format: text

text:
# A New Version of Dirac’s Æther and Its Cosmological Applications

## 1 Introduction

The original version of the Dirac’s Æther was presented long ago as a result following his formulation of the so-called “New Electrodynamics” (NE) . In the NE, Dirac has adopted a radical approach for the discussion of a classical electron in the presence of an electromagnetic field. The main idea was to use the spurious degrees of freedom associated to the gauge potential to describe the electron. In  Dirac showed how this could be done by a judicious choice of gauge condition, e.g. $`A^2=k^2`$. In fact, introducing this as a gauge fixing term in the Lagrangian 111With $`\lambda `$ a lagrange multiplier and k a constant. $`\text{L}=\frac{1}{4}F^2+\frac{\lambda }{2}(A^2\kappa ^2),`$ we find $`_\nu F^{\nu \mu }=J^\mu \lambda A^\mu `$. Therefore, we obtain a four current depending on $`A_\mu `$ that is suitable for the description of a classical electron interacting with an electromagnetic field. In this approach we observe that the gauge condition doesn’t intend to eliminate spurious degrees of freedom of the gauge potential. Instead of that, it acquires a deep physical meaning as the condition that allow us to describe the right physics without having to introduce any extra fields.

One of the striking consequences of these results were discussed in a subsequent paper of Dirac  and led to the Æther model. In fact, by using quantum mechanical arguments Dirac argued it would be possible to consider an æther provided we interpret its four velocity $`v`$ at each point as a quantity subjected to uncertainty relations. Then, the æther four velocity instead of being a well-defined quantity, would rather be probabilisticaly distributed over a range of values. The wave function describing the æther would be such as to assure a velocity distribution with all velocities being equally probable. Admitting the æther velocity as defining a point in a hyperboloid with equation $`v_0^2\stackrel{}{v}^2=1,v_0>0`$, Dirac could relate it to the gauge potential (satisfying $`A^2=k^2`$) by $`\frac{1}{k}A_\mu =v_\mu `$ and from the interpretation given to the NE, he concluded that $`v`$ would be the velocity an electric charge would flow if placed in the æther. The four velocity $`v`$, being defined through all points of spacetime, justify its interpretation as a meaningful physical quantity, the æther velocity.

Following Dirac, many authors have tried to develop a realistic model for the Dirac’s Æther by considering the æther as a vacuum with conductivity $`\sigma 10^{13}`$/s . They have also found the photon as having a non-null mass $`m_\gamma =\sigma h/c^210^{48}`$g (which is below laboratories estimates for the limit of the photon mass). In these models, the basic equations for the æther were the Maxwell equations in a conducting medium without density of charge and current. The intensity of the electric field $`\stackrel{}{E}`$, and the magnetic induction $`\stackrel{}{B}`$ 222Here we will also refer to the intensity of the electric field $`\stackrel{}{E}`$ and the magnetic induction $`\stackrel{}{B}`$ as simply electric and magnetic field. are related to the electric displacement $`\stackrel{}{D}`$, and the magnetic intensity $`\stackrel{}{H}`$ by the relations $`\stackrel{}{D}=ϵ\stackrel{}{E},\stackrel{}{H}=\frac{1}{\mu }\stackrel{}{B}`$ which suppose the æther as a homogeneous medium polarized isotropically and linearly. Besides that, it is implicit in  that all their analysis is considered in a flat spacetime and from a reference frame at rest relative to the æther.

Our present work is a continuation of an investigation initiated in a preceding paper  where we have studied the amplification of the cosmic magnetic induction for the Proca electromagnetic field in the Dirac’s Æther. There the equations used were the Proca’s equations in a conducting media. Here, we wish to study the Dirac’s model from another point of view, extending his original idea but maintaining the physical motivation for the application in a curved background. One of our interests is to analyse how the primordial cosmic magnetic induction has been amplified, as the Universe evolves, for a model that is neither Proca nor the purely Maxwell electrodynamics (but that includes this last one as a particular case). In the literature of the Dirac’s Æther, none of the models presented in  discusses a possible framework for the study of electromagnetic phenomena in the large scale structure. They all take for granted the basic Maxwell theory. Therefore, any application to a large scale scenario is expected to be modeled within the Maxwell formulation. Since it is unknown if under the influence of a curved background the electromagnetic field presents a different behaviour than that foreseen by the Maxwell theory, it is reasonable to test alternative approaches that may provide a suitable description for the electromagnetic field at the large scale. Our model intends to offer such an alternative.

Although we are not concerned with the relevant question about the structure of the æther as a conducting medium , it is implict in our formulation that there is an inertial reference frame in which the æther is at rest and consequently the field of velocities of the points of the æther write as $`v_{\ae ther}^\mu =(1,0,0,0)`$. We refer it as the æther frame. The main point of our research is based on the proposition of an action for the Æther of Dirac which may be able to reproduce some characteristics of previous models. We propose then the action $`𝒮=𝑑x\left(\frac{1}{4}F^2+\sigma v_\alpha F^{\alpha \mu }A_\mu \right)`$ with $`v`$ being the æther’s velocity relative to a generic observer (inertial or not). For inertial observers, $`v^\mu =\mathrm{\Lambda }_\nu ^\mu v_{\ae ther}^\nu =\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^\mu `$ 333with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ the Lorentz transformation relating the observer and the æther frame. is still constant and we obtain from the equations of motion a four-current in the form $`J^\mu =\sigma v^\mu .A+\sigma v_\nu ^\mu A^\nu `$, that is understood as being induced in the æther by the presence of the electromagnetic field. Therefore, it defines a polarization tensor $`M_{\alpha \beta }`$ from which we obtain the vectors of polarization and magnetization of the medium. We will see in section 2.4 that in the æther reference frame the form assumed by this 4-current allow us to define the electric displacement vector as $`\stackrel{}{D}=\stackrel{}{E}+\sigma \stackrel{}{A}`$ while the magnetic intensity coincides with the magnetic field, $`\stackrel{}{H}=\stackrel{}{B}`$, with the resulting equations being similar in form with the macroscopic Maxwell equations in a medium. This coincides with the results of  but with a particular difference: $`\stackrel{}{D}ϵ\stackrel{}{E}`$. This shows that in our model the æther cannot be thought of as an isotropic medium. Moreover, in a generic reference frame moving relative to the æther, the vectors of electric displacement $`\stackrel{}{D}`$ and magnetic intensity $`\stackrel{}{H}`$ will depend on $`v`$. Our treatment offers an extension of the results of  in the sense that our equations incorporate the situation of reference frames that are not at rest relative to the æther.

