text:
# Note on (D6,D8) Bound State, Massive Duality and Non-commutativity This work is in part supported by: AvH – the Alexander von Humboldt foundation.

## 1 Introduction

The idea of non-commutativity in string theory  has led to new insights into the understanding of AdS/CFT conjecture . It has been understood that in the presence of NS-NS $`B_{\mu \nu }`$ field open strings behave in such a way that low energy field theory on the anti-de Sitter (AdS) boundary could be described by a non-commutative super-Yang-Mills (NCYM) theory. The Seiberg-Witten map

$$G^{\mu \nu }+\frac{\theta ^{\mu \nu }}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}=\frac{1}{g_{\mu \nu }+2\pi \alpha ^{}B_{\mu \nu }}$$
(1)
defines for us open string metric, $`G_{\mu \nu }`$, and noncommutativity parameter, $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$, in terms of closed string metric, $`g_{\mu \nu }`$, and background, $`B`$, field. The open string coupling is given by

$$G_o^2=g_s^2\frac{\mathrm{det}(g+B)}{\mathrm{det}(g)}.$$
(2)
The Yang-Mills coupling is defined through $`g_{YM}^2=G_o`$.

Note that the above map works so long as the closed string backgrounds are constant which is the case for all D$`p`$-branes with $`2p6`$. For $`p>6`$ branes the backgrounds are not asymptotically constant or flat and the holographic picture is less clear. We focus in this paper on D8-branes which have only one transverse direction. We would like to study the dual Yang-Mills theories for $`N`$ D8-branes, with or without $`B`$ field. It is not clear if the above Seiberg-Witten relations hold good when the supergravity backgrounds are not constant as is the case with D8-branes. Previously, $`D0D8`$ system with a $`B`$-field have been studied in , see also . Interestingly, in a recent paper , Hashimoto and Sethi have studied holography for time-dependent backgrounds assuming that backgrounds are sufficiently locally constant (see also ). Results have been interesting and the application of above Seiberg-Witten relations reproduces the desired results.

We will employ the similar idea for the D8-branes here and we assume that the string backgrounds, though not constant, but are locally constant so that Seiberg-Witten maps could be applicable. Under this assumption we basically study the decoupling limits of the supergravity backgrounds and make some observations about the maximally supersymmetric NCYM theories on the nine-dimensional boundaries of AdS10 regions. We find that under the decoupling limits the closed strings indeed get decoupled.

The paper is organized in the following way. In section-2 we aim to reconstruct a (D6,D8) bound state with $`B`$-field by using massive duality relations in nine dimensions . We also obtain the Killing spinors and also discuss the nontrivial massive nature of the $`B`$-field in this background. In section-3 we study the decoupling limits and discuss the nature of boundary conformal field theories (CFT) in nine spacetime dimensions. We also construct (D4,D6,D8) bound state in section-4. The conclusions are given in section-5.

## 2 The (D6,D8) bound state

Recently, the following background configuration was obtained in  as a solution of massive type IIA supergravity theory

$`ds_{10}^2=H^{\frac{1}{2}}\left\{H^1(dt^2+dx_1^2+\mathrm{}+dx_6^2)+H^1(dy_1^2+dy_2^2)+dz^2\right\},`$
$`e^{2\varphi }=g_s^2H^{\frac{3}{2}}H^1,dA_{(1)}={\displaystyle \frac{msin\theta }{g_s}}dy_1dy_2,`$
$`B_{y_1y_2}=tan\theta (1H^1)`$ (3)
where $`H=1+m|z|`$ and $`H^{}=1+cos^2\theta (H1)`$. Here $`m=m_0g_s/cos\theta `$ and we reserve $`m_0`$ to denote the mass parameter (cosmological constant) of the massive type IIA supergravity . The parameter $`g_s`$ represents string coupling. This configuration has nontrivial $`B`$-field along with a constant flux of gauge fields and is interpreted as a bound state of D6 and D8 branes. Note the value of $`B`$ is $`tan\theta (1H^1)`$ which is usually the case with all (D$`(p2),`$D$`p`$) bound states for $`(2p6)`$, see . It is therefore interesting to study the non-commutative Yang-Mills decoupling limits  for (D6,D8) bound state (2), which we will do in the next section.

The bound state (2) was obtained by exploiting the massive T-duality symmetries in $`D=8`$, see  for details. However, we shall show next that above bound state can also be constructed by using massive T-duality rules in nine dimensions . These nine-dimensional massive T-duality rules were constructed in order to relate massive type IIA backgrounds with type IIB backgrounds in nine dimensions.

### 2.1 D7-brane and massive duality in $`D=9`$

In the case of asymptotically flat branes, in order to construct (D$`(p2)`$,D$`p`$) bound states with nontrivial $`B_{\mu \nu }`$ field there is a well known procedure described in .111 D$`p`$/D$`(p2)`$ brane bound states have also been worked out in . According to this method, we need to start with parallel D$`(p1)`$-branes delocalised along one transverse direction, $`y`$ (say), and subsequently make a rotation in a plane involving the isometry direction $`y`$ and a spatial direction parallel to the branes. A subsequent application of T-duality along one of the rotated coordinates generates a solution with $`B`$-field. We shall be adopting this method to obtain (D6,D8) brane bound state.

We start with the delocalised D7-branes in type IIB string theory given in ,

$`ds^2=H^{\frac{1}{2}}\left\{H^1(dt^2+dx_1^2+\mathrm{}+dx_7^2)+dz^2+dy^2\right\},`$
$`e^{2\varphi ^{(b)}}=H^2,\chi _{(0)}=my,`$ (4)
with the harmonic function $`H(z)=1+m|z|`$. (We have set $`g_s=1`$ in this section). Note that the harmonic function is linear in $`z`$, like in a domain-wall, and is continuous at $`z=0`$ where the brane is localized. However, $`_zH`$ is discontinuous at that point. This discontinuity is related to the tension of delocalised D7-branes (or D8-branes after duality). Following  our next step would be to make the rotation in $`(y,x_7)`$ plane,

$`\left(\begin{array}{c}y\\ x_7\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}cos\theta & sin\theta \\ sin\theta & cos\theta \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}y_1\\ y_2\end{array}\right)`$ (11)
In these new coordinates the solution (2.1) becomes

$`ds^2=H^{\frac{1}{2}}[H^1(dt^2+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{6}{}}}dx_i^2)+({\displaystyle \frac{sin^2\theta }{H}}+cos^2\theta )dy_1^2`$
$`+({\displaystyle \frac{cos^2\theta }{H}}+sin^2\theta )dy_2^2+sin2\theta (H^11)dy_1dy_2+dz^2],`$
$`e^{2\varphi ^{(b)}}=H^2,\chi _{(0)}=m(cos\theta y_1sin\theta y_2).`$ (12)
Now we would like to make T-duality along $`y_1`$ direction. One will note that neither $`y_1`$ nor $`y_2`$ is a isometry direction in the usual sense because the type IIB axion $`\chi `$ depends linearly on both of them. However, since the field strength $`d\chi `$ is constant we can make use of generalized (massive) T-duality rules constructed in . Let us identify the direction $`y_1`$ to be along the circle. This will fix the mass $`m_0`$ of massive type IIA theory to be given by $`mcos\theta `$. Using the duality relations in

$`e^{2\varphi ^{(a)}}=e^{2\varphi ^{(b)}}/g_{y_1y_1}^{(b)},g_{y_1y_1}^{(a)}=1/g_{y_1y_1}^{(b)}`$
$`B_{y_1\mu }^{(a)}=g_{y_1\mu }^{(b)}/g_{y_1y_1}^{(b)},A_{y_1}=\chi +m_0y_1`$ (13)
we obtain correspondingly a massive type IIA background

$`ds_{10}^2=H^{\frac{1}{2}}\left\{H^1(dt^2+dx_i^2)+H^1(dy_1^2+dy_2^2)+dz^2\right\},`$
$`e^{2\varphi ^{(a)}}=H^{\frac{3}{2}}H^1,dA_{(1)}=msin\theta dy_1dy_2,`$
$`B_{y_1y_2}^{(a)}=tan\theta (1H^1),`$ (14)
with $`H=1+m|z|`$ and $`H^{}=1+cos^2\theta (H1)`$. This is precisely the configuration written in eq.(2). Thus we have shown that in two different ways, one as we employed in  and the second which we have described in this section, we lead to the same end result. This is nothing but proves the compatibility of the Scherk-Schwarz reductions of massive type IIA supergravity on $`T^1`$  and on $`T^2`$  with constant background RR-fluxes.

### 2.2 Supersymmetry

It is presumed that massive T-duality preserves the supersymmetries of the background configurations in the same way as the ordinary T-duality does. Based on this hypothesis we did claim in  that (D6,D8) solution preserves 16 supersymmetries since it had been obtained through an SL(2,R) rotation of the $`D8`$-brane solution . Let us clarify on the aspects of supersymmetry, we know that massive type IIA does not have any maximally supersymmetric ground state instead the theory admits D8-branes which are half supersymmetric. On the other hand type IIB supergravity does admit maximally supersymmetric Minkowskian ground state and also $`\frac{1}{2}`$-supersymmetric brane configurations including the D7-branes above. Under the $`T^1`$ compactification these $`1/2`$-susy backgrounds are mapped from IIB side to the massive IIA side and vice versa . Note that supersymmetries do match on the both sides. Thus from this argument also (D6,D8) bound state obtained from D7-branes in last subsection must have $`1/2`$ supersymmetries. So we would like to make an explicit check of the supersymmetries of the (D6,D8) background in question and provide explicit solution for the Killing spinors.

Let us first write down most general $`SL(2,R)`$ covariant set of (D6,D8) solutions as

$`ds_{10}^2=H^{\frac{1}{2}}\left\{H^1(dt^2+dx_i^2)+H^1(dy_1^2+dy_2^2)+dz^2\right\},`$
$`e^{2\varphi }=H^{\frac{3}{2}}H^1,dA_{(1)}=bmdy_1dy_2,B_{y_1y_2}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{d}}(b+cH^1)`$ (15)
where the harmonic functions are given by

$`H=1+m|z|,H^{}=c^2+d^2H,m=m_0/d`$ (16)
and $`m_0`$ is the mass parameter of the massive type IIA supergravity. The real parameters $`a,b,c,d`$ describe an $`SL(2,R)`$ matrix $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ c& d\end{array}\right)`$. For the particular choice $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& b\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)`$ the solution (2.2) reduces to the D8-brane and for the case $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}cos\theta & sin\theta \\ sin\theta & cos\theta \end{array}\right)`$ it reduces to the background in (2).

