text:
# RADIO GALAXIES AND THE ACCELERATION OF THE UNIVERSE BEYOND A REDSHIFT OF ONE

## INTRODUCTION

A primary goal of current cosmological studies is to determine whether the expansion of the universe is accelerating or decelerating at the present epoch, and what the acceleration or deceleration rate is. From this, we can determine the global cosmological parameters, and study how structure evolved.

One way to improve our understanding of the recent history of the universe, and begin to quantify the properties of the “Dark Energy,” is to observationally determine the redshift at which the universe transitions from acceleration to deceleration if is is established that the expansion of the universe is accelerating at the present epoch. “Dark Energy” is discussed, for example, by Caldwell, Dave, & Steinhardt (1998), Turner & Riess (2002), Frieman, Huterer, Linder, & Turner (2002), Peebles & Ratra (2002), and Peebles (2002).

Since astrophysics is a “spectator science,” for which we can only collect data but cannot design and control experiments, unknown systematic errors are always a worry. The only way to convincingly establish a result is to have independent determinations that agree.

## THE BASICS

The Robertson-Walker metric describes an expanding (or contracting) homogeneous and isotropic space-time, and has the line element

$$d\tau ^2=dt^2a^2(t)\left(\frac{dr^2}{1kr^2}+r^2d\theta ^2+r^2sin^2\theta d\varphi ^2\right)$$
(1)
(see, for example, Weinberg 1972), where the cosmic scale factor $`a(t)`$ is related to the source redshift $`z`$ and the current value of the cosmic scale factor $`a_o`$: $`(a(t)/a_o)=(1+z)^1`$. For light traveling from a source with redshift $`z`$ along a radial path, equation (1) implies that the coordinate distance to the source, $`a_or`$ can be obtained by integrating the equation

$$dr/\sqrt{1kr^2}=dt/a(t).$$
(2)
In this universe, a source at redshift z, with intrinsic physical size D, and luminosity L, will have an observed angular size $`\theta `$ given by $`\theta =D(1+z)/(a_or)`$ $`=D/d_A`$, where $`d_A`$ is the “angular size distance” $`d_A=(a_or)/(1+z)`$ and $`(a_or)`$ is the coordinate distance to the source. The flux $`f`$ that could be detected from the source is given by $`f=L/[4\pi (a_or)^2(1+z)^2]`$ $`=L/[4\pi d_L^2]`$, where $`d_L`$ is the “luminosity distance” $`d_L=(a_or)(1+z)`$ $`=(H_o)^1y(z)(1+z)`$; $`y(z)=H_oa_or`$ is the dimensionless coordinate distance (see, for example, Peebles 1993).

Thus, if $`d_A`$ or $`d_L`$ to a source at redshift z can be observationally determined, then the coordinate distance $`(a_or)`$ and the dimensionless coordinate distance $`y(z)`$ to that redshift are known.

The coordinate distance is related to the cosmological parameters through the equations $`a_o𝑑r/\sqrt{1kr^2}=(a/\dot{a})𝑑z`$, and $`(\dot{a}/a)=H_oE(z)`$. For $`k=0`$, the coordinate distance is $`(a_or)=H_o^1𝑑z/E(z)`$. For a universe with components for which the equations of state $`w_i`$ are time independent, such as a universe with quintessence (Caldwell, Dave, & Steinhardt 1998) $`E^2(z)=\mathrm{\Omega }_i(1+z)^{n_i}`$, where $`w_i=P_i/\rho _i`$, and $`n_i=3(1+w_i)`$ for a component with non-evolving equation of state (see, for example, the Appendix of Daly & Guerra 2002). The deceleration parameter at the present epoch is $`q_o=\ddot{a}a_o/\dot{a}=0.5\mathrm{\Omega }_i(1+3w_i)`$, when $`w_i`$ is time independent.

Thus, one way to determine the cosmological parameters $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i`$ and the equations of state $`w_i`$, is to determine the coordinate distance to high-redshift sources, then use equations given above, and solve for the cosmological parameters that yield the observed coordinate distances. If the equation of state is time-dependent, or if a rolling scalar field such as that proposed by Peebles & Ratra (1988) is considered, then these equations must be modified accordingly as discussed, for example, by Peebles & Ratra (2002).

The cosmological parameters determined using this method then go into the equation for $`q_o`$ to determine whether the universe is accelerating or decelerating today. The equation for $`q(z)`$, which is very similar to that for $`q_o`$, then allows a determination of the redshift at which the acceleration is expected to go through zero, which marks the redshift at which the universe transitions from acceleration to deceleration.

A method of using the observed coordinate distances to go directly to the acceleration parameter as a function of redshift will be described below. And, a method of using the data directly to determine the function E(z) without making any assumptions about the nature or redshift evolution of the Dark Energy will also be discussed.

The beauty of using coordinate distance measurements to determine the cosmological parameters $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i`$ is that the true global cosmological parameters are determined; no corrections need to be made for the clustering properties of matter, so that contributions to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i`$ can not be missed or miscounted, and there are no biasing issues.

## THE RADIO GALAXY AND SUPERNOVA METHODS

Two methods currently being used to constrain global cosmological parameters through the determination of the coordinate distance to high-redshift sources are the Type Ia Supernova method (e.g. Perlmutter et al. 1999; Riess et al. 1998), and the Type FRIIb Radio Galaxy method (e.g. Daly & Guerra 2002).

For Type Ia Supernovae, there is one model parameter $`\alpha `$, which goes into the determination of $`m_B^{eff}`$, the effective apparent B band magnitude of the supernova at maximum brightness. This is related to the Hubble-constant free luminosity distance $`D_L`$ via the equation

$$m_B^{eff}(\alpha )=_{}+5log(D_L[\mathrm{\Omega }_i,w_i]).$$
(3)
If quintessence is being considered (e.g. Caldwell, Dave, & Steinhardt 1998), then $`w_i`$ would represent the equation of state, and if an evolving scalar field is being considered, such as that proposed and studied by Peebles and Ratra (1988), then $`w_i`$ would be evolving with redshift (and would represent their parameter $`\alpha `$).

$`_{}`$ is a constant obtained by fitting all of the data; it is related to the standard absolute magnitude of the peak brightness of a supernova $`M_B`$: $`_{}=M_B+255log(H_o)`$ (see Perlmutter et al. 1999). For k = 0, and allowing for non-relativistic matter and quintessence, there are (N-4) degrees of freedom; this is also the case for a universe with an evolving scalar field such as that discussed by Peebles and Ratra (1988), or a universe with space curvature, a cosmological constant, and non-relativistic matter.

The Hubble-constant-free luminosity distance $`D_L`$ is related to the dimensionless coordinate distance $`y(z)`$ via the relation $`y(z)(1+z)=D_L=H_od_L`$.

For FRIIb radio galaxies, there is one model parameter $`\beta `$, which goes into the determination of the ratio $`R_{}=<D>/D_{}`$ (Daly 1994). This ratio also depends on the dimensionless luminosity distance $`D_L`$:

$$R(\beta ,D_L[\mathrm{\Omega }_i,w_i])=\kappa .$$
(4)
$`\kappa `$ is a constant obtained by fitting all of the radio galaxy data. This fit also has (N-4) degrees of freedom. In these fits the dimensionless luminosity distance $`D_L`$, and the dimensionless coordinate distance $`y(z)`$, is implicitly determined for each source, though it only factors out as a separate term when synchrotron cooling dominates over inverse Compton cooling with CMB photons in the radio bridge of the source, in which case $`R<D>/D=(observables)(D_L)^{g(\beta )}`$, where $`g(\beta )=3/7+2\beta /3`$ (Guerra & Daly 1998). This is not a valid approximation for all of the sources in the sample. Here, this approximation has not been adopted, and an iterative technique has been used to determine the dimensionless coordinate distance to each source. Thus, these coordinate distances are valid for all of the sources in the sample.

The dimensionless luminosity distance $`D_L`$ and coordinate distance $`y(z)`$ has been determined using equation (3) for each source using the best fit value for $`_{}`$, obtained with the 54 supernovae in the “primary fit C” of Perlmutter et al. (1999) and the 1 high-redshift supernova published by Reiss et al. (2001), with the magnitude of this source corrected for gravitational lensing (Benitex et al. 2002). The dimensionless coordinate distance $`y(z)`$ has been determined for each radio galaxy using equation (4) and the best fit values for $`\kappa `$ and $`\beta `$ (along with their one sigma error bars) for the 20 radio galaxies presented by Guerra, Daly, & Wan (2000). These dimensionless coordinate distances are shown in Figures 1, 2, and 3.

The dimensionless coordinate distances obtained for the radio galaxies are completely independent of those obtained for the supernovae. The conclusion from Figures 1, 2, and 3 is that there is good agreement between results obtained using Type Ia SN and FRIIb RG. This has also been demonstrated through detailed analyses. It is clearly the case when a cosmological constant and non-relativistic matter are considered (Guerra, Daly, and Wan 2000), when quintessence is considered (Daly & Guerra 2002), and when the evolving scalar field model of Peebles & Ratra (1988) is considered (Podariu, Daly, Mory, and Ratra 2002).

The results shown here, obtained using 20 FRIIb radio galaxies obtained from the published literature and the VLA archive, will be improved and extended with 10 new sources that will be observed by O’Dea, Guerra, Daly, & Donahue at the VLA.

Radio sources are observed out to very high redshift, and it would be easy to push this test to redshifts of three or four. The only thing that would be required would be a week or two of observing time at the VLA, followed by data analysis. This is not very demanding in terms of time, manpower, and funding.

## 1 A MODEL-INDEPENDENT DETERMINATION OF q(z)

The current method used to study the acceleration of the universe is to take the measured $`y(z)`$ or $`D_L(z)`$, determine best-fitting global cosmological parameters, and then use these global cosmological parameters to determine the acceleration of the universe as a function of redshift. In this process, assumptions must be made concerning the nature and redshift evolution of the mass-energy density of the “dark energy.”

A direct, empirical determination of the acceleration of the universe as a function of redshift can be determined using the data, without making any assumptions about the nature or evolution of the “dark energy.” This can be done using the equation

$$q(z)\ddot{a}a/\dot{a}^2=1+(1+z)(dy/dz)^1(d^2y/dz^2)$$
(5)
valid for k=0; if $`k0`$, another term $`[kr(1+z)/(1kr^2)](dr/dz)`$ must be added to the right hand side. Here, $`y`$ is the dimensionless coordinate distance $`y=H_o(a_or)`$.

Thus, equation (5) can be used to empirically determine the redshift at which the universe transitions from acceleration to deceleration without requiring assumptions regarding the nature and redshift evolution of the ”dark energy.” The supernova and radio galaxy data allow a determination of the dimensionless coordinate distance $`y`$ to each source, at redshift $`z`$. These data can then be used to determine $`dy/dz`$, and $`d^2y/dz^2`$; these can then be substituted into eq. (5) to determine q(z).