In our approach the basic electromagnetic fields are the vectors $`\stackrel{}{E}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{B}`$ which are components of the tensor $`F_{\mu \nu }_\mu A_\nu _\nu A_\mu `$. The equations of motion (3) are determined directly from our action, with the Jacobi identity $`F_{\mu \nu ,\alpha }+F_{\nu \alpha ,\mu }+F_{\alpha \mu ,\nu }=0`$ completing the set of equations involving the electromagnetic field. In the traditional formulation of classical electrodynamics the non-homogeneous Maxwell equations in a conducting medium are obtained introducing a second tensor $`H^{\mu \nu }`$ with components $`\stackrel{}{D}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{H}`$ which satisfy $`_\mu H^{\mu \nu }=j^\nu `$. Compared to our formalism we don’t have to introduce by hand any tensor $`H^{\mu \nu }`$. Here it is the interaction term $`v_\alpha F^{\alpha \mu }A_\mu `$ that forces the appearance of additional terms (depending on $`A_\mu `$) in the equations for $`\stackrel{}{E}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{B}`$ which allow us to identify as $`\stackrel{}{D}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{H}`$. Both the classical electrodynamics in vacuo (31-34) and in conducting media (35-38) are obtained as a particular case of our model for an observer that is at rest relative to the æther. For observers that move slowly relative to the æther and/or for phenomena in which the æther conductivity is sufficiently small we are expected to have the interaction term giving a small contribution to the Maxwell equations and therefore the model may qualitatively agree with the same predictions of the traditional formulation of classical electrodynamics.

This work is organized as follows. Considering an observer moving with constant velocity relative to the æther, in Section 2.1 we discuss the lagrangian of the model, identify the 4-current and a constraint that appears associated to its conservation; in Section 2.2 we analyse a global gauge invariance of the action, we show that in the æther frame the conservation of the Noether charge coincides with the Gauss law, we interpret the interaction term $`v_\alpha F^{\alpha \mu }A_\mu `$ as $`\stackrel{~}{J}A`$ with $`\stackrel{~}{J}^\mu v_\alpha F^{\alpha \mu }`$ a conserved 4-current, and we propose a mass term that preserves the global symmetry; in Section 2.3 we show that our action admits a local gauge invariance; in Section 2.4 we show that in the æther frame we obtain macroscopic Maxwell equations with $`\stackrel{}{D}=\stackrel{}{E}+\sigma \stackrel{}{A}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{H}=\stackrel{}{B}`$. Considering the case of a curved background we will have, in general, $`vcte`$; in Section 3 we establish the material relations involving the fields; in Section 4 the equations of the model in a cosmological background are solved and the solutions are discussed. The last section is devoted to concluding remarks.

### Notations For Flat Space-time

$`\eta _{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`\text{diag}(+,,,)`$
$`x^\mu `$ $``$ $`(x^0,x^i)(t,\stackrel{}{x}),x_\mu (x_0,x_i)(t,\stackrel{}{x})`$
$`^\mu `$ $``$ $`(^0,^i)({\displaystyle \frac{}{t}},\stackrel{}{}),_\mu (_0,_i)({\displaystyle \frac{}{t}},\stackrel{}{})`$
$`A^\mu `$ $``$ $`(A^0,A^i)(\varphi ,\stackrel{}{A}),A_\mu (A_0,A_i)(\varphi ,\stackrel{}{A})`$
$`F_{0i}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{}{E}_i,F_{ij}=ϵ_{ijk}\stackrel{}{B}_k,F^{0i}=F_{0i}=\stackrel{}{E}_i,F^{ij}=F_{ij}=ϵ_{ijk}\stackrel{}{B}_k`$
## 2 The Lagrangian of the Dirac’s Æther and Its Invariances

### 2.1 Equations of Motion

Let us consider a certain reference system moving with a constant 4-velocity relative to the æther reference frame. We take for action

$$𝒮=𝑑x\left(\frac{1}{4}F^2+\stackrel{~}{J}A\right)$$
(1)
with

$$\stackrel{~}{J}^\mu \sigma v_\alpha F^{\alpha \mu }.$$
(2)
In these expressions we have $`F_{\mu \nu }=_\mu A_\nu _\nu A_\mu `$, and the field $`A`$ is understood as a 1-form defined in a flat spacetime manifold. The (constant) parameter $`\sigma `$ is associated to the æther conductivity and $`\stackrel{~}{J}`$ will be shown to be a conserved quantity. Here, the term $`\stackrel{~}{J}A`$ defines an interaction of the gauge field with itself.

The equation of motion for $`A_\mu `$ has the form

$$_\nu F^{\nu \mu }+\sigma v^\mu .A\sigma v_\nu ^\mu A^\nu =0$$
(3)
and it assumes the same form as the Maxwell equations in the presence of a source

$$_\nu F^{\nu \mu }J^\mu $$
(4)
provided we identify

$$J^\mu =\sigma v^\mu .A+\sigma v_\nu ^\mu A^\nu $$
(5)
with a conserved 4-current. This interpretation follows the same idea of Dirac’s NE  in which the term $`j^\mu \lambda A^\mu `$ was interpreted as a 4-current. However, in Dirac’s formalism the appearance of this 4-current originates from the introduction of a gauge fixing term $`\frac{1}{2}\lambda (A^2k^2)`$ in the action while in our approach $`J^\mu `$, given in (5), arises from the presence of the interaction term $`\stackrel{~}{J}.A`$.

Now, taking the divergence of (4) we obtain $`0=_\mu J^\mu =\sigma v_\mu (\mathrm{}A^\mu ^\mu .A)=\sigma v_\mu _\nu F^{\nu \mu }=\sigma v_\mu J^\mu =\sigma ^2(v^2.A+v_\alpha v_\beta ^\alpha A^\beta )`$, i.e

$$.A=\frac{v_\alpha v_\beta }{v^2}^\alpha A^\beta .$$
(6)
This constraint is a new feature of our model and since it involves the divergence of $`A`$ it resembles a kind of gauge condition. Nonetheless, its origin is independent of any local symmetry of the action. In section 2.3 we will analyse how this condition combines with a local symmetry of the action imposing certain conditions to be satisfied by the gauge parameter.

