format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The original membrane at the end of the universe  corresponds to a probe $`M2`$-brane of signature $`(2,1)`$ occupying the $`S^2\times S^1`$ boundary of the $`(10,1)`$ spacetime $`AdS_4\times S^7`$ and is described by an $`OSp(4/8)`$ superconformal field theory. However, it was subsequently generalized  to brane worldvolumes with $`s`$ space and $`t`$ time dimensions moving in a spacetime with $`Ss`$ space and $`Tt`$ time dimensions. The brane occupies the boundary of a universe of constant curvature so that the bosonic symmetry is $`O(s+1,t+1)\times O(Ss,Tt)`$. Supersymmetry restricts the values of $`s,t,S,T`$ to those for which this bosonic symmetry is a subgroup of a superconformal group, and the resulting superconformal theories have $`(s+t)6`$. For example, as discussed in , the possible signatures of M-theory are $`(10,1)`$, $`(9,2)`$, $`(6,5)`$, $`(5,6)`$, $`(2,9)`$ and $`(1,10)`$ and the possible $`M2`$-branes have worldvolume signatures $`(3,0)`$, $`(2,1)`$, $`(1,2)`$ and $`(0,3)`$. The corresponding superconformal groups are given in Table 1.

In view of the connections  between the original membrane at the end of the universe and the $`AdS/CFT`$ correspondence , and in view of the recent interest in a possible $`dS/CFT`$ correspondence , it is natural to re-examine the special case of a $`(3,0)`$ brane at the end of the de Sitter universe555In fact the epithet membrane at the end of the universe is even more appropriate in the de Sitter case since the restaurant in Douglas Adams’ book “Restaurant at the end of the universe”  is located at temporal infinity. $`dS_4`$. We show that the resulting CFT contains the one recently proposed as the holographic dual of a four-dimensional de Sitter cosmology .

In the usual signature all extended objects appear to suffer from worldvolume ghosts because the kinetic term for the $`X^0`$ coordinate enters with the wrong sign. These are easily removed, however (at least at the classical level) by the presence of diffeomorphisms on the worldvolume which allow us to fix a gauge where only positive-norm states propagate e.g. the light cone gauge for strings and its membrane analogues. Alternatively we may identify the $`d`$ worldvolume coordinates $`\xi ^i`$ with $`d`$ of the $`D`$ space-time coordinates $`X^i`$ $`(i=1,2,\mathrm{}d)`$ leaving $`(Dd)`$ coordinates $`X^I`$ $`(I=1..Dd)`$ with the right sign for their kinetic energy . Of course, this only works if we have one worldvolume time coordinate $`\tau `$ that allows us to choose a light-cone gauge or else set $`\tau =t`$.

In the same spirit, we could now require absence of ghosts (or rather absence of classical instabilities since we are still at the classical level) for arbitrary signature by requiring that the “transverse” group $`SO(Ss,Tt)`$ which governs physical propagation after gauge-fixing, be compact. This requires $`T=t`$. It may be argued, of course, that in a world with more than one time dimension, ghosts are the least of your problems. Moreover, in contrast to strings, unitarity on the worldvolume does not necessarily imply unitarity in spacetime. This is because the transverse group no longer coincides with the little group. (For example, the $`(2,1)`$ object in $`(10,1)`$ spacetime and the $`(1,2)`$ object in $`(9,2)`$ spacetime both have transverse group $`SO(8)`$, but the former has little group $`SO(9)`$ and the latter $`SO(8,1)`$.) Reference  remained agnostic about the physical significance of non-compact transverse groups, but simply noted that in the compact case the list of superconformal groups matches those in Nahm’s classification .

However, an attempt to render these theories respectable has been made in a series of interesting papers by Hull and collaborators , in which it is shown that these theories with unconventional signatures are related to the usual signature by means of a timelike T-duality. Hull denotes the $`(10,1)`$, $`(9,2)`$ and $`(6,5)`$ signatures as $`M`$-theory, $`M^{}`$-theory and $`M^{}`$-theory, respectively. Unlike $`M`$-theory, $`M^{}`$ and $`M^{}`$ theories can admit de Sitter vacua invariant under a de Sitter supergroup which does not have unitary highest weight representations. This lack of unitarity representations is reflected in the fact that some of the fields have kinetic terms with the wrong sign. However, since these theories are related to the conventional ones by a timelike T-duality they are no worse than conventional theories compactified in the time direction and so perhaps might make sense after all. Thus Hull’s suggestion is both radical and conservative at the same time. It is radical in invoking spacetimes with unusual signature but conservative in saying that the only such theories we need worry about are those dual to the conventional theories.

It seems that one is forced to this interpretation if one wants to combine dS/CFT space with supersymmetry . Alternatively, one can be content to look at non-supersymmetric vacua . In section 3, we shall explore both possibilities, having first reviewed the $`AdS`$ case in section 2.

Finally in section 4 we note that the case of $`dS_4\times AdS_7`$ is ‘doubly holographic’ and may be regarded as the near horizon geometry of $`N_2`$ $`M2`$-branes or equivalently, under interchange of conformal and R symmetry, of $`N_5`$ $`M5`$-branes, provided $`N_2=2N_5^2`$. The same correspondence holds in the pp-wave limit of conventional $`M`$-theory.

## 2 A probe (2,1)-brane on the boundary of $`AdS_4\times S^7`$

### 2.1 The AdS background

We begin by reviewing the original membrane at the end of the universe for which the spacetime is $`AdS_4\times S^7`$ and for which the supermembrane occupies the $`S^1\times S^2`$ boundary of the $`AdS_4`$. It will be useful to regard the geometry as the near-horizon limit of a stack of M2 branes.

For M-theory in the usual $`(10,1)`$ signature, the low-energy effective field theory is $`D=11`$ supergravity with bosonic action

$$S_M=d^{11}x\sqrt{g}\left(R\frac{1}{48}F_4^2\right)\frac{1}{12}A_3F_4F_4.$$
(2.1)
where $`F_4=dA_3`$. The M2-brane solution is given by

$$ds^2=H^{2/3}(dt^2+dx_1^2+dx_2^2)+H^{1/3}(dy_3^2+\mathrm{}+dy_9^2+dy_{10}^2),$$

$$A_{012}=H^1,$$
(2.2)
where $`H(y_3,\mathrm{},y_{10})`$ is a harmonic function in the transverse space. For a stack of $`N_2`$ M2 branes at $`y=0`$, we take

$$H=1+\left(\frac{L_2}{y}\right)^6,$$
(2.3)
where $`y^2=\delta _{mn}y^my^n`$ with $`m`$ running over the spatial indices in the transverse space, and $`L_2=(2^5\pi ^2N_2)^{1/6}l_p`$ with $`l_p`$ being the eleven-dimensional Planck length. The world-volume has signature $`(2,1)`$ and the solution has bosonic symmetry $`ISO(2,1)\times SO(8)`$. It is nonsingular at $`y=0`$ with near-horizon geometry $`AdS_4\times S^7`$.

### 2.2 Unitary but non-supersymmetric

In anticipation of finding in the next section a unitary but non-supersymmetric $`(3,0)`$ brane on the boundary of $`dS_4`$, we begin by forgetting the $`D=11`$ supergravity origins of the $`(2,1)`$ brane and simply look at its bosonic sector in a background of $`AdS_4`$ with a $`4`$-form that follows from the $`A_{012}`$ given above. We write the $`AdS_4`$ metric as

$$ds_{AdS_4}^2=R_{AdS_4}^2\left[d\rho ^2+\mathrm{sinh}^2\rho \left(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2\right)\mathrm{cosh}^2\rho dt^2\right]$$
(2.4)
and the 4-form as

$$F_4=3R_{AdS_4}^3\mathrm{cosh}\rho \mathrm{sinh}^2\rho dtd\rho ϵ_2,$$
(2.5)
where $`ϵ_n`$ is the volume form of a unit $`n`$-sphere and the $`AdS_4`$ radius is $`R_{AdS_4}=L_2/2`$.

Now consider a probe $`(2,1)`$-brane with a worldvolume action given by the bosonic sector of the $`M2`$-brane:

$$S_2=T_2d^3\xi \left[\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\gamma }\gamma ^{ij}_ix^M_jx^Ng_{MN}(x)+\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\gamma }+q\frac{1}{3!}ϵ^{ijk}_ix^M_jx^N_kx^PA_{MNP}(x)\right],$$
(2.6)
where $`T_2`$ is the membrane tension, $`\xi ^i`$ ($`i=0,1,2`$) are the worldvolume coordinates, $`\gamma _{ij}`$ is the worldvolume metric and $`x^M(\xi )`$ are the spacetime coordinates $`(M=0,1,\mathrm{},10)`$. Following  we allow for a non-extremality parameter $`q`$ where the BPS condition corresponds to $`q=1`$.