The supersymmetric variations of dilatino and gravitino can be obtained from  which for our case are (in Einstein metric)

$`\delta \lambda {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}}_\mu \varphi \mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{5}{8\sqrt{2}}}m_0e^{\frac{5}{4}\varphi }ϵ+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{16\sqrt{2}}}e^{\frac{3}{4}\varphi }F_{\mu \nu }\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mu \nu }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}ϵ+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{24\sqrt{2}}}e^{\frac{1}{2}\varphi }H_{\mu \nu \lambda }\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mu \nu \lambda }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}ϵ`$
$`\delta \psi _\mu D_\mu ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{1}{32}}m_0e^{\frac{5}{4}\varphi }\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{1}{64}}e^{\frac{3}{4}\varphi }F_{\nu \lambda }(\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^{\nu \lambda }14\delta _\mu ^\nu \mathrm{\Gamma }^\lambda )\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}ϵ`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{48}}e^{\frac{1}{2}\varphi }H_{\rho \nu \lambda }(\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^{\rho \nu \lambda }9\delta _\mu ^\rho \mathrm{\Gamma }^{\nu \lambda })\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}ϵ`$ (17)
where $`F_{(2)}=dA_{(1)}+m_0B_{(2)}`$ and $`H_{(3)}=dB`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}`$ is the chirality operator in ten dimensions. The Killing spinors are those solutions for which these variations vanish. The dilatino equation $`\delta \lambda =0`$ for the background (2.2) simplifies to

$$\left[(c\gamma _z\gamma _{y_1}\gamma _{y_2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}+(H^{})^{\frac{1}{2}})dH^{\frac{1}{2}}\gamma _z\right]ϵ=0$$
(18)
where all small $`\gamma `$ matrices are constant 10-dimensional gamma matrices and their indices are raised and lowered with the tangent space metric. To find a solution of (18) let us make an ansatz

$$ϵ=fϵ_0^++gϵ_0^{}$$
(19)
where $`ϵ_0^\pm =\frac{1\pm \overline{\gamma }}{2}ϵ_0`$ with $`\overline{\gamma }=\gamma _z\gamma _{y_1}\gamma _{y_2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}`$. The constant spinors $`ϵ_0`$ satisfy the condition $`\gamma _zϵ_0=ϵ_0`$. Note that this projects out 16 spinors out of 32 constant spinors and thus eventually breaks half of supersymmetries. Substituting the ansatz (19) in (18) gives us the following relation between $`f`$ and $`g`$,

$$f=\frac{d\sqrt{H}}{c+\sqrt{H^{}}}g$$
(20)
in terms of which $`ϵ=g\left(\frac{d\sqrt{H}}{c+\sqrt{H^{}}}ϵ_0^++ϵ_0^{}\right)`$. The over all function $`g`$ can be determined by gravitino variations. Consider the equation $`\delta \psi _z=0`$, this implies that $`g`$ must satisfy

$$_zg\frac{m}{32}(\frac{1}{H}+\frac{6c^2}{HH^{}}\frac{8c}{H\sqrt{H^{}}})g=0$$
(21)
Now taking $`g`$ to be of the form $`gH^pH^q(c+\sqrt{H^{}})^r`$ and substituting it in the eq. (21) we find that $`p,q,r`$ have a unique solution

$$p=\frac{1}{32},q=\frac{3}{16},r=\frac{1}{2}.$$

Thus the Killing spinors for the (D6,D8) background are

$`ϵ`$ $`=`$ $`H^{\frac{1}{32}}H^{\frac{1}{16}}\left[\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{c}{\sqrt{H^{}}}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}ϵ_0^++\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{c}{\sqrt{H^{}}}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}ϵ_0^{}\right].`$ (22)
It could be checked that all other Killing equations are satisfied by this solution. When $`c=0`$ eq.(2.2) becomes a D8-brane background and eq.(22) also reduces to standard Killing spinors for these branes. In summary, we have proved that the (D6,D8) bound state preserves 16 supercharges same as D$`8`$-branes. Thus the action of massive duality rotations on the backgrounds do not break supersymmetries of the backgrounds. It also indirectly means that massive type II theories obtained through generalized Scherk-Schwarz reduction of type II supergravities compactified on $`T^2`$ are maximal supergravity theories.

### 2.3 Massive $`B`$-field

Let us briefly discuss the massive nature of the 2-rank tensor field $`B`$ in the background (2). As it can be seen from the 2-form field strength $`F_{(2)}=dA+m_0B`$ and the 3-form field strength $`H_{(3)}=dB`$ that there is a (stueckelberg) gauge invariance through which $`B`$-field can eat one-form $`A`$ and become massive. Let us define $`B^{}=B+\frac{1}{m_0}dA`$ and replace every where in the action $`F_{(2)}m_0B^{}`$ while $`H=dB^{}`$. Under this gauge fixing background (2) can be reexpressed as

$`ds_{10}^2=H^{1/2}\left\{H^1(dt^2+dx_i^2)+H^1(dy_1^2+dy_2^2)+dz^2\right\},`$
$`e^{2\varphi }=g_s^2H^{\frac{3}{2}}H^1,B^{}={\displaystyle \frac{tan\theta }{H^{}}}dy_1dy_2,`$ (23)
with $`H=1+m|z|,H^{}=1+cos^2\theta (H1)`$ and $`m=m_0g_s/cos\theta `$. Here $`B^{}`$ field is explicitly massive with mass being $`m_0`$.222 Although it is difficult to define a mass in the domain-wall (curved) backgrounds. Here mass means that field has $`(mass)^2`$ term in the action, see the Appendix. Nevertheless background in (2.3) is half-supersymmetric.

The scalar curvature for above background metric is

$$R=\frac{14m^2+2mm^{}(5+19m^{}|z|)+m^2(21+52m^{}|z|+45m^2|z|^2)}{4H^{\frac{5}{2}}H^2}$$
(24)
where we have defined $`m^{}=mcos^2\theta `$. This result will be used in the next section. When $`\theta =0`$, $`m^{}`$ becomes equal to $`m`$ and the expression in eq.(24) reduces to the curvature for pure D8-brane background.

So far we chose to keep plus sign in the harmonic function of the type $`H=1\pm m|z|`$ although solutions exist with both the signs. It has been found in  that for D8-branes with $`+`$ve tension 333Tension of D$`p`$-brane is defined as $`T_p\frac{1}{g_s(\alpha ^{})^{\frac{p+1}{2}}}`$, a lower sign in the harmonic function $`H=1\pm m|z|`$ is favored. If we use a negative sign in the harmonic function $`H`$ in (2.3), it follows that as we go far away from the 8-branes not only string coupling but also $`B`$-field diverges. Thus such D8-brane configurations cannot be defined independently and far away from the orientifold 8-planes . Near the O8-planes the above geometry has to take into account the back reaction from the orientifolds also and the geometry will be appropriately modified. In terms of string quantities $`g_s`$ and $`\alpha ^{}`$, the type IIA mass parameter $`m_0`$ can suitably be expressed as $`m_0=\frac{c_8N}{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}`$, with $`c_8`$ being an appropriate combinatoric factor and $`N`$ the number of D8-branes.

## 3 Non-commutative Field Theories

We are now ready to formulate a discussion in the field theory direction. It is well known fact that in the Seiberg-Witten limit ($`\alpha ^{}0`$) the closed string backgrounds describe holographic dual picture of the boundary conformal field theories (CFTs) in various brane pictures. Precisely, a CFT defined on the boundary of an anti-de Sitter (AdS) spacetime is holographic dual to the gravity (string) theory in the bulk which constitutes the AdS space . Near horizon limits of various brane solutions in (M-)string theories give rise to AdS spacetimes. We would like to see whether the same picture of AdS/CFT emerges in the case of D8-branes also. Since D8-branes are not asymptotically flat we have to be careful.

### 3.1 No $`B`$ field

We consider O8-D8 combination so we are eventually in type I picture . We will shall first consider the case without $`B`$-field. Let us consider $`N(N<8)`$ positive tension D8-branes situated at one of the orientifold plane. Including the backreaction of the O8-plane the background geometry for $`N`$ D8-branes can be written as ($`i.e.`$ with an effective mass parameter $`m_0=\frac{c_8(8N)}{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}`$)

$`ds_{10}^2=H^{\frac{1}{2}}\left\{H^1(dt^2+dx_1^2+\mathrm{}+dx_8^2)+dz^2\right\},`$
$`e^{2\varphi }=g_s^2H^{\frac{5}{2}},H=1+{\displaystyle \frac{c_8(8N)g_s}{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}}|z|.`$ (25)
Thus so long as $`N<8`$ we can consider the following decoupling limit, in analogy with other D$`p`$-branes ,

$`\alpha ^{}0,|z|\alpha ^{}u,g_s\stackrel{~}{g}(\alpha ^{})^{\frac{5}{2}},g_{YM}^2\stackrel{~}{N}=fixed,`$
where various parameters $`\stackrel{~}{g}(=g_{YM}^2),\stackrel{~}{N}`$ and the energy scale $`u`$ (the expectation value of the Higgs) are kept fixed. We are using notation $`\stackrel{~}{N}=c_8(8N)`$ in order to distinguish it from $`N`$, the number of parallel D8-branes. Note that D8 background is not asymptotically flat nevertheless we shall implement above scaling limit. Under this limit $`H\stackrel{~}{g}\stackrel{~}{N}u/\alpha ^2`$ and (3.1) becomes

$`ds^2\alpha ^{}\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{g}\stackrel{~}{N}u^5}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{g}\stackrel{~}{N}u^3}}(dt^2+dx_1^2+\mathrm{}+dx_8^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{du^2}{u^2}}\right],`$
$`e^{2\varphi }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{N}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g_{eff}}}`$ (27)
where effective super-Yang-Mills coupling at the scale $`u`$ is defined as $`g_{eff}^2=\stackrel{~}{g}\stackrel{~}{N}u^5`$. It can be seen that the expression within angular brackets on the r.h.s. of (3.1) is a space-time filling AdS10 geometry.444The decoupled background in (3.1), which is conformally $`AdS_{10}`$ type, is nevertheless a solution of massive type IIA supergravity with an effective mass parameter $`m_0=\stackrel{~}{N}/\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}`$, for any value of $`\alpha ^{}`$.  Therefore we can discuss holographic field theory on the nine-dimensional boundary of AdS spacetime in this decoupling limit. The background does not have transverse isometries, so the boundary field theory in nine dimensions would be $`𝒩=1`$ super-Yang-Mills theory with a gauge group $`SO(2N)`$ for all $`N<8`$. There is no R-symmetry in the gauge theory because the D8 background has only one transverse direction. From eq.(24) we find that the curvature scalar in string units is given by

$$\alpha ^{}R=\frac{21}{4}\sqrt{\frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{g}\stackrel{~}{N}u^5}}=\frac{21}{4}\frac{1}{g_{eff}}.$$