### 2.2 Global Gauge Invariance

The first invariance of the action we want to analize is the one defined by a transformation parametrized by a global parameter $`\lambda (_\mu \lambda =0)`$ and having the form

$$A_\mu A_\mu ^{}=A_\mu +\lambda v_\mu .$$
(7)
Associated to this symmetry we have the following Noether current

$$\mathrm{\Theta }^\mu =F^{\mu \nu }v_\nu \sigma v^\mu A.v+\sigma v^2A^\mu \mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu }v_\nu $$
(8)
with

$$\mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }\sigma v^\mu A^\nu +\sigma v^\nu A^\mu .$$
(9)
In section 3 the quantitity $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu }`$ will be interpreted as the tensor $`H^{\mu \nu }`$, which in the æther frame becomes $`H^{\mu \nu }=(\stackrel{}{D},\stackrel{}{H})`$. In this general case, it will be clear how $`H^{\mu \nu }`$ depends on the properties of the medium and on the 4-velocity $`v`$. In a system that is at rest relative to the æther we have

$$\mathrm{\Theta }^\mu =(0,\stackrel{}{E}+\sigma \stackrel{}{A})$$
(10)
and condition (6) gives $`\stackrel{}{}.\stackrel{}{A}=0`$. Therefore, the conservation equation of $`\mathrm{\Theta }^\mu `$ let us with

$$\stackrel{}{}.\stackrel{}{E}=0.$$
(11)
In our model, there is another conserved current that has the form

$$\widehat{J}^\mu =\sigma v^\mu .A+\sigma v.A^\mu $$
(12)
and from which we obtain $`\stackrel{~}{J}=\widehat{J}J`$. Then, conservation of $`\stackrel{~}{J}`$ follows immediately as the difference of two conserved currents. Equivalently, from (9) we can also think of $`\stackrel{~}{J}^\nu `$ as originating from the divergence of $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu }`$,

$`_\mu \mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu }=\stackrel{~}{J}^\nu .`$ (13)
In the classical formulation of Electrodynamics in conducting media the non-homogeneous Maxwell equations are written covariantly as

$`_\mu H^{\mu \nu }=j_{ext}^\nu `$ (14)
with the tensor $`H^{\mu \nu }`$ having $`\stackrel{}{D}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{H}`$ as its components. In our model $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu }`$ (9) generalizes the tensor $`H^{\mu \nu }`$ and equation (13) corresponds to (14). Then this allow us to interpret $`\stackrel{~}{J}^\mu `$ as the corresponding 4-current of our model, in much the same way as Dirac interpreted $`j_\mu =\lambda A_\mu `$ as a 4-current in . The interaction term $`\stackrel{~}{J}A`$ in our action (1) parallels then the same interaction term of the usual electrodynamics.

The global symmetry (7) is a new feature of our model that has no similar counterpart in the usual Maxwell formulation. It is also possible to add a mass term to the action (1) that perserves this global symmetry. In fact, the action

$$𝒮=𝑑x\left(\frac{1}{4}F^2+\stackrel{~}{J}A\frac{1}{2}\sigma ^2A_\mu (v^2g^{\mu \nu }v^\mu v^\nu )A_\nu \right)$$
(15)
is invariant by (7). From (15) we obtain the following equation

$$_\nu F^{\nu \mu }\overline{J}^\mu \sigma v^\mu .A+\sigma v_\nu ^\mu A^\nu +\sigma ^2(v^2g^{\mu \nu }v^\mu v^\nu )A_\nu $$
(16)
or equivalently

$$\left(g^{\mu \nu }(\mathrm{}\sigma ^2v^2)^\mu ^\nu +\sigma (v^\mu ^\nu v^\nu ^\mu )+\sigma ^2v^\mu v^\nu \right)A_\nu =0.$$
(17)
Here the conservation of the current $`\overline{J}^\mu `$ that follows from (16) doesn’t produce any constraint over $`A`$. We also notice that associated to the global symmetry we have the same conserved current (8).

### 2.3 Local Gauge Invariance

The local gauge invariance depends on a parameter $`\theta (x)`$ and assumes the usual form

$$A_\mu A_\mu ^{}=A_\mu +_\mu \theta .$$
(18)
Here, condition (6) adds new features to our analysis. In fact, let $`A^{}`$ and $`A`$ be two fields related by (18). Since both field configurations should obey (6) we must have

$$.A^{}=\frac{1}{v^2}(v.)(v.A^{})\mathrm{}\theta =\frac{v_\alpha v_\beta }{v^2}^\alpha ^\beta \theta .$$
(19)
Consider that $`.A0`$ and let us choose $`\theta `$ such that it ensures $`.A^{}=0`$. We should then have $`\theta `$ satisfying

$$\mathrm{}\theta =.A.$$
(20)
This last condition together with the constraints (6,19) gives

$$^\alpha ^\beta \theta =\frac{1}{2}(^\alpha A^\beta +^\beta A^\alpha )$$
(21)
that represents a restriction stronger than that shown in (20). Equivalently, we can obtain equation (21) directly from $`0=.A^{}=\frac{v_av_\beta }{v^2}^\alpha (A^\beta +^\beta \theta )`$ by using (6).

### 2.4 Electrodynamics in the Æther’s Reference Frame

Let us analyse our model in the æther reference frame. We have $`v=(1,0,0,0)`$. We also suppose the æther as a medium without any given density of charge or current. From (4) we obtain the following equations

$`\stackrel{}{}.\stackrel{}{E}`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma \stackrel{}{}.\stackrel{}{A}`$ (22)
$`\stackrel{}{}\times \stackrel{}{B}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{E}}{t}}+\sigma {\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{A}}{t}}+\sigma \stackrel{}{E}`$ (23)
to which we add the homogeneous equations

