha )^2}}\right)\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\right),`$
### 4.2. Griffith-criterion for the onset of growth

The criterion for the cracks to start growing adopted in the example is the energy criterion introduced originally by Griffith . According to Griffith  there is a criticality condition for the crack growth to start, and for cracks larger than a critical length there is a velocity of crack growth $`\dot{l}`$. From energetic considerations Griffith  derived a critical length of cracks with cracks exceeding this length starting to grow. This critical length is given by :

(4.33)
$$l_c=\frac{K}{\sigma _n^2},$$

where $`K`$ is a material constant, and $`\sigma _n`$ is the stress applied perpendicular to the crack surface. It is assumed that a stress component within the crack plane does not cause crack growth. For cracks smaller than the critical length $`l_c`$ the energy necessary to create the crack surface exceeds the energy gain due to release of stresses.

### 4.3. Rice-Griffith dynamics

A possible crack dynamics, taking into account the criticality condition of Griffith is derived from a generalization of the Griffith energy criterion on thermodynamic grounds, introducing Gibbs-potential , which includes the stress normal to the crack surface and crack length as variables. The resulting crack evolution law has the form

(4.34) $`\dot{l}=\alpha +\beta \sigma ^2l\text{for}ll_c,`$
(4.35) $`\dot{l}=0\text{for}l<l_c`$
with material coefficients $`\alpha `$, and $`\beta `$. In case of a constant time rate of the applied stress, $`\sigma =v_\sigma t`$, it results:

(4.36) $`\dot{l}=\alpha +\beta v_\sigma ^2lt^2\text{for}ll_c,`$
(4.37) $`\dot{l}=0\text{for}l<l_c.`$
$`v_\sigma `$ is the time derivative of the applied stress normal to the crack surface. The dependence of this normal stress on crack orientation leads to the following orientation dependence of the dynamics:

(4.38) $`\dot{l}=\alpha +\beta v_{\sigma 0}^2lt^2(𝒆_z𝒏)^4\text{for}ll_c,`$
(4.39) $`\dot{l}=0\text{for}l<l_c,`$
where $`v_{\sigma 0}`$ is the change velocity of the stress applied in the $`z`$-direction.

After averaging over all orientations this orientation dependence leads to a dependence on the fourth moment $`_{S^2}𝒏𝒏𝒏𝒏fd^2n`$ of the distribution function.

This dynamics also includes a criticality condition for the crack to start growing.

With this model for the length change velocity we end up with the following differential equation for the distribution function:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{df(l,𝒏,𝒙,t)}{dt}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{l^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{l}}\left(l^2\left(\alpha +\beta v_\sigma (𝒏)^2lt^2\right)\right)`$
(4.40) $`\text{for}ll_c`$
(4.41) $`{\displaystyle \frac{df(l,𝒏,𝒙,t)}{dt}}=0\text{for}l<l_c.`$
Solutions of this differential equation will are discussed in .

## 5. Conclusions

In the mesoscopic description we have introduced mesoscopic fields, defined on an enlarged space including crack size and orientation. Averages over crack sizes and orientations, i.e. macroscopic quantities are calculated with a distribution function $`f`$. The differential equation for this distribution function was derived from the mesoscopic balance equations and crack growth law for the single crack. Different such crack growth laws from the literature were discussed.

Macroscopic quantities accounting for the progressive damage have been defined as integrals calculated with the distribution function. These are scalar damage parameters, like for instance the average crack length, and Fabric-alignment tensors. For these different scalar and tensorial damage parameters equations of motion have been derived. The time evolution of Fabric-alignment tensors will be of special importance under biaxial loading conditions.

The equations of motion for the damage parameters can be compared to the evolution equation in phase field models (or in Landau-thoery of phase transitions. In phase field models an additional wanted field, the phase field is introduced. The form of the equation of motion, often in the form of a conservation law is postulated . This phase field can be compared to the damage parameter introduced here, and in the non-unilateral case also to the Fabric-alignment-tensor. The equation of motion for the damage parameter is of the same type. It is a special form of a balance equation, here with a zero flux term, because spatial inhomogeneities were not taken into account. However, this form of equation of motion has not been postulated here, but derived from mesoscopic considerations, i.e. mesoscopic balance equations.