Equation (5) follows from the RW line element and the relation $`(1+z)=a_o/a(t)`$. Our measurements of the coordinate distance $`(a_or)`$ move along the negative direction of $`dr`$, so eq. (2) with k=0 implies that $`a_odr=(1+z)dt`$, or $`(dz/dt)=a_o^1(1+z)(dr/dz)^1`$. Differentiating $`(1+z)=a_o/a(t)`$ with respect to time implies that $`\dot{a}=a_o(1+z)^2(dz/dt)`$. Substituting in for $`(dz/dt)`$, we find $`\dot{a}=(1+z)^1(dr/dz)^1`$. Differentiating again with respect to time, we find $`\ddot{a}=(1+z)^2(dz/dt)(dr/dz)^1[1+(1+z)(dr/dz)^1(d^2r/dz^2)]`$, which simplifies to eq. (5) using the expressions given here, and the relation $`y(z)=H_o(a_or)`$. Note, these expressions include the well-known equation (e.g. Peebles 1993; Weinberg 1972)

$$H(z)\dot{a}/a=\sqrt{1kr^2}[d(a_or)/dz]^1,$$
(6)
or, for $`k=0`$ and with $`H(z)=H_oE(z)`$,

$$E(z)=(dy/dz)^1.$$
(7)
Since eqs. (5), (6), and (7) are derived without any assumptions regarding the mass-energy components of the universe or their redshift evolution, they can be used to directly determine the function $`E(z)`$, which contains important information on the “dark energy” and its redshift evolution, and to determine the dimensionless acceleration parameter $`q(z)`$ directly from measurements of $`y(z)`$. The use of the data to directly determine $`E(z)`$ and $`q(z)`$ is underway.

## 2 DETAILS OF THE RADIO GALAXY METHOD

The Radio Galaxy Method relies on a comparison of the average size of an FRIIb source determined by the mean size $`<D>`$ of the full population at that redshift \[$`<D>(a_or)`$\], and the average source size, $`D_{}`$, determined using a physical model that describes the evolution of the source. The two measures of the average source size should track each other, so $`<D>/D_{}`$ should remain constant, independent of redshift. The ratio depends upon observed quantities, the coordinate distance and the model parameter $`\beta `$. When inverse Compton cooling with CMB photons is negligible, then $`R_{}<D>/D_{}=(Observables)(a_or)^{2\beta /3+3/7}`$ (Guerra & Daly 1998). However, this is not a good approximation for all of the sources in the radio galaxy sample. Therefore, this approximation has not been adopted here, and the full equation $`R_{}=k_oy^{(6\beta 1)/7}(k_1y^{4/7}+k_2)^{(\beta /31)}`$, where $`k_o,k_1,`$ and $`k_2`$ represent directly observed quantities, has been used to solve for $`y(z)`$ to each source.

Details of the model are discussed by Daly & Guerra (2002), Guerra, Daly, & Wan (2000), Guerra & Daly (1998), and Daly (1994). The physics of FRIIb sources is discussed at length by Daly (2002).

In brief, the average size of a given source is $`D=v_Lt_{}`$, where $`t_{}`$ is the total time that the AGN produces large-scale jets. Several different lines of argument, reviewed by Daly & Guerra (2002), suggest that $`t_{}L_j^{\beta /3}`$, where $`L_j`$ is the beam power of the source. If this relation is assumed, then $`D_{}(B_La_L)^{2\beta /3}v_L^{1\beta /3}y^{6\beta /7+8/7}(k_1y^{4/7}+k_2)^{1\beta /3}`$. For a typical value of $`\beta `$ of 1.7, $`D_{}(B_La_L)^{1.1}v_L^{0.4}`$.

Note that the length of the source, D, does not enter into our determination of D\*. Of course, D does enter into the determination of $`<D>`$.

The determination of the most uncertain of these parameters, $`v_L`$, can be studied using Chandra data, since Chandra data can be used to determine or constrain the ambient gas density $`n`$, and the radio galaxy model assumes that $`v_L^2B_L^2/n`$. This is discussed below in the section “Tests of the Radio Galaxy Model.”

The assumption that $`t_{}L_j^{\beta /3}`$ is consistent with models of jet production via the electromagnetic extraction of the spin energy from a rotating black hole. Daly & Guerra (2002) show that this relation results if the magnetic field strength in the vicinity of the rotating black hole is given by $`B(a/m)^{\beta /(3\beta )}M^{(2\beta 3)/(2(3\beta ))}`$, or $`B(a/m)`$ for $`\beta =1.5`$, and $`B(a/m)^2M^{0.5}`$ for $`\beta =2`$, where $`a`$ is the spin angular momentum per unit mass, $`m`$ is the gravitational radius of the black hole, and $`M`$ is the mass of the black hole (see Blandford 1990).

The two other key assumptions of the radio galaxy model, that all FRIIb classical doubles at a given redshift have a similar maximum or average size so that the average size of a given source will be close to that of full population at that redshift, and that strong shock physics applies near the forward region of the radio source, have been tested empirically, and are consistent with the data.

## 3 TESTS OF THE RADIO GALAXY METHOD

Three tests of the radio galaxy model and method are underway. These are tests using Chandra X-ray data; tests based on a detailed analysis of radio maps at multiple frequencies; and tests using a detailed comparison of radio maps with results from numerical simulations.

Chandra X-ray data can be used to study the ambient gas density, which can be compared with that predicted. Donahue, Daly, and Horner (2002) have completed Chandra studies of 3C 280 (a radio galaxy) and 3C 254 (a radio loud quasar). The predicted ambient gas densities are consistent with the three sigma upper bounds placed by the Chandra data. Other radio predicted ambient gas densities will be compared with Chandra observations and bounds.

Ten new RG with redshifts between 0.4 and 1.3 will be observed with the VLA in collaboration with Chris O’Dea, Eddie Guerra, and Megan Donahue. These high-resolution observations will allow several tests of the RG model, and will be compared with detailed numerical simulations tailored to match the properties of these sources, which is being done in collaboration with Joel Calvalho and Chris O’Dea. These studies will be based on the numerical work of Calvalho & O’Dea (2002a,b), and will help to identify the physical processes that must be accounted for the in modeling FRIIb sources.

In addition, complete radio galaxy samples of FRIIb sources that go to redshifts of three or four will be investigated. These could serve as the parent populations in the application of the RG method to redshifts greater than two. This could take us to very high redshift very quickly since radio observations are relatively quick, easy, and do not require major new instruments.

## 4 CONCLUSIONS

In a spatially flat universe with non-relativistic matter and quintessence, radio galaxies alone indicate with 84% confidence that the universe is accelerating in its expansion at the present epoch (Daly & Guerra 2002). Results obtained using the Radio Galaxy Method out to redshifts of two are consistent with those obtained using the Supernova Method out to redshifts of about one.

A model-independent way to use the supernova and radio galaxy data to determine the dimensionless expansion rate $`E(z)`$ and acceleration parameter $`q(z)`$ is presented and discussed. A direct determination of $`q(z)`$ that is independent of assumptions regarding the nature and evolution of the ”dark energy” would allow the transition redshift from acceleration to deceleration to be determined, and would help to identify any systematic errors that might plague either the radio galaxy or supernova methods. A direct determination of $`E(z)`$ would help to quantify the properties and redshift evolution of the “dark energy” and to identify potential systematic errors in the methods used to determine $`y(z)`$.

## ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

It is a pleasure to thank Joel Carvalho, George Djorgovski, Megan Donahue, Jean Eilek, Eddie Guerra, Paddy Leahy, Alan Marscher, Matt Mory, Chris O’Dea, Bharat Ratra, and Adam Reiss for helpful comments and discussions. This work was supported in part by US National Science Foundation grants AST 00-96077 and AST 02-06002, by a Chandra X-ray Center data analysis grant G01-2129B, and by Penn State University. The Chandra X-ray Observatory Science Center (CXC) is operated for NASA by the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Recently, significant effort has been devoted to studying non BPS configurations of branes such as brane-antibrane pairs and non BPS D-branes (for a review see e.g. ). If we consider a coincident brane-antibrane pair, the spectrum of open strings on it contains a complex tachyon field $`T`$. This indicates that the brane-antibrane system is unstable, and that the tachyon rolls down from the perturbative vacuum of open strings. If we assume that the tachyon potential has a non-trivial minimum, it is expected that the tachyon falls into it. Sen conjectured that the negative energy density from the tachyon potential exactly cancels the sum of the tension of the brane and the antibrane . This means that the brane-antibrane pair disappears and the energy density of this configuration vanishes at the potential minimum. In fact, the tachyon potential on this configuration calculated by using cubic string field theory approves Sen’s conjecture .

The tachyon potential on the Dp-$`\overline{\text{Dp}}`$ system in type II string theory was also computed on the basis of boundary string field theory (BSFT)   by Minahan and Zwiebach  and by Kutasov, Marino and Moore , and its qualitative features agree with Sen’s conjecture. If we denote the complex scalar tachyon field by $`T`$, then the potential is given by

$$V(T)=2\tau _p𝒱\mathrm{exp}(8|T|^2),$$
(1.1)
where $`𝒱`$ is the volume of the system that we are considering, and $`\tau _p`$ denotes the tension of a Dp-brane, which is defined by

$$\tau _p=\frac{1}{(2\pi )^p\alpha _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{p+1}{2}}}g_s},$$
(1.2)
where $`g_s`$ is the coupling constant of strings. This potential has the minimum at $`|T|=\mathrm{}`$. We adopt the natural unit $`c=\mathrm{}=1`$ but explicitly keep the slope parameter $`\alpha ^{}`$.

It is interesting to investigate the finite temperature system of Dp-$`\overline{\text{Dp}}`$ pair. This is because there is a possibility that $`T=0`$ becomes a stable minimum at high temperature, in analogy with high temperature symmetry restoration in field theories. For this purpose, we must compute the finite temperature effective potential of the brane-antibrane system based on BSFT, when the complex tachyon field develops its vacuum expectation value.

Danielsson, Güijosa and Kruczenski evaluated the finite temperature effective potential when there is only the tachyon field . The effective action of tachyon field at zero temperature can be deduced from the tree level BSFT of open superstrings as

$$S=16\tau _pd^{p+1}x\left[2\alpha ^{}e^{8|T|^2}TT^{}+\frac{1}{8}e^{8|T|^2}\right].$$
(1.3)
In order to obtain the standard form of the kinetic term, we perform a field redefinition

$`\varphi ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi }}}{\displaystyle _0^{2T}}e^{|u|^2}𝑑u.`$
Then the action (1.3) becomes

$$S=8\pi \alpha ^{}\tau _pd^{p+1}x\left[\varphi \varphi ^{}+\frac{1}{4\pi \alpha ^{}}e^{8|T(\varphi )|^2}\right].$$
(1.4)
The mass square of the field $`\varphi `$ is given by

$$m^2=\frac{^2}{\varphi \varphi ^{}}\left(\frac{1}{4\pi \alpha ^{}}e^{8|T(\varphi )|^2}\right)=\frac{1}{\alpha ^{}}\left(|T(\varphi )|^2\frac{1}{2}\right),$$
(1.5)
and from this the authors of  evaluated the finite temperature effective potential in the ideal gas limit. It is easy to show from this potential that at sufficiently low temperature the potential minimum shifts toward the origin of the complex $`T`$ plane, $`T=0`$, as the temperature increases.222We can show this in a similar way as we will perform in §3. On the other hand, computing the potential in the high temperature limit (using the standard method ), we can show that the critical temperature, at which the potential has its minimum at $`T=0`$, is enormously higher than the Hagedorn temperature in the weak coupling limit. This is because the tension of the Dp-brane is very large if string coupling is very small as we can see from (1.2), and tachyon field must have extremely high energy in order to create the Dp-$`\overline{\text{Dp}}`$ pair.