$`\stackrel{}{}.\stackrel{}{B}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (24)
$`\stackrel{}{}\times \stackrel{}{E}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{B}}{t}}.`$ (25)
Since $`\stackrel{}{}.\stackrel{}{E}0`$, we have that (22) introduces a new feature for the physical vacuum. A similar situation has been observed in the extended electromagnetism of . Essentially, a divergenceless equation for $`\stackrel{}{E}`$ signalizes that the vacuum is not merely an empty space but it is also subjected to become electrically polarized. The presence of additional terms depending on the potential vector in (22, 23) is understood as signalizing the response of the medium to the presence of the fields $`(\stackrel{}{E},\stackrel{}{B})`$, a situation that resembles the phenomena of polarization and magnetization of a medium. Therefore, we rewrite (22) as

$$\stackrel{}{}.\stackrel{}{D}=0$$
(26)
with $`\stackrel{}{D}\stackrel{}{E}+\sigma \stackrel{}{A}+\stackrel{}{}\times \stackrel{}{K}`$. At this point, $`\stackrel{}{K}`$ is an arbitrary vector that can be thought of as playing a similar role of a gauge parameter. Now, we rewrite (23) as

$$\stackrel{}{}\times \stackrel{}{B}=\frac{\stackrel{}{D}}{t}+\sigma \stackrel{}{E}\frac{}{t}\stackrel{}{}\times \stackrel{}{K}$$
(27)
and we choose $`\stackrel{}{K}`$ such that it satisfies

$$\frac{}{t}\stackrel{}{}\times \stackrel{}{K}=\sigma \stackrel{}{E}.$$
(28)
Then, using (25) we obtain

$$\frac{}{t}\stackrel{}{}\times \left(\sigma \stackrel{}{A}+\stackrel{}{}\times \stackrel{}{K}\right)=0.$$
(29)
The vector $`\stackrel{}{K}`$ can be further restricted so that

$$\sigma \stackrel{}{A}+\stackrel{}{}\times \stackrel{}{K}=0.$$
(30)
This gives $`\stackrel{}{E}=\stackrel{}{D}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{B}=\stackrel{}{H}`$ and lead us to a set of equations

$`\stackrel{}{}.\stackrel{}{E}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (31)
$`\stackrel{}{}\times \stackrel{}{B}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{E}}{t}}`$ (32)
$`\stackrel{}{}.\stackrel{}{B}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (33)
$`\stackrel{}{}\times \stackrel{}{E}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{B}}{t}}`$ (34)
that correspond to the Maxwell equations in free space. Conditions (28,30) can be interpreted as originating from the imposition of the temporal gauge. In fact, together they imply $`\stackrel{}{}A_0=0`$ that is naturally satisfied if we put $`A_0=0`$.

It is possible to give another description for our electrodynamics without using this vector $`\stackrel{}{K}`$. From (23) we can simply identify $`\stackrel{}{D}=\stackrel{}{E}+\sigma \stackrel{}{A},\stackrel{}{H}=\stackrel{}{B}`$ that lead us to the following equations

$`\stackrel{}{}.\stackrel{}{D}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (35)
$`\stackrel{}{}\times \stackrel{}{B}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{D}}{t}}+\sigma \stackrel{}{E}`$ (36)
$`\stackrel{}{}.\stackrel{}{B}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (37)
$`\stackrel{}{}\times \stackrel{}{E}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{B}}{t}}`$ (38)
that coincides with the æther’s equations obtained in . In the identification $`\stackrel{}{D}=\stackrel{}{E}+\sigma \stackrel{}{A},\stackrel{}{H}=\stackrel{}{B}`$ the æther behaves like a medium that responds to the presence of the electric field by creating a polarization $`\stackrel{}{P}=\sigma \stackrel{}{A}`$. We also have a current $`\stackrel{}{J}=\sigma \stackrel{}{E}`$ which is in agreement with our supposition of the æther as being a medium with conductivity $`\sigma `$.

According to Schwinger’s idea of structureless vacuum , an electromagnetic field disturbs the vacuum affecting its properties of homogeneity and isotropy. This is exactly the situation we have obtained in our model, where the presence of an electromagnetic field in a vacuum with conductivity $`\sigma `$ produces a response of the medium $`(\stackrel{}{D}ϵ\stackrel{}{E})`$ that signalizes its non-isotropy.

## 3 Material Relations Involving $`H^{\mu \nu }`$ and $`F_{\mu \nu }`$

In section 2.4, we have obtained the following material relations

$`\stackrel{}{D}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{}{E}+\sigma \stackrel{}{A}`$ (39)
$`\stackrel{}{H}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{}{B}`$ (40)
for a flat spacetime and for the case of a reference frame at rest relative to the æther. In the case of a curved spacetime and for a non-inertial reference frame moving relative to the æther, we are supposed to have a more complicated relation between $`H`$ and $`F`$. Indeed, the general form for the material relations between the tensors $`H^{\mu \nu }`$ and $`F_{\mu \nu }`$ in a medium that is at rest in any reference frame with a metric $`g_{\alpha \beta }`$ has been established in  as:

$$\sqrt{g}H^{\alpha \beta }=\sqrt{g}g^{\alpha \gamma }g^{\beta \kappa }S_\gamma ^\mu S_\kappa ^\nu F_{\mu \nu }$$
(41)
where the tensor $`S_\beta ^\alpha `$ characterizes the electromagnetic properties of the medium. For our later purpose, it is convenient to rewrite (41) as

$`\sqrt{g}H^{\alpha \beta }=\sqrt{g}g^{\alpha \gamma }g^{\beta \kappa }S_{\gamma \kappa }^\mu A_\mu `$ (42)
where the third rank mixed tensor $`S_{\gamma \kappa }^\mu `$relates to $`S_\beta ^\alpha `$ by

$`S_{\gamma \kappa }^\mu =(S_\gamma ^\nu S_\kappa ^\mu S_\gamma ^\mu S_\kappa ^\nu )_\nu .`$ (43)
As an application of (41) it was shown in  that for the vacuum (considered from an inertial reference frame) the tensor $`S_\beta ^\alpha `$ assumes the form $`S_\beta ^\alpha =\delta _\beta ^\alpha `$ and the material equations become $`\sqrt{g}H^{\alpha \beta }=\sqrt{g}g^{\alpha \mu }g^{\beta \nu }F_{\mu \nu }`$ which reproduces the usual equations of free electrodynamics in a curved background . Also, in the case of a linear isotropic medium that is at rest in an inertial reference frame the tensor $`S_\beta ^\alpha `$ is given by $`S_0^0=ϵ\sqrt{\mu },S_1^1=S_2^2=S_3^3=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\mu }}`$ and we obtain the usual relations $`\stackrel{}{D}=ϵ\stackrel{}{E}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{H}=\frac{1}{\mu }\stackrel{}{B}`$. for the electrodynamics in a medium.