## Acknowledgements

We thank the DAAD for sponsoring the cooperation between both the Departments of Physics and Chemical Physics of the Technical University of Berlin and the Budapest University of Technology and Economics. Financial support by the VISHAY Company, 95100 Selb, Germany, is gratefully acknowledged.


text:
# Neutral Higgs 𝐻⁰→ℎ⁰(𝐴⁰)𝑙_𝑖⁻𝑙_𝑗⁺ decay

## 1 Introduction

The standard model (SM) of electroweak interactions is based on the existence of the CP even Higgs boson ($`H^0`$). Its possible detection in future collider experiments will ensure a test for the SM and the strong information about the mechanism of the electroweak symmetry breaking, the Higgs mass and the top Higgs Yukawa coupling . The search for the Higgs boson is one of the prime goals of LHC.

The light Higgs boson, $`m_{H^0}130GeV`$, mainly decays into $`b\overline{b}`$ pair . However its detection is difficult due to the QCD background and the $`t\overline{t}H^0`$ channel, where the Higgs boson decays to $`b\overline{b}`$, is the most promising one . The supersymmetric QCD contribution to $`H^0b\overline{b}`$ has been analyzed at one loop in the Minimal Supersymmetric Model (MSSM) in the decoupling limit in .

For a heavier Higgs boson $`m_{H^0}180GeV`$, the suitable production exist via gluon fusion and the leading decay mode is $`H^0WWl^+l^{}\nu _l\nu _l^{}`$ . In, it is stated that this decay mode gives three order times larger events compared to the mode $`H^0ZZ^{}l^+l^{}l^+l^{}`$. In this work two new cuts have been employed to separate the irreducible continuum background production. The decay $`H^0A^0A^0`$ has been studied in the minimal supersymmetric model (MSSM) including one-loop corrections and the decay width is obtained at the order of magnitude of $`10^2GeV`$.

The flavor violating (FV) interactions are important in the sense that they do not exist in the SM and their analysis ensure comprehensive information about the physics beyond the SM. The lepton FV (LFV) $`H^0`$ decays have been studied in series of works in the literature. $`H^0\tau \mu `$ decay is an example for LFV decays and it has been studied in . In  a large $`BR`$, at the order of magnitude of $`0.10.01`$, has been estimated in the framework of the 2HDM. In  its BR was obtained in the interval $`0.0010.01`$ for the Higgs mass range $`100160(GeV)`$, for the LFV parameter $`\kappa _{\mu \tau }=1`$. The work in  was due to the observable CP violating asymmetries in the leptonic flavor changing $`H^0`$ decays with branching ratios (BR s) of the order of $`10^610^5`$. The LFV $`H^0l_il_j`$ decay has been studied also in .

In our work we analyze the LFV $`H^0h^0l_i^{}l_j^+`$, $`H^0A^0l_i^{}l_j^+`$ and the lepton flavor conserving (LFC) $`H^0h^0l_i^{}l_i^+`$, $`H^0A^0l_i^{}l_i^+`$ $`(l_i=\tau ,l_j=\mu )`$ decays in the framework of the general 2HDM, the so-called model III. These processes can exist at the tree level in the model III and provide wide information about the free parameters of the model, since their decay widths depend on the masses of the new particles, namely $`m_{h^0},m_{A^0}`$ and the leptonic Yukawa couplings. In our analysis, we observe the decay width at the order of magnitude of $`10^5GeV`$, for outgoing $`\tau `$ and $`\mu `$ leptons, for the LFV process. In the case of LFC decay, the decay width reaches of $`10^{3\dot{}}GeV`$, for the appropriate choice of the free parameters, for outgoing $`\tau \tau `$ leptons. These numbers are sensitive to the Yukawa coupling for $`\tau \mu `$ ($`\tau \tau `$) transitions, the new Higgs boson masses $`m_{h^0}`$ and $`m_{A^0}`$, and the SM Higgs mass $`m_{H^0}`$. Therefore their experimental investigations will provide a crucial information about the SM Higgs and the model III free parameters.