Thus in the IR region, $`u^5\frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{g}\stackrel{~}{N}}`$, where $`g_{eff}^21`$, super Yang-Mills description holds good. But in this region the curvature and string coupling are both large and the supergravity is not a valid description. While in the UV region, $`u^5\frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{g}\stackrel{~}{N}}`$, curvature and string coupling are small and low energy sugra is a valid description. It is useful since in UV region $`g_{eff}1`$ and the field theory breaks down at some point. Since field theories in $`D>4`$ show bad UV behaviour, it is useful that supergravity can make sense out there. However the ten-dimensional Newton’s constant $`G_N^{10}g_s^2\alpha ^4`$ goes as $`1/\alpha ^{}`$ in the decoupling limit and thus blows up. Which is some what contrary to what one expects in the decoupling limits. We will see next that Newton’s constant indeed vanishes if $`B`$-field is present.

### 3.2 $`B0`$

Now we go over to the case of D8-branes where $`B`$-field is present. The background in discussion here is given in eq.(2.3). Again the background is not asymptotically flat but we will insist that the background variations are small enough locally so that we can implement the decoupling limit. In this case the decoupling limits are slightly modified as

$`\alpha ^{}0,g_s\stackrel{~}{g}(\alpha ^{})^{\frac{3}{2}},g_{YM}^2\stackrel{~}{N}=fixed,`$
$`|z|\alpha ^{}u,cos\theta {\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^{}}{b}},(y_1,y_2){\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^{}}{b}}(\stackrel{~}{y}_1,\stackrel{~}{y}_2).`$ (28)
Various parameters $`\stackrel{~}{g},u,b,\stackrel{~}{N}`$ are held fixed and $`b`$ is the noncommutativity parameter. Under these limits the harmonic functions in (2.3) become (with $`m_0=\frac{c_8(8N)}{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}`$)

$$H\frac{\stackrel{~}{g}\stackrel{~}{N}bu}{\alpha ^2},H^{}=1+\frac{\stackrel{~}{g}\stackrel{~}{N}u}{b}$$
(29)
and

$`ds^2\alpha ^{}\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{g}b\stackrel{~}{N}u^5}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{g}b\stackrel{~}{N}u^3}}\left(dt^2+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{6}{}}}dx_i^2+(1+{\displaystyle \frac{b}{\stackrel{~}{g}\stackrel{~}{N}u}})^1(d\stackrel{~}{y}_1^2+d\stackrel{~}{y}_2^2)\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{du^2}{u^2}}\right],`$
$`e^{2\varphi }{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{g}^2}{(\stackrel{~}{g}\stackrel{~}{N}bu)^{\frac{3}{2}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{H^{}}},B^{}={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^{}}{b}}(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{g}\stackrel{~}{N}u}{b}})^1d\stackrel{~}{y}_1d\stackrel{~}{y}_2`$ (30)
where effective gauge coupling of nine-dimensional NCYM at the scale $`u`$ is defined as $`g_{eff}^2=\stackrel{~}{g}b\stackrel{~}{N}u^5`$. Note that the ten-dimensional Newton’s constant $`G_N^{10}`$ is of the order of $`\alpha ^{}`$ and vanishes in the limit $`\alpha ^{}0`$. This is a sign that closed strings indeed get decoupled in the $`\alpha ^{}0`$ limit when $`B`$-field is present. Note from (3.2) that after the decoupling limit massive $`B^{}`$ field precisely behaves as in 4-dimensional NCYM theories .

The decoupling limits (3.2) and the decoupled geometry (3.2) do indicate that there is a dual NCYM theory, but where does this NCYM live? In the type-I’ theory there are two orientifold fixed planes, one at $`z=0`$ and other at $`z=\pi `$, and 16 D8-branes are sandwiched between these two fixed points. At the fixed points the NS-NS $`B`$-field vanishes, as it can be seen from eq.(2) also. Therefore, there cannot be any noncommutativity if we place $`N`$ D8-branes right at the fixed point $`z=0`$ and rest $`(16N)`$ at the other fixed point. However if we place $`N`$ D8-branes at some finite distance away, say at $`z=z_0`$, there is a nonvanishing $`B`$-field background there.555 The harmonic function $`H(z)`$ in (2) and (2.3) would become $`H=1+\frac{c_88}{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}z_0+\frac{c_8(8N)}{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}(zz_0)`$ in the region $`z_0<z<\pi `$ since cosmological constant $`m_0`$ jumps between the branes. Note that such a $`z`$-dependent $`B`$-field along the world-volume directions of the D-brane is not projected out under orientifolding in type I’ theory and nor the constant RR 2-form ’flux’ in (2) .666I thank Ashoke for discussion on these aspects. Under the scaling limit (3.2), $`z_0\alpha ^{}\lambda `$ and $`(zz_0)\alpha ^{}u`$, where $`\lambda `$ would act like a IR cutoff in the YM theory and it will measure the separation between O8-plane and $`N`$ D8-branes.777The actual expression for $`g_{eff}^2\stackrel{~}{g}b(1+\frac{8\lambda }{(8N)u})u^5`$. Effectively speaking $`\lambda `$ would become a UV cutoff for the case when $`N>8`$. While dealing with the decoupling limits (3.2), we have ignored $`\lambda `$ assuming that it is infinitesimal. The resultant background written in (3.2) should be seen from that perspective. These D8-branes under the decoupling limit will be described by a non-commutative Yang-Mills with gauge group $`SU(N)`$ with $`N<8`$.

Now, it is easy to see from eq.(3.2) that only when $`u\frac{b}{\stackrel{~}{g}\stackrel{~}{N}}`$ $`(i.e.b^2u^4g_{eff}^2)`$, the geometry in (3.2) becomes conformally AdS10 and the whole background reduces to that in (3.1). Thus we have a commutative phase in YM theory in the UV region. But in the UV region effective gauge coupling is large, so field theory is not quite well defined. However, the dual supergravity description holds good since string coupling and the curvature

$$e^{2\varphi _{UV}}\frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{N}^2}\frac{1}{g_{eff}},\alpha ^{}R_{UV}=\frac{45}{4}\frac{1}{g_{eff}}$$
(31)
both are small in UV region.

Let us go to the IR region where $`u\frac{b}{\stackrel{~}{g}\stackrel{~}{N}}`$ $`(i.e.b^2u^4g_{eff}^2)`$. We have a non-commutative phase where the coordinates $`\stackrel{~}{y}_1,\stackrel{~}{y}_2`$ are noncommutative; $`i.e.`$ $`[\stackrel{~}{y}_1,\stackrel{~}{y}_2]b`$. In IR region string coupling and curvature are given by

$$e^{2\varphi _{IR}}\frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{N}^2}\frac{g_{eff}}{b^2u^4},\alpha ^{}R_{IR}=\frac{21}{4}\frac{1}{g_{eff}}.$$
(32)
In the IR region where $`b^2u^4g_{eff}^21(i.e.\frac{1}{(\stackrel{~}{g}\stackrel{~}{N}b)^{\frac{1}{5}}}u\frac{b}{\stackrel{~}{g}\stackrel{~}{N}})`$ the string coupling and curvature are small and sugra description holds good. This region can be approached if parameters are chosen such that $`b^{\frac{3}{2}}\stackrel{~}{g}\stackrel{~}{N}`$. Since $`g_{eff}^21`$ the NCYM is strongly coupled. Further towards the lower IR region $`u\frac{1}{(\stackrel{~}{g}\stackrel{~}{N}b)^{\frac{1}{5}}}`$ and into deep IR region, both the string quantities are large, but the field theory description is perturbatively well defined due to the weak gauge coupling, $`g_{eff}^21`$.

In the strong string coupling region type IIA brane systems are well described only in an appropriate M-theory picture. Note that (D6,D8) background is a solution of Romans’ theory which has no straight forward M-theory relationship, see . We shall describe next a possible way to go to M-theory side based on the approach in .

### 3.3 (M5,KK) bound state

The M-theory background can be obtained by mapping (D6,D8) solution first to (D4,D6) solution of type IIA supergravity in the following way. We start with (D6,D8) bound state (2) and compactify two coordinates, $`x_5,x_6`$, on a $`T^2`$. Then we follow it up with an SL(2,R) rotation $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right)`$. Up-lifting the rotated 8-dimensional configuration back to ten dimensions (using the rules described in ) would give us following (D4,D6) configuration of type IIA

$`ds_{10}^2=H^{\frac{1}{2}}\left\{H^1(dt^2+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}}dx_i^2)+H^1(dy_1^2+dy_2^2)+(dz^2+dx_5^2+dx_6^2)\right\},`$
$`e^{2\varphi }=g_s^2H^{\frac{1}{2}}H^1,dC_{(3)}={\displaystyle \frac{msin\theta }{g_s}}dy_1dy_2dx_5dx_6,`$
$`dA_{(1)}={\displaystyle \frac{mcos\theta }{g_s}}dx_5dx_6,B_{(2)}=tan\theta (1H^1)dy_1dy_2`$ (33)
with harmonic functions $`H=1+m|z|,H^{}=1+cos^2\theta (H1)`$. The parameter $`m`$ will be appropriately related to the relevant stringy quantities. This type IIA configuration is delocalized (smeared) over transverse $`x_5,x_6`$ $`T^2`$-plane. We can now easily lift this type IIA background to M-theory solution