In our model, in order to define the tensor $`H^{\alpha \beta }`$ for a generic reference frame in a curved background and to find a suitable material relation of the type (42) we should first follow the procedure of section 2.4 that allow us to define $`H^{\mu \nu }`$ directly from the equation of motion for $`A_\mu `$. Explicitly, let us take the equation of motion in a curved background,

$$_\nu (\sqrt{g}F^{\nu \mu }\sigma \sqrt{g}v^\nu A^\mu +\sigma \sqrt{g}v^\mu A^\nu )=J^\mu \sigma \sqrt{g}v_\nu F^{\nu \mu }$$
(44)
then we define

$`\sqrt{g}H^{\alpha \beta }\sqrt{g}(F^{\alpha \beta }\sigma v^\alpha A^\beta +\sigma v^\beta A^\alpha ).`$ (45)
This procedure is equivalent to the introduction of the antisymmetric polarization tensor of the medium $`M^{\alpha \beta }`$

$$\sqrt{g}H^{\alpha \beta }=\sqrt{g}(F^{\alpha \beta }+M^{\alpha \beta })\sqrt{g}H^{\alpha \beta }=\sqrt{g}g^{\alpha \nu }g^{\beta \mu }(F_{\nu \mu }+M_{\nu \mu })$$
(46)
provided we identify from (45,46)

$$M^{\alpha \beta }=\sigma v^\alpha A^\beta +\sigma v^\beta A^\alpha M_{\alpha \beta }=\sigma v_\alpha A_\beta +\sigma v_\beta A_\alpha $$
(47)
with $`F^{\mu \nu }=g^{\mu \alpha }g^{\nu \beta }F_{\alpha \beta },F_{\mu \nu }_\mu A_\nu _\nu A_\mu ,M^{\mu \nu }=g^{\mu \alpha }g^{\nu \beta }M_{\alpha \beta }`$. Finally, in order to obtain the material equations for our model we extend definition (42) by allowing $`S_{\alpha \beta }^\mu `$ to be a generic operator not restricted by (43) but given by

$$S_{\alpha \beta }^\mu =\delta _\beta ^\mu (_\alpha \sigma v_\alpha )\delta _\alpha ^\mu (_\beta \sigma v_\beta ).$$
(48)
Here, the tensor $`S_{\alpha \beta }^\mu `$ may contain not only electromagnetic properties of the medium (as it is the case of (43)) but also information about the reference frame (implicit in the four-velocity $`v_\alpha `$). Adopting the convention $`\stackrel{}{D}_i=\sqrt{g}H^{i0},\stackrel{}{H}_i=\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{ijk}\sqrt{g}H^{jk}`$  and considering a flat spacetime we obtain (in the æther frame) from (42,48) the relations given in (39,40).

## 4 The Dirac’s Æther in a Curved Background

### 4.1 Some Questions on the Cosmic Magnetic Induction

The origin of the cosmic magnetic induction (CMI) is still unknown. In fact, until now no theory has completely succeeded on explaining the evolution of the CMI, from its generation in the early universe to our present time in galaxies, stars and probably in the extracluster medium. The standard dynamo action, for instance, has left many questions without answer . Recently, one special type of mechanism for the amplification of the CMI has been studied in  where the amplification was understood as being caused by the expansion of the cosmological background. This new kind of theoretical preview was called geometric amplification (GA) because the only agent responsible for this effect was the scale geometric factor $`R(t)`$. One of the advantages of this approach is that the amplification can be an alternative for the standard mechanism recently contested in .

The radio emission of very distant cosmic objects determines an upper limit for the intensity of the CMI. According to the literature, in the extra-galatic medium the CMI is supposed to have an intensity less than $`10^{13}`$T 444Other models have considered a generation of a primordial CMI of magnitude $`10^{21}`$T . .

### 4.2 The Model in the Friedmann’s Geometries

Considering these ideas, we will now apply our model to a curved background. We will be particularly interested on finding solutions for the CMI that may provide an explanation for the amplification of this field from the initial value of $`10^{19}`$T to the suggested actual value of $`10^{13}`$T. Here, we will assume that the conductivity of Dirac’s Æther is $`10^{19}`$/s.

Let us take as coordinate system the cylindrical coordinates of Schrödinger $`x^\mu =(t;\rho ,\varphi ,\zeta )`$ in a Friedmann cosmological background minimally coupled with the electromagnetic field. The metric tensor in all three Friedmann geometries is written as

$`g_{\mu \nu }=diag\left[R^2(t)(1;1,u^2,w^2)\right],`$ (49)
where the functions $`u(\rho )`$ and $`w(\rho )`$ define the type of three-geometry (with constant curvature $`k_c`$) under consideration. These functions and the different scale factors are shown in table 1.

We assume here the same time dependent 4-potential with cylindrical symmetry  given by

$`A^\mu =(0;\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0})f(t)/R^2(t),`$ (50)
where $`f(t)`$ is a function to be determined by the field equations. The non-zero components of the field strength $`F_{\mu \nu }`$ are $`F_{02}`$ and $`F_{12}`$. Therefore, for the orthonormal basis we have chosen, the non-null components of the fields $`𝐄`$ and $`c𝐁`$ are $`E_\varphi =\dot{f}u^2/R^2`$, $`cB_\zeta =2fuu^{}/R^2`$ 555The dot means $`d/dt`$, the prime means $`d/d\rho `$, and $`c`$, in this section, is written explicitly as the light velocity.. To study how the expansion of the Universe influences the time evolution of the electromagnetic field, it is appropriate to define the time dependent quantities $`(t)`$ $``$ $`|𝐄/u|=|\dot{f}|/R^2`$ and $`(t)`$ $``$ $`|𝐁/u^{}|=2|f|/(cR^2)`$ that for simplicity we will also refer as the electric field and magnetic induction.

In a curved space-time with metric minimally coupled to the electromagnetic field we obtain from $`𝒮`$ the following equations

$`F_{;\mu }^{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma }{c}}(A^\mu v^\nu A^\nu v^\mu )_{;\mu }=J^\nu `$ (51)
where the semicolon denotes the covariant derivative, $`J^\nu =(\sigma /c)v_\mu F^{\mu \nu }`$ and $`v_\mu =R(t)\delta _\mu ^0`$ the four-velocity of the æther.

Here we notice that our new equations (51) differ from the ones of our previous model  by the presence of a skew-symmetric term $`(A^\mu v^\nu A^\nu v^\mu )_{;\mu }`$ instead of the term $`(1/\lambda ^2)A^\nu `$ (that comes from the Proca term). In both cases, the qualitative behaviour of the new term will be very similar to the one obtained in the Proca model as we can see after comparing Table 3 below and the graphics of our preceding paper.