The paper is organized as follows: In Section II, we present the theoretical expression for the decay widths of the LFV decay $`H^0h^0l_i^{}l_j^+`$, $`H^0A^0l_i^{}l_j^+`$ and the LFC decay $`H^0h^0l_i^{}l_i^+`$, $`H^0A^0l_i^{}l_i^+`$ $`(l_i=\tau ,l_j=\mu )`$, in the framework of the model III. Section 3 is devoted to discussion and our conclusions.

## 2 $`H^0h^0(A^0)l_i^{}l_j^+`$, decays in the two Higgs doublet model

The decay of the SM Higgs $`H^0`$ into the new neutral Higgs bosons $`h^0`$ ($`A^0`$) and the lepton pairs is kinematically allowed. In the case of different flavors as an output in the lepton sector the tree level LFV interactions should be to switch on. For such interactions the model III version of the 2HDM is the simplest candidate. In the model III, the Yukawa lagrangian, including the interaction between the scalar bosons and the leptons, reads

$`_Y=\eta _{ij}^E\overline{l}_{iL}\varphi _1E_{jR}+\xi _{ij}^E\overline{l}_{iL}\varphi _2E_{jR}+h.c.,`$ (1)
where $`i,j`$ are family indices of leptons, $`L`$ and $`R`$ denote chiral projections $`L(R)=1/2(1\gamma _5)`$, $`\varphi _i`$ for $`i=1,2`$, are the two scalar doublets, $`l_{iL}`$ and $`E_{jR}`$ are lepton doublets and singlets respectively. In general, there is a mixing between the neutral CP even bosons, $`H^0`$ and $`h^0`$, however, by considering the gauge and $`CP`$ invariant Higgs potential which spontaneously breaks $`SU(2)\times U(1)`$ down to $`U(1)`$ as

$`V(\varphi _1,\varphi _2)`$ $`=`$ $`c_1(\varphi _1^+\varphi _1v^2/2)^2+c_2(\varphi _2^+\varphi _2)^2`$ (2)
$`+`$ $`c_3[(\varphi _1^+\varphi _1v^2/2)+\varphi _2^+\varphi _2]^2+c_4[(\varphi _1^+\varphi _1)(\varphi _2^+\varphi _2)(\varphi _1^+\varphi _2)(\varphi _2^+\varphi _1)]`$
$`+`$ $`c_5[Re(\varphi _1^+\varphi _2)]^2+c_6[Im(\varphi _1^+\varphi _2)]^2+c_7,`$
with constants $`c_i,i=1,\mathrm{},7`$, and the doublets $`\varphi _1`$ and $`\varphi _2`$ as

$`\varphi _1={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left[\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \\ v+H^0& \end{array}\right)+\left(\begin{array}{cc}\sqrt{2}\chi ^+& \\ i\chi ^0& \end{array}\right)\right];\varphi _2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\sqrt{2}H^+& \\ H_1+iH_2& \end{array}\right),`$ (9)
where only $`\varphi _1`$ has a vacuum expectation value;

$`<\varphi _1>={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \\ v& \end{array}\right);<\varphi _2>=0,`$ (12)
this mixing is switched off. Therefore, $`H_1`$ and $`H_2`$ are obtained as the mass eigenstates $`h^0`$ and $`A^0`$, respectively.