There is another approach to the finite temperature Dp-$`\overline{\text{Dp}}`$ system. Huang attempted to evaluate the finite temperature effective potential based on BSFT of bosonic strings . He concluded that the high temperature tachyon potential has the same form with that of the zero temperature up to a temperature dependent string tension, and the tachyon rolls down towards the vacuum at $`T=\mathrm{}`$.333In a paper , he investigated a finite temperature system of parallel brane and antibrane with a finite distance and concluded that it becomes stable at sufficiently high temperature. However, even if we set $`T=0`$ in the potential, we cannot reproduce the free energy of on-shell open strings. Therefore, we need to compute the finite temperature effective potential in the presence of a constant tachyon background based on BSFT and statistical mechanics. Although we will focus on a coincident Dp-$`\overline{\text{Dp}}`$ pair in type II string theory, generalization to non BPS branes is straightforward.

In addition to the analogy of symmetry restoration of field theories, we have another motivation to study the finite temperature Dp-$`\overline{\text{Dp}}`$ system. The free energy of strings diverges above the Hagedorn temperature in general . However, in ten dimensional spacetime, we can reach the Hagedorn temperature for closed strings by supplying a finite amount of energy, while we need infinite energy to reach the Hagedorn temperature for open strings . From this it has been said that, in closed string case, the Hagedorn temperature is associated with a phase transition in analogy with the deconfining transition in QCD, while it is a ‘limiting temperature’ in open string case. For this phase transition of closed strings, Sathiapalan , Kogan  and Atick and Witten  have argued that the ‘winding modes’ of Euclidean time direction becomes tachyonic above the Hagedorn temperature and a phase transition takes place due to the condensation of these tachyon fields. This phase transition is called the Hagedorn transition in closed string theory. However, so far we have not known where the minimum of this tachyon potential is and in what kind of backgrounds the system becomes stable. So we want to shed some light on this problem by investigating the finite temperature brane-antibrane system.

This paper is organized as follows. In §2 we give the free energy of open strings on the Dp-$`\overline{\text{Dp}}`$ system based on BSFT. In §3 we study the finite temperature effective potential at low temperature by using the canonical ensemble method. The system near the Hagedorn temperature is investigated in §4 and §5 by using the microcanonical ensemble method, because we cannot use the canonical ensemble method near the Hagedorn temperature as we will see in §4. In §6, we discuss a relationship between the Hagedorn transition of closed strings and the phase transition on the NS9B-$`\overline{\text{NS9B}}`$ system. §7 presents our conclusions and directions for future work. In appendix A, we describe the finite temperature effective potential evaluated by using the canonical ensemble method.

## 2 Free Energy of Open Strings

It is convenient to investigate the finite temperature effective potential by using the canonical ensemble method. In this method, the potential of the Dp-$`\overline{\text{Dp}}`$ system is given by the sum of the zero temperature tachyon potential and the free energy of open strings:

$$V(T,\beta )=2\tau _p𝒱\mathrm{exp}(8|T|^2)+F,$$
(2.1)
where $`F`$ is the free energy of open strings. Thus, we begin by considering the free energy of open strings in this section.

We can compute the free energy by using Matsubara formalism. The free energy is given by the path integral of connected graphs of strings on the space where Euclidean time direction is compactified with the circumference of inverse temperature $`\beta `$. Let us take the weak coupling approximation and treat strings as an ideal gas, that is, we ignore the interactions of open strings. We take into account only one-loop amplitude, where the corresponding cylinder world-sheets wind the Euclidean time direction at least once.

There have been attempts to generalize BSFT to the one-loop amplitude of open strings on the Dp-$`\overline{\text{Dp}}`$ system .444Strictly speaking, we must consider quantum master equation in order to investigate quantum corrections to the potential. However, the quantum master equation is still missing for BSFT. Thus, we will not discuss this subject. However, there is an ambiguity in choosing the Weyl factors of the two boundaries of a one-loop world-sheet, because the conformal invariance is broken by the boundary terms in BSFT. Andreev and Oft have proposed the form of the one-loop amplitude of open strings on the Dp-$`\overline{\text{Dp}}`$ system . They deduced it from the principle that its low energy part should coincide with that of the tachyon field which obeys the action (1.3). This amplitude can be obtained straightforwardly by choosing boundary terms as those of a cylinder world-sheet

$$S_b=_0^{2\pi t}𝑑\tau _0^\pi 𝑑\sigma [|T|^2\delta (\sigma )+|T|^2\delta (\pi \sigma )].$$
(2.2)
Here we restrict ourselves to the constant tachyon field, which we denote by $`T`$. The 1-loop amplitude in such background is then given by

$`Z_\mathit{1}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{16\pi ^4i𝒱}{(2\pi \alpha ^{})^{\frac{p+1}{2}}}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\tau }{\tau }}(4\pi \tau )^{\frac{p+1}{2}}e^{4\pi |T|^2\tau }`$ (2.3)
$`\times \left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{\vartheta _3(0|i\tau )}{\vartheta _{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(0|i\tau )}}\right)^4\left({\displaystyle \frac{\vartheta _2(0|i\tau )}{\vartheta _{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(0|i\tau )}}\right)^4\right].`$
We can obtain the same amplitude when we consider the field theory which has the mass spectra

$`M_{NS}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha ^{}}}\left(N_B+N_{NS}+2|T|^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right),`$ (2.4)
$`M_{R}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha ^{}}}\left(N_B+N_R+2|T|^2\right),`$ (2.5)
where $`M_{NS}`$ and $`M_R`$ are the mass of the Neveu-Schwarz and Ramond sectors, respectively, and $`N_B`$, $`N_{NS}`$ and $`N_R`$ are the oscillation modes of the boson, Neveu-Schwarz fermion and Ramond fermion, respectively. The lowest mode of the NS sector (2.4) coincides with that of the tachyon field (1.5). It is convenient to express the free energy by the proper time form  to compute the free energy from the above mass spectrum. It is given by

$`F(\beta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{𝒱}{(2\pi \alpha ^{})^{\frac{p+1}{2}}}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\tau }{\tau }}(4\pi \tau )^{\frac{p+1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{M_{NS}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\mathrm{exp}\left(2\pi \alpha ^{}M_{NS}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\tau {\displaystyle \frac{r^2\beta ^2}{8\pi \alpha ^{}\tau }}\right)`$ (2.6)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{𝒱}{(2\pi \alpha ^{})^{\frac{p+1}{2}}}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\tau }{\tau }}(4\pi \tau )^{\frac{p+1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{M_{R}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(1)^r\mathrm{exp}\left(2\pi \alpha ^{}M_{R}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\tau {\displaystyle \frac{r^2\beta ^2}{8\pi \alpha ^{}\tau }}\right).`$
The difference in the signs of each terms come from the fact that the NS sector represents spacetime boson and the R sector spacetime fermion. As depicted in the Figure 1, there are four types of open strings, namely, two types of the strings whose two ends attach to the same brane and two types of the strings which are stretched between the Dp-brane and the $`\overline{\text{Dp}}`$-brane. If we denote the open strings going from a Dp-brane to a $`\overline{\text{Dp}}`$-brane as (Dp,$`\overline{\text{Dp}}`$), others are denoted as ($`\overline{\text{Dp}}`$,Dp), (Dp,Dp) and ($`\overline{\text{Dp}}`$,$`\overline{\text{Dp}}`$). We must impose the GSO projection for (Dp,Dp) and ($`\overline{\text{Dp}}`$,$`\overline{\text{Dp}}`$), and the opposite GSO projection for (Dp,$`\overline{\text{Dp}}`$) and ($`\overline{\text{Dp}}`$,Dp). So, instead of imposing GSO projection, we may multiply two as an overall factor. Summations over the mass can be rewritten by using $`\vartheta `$ function as

$`{\displaystyle \underset{M_{NS}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{}}\mathrm{exp}\left(2\pi \alpha ^{}M_{NS}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\tau \right)`$ $`=`$ $`32\pi ^4e^{4\pi |T|^2\tau }\left({\displaystyle \frac{\vartheta _3(0|i\tau )}{\vartheta _{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(0|i\tau )}}\right)^4,`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{M_{R}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{}}\mathrm{exp}\left(2\pi \alpha ^{}M_{R}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\tau \right)`$ $`=`$ $`32\pi ^4e^{4\pi |T|^2\tau }\left({\displaystyle \frac{\vartheta _2(0|i\tau )}{\vartheta _{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(0|i\tau )}}\right)^4.`$ (2.7)
Summations over $`r`$ can be rewritten by using $`\vartheta `$ function as

$`{\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{r^2\beta ^2}{8\pi \alpha ^{}\tau }}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[\vartheta _3\left(0|{\displaystyle \frac{i\beta ^2}{8\pi ^2\alpha ^{}\tau }}\right)1\right],`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(1)^r\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{r^2\beta ^2}{8\pi \alpha ^{}\tau }}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[\vartheta _4\left(0|{\displaystyle \frac{i\beta ^2}{8\pi ^2\alpha ^{}\tau }}\right)1\right].`$ (2.8)
Thus, we obtain555We can represent this free energy as the propagator of closed strings by using the modular transformation of $`\vartheta `$ functions .

$`F(T,\beta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{16\pi ^4𝒱}{(2\pi \alpha ^{})^{\frac{p+1}{2}}}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\tau }{\tau }}(4\pi \tau )^{\frac{p+1}{2}}e^{4\pi |T|^2\tau }`$ (2.9)
$`\times [\left({\displaystyle \frac{\vartheta _3(0|i\tau )}{\vartheta _{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(0|i\tau )}}\right)^4(\vartheta _3\left(0\right|{\displaystyle \frac{i\beta ^2}{8\pi ^2\alpha ^{}\tau }})1)`$
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\vartheta _2(0|i\tau )}{\vartheta _{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(0|i\tau )}}\right)^4(\vartheta _4\left(0\right|{\displaystyle \frac{i\beta ^2}{8\pi ^2\alpha ^{}\tau }})1)].`$
We can reproduce the free energy of on-shell open strings on the Dp-$`\overline{\text{Dp}}`$ system by substituting $`T=0`$. We will discuss the finite temperature effective potential at low temperature based on this free energy in the next section.

## 3 Finite Temperature Effective Potential at Low Temperature

As mentioned in §1, the finite temperature effective potential of the tachyon field model is investigated by Danielsson, Güijosa and Kruczenski . From their calculation we can find out that the potential minimum of the finite temperature tachyon potential shifts toward $`T=0`$ as the temperature increases. In this section, we will show that we can obtain the same result by calculating the finite temperature effective potential of the Dp-$`\overline{\text{Dp}}`$ system at low temperature.