The embedding of the membrane in $`AdS_4`$ is given by

$$t=\xi ^0,\theta =\xi ^1,\varphi =\xi ^2,$$
(2.7)
so that its worldvolume occupies the $`S^1\times S^2`$ section. Since we are temporarily ignoring the $`S^7`$, we focus just on the bosonic radial mode $`\rho (\xi )`$. We substitute (2.4) and (2.5) into (2.6) to find

$$S_2=T_2R_{AdS_4}^3_{S^1\times S^2}d^3\xi \left[\sqrt{det(\stackrel{~}{h}_{ij}+_i\rho _j\rho )}+q\mathrm{sinh}^3\rho \right]$$
(2.8)
where from (2.7) and (2.4)

$$\stackrel{~}{h}_{ij}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{cosh}^2\rho & 0& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{sinh}^2\rho & 0\\ 0& 0& \mathrm{sinh}^2\rho \mathrm{sin}^2\theta \end{array}\right).$$
(2.9)
We are interested in the $`\rho \mathrm{}`$ limit, where the brane approaches the boundary of $`AdS_4`$. Then the action (2.8) becomes

$$S_2=T_2R_{AdS_4}^3_{S^1\times S^2}d^3\xi \sqrt{h}\left[\frac{1}{4}e^\rho h^{ij}_i\rho _j\rho +\frac{1}{4}(13q)e^\rho \frac{1}{8}e^{3\rho }(1q)+𝒪(e^\rho )\right]$$
(2.10)
where $`h_{ij}`$ is the metric on $`S^1\times S^2`$, $`ds^2=dt^2+d\theta ^2+sin^2\theta d\varphi ^2`$. Making the change of variable

$$\rho =\mathrm{ln}\frac{\phi ^2}{2T_2R_{AdS_4}^3}+4T_2^2R_{AdS_4}^6\phi ^4$$
(2.11)
where $`\phi `$ is the 3-dimensional scalar field with canonical dimension $`1/2`$, and ignoring $`𝒪(\phi ^2)`$ terms, we have

$$S_2=_{S^1\times S^2}d^3\xi \sqrt{|h|}\left[\frac{1}{2}h^{ij}_i\phi _j\phi +\frac{R}{16}\phi ^2+\frac{(1q)}{64T_2^2R_{AdS_4}^6}\phi ^6\right],$$
(2.12)
This is just the bosonic singleton action  with its scalar mass terms and $`g\phi ^6/6!`$ coupling. Since the scalar curvature of $`S^1\times S^2`$ equals $`2`$, we recognize the correct $`R\phi ^2`$ coefficient for Weyl invariance . The coupling constant is given by $`g=45(1q)/4T_2^2R_{AdS_4}^6`$. Bearing in mind that $`T_2=1/(2\pi )^2l_p^3`$ and $`T_2R_{AdS_4}^3=(2N_2)^{1/2}/8\pi `$, we have $`g=360\pi ^2(1q)/N_2`$. As discussed by Seiberg and Witten, for $`q>1`$, the system is unstable against emission of branes, which is perfectly possible in a non-supersymmetric theory.

### 2.3 Unitary and supersymmetric

When $`q=1`$, the fermionic completion of the worldvolume action (2.6) is kappa symmetric. This demands that the background metric $`g_{MN}`$ and background 3-form potential $`A_{MNP}`$ obey the classical field equations of $`D=11`$ supergravity. We shall now consider this case with the full is $`AdS_4\times S^7`$ background:

$$ds_{11}{}_{}{}^{2}=R_{AdS_4}^2[d\rho ^2+\mathrm{sinh}\rho ^2(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2)\mathrm{cosh}^2\rho dt^2]+4R_{AdS}^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_7^2.$$
(2.13)
We denote the seven angles parameterizing the $`S^7`$ as $`\theta ^m`$ with $`m=1,2,\mathrm{},7`$ and $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_7^2=d\theta ^md\theta ^ng_{mn}`$. We can no longer limit ourselves to a single radial mode, but the generalization to include the $`S^7`$ modes is straightforward. To keep things simple, we shall continue to ignore the fermions, however. Note that the Wess-Zumino, or volume term remains unchanged. This implies that the relation between $`\rho `$ and $`\phi `$ is the same as before. Note also that the radius for the $`S^7`$ in the full metric is twice that of $`AdS_4`$. With all the above, we have, for $`\phi \mathrm{}`$,

$$S_2=_{S^1\times S^2}d^3\xi \sqrt{|h|}\left[\frac{1}{2}h^{ij}(_i\phi _j\phi +\phi ^2_i\theta ^m_j\theta ^ng_{mn})+\frac{1}{8}\phi ^2\right],$$
(2.14)
If we define

$$\phi ^a=\phi \omega ^a,(a=1,2,\mathrm{}8),$$
(2.15)
where $`\omega ^a`$ are the 1-forms parameterizing the unit $`S^7`$ and $`\phi ^a\phi ^a=\phi ^2`$, then we have

$`S_2={\displaystyle _{S^1\times S^2}}d^3\xi \sqrt{|h|}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}h^{ij}_i\phi ^\mu _j\phi ^\nu \eta _{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{R}{16}}\phi ^a\phi ^b\delta _{ab}\right],`$ (2.16)
where $`\eta _{\mu \nu }=\delta _{\mu \nu }=(+,+,\mathrm{},+)`$ and which has manifest $`SO(3,2)`$ conformal symmetry and $`SO(8)`$ $`R`$-symmetry. It is just the bosonic sector of the $`OSp(4/8)`$ SCFT . (Incidentally, this rectifies a previous inability to derive the correct bosonic mass terms for the membrane at the end of the universe, necessary to identify it with the $`OSp(4/8)`$ supersingleton action  on $`S^1\times S^2`$. The singleton actions in  were defined on a Minkowski background and so required no mass terms.)

## 3 A probe $`(3,0)`$-brane on the boundary of $`dS_4\times AdS_7`$

### 3.1 The dS background

We will now seek the analogue of the $`M2`$-brane that occurs in the $`(9,2)`$ $`M^{}`$ theory, whose field theory limit is a supergravity theory with bosonic action

$$S_M^{}=d^{11}x\sqrt{g}\left(R+\frac{1}{48}F_4^2\right)\frac{1}{12}A_3F_4F_4.$$
(3.1)
Note that the sign of the kinetic term of $`F_4`$ is opposite666Interestingly enough, this means that $`M^{}`$ theory avoids the objections that are present in $`M`$-theory to implementing Hawking’s resolution  of the cosmological constant problem . to that of the action (2.1). As discussed in , the sign of the kinetic term is intimately related with the world-volume signatures that can occur. For example, if the sign of the kinetic term of $`F_4`$ were reversed in (3.1) to give a Lagrangian $`RF_4^2/48+\mathrm{}`$ in $`9+2`$ dimensions, there would be a membrane solution with 2+1 dimensional world-volume, while the action (3.1) with the opposite sign for the $`F_4`$ kinetic term has brane solutions with world-volume signatures $`(3,0)`$ and $`(1,2)`$, as we shall see below. The sign of the $`F_4`$ kinetic term in actions (2.1), (3.1) is determined by supersymmetry.

This theory has a number of Freund-Rubin-type solutions involving the de-Sitter-type spaces, including $`(d+1)`$-dimensional de Sitter space $`dS_{d+1}`$, $`(d+1)`$-dimensional anti-de Sitter space $`AdS_{d+1}`$, the $`(d+1)`$-dimensional hyperbolic space $`H_{d+1}`$, and the two-time de Sitter space $`AAdS_{d+1}`$ which is a generalized de Sitter space given by (a connected component of) the coset $`SO(d,2)/SO(d1,2)`$, with signature $`(d1,2)`$ and isometry $`SO(d,2)`$. The solutions are $`dS_4\times AdS_7`$, $`AAdS_4\times S^7`$, $`AdS_7\times dS_4`$ and $`AAdS_7\times H^4`$.

There are two solutions of $`M^{}`$-theory analogous to the $`M2`$-brane: a $`(3,0)`$-brane and a $`(1,2)`$-brane. In this paper we consider the $`(3,0)`$-brane with Euclidean worldvolume. Its solution is given by

$$ds^2=H^{2/3}(dx_1^2+dx_2^2+dx_3^2)+H^{1/3}(dt^2dt^2+dy_4^2+\mathrm{}+dy_9^2),$$

$$A_{123}=H^1,$$
(3.2)
where $`H`$ is a harmonic function on the transverse space.

For the $`(3,0)`$-brane, the null-cone $`y^2=t^2+t^2`$ divides the transverse space into two regions, and there are two distinct brane solutions, in which the transverse coordinate space is restricted to the region inside or outside the null cone. In the region $`y^2>t^2+t^2`$, a natural choice for the time-dependent harmonic function is

$$H=1+\frac{L_2}{(y^2t^2t^2)^3},$$
(3.3)
which gives a real solution (3.2) for $`y^2>t^2+t^2`$. For $`y^2<t^2+t^2`$, we take instead

$$H=1+\frac{L_2}{(t^2+t^2y^2)^3}.$$
(3.4)
In either case, the solution has bosonic symmetry $`ISO(3)\times SO(6,2)`$. The geometry of (3.2) near $`y^2=t^2+t^2`$ differs in the two cases.