Now, we consider the lepton flavor violating processes $`H^0h^0l_i^{}l_j^+`$ and $`H^0A^0l_i^{}l_j^+`$ where $`l_i,l_j`$ are different leptons flavors, $`e,\mu ,\tau `$ (see Fig. 1). The source of the LFV interactions are the Yukawa couplings $`\xi _{ij}^E`$, which are responsible for the tree level $`h^0(A^0)l_il_j`$ interactions. These couplings are complex in general and they are the free parameters of the model III version of 2HDM. Notice that, in the following, we replace $`\xi ^E`$ with $`\xi _N^E`$ where ’N’ denotes the word ’neutral’.

Using the diagram given in Fig. 1, the matrix element square of the process $`H^0h^0l_i^{}l_j^+`$ is obtained as

$`|M|^2={\displaystyle \frac{g^4}{4m_W^4}}(A_1+A_2+A_3)`$
(13)
where

$`A_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(m_{H^0}^2+2p.k_{l_i})^2}}\{m_{l_i}^2|\overline{\xi }_{N,ji}^E|^2(2(p.k_{l_i})^2+(m_{H^0}^24m_{l_i}^2)q.k_{l_i}+p.k_{l_i}(m_{H^0}^2`$
$`+`$ $`4m_{l_i}(m_{l_j}+2m_{l_i}2m_{l_j}sin^2\theta _{ij})2p.q)+m_{l_i}(4m_{l_i}^2(m_{l_i}+m_{l_j}2m_{l_j}sin^2\theta _{ij})`$
$`+`$ $`m_{H^0}^2(3m_{l_i}+m_{l_j}2m_{l_j}sin^2\theta _{ij})4m_{l_j}p.q)\},`$
$`A_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(m_{H^0}^2+2p.k_{l_i})}}\{2m_{l_i}m_{h^0}^2|\overline{\xi }_{N,ji}^E|^2Im[p_{h^0}]((3m_{l_i}+m_{l_j}2m_{l_j}sin^2\theta _{ij})p.k_{l_i}`$
$`+`$ $`m_{l_i}(m_{H^0}^2+2m_{l_i}^2+2m_{l_i}m_{l_j}4m_{l_i}m_{l_j}sin^2\theta _{ij}2q.(k_{l_i}p)))\},`$
$`A_3`$ $`=`$ $`2m_{h^0}^4|\overline{\xi }_{N,ji}^E|^2Abs[p_{h^0}]^2(m_{l_i}(m_{l_i}+m_{l_j}2m_{l_j}sin^2\theta _{ij})+(pq).k_{l_i}).`$ (14)
Here

$`p_S={\displaystyle \frac{i}{k^2m_S^2+im_S\mathrm{\Gamma }_S}}.`$ (15)
with the transfer momentum square $`k^2`$; $`p`$, $`q`$, $`k_{l_i}`$ are four momentum of incoming $`H^0`$, outgoing $`h^0`$, incoming $`l_i^{}`$ lepton respectively. The angle $`\theta _{ij}`$ carries the information about the complexity of the Yukawa coupling $`\overline{\xi }_{N,ji}^E`$ with the parametrization

$$\overline{\xi }_{N,ji}^E=|\overline{\xi }_{N,ji}^E|e^{i\theta _{ij}},$$
(16)
Similarly, the matrix element square of the process $`H^0A^0l_i^{}l_j^+`$ is obtained as