For $`\nu =2`$ we have

$`\ddot{f}+\left[4k_c{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma }{c}}\dot{R}\right]f=0`$ (52)
and according to the geometry, we have to solve the equations below:

$`\ddot{f}\alpha t{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma }{c}}f`$ $`=`$ $`0\text{for }k_c=0;`$
$`\ddot{f}+(4{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma }{c}}\alpha \mathrm{sin}t)f`$ $`=`$ $`0\text{for }k_c=+1;`$ (53)
$`\ddot{f}(4+{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma }{c}}\alpha \mathrm{sinh}t)f`$ $`=`$ $`0\text{for }k_c=1.`$
We assume an initial field of magnitude $`(t_i)10^{21}`$T. Since our model should also contain a weak initial electric field to be dissipated during the evolution of Universe, we shall assume the existence of an electric field of magnitude $`(t_i)10^4`$V/m. These limits are fixed in order to give, as a final result, a realistic value for the modulus of $`(t_f)`$ that agrees with the one established by the usual theory of the cosmic fields. These initial values we have assumed don’t perturb the gravitational field, as it is evident from simple calculations which show the energy-momentum tensor of the electromagnetic and gravitational field related by a factor above $`10^{10}`$. These results then justify the minimal coupling of these fields as a suitable framework to study the influence of the very strong geometry of the Universe on the very weak electromagnetic phenomenon.

Using the same method employed in , we will integrate numerically equations (4.2) from the initial cosmic conformal time $`t_i=0.0890`$ to the final time $`t_f=1.6100`$. In standard cosmology this range corresponds respectively to the final stage of the matter-radiation coupling and our current epoch. We have obtained around $`20,000`$ points in the numerical integration of which, in Table 2, we displayed only a small ensemble of these points that can give us a qualitative view of the amplification phenomenon.

These results are very similar to the ones of our latter work . In Table 3 we compared the initial and the final value of the fields for each geometry. The data show the important amplification of the $``$ field, which is very welcomed by astrophysicists, and the overall reduction of the electric field. It should be noticed that these results are determined not only by the evolution of the function $`f(t)`$, (which constrains the field equations) but also by the direct contribution of the geometry as given by the scale factor, $`R(t)`$, that is present in both mathematical expressions for $``$ and $``$. It is the interchange between the gravitational and electromagnetic fields that imposes, as the Universe evolves, the decreasing of the electric field and the amplification of the $``$ field.

## 5 Conclusion

Our model for the Æther of Dirac allow us to adapt our description to any observer, be it inertial or not. In the case of an observer at rest relative to the æther, in a flat spacetime, we have obtained the same description of previous models  but with different material relations involving the fields $`\stackrel{}{D},\stackrel{}{H},\stackrel{}{E},\stackrel{}{B}`$. This accounts for the fact that although the æther is a medium with conductivity, the presence of an electromagnetic field disturbs its isotropy. The equations we have obtained in this case had the same form as the Maxwell equations in a conductive medium provided we adopted a certain “gauge” choice for the vector $`\stackrel{}{K}`$ (28,30). Here we notice the same role of the gauge condition as in the original work of Dirac’s NE , e.g. as a condition that determines a certain physics. In the case of a curved background, an observer with $`v_\alpha =R(t)\delta _\alpha ^0`$ will see the same phenomenon of amplification of the magnetic induction and reduction of the electric intensity that had already been observed in  in the context of a Proca electromagnetic field in a Dirac æther.

The material relations between the polarization tensor and the gauge potential given in (41,48) shows that the tensor $`H^{\mu \nu }`$ is related to the electromagnetic properties of the medium (encoded into the tensor $`S_{\alpha \beta }^\mu `$) and the metric tensor. This raises an interesting picture of a mutual effect between the electromagnetic field and the geometry of the spacetime. In fact, if the GA describes how the expansion of the universe influences the electromagnetic fields as a kind of geometric background effect that should be added to well-established non-geometric effects, there is also the possibility for the electromagnetic field to influence the expansion of the universe .

The geometric relations between the electromagnetic field and the metric tensor involves the scale factor $`R(t)`$. The amplification of the field $``$ in this case is determined by the minimal coupling we adopted. In other coulplings between the electromagnetic and the gravitational fields the interchange could be more rapid and/or more intense, as we can see in . Our results confirm once more the strict relations between the electromagnetic and gravitational phenomena. Furthermore, the model we elaborated for the Dirac’s Æther in a curved space-time sugests it can also be applied to the study of the electromagnetism in the large scale structure of the Universe.


text:
# Explicit factorization of Seiberg-Witten curves with matter from random matrix models.11footnote 1Work partially supported by the European Commission RTN programme HPRN-CT-2000-00131.

## 1 Introduction

Very recently there appeared new powerful methods of extracting effective superpotentials for a wide class of $`𝒩=1`$ gauge theories. The proposal by Dijkgraaf and Vafa , building upon earlier string theoretical constructions , links these superpotentials with quantities in random matrix models. The proposal have since been proven . The proposal has been extended to theories with fundamental matter  and there has been significant work on studying some features of the link with Seiberg-Witten curves .

These curves made their appearance in the ground-breaking work of Seiberg and Witten  on the study of $`𝒩=2`$ supersymmetric gauge theories. It turned out that one can describe the low energy dynamics of the gauge theory in terms of geometrical properties of the Seiberg-Witten curves. Subsequently it was realized  that one could also study, within the same framework, deformations to $`𝒩=1`$ theories by adding a tree level superpotential. In this context one is led to the points (submanifolds) in moduli space where monopoles become massless and condense. At these points the Seiberg-Witten curve factorizes – it has only two single zeroes (branch points) in the case of complete factorization, where all monopoles condense. Once the form of the Seiberg-Witten curve at the factorization point is known one can calculate effective potentials for the deformed theory .

The possibility of integrating in the glueball field $`S`$ was realized in  and used to check the matrix model result following from the Dijkgraaf-Vafa proposal for deformed pure $`𝒩=2`$ theories (without fundamental matter). There the explicit factorization of curves without matter of  was known. Factorization properties were also used in the context of $`SO(N_c)`$ theories  and multi-trace operators  to obtain the appropriate effective superpotentials $`W_{eff}(S)`$.

However once one adds fundamental matter to the theory, the factorization problem becomes exceedingly complicated (even in the case of $`U(2)`$ with 1 flavour) and no explicit solutions are known. The aim of this paper is to use the Dijkgraaf-Vafa proposal linking superpotentials to matrix models and derive, from the random matrix model solution, explicit factorization of Seiberg-Witten curves of $`U(N_c)`$ theory with $`N_f<N_c`$ fundamental matter fields.