In the large $`\beta `$ limit, the integral in the free energy (2.9) can be approximated by the large $`\tau `$ part. This is because the $`\vartheta `$ function depending on $`\beta `$ can be expanded in

$`\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^2}{8\pi \alpha ^{}\tau }}\right),`$
and these terms are suppressed exponentially unless $`\tau `$ is very large. Expanding $`\vartheta `$ functions and extracting the leading term in large $`\tau `$ region, we obtain

$`F(T,\beta ){\displaystyle \frac{2𝒱}{\beta _{H}^{}{}_{}{}^{p+1}}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\tau \tau ^{\frac{p+3}{2}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\pi (4|T|^21)\tau {\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^2}{8\pi \alpha ^{}\tau }}\right),`$
where $`\beta _H`$ is the inverse of the Hagedorn temperature

$$\beta _H=2\pi \sqrt{2\alpha ^{}}.$$
(3.1)
We should notice that this term corresponds to the contribution of the lowest energy (tachyonic) mode. Above equation can be rewritten by using the third kind of modified Bessel function

$$F(T,\beta )4𝒱\left(\frac{\pi \sqrt{4|T|^21}}{\beta _H\beta }\right)^{\frac{p+1}{2}}K_{\frac{p+1}{2}}\left(\frac{2\pi \sqrt{4|T|^21}\beta }{\beta _H}\right).$$
(3.2)
This free energy coincides with that of the tachyon field model when $`p=9`$ . If we assume that both $`|T|`$ and $`\beta `$ are very large, the modified Bessel function can be approximated as

$$K_\nu (z)\sqrt{\frac{\pi }{2z}}e^z,$$
(3.3)
and the free energy becomes

$$F(T,\beta )\frac{2^{\frac{p}{2}+1}\pi ^{\frac{p+1}{2}}𝒱|T|^{\frac{p}{2}}}{\beta _{H}^{}{}_{}{}^{\frac{p}{2}}\beta ^{\frac{p}{2}+1}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{4\pi \beta }{\beta _H}|T|\right).$$
(3.4)
We can obtain the finite temperature effective potential by substituting this free energy to (2.1). At the potential minimum, this potential satisfies

$$\frac{V(T,\beta )}{|T|}=0,$$
(3.5)
and we can obtain the condition for the temperature by substituting the potential we computed. Taking into consideration the assumption that both $`|T|`$ and $`\beta `$ are very large, this gives

$$|T|\frac{\pi }{2\beta _H}\beta =\frac{\pi 𝒯_H}{2𝒯},$$
(3.6)
where $`𝒯`$ denotes the temperature $`𝒯=\beta ^1`$, and $`𝒯_H`$ denotes the Hagedorn temperature

$$𝒯_H=\beta _{H}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}=\frac{1}{2\pi \sqrt{2\alpha ^{}}}.$$
(3.7)
From this we can see that $`|T|`$ decreases with increasing $`𝒯`$. This implies that the potential minimum moves towards $`|T|=0`$ as the temperature increases, like the tachyon field model.

## 4 Complex Temperature Formalism

It is well-known that perturbative strings have a maximum temperature, which is so called the Hagedorn temperature. This comes from the fact that the degeneracy of oscillation modes of a single string increases exponentially with the energy, and the density of states $`\mathrm{\Omega }(E)`$ of strings behave as

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(E)e^{\beta _HE},$$
(4.1)
for large $`E`$. The energy of strings is dominated by very high oscillation modes of a single high energy string near the Hagedorn temperature. Consequently, we cannot raise the temperature by adding more energy to the system because a high energy string soaks up most of the energy.

Unfortunately, we cannot use the canonical ensemble method near the Hagedorn temperature . We can see this from the relation between density of states and partition function, that is, the Laplace transformation

$$Z(\beta )=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑E\mathrm{\Omega }(E)e^{\beta E},$$
(4.2)
The integrand is not sharply peeked function of $`E`$ near the Hagedorn temperature, and the canonical ensemble method is not guaranteed to be valid. Thus, we must derive the thermodynamical quantities near the Hagedorn temperature from the microcanonical ensemble method, which is more fundamental than the canonical ensemble method in the sense that it is derived directly from ergodic theory. This process was performed in the case of closed strings  and in the case of open strings on D-branes . We will apply this method in the case of open strings on the Dp-$`\overline{\text{Dp}}`$ system.

We can derive all the statistical variables from the density of states $`\mathrm{\Omega }(E)`$ in the microcanonical ensemble method. $`\mathrm{\Omega }(E)`$ is given by the inverse Laplace transformation of $`Z(\beta )`$

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(E)=_{Li\mathrm{}}^{L+i\mathrm{}}\frac{d\beta }{2\pi i}Z(\beta )e^{\beta E},$$
(4.3)
which is the opposite relation of (4.2). We must choose a constant $`L`$ such that the path of the integral in the complex $`\beta `$-plane lies on the right side of all the singularities of the integrand. Then, we can deform the contour to the left side such as to pick picking up the singularities, as is sketched in Figure 2. We will first investigate the singular property of the partition function on the complex $`\beta `$ plane in this section, and then calculate the finite temperature effective potential in the next section.

A general property of the partition function of strings is that it has the leading singularity at $`\beta =\beta _H`$, which we call the Hagedorn singularity. In order to see this, let us see the behavior of the free energy near the Hagedorn temperature. In contrast to the low temperature case, we must expand the integral in small $`\tau `$ region. This can be easily performed by making the variable transformation

$`\tau ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{t}},`$
and considering large $`t`$ region. Using the modular transformation of $`\vartheta `$ functions, we obtain

$`F(T,\beta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{16\pi ^4𝒱}{\beta _{H}^{}{}_{}{}^{p+1}}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑tt^{\frac{p9}{2}}\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{4\pi |T|^2}{t}}\right)`$ (4.4)
$`\times [\left({\displaystyle \frac{\vartheta _3(0|it)}{\vartheta _{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(0|it)}}\right)^4(\vartheta _3\left(0\right|{\displaystyle \frac{i\beta ^2t}{8\pi ^2\alpha ^{}}})1)`$
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\vartheta _4(0|it)}{\vartheta _{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(0|it)}}\right)^4(\vartheta _4\left(0\right|{\displaystyle \frac{i\beta ^2t}{8\pi ^2\alpha ^{}}})1)].`$
Expanding $`\vartheta `$ functions and extracting the leading term in large $`t`$ region near the Hagedorn singularity, we obtain666Strictly speaking, we must introduce a low energy cutoff as we will see in appendix A.

$$F(T,\beta )\frac{4𝒱}{\beta _{H}^{}{}_{}{}^{p+1}}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑tt^{\frac{p9}{2}}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{4\pi |T|^2}{t}+\left(\pi \frac{\beta ^2}{8\pi \alpha ^{}}\right)t\right].$$
(4.5)
Since we will compute the $`|T|^2`$ term of the finite temperature effective potential in the vicinity of $`T=0`$, let us expand the free energy in $`|T|^2`$ and keep the lower order terms

$`F(T,\beta )`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4𝒱}{\beta _{H}^{}{}_{}{}^{p+1}}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑tt^{\frac{p9}{2}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\pi {\displaystyle \frac{\beta _{H}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\beta ^2}{\beta _{H}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}t\right)`$ (4.6)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{16\pi 𝒱|T|^2}{\beta _{H}^{}{}_{}{}^{p+1}}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑tt^{\frac{p11}{2}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\pi {\displaystyle \frac{\beta _{H}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\beta ^2}{\beta _{H}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}t\right).`$
From this we will discuss the finite temperature effective action by using the canonical ensemble method in appendix A. If $`p9`$, the integration over $`t`$ can be easily done by using the formula:

$$t^l=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(l)}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑uu^{(l+1)}e^{tu},$$
(4.7)
and we obtain

$$F(T,\beta )\frac{4𝒱}{\beta _{H}^{}{}_{}{}^{p+1}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{9p}{2})}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑u\frac{u^{\frac{7p}{2}}}{u\pi \frac{\beta _{H}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\beta ^2}{\beta _{H}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}+\frac{16\pi 𝒱|T|^2}{\beta _{H}^{}{}_{}{}^{p+1}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{11p}{2})}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑u\frac{u^{\frac{9p}{2}}}{u\pi \frac{\beta _{H}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\beta ^2}{\beta _{H}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}.$$
(4.8)
In order to investigate the behavior of the partition function, let us introduce

$$W(T,\beta )\mathrm{log}Z=\beta F,$$
(4.9)
and investigate the singular part of $`W`$, which we denote $`W_{sing}`$. $`W`$ has a branch point at $`\beta =\beta _H`$, and we can draw a cut to the negative direction of the real axis. Let us evaluate the discontinuity of $`W`$ across the cut. From the definition of the discontinuity, it can be written as

$`\mathrm{\Delta }W`$ $``$ $`\underset{\epsilon +0}{lim}\left[W(T,\beta +i\epsilon )W(T,\beta i\epsilon )\right](\beta <\beta _H)`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4𝒱}{\beta _{H}^{}{}_{}{}^{72\alpha }\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha +1)}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑uu^\alpha \underset{\epsilon ^{}+0}{lim}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{u2\pi \frac{\beta _H\beta }{\beta _H}+i\epsilon ^{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{u2\pi \frac{\beta _H\beta }{\beta _H}i\epsilon ^{}}}\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{16\pi 𝒱|T|^2}{\beta _{H}^{}{}_{}{}^{72\alpha }\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha +2)}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑uu^{\alpha +1}\underset{\epsilon ^{}+0}{lim}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{u2\pi \frac{\beta _H\beta }{\beta _H}+i\epsilon ^{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{u2\pi \frac{\beta _H\beta }{\beta _H}i\epsilon ^{}}}\right),`$
where $`\epsilon ^{}=2\pi \epsilon /\beta _H`$ and we have introduced

$$\alpha \frac{7p}{2}.$$
(4.10)
By using the definition of $`\delta `$ function

$$\delta (x)\frac{1}{2\pi i}\underset{\epsilon +0}{lim}\left(\frac{1}{xi\epsilon }\frac{1}{x+i\epsilon }\right),$$
(4.11)
we can rewrite $`\mathrm{\Delta }W`$ as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }W\frac{(1)^{\alpha +\frac{1}{2}}4(2\pi )^{\alpha +1}𝒱}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha +1)\beta _{H}^{}{}_{}{}^{7\alpha }}(\beta \beta _H)^\alpha +\frac{(1)^{\alpha +\frac{3}{2}}8(2\pi )^{\alpha +3}𝒱|T|^2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha +2)\beta _{H}^{}{}_{}{}^{8\alpha }}(\beta \beta _H)^{\alpha +1}.$$
(4.12)
This non-zero $`\mathrm{\Delta }W`$ guarantees that $`\beta =\beta _H`$ is a branch point. We can deduce $`W_{sing}`$ from $`\mathrm{\Delta }W`$ as follows  .