$`ds_{11}^2=e^{4\varphi /3}(dx_{11}+A_{(1)})^2+e^{2\varphi /3}ds_{10}^2`$
$`=\left({\displaystyle \frac{H}{H^{}}}\right)^{\frac{1}{3}}\left\{(dt^2+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}}dx_i^2)+(H^{})^1[dx_{11}+{\displaystyle \frac{m}{2}}cos\theta (x_5dx_6x_6dx_5)]^2\right\}`$
$`+\left({\displaystyle \frac{H}{H^{}}}\right)^{\frac{2}{3}}\left\{dy_1^2+dy_2^2+H^{}(dz^2+dx_5^2+dx_6^2)\right\},`$
$`G_{(4)}dC_{(3)}=msin\theta dy_1dy_2dx_5dx_6+{\displaystyle \frac{mcos\theta sin\theta }{H^2}}dzdx_{11}dy_1dy_2,`$
with $`H=1+m|z|,H^{}=1+cos^2\theta (H1)`$, where $`m`$ is now related to the M-theory quantities as $`m\frac{N_5l_p^3}{a_xa_y}`$.888 The radius, $`R_{11}`$, of the circle coordinate $`x_{11}`$ is related to the string coupling as $`R_{11}=e^{2\varphi /3}l_p`$ and 11-dimensional Planck length as $`l_p^2=g_s^{2/3}\alpha ^{}`$. $`N_5`$ is the number of M5-branes , $`a_x`$ and $`a_y`$ are related to the sizes of the two transverse $`T^2`$s, $`x_5,x_6`$ and $`y_1,y_2`$ respectively. This solution represents a bound state system of M5-brane and Kaluza-Klein (Taub-NUT) monopoles and is smeared over two transverse $`T^2`$s. Coordinates $`t,x_1,\mathrm{},x_4,x_{11}`$ are along M5-branes while $`C_{\mu \nu \lambda }`$-field is along $`x_{11},y_1,y_2`$ which is responsible for having Taub-NUT (TN) charges in this background. When $`\theta =0`$ in (3.3) the background reduces to $`TN\times Mink_7`$ . If we set $`\theta =\pi /2`$ then solution reduces to pure M5-branes with $`G`$-flux over $`T^2\times T^2`$.

It should be clear that solution (3.3) represents an equivalent M-theory background for (D6,D8) solution with $`B`$-field. It is rather appropriate to discuss decoupling limits of this solution when string coupling becomes large. Corresponding scaling limits for (3.3) when $`\alpha ^{}0`$ can be determined and these are

$`{\displaystyle \frac{|z|}{\alpha ^{}}}=u=fixed,l_p(\alpha ^{})^{1/3},R_{11}=N_5=Fixed`$
$`cos\theta {\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^{}}{b}},a_x\alpha ^2\stackrel{~}{a}_x,a_y\alpha ^2\stackrel{~}{a}_y`$ (35)
with $`\stackrel{~}{a}_x`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{a}_y`$ are fixed area parameters. Note that the areas of transverse $`T^2`$s also shrink to zero under this scaling. It can be checked that the background (3.3) indeed gets decoupled in the limit (3.3). So in the IR region where the size of eleventh dimension measured in Planck units $`R_{11}(u)/l_p=e^{2\varphi /3}`$ becomes large it is useful to study above decoupling limits where $`l_p0`$. The corresponding boundary field theory would be a non-local $`6D`$ (0,2) SCFT on a circle . The nonlocality arises due to the presence of Taub-NUT charges in the M5-brane solutions.999 See  for nonlocal 6-dimensional field theories. Let us note down the curvature of the 11-dimensional spacetime measured in the Planck units in the IR region (using eq. (32))

$$l_p^2Re^{2\varphi /3}(\alpha ^{}R)\left(\frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{N}^2g_{eff}^2b^2u^4}\right)^{\frac{1}{3}}.$$
(36)
The eleven-dimensional curvature measured in Planck units is still large when $`u0`$. Therefore this low energy supergravity description will not be reliable as corresponding (M5,KK) backgrounds would receive higher curvature corrections. But as we saw NCYM and the CFT theories in this region are weakly coupled and can make a good description.

## 4 (D4,D6,D8) bound state

It is desirable to obtain D8-branes with $`B`$-field of higher rank. To obtain such solutions we can apply the same method described in section-5 of  which led to the construction of (D6,D8) solution. We start with (D6,D8) bound state (2) and compactify two coordinates, $`x_5,x_6`$, on $`T^2`$. Then follow it up with an SL(2,R) rotation $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}cos\psi & sin\psi \\ sin\psi & cos\psi \end{array}\right)`$. Up-lifting the rotated 8-dimensional configuration to ten dimensions (using the rules described in ) would give us following new configuration of massive type IIA supergravity,

$`ds_{10}^2=H^{\frac{1}{2}}\left\{H^1(dt^2+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}}dx_i^2)+f^1(dx_5^2+dx_6^2)+H^1(dy_1^2+dy_2^2)+dz^2\right\},`$
$`e^{2\varphi }=g_s^2H^{\frac{1}{2}}f^1H^1,dC_{(3)}={\displaystyle \frac{msin\psi sin\theta }{g_s}}dy_1dy_2dx_5dx_6,`$
$`dA_{(1)}={\displaystyle \frac{mcos\psi sin\theta }{g_s}}dy_1dy_2{\displaystyle \frac{mcos\theta sin\psi }{g_s}}dx_5dx_6,`$
$`B_{(2)}=tan\theta (1H^1)dy_1dy_2+tan\psi (1f^1)dx_5dx_6`$ (37)
with harmonic functions $`H=1+m|z|,H^{}=1+cos^2\theta (H1)`$ and $`f=1+cos^2\psi (H1)`$. Here parameter $`m=\frac{m_0g_s}{cos\psi cos\theta }`$ and as usual $`m_0`$ denotes the mass (cosmological constant) of the massive type IIA supergravity. This solution has sixteen supersymmetries and can be described as a bound state of D4, D6 and D8-branes as corresponding magnetic charges are present in this solution. Note that the $`B`$-field in the above solution has rank four while in the (D6,D8) solution it had rank two only. One may also describe NCYM decoupling limits for this bound state as well, similar to the case of (D6,D8) solution, but we simply do not attempt it here.

## 5 Summary

In this paper we have shown that the (D6,D8) bound state  with $`B`$ field can also be obtained by using T-duality map between massive-type-IIA supergravity and type-IIB supergravity in $`D=9`$ . We have also explicitly written down the Killing spinors which are preserved by this bound state configuration. We find that though $`B`$-field is explicitly massive the (D6,D8) background preserves 16 supersymmetries.

We have then studied Yang-Mills decoupling limits and have discussed the behaviour of field theories at various energy scales. We are surprised to note that these 9-dimensional super-Yang-Mills theories with maximal supersymmetries are non-commutative in the IR region while they become commutative in UV region. This is quite opposite to what we observe in the case of NCYMs in four dimensions where non-commutativity appears only in the UV region and it disappears as we go to IR region and the theories become ordinary super-Yang-Mills. On one hand this may not surprise us so much as we know that noncommutative field theories any way show UV/IR mixing.

Thus the appearance of non-commutativity as we go to IR region is some what very peculiar feature of the nine-dimensional NCYMs presented here. We could not understand this unusual behaviour of the $`D=9`$ NCYMs, nevertheless we are able to expose this property simply by studying the decoupling limits involving D8-branes with $`B`$-field. From section-3 we note that there is a decreasing jump in the spacetime curvature as we move from the IR region to UV region of dual NCYM theory. Since $`g_{eff}^{UV}g_{eff}^{IR}`$, the AdS curvature is more in the IR region as compared to the UV region. This would mean the NCYM theory flows from higher curvature (weak gauge coupling) IR region to a smaller curvature (strong gauge coupling) UV point. It is not unusual to have such a flow, the gauge theories already in five dimensions flow to strong coupling ($`g_{YM}=\mathrm{}`$) UV fixed point  where gauge symmetry enhancement takes place. There the symmetries are enhanced to exceptional groups $`E_{N+1}`$. These gauge groups could be any $`E_8,E_7,E_6,E_5=Spin(10),E_4=SU(5),E_3=SU(3)\times SU(2),E_2=SU(2)\times U(1)`$ and $`E_1=SU(2)`$ depending upon the number, $`N`$, of D8-branes present at the orientifold. Therefore in UV region, the 9D NCYMs must flow to these enhanced symmetry fixed points where commutativity is also restored.

Finally, we note that in a recent paper  it has been observed, that for non-constant (but slowly varying) closed string backgrounds, $`g_{\mu \nu },B_{\mu \nu }`$, the Seiberg-Witten relations give rise to open string metric $`G`$ and noncommutativity parameter $`\theta `$ which are spacetime dependent. For constant $`g`$ and $`B`$ the open string metric and noncommutativity parameter are however constant as well as the Yang-Mills coupling. We have not tried to obtain these open string quantities for D8-branes with $`B`$ field. In our case both $`g`$ and $`B`$, however, depend on the holographic coordinate $`z`$ itself. We do expect, in general, open string metric and non-commutativity parameter also to be dependent on $`z`$ ($`i.e.`$ $`u`$). Lastly, since $`z`$ is a coordinate transverse to the brane directions the Moyal star product $`fg`$ should be well defined locally (at any given position $`z=z_0`$ of the boundary). It will also be associative. The $`z`$-dependence is probably an indication of the fact that nine-dimensional NCYMs are nonrenormalizable and heavily cut-off dependent.

###### Acknowledgments.

I would like to thank D. Ghosal, R. Gopakumar, D. Jatkar and A. Sen for helpful discussions. This work commenced when I was a member of the theory group at Fachbereich Physik, Martin-Luther-Universität, Halle (Germany) for which I would like to thank Jan Louis for great hospitality and for providing enriching environment for research.
## Appendix A Romans’ type IIA supergravity

The 10-dimensional type IIA supergravity, which describes the low energy limit of type IIA superstrings, contains in the massless bosonic spectrum the graviton $`g_{MN}`$, the dilaton $`\varphi `$, NS-NS two-form $`B_{(2)}`$, a R-R one-form $`A_{(1)}`$ and a R-R three-form $`C_{(3)}`$. The fermionic sector consists of two gravitini and two Majorana $`\frac{1}{2}`$-spinors. The Romans’ supergravity theory  is a generalization of the type IIA supergravity to include a mass term for the NS-NS $`B`$-field without disturbing the supersymmetry content of the theory. The bosonic action for Romans’ theory in the string frame can be written as (after some rescalings)101010 Our conventions are same as in  where every product of forms is understood to be a wedge product. We denote a $`p`$-form with a lower index like $`(p)`$.