If it were not for the Dijkgraaf-Vafa correspondence, we would not expect that any analytical solutions to this problem could exist. The fact that they can be obtained in this way shows that the random matrix model with matter is intimately linked to fine details of the geometry of the appropriate Seiberg-Witten curves.

In addition we find that the matrix theory variables capture a surprising robust structure of the factorized Seiberg-Witten curve. The ‘pure’ $`𝒩=2`$ solutions and the new contributions of each flavor appear additively. All nonlinearity is concentrated in a single relation involving the scale of the gauge theory $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and the matrix theory variables. Moreover we find that the ‘integrating-out’ equations of pure $`𝒩=2`$ theories reappear, in terms of matrix variables, in the context of $`𝒩=2`$ theories with fundamental flavors. This arises naturally in the matrix model but is rather unexpected from a gauge theory perspective.

In section 7 we collect the final results of the paper.

The plan of this paper is as follows. In section 2 we describe the field theoretical ingredients in more detail. In section 3 we introduce the setup for the Dijkgraaf-Vafa proposal with matter fields. We then go to use the orthogonal polynomial method to rederive directly the solution of the factorization for pure $`𝒩=2`$ theory, which is an ingredient of the expressions for theories with matter. In sections 5 and 6 we derive the linearity in couplings of the superpotential and the expressions for factorization. Section 7 contains the main result of the paper. In section 8 we give some specific examples and close the paper with a discussion. Three appendices contain some technical details.

## 2 Field theory considerations

It has been known for a long time that $`𝒩=2`$ supersymmetric $`U(N_c)`$ gauge theories with $`N_f<N_c`$ massive flavors has a Coulomb branch that is not lifted by quantum corrections . This quantum moduli space is $`N_c`$-dimensional, parametrized for example by $`u_k=\frac{1}{k}\text{tr}\mathrm{\Phi }^k`$ with $`kN_c`$. At each point of the moduli space, the low energy theory is described by an $`𝒩=2`$ effective abelian $`U(1)^{N_c}`$ gauge theory. All the relevant quantum corrections in the IR can be recast in terms of the period matrix of a particular meromorphic one-form of the auxilliarly complex curve — the Seiberg-Witten curve , or more precisely a family of genus $`N_c1`$ hyperelliptic Riemann surfaces:

$$y^2=P_{N_c}(x,u_k)^24\mathrm{\Lambda }^{2N_cN_f}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N_f}{}}(x+m_i),$$
(1)
with

$$P_{N_c}(x,u_k)=det\left(xI\mathrm{\Phi }\right)=\underset{\alpha =0}{\overset{N_c}{}}s_\alpha x^{N_c\alpha }.$$
(2)
The coefficients $`s_\alpha `$ are polynomials of the $`u_k`$’s parameterizing the Coulomb branch:

$`\alpha s_\alpha +{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{\alpha }{}}}ks_{\alpha k}u_k=0`$ (3)
$`s_0=1,u_0=0`$ (4)
One can deform this $`𝒩=2`$ theory to a $`𝒩=1`$ gauge theory by adding a tree level superpotential:

$$W_{tree}=\underset{p=1}{\overset{N_c+1}{}}g_p\frac{1}{p}\text{tr}\mathrm{\Phi }^p.$$
(5)
The classical vacuum structure is given by all possible distributions of the $`N_c`$ eigenvalues $`\varphi _k`$ of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ amongst the $`N_c`$ critical points $`a_j`$ of the potential. This corresponds, at the classical level, to a breaking of the $`U(N_c)`$ gauge symmetry to the gauge group $`_{i=1}^{N_cn}U(N_i)`$ with $`_{i=1}^{N_cn}N_i=N_c`$, where the $`N_i`$’s are the nonzero multiplicities of the eigenvalues. For the purposes of this paper we can safely set $`g_{N_c+1}=0`$ as we will be considering the case with no breaking of gauge symmetry (complete factorization).

Turning to the quantum picture, the presence of this superpotential will lift the quantum moduli space, characteristic of the $`𝒩=2`$ Coulomb phase, except for the codimension $`n`$ submanifolds, where $`n`$ mutually local magnetic monopoles become massless. These are the $`𝒩=1`$ vacua solving the F-flatness and D-flatness conditions and are characterized by a monopole condensate of the massless monopoles. This is believed to produce, by the dual Meissner effect, the expected confinement of the electric $`𝒩=1`$ theory. Hence, the final quantum theory is described at low energies by a $`𝒩=1`$ $`U(1)^{N_cn}`$ gauge theory. These $`U(1)`$’s can be thought of as the $`U(1)U(N_i)`$ of the classical theory. The $`𝒩=1`$ $`SU(N_i)`$ part of the theory confines, has a mass gap and is characterized by a gaugino condensate.

These $`𝒩=1`$ vacua, being the codimensional $`n`$ submanifolds of the $`𝒩=2`$ Coulomb branch, where $`n`$ mutually local monopoles become massless, are parameterized by the sets of moduli $`\{u_k^{fact.}\}`$ where the Seiberg-Witten curve factorizes, i.e. the r.h.s. of (1) has $`n`$ double roots777For simplicity we are assuming that higher order roots are not occuring. and $`2(N_cn)`$ single roots:

$$P_{N_c}(x,u_k^{fact.})^24\mathrm{\Lambda }^{2N_cN_f}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N_f}{}}(x+m_i)=F_{2(N_cn)}(x)H_n^2(x).$$
(6)
Moreover it is shown in  that the reduced curve,

$$y^2=F_{2(N_cn)}$$
(7)
captures the full quantum dynamics of the $`𝒩=1`$ $`U(1)^{N_cn}`$ low energy theory.

The effective superpotential of the theory deformed by (5), where we set $`g_{N_c+1}=0`$, is obtained by plugging the solutions $`u_k^{fact.}`$, parametrized by $`N_cn`$ parameters into the tree level superpotential:

$$W_{eff}=\underset{p=1}{\overset{N_c}{}}g_pu_p^{fact.},$$
(8)
Then (8) should be minimized with respect to the $`N_cn`$ parameters.