For $`t^2+t^2>y^2`$, let $`\tau ^2=t^2+t^2y^2`$. Then near $`\tau =0`$, $`H^{1/3}L_2^{1/3}/\tau ^2`$. Setting $`y=\tau \mathrm{sinh}\alpha `$, $`t=\tau \mathrm{cosh}\alpha \mathrm{cos}\theta `$, and $`t^{}=\tau \mathrm{cosh}\alpha \mathrm{sin}\theta `$, the metric near $`\tau =0`$ takes the form

$$ds^2=\frac{W^2}{R_{dS_4}^2}(dx_1^2+dx_2^2+dx_3^2)\frac{R_{dS_4}^2dW^2}{W^2}+4R_{dS_4}^2\left(d\alpha ^2\mathrm{cosh}^2\alpha d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sinh}^2\alpha d\mathrm{\Omega }_5^2\right),$$
(3.5)
where $`W=L_2{}_{}{}^{1/6}\tau _{}^{2}/2`$ and again $`R_{dS_4}=L_2{}_{}{}^{1/6}/2=R_{AdS_7}/2`$. This is the metric of $`dS_4\times AdS_7`$. The region $`t^2+t^2>y^2`$ of the solution (3.2) then interpolates between the flat space $`\text{I}\mathrm{R}^{9,2}`$ and $`dS_4\times AdS_7`$. Similar analysis shows that the region $`y^2>t^2+t^2`$ of the solution (3.2) interpolates between the flat space $`\text{I}\mathrm{R}^{9,2}`$ and $`H^4\times AAdS_7`$.

### 3.2 Unitary but non-supersymmetric

We now wish to repeat the calculation given in the section (2.2) but with a $`(3,0)`$-brane occupying the $`S^3`$ boundary of $`dS_4`$ and with a $`4`$-form that follows from $`A_{123}`$ above. In terms of global coordinates, we write the $`dS_4`$ metric and $`4`$-form as

$`ds_{dS_4}^2=R_{dS_4}^2(d\alpha ^2+\mathrm{cosh}^2\alpha d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2),`$
$`F_4=3R_{dS_4}^3\mathrm{cosh}^3\alpha d\alpha ϵ_3`$ (3.6)
where $`R_{dS_4}=L_2/2`$.

Now consider a probe $`(3,0)`$ brane whose action given by

$$S_2=T_2d^3\xi \left[\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\gamma }\gamma ^{ij}_ix^M_jx^Ng_{MN}(x)+\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\gamma }+\frac{q}{3!}ϵ^{ijk}_ix^M_jx^N_kx^PA_{MNP}(x)\right],$$
(3.7)
where $`i`$ now runs over $`1,2,3`$ and we have once again allowed the presence of a non-extremality parameter $`q`$. The overall sign is chosen so that the spatial derivatives are the same for $`(3,0)`$ as for $`(2,1)`$. The embedding of the membrane in $`dS_4`$ is given by

$$\xi ^1=\theta ^1,\xi ^2=\theta ^2,\xi ^3=\theta ^3.$$
(3.8)
so that its worldvolume occupies the $`S^3`$ section of $`dS_4`$ which is located at $`\alpha (\xi )`$. We denote the three angles parameterizing the unit 3-sphere of the $`dS_4`$ background as $`\theta ^1,\theta ^2`$ and $`\theta ^3`$, and denote its metric by $`h_{ij}`$.

On the $`S^3`$ boundary of $`dS_4`$ where $`\alpha `$ is large the area term is

$`T_2A={\displaystyle \frac{T_2R_{dS_4}^3}{2^3}}{\displaystyle _{S^3}}d^3\xi \sqrt{h}\left[e^{3\alpha }+3e^\alpha 2e^\alpha h^{ij}_i\alpha _j\alpha +𝒪(e^\alpha )\right]`$ (3.9)
Further the $`A_3`$ can be solved from $`F_4`$ given above as

$$A_3=R_{dS_4}^3(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}\mathrm{sinh}\alpha +\mathrm{sinh}^3\alpha )ϵ_3.$$
(3.10)
so the Wess-Zumino term is

$`qT_2{\displaystyle _{S^3}}A_3=qT_2R_{dS_4}^3{\displaystyle d^3\xi \sqrt{h}(3\mathrm{sinh}\alpha +\mathrm{sinh}^3\alpha )}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{qT_2R_{dS_4}^3}{2^3}}{\displaystyle _{S^3}}d^3\xi \sqrt{h}\left[e^{3\alpha }+9e^\alpha +𝒪(e^\alpha )\right].`$ (3.11)
Note that since $`\alpha `$ is a time coordinate, its kinetic term enters with the opposite sign to that of the spatial coordinate $`\rho `$ in section (2.2). Let us re-express $`\alpha `$ in terms of a scalar field $`\phi `$ to eliminate the $`e^\alpha `$ in the above Wess-Zumino term. This can be achieved via

$$\alpha =\mathrm{ln}\frac{\phi ^2}{2T_2R_{dS_4}^3}12T_2^2R_{dS_4}^6\phi ^4.$$
(3.12)
Note also the different coefficient in the $`\phi ^4`$ term relative to that in (2.11). This reflects the fact that $`S^3`$ has a scalar curvature different from $`S^1\times S^2`$. Ignoring $`𝒪(\phi ^2)`$ terms, the brane action is now

$`S_2={\displaystyle d^3\xi \sqrt{h}\left[\frac{1}{2}(\phi )^2+\frac{R}{16}\phi ^2(1q)\frac{\phi ^6}{64T_2^2R_{dS_4}^6}\right]},`$ (3.13)
Interestingly enough, the above action is also the one (generalized to a curved boundary) proposed in  for the holographic dual of a de Sitter cosmology in the context of a $`dS/CFT`$ correspondence . However, the relative sign of the coupling is opposite to that in the $`AdS/CFT`$ case of section (2.2) so that the signal for instability is now $`q<1`$.

### 3.3 Non-unitary and supersymmetric

In closing this section, we consider a probe super $`(3,0)`$-brane with $`q=1`$ on the boundary of $`dS_4`$ but now in the full $`dS_4\times AdS_7`$ background. So we consider now other modes of the brane in addition to the radial one. If we write the metric for $`AdS_7`$ with unit radius as

$$ds_{AdS_7}^2=d\beta ^2\mathrm{cosh}^2\beta d\varphi ^2+\mathrm{sinh}^2\beta d\mathrm{\Omega }_5^2=g_{ij}d\beta ^id\beta ^j$$
(3.14)
then

$$ds_{11}^2=R_{dS_4}^2\left[(d\alpha ^2+\mathrm{cosh}^2\alpha d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2)+4ds_{AdS_7}^2\right]$$
(3.15)
Then we have

$$S_2=_{S^3}d^3\xi \sqrt{h}\left[\frac{1}{2}(\phi )^2\frac{1}{2}g_{ij}\phi ^2\beta ^i\beta ^j+\frac{3}{8}\phi ^2+𝒪(\phi ^2)\right],$$
(3.16)
where we have used the relation between $`\alpha `$ and $`\phi `$ given earlier.

The above is not yet the wanted form. For this, we need to define

$`t=\phi \mathrm{cosh}\beta \mathrm{sin}\varphi ,t^{}=\phi \mathrm{cosh}\beta \mathrm{cos}\varphi ,`$
$`y^i=\phi \mathrm{sinh}\beta \omega ^i,(i=1,2,\mathrm{}6),`$ (3.17)
such that

$$\phi ^2=t^2+t^2y^2,$$
(3.18)
where $`y^2=y^iy^i`$. In the above, $`\omega ^i`$ are the one-forms parameterizing the unit 5-sphere satisfying $`\omega ^i\omega ^i=1`$.

One can check explicitly that

$$dt^2+dt^2dy^idy^i=d\phi ^2\phi ^2(d\beta ^2\mathrm{cosh}^2\beta d\varphi ^2+\mathrm{sinh}^2\beta d\mathrm{\Omega }_5^2).$$
(3.19)
If we now denote $`\phi ^\mu =(t,t^{},y^i)`$, then, ignoring $`𝒪(\phi ^2)`$ terms, we have the action

$$S=_{S^3}d^3\xi \sqrt{h}\left[\frac{1}{2}h^{ab}_a\phi ^\mu _b\phi ^\nu \eta _{\mu \nu }+\frac{R}{16}\phi ^\mu \phi ^\nu \eta _{\mu \nu }\right],$$
(3.20)
where we have also set $`\phi ^2\phi ^2`$ and therefore the signature is now $`\eta _{\mu \nu }=(,,+,+,+,+,+,+)`$. Once again, the above action has the same form as that given in (2.16). It has manifest $`SO(4,1)`$ conformal symmetry and $`SO(6,2)`$ $`R`$-symmetry .

## 4 Dualities between $`M2`$ and $`M5`$-branes in $`M`$, $`M^{}`$ and $`M^{}`$ theories

### 4.1 Double holography in $`M^{}`$ and $`M^{}`$-theory

An interesting feature of the various $`M2`$ and $`M5`$ branes appearing in $`M^{}`$ and $`M^{}`$ theories is that their near horizon geometries frequently coincide . In the $`(9,2)`$ spacetime of section (3.1), for example, both the $`(3,0)`$ $`M2`$-brane and the $`(5,1)`$ $`M5`$ brane tend to $`dS_4\times AdS^7`$ and share the same superconformal group $`OSp^{}(4/8)`$ whose bosonic symmetry is $`O(4,1)\times O(6,2)`$. Note that, in contrast to the usual $`(10,1)`$ signature, both factors are conformal groups, and so the system is “doubly holographic” . Further if we accept the duality between the bulk M-theory and the boundary conformal theory, the direct consequence of this is that the boundary 3-dimensional conformal theory describes the same physics as the boundary 6-dimensional conformal theory. The spacetime symmetry and R-symmetry are exchanged in the two pictures. As we shall now demonstrate, however, the requirement that the spacetime may be regarded as the near horizon geometry of $`N_2`$ $`M2`$-branes or equivalently, under interchange of conformal and $`R`$ symmetry, of $`N_5`$ $`M5`$-branes, imposes the constraint

$$N_2=2N_5^2$$
(4.1)
(Although we focus on the concrete example of $`(3,0,)`$-branes and $`(5,1,)`$-branes in $`M^{}`$ theory, the conclusion $`N_2=2N_5^2`$ is true also for the other examples of double holography.) The near-horizon geometry for a stack of $`N_2`$ $`(3,0,)`$-branes is given by (3.6), whereas the near-horizon geometry for a stack of $`N_5`$ $`(5,1,)`$-branes is given by

$`ds_5^2=R_{AdS_7}^2(d\beta ^2\mathrm{cosh}^2\beta d\varphi ^2+\mathrm{sinh}^2\beta d\mathrm{\Omega }_5^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{R_{AdS_7}^2}{4}}(d\alpha ^2+\mathrm{cosh}\alpha ^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2),`$
$`F_7=6R_{AdS_7}^6\mathrm{cosh}\beta \mathrm{sinh}^5\beta d\beta d\varphi ϵ_5,`$
$`R_{AdS_7}=2L_5,`$ (4.2)
where $`L_5=(\pi N_5)^{1/3}l_p`$.