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }[e^{2\varphi }\{R{}_{}{}^{}1+4d\varphi {}_{}{}^{}d\varphi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}H_{(3)}{}_{}{}^{}H_{(3)}^{}\}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}F_{(2)}{}_{}{}^{}F_{(2)}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}F_{(4)}{}_{}{}^{}F_{(4)}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{m_0^2}{2}}{}_{}{}^{}1`$ (38)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}dC_{(3)}dC_{(3)}B_{(2)}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}dC_{(3)}dA_{(1)}B_{(2)}^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3!}}dA_{(1)}dA_{(1)}B_{(2)}^3+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3!}}m_0dC_{(3)}B_{(2)}^3`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}m_0dA_{(1)}B_{(2)}^4+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{40}}m_0^2B_{(2)}^5],`$
where $`m_0`$ is the mass parameter. The field strengths in the action (38) are given by

$$H_{(3)}=dB_{(2)},F_{(2)}=dA_{(1)}+m_0B_{(2)},F_{(4)}=dC_{(3)}+B_{(2)}dA_{(1)}+\frac{m_0}{2}B_{(2)}^2.$$
(39)
Note that potentials $`A`$ and $`C`$ appear only through their derivatives in the action (38) and thus obey the standard $`p`$-form gauge invariance $`A_{(p)}A_{(p)}+d\lambda _{(p1)}`$. The two-form $`B`$ on the other hand also appears without derivatives but nevertheless the ‘Stueckelberg’ gauge transformation

$$\delta A=m_0\lambda _{(1)},\delta B=d\lambda _{(1)},\delta C=\lambda _{(1)}dA$$
(40)
leaves the action invariant.

Now, if we define, $`dA+m_0B=m_0B^{},C_3^{}=C_3\frac{1}{2m_0}AdA`$ then $`H=dB^{},F_{(4)}=dC^{}+\frac{m_0}{2}B^{}B^{}`$. The above action reduces to

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }[e^{2\varphi }\{R{}_{}{}^{}1+4d\varphi {}_{}{}^{}d\varphi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}H_{(3)}{}_{}{}^{}H_{(3)}^{}\}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_0^2B^{}{}_{}{}^{}B_{}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}F_{(4)}{}_{}{}^{}F_{(4)}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{m_0^2}{2}}{}_{}{}^{}1`$ (41)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}dC_{(3)}^{}dC_{(3)}^{}B_{(2)}^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3!}}m_0dC_{(3)}^{}(B_{(2)}^{})^3+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{40}}m_0^2(B_{(2)}^{})^5],`$
For the kind of backgrounds in (2.3) for which $`B^{}B^{}=0,C^{}=0`$ above action reduces to (with fermionic backgrounds vanishing)

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }[e^{2\varphi }\{R{}_{}{}^{}1+4d\varphi {}_{}{}^{}d\varphi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}H_{(3)}{}_{}{}^{}H_{(3)}^{}\}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_0^2B^{}{}_{}{}^{}B_{}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{m_0^2}{2}}{}_{}{}^{}1]`$ (42)
which involves an explicit mass term for $`B^{}`$ field and a cosmological constant term.


format: text

text:
# The strange-quark chemical potential as an experimentally accessible ”order parameter” of the deconfinement phase transition for finite baryon-density

## 1 Introduction

It is generally expected that ultra-relativistic nucleus-nucleus collisions will provide the basis for strong interaction thermodynamics, which will lead to new physics. Quantum Chromodynamics for massless quarks free of dimensional scales contain the intrinsic potential for the spontaneous generation of two scales: one for the confinement force, coupling quarks to form hadrons and one for the chiral force, binding the collective excitations to Goldstone bosons. In thermodynamics, these two scales lead to two possible consecutive phase transitions, deconfinement and chiral symmetry restoration, characterized by corresponding critical temperatures: $`T_d`$ and $`T_\chi `$, . At temperatures above $`T_d`$, hadrons dissolve into quarks and gluons, whereas at $`T_\chi `$, chiral symmetry is fully restored and quarks become almost massless (assuming that a thermal mass is acquired for $`T>T_d`$), forming the Quark - Gluon Plasma (QGP). A priori it is not evident that both non-perturbative transitions have to take place at the same temperature. At finite net baryon number density, $`T_d<T_\chi `$ would correspond to a regime of unbound, massive, correlated and interacting, ’constituent-like’ quarks , as they appear in the additive quark model for hadron-hadron and hadron-lepton interactions . Thus, the consecutive appearance of these two transitions, deconfinement and chiral symmetry restoration, forms an intermediate region on the phase diagram, the Deconfined Quark Matter (DQM), in-between the Hadron Gas (HG) and the chiral QGP domains. Therefore, we define a QCD phase diagram of strongly interacting matter at finite baryon number density with three regions: HG - DQM - QGP \[4-6\].

The necessity for such an intermediate region with interacting quarks and gluons is conjectured also from recent lattice calculations , which show that $`\epsilon (2T_d)0.85\epsilon _{SB}`$ and $`3P(2T_d)0.66\epsilon _{SB}`$, where $`\epsilon _{SB}`$ is the Stefan-Boltzmann ideal QGP value for the energy density. In addition, the running coupling constant has a value $`\alpha _s(T300MeV)0.3`$, indicating substantial strong interaction even at this high temperature. These observations substantiate quantitatively the need for an intermediate domain with $`1>\alpha _s>0`$, where massive and correlated-interacting quarks are found. This domain does not have a defined upper border, but goes asymptotically into the chirally symmetric QGP region with increasing temperature and quark chemical potential. At zero baryon density, $`T_d=T_\chi =T_0(\mu _q=0)`$, and the DQM domain vanishes.

Such a 3-state phase diagramme could be described by the variation of thermodynamic quantities from one region to the other. The task is to establish a well-defined quantity, which changes concisely (and measurably) as nuclear matter changes phases, thus indicating deconfinement and / or chiral symmetry restoration. If this quantity can be expressed in a functional form of other thermodynamic parameters (for example the temperature) within an Equation of State (EoS), one may then describe accurately its variation throughout the phase diagramme and employ it as an order parameter. We propose and show that the equilibrated strange-quark chemical potential of the strongly interacting system is the sought-for thermodynamic quantity. This suggestion was firstly put forth earlier in .

In sections 2, 3 and 4 we discuss the partition functions for the strange hadron sector in the HG, chiral QGP and DQM phases, respectively. Taking into account in an approximate way the dynamics of the DQM phase, we construct an empirical Equation of State for this domain. We employ it, together with the known EoS of the HG and QGP phases, to obtain the strange-quark chemical potential in a functional form of the temperature and light-quark chemical potential throughout the phase diagram. With this relation we study the variation of $`\mu _s`$, attributing the changes in the sign and magnitude of the strange-quark chemical potential to the changes of phase of nuclear matter. In section 5 we summarize several thermal model analyses of experimental particle yield data from nucleus-nucleus interactions at AGS and SPS. Among the latter, the S+A interactions at 200 AGeV may be characterized by the existence of negative strange-quark chemical potential. In section 6 we predict the values for certain strange particle ratios and suggest experiments at RHIC at lower energies, where the baryon number density is finite. Finally, in section 7 we discuss our proposals and come to conclusions whether the S+A and Pb+Pb interactions at the SPS have entered the deconfined phase.

## 2 Hadron Gas phase

In the HG phase, the mass spectrum is given in the Boltzmann approximation by the partition function, $`\mathrm{ln}Z_{HG}`$. We assume that the hadronic state has attained thermal and chemical equilibration of three quark flavors (u, d, s):

$`\mathrm{ln}Z_{HG}(T,V,\lambda _q,\lambda _s)`$ $`=`$ $`Z_m+Z_n(\lambda _q^3+\lambda _q^3)+Z_K(\lambda _q\lambda _s^1+\lambda _q^1\lambda _s)+Z_Y(\lambda _q^2\lambda _s+\lambda _q^2\lambda _s^1)`$ (1)
$`+Z_\mathrm{\Xi }(\lambda _q\lambda _s^2+\lambda _q^1\lambda _s^2)+Z_\mathrm{\Omega }(\lambda _s^3+\lambda _s^3)(q=u,d)`$
The one particle Boltzmann partition function $`Z_k`$ is given by

$$Z_k(V,T)=\frac{VT^3}{2\pi ^2}\underset{j}{}g_j\left(\frac{m_j}{T}\right)^2K_2\left(\frac{m_j}{T}\right)$$

The fugacity $`\lambda _i^k`$ controls the quark content of the k-hadron, i = s, b for strangeness and baryon number \[$`\lambda _b=\lambda _q^3=e^{3\mu _q/T}`$\], respectively. The summation in Eq. (2) runs over the resonances of each hadron species with mass $`m_j`$, and the degeneracy factor $`g_j`$ counts the spin and isospin degrees of freedom of the j-resonance. For the strange hadron sector, kaons with masses up to 2045 MeV/c2, hyperons up to 2350 MeV/c2 and cascades up to 2025 MeV/c2 are included, as well as the known $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-states at 1672 MeV and 2252 MeV. For simplicity, we assume isospin symmetry in Eq. (1), $`\mu _u=\mu _d=\mu _q`$. Strangeness neutrality in strong interactions necessitates:

$$<N_sN_{\overline{s}}>=\frac{T}{V}\frac{}{\mu _s}\mathrm{ln}Z_{HG}(T,V,\lambda _q,\lambda _s)=0$$
(2)
which reduces to

$$Z_K(\lambda _q^1\lambda _s\lambda _q\lambda _s^1)+Z_Y(\lambda _q^2\lambda _s\lambda _q^2\lambda _s^1)+2Z_\mathrm{\Xi }(\lambda _q\lambda _s^2\lambda _q^1\lambda _s^2)+3Z_\mathrm{\Omega }(\lambda _s^3\lambda _s^3)=0$$
(3)
This is an important condition as it defines the relation between light- and strange-quark fugacities in the equilibrated primordial state. Eq. (4) can be used to derive the true (transverse-flow independent) temperature of the state, once the fugacities $`\lambda _q`$ and $`\lambda _s`$ are known from experimental strange particle yield ratios .