$`\alpha :`$ half-integer ($`p:`$ even)

$`(\beta \beta _H)^\alpha `$ has discontinuity at $`\beta =\beta _H`$ when $`\alpha `$ is a half-integer. Using this fact and a formula for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ function

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(Z)\mathrm{\Gamma }(1z)=\frac{\pi }{\mathrm{sin}\pi z},$$
(4.13)
we can express $`W_{sing}`$ as

$$W_{sing}[C_\alpha (\beta \beta _H)^\alpha D_\alpha |T|^2(\beta \beta _H)^{\alpha +1}]𝒱,$$
(4.14)
where

$`C_\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4(2\pi )^\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha )}{\beta _{H}^{}{}_{}{}^{7\alpha }}},`$ (4.15)
$`D_\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8(2\pi )^{\alpha +2}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha 1)}{\beta _{H}^{}{}_{}{}^{8\alpha }}}.`$ (4.16)
$`\alpha :`$ integer ($`\alpha 1`$) ($`p:`$ odd ($`p9`$))

In this case, $`(\beta \beta _H)^\alpha `$ has no discontinuity. However, $`\mathrm{log}[\beta _{H}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}(\beta \beta _H)]`$ has discontinuity at $`\beta =\beta _H`$ and we can express $`W_{sing}`$ as

$$W_{sing}[C_\alpha (\beta \beta _H)^\alpha D_\alpha |T|^2(\beta \beta _H)^{\alpha +1}]𝒱\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{\beta \beta _H}{\beta _H}\right),$$
(4.17)
where

$`C_\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^{\alpha +1}4(2\pi )^\alpha }{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha +1)\beta _{H}^{}{}_{}{}^{7\alpha }}},`$ (4.18)
$`D_\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^{\alpha +2}8(2\pi )^{\alpha +2}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha +2)\beta _{H}^{}{}_{}{}^{8\alpha }}}.`$ (4.19)
$`\alpha =1`$ ($`p=9`$)

In this case, we can perform the integral in the first term of (4.6) explicitly. For the second term, we can obtain the discontinuity in the same way when $`\alpha `$ is an integer. Combining two terms, we can express $`W_{sing}`$ as

$$W_{sing}\frac{C_1𝒱}{\beta \beta _H}D_1𝒱|T|^2\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{\beta \beta _H}{\beta _H}\right),$$
(4.20)
where

$`C_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi \beta _{H}^{}{}_{}{}^{8}}},`$ (4.21)
$`D_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{16\pi }{\beta _{H}^{}{}_{}{}^{9}}}.`$ (4.22)
The first term gives the pole in the complex $`\beta `$-plane.

We thus have obtained $`W_{sing}`$ for all possible $`\alpha `$, which can summarized as

$$W_{sing}C_\alpha 𝒱(\beta \beta _H)^\alpha \left(\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{\beta \beta _H}{\beta _H}\right)\right)^aD_\alpha 𝒱|T|^2(\beta \beta _H)^\alpha \left(\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{\beta \beta _H}{\beta _H}\right)\right)^b,$$
(4.23)
where $`a`$ is $`1`$ if $`\alpha `$ is an integer except $`1`$ and $`0`$ otherwise, and $`b`$ is $`1`$ if $`\alpha `$ is an integer and $`0`$ otherwise. The singular part of the partition function can be obtained from (4.9) and this $`W_{sing}`$. We can compute the density of states from it. We will see it in the next section.

## 5 Finite Temperature Effective Potential near the Hagedorn Temperature

We can derive thermodynamical variables from the density of states in the microcanonical ensemble method, as we mentioned in the previous section. The density of states $`\mathrm{\Omega }(E)`$ can be obtained from the partition function $`Z(\beta )`$ by using the inverse Laplace transformation (4.3). $`Z(\beta )`$ is related to $`W(\beta )`$ as

$$Z(T,\beta )=e^W=\mathrm{exp}[W_{reg}+W_{sing}].$$
(5.1)
Here $`W_{reg}`$ is the regular part of $`W`$, which can be expanded in a power of $`(\beta \beta _H)`$ as

$$W_{reg}=\lambda _0𝒱\sigma _0𝒱(\beta \beta _H)+O(𝒱(\beta \beta _H)^2).$$
(5.2)
It is easily to see that $`\lambda _0`$ is the constant which has the dimension of the inverse of volume, and $`\sigma _0`$ is the constant which has the dimension of an energy density. Thus, using eqs. (4.3), (4.23), (5.1) and (5.2), we obtain the density of states as

$`\mathrm{\Omega }(T,E)`$ $``$ $`e^{\beta _HE+\lambda _0𝒱}{\displaystyle _{C_a}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\beta }{2\pi i}}\mathrm{exp}[(\beta \beta _H)\overline{E}+O(𝒱(\beta \beta _H)^2)`$ (5.3)
$`+C_\alpha 𝒱(\beta \beta _H)^\alpha \left(\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta \beta _H}{\beta _H}}\right)\right)^a`$
$`D_\alpha 𝒱|T|^2(\beta \beta _H)^\alpha \left(\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta \beta _H}{\beta _H}}\right)\right)^b],`$
where $`\overline{E}E\sigma _0𝒱`$. Furthermore, knowing the explicit form of $`\mathrm{\Omega }(E)`$, we can calculate the entropy $`S(E)`$ as

$$S(T,E)=\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Omega }(T,E)\delta E,$$
(5.4)
and the inverse temperature $`\beta `$ as

$$\beta =\frac{S}{E}.$$
(5.5)
Then, the finite temperature effective potential of the Dp-$`\overline{\text{Dp}}`$ system is given by

$$V(T,E)=2\tau _p𝒱\mathrm{exp}(8|T|^2)\beta ^1S.$$
(5.6)
Now, we are ready to calculate the finite temperature effective potential by using the microcanonical ensemble method. We will give a discussion for each value of $`p`$ separately, since our approximation to calculate $`\mathrm{\Omega }(T,E)`$ differs for each value of $`p`$.

$`p=9`$ ($`\alpha =1`$)

Let us first consider the case of the D9-$`\overline{\text{D9}}`$ system, which is the most interesting case. In this case (5.3) is rewritten as

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(T,E)e^{\beta _HE+\lambda _0𝒱}_{C_a}\frac{d\beta }{2\pi i}\left(\frac{\beta \beta _H}{\beta _H}\right)^{D_1𝒱|T|^2}\mathrm{exp}\left[(\beta \beta _H)\overline{E}+\frac{C_1𝒱}{\beta \beta _H}\right].$$
(5.7)
Let us suppose that both $`E`$ and $`E/𝒱`$ are very large. Then, the saddle point method works well because the exponent in the integrand is very large. The result is777We can obtain the same result by using modified Bessel function.

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(T,E)\frac{1}{2\sqrt{\pi }}\left(\frac{\beta _{H}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\overline{E}}{C_1𝒱}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}D_1𝒱|T|^2}\left(\frac{C_1𝒱}{\overline{E}^3}\right)^{\frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\beta _HE+\lambda _0𝒱+2\sqrt{C_1𝒱\overline{E}}\right).$$
(5.8)
In (5.7), we ignored $`O(𝒱(\beta \beta _H)^2)`$ term when we derive this equation from (5.3). We will examine the correction of the saddle point method from this term later in the $`p=6`$ case. Substituting $`\mathrm{\Omega }(E)`$ into (5.4), we obtain

$`S(T,E){\displaystyle \frac{D_1𝒱|T|^2}{2}}\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta _{H}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\overline{E}}{C_1𝒱}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\overline{E}}{C_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{\frac{1}{3}}𝒱^{\frac{1}{3}}(\delta E)^{\frac{4}{3}}}}\right)`$
$`+\beta _HE+\lambda _0𝒱+2\sqrt{C_1𝒱\overline{E}},`$ (5.9)
and from (5.5), we get

$$\beta \frac{D_1𝒱|T|^2}{2\overline{E}}\frac{3}{4\overline{E}}+\beta _H+\sqrt{\frac{C_1𝒱}{\overline{E}}}.$$
(5.10)
The finite temperature effective potential can be derived from (5.6). In order to argue the stability of the brane-antibrane system, we need only $`|T|^2`$ term of $`V(T,E)`$. This term is given by

$$\left[16\tau _9𝒱+\frac{8\pi 𝒱}{\beta _{H}^{}{}_{}{}^{10}}\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{\pi \beta _{H}^{}{}_{}{}^{10}\overline{E}}{2𝒱}\right)\right]|T|^2.$$
(5.11)
It should be noted that the second term in the coefficient of $`|T|^2`$ increases with increasing $`E`$. Since the first term is constant as far as $`𝒱`$ and $`\tau _9`$ fixed, the sign of the $`|T|^2`$ term changes from negative to positive at large $`E`$. The coefficient vanishes when

$$\overline{E}\frac{2𝒱}{\pi \beta _{H}^{}{}_{}{}^{10}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{2\beta _{H}^{}{}_{}{}^{10}\tau _9}{\pi }\right).$$
(5.12)
If we approximate (5.10) as

$$\beta \beta _H+\sqrt{\frac{C_1𝒱}{\overline{E}}},$$
(5.13)
we can derive the critical temperature $`𝒯_c`$ at which the coefficient vanishes. The result is

$$𝒯_c=\beta ^1\beta _{H}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\left[1+\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\beta _{H}^{}{}_{}{}^{10}\tau _9}{\pi }\right)\right]^1.$$
(5.14)
Here we see that this temperature is very close to the Hagedorn temperature since $`\tau _9`$ is very large if the coupling of strings is very small. Above this temperature, the coefficient of $`|T|^2`$ is positive and $`T=0`$ becomes the potential minimum. This implies that a phase transition occurs at the temperature $`𝒯_c`$ which is slightly below the Hagedorn temperature, and the D9-$`\overline{\text{D9}}`$ system is stable above this temperature.