To make these two geometries identical, we need to identify the two metrics and relate the $`4`$-form $`F_4`$ and $`7`$-form $`F_7`$ via $`F_7=F_4`$ with the $``$ denoting the Hodge dual. This can be achieved provided

$$R_{dS_4}=R_{AdS_7}/2,$$
(4.3)
which implies

$$L_2=2L_5,$$
(4.4)
Since $`L_2=(2^5\pi ^2N_2)^{1/6}l_p`$, this gives the relation $`N_2=2N_5^2`$, as promised.

The above conclusion can be understood as the consequence of the relation between the two radii, one (denoted as $`R_4`$) is associated with 4-dimensional manifold and the other (denoted as $`R_7`$) with the 7-dimensional one. If the 11-dimensional metric $`ds^2=ds_4^2+ds_7^2`$ describes the near-horizon geometry of either M2 or M5 branes, we always have $`R_4=R_7/2`$. If in a given theory, the M2 branes and the M5 branes have the same near-horizon bulk geometry, it must require $`N_2=2N_5^2`$ given the relation between $`R_4`$ and $`N_2`$ and that between $`R_7`$ and $`N_5`$.

At present, due to our lack of understanding of the theories with more than one time, it is hard for us to make further checks on this conjectured $`CFT_3/CFT_6`$ correspondence. So the question arises whether there exists a possibility of such a correspondence, in certain limit, from the conventional one-time $`M`$-theory. The answer is actually positive thanks to the recent interest in PP-wave backgrounds.

### 4.2 PP waves in M-theory

Let us recall how the pp-wave limit arises in the conventional $`M`$-theory. The near-horizon geometries for $`M2`$ and $`M5`$ branes are $`AdS_4\times S^7`$ and $`AdS_7\times S^4`$, respectively. $`AdS/CFT`$ correspondence tells us that $`M`$-theory on the $`AdS_4\times S^7`$ background is dual to a $`(2,1)`$-dimensional conformal theory while $`M`$-theory on $`AdS_7\times S^4`$ is dual to $`(5,1)`$-dimensional conformal theory. At first sight, these look very different. In global coordinates, the near-horizon geometry for $`M2`$ branes is

$`ds_2^2=R_{AdS_4}^2\left(d\rho ^2+\mathrm{sinh}\rho ^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2\mathrm{cosh}\rho ^2d\tau ^2\right)+4R_{AdS_4}^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_7^2,`$
$`F_4=3R_{AdS_4}^3\mathrm{cosh}\rho \mathrm{sinh}^2\rho d\rho d\tau ϵ_2,`$
$`R_{AdS_4}=L_2/2,`$ (4.5)
while the near-horizon geometry for $`M5`$ branes is

$`ds_5^2=R_{AdS_7}^2\left(d\sigma ^2+\mathrm{sinh}^2\sigma d\mathrm{\Omega }_5^2\mathrm{cosh}^2\sigma d\tau ^2\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{R_{AdS_7}^2}{4}}d\mathrm{\Omega }_4^2,`$
$`F_7=6R_{AdS_7}^6\mathrm{cosh}\sigma \mathrm{sinh}^5\sigma d\sigma d\tau ϵ_5,`$
$`R_{AdS_7}=2L_5.`$ (4.6)
In the above $`L_2`$ and $`L_5`$ are the radii of $`S^7`$ and $`S^4`$ and are related to the numbers of $`M2`$ and $`M5`$ branes, respectively, as before.

We are now seeking a limit such that the above two geometries have the same isometries and the unit $`2`$-sphere in $`AdS_4`$ of $`AdS_4\times S^7`$ can be identified with a unit $`2`$-sphere in the $`S^4`$ of $`AdS_7\times S^4`$ and the unit $`5`$-sphere in the $`AdS_7`$ with a unit $`5`$-sphere in the $`S^7`$. This is nothing but the pp-wave limit. Following , the limit for $`AdS_4\times S^7`$ is

$`ds_2^2=L_2^2\left[2dx^+dx^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\rho ^2+\sigma ^2\right)(dx^+)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(d\rho ^2+\rho ^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2\right)+d\sigma ^2+\sigma ^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_5^2\right],`$
$`\overline{F}_4={\displaystyle \frac{3\sqrt{2}}{2^3}}L_2^3\rho ^2dx^+d\rho ϵ_2,`$ (4.7)
and the limit for $`AdS_7\times S^4`$ is

$`ds_5^2=4L_5^2\left[2dx^+dx^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\rho ^2+\sigma ^2\right)(dx^+)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(d\rho ^2+\rho ^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2\right)+d\sigma ^2+\sigma ^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_5^2\right],`$
$`\overline{F}_7=32^6\sqrt{2}L_5^6\sigma ^5dx^+d\sigma ϵ_5.`$ (4.8)
In the above, the $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2`$ is the original one in $`AdS_4`$ while the $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_5^2`$ is the one in $`AdS_7`$. With this in mind, the above two metrics can be identified provided $`L_2=2L_5`$. From $`\overline{F}_4=\overline{F}_7`$ we get the same relation $`L_2=2L_5`$, which implies $`N_2=2N_5^2`$. Therefore the conclusion we draw here is that there is a correspondence between the six-dimensional $`(𝒩_+,𝒩_{})=(2,0)`$ superconformal theory and the three-dimensional $`𝒩=8`$ superconformal theory, in the respective pp-wave limits of the conventional one-time M-theory. The advantage here is that we can make further checks beyond what we can do in the $`M^{}`$ case. By the respective $`AdS/CFT`$ correspondence, this must imply that the entropy calculated from the respective bulk theory must also agree with each other in the pp-wave limit. For this purpose, we consider both the near-extremal configuration for black $`M2`$ branes and that for black $`M5`$ branes, in terms of their respective Poincar$`\stackrel{´}{e}`$ coordinates . For $`M2`$-branes,

$`d\overline{s}_2^2={\displaystyle \frac{4r^2}{L_2^2}}\left[e^{2f}dt^2+dx^idx^i\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{L_2^2}{4}}e^{2f}{\displaystyle \frac{dr^2}{r^2}}+L_2^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_7^2,`$
$`e^{2f}=1{\displaystyle \frac{r_0^6}{(2L_2r)^3}},`$ (4.9)
with $`i=1,2`$, and for $`M5`$-branes,

$`d\overline{s}_5^2={\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{4L_5^2}}\left[e^{2f}dt^2+dx^idx^i\right]+4L_5^2e^{2f}{\displaystyle \frac{dr^2}{r^2}}+L_5^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_4^2,`$
$`e^{2f}=1{\displaystyle \frac{(4L_5r_0)^3}{r^6}},`$ (4.10)
with $`i=1,2,\mathrm{}5`$.

We now calculate the black hole entropy for the above configurations, respectively, using the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy formula $`S=A/4G_{11}`$ with $`A`$ the event-horizon area and $`G_{11}`$ the eleven-dimensional Newton’s constant777The entropy per unit brane volume for both of the two cases was calculated in .. For $`M2`$ branes, it is not difficult to find that the event horizon is located at $`r_+=r_0^2/(2L_2)`$ and therefore

$`A`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4r_+^2}{L_2^2}L_2^7𝑑x^1}dx^2ϵ_7,`$ (4.11)
$`=`$ $`r_0^4L_2^3{\displaystyle 𝑑x^1}dx^2ϵ_7.`$
So we have the entropy

$$S_2=\frac{r_0^4L_2^3}{4G_{11}}𝑑x^1dx^2ϵ_7.$$
(4.12)
For M5 branes, we have from the above $`r_+=2\sqrt{L_5r_0}`$. By the same token, we have the entropy

$$S_5=\frac{\sqrt{r_0^5L_5^3}}{4G_{11}}𝑑x^1\mathrm{}dx^5ϵ_4.$$
(4.13)
In general, it is easy to see that the entropy $`S_2`$ is quite different from the entropy $`S_5`$.