In the HG phase with finite net baryon number density, the chemical potentials $`\mu _q`$ and $`\mu _s`$ are coupled through the production of strange hadrons. Due to this coupling, strangeness conservation does not necessitate $`\mu _s=0`$ everywhere in this phase. In fact, $`\mu _s>0`$ in the hadronic domain. The condition $`\mu _s=0`$ requires $`\lambda _s=\lambda _s^1=1`$, and Eq. (4) becomes ,

$`\left[Z_Y(\lambda _q+\lambda _q^1)Z_K+2Z_\mathrm{\Xi }\right](\lambda _q\lambda _q^1)=0`$
The first factor gives the curve $`\mu _q`$ as a function of T in the phase diagram, along which $`\mu _s=0`$:

$$\mu _q(T)=T\mathrm{cosh}^1\left(\frac{Z_K}{2Z_Y}\frac{Z_\mathrm{\Xi }}{Z_Y}\right)$$
(4)
A more elegant and concise formalism describing the HG phase is the Strangeness-including Statistical Bootstrap model (SSBM) . It includes the hadronic interactions through the mass spectrum of all hadron species, in contrast to all other ideal hadron gas formalisms. The SSBM is valid and applicable only within the hadronic phase, defining in a determined way the limits of this phase. The boundary of the hadronic domain is given by the projection on the 2-dimensional (T, $`\mu _q`$) phase diagram of the intersection of the 3-dimensional bootstrap surface with the strangeness-neutrality surface ($`\mu _s=0`$). Note that the vanishing of the strange-quark chemical potential on the HG borderline does not apriori suggest that $`\mu _s=0`$ everywhere beyond this phase. It only states that $`\mu _s=0`$ characterizes the end of the hadronic phase. According to this definition of the HG boundary, we consider the hadronic phase, described by Eq. (4) in the ideal HG model, to be terminated at the line where the strange quark chemical potential vanishes, despite the fact that Eq. (4) maps the hadronic domain independently of the value of $`\mu _s`$. That is, in the ideal HG model we consider the upper limit of the hadronic phase to be defined by Eq. (5). The relative position of the two boundaries for the hadron gas domain on the phase diagram, as defined by the two models, is shown in Fig. 1. We note that the ideal HG boundary lies about 15 MeV higher than the SSBM one (for $`\mu _q<100MeV`$), due to the absence of interactions in the former.

## 3 Chirally symmetric QGP phase

In the chirally symmetric QGP region, the partition function for the current-mass u, d, s-quarks and gluons has the form:

$$\mathrm{ln}Z_{QGP}(T,V,\mu _q,\mu _s)=\frac{V}{T}\left[\frac{37}{90}\pi ^2T^4+\mu _q^2T^2+\frac{\mu _q^4}{2\pi ^2}+\frac{g_sm_s^{02}T^2}{2\pi ^2}(\lambda _s+\lambda _s^1)K_2\left(\frac{m_s^0}{T}\right)\right]$$
(5)
where $`m_s^0`$ and $`g_s`$ is the current-mass and degeneracy of the s-quark, respectively. Strangeness conservation gives $`\lambda _s=\lambda _s^1=1`$, or

$$\mu _s^{QGP}(T,\mu _q)=0$$
(6)
throughout this phase. Here the two order parameters, the average thermal Wilson loop $`<L>`$ and the scalar quark density $`<\overline{\psi }\psi >`$, have reached their asymptotic values. Note that the chirally symmetric quark-gluon plasma phase always corresponds to a vanishing strange quark chemical potential, even if we take into account perturbative corrections to the partition function of Eq. (6). Thus, the chiral symmetry restoration critical temperature $`T_\chi `$ is not associated with the fact that we consider, for simplicity, an ideal quark-gluon gas to describe the QGP.

## 4 Deconfined Quark Matter Phase (DQM)

In formulating our description beyond the hadronic phase, we use the following picture: The thermally and chemically equilibrated primordial state at finite baryon number density, produced in nucleus-nucleus interactions, consists of the deconfined valance quarks of the participant nucleons, as well as of $`q\overline{q}`$ pairs (q=u,d,s), created by quark and gluon interactions. Beyond but near the HG boundary, $`TT_d`$, the correlation-interaction between $`qq`$ is near maximum, $`\alpha _s(T)1`$, a prelude to confinement into hadrons upon hadronization. With increasing temperature, the correlation-interaction of the deconfined quarks gradually weakens, $`\alpha _s(T)0`$, as colour mobility and colour charge screening increase. The mass of all (anti)quarks depend on the temperature and scale according to a prescribed way. The initially constituent mass decreases with increasing T, and as the DQM region goes asymptotically into the chirally symmetric QGP domain, as $`TT_\chi `$, quarks attain current mass. In this formulation, the equation of state in the DQM region should lead to the EoS of the hadronic phase, Eq. (1), at $`T<T_d`$, and to the EoS of the QGP, Eq. (6), at $`TT_\chi `$.

To construct the empirical EoS in the DQM phase, we use the two order parameters (for details see Appendix A):

1. Average thermal Wilson loop, $`<L>=e^{F_q/T}R_d(T)=01`$, as $`T=T_dT_\chi `$, describing the quark deconfinement and subsequent colour mobility, $`F_q`$ being the free quark energy.
2. Scalar quark density, $`<\overline{\psi }\psi >R_\chi (T)=10`$, as $`T=T_dT_\chi `$, denoting the scaling of the quark mass with temperature.

Although the Wilson-Polyakov loop is not yet calculated for a finite density system, we consider that, in the case of non zero baryochemical potential, it has a smooth temperature dependence, as suggested in \[10111These finite baryon density simulations use a canonical partition function and have provided results in the quenched (heavy quark mass) limit of QCD within the presence of static quarks.,11\], attaining non-limiting values for a range of temperatures and, therefore, implying the broadening of the transition region. This permits us to approximate the order parameter for the finite baryon density case with an arbitrary, general, yet non-step functional form.

### 4.1 Definition of the order parameters

In order to construct the EoS in the DQM region it is necessary to employ an analytic functional form of the order parameters. We have approximated the Wilson loop, obtained from zero density lattice calculations, with two different functions of temperature and chemical potential:

$$R_d(T)=\{\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Theta }(TT_d),\mu _q=0\hfill \\ \\ \frac{1}{1+\mathrm{exp}[\alpha (T\beta )]},\mu _q>0\hfill \end{array}$$
(7)
and

$$R_d(T)=\{\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Theta }(TT_d),\mu _q=0\hfill \\ \\ c\left(\frac{TT_d}{T}\right)^\nu ,\mu _q>0\hfill \end{array}$$
(8)
In Eq. (7) a Fermi-type function is used for finite $`\mu _q`$, where the parameters $`\{\alpha ,\beta \}`$ control the difference of the critical temperatures $`T_d`$ and $`T_\chi `$, i.e., when $`R_d0`$ and $`R_d1`$, respectively. They can be chosen arbitrarily in order to obtain realistic compatibility with the lattice QCD results. In Eq. (8) the order parameter is described using a more common, in the theory of critical phenomena, function near the critical point $`T_d`$, where the critical exponent $`\nu `$ can be chosen according to universality class arguments or arbitrarily. The parameter $`c`$ simply controls the values of $`R_d(T)`$, so that asymptotically $`R_d(T)1`$ as $`TT_\chi `$. Note that the exact expression for the considered order parameter $`R_d(T)`$ is not of crucial importance for this qualitative description (see Appendix A). Figures 2, 3 show the approximated order parameter for different values of $`\{\alpha ,\beta \}`$ and of the critical exponent $`\nu `$, respectively, for the finite chemical potential case, $`\mu _q>0`$. In Figure 4 we show the two approximated order parameters, where for simplicity we have taken $`R_\chi (T)1R_d(T)`$ and used Eq. (8) with the parameterization $`\{\alpha =0.03,\beta =268\}`$.

### 4.2 The DQM Equation of State

We assume that above $`T_d`$ the deconfined quarks retain a degree of correlation, resembling ”hadron-like” states, since $`1>\alpha _s(T)>0`$. The diminishing of this correlation-interaction, as a result of progressive increase of colour mobility, is approximated by the factor: $`[1R_d(T)]=10`$, as $`T=T_dT_\chi `$. Note that effectively $`[1R_d(T)]\alpha _s(T)`$ in the DQM region, the temperature dependence of the running coupling constant . To account for the ”effective mass” of the state as a function of temperature, we assume the mass of the quarks to decrease from the constituent value and reach the current-mass as $`TT_\chi `$. The quark mass scales with temperature as:

$$m_q^{}(T)=R_\chi (T)(m_qm_q^0)+m_q^0$$
(9)
where $`m_q`$ and $`m_q^0`$ are the constituent and current quark masses, respectively, ($`m_u^05MeV,m_d^09MeV,m_s^0170MeV`$). Similarly, the effective hadron-like mass scales as:

$$m_i^{}(T)=R_\chi (T)(m_im_i^0)+m_i^0$$
(10)
where $`m_i`$ is the hadron mass in the hadronic phase and $`m_i^0`$ is equal to the sum of the hadron’s quarks current-mass ($`m_K^0175MeV,m_Y^0185MeV,m_X^0350MeV`$ and $`m_\mathrm{\Omega }^0510MeV`$). In the EOS, the former scaling is employed in the mass-scaled partition function $`\mathrm{ln}Z_{QGP}^{}`$, whereas the latter in the mass-scaled partition function $`\mathrm{ln}Z_{HG}^{}`$, which accounts for the produced hadron species. Note that this mass-scaling is effectively equivalent to the one given in the Nambu - Jona-Lasinio (NJL) formalism  (see Appendix B).
Employing the described dynamics, we construct an empirical partition function of the DQM phase:

$$\mathrm{ln}Z_{DQM}(V,T,\lambda _q,\lambda _s)=[1R_d(T)]\mathrm{ln}Z_{HG}^{}(V,T,\lambda _q,\lambda _s)+R_d(T)\mathrm{ln}Z_{QGP}^{}(V,T,\lambda _q,\lambda _s)$$
(11)
The proposed intermediate DQM phase should not be confused with a mixed hadronic-partonic phase. The partition function of Eq. (11) is written as a linear combination of the HG and QGP mass-scaled partition functions. It is a realistic and convenient approximation, which satisfies the general property of the partition function, describing asymptotically confinement and chiral symmetry restoration. In the intermediate temperature regime of the DQM phase, neither pure hadronic bound states, nor chirally symmetric QGP clusters can be found. In Eq. (11) the factor $`[1R_d(T)]`$ describes the weakening of the correlation-interaction of the deconfined quarks constituting the ”hadron-like” entities and gives the mass-scaling of these entities with increasing temperature. In the second term, the factor $`R_d(T)`$ defines the rate of colour mobility, whereas $`\mathrm{ln}Z_{QGP}^{}`$ represents the state as it approaches the QGP region. Thus, at $`T=T_d`$, the EoS of the DQM region goes over to the corresponding in the HG phase and at $`TT_\chi `$, to the EoS in the chirally symmetric QGP region.
Strangeness neutrality in the DQM phase leads to the EoS:

$`[1R_d(T)][Z_K^{}(\lambda _s\lambda _q^1\lambda _q\lambda _s^1)+Z_Y^{}(\lambda _s\lambda _q^2\lambda _s^1\lambda _q^2)+2Z_\mathrm{\Xi }^{}(\lambda _s^2\lambda _q\lambda _s^2\lambda _q^1)`$
$`+3Z_\mathrm{\Omega }^{}(\lambda _s^3\lambda _s^3)]+R_d(T)g_sm_s^2K_2({\displaystyle \frac{m_s^{}}{T}})(\lambda _s\lambda _s^1)=0`$ (12)
For given $`\mu _q`$, Eq. (12) defines the variation of the strange-quark chemical potential with temperature in the DQM domain. Combining Eq’s (4, 12) we obtain the change of the strange-quark chemical potential with temperature in the entire phase diagram.