$`p=8`$ ($`\alpha =1/2`$)

Next, let us consider the case of the D8-$`\overline{\text{D8}}`$ system, where we will see that a result strikingly different from the case of the D9-$`\overline{\text{D9}}`$ system arises. From (5.3) the density of states is given by

$`\mathrm{\Omega }(T,E)`$ $``$ $`e^{\beta _HE+\lambda _0𝒱}{\displaystyle _{C_a}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\beta }{2\pi i}}\mathrm{exp}\left[(\beta \beta _H)\overline{E}+C_{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}}𝒱(\beta \beta _H)^{\frac{1}{2}}D_{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}}𝒱|T|^2(\beta \beta _H)^{\frac{1}{2}}\right]`$ (5.15)
$``$ $`e^{\beta _HE+\lambda _0𝒱}{\displaystyle _{C_a}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\beta }{2\pi i}}\left[1D_{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}}𝒱|T|^2(\beta \beta _H)^{\frac{1}{2}}\right]`$
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left[(\beta \beta _H)\overline{E}+C_{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}}𝒱(\beta \beta _H)^{\frac{1}{2}}\right],`$
where we take the small $`|T|^2`$ approximation in the second equality. We can also use the saddle point method and obtain

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(T,E)\frac{C_{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}}^{}{}_{}{}^{\frac{1}{3}}𝒱^{\frac{1}{3}}}{3^{\frac{1}{2}}2^{\frac{1}{3}}\pi ^{\frac{1}{2}}\overline{E}^{\frac{5}{6}}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\beta _HE+\lambda _0𝒱+\frac{3C_{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}}^{}{}_{}{}^{\frac{2}{3}}𝒱^{\frac{2}{3}}\overline{E}^{\frac{1}{3}}}{2^{\frac{2}{3}}}\frac{C_{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}}^{}{}_{}{}^{\frac{1}{3}}D_{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}}𝒱^{\frac{4}{3}}|T|^2}{2^{\frac{1}{3}}\overline{E}^{\frac{1}{3}}}\right).$$
(5.16)
We can calculate the entropy $`S`$, the inverse temperature $`\beta `$ and the potential $`V(T,E)`$ from (5.4), (5.5) and (5.6) as in the D9-$`\overline{\text{D9}}`$ case. The $`|T|^2`$ term of $`V(T,E)`$ is given by

$$\left[16\tau _8𝒱\frac{2^{\frac{23}{3}}𝒱^{\frac{4}{3}}}{3\beta _{H}^{}{}_{}{}^{12}\overline{E}^{\frac{1}{3}}}\right]|T|^2.$$
(5.17)
It should be noted that the second term in the coefficient of $`|T|^2`$ decreases as $`E`$ gets large. Thus, the coefficient of $`|T|^2`$ remains negative for large $`E`$. This implies that a phase transition does not occur unlike in the D9-$`\overline{\text{D9}}`$ case.

$`p=7`$ ($`\alpha =0`$)

In this case, the density of states can be obtained from (5.3) as

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(T,E)e^{\beta _HE+\lambda _0𝒱}_{C_a}\frac{d\beta }{2\pi i}\mathrm{exp}\left[(\beta \beta _H)\overline{E}+\left(C_0D_0|T|^2(\beta \beta _H)\right)𝒱\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{\beta \beta _H}{\beta _H}\right)\right],$$
(5.18)
and we can also use the saddle point method if we expand in $`|T|^2`$ like in the D8-$`\overline{\text{D8}}`$ case. The result is

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(T,E)\frac{\sqrt{C_0𝒱}}{\sqrt{2\pi }\overline{E}}\mathrm{exp}\left[\beta _HE+\lambda _0𝒱C_0𝒱+\left(C_0𝒱+\frac{C_0D_0𝒱^2|T|^2}{\overline{E}}\right)\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{C_0𝒱}{\beta _H\overline{E}}\right)\right].$$
(5.19)
We can calculate the finite temperature effective potential from this, and its $`|T|^2`$ term is given by

$$\left[16\tau _7𝒱\frac{2^7\pi ^2𝒱^2}{\beta _{H}^{}{}_{}{}^{16}\overline{E}}\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{\beta _{H}^{}{}_{}{}^{8}\overline{E}}{4𝒱}\right)\right]|T|^2.$$
(5.20)
From this we can see that the coefficient is always negative, so that a phase transition does not occur.

$`p=6`$ ($`\alpha =1/2`$)

In this case, the density of states can be obtained from (5.3) as

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(T,E)e^{\beta _HE+\lambda _0𝒱}_{C_a}\frac{d\beta }{2\pi i}\mathrm{exp}\left[(\beta \beta _H)\overline{E}+\left(C_{\frac{1}{2}}(\beta \beta _H)^{\frac{1}{2}}D_{\frac{1}{2}}|T|^2(\beta \beta _H)^{\frac{3}{2}}\right)𝒱\right]$$
(5.21)
and we can also use the saddle point method if we expand in $`|T|^2`$ like in the D8-$`\overline{\text{D8}}`$ case. The result is

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(T,E)\frac{C_{\frac{1}{2}}𝒱}{2\sqrt{\pi }\overline{E}^{\frac{3}{2}}}\mathrm{exp}\left[\beta _HE+\lambda _0𝒱\frac{C_{\frac{1}{2}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}𝒱^2}{4\overline{E}}+\frac{C_{\frac{1}{2}}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}D_{\frac{1}{2}}𝒱^4}{8\overline{E}^3}|T|^2\right]$$
(5.22)
We can calculate the finite temperature effective potential from this, and its $`|T|^2`$ term is given by

$$\left[16\tau _6𝒱+\frac{2^{17}\pi ^6𝒱^4}{\beta _{H}^{}{}_{}{}^{28}\overline{E}^3}\right]|T|^2$$
(5.23)
From this we can see that the coefficient is always negative, so that a phase transition does not occur.

Here, we must consider corrections to the saddle point approximation. Such corrections come from $`O(𝒱(\beta \beta _H)^2)`$ term in (5.3), which we have ignored so far. This term gives rise to a shift of the saddle point. Let us consider in the case that $`\alpha `$ is a half integer. If we write this term as

$$\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}O(𝒱(\beta \beta _H)^{n+2}),$$
(5.24)
then the correction enters as a multiplicative factor

$$\mathrm{exp}\left[\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}O\left(𝒱\left(\frac{\overline{E}}{𝒱}\right)^{\frac{n+2}{\alpha 1}}\right)\right].$$
(5.25)
If the ratio $`\overline{E}/𝒱`$ is very large, we can use the saddle point method for $`\alpha 1/2`$, because the power of $`\overline{E}/𝒱`$ is negative and the correction becomes negligible. However, we cannot ignore the correction for $`\alpha 3/2`$, because the power is positive and the correction becomes very large for sufficiently large $`n`$. Similar calculation leads us to the result that we can use the saddle point method also in the case of $`\alpha =0`$, $`1`$. If $`\alpha `$ is a positive integer then $`O(𝒱(\beta \beta _H)^2)`$ term is of the same order to other terms. Therefore, we cannot use the saddle point method when $`\alpha 1`$.

$`p=5`$ ($`\alpha =1`$)

In this case, we cannot use the saddle point method, and thus we adapt another approximation as follows. The density of states can be obtained from (5.3) as

$`\mathrm{\Omega }(T,E)`$ $``$ $`e^{\beta _HE+\lambda _0𝒱}{\displaystyle _{C_a}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\beta }{2\pi i}}\mathrm{exp}[(\beta \beta _H)\overline{E}`$ (5.26)
$`+(C_1(\beta \beta _H)D_1|T|^2(\beta \beta _H)^2)𝒱\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta \beta _H}{\beta _H}}\right)].`$
If we define

$$z=(\beta \beta _H)E^{},$$
(5.27)
then (5.26) can be rewritten as

$`\mathrm{\Omega }(T,E)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\beta _HE+\lambda _0𝒱}}{E^{}}}{\displaystyle _{C_b}}{\displaystyle \frac{dz}{2\pi i}}e^z`$ (5.28)
$`\times \mathrm{exp}[{\displaystyle \frac{C_1𝒱z}{E^{}}}(\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{𝒱z}{\beta _{H}^{}{}_{}{}^{6}E^{}}}\right)\pi i)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{D_1𝒱|T|^2z^2}{E_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}(\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{z}{\beta _HE^{}}}\right)\pi i)],`$
where we define

$$E^{}\overline{E}C_1𝒱\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{𝒱}{\beta _{H}^{}{}_{}{}^{5}}\right),$$
(5.29)
for simplicity. The contour of the integral is deformed in the complex plane, as sketched in Figure 3. We approximate the integral in (5.28) by the contour integral in both side of the cut as

$`{\displaystyle _{z_1}^0}{\displaystyle \frac{dz}{2\pi i}}e^z\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{C_1𝒱z}{E^{}}}\left(\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{𝒱z}{\beta _{H}^{}{}_{}{}^{6}E^{}}}\right)\pi i\right){\displaystyle \frac{D_1𝒱|T|^2z^2}{E_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}\left(\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{z}{\beta _HE^{}}}\right)\pi i\right)\right]`$
$`+{\displaystyle _0^{z_1}}{\displaystyle \frac{dz}{2\pi i}}e^z\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{C_1𝒱z}{E^{}}}\left(\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{𝒱z}{\beta _{H}^{}{}_{}{}^{6}E^{}}}\right)+\pi i\right){\displaystyle \frac{D_1𝒱|T|^2z^2}{E_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}\left(\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{z}{\beta _HE^{}}}\right)+\pi i\right)\right]`$
$`={\displaystyle _0^{z_1}}{\displaystyle \frac{dz}{\pi }}e^z\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{C_1𝒱z}{E^{}}}\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{𝒱z}{\beta _{H}^{}{}_{}{}^{6}E^{}}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{D_1𝒱|T|^2z^2}{E^2}}\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{z}{\beta _HE^{}}}\right)\right]`$
$`\times \mathrm{sin}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi C_1𝒱z}{E^{}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi D_1𝒱|T|^2z^2}{E_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}\right),`$
where

$$z_1=(L^{}\beta _H)E^{}.$$
(5.30)
Since we are assuming that $`E`$ is very large, the integrand can be expanded in $`1/E^{}`$, and we can take a limit $`z_1\mathrm{}`$. The integral becomes

$$\frac{C_1𝒱}{E^{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(2)+\left[\frac{C_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}𝒱^2}{E_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{𝒱}{\beta _{H}^{}{}_{}{}^{6}E^{}}\right)\frac{D_1𝒱|T|^2}{E_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}\right]\mathrm{\Gamma }(3)+\frac{C_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}𝒱^2}{E_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(3),$$
(5.31)
where we express the derivative of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ function as $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(z)`$. If we include $`O(𝒱(\beta \beta _H)^2)`$ term in (5.3), it can be rewritten as $`O(𝒱z^2/E_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})`$ and is a function of $`(\beta \beta _H)`$ to the integer power, so that we can drop it in this expansion. We can calculate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(z)`$ from the relation between $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ function and digamma function $`\psi (z)`$

$$\psi (z)=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(z)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(z)}.$$
(5.32)
and from

$$\psi (3)=\frac{3}{2}\gamma ,$$
(5.33)
where $`\gamma `$ is the Euler constant $`\gamma =0.57721\mathrm{}`$. Substituting the result into (5.28), we obtain

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(T,E)\frac{8\pi 𝒱}{\beta _{H}^{}{}_{}{}^{6}E_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}e^{\beta _HE+\lambda _0𝒱}\left[1\frac{16\pi 𝒱}{\beta _{H}^{}{}_{}{}^{6}E^{}}\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{𝒱}{\beta _{H}^{}{}_{}{}^{6}E^{}}\right)\frac{8\pi ^2|T|^2}{\beta _HE^{}}\frac{8\pi (32\gamma )𝒱}{\beta _{H}^{}{}_{}{}^{6}E^{}}\right].$$
(5.34)
We can calculate the finite temperature effective potential from this, and its $`|T|^2`$ term is given by

$$\left[16\tau _5𝒱+\frac{16\pi ^2}{\beta _{H}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}E^{}}\right]|T|^2.$$
(5.35)
From this we can see that the coefficient is always negative, so that a phase transition does not occur.