$`AdS_{p+2}`$ can usually be realized as a hyperboloid in $`\text{I}\mathrm{R}^{2,(p+1)}`$. The metric in terms of the global coordinates covers the entire hyperboloid while the one in terms of Poincar$`\stackrel{´}{e}`$ coordinates covers only one half of the hyperboloid. On the one hand, the metric in terms of the Poincar$`\stackrel{´}{e}`$ coordinates appears naturally as the near-horizon limit of certain brane configuration and the corresponding near-extremal thermodynamical entropy can be calculated while the one in terms of the global coordinates does not have these properties. On the other hand, the pp-wave limit is more naturally taken in the $`AdS`$ metric in terms of the global coordinates. In order to examine whether there is a possibility that the two entropies can be set to equal, we need to relate these two-coordinate descriptions for a given $`AdS`$-space in the region for which both descriptions are valid. For a given $`AdS_{p+2}`$, we have

$`r`$ $`=`$ $`R_{AdS}\left(\mathrm{cosh}\alpha \mathrm{sin}\tau +\omega _{p+1}\mathrm{sinh}\alpha \right),`$
$`rx^0`$ $`=`$ $`R_{AdS}^2\mathrm{cosh}\alpha \mathrm{cos}\tau ,`$
$`rx^1`$ $`=`$ $`R_{AdS}^2\omega _1\mathrm{sinh}\alpha ,`$
$`\mathrm{}`$
$`rx^p`$ $`=`$ $`R_{AdS}^2\omega _p\mathrm{sinh}\alpha ,`$ (4.14)
where $`(x^\mu ,r)`$ with $`\mu =0,1,\mathrm{},p`$ are the Poincar$`\stackrel{´}{e}`$ coordinates with $`(\tau ,\alpha ,\omega _i)`$ are the global coordinates and $`_i\omega _i^2=1`$.

For the near-extremal M2 branes, we write $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_7^2=d\sigma ^2+\mathrm{cos}^2\sigma d\psi ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\sigma d\mathrm{\Omega }_5^2`$ and take $`\alpha =\rho `$ in the above formulas (4.14). Taking the pp-wave limit ($`\mathrm{\Omega }0`$), $`\rho \mathrm{\Omega }\rho `$, $`\sigma \mathrm{\Omega }\sigma `$ and $`x^{}((\psi \tau /2)/\sqrt{2})\mathrm{\Omega }^2x^{}`$ at $`r=r_+`$, we then have

$$dx^1dx^2ϵ_7=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^9}{2^3}\frac{L_2^8}{r_0^4}\rho ^2\sigma ^5d\rho d\sigma ϵ_2ϵ_5,$$
(4.15)
Then the entropy $`S_2`$ given above becomes

$$S_2=\mathrm{\Omega }^9\frac{L_2^9V_9}{2^34G_{11}}$$
(4.16)
which is now independent of the extremal parameter $`r_0`$ and where

$$V_9=\rho ^2\sigma ^5𝑑\rho d\sigma ϵ_2ϵ_5.$$
(4.17)
If we define the entropy in the pp-wave limit as $`\overline{S}_2=lim_{\mathrm{\Omega }0}S_2/\mathrm{\Omega }^9`$, then we have

$$\overline{S}_2=\frac{L_2^9V_9}{2^34G_{11}}.$$
(4.18)
For the near-extremal M5 branes, we write $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_4^2=d\rho ^2+\mathrm{cos}^2\rho d\psi ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\rho d\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2`$ and take now $`\alpha =\sigma `$ in (4.14). Taking the pp-wave limit, $`\sigma \mathrm{\Omega }\sigma `$, $`\rho \mathrm{\Omega }\rho `$ and $`x^{}((\psi /2\tau )/\sqrt{2})\mathrm{\Omega }^2x^{}`$ at $`r=r_+`$, we then have

$$dx^1dx^2\mathrm{}dx^5ϵ_4=\mathrm{\Omega }^9\frac{2^6L_5^{15/2}}{r_0^{5/2}}\rho ^2\sigma ^5d\rho d\sigma ϵ_2ϵ_5,$$
(4.19)
Then the entropy $`S_5`$ becomes

$$S_5=\mathrm{\Omega }^9\frac{2^6L_5^9V_9}{4G_{11}}$$
(4.20)
which is now also independent of the extremal parameter $`r_0`$ and where $`V_9`$ is also given by (4.17). By the same token, we have

$$\overline{S}_5=\frac{2^6L_5^9V_9}{4G_{11}}.$$
(4.21)
Given our previous discussion about the identification of the two metrics under the respective pp-wave limit, we can identify the two volume $`V_9`$ in $`\overline{S}_2`$ and $`\overline{S}_5`$. So the two entropies can be identified provided $`L_2^9/2^3=2^6L_5^9`$ which again gives $`N_2=2N_5^2`$.

## Acknowledgements

We have benefited from conversations with Finn Larsen and Jim Liu. JXL acknowledges the partial support of a grant from the Chinese Academy of Sciences.

## 5 Appendix

### 5.1 Large Brane for arbitrary $`d`$: AdS case

It is instructive to rewrite the action (2.6) as

$$S_2=T_2_Wd^3\xi \sqrt{|g|}+qT_2_WF_4,$$
(5.1)
where we use the same symbols $`g`$ and $`F_4`$ for the metric and 4-form pullbacks onto the brane. $`W`$ is a $`4`$-manifold whose boundary is the brane worldvolume $`W`$. The first term in the action is actually proportional to the area $`A`$ of the worldvolume $`M`$ of the brane. Also with $`F_4`$ given by the volume form on $`AdS_4`$  in (2.5), the second term can be recognized as proportional to the volume $`V`$ of $`M`$ , so that

$$S_2=T_2(A\frac{3q}{R_{dS_4}}V).$$
(5.2)
Following , the results of section (2.2) may now be generalized to an arbitrary $`(d1)`$-brane occupying the conformal boundary $`M_d`$ of an arbitrary Einstein $`(d+1)`$-dimensional manifold $`W_{d+1}`$ of negative curvature.

We shall adapt the notation and the signature used in  for our convenience. The boundary $`M_d`$ has a natural conformal structure but not a natural metric. Let $`h_{ij}`$ be an arbitrary metric on the boundary in its conformal class. Here the $`\xi ^i`$, $`i=0,\mathrm{},d1`$ are an arbitrary set of local coordinates on the boundary. There is then a unique way  to extend the $`\xi ^i`$ to coordinates on $`W_{d+1}`$ near the boundary, adding an additional coordinate $`\rho `$ that tends to infinity on the boundary, such that the metric in a neighborhood of the boundary is

$$ds^2=r_0^2\left(d\rho ^2+\frac{1}{4}e^{2\rho }h_{ij}d\xi ^id\xi ^jP_{ij}d\xi ^id\xi ^j+O(e^{2\rho })\right)$$
(5.3)
where

$$P_{ij}=\frac{2(d1)R_{ij}h_{ij}R}{2(d1)(d2)},$$
(5.4)
and $`R_{ij}`$ is the Ricci tensor of $`M_d`$, which implies

$$h^{ij}P_{ij}=\frac{R}{2(d1)},$$
(5.5)
Generalizing (5.1), a probe $`(d1)`$-brane occupying the conformal boundary $`M(\rho )`$ of the $`W_{d+1}`$ with the above metric at large $`\rho `$, the action for a radial mode can be written as

$$S=T_{d1}(A_dqdV_{d+1}/r_0)$$
(5.6)
where $`T_{d1}`$ is the brane tension, $`A_d`$ is the area of the conformal boundary $`M(\rho )`$ with respect to the brane induced metric and $`V_{d+1}`$ is the volume of $`W_{d+1}`$ enclosed by the conformal boundary. The area $`A_d`$ and the volume $`V_{d+1}`$ are all calculated explicitly in . The action for a radial mode is also given there:

$`S=T_{d1}(A_d{\displaystyle \frac{qd}{r_0}}V_{d+1}),`$
$`=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{T_{d1}r_0^d}{2^d}d^d\xi \sqrt{h}((1q)\phi ^{\frac{2d}{d2}}\frac{8}{(d2)^2}[(\phi )^2+\frac{(d2)}{4(d1)}R\phi ^2]\hfill & \\ +𝒪(\phi ^{\frac{2(d4)}{d2}}))\hfill & \mathrm{for}\mathrm{d}>2,\hfill \\ \frac{T_1r_0^2}{4}d^2\xi \sqrt{h}\left((1q)e^{2\phi }2[(\phi )^2+\phi R]+R+𝒪(e^{2\phi })\right)\hfill & \mathrm{for}\mathrm{d}=2.\hfill \end{array}`$ (5.10)
In the above, we have made the change of variable

$$\rho =\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{2}{d2}\mathrm{ln}\phi +\frac{1}{(d1)(d2)}\phi ^{\frac{4}{d2}}R\hfill & \mathrm{for}\mathrm{d}>2,\hfill \\ \phi +e^{2\phi }\phi R\hfill & \mathrm{for}\mathrm{d}=2,\hfill \end{array}$$
(5.12)
where $`\phi `$ is the d-dimensional scalar field with canonical dimension $`(d2)/2`$.