### 4.3 Zero chemical potential, $`\mu _q=0`$

In the case of vanishing baryon chemical potential, quarks attain current mass instantaneously upon deconfinement, due to the fact that $`R_\chi (T)`$ becomes a step function with $`R_\chi (T,\mu _q=0)=0`$, for temperatures $`T>T_d`$, Eq’s (7), (8). Consequently, the chirally symmetric QGP phase follows immediately after the HG phase, as can be seen from Eq. (12) and the partition function beyond the HG region is given by Eq. (6). The deconfinement and chiral symmetry transitions coincide, Td = T , and the DQM phase with negative strange-quark chemical potential vanishes. Due to vanishing baryon chemical potential, the EoS (12) leads to $`\mu _s=0`$ for all temperatures. In this case, the strange-quark chemical potential cannot provide a signal for any phase transition. Figure 5 exhibits this effect, showing the variation of $`\mu _s`$ with temperature for different values of the light-quark chemical potential $`\mu _q`$.

### 4.4 Finite chemical potential, $`\mu _q>0`$

The situation for a non-vanishing baryon chemical potential is not yet known in terms of lattice calculations. Within this model we can easily extend our analysis for a system of finite and fixed $`\mu _q`$ according to Eq. (12). In Fig. 6 the strange-quark chemical potential maps the QCD phase diagram as a function of $`T`$, for $`\mu _q/T=0.45`$. We observe that $`\mu _s`$ attains positive values in the HG phase, as a result of the coupling between $`\mu _q`$ and $`\mu _s`$ in strange hadrons. It approaches zero as the hadron density reaches its asymptotic Hagedorn limit at the end of the hadronic phase, where a phase transition to partonic matter takes place, at the deconfinement temperature $`T_d`$ . At this temperature, $`\mu _s(T_d)=0`$, signifying the vanishing of this coupling in hadrons. In the DQM region it grows strongly negative, where an effective correlation - progressively weakening - remains in effect among the deconfined, but interacting quarks with non-current mass. Finally $`\mu _s`$ returns to zero as the QGP phase is approached, with restored chiral symmetry (current-mass quarks) and $`\alpha _s`$ approaching zero.
Figure 7 exhibits the variation of $`\mu _s/T`$ as a function of $`T`$ throughout the 3-region phase diagram for $`\mu _q=0.45T`$. We have assumed that the deconfinement temperature is $`T_d176MeV`$ at $`\mu _q80MeV`$, as given by the SSBM hadronic phase boundary . We observe that:

a) If the deconfined-quark mass were to attain its current value ($`m_q=m_q^0`$) beyond $`T_d`$, then $`\mu _s`$ would be zero for $`T>T_d`$, curve (a).

b) If $`0<R_d<1`$ and $`m_q^0<m_q^{}(T)<m_q`$, then the EoS (12), which includes mass-scaled ”hadron-like” states, as well as (anti)quarks with scaled mass, gives large negative values for $`\mu _s/T`$ in the DQM phase. After reaching a minimum, $`\mu _s/T`$ returns asymptotically to zero as the QGP phase is approached at $`T_\chi (24)T_d`$, depending in general on $`\mu _q`$, Fig. 7, curve (b).

c) Scaling alone of the effective hadron masses produces large negative strange-quark chemical potential beyond the HG phase, saturating at high temperature without ever returning to zero at the QGP phase, Fig. 7, curve (c).

The fact that we obtain a chiral symmetry restoration temperature $`T_\chi (24)T_d`$ for $`\mu _q80MeV`$, is a result of the specific parameterization used for the order parameter. The DQM phase exists for $`0<R_d<1`$, so it is actually the condition $`R_d(T_\chi )=1`$ that determines the end of DQM at $`TT_\chi `$. In general, $`T_\chi =k(\mu _q)T_d`$, where $`k(\mu _q>0)>1`$ and $`k(\mu _q=0)=1`$. However, finite baryon chemical potential will be always associated with the existence of negative $`\mu _s`$ and therefore $`T_\chi >T_d`$, meaning that the two phase transitions, deconfinement and chiral, are apart. This is an interesting result, which is connected with the existence of negative strange-quark chemical potential. Note that there is no known argument from QCD that the two transitions occur at the same temperature for finite baryon density.

On the basis of the above observations, we propose that the change in the sign of the strange-quark chemical potential, from positive in the HG phase to negative in the DQM, defines uniquely and precisely the phase transition to quark-deconfinement at finite baryon density. The experimental observation of negative $`\mu _s`$ would be an evidence for the existence of the DQM region and consequently of the fact that chiral symmetry restoration follows deconfinement ($`T_d<T_\chi `$). We note that the sign of $`\mu _s`$, positive in the HG, negative in the DQM and zero in the QGP domains, is independent of the particular form of the parameters $`R_d`$ and $`R_\chi `$ used in the EoS and unique in each region (see Appendix A). It can be considered and used as a potentially experimentally accessible order parameter of the deconfinement phase transition. This signature is independent of assumptions and ambiguities regarding interaction mechanisms and matter media effects, as well as weakness and uncertainties in the predictive power of models, as is the case with other proposed signs for deconfinement: $`J/\psi `$ suppression, resonance shift and broadening, strangeness enhancement, etc. In the present calculation, however, the magnitude and shape of the negative chemical potential curve as a function of temperature should be taken in a qualitative manner, due to the empirical treatment of the dynamics in the DQM phase. A detailed, quantitative treatment of the DQM EoS will require the use of a three-flavor effective Lagrangian in the NJL formalism .

## 5 Experimental Data

Data from nucleus-nucleus interactions, obtained by experiments E802  at AGS and NA35 , NA49  at SPS have been analyzed in terms of several statistical-thermal models: the Strangeness-including Statistical Bootstrap Model, SSBM \[9, 15, 20-22\] and others employing the canonical and grand-canonical formalisms \[23-27\]. The data analysis is made, of course, within the inevitable limitations of all thermal-statistical models and the assumption of a thermalized and equilibrated matter. There are proposals for possible non-equilibrium effects, however thermal models seem to be in surprisingly well consistency with the experimental data. Table 1 summarizes the results of these analyses, from which the quantities $`T`$, $`\mu _q`$ and $`\mu _s`$ have been deduced. Observe that all interactions, studied so far, exhibit positive $`\mu _s`$ and therefore there does not yet exist a confident experimental confirmation of negative values for the strange-quark chemical potential. Note that in  the negative $`\mu _S`$ refers to the strangeness chemical potential, which is related to the strange-quark chemical potential by: $`\mu _S=\mu _s+\mu _q`$. This fact led to a misinterpretation in . However the sulfur-induced interactions may deserve a more cautious examination, as suggested by the SSBM analysis. In contrast to other thermal-statistical models, the Statistical Bootstrap Model (SBM) of Hagedorn  incorporates the hadronic interactions in the EoS through the bootstrap equation. The development of the SBM with the inclusion of Strangeness (SSBM) has been employed in the analysis of nucleus-nucleus interactions at the SPS. The SSBM analysis for the S+S interaction  has shown that this equilibrated state is situated mostly (75%) outside the hadronic phase, whereas the S+Ag  is just on the deconfinement line. In addition, the calculations have pointed out a large ($``$30%) entropy enhancement of the experimental data compared to the model, an effect observed also by other calculations \[23-25\]. This enhancement may be attributed to contributions from the DQM phase with many liberated new partonic degrees of freedom.

The fact that beyond the HG phase the deconfined quarks retain a degree of correlation, resembling ”hadron-like” states, allows the thermal models \[23-25\] to describe the state adequately using a hadron gas EoS. These models do not sense the HG phase limit and treat the deconfined state as consisting of colorless hadrons. However, an ideal Hadron Gas model with no interactions exhibits strong deviations from the SSBM as we approach the critical region ($`T175MeV`$), where the sulfur-induced interactions are approximately situated. Within the IHG model the condition $`\mu _s=0`$ is satisfied for a higher temperature $`T_0200MeV`$, extending the HG phase to a larger region in the phase diagram (see Fig. 1). Consequently, the negative strange-quark chemical potential, a characteristic of the region beyond the HG phase, appears at higher temperatures also for the ideal HG model, Fig. 8. This is the reason why $`\mu _s>0`$ in the analysis of , although a temperature above the deconfinement (according to the SSBM) is obtained. If the IHG curve is shifted in a way that would approximate the SSBM boundary, then negative $`\mu _s`$ should be obtained for the S+A interactions. Note that this effect is not important in the study of the other A+A interactions, because in their case the equilibrated states are situated far below the critical temperature and therefore the HG model is very close to the analysis by the SSBM. This can be seen in Table 1, where the analysis of the experimental data within the two models is almost identical for extracted temperatures below 160 MeV. For the $`Pb+Pb`$ interaction, the SSBM analysis  has shown the system to be located well within the hadronic phase. In addition, thermal model calculations  find no entropy enhancement for this interaction. Figure 9 shows the 3-flavor phase diagram with the SSBM maximally extended222The maximally extended HG phase limit is defined for $`T_0(\mu _q=0)183MeV`$, which is the maximum temperature for non-negative $`\mu _s`$ in the HG domain. Recent lattice QCD calculations give $`T_0175MeV`$ for \[2+1\] quark flavors . deconfinement line, the IHG $`\mu _s=0`$ line and the location of the state ($`T,\mu _q`$ mean values) for several interactions, Table 1. Observe that the sulfur-induced interactions at 200 $`AGeV`$, are situated beyond the SSBM deconfinement line, whereas all others are well within the hadronic phase.