$`p=4,2,0`$ ($`\alpha =3/2,5/2,7/2`$)

We can calculate the finite temperature effective potential in analogy with the $`p=5`$ case. The density of states can be obtained from (5.3) as

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(T,E)e^{\beta _HE+\lambda _0𝒱}_{C_a}\frac{d\beta }{2\pi i}\mathrm{exp}\left[(\beta \beta _H)\overline{E}+\left(C_\alpha (\beta \beta _H)^\alpha D_\alpha |T|^2(\beta \beta _H)^{\alpha +1}\right)𝒱\right].$$
(5.36)
Using the transformation

$$z=(\beta \beta _H)\overline{E},$$
(5.37)
we get

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(T,E)\frac{e^{\beta _HE+\lambda _0𝒱}}{\overline{E}}_{C_b}\frac{dz}{2\pi i}\mathrm{exp}\left[z+\left(\frac{C_\alpha z^\alpha }{\overline{E}^\alpha }e^{\pi i\alpha }\frac{D_\alpha |T|^2z^{\alpha +1}}{\overline{E}^{\alpha +1}}e^{\pi i(\alpha +1)}\right)𝒱\right].$$
(5.38)
The contour of the integral is deformed as in Figure 3, but $`z_1`$ is here replaced by $`z_2`$, where

$$z_2=(L^{}\beta _H)\overline{E}.$$
(5.39)
We can approximate the integral by the contour integral in both sides of the cut as

$$_0^{z_2}\frac{dz}{\pi }e^z\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{C_\alpha \mathrm{sin}(\pi \alpha )𝒱z^\alpha }{\overline{E}^\alpha }\frac{D_\alpha \mathrm{sin}(\pi (\alpha +1))𝒱|T|^2z^{\alpha +1}}{\overline{E}^{\alpha +1}}\right).$$
(5.40)
Expanding the integrand in $`1/\overline{E}`$ and taking the limit $`z_2\mathrm{}`$, the integral becomes

$`{\displaystyle \frac{4(2\pi )^\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha )\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha +1)\mathrm{sin}(\pi \alpha )}{\pi \beta _{H}^{}{}_{}{}^{7\alpha }}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒱}{\overline{E}^\alpha }}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{8(2\pi )^{\alpha +2}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha 1)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha +2)\mathrm{sin}(\pi (\alpha +1))|T|^2}{\pi \beta _{H}^{}{}_{}{}^{8\alpha }}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝒱}{\overline{E}^{\alpha +1}}}.`$ (5.41)
Using (4.13), we obtain

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(T,E)\frac{4(2\pi )^\alpha 𝒱}{\beta _{H}^{}{}_{}{}^{7\alpha }\overline{E}^{\alpha +1}}e^{\beta _HE+\lambda _0𝒱}\left(1\frac{8\pi ^2|T|^2}{\beta _H\overline{E}}\right).$$
(5.42)
We can calculate the finite temperature effective potential from this, and its $`|T|^2`$ term is given by

$$\left[16\tau _p𝒱+\frac{16\pi ^2}{\beta _{H}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\overline{E}}\right]|T|^2.$$
(5.43)
From this we can see that the coefficient is always negative, so that a phase transition does not occur.

$`p=3,1`$ ($`\alpha =2,3`$)

We can also calculate the finite temperature effective potential in a similar way as that we have done in the above two cases. The density of states can be obtained from (5.3) as

$`\mathrm{\Omega }(T,E)`$ $``$ $`e^{\beta _HE+\lambda _0𝒱}{\displaystyle _{C_a}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\beta }{2\pi i}}\mathrm{exp}[(\beta \beta _H)\overline{E}`$ (5.44)
$`+(C_\alpha (\beta \beta _H)^\alpha D_\alpha |T|^2(\beta \beta _H)^{\alpha +1})𝒱\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta \beta _H}{\beta _H}}\right)],`$
and a similar calculation leads us to the same result, that is,

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(T,E)\frac{4(2\pi )^\alpha 𝒱}{\beta _{H}^{}{}_{}{}^{7\alpha }\overline{E}^{\alpha +1}}e^{\beta _HE+\lambda _0𝒱}\left(1\frac{8\pi ^2|T|^2}{\beta _H\overline{E}}\right).$$
(5.45)
We can calculate the finite temperature effective potential from this, and its $`|T|^2`$ term is given by

$$\left[16\tau _p𝒱+\frac{16\pi ^2}{\beta _{H}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\overline{E}}\right]|T|^2.$$
(5.46)
From this we can see that the coefficient is always negative, so that a phase transition does not occur.

Let us summarize the results of this section. In D9-$`\overline{\text{D9}}`$ case, the sign of coefficient of the $`|T|^2`$ term of the finite temperature effective potential changes from negative to positive near the Hagedorn temperature as the temperature increases, while it remains negative in the case of Dp-$`\overline{\text{Dp}}`$ with $`p8`$. These results lead us to the conclusion that a phase transition takes place only in the case of D9-$`\overline{\text{D9}}`$ pair. Therefore, not the lower dimensional brane-antibrane pair but the space-filling D9-$`\overline{\text{D9}}`$ pair is created near the Hagedorn temperature.

## 6 Speculation about the Hagedorn Transition

Let us turn to discuss the Hagedorn transition in closed string theory. If we consider the closed strings near the Hagedorn temperature, the strings are highly excited and the energy density is very large. Therefore, the effective coupling of strings becomes very large. As a consequence, we must consider this transition in the strong coupling region.

In addition, it seems correct that the coupling of strings becomes very large during this phase transition for the following reason. Let us recall the relation between type II theory and type 0 theory . The one-loop free energy of type II theory in the high temperature limit coincides with the one-loop amplitude function of type 0 theory. On the other hand, Bergman and Gaberdiel conjectured that type 0A theory is obtained by the orbifold compactification of M-theory . The coupling constant of type 0A theory becomes large as the radius of the compactified eleventh dimension increases. While type 0A theory includes a tachyon field and is unstable, M-theory has no tachyon field and is stable. The above conjecture implies that type 0A tachyon becomes massive at sufficiently strong coupling, and that the tachyonic instability disappears in the strong coupling regime. Therefore, the weak coupling type 0A theory undergoes a phase transition by tachyon condensation and the eleventh dimension decompactifies completely. From this viewpoint one may say that the coupling constant increases unlimitedly during the Hagedorn transition in type IIA theory. For type IIB theory, similar speculation can be deduced from the relation between type 0B theory and M-theory. Thus, we must discuss the phase transition in the strong coupling.

Let us consider the phase transition in type IIB theory. This theory has the S-duality symmetry which interchanges the strong coupling region with the weak coupling one. In the previous section, we have shown that the D9-$`\overline{\text{D9}}`$ system becomes stable near the Hagedorn temperature. If we apply the S-duality to D9-brane, we obtain an NS9B-brane . The world volume theory of D9-brane is described by open fundamental strings, which live on it. Since the S-dual object of fundamental string is D-string, the world volume theory of NS9B-brane can be described by the open D-strings. D-strings can be treated perturbatively in large $`g_s`$ region, where $`g_s`$ is the coupling constant for closed fundamental strings.

Let us see the Hagedorn temperature for D-strings. The Hagedorn temperature for fundamental strings depends only on their tension, which is given by

$$\tau _{F1}=\frac{1}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}.$$
(6.1)
On the other hand, the tension of the D-string can be obtained by substituting $`p=1`$ into (1.2) as888Since D-string is a BPS object, we may extend this formula to the strong coupling region.

$$\tau _{D1}=\frac{1}{2\pi \alpha ^{}g_s}.$$
(6.2)
Therefore, we can obtain the Hagedorn temperature for D-strings by replacing $`\alpha ^{}`$ in the Hagedorn temperature (3.7) with $`\alpha ^{}g_s`$. The result is

$$𝒯_{DH}=\frac{1}{2\pi \sqrt{2\alpha ^{}g_s}}.$$
(6.3)
We can see that the Hagedorn temperature for D-strings is very small when $`g_s`$ is very large. Our calculation implies that the critical temperature for the phase transition in the case of NS9B-$`\overline{\text{NS9B}}`$ is slightly below this temperature and it is very small. The reason for this can be understood from the tension of the NS9-brane, which is given by

$$\tau NS9B=\frac{1}{(2\pi )^9\alpha _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{5}g_{s}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}}.$$
(6.4)
From this we can see that the NS9B-$`\overline{\text{NS9B}}`$ pair is created in the low energy region when $`g_s`$ is very large.

From these observations we propose the following model of the Hagedorn transition. Let us start from closed fundamental strings at low temperature. Closed strings are excited as the temperature increases, and the density of strings become very large near the Hagedorn temperature. This lead to the increase of $`g_s`$, and the tension of NS9B-brane becomes small. Then a phase transition occurs, and the NS9B-$`\overline{\text{NS9B}}`$ system appears.

Let us make some comments on this model. Firstly, it seems reasonable to assume that higher dimensional NS-charged objects are realized as a configuration of infinitely many lower dimensional NS-charged objects in analogy with the D-brane case . In this sense, one may say that the NS9B-$`\overline{\text{NS9B}}`$ system consists of fundamental strings in our model.

Secondly, if we consider the Hagedorn transition in flat spacetime, there is no preferred choice of directions. Thus, it is natural to think that closed fundamental strings change to the spacetime-filling brane, since the spacetime-filling branes manifestly preserve all spacetime symmetries, while the lower-dimensional branes break some of the symmetries . Our results seem very reasonable in this sense.

Thirdly, the coupling constant of strings is related to the expectation value of dilaton field. If we denote the expectation value as $`\varphi `$ then the coupling constant is represented as

$$g_s=e^\varphi .$$
(6.5)
Since the dilaton field is one of the massless modes of closed strings, the coupling constant is determined from closed string side. As a consequence, open D-string are kept weakly coupled as long as the closed fundamental string coupling $`g_s`$ is very large.

## 7 Conclusion and Discussion

In this paper, we have discussed the behavior of the finite temperature effective potential on the brane-antibrane pair in the constant tachyon background. We evaluated the potential at low temperature by using the canonical ensemble method and concluded that the potential minimum shifts towards $`T=0`$ as the temperature increases in the low temperature region. Near the Hagedorn temperature, we have calculated the $`|T|^2`$ term of the potential by using the microcanonical ensemble method. For the D9-$`\overline{\text{D9}}`$ system, the sign of the coefficient of this term changes from negative to positive at slightly below the Hagedorn temperature. This implies that a phase transition occurs at this temperature and the D9-$`\overline{\text{D9}}`$ system becomes stable above this temperature. This result is in sharp contrast to lower dimensional brane-antibrane cases. For the Dp-$`\overline{\text{Dp}}`$ system with $`p8`$, the coefficient remains negative near the Hagedorn temperature, so that such a phase transition does not occur. We thus concluded that not a lower dimensional brane-antibrane pair but a D9-$`\overline{\text{D9}}`$ pair is created near the Hagedorn temperature.