We are interested in $`\rho \mathrm{}`$, i.e., $`\phi \mathrm{}`$. From the above, we find

$`S=T_{d1}(A_d{\displaystyle \frac{qd}{r_0}}V_{d+1})=`$
$`=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{T_{d1}r_0^d}{2^d}d^d\xi \sqrt{|h|}\left((1q)\phi ^{\frac{2d}{d2}}+\frac{8}{(d2)^2}[(\phi )^2+\frac{(d2)}{4(d1)}R\phi ^2]\right)\hfill & \mathrm{for}\mathrm{d}>2,\hfill \\ \frac{T_1r_0^2}{4}d^2\xi \sqrt{|h|}\left((1q)e^{2\phi }+2[(\phi )^2+\phi R]R\right)\hfill & \mathrm{for}\mathrm{d}=2,\hfill \end{array}`$ (5.15)
(5.16)
where we recognize the curvature term as that required for Weyl invariance of the action . It is also easy to check that for $`d=3`$, we reproduce the singleton action (2.12) derived earlier noting that $`r_0=R_{AdS_4}`$.

### 5.2 Large Brane for arbitrary $`d`$: dS case

Once again we can write the action (3.7) as

$$S_2=T_2_Wd^3\xi \sqrt{g}+qT_2_WF_4,$$
(5.17)
so that once again it takes the form of “area minus volume”

$$S=T_2(A\frac{3q}{R_{dS_4}}V).$$
(5.18)
Our probe $`(3,0)`$-brane is actually wrapped on the 3-sphere at a given $`\alpha (\mathrm{\Omega })`$. In the action (5.18) the kinetic term can be essentially viewed as an area integration with the induced metric while the Wess-Zumino term is proportional to the volume enclosed by the brane. Here we check this explicitly and derive the effective action for the large brane for arbitrary dimension of the de Sitter factor of the spacetime. In general, for $`dS_{d+1}`$ with metric

$$ds^2=r_0^2[d\alpha ^2+\mathrm{cosh}^2\alpha d\mathrm{\Omega }_d^2],$$
(5.19)
we have the area

$`A_d=r_0^d{\displaystyle d^d\mathrm{\Omega }\frac{1}{\sqrt{deth_{ab}}}\sqrt{det(h_{ab}\mathrm{cosh}^2\alpha _a\alpha _b\alpha )}},`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{r_0^d}{2^d}}{\displaystyle d^d\mathrm{\Omega }\left[e^{d\alpha }+de^{(d2)\alpha }2e^{(d2)\alpha }h^{ab}_a\alpha _b\alpha +𝒪(e^{(d4)\alpha })\right]},`$ (5.20)
and the volume

$`V_{d+1}=r_0^{d+1}{\displaystyle d^d\mathrm{\Omega }_0^\alpha 𝑑\alpha ^{}\mathrm{cosh}^d\alpha ^{}},`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{r_0^{d+1}}{2^d}}{\displaystyle d^d\mathrm{\Omega }_0^\alpha 𝑑\alpha ^{}\left[e^{d\alpha ^{}}+de^{(d2)\alpha ^{}}+𝒪(e^{(d4)\alpha ^{}})\right]},`$
$`=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{r_0^{d+1}}{2^d}d^d\mathrm{\Omega }\left(\frac{1}{d}e^{d\alpha }+\frac{d}{d2}e^{(d2)\alpha }+𝒪(e^{(d4)\alpha })\right)\hfill & \mathrm{for}\mathrm{d}>2,\hfill \\ \frac{r_0^3}{4}d^2\mathrm{\Omega }\left(\frac{1}{2}e^{2\alpha }+2\alpha +𝒪(e^{2\alpha })\right)\hfill & \mathrm{for}\text{d = 2}\hfill \end{array}.`$ (5.23)
In the above the $`r_0`$ is the radius of $`dS_d`$ and $`h_{ab}`$ is the metric of the unit d-sphere.

If we express the radial mode $`\alpha `$ in terms of d-dimensional scalar field $`\phi `$ with canonical dimension $`(d2)/2`$ via

$$\alpha =\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{2}{d2}\mathrm{ln}\phi \frac{1}{(d1)(d2)}\phi ^{\frac{4}{d2}}R\hfill & \mathrm{for}\mathrm{d}>2,\hfill \\ \phi e^{2\phi }\phi R\hfill & \mathrm{for}\mathrm{d}=2,\hfill \end{array}$$
(5.24)
where $`R`$ is the curvature of unit d-sphere and $`R=d(d1)`$, we then have

$$A_d=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{r_0^d}{2^d}d^dx\sqrt{h}\left(\phi ^{\frac{2d}{d2}}\frac{8}{(d2)^2}[(\phi )^2+\frac{d2}{4(d1)}R\phi ^2]+𝒪(\phi ^{\frac{2(d4)}{d2}})\right)\hfill & \mathrm{for}\mathrm{d}>2,\hfill \\ \frac{r_0^2}{4}d^2x\sqrt{h}\left(e^{2\phi }2[(\phi )^2+R\phi ]+R+𝒪(e^{2\phi })\right)\hfill & \mathrm{for}\mathrm{d}=2,\hfill \end{array}$$
(5.25)
and

$$V_{d+1}=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{r_0^{d+1}}{2^d}d^dx\sqrt{h}\left(\frac{1}{d}\phi ^{\frac{2d}{d2}}+𝒪(\phi ^{\frac{2(d4)}{d2}})\right)\hfill & \mathrm{for}\mathrm{d}>2,\hfill \\ \frac{r_0^2}{4}d^2x\sqrt{h}\left(\frac{1}{2}e^{2\phi }+𝒪(e^{2\phi })\right)\hfill & \mathrm{for}\mathrm{d}=2,\hfill \end{array}$$
(5.26)
Finally, the action for the large radial mode $`\phi `$ of a probe $`(d,0)`$-brane on the conformal boundary $`S^d`$ of $`dS_{d+1}`$ dimensional manifold is given as (ignoring the $`𝒪(\phi ^{\frac{2(d4)}{d2}})`$)

$`S=T_{d1}(A_d{\displaystyle \frac{qd}{r_0}}V_{d+1}),`$
$`=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{T_{d1}r_0^d}{2^d}d^dx\sqrt{h}((1q)\phi ^{\frac{2d}{d2}}+\frac{8}{(d2)^2}[(\phi )^2+\frac{(d2)}{4(d1)}R\phi ^2]\hfill & \mathrm{for}\mathrm{d}>2,\hfill \\ \frac{T_1r_0^2}{4}d^2x\sqrt{h}((1q)e^{2\phi }+2[(\phi )^2+\phi R]R)\hfill & \mathrm{for}\mathrm{d}=2.\hfill \end{array}`$ (5.29)
In analogy with (5.9), we expect this formula to be valid for arbitrary manifold $`W_d`$, not just $`dS`$, but note the change of sign of the kinetic and mass terms relative to the $`AdS`$ case. When $`d=3`$, we recover (3.13) as expected.


text:
# Rapidly rotating Bose-Einstein condensates in anharmonic potentials

## I Introduction

Gaseous Bose-Einstein condensates of alkali-metal atoms are fertile systems in which to study the behavior of superfluids under rotation. For rotation frequencies $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ above $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{c1}`$, the critical frequency for creating a single vortex, the properties of these systems resemble those of liquid helium under typical experimental conditions. States with a small number of vortices have been observed in the experiments of Refs. . As $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ increases, more and more vortices form, and indeed it has become possible to create lattices  of more than 100 vortices. The physics of rapidly rotating gases is different in harmonic and anharmonic traps. In a harmonic trap, the rotation rate is limited by the radial trap frequency $`\omega `$, and sets the scale of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{c1}`$. As the angular frequency of rotation of the gas approaches the transverse trapping frequency, the centrifugal force becomes equal to the restoring force exerted by the trap and the atoms are no longer contained. On the other hand, the regime $`\mathrm{\Omega }>\omega `$ becomes accessible in anharmonic trapping potentials that rise more steeply than quadratically.

Condensates rotating in anharmonic trapping potentials are expectd to have a rich structure of vortex states, as described in Refs. , reviewed below. These states include an array of singly quantized vortices (which becomes a triangular lattice when the number of vortices is large); a vortex array with a finite radius “hole” in the center – opened by the centrifugal force – in which the condensate density is zero but the vorticity non-zero; and giant (multiply quantized) vortices. Our aim in this paper is first to study, via a variational approach, the states in an anharmonic quadratic-plus-quartic radial potential ,

$$V(\rho )=\frac{m\omega ^2}{2}\rho ^2\left[1+\lambda \left(\frac{\rho }{d}\right)^2\right],$$
(1)
where $`\rho `$ is the (cylindrical) radial coordinate, $`m`$ is the atomic mass, $`d=(1/m\omega )^{1/2}`$ is the oscillator length ($`\mathrm{}=1`$), and $`\lambda `$ is a dimensionless measure of the anharmonicity. We consider a container infinitely long and cylindrically symmetric and rotating about the $`z`$ axis, with a density per unit length $`\sigma =N/Z`$ in the axial ($`z`$) direction; the particles are assumed to interact via s-wave scattering with scattering length $`a_s>0`$. The variational approach is adopted from Ref. , with the density profile of the gas given by an augmented Thomas-Fermi approximation which explicitly takes into account the important kinetic energy of flow about the individual vortices and the modification of the interaction energy by the density variations due to the vortices. We then combine the present calculation with the results of the earlier studies to delineate the phase diagram of a rotating Bose condensate in an anharmonic trap, when the total vorticity is $``$ 1 (i.e., well above the critical rotation frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{c1}`$). As we shall see, the phase diagram has the schematic structure in the $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$$`\sigma a_s`$ plane shown in Fig. 1. At very small interaction strength or density multiply quantized vortices are always preferable, as found in , while at larger interaction strength at small $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ the system forms an array of singly quantized vortices. At larger $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ the array, as shown in , develops a hole in the center. The phase diagram contains a triple point between the three regions.