$`|M|^2={\displaystyle \frac{g^4}{4m_W^4}}(A_1^{}+A_2^{}+A_3^{})`$
(17)
where

$`A_1^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(m_{H^0}^2+2p.k_{l_i})^2}}\{m_{l_i}^2|\overline{\xi }_{N,ji}^E|^2(2(p.k_{l_i})^2+(m_{H^0}^24m_{l_i}^2)q.k_{l_i}+p.k_{l_i}(m_{H^0}^2`$
$`+`$ $`4m_{l_i}(m_{l_j}+2m_{l_i}+2m_{l_j}sin^2\theta _{l_il_j})2p.q)+m_{l_i}(4m_{l_i}^2(m_{l_i}m_{l_j}+2m_{l_j}sin^2\theta _{ij})`$
$`+`$ $`m_{H^0}^2(3m_{l_i}m_{l_j}+2m_{l_j}sin^2\theta _{l_il_j})4m_{l_j}p.q)\},`$
$`A_2^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(m_{H^0}^2+2p.k_{l_i})}}\{2m_{l_i}m_{A^0}^2|\overline{\xi }_{N,ji}^E|^2Im[p_{A^0}]((3m_{l_i}m_{l_j}+2m_{l_j}sin^2\theta _{ij})p.k_{l_i}`$
$`+`$ $`m_{l_i}(m_{H^0}^2+2m_{l_i}^22m_{l_i}m_{l_j}+4m_{l_i}m_{l_j}sin^2\theta _{ij}2q.(k_{l_i}p)))\},`$
$`A_3`$ $`=`$ $`2m_{A^0}^4|\overline{\xi }_{N,ji}^E|^2Abs[p_{A^0}]^2(m_{l_i}(m_{l_i}m_{l_j}+2m_{l_j}sin^2\theta _{ij})+(pq).k_{l_i}),`$ (18)
where $`q`$ is four momentum of outgoing $`A^0`$. Notice that we use the parametrization

$$\xi _{N,ij}^E=\sqrt{\frac{4G_F}{\sqrt{2}}}\overline{\xi }_{N,ij}^E,$$
(19)
where $`G_F=1.6637\times 10^5(GeV^2)`$ is the fermi constant. Finally, the decay width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is obtained in the $`H^0`$ boson rest frame using the well known expression

$$d\mathrm{\Gamma }=\frac{(2\pi )^4}{m_{H^0}}|M|^2\delta ^4(p\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}p_i)\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}\frac{d^3p_i}{(2\pi )^32E_i},$$
(20)
where $`p`$ ($`p_i`$, i=1,2,3) is four momentum vector of $`H^0`$ boson, ($`h^0`$ ($`A^0`$) boson, incoming $`l_i^{}`$, outgoing $`l_j^{}`$ leptons).

## 3 Discussion

In this section, we study the LFV $`H^0h^0(\tau ^{}\mu ^++\tau ^+\mu ^{})`$, $`H^0A^0(\tau ^{}\mu ^++\tau ^+\mu ^{})`$ and the LFC $`H^0h^0\tau ^{}\tau ^+`$, $`H^0A^0\tau ^{}\tau ^+`$ decays in the model III. The source of the LFV interactions are the Yukawa couplings $`\xi _{N,ij}^E`$, which are free parameters of the model used, and they should be restricted by using the appropriate experimental measurements. There are various theoretical works to predict the upper limits of these couplings in the literature. The upper limit of the coupling $`\xi _{N,\tau \mu }^E`$ has been predicted as $`0.15`$, by using the experimental result of anomalous magnetic moment of muon in . The low energy limits of the LFV couplings from muon g-2 measurement has been presented in . In this work the upper bound of the LFV coupling $`\lambda _{\mu \tau }`$ was predicted in the range $`110`$ for type b 2HDM and $`10100`$ for type a 2HDM, for various values of Higgs masses, tan$`\beta `$ and mixing angle $`\alpha `$. Here the well known parametrization $`\xi _{N,\mu \tau }^E=\lambda _{\mu \tau }\frac{\sqrt{m_\tau m_\mu }}{v}`$ has been used where the numerical value of v is $`246GeV`$. The decay width of the LFV $`H^0\tau ^{}\mu ^+`$ process in the type b 2HDM has been predicted as $`10^2\lambda ^2`$ ($`10^4\lambda ^2`$) for tan$`\beta 50`$ (tan$`\beta 5`$) and the small mixing between CP even neutral Higgs bosons. Furthermore, the numerical value of the decay width for the LFC $`H^0\tau ^{}\tau ^+`$ was estimated as $`10^1\lambda ^2`$ ($`10^3\lambda ^2`$).  is devoted to the analysis of the LFV $`H^+W^+(\tau ^{}\mu ^++\tau ^+\mu ^{})`$ and the LFC $`H^+W^+\tau ^{}\tau ^+`$ decays in the framework of the model III. In this work the coupling $`\xi _{N,\tau \mu }^E`$ ($`\xi _{N,\tau \tau }^E`$ ) has been estimated as $`0.03GeV`$ ($`0.15GeV`$) for the range of the decay width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(H^+W^+(\tau ^{}\mu ^++\tau ^+\mu ^{}))`$ ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }(H^+W^+\tau ^{}\tau ^+)`$) $`(10^{11}10^5)GeV`$ ($`(10^910^4)GeV`$) and the charged Higgs mass $`200m_{H^+}400GeV`$. Here the Yukawa coupling $`\xi _{N,\tau \tau }^E`$ plays the main role in the existence of the LFC decay $`H^0h^0(A^0)\tau ^{}\tau ^+`$ decay and its prediction would be possible with the future experimental measurement of these decays.