This difference comes from the contribution from the momentum modes of open strings, which can be taken in $`p`$-dimensional spatial directions on Dp-brane. If we compactify the background spacetime, we must take into consideration not only momentum modes but also winding modes. It would be interesting to investigate the finite temperature effective potential in a compact background spacetime because the energy spectrum of momentum and winding modes depend on the background spacetime. In particular, we might be able to analyze the finite temperature effective action explicitly in the case of torus background, which is the simplest non-trivial one.

Our calculation is based on the one-loop amplitude of open strings, which has been proposed by Andreev and Oft . As we have mentioned in §2, we have a problem in choosing the Weyl factors in two boundary terms of one-loop world-sheet. Although the choice of Andreev and Oft has the meaning that both side of cylinder world-sheet is treated on an equal footing, we must explain the fundamental reason why this choice is successful even if it is correct. However, we only need to analyze the vicinity of $`T=0`$ in order to investigate whether the phase transition occurs or not. Our calculation is valid if the mass square is shifted as equations (2.4) and (2.5) for small $`|T|`$.

We have proposed that the Hagedorn transition in type IIB string theory might be a transition from closed strings to the NS9B-$`\overline{\text{NS9B}}`$ system. This proposal comes from our calculation and the S-duality. Since the tension of NS9B-brane decreases as the string coupling constant increases, it is natural to think that not only one pair but also large number of brane-antibrane pairs appear in this phase transition. Thus we must consider the finite temperature system of $`n`$ NS9B-branes and $`n`$ $`\overline{\text{NS9B}}`$-branes, or their S-dual objects, namely, those of $`n`$ D9-branes and $`n`$ $`\overline{\text{D9}}`$-branes.

Type IIA string theory is obtained by applying a T-duality to type IIB theory. Since the T-dual object of NS9B-brane is NS9A-brane , our proposal is replaced by the phase transition from closed strings to the NS9A-$`\overline{\text{NS9A}}`$ system in type IIA theory. In strong coupling region, type IIA theory is lifted to eleven dimensional M-theory, and NS9A-brane to M9-brane. Thus, we might have to study the properties of M9-brane in order to investigate the Hagedorn transition in type IIA theory.

If there exist charged objects such as D-branes and NS-branes before the Hagedorn transition occurs, then it seems natural that NS9-$`\overline{\text{NS9}}`$ system includes these objects. Topological configuration of these objects is described by (the S-dual of) the K-theory  . It would be interesting to investigate our model in terms of the K-theory.

The application of our model to cosmology is very important because brane-antibrane pairs might be excited if the temperature of the early universe is close to the Hagedorn temperature. The tension of the brane-antibrane system behaves as the cosmological constant, so that the universe experiences inflation. In fact, much work has been done in this direction  .

Finally, the phase transition to the 9-brane is reminiscent of the Plank solid model of Schwarzschild black holes . It might be interesting to study the black holes as the NS9-$`\overline{\text{NS9}}`$ system.

## Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank colleagues at Kyoto University for useful discussions. He also would like to thank M. Fukuma for discussions and comments on the manuscript. He is grateful to K. Kikkawa and M. Ninomiya for discussions and encouragement. He appreciates the organizers of Summer Institute 2001 at Yamanashi for hospitality and the Yukawa Institute for Theoretical Physics at Kyoto University, where discussions during the YITP workshop YITP-W-99-99 on ”the title of the workshop” were useful to complete this work.

## Appendix A Finite Temperature Effective Potential in Canonical Ensemble Method

As we commented in §4, the calculation based on the canonical ensemble cannot be trusted if the temperature is closed to the Hagedorn temperature. In this appendix, we show that the canonical ensemble method gives different results from those obtained by the microcanonical ensemble method, by explicitly calculating the potential based only on the canonical ensemble. From (4.6) the free energy is given by

$`F(T,\beta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4𝒱}{\beta _{H}^{}{}_{}{}^{p+1}}}{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑tt^{\frac{p9}{2}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\pi {\displaystyle \frac{\beta _{H}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\beta ^2}{\beta _{H}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}t\right)`$ (A.1)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{16\pi 𝒱|T|^2}{\beta _{H}^{}{}_{}{}^{p+1}}}{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑tt^{\frac{p11}{2}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\pi {\displaystyle \frac{\beta _{H}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\beta ^2}{\beta _{H}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}t\right),`$
where we have introduced the low energy cutoff. This cutoff is required when we made an approximation to derive (4.5). Using the incomplete $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ function, (A.1) can be rewritten as

$`F(T,\beta )`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4𝒱}{\pi ^{\frac{p7}{2}}\beta _{H}^{}{}_{}{}^{8}(\beta ^2\beta _{H}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})^{\frac{p7}{2}}}}\mathrm{\Gamma }({\displaystyle \frac{p7}{2}},\pi {\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^2\beta _{H}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{\beta _{H}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ (A.2)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{16\pi 𝒱|T|^2}{\pi ^{\frac{p9}{2}}\beta _{H}^{}{}_{}{}^{10}(\beta ^2\beta _{H}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})^{\frac{p9}{2}}}}\mathrm{\Gamma }({\displaystyle \frac{p9}{2}},\pi {\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^2\beta _{H}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{\beta _{H}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}\mathrm{\Lambda }).`$
The potential for each $`p`$ can be derived from this as follows.

$`p=9`$

If we substitute $`p=9`$ into the first term of (A.2), the first argument of incomplete $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ function becomes one, so that we can set $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$. For the second term of (A.2) we can use the following formula for the incomplete $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ function;

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(0,x)=\gamma \mathrm{log}x\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(1)^nx^n}{nn!},$$
(A.3)
where $`\gamma `$ is the Euler constant. Combining these two terms, we get

$$F(T,\beta )\frac{4𝒱}{\pi \beta _{H}^{}{}_{}{}^{8}(\beta ^2\beta _{H}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})}\frac{16\pi 𝒱|T|^2}{\beta _{H}^{}{}_{}{}^{10}}\mathrm{log}\left(\pi \frac{\beta ^2\beta _{H}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{\beta _{H}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}\mathrm{\Lambda }\right).$$
(A.4)
We can obtain the finite temperature effective potential from (2.1), and its $`|T|^2`$ term is given by

$$\left[16\tau _9𝒱\frac{16\pi 𝒱}{\beta _{H}^{}{}_{}{}^{10}}\mathrm{log}\left(\pi \frac{\beta ^2\beta _{H}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{\beta _{H}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)\right]|T|^2.$$
(A.5)
This has a similar form to (5.11) which was derived by using the microcanonical ensemble method. The coefficient vanishes at the critical temperature $`𝒯_c`$ given by

$`𝒯_c=\beta ^1`$ $``$ $`\left[\beta _H^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _{H}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }}}\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta _{H}^{}{}_{}{}^{10}\tau _9}{\pi }}\right)\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ (A.6)
$``$ $`\beta _{H}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }}}\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta _{H}^{}{}_{}{}^{10}\tau _9}{\pi }}\right)\right]^1.`$
If we set $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=(2\pi )^1`$, the result is the same as (5.14) which is derived by using the microcanonical method.999In order to keep the argument of the logarithm in (4.20) dimensionless, we have divided $`(\beta \beta _H)`$ by $`\beta _H`$. But this denominator is ambiguous as long as it has the dimension of the inverse of the temperature. For the different denominator, we can obtain the same result by shifting the cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in the canonical ensemble method.

$`p:`$ even

In this case we may set $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ and we obtain $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ functions. $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ function with half integer argument is given by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(n+\frac{1}{2}\right)=\frac{(4)^nn!}{(2n)!}\sqrt{\pi }.$$
(A.7)
Substituting this into (A.2), we obtain

$`F(T,\beta )`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^{5\frac{p}{2}}2^{10p}\left(4\frac{p}{2}\right)!}{\pi ^{\frac{p}{2}4}(8p)!}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\beta ^2\beta _{H}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})^{\frac{7p}{2}}𝒱}{\beta _{H}^{}{}_{}{}^{8}}}`$ (A.8)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^{5\frac{p}{2}}2^{14p}\left(5\frac{p}{2}\right)!}{\pi ^{\frac{p}{2}6}(10p)!}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\beta ^2\beta _{H}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})^{\frac{9p}{2}}𝒱}{\beta _{H}^{}{}_{}{}^{10}}}|T|^2.`$
We can obtain the finite temperature effective potential from (2.1), and its $`|T|^2`$ term is given by

$$\left[16\tau _p𝒱+\frac{(1)^{5\frac{p}{2}}2^{14p}\left(5\frac{p}{2}\right)!}{\pi ^{\frac{p}{2}6}(10p)!}\frac{(\beta ^2\beta _{H}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})^{\frac{9p}{2}}𝒱}{\beta _{H}^{}{}_{}{}^{10}}\right]|T|^2.$$
(A.9)
The coefficient remains negative near the Hagedorn temperature, namely $`\beta \beta _H`$. Although the result agrees with (5.17) and (5.25) for $`p=8`$ and $`p=6`$, respectively, up to numerical coefficient, we obtain different results for $`p=4`$, $`2`$ , $`0`$.

$`p:`$ odd $`(p9)`$

The incomplete $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ function whose first argument is a negative integer can be expanded as

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(n,x)=\frac{1}{n!}e^x\underset{s=1}{\overset{n}{}}(1)^{s1}(ns)!x^{n+s1}+\frac{(1)^n}{n!}\mathrm{\Gamma }(0,x).$$
(A.10)
In our case, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$ corresponds to $`x0`$, so that incomplete $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ function can be approximated by the last term. Thus, the free energy can be approximated as

$`F(T,\beta )`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4(1)^{\frac{9p}{2}}}{\pi ^{\frac{p7}{2}}\left(\frac{7p}{2}\right)!}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\beta ^2\beta _{H}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})^{\frac{7p}{2}}𝒱}{\beta _{H}^{}{}_{}{}^{8}}}\mathrm{log}\left(\pi {\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^2\beta _{H}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{\beta _{H}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)`$ (A.11)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{16\pi ^{\frac{11p}{2}}(1)^{\frac{11p}{2}}}{\left(\frac{9p}{2}\right)!}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\beta _{H}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\beta ^2)^{\frac{9p}{2}}𝒱}{\beta _{H}^{}{}_{}{}^{10}}}|T|^2\mathrm{log}\left(\pi {\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^2\beta _{H}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{\beta _{H}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}}\mathrm{\Lambda }\right).`$
We can obtain the finite temperature effective potential from (2.1), and its $`|T|^2`$ term is given by

$$\left[16\tau _p𝒱+\frac{16\pi ^{\frac{11p}{2}}(1)^{\frac{11p}{2}}}{\left(\frac{9p}{2}\right)!}\frac{(\beta ^2\beta _{H}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})^{\frac{9p}{2}}𝒱}{\beta _{H}^{}{}_{}{}^{10}}\mathrm{log}\left(\pi \frac{\beta ^2\beta _{H}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{\beta _{H}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)\right]|T|^2.$$
(A.12)
The coefficient remains negative near the Hagedorn temperature either. The result agrees with (5.20) for $`p=7`$ if we set $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=(2\pi )^1`$. However, we obtain different results for $`p=5`$, $`3`$ , $`1`$.