Lundh , by numerical simulation of the Gross-Pitaevskii equation in two dimensions, determined the ground state vortex structures in a rapidly rotating condensate in radial trapping potentials $`\rho ^n`$ ($`n>2`$), as well as in the potential (1) for small total vorticity, $`10`$. His calculations show that for small dimensionless interaction strength, $`\sigma a_s`$, the system prefers multiply quantized vortices, as illustrated in Fig. 1, while above a critical ($`\lambda `$-dependent) interaction strength, $`(\sigma a_s)_c1`$, the ground state consists of an array of singly quantized vortices. The fact that a giant vortex state is favored at small $`\sigma a_s`$ can be understood from the fact that in the limit of a non-interacting gas trapped in a potential that rises faster than quadratically, the dependence of the single particle energies, $`ϵ(\nu )`$, on angular momentum $`\mathrm{}\nu `$ rises faster than linear . Thus, in this limit, in the ground state of a fixed number of bosons in the frame rotating at given $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ all the particles occupy the single angular momentum state that minimizes $`ϵ(\nu )\mathrm{\Omega }\nu `$.

Condensates in the potential (1) were also studied via numerical simulation by Kasamatsu, Tsubota, and Ueda , at fixed parameters $`\lambda =1/2`$ (corresponding to their $`k=1`$) and $`\sigma a_s=250/8\pi `$. At low $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ the system contains an array of singly quantized vortices. \[The value of $`\sigma a_s`$ in this calculation well exceeds the critical coupling $`(\sigma a_s)_c`$ found by Lundh, and is above the triple point in Fig. 1.\] However, as they increase the rotation frequency to $`\mathrm{\Omega }2.14\omega `$, the vortex array begins to develop, as a consequence of the centrifugal force, a hole in the center. At still higher rotational velocity, $`\mathrm{\Omega }3.23.5`$, the system undergoes a transition to a single multiply quantized giant vortex.

Similar behavior was found in Ref.  for a condensate contained in a cylindrical hard walled bucket, by constructing an augmented Thomas-Fermi solution of the Gross-Pitaevskii equation. At low rotation speed the vortices form a uniform lattice. However at a critical rotation frequency, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_h1/2m\xi _0R`$ – where $`\xi _0=(8\pi \overline{n}a_s)^{1/2}`$ is the coherence or healing length, and $`\overline{n}`$ is the average density – the lattice begins to develop a hole in the center. Finally at a second critical frequency, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_G1/2m\xi _0^2`$, the system makes a transition to a giant vortex state. Fetter , in considering condensates in the potential (1), finds a critical rotation speed at which the density in the center of the trap goes to zero; however, the onset of the holethe is obscured by the particular approximation employed following factorization of the condensate wave function.

While detailed comparison of our calculation with the numerical simulations of Refs.  and  is hindered by the fact that the number of vortices in the simulations is not large enough to form a uniform lattice, as we assume (see, e.g., Fig. 1e of Ref. , and Fig. 6 of Ref. ), our results are qualitatively consistent with and provide a simple theoretical understanding of the numerical results. At large $`\mathrm{\Omega }/\omega `$ and $`\sigma a_s`$ where our approach is valid, we see that with increasing $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ the system indeed undergoes a transition from a vortex lattice to a vortex lattice with a hole around the axis of rotation. Furthermore, as $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ increases the system eventually undergoes a transition to a single giant vortex, for $`\sigma a_s`$ up to at least 350, the largest value for which we studied this transition.

We first describe the three states of the rapidly rotating gas – a vortex lattice, both with and without a hole along the axis, in Sec. IIA, and a giant vortex, in Sec. IIB – and calculate the augmented Thomas-Fermi solutions for the lowest energy in the rotating frame at given $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. In Sec. III we determine the transitions between different phases for the particular anharmonicity $`\lambda =1/2`$, and the less steep $`\lambda =1/8`$. In Sec. IV we examine the limits of validity of our approach, and finally summarize our results in Sec. V.

## II Possible vortex states of a rapidly rotating gas

### A Vortex lattice

We first consider a uniform lattice of singly quantized vortices. As shown in Ref. , the energy of the system in the rotating frame, $`E_\mathrm{L}^{}`$, in the Thomas-Fermi limit is

$`E_\mathrm{L}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^3rn_\mathrm{L}(\rho )[({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_v^2}{2}}\mathrm{\Omega }_v\mathrm{\Omega })m\rho ^2+(a+1)\mathrm{\Omega }_v\mathrm{\Omega }`$ (3)
$`+V(\rho )+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}U_0n_\mathrm{L}(\rho )b],`$
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the rotational frequency of the trap, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_v`$ is the rotational frequency of the vortex lattice, and $`U_0=4\pi \mathrm{}^2a_s/m`$. We assume an effective core radius $`\xi `$ (different in general from the Gross-Pitaevskii healing length $`\xi _0`$). The function $`a(\zeta )`$ describes the kinetic energy of rotation of the vortices, and $`b(\zeta )`$ the effects of the vortex cores on the interaction energy. For a simple model in which the order parameter ramps up linearly over a distance $`\xi `$ from the cores of the vortices, and then flattens out, $`a`$ and $`b`$ are given by ,

$`a(\zeta )={\displaystyle \frac{1\mathrm{ln}\sqrt{\zeta }}{1\zeta /2}};b(\zeta )={\displaystyle \frac{12\zeta /3}{(1\zeta /2)^2}},`$ (4)
where $`\zeta =(\xi /\mathrm{})^2`$, and $`\mathrm{}=1\sqrt{m\mathrm{\Omega }_v}`$ is the radius of the cylindrical Wigner-Seitz cell corresponding to a given vortex .

Minimization of $`E_\mathrm{L}^{}`$ with respect to $`n_\mathrm{L}(\rho )`$ yields the Thomas-Fermi profile,

$`n_\mathrm{L}(\rho )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{U_0b}}[\mu (a+1)\mathrm{\Omega }_v+\mathrm{\Omega }`$ (5)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m\rho ^2(\mathrm{\Omega }_v^22\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }_v)V(\rho )],`$ (6)
with $`\mu `$ the chemical potential. Since the density of the gas at the center of the cloud, $`\rho =0`$, cannot be negative, the system begins to develop a hole when $`n_\mathrm{L}(\rho =0)`$ falls to zero, or from Eq. (6), $`\mu (a+1)\mathrm{\Omega }_v+\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$. For smaller $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, this quantity is positive and the inner radius of the cloud, $`R_1`$, vanishes, while for larger $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, $`R_10`$. We note that when a hole develops in a uniform vortex lattice, the hole must, for the lattice to remain uniform, contain the same vorticity, $`\pi R_1^2n_v=mR_1^2\mathrm{\Omega }_v`$ (where $`n_v`$ is the number of vortices per unit area), as would be present were the hole filled with condensate. Equation (6) implies that the inner and outer radii of the cloud, $`R_1`$ and $`R_2`$, respectively, where the density vanishes, are given by the solutions of

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{~}{R}_i^2\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\lambda \stackrel{~}{R}_i^2\right]+(a+1)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_v\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ (7)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{~}{r}_i^2(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_v^22\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_v)=\stackrel{~}{\mu },`$ (8)
where here lengths with a tilde are measured in units of $`d`$, e.g., $`\stackrel{~}{R}_i=R_i/d`$, $`i=1,2`$, and energies or frequencies with a tilde are measured in units of $`\omega `$.

Integrating the density over the volume, $`n_\mathrm{L}d^3r=N`$, we find,

$`4\sigma a_sb=\stackrel{~}{\mu }(\stackrel{~}{R}_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\stackrel{~}{R}_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(\stackrel{~}{R}_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}\stackrel{~}{R}_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{4})`$ (9)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{6}}(\stackrel{~}{R}_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{6}\stackrel{~}{R}_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{6})+(\stackrel{~}{R}_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\stackrel{~}{R}_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})[\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}(a+1)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_v]`$ (10)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(\stackrel{~}{R}_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}\stackrel{~}{R}_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{4})(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_v^22\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_v).`$ (11)
Minimization of $`E_\mathrm{L}^{}`$ with respect to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_v`$ yields

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_v=\mathrm{\Omega }N(a+1)/I,`$ (12)
where $`I=d^3rm\rho ^2n_\mathrm{L}(\rho )`$ is the moment of inertia. Equation (12), with Eq. (6), implies that

$`8\sigma a_sb(a+1)=(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_v)[\stackrel{~}{\mu }(\stackrel{~}{R}_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}\stackrel{~}{R}_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{4})`$ (13)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{4}}(\stackrel{~}{R}_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{8}\stackrel{~}{R}_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{8})+(\stackrel{~}{R}_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}\stackrel{~}{R}_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{4})[\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}(a+1)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_v]`$ (14)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}(\stackrel{~}{R}_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{6}\stackrel{~}{R}_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{6})(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_v^22\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_v)].`$ (15)
For a given value of the dimensionless parameters $`\sigma a_s`$, $`\lambda `$, and $`\zeta `$, we solve Eqs. (8), (11), and (15) to find $`R_1`$, $`R_2`$, $`\mu `$, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_v`$; then from Eqs. (3) and (6) we construct the energy $`E_\mathrm{L}^{}(\mathrm{\Omega },\zeta )`$ in the rotating frame, as a function of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`\zeta `$, and finally vary $`\zeta `$ to minimize $`E_\mathrm{L}^{}`$. The total angular momentum of the gas is given by

$$L_z=d^3rn_\mathrm{L}(\rho )(1+\mathrm{\Omega }_vm\rho ^2).$$
(16)
A useful check on the numerical results is the relation $`E_\mathrm{L}^{}/\mathrm{\Omega }=L_z`$, implied by Eq. (3).