Now we start to analyze the LFV $`H^0h^0(A^0)(\tau ^{}\mu ^++\tau ^+\mu ^{})`$ and LFC $`H^0h^0(A^0)\tau ^{}\tau ^+`$ decays. In the numerical calculations we take the total decay widths of $`h^0`$ and $`A^0`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{h^0}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{A^0}0.1GeV`$, which is at the same order of magnitude of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{H^0}`$.

In Fig.2, we present $`\overline{\xi }_{N,\tau \mu }^E`$ dependence of the decay width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ for the decay $`H^0h^0(A^0)(\tau ^{}\mu ^++\tau ^+\mu ^{})`$, for the real coupling $`\overline{\xi }_{N,\tau \mu }^E`$, $`m_{H^0}=150GeV`$, $`m_{h^0}=85GeV`$ ($`m_{A^0}=90GeV`$). Here the solid (dashed) line represents the case for the output $`h^0`$ ($`A^0`$). The $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is at the order of magnitude of $`10^610^5`$ for the range of $`\overline{\xi }_{N,\tau \mu }^E`$, $`1GeV<\overline{\xi }_{N,\tau \mu }^E<10GeV`$ and it enhances with the increasing values of the coupling $`\overline{\xi }_{N,\tau \mu }^E`$. The $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ for the output $`h^0`$ is greater than the one for the output $`A^0`$.

Fig. 3 represents the $`m_{H^0}`$ dependence of the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ for the decay $`H^0h^0(A^0)(\tau ^{}\mu ^++\tau ^+\mu ^{})`$, for the fixed values of $`\overline{\xi }_{N,\tau \mu }^E=5GeV`$, $`m_{h^0}=85GeV`$ ($`m_{A^0}=90GeV`$). The $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is strongly sensitive to the Higgs mass $`m_{H^0}`$ and it enhances with the increasing values of the Higgs mass, as expected.

Fig.4 is devoted to $`\overline{\xi }_{N,\tau \tau }^E`$ dependence of the decay width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ for the decay $`H^0h^0(A^0)\tau ^{}\tau ^+`$, for the real coupling $`\overline{\xi }_{N,\tau \tau }^E`$, $`m_{H^0}=150GeV`$, $`m_{h^0}=85GeV`$ ($`m_{A^0}=90GeV`$). Here the solid (dashed) line represents the case for the output $`h^0`$ ($`A^0`$). The $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is at the order of magnitude of $`10^410^3`$ for the range of $`\overline{\xi }_{N,\tau \tau }^E`$, $`20GeV<\overline{\xi }_{N,\tau \tau }^E<60GeV`$ and it enhances with the increasing values of the coupling $`\overline{\xi }_{N,\tau \tau }^E`$. Similar to the LFV process $`H^0h^0(A^0)(\tau ^{}\mu ^++\tau ^+\mu ^{})`$, the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ for the output $`h^0`$ is greater than the one for the output $`A^0`$.