## 6 Predictions for particle yield ratios at RHIC

New data obtained at RHIC with the $`Au+Au`$ interaction at $`\sqrt{s}=130AGeV`$ (see a compilation of data in ) show that at midrapidity the light quark fugacity is $`\lambda _q1.08`$, indicating very small quark chemical potential. This has an effect on the strange-quark chemical potential, making it close to zero throughout the 3-region phase diagram (see Fig. 5). In such case of minimal net baryon density, our model cannot be applied, as discussed in Section 4.3. We have, therefore, calculated the particle yield ratios $`\mathrm{\Omega }^+/\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Xi }^+/\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$ for finite baryon density, obtained in $`Au+Au`$ interactions at $`\sqrt{s}=2090AGeV`$. The quantities needed for these calculations, $`\mu _q/T`$ and $`T`$ of the equilibrated state, were obtained by fitting all available corresponding values, obtained for equilibrated states in nucleus-nucleus collisions from SIS to SPS  and extrapolating to RHIC energies. The data were fitted as a function of ($`\sqrt{s}/participant`$).

Figures 10, 11 show the fitted temperatures and $`\mu _q/T`$ and their extrapolation to higher energies, respectively. Table 2 contains the extrapolated values for $`T`$ and $`\mu _q/T`$, corresponding to equilibrated primordial states (not chemical freeze out), as well as the order of magnitude predictions of our empirical EoS in DQM for $`\mu _s/T`$ and for the two particle ratios, for two different $`R_d`$ curves. A worth mentioning result of the extrapolation is that, at $`\sqrt{s}=130AGeV`$, a primordial fireball temperature $`TO(280MeV)`$ is found, which is much higher than the freeze out temperature $`T175MeV`$, obtained in . It may be that in the region of minimal baryon chemical potential, the hadronization process of a deconfined state is continuous and smooth and thus the primordial thermodynamic quantities are not conserved. It should also be kept in mind that the available RHIC data span a very small rapidity range ($`\mathrm{\Delta }y<\pm 1`$), making unreliable the extraction of values for global thermodynamic quantities from these fits. Figure 12 shows the range of the predicted particle ratios and the maximum values of the ratios in the case where $`\mu _s`$ does not become negative, but stays zero after deconfinement. Note that negative $`\mu _s`$ means that the particle yield ratio $`\mathrm{\Omega }^+/\mathrm{\Omega }^{}=e^{6\mu _s/T}`$ becomes larger than unity. We find, within the variance of the extrapolation and the different $`R_d`$ curves that, at about $`\sqrt{s}50AGeV`$, both ratios attain their largest values $``$ (2 - 4) and $``$ (1 - 1.5) for $`\mathrm{\Omega }^+/\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Xi }^+/\mathrm{\Xi }^{}`$, respectively, compared to the maximum value of 1 and 0.55, respectively, for the case where $`\mu _s=0`$, Table 2. The observation of the above predictions is contingent on the assumption that the $`T`$, $`\mu _q`$, $`\mu _s`$ values of the primordial equilibrated state are conserved until hadronization and thus can be deduced from the particle yield ratios (see discussion below).

## 7 Summary and Discussion

We have shown that the existence of an intermediate region of deconfined, massive and correlated quarks, in-between the hadronic and chiral quark-gluon phases, is realistic and within the results of recent lattice and effective Lagrangian calculations. We have constructed an empirical EoS for the DQM phase, in terms of the order parameters and the mass-scaled partition functions of the HG and QGP phases, from which a relation for the strange-quark chemical potential is obtained in terms of $`\mu _q`$ and $`T`$. This empirical EoS includes mass-scaled strange hadrons, approximating the effects of the progressive decrease of the interaction-correlation with increasing temperature, as well as a mass-scaled QGP term. In effect, it describes realistically the gross features of the dynamics and characteristics of the DQM phase. The EoS indicates that an unambiguous and concise characteristic observable of this phase is the large negative strange-quark chemical potential. It also shows that $`\mu _s`$ may possibly be considered and used as an experimentally accessible order parameter of the deconfinement phase transition, the only such parameter proposed up to now.

Negative chemical potential appears also in condensed matter systems. For example, in a transition between weekly coupled Cooper pairs, with $`\mu >0`$ and the usual BCS superconducting gap $`|\mathrm{\Delta }k|`$, and the strongly coupled diatomic pairs, with $`\mu <0`$ and the corresponding gap $`(\mathrm{\Delta }k^2+\mu ^2)^{1/2}`$, representing an insulating system . The analogy with the baryon-dense nuclear matter case is rather the opposite. The positive strange-quark chemical potential ($`\mu _s>0`$) corresponds to a colour insulator (hadron gas state), whereas $`\mu _s<0`$ to a colour (super)conductor (deconfined partonic state). An even simpler system, such as an ideal, three dimensional Bose gas, has also a well defined chemical potential as we move above the Bose - Einstein condensation critical temperature, where $`\mu <0`$, or below this critical point, where $`\mu =0`$.

An important argument of this work is that the light and strange quark fugacities $`\lambda _q`$ and $`\lambda _s`$, as well as the temperature are attributed to the equilibrated primordial state, to which Eq’s (1,12) refer. Only in this case one would expect to observe negative strange-quark chemical potential and temperature in excess of those corresponding to deconfinement, for a state beyond the HG phase. This appears at first as ”impossible”, since hadronization always takes place on the deconfinement-hadronization line, separating the HG phase from the DQM and, therefore, these quantities should attain values only on this line. That is, always $`\mu _s=0`$, and for the sulfur-induced interactions for example, which have $`\mu _q80MeV`$, a temperature $`T176MeV`$ .

To overcome this apparent difficulty, we propose without proof that the conservation of fugacities $`\lambda _i(i=u,d,s)`$ is a characteristic property of strong interactions and thermodynamic equilibration in general, affecting thermally and chemically equilibrated states throughout the phase diagram. That is, the quark fugacities $`\lambda _i`$, once fixed in a chemically equilibrated primordial state, are constants of the entire sequent evolution process. This is contingent on an isentropic expansion and hadronization via a sudden, fast process without mixed phase. The relation between $`\lambda _i`$ and $`T`$, and hence between $`\mu _i`$ and $`T`$ in the primordial state333The quantities $`\mu _s,\mu _q`$ and $`T`$ are the Lagrange multipliers of strangeness, baryon number and energy, attaining their values in the equilibrated state. is defined by the strangeness neutrality equation, obtained from the partition function by imposing strangeness conservation. The proof of the fugacity conservation ansatz will require a precise knowledge of the EoS of the DQM state, so that the variation of the volume, quark density, temperature, chemical potentials and entropy can be studied from equilibration to hadronization. This is beyond the scope of the present paper. It is only stated here in order to give a possible explanation of an observation of negative strange-quark chemical potential, which is not a characteristic of the hadronic phase, as well as of temperatures higher than the maximum temperature for deconfinement ($`T_d175MeV`$ at $`\mu _q80MeV`$, as given by SSBM). For the latter, there might be already such an observation in the $`S+S`$ interactions at 200 $`AGeV`$, as discussed earlier. If proven true, the above statements would have far-reaching consequences for defining and understanding the thermodynamic characteristics of the primordial state. They would suggest that, if nuclear interactions create equilibrated states beyond the HG phase in the deconfined region with finite net baryon number density, if the path to hadronization is isentropic and if the confinement transition is explosive without a mixed phase, one may determine the thermodynamic quantities of the state from the strange hadron yields, by employing an appropriate EoS. If negative $`\mu _s`$-values, together with temperatures in excess of $`T_d`$ are confirmed at the proposed RHIC energies of $`20<\sqrt{s}<100AGeV`$, it will be a profound observation. It will indicate that negative strange-quark chemical potential is indeed a unique and well-defined signature of deconfinement, identifying the partonic phase, and that $`\mu _s`$ is the first experimentally accessible order parameter of deconfinement. Of equal importance will be the ability to determine the quantities $`\mu _q`$, $`\mu _s`$ and $`T`$, hence, to calculate accurately the energy density and entropy of equilibrated primordial states situated beyond the hadronic phase, in the deconfined-quark region.

On the basis of the present analysis we also conclude that the $`S+S`$ collision at 200 $`AGeV`$ at the SPS may be the first interaction to have produced an equilibrated partonic state beyond the hadronic phase. On the other hand, the thermodynamic parameters of the primordial state of the $`Pb+Pb`$ interaction at the highest energy of 158 $`AGeV`$ strongly indicate that its location is well within the hadronic phase.

## Appendix A Order parameters and the phase diagram

Since an empirical partition function for the DQM phase is used, Eq. (12), containing the parameters $`R_d(T)`$ and $`R_\chi (T)1R_d(T)`$, it is important to study the behaviour of the strange-quark chemical potential in the DQM region for the different approximations of $`R_d(T)`$. Figure A.1 is a plot of $`\mu _s`$ vs. $`T`$, obtained for $`\mu _q=0.45T`$ and the two different functions for $`R_d(T)`$. It is clear that the DQM region is characterized by negative strange-quark chemical potential, independently of which $`R_d(T)`$ function is used in the EoS. Therefore, the change in the sign of the strange-quark chemical potential, from positive to negative, is a unique and well-defined indication of the quark-deconfinement phase transition and does not depend on the phenomenological parameters of the model.

## Appendix B Order parameters and the effective quark masses

The parameter $`R_\chi (T)`$ determines the effective quark and hadron masses. The use of temperature dependent quark masses is one of the essential aspects of the model, since it is a dynamical term in the equation of state. On the other hand, more precise theoretical models such as the NJL or the (non)linear sigma model, have also studied the temperature dependence of the light and strange quark masses. Figures B.1, B.2 plot the strange and light quark masses as a function of temperature, using the two different approximations of the order parameter, whereas Figure B.3 exhibits the same quantities but within the NJL model. The quark mass scaling used in our model is consistent with the results of an effective field theory model, despite the difference for $`m_s^{}`$, which can be corrected by choosing an appropriate $`R_\chi (T)`$ for strange quarks. This gives strong support to our approximations and results.

## References