### B Giant vortex

We next consider the giant vortex state, whose vorticity is localized along the rotation axis, and order parameter is

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_\mathrm{G}(𝐫)=\sqrt{n_\mathrm{G}(\rho )}e^{i\nu \varphi },`$ (17)
where $`n_\mathrm{G}(\rho )`$ is the density profile of the cloud, $`\rho `$ and $`\varphi `$ are cylindrical polar coordinates, and $`\nu `$ is the winding number. The angular momentum per particle along the $`z`$ axis is $`L_z/N=\nu `$, while the energy of the system in the rotating frame in the Thomas-Fermi limit is

$$E_\mathrm{G}^{}=d^3rn_\mathrm{G}(\rho )\left(\frac{\nu ^2}{2m\rho ^2}+V(\rho )+\frac{U_0}{2}n_\mathrm{G}(\rho )\nu \mathrm{\Omega }\right).$$
(18)
Setting the variational derivative $`\delta E_\mathrm{G}^{}/\delta n_\mathrm{G}(\rho )`$ equal to the chemical potential, $`\mu `$, we find the density profile of the cloud:

$`n_\mathrm{G}(\rho )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{U_0}}[\stackrel{~}{\mu }^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\nu ^2}{2m\rho ^2}}V(\rho )],`$ (19)
where $`\mu ^{}=\mu +\nu \mathrm{\Omega }`$. The inner and outer radii of the cloud, $`R_1`$ and $`R_2`$, solve

$$\frac{\nu ^2}{2\stackrel{~}{R}_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}+\frac{\stackrel{~}{R}_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{2}\left(1+\frac{\lambda }{2}\stackrel{~}{R}_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\right)=\stackrel{~}{\mu }^{},i=1,2.$$
(20)
In addition, the constraint $`n_\mathrm{G}d^3r=N`$ implies that,

$`4\sigma a_s=\stackrel{~}{\mu }^{}\left(\stackrel{~}{R}_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\stackrel{~}{R}_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\right)`$ $``$ $`\nu ^2\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{R}_2}{\stackrel{~}{R}_1}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(\stackrel{~}{R}_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}\stackrel{~}{R}_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{4})`$ (21)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{6}}(\stackrel{~}{R}_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{6}\stackrel{~}{R}_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{6}).`$ (22)
Minimization of $`E_\mathrm{G}^{}`$ with respect to $`\nu `$ yields

$`\nu {\displaystyle \frac{n_\mathrm{G}}{m\rho ^2}d^3r}=N\mathrm{\Omega },`$ (23)
and thus

$`4\sigma a_s\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}=\nu [2\stackrel{~}{\mu }^{}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{R}_2}{\stackrel{~}{R}_1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\nu ^2}{2}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{R}_2^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{R}_1^2}})`$ (24)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\stackrel{~}{R}_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\stackrel{~}{R}_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}){\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{4}}(\stackrel{~}{R}_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}\stackrel{~}{R}_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{4})].`$ (25)
For given values of the dimensionless parameters $`\sigma a_s`$ and $`\lambda `$, we solve Eqs. (20), (22), and (25), and express $`R_1`$, $`R_2`$, $`\mu ^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ in terms of $`\nu `$. We then numerically solve for $`E_\mathrm{G}^{}`$ from Eqs. (18) and (19) as a function of $`\nu `$, and thus implicitly as a function of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. The relation $`E_\mathrm{G}^{}/\mathrm{\Omega }=L_z`$, implied by Eq. (18), again provides a check on the numerical results.

## III Results

We have limited the calculations of the vortex phases here to the cases of intermediate anharmonicity, $`\lambda =1/2`$, and weak anharmonicity, $`\lambda =1/8`$, which well illustrate the richness of the phase diagram. Figure 2 shows the phase diagram for $`\lambda =1/2`$. Relatively small $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and relatively large $`\sigma a_s`$ favor the formation of a vortex lattice. In the opposite limit, large $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and small $`\sigma a_s`$ favor the formation of a giant vortex. Finally at intermediate $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ (for $`\sigma a_s`$ in the range considered) the system prefers a vortex lattice with a hole. Quite generally, the transition from a vortex lattice to a vortex lattice with a hole is continuous, second order, while the transition from a vortex lattice with or without a hole to a giant vortex is discontinuous, first order.

For $`\sigma a_s=200`$, the vortex lattice develops a hole for $`\mathrm{\Omega }/\omega 3.90`$, and then makes a transition to a giant vortex for $`\mathrm{\Omega }/\omega 5.48`$. At this point the giant vortex has a vorticity $`\nu 168`$. For $`\sigma a_s=550`$, corresponding to the parameters of the multivortex MIT experiment Ref. , we find that the vortex lattice develops a hole for $`\mathrm{\Omega }/\omega 4.50`$, and that even up to the highest value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }/\omega 8.4`$ that we examined, this solution has lower energy than the giant vortex. For such high values of $`\sigma a_s`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ we observe that the two solutions (vortex lattice with a hole and giant vortex) look macroscopically very similar.

For comparison, we have also calculated the phases for interaction strength $`\sigma a_s=250/8\pi 10`$ considered in Ref. , although it is well below the limits of validity of the present approach. Then the transition to a giant vortex occurs for $`\mathrm{\Omega }/\omega 1.5`$, compared with the value $``$ 3.2 found in Ref. ; however $`\nu `$ (taken to be continuous in the calculation) is between 2 and 3. For such low values of $`\nu `$ our approach is clearly not valid, and the discrepancy should not be taken seriously.

The particular case of weak anharmonicity case $`\lambda =1/8`$, with $`\sigma a_s=90`$ also shows the three phases: for $`\mathrm{\Omega }/\omega 2.30`$ the vortex lattice develops a hole in the middle, while for $`\mathrm{\Omega }/\omega 2.40`$ it makes a transition to a giant vortex. Figure 3 shows the gentle crossing of $`E_\mathrm{G}^{}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ (solid curve), and $`E_\mathrm{L}^{}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ (dashed curve), while Fig. 4 shows the angular momentum per particle $`L_z/N`$ (of the lowest state), the negative of the slope of the lower of the two curves of Fig. 3, as a function of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Since the curves cross at a finite but small angle, $`L_z/N`$ is discontinuous at the point of the transition. Figure 5 shows $`R_1`$ and $`R_2`$ as a function of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ for the three solutions.

## IV Limits of validity of the present approach

The present approach makes two crucial assumptions, first that the profile of the gas can be described by the Thomas-Fermi approximation, with the vortex corrections to the kinetic and interaction energies included, and second that the array of singly quantized vortices is a uniform lattice. The validity of the Thomas-Fermi approach requires that the kinetic energy per particle, $`1/2m(R_2R_1)^2`$, associated with localizing the atoms within the radii of the profile of the cloud $`R_1`$ and $`R_2`$, be much less than $`\overline{n}U_0=1/2m\xi _0^2`$, where $`\overline{n}N/\pi (R_2^2R_1^2)Z`$ is the average density of the cloud, and $`\xi _0`$ is the coherence length. Thus validity of Thomas-Fermi requires

$`8\sigma a_s{\displaystyle \frac{R_1+R_2}{R_2R_1}},`$ (26)
or equivalently, $`\xi _0R_2R_1`$. For $`R_1=0`$, the condition (26) is simply $`8\sigma a_s1`$.

In addition to condition (26), the basic features of the lowest state have to be captured by the trial functions being considered. For small values of $`\sigma a_s`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }/\omega `$, the numerical solutions  have too small a vorticity to arrange in a triangular lattice. Rather, in Ref.  at $`\mathrm{\Omega }/\omega =2.5`$ for example, the vortex hole, containing 4 units of vorticity, is surrounded by a ring of 10 vortices, instead of a developed lattice. A reasonable estimate for the lowest value of $`N_v`$ at which the calculation is valid is $``$ 50, which typically (e.g., at $`\lambda =1/2`$) requires $`\mathrm{\Omega }/\omega 3.5`$.

## V Summary

In the present study we have examined, by means of a variational method, the lowest state of a Bose-Einstein condensate rotating in a quadratic-plus-quartic confining potential, in the limit of fast rotation. We find that as the frequency of rotation, the density of the gas, and the strength of the quartic term in the trapping potential are varied, the system undergoes transitions among three phases: a vortex lattice with and without a hole, and a giant vortex. The phase diagram, whose structure we have mapped for a specific choice of the coefficient of the anharmonic term, is quite rich. This structure is not limited to the specific form of the anharmonic potential considered here. Our approach is reliable in the limit of large densities and high angular frequencies. Many problems remain, including determining the details of the critical point in Fig. 1, the variation of the phase diagram as the coefficient of the quartic term in the confining potential is varied, and finally, the structure of the phase diagram at finite temperatures.

Author GMK acknowledges financial support from the Swedish Research Council (VR), and from the Swedish Foundation for Strategic Research (SSF). This research was supported in part by NSF Grant PHY00-98353.