Fig. 5 represents the $`m_{H^0}`$ dependence of the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ for the decay, for the fixed values of $`\overline{\xi }_{N,\tau \tau }^E=30GeV`$, $`m_{h^0}=85GeV`$ ($`m_{A^0}=90GeV`$). The $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is strongly sensitive to the Higgs mass $`m_{H^0}`$ and it enhances with the increasing values of the Higgs mass. It reaches to $`10^3GeV`$ for the values of $`m_{H^0}`$, $`m_{H^0}160GeV`$. The experimental measurement of this process can give strong clues about the upper limit of the coupling $`\overline{\xi }_{N,\tau \tau }^E`$ and the Higgs mass $`m_{H^0}`$.

Finally, we study the $`m_{h^0}`$ ($`m_{A^0}`$) dependence of these LFV and LFC decays and present in the Fig. 6 (7). The $`m_{h^0}`$ dependence of the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is presented in Fig. 6. The solid (dashed) line represents the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of the LFV (LFC) decay, for $`\overline{\xi }_{N,\tau \mu }^E=5GeV`$ ($`\overline{\xi }_{N,\tau \tau }^E=30GeV`$), $`m_{H^0}=150GeV`$. The decay widths increase with the decreasing values of $`m_{h^0}`$ and this is informative in the determination of the Higgs mass $`m_{h^0}`$. We present the $`m_{A^0}`$ dependence of the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in Fig. 7. The solid (dashed) line represents the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of the LFV (LFC) decay, for $`\overline{\xi }_{N,\tau \mu }^E=5GeV`$ ($`\overline{\xi }_{N,\tau \tau }^E=30GeV`$), $`m_{H^0}=150GeV`$. Similar to the $`m_{h^0}`$, the decay widths increase with the decreasing values of $`m_{A^0}`$ and it can give a strong clue for the Higgs mass $`m_{A^0}`$.

Now, we consider the coupling $`\overline{\xi }_{N,ij}^E`$ complex (see eq. (16)) and study the $`\mathrm{sin}\theta _{ij}`$ dependence of the decay width. We observe that the decay width is not sensitive to the complexity of the coupling $`\overline{\xi }_{N,ij}^E`$.

At this stage we would like to summarize our results:

* We predict the decay width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(H^0h^0(A^0)(\tau ^{}\mu ^++\tau ^+\mu ^{}))`$ ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }(H^0h^0(A^0)\tau ^{}\tau ^+`$)) in the interval $`(10^610^5)GeV`$ ($`(10^410^3)GeV`$), for $`100GeVm_{H^0}160GeV`$, at the intermediate values of the coupling $`\overline{\xi }_{N,\tau \mu }^E5GeV`$ ($`\overline{\xi }_{N,\tau \tau }^E\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}30}GeV`$). The future experimental measurement of the processes under consideration can ensure strong information about the the upper limit of the coupling $`\overline{\xi }_{N,\tau \mu }^E`$ ($`\overline{\xi }_{N,\tau \tau }^E`$) and the Higgs mass $`m_{H^0}`$.
* We observe that the decay widths $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(H^0h^0(A^0)(\tau ^{}\mu ^++\tau ^+\mu ^{}))`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(H^0h^0(A^0)\tau ^{}\tau ^+`$) are strongly sensitive to the Higgs masses, $`m_{h^0}`$ and $`m_{A^0}`$, respectively. This observation is useful in the determination of the new Higgs masses $`m_{h^0}`$ and $`m_{A^0}`$.
* We observe that the decay width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(H^0h^0(A^0)(\tau ^{}\mu ^++\tau ^+\mu ^{}))`$ ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }(H^0h^0(A^0)\tau ^{}\tau ^+`$)) is not sensitive to the possible complexity of the Yukawa coupling.

Therefore, the experimental and theoretical analysis of these decays would ensure strong information about the SM Higgs boson, and the new physics beyond the SM.

## 4 Acknowledgement

This work has been supported by the Turkish Academy of Sciences in the framework of the Young Scientist Award Program. (EOI-TUBA-GEBIP/2001-1-8)