#### Complete factorization

In this paper we will be interested in the case where $`N_c1`$ mutually local monopoles condense. This corresponds to a complete factorization of the Seiberg-Witten curve: the vacua form a 1 dimensional submanifold such that the curve has only $`2`$ single roots and $`N_c1`$ double roots:

$$P_{N_c}(x,u_k^{fact.})^24\mathrm{\Lambda }^{2N_cN_f}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N_f}{}}(x+m_i)=(xa)(xb)H_{N_c1}^2(x)$$
(9)
The main goal of this paper is to find explicit expressions for the moduli $`u_k^{fact.}`$ where complete factorization occurs. Let us briefly review the solution for the pure $`𝒩=2`$ Yang-Mills case found by Douglas and Shenker  some time ago using Chebyshev polynomials.

Their solution factorizing the curve $`P_{N_c}(x,u_k)^24\mathrm{\Lambda }^{2N_c}`$ is888Adapted to the $`U(N_c)`$ gauge group .

$$u_p^{fact.}(\mathrm{\Lambda },u_1)=\frac{N_c}{p}\underset{q=0}{\overset{[p/2]}{}}(\begin{array}{c}p\\ 2q\end{array})(\begin{array}{c}2q\\ q\end{array})\mathrm{\Lambda }^{2q}\left(\frac{u_1}{N_c}\right)^{p2q}.$$
(10)
Note that the one dimensional submanifold where the $`U(N_c)`$ curve completely factorized, is parametrized by $`u_1=\text{tr}\mathrm{\Phi }`$. These results can be easily restricted to the $`SU(N_c)`$ case, by putting explicitly $`u_1=0`$. All parameters are then uniquely fixed in terms of the only scale of the theory $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

#### Integrating in $`S`$

The quantum $`𝒩=1`$ effective potential generated by the tree level potential is obtained by minimizing (8)

$$W_{eff}(\mathrm{\Lambda },u_1)=\underset{p=1}{\overset{N_c}{}}g_pu_p^{fact.}(\mathrm{\Lambda },u_1)$$
(11)
with respect to $`u_1`$.

Here we follow an alternative route taken in , and integrate in $`S`$ by performing a Legendre transformation with respect to $`\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{2N_cN_f}`$. The superpotential is then given by:

$`W_{eff}(S,u_1,\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ $`=`$ $`S\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{2N_cN_f}+W_{eff}(S,u_1,\mathrm{\Omega })=`$ (12)
$`=`$ $`S\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{2N_cN_f}S\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Omega }^{2N_cN_f}+{\displaystyle \underset{p=1}{\overset{N_c}{}}}g_pu_p^{fact.}(\mathrm{\Omega },u_1).`$
Note that the only $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-dependence is in the linear $`S\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{2N_cN_f}`$ term. Integrating out $`S`$ forces $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and brings us back to (11). In order to get the effective potential $`W_{eff}(\mathrm{\Lambda },S)`$ one has to integrate out both $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`u_1`$.

Our strategy for identifying the factorization parameters $`u_p^{fact.}`$ for the theory with matter is to rewrite the random matrix expression in the form given by the last two terms of (12) and to read off the appropriate gauge theoretic moduli $`u_p^{fact.}`$. The first term in (12) could also be absorbed into the matrix model expressions if appropriate rescalings of the integration measure of the matrix model was made. We will not do this here.

For later reference let us quote the equations of motion for the pure $`𝒩=2`$ gauge theory:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{W_{eff}(S,u_1,\mathrm{\Omega })}{\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Omega }^{2N_c}}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{p2}{}}g_p{\displaystyle \underset{q=0}{\overset{[p/2]}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{q}{p}}(\begin{array}{c}p\\ 2q\end{array})(\begin{array}{c}2q\\ q\end{array})\mathrm{\Omega }^{2q}\left({\displaystyle \frac{u_1}{N_c}}\right)^{p2q}S=0`$ (17)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{W_{eff}(S,u_1,\mathrm{\Omega })}{u_1}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{p1}{}}g_p{\displaystyle \underset{q=0}{\overset{[p/2]}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{p2q}{p}}(\begin{array}{c}p\\ 2q\end{array})(\begin{array}{c}2q\\ q\end{array})\mathrm{\Omega }^{2q}\left({\displaystyle \frac{u_1}{N_c}}\right)^{p2q1}=0`$ (22)
These follow directly from (12) and (10).

## 3 The Dijkgraaf-Vafa proposal with fundamental matter

According to the Dijkgraaf-Vafa prescription the the perturbative part of the superpotential can be expressed as

$$W_{eff}(S)=N_c\frac{_{\chi =2}(S)}{S}+_{\chi =1}(S)$$
(23)
where the $`_\chi `$ are defined through the matrix integral

$$e^{\frac{N^2}{S^2}_{\chi =2}(S)\frac{N}{S}_{\chi =1}(S)+\mathrm{}}=D\mathrm{\Phi }DQ_iD\stackrel{~}{Q}_ie^{\frac{N}{S}\left(\text{tr}V(\mathrm{\Phi })mQ_i\stackrel{~}{Q}_iQ_i\mathrm{\Phi }\stackrel{~}{Q}_i\right)}$$
(24)
where we included the coupling of fundamental matter to the adjoint field in accordance with $`𝒩=2`$ supersymmetry.

The matter fields in the matrix model (24) appear only quadratically and hence may be integrated out giving

$$D\mathrm{\Phi }det\left(m+\mathrm{\Phi }\right)^1e^{\frac{N}{S}\text{tr}V(\mathrm{\Phi })}=Zdet\left(m+\mathrm{\Phi }\right)^1$$
(25)
where $`Z`$ is the partition function of the matrix model without matter. For the complex matrix model it is well know that $`Z`$ will contribute only to $`_{\chi =2}`$ and not to $`_{\chi =1}`$. Using large $`N`$ factorization we also have

$$det(m+\mathrm{\Phi })^1=e^{\mathrm{log}det(m+\mathrm{\Phi })}=e^{\text{tr}\mathrm{log}(m+\mathrm{\Phi })}=e^{\text{tr}\mathrm{log}(m+\mathrm{\Phi })}$$
(26)
We see that the matter determinant appears at subleading order in $`N`$ w.r.t the tree level potential. This has the important consequence that the saddle point solution (eigenvalue density $`\rho (\lambda )`$) and hence $`_{\chi =2}`$ will not be influenced by the presence of matter. The $`\chi =1`$ contribution is then given by

$$_{\chi =1}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N_f}{}}𝑑\lambda \rho (\lambda )\mathrm{log}(m_i+\lambda )$$
(27)
In the following section we will evaluate the $`_{\chi =2}`$ piece of the partition function $`Z`$ appearing in (25) using the method of orthogonal polynomials. As a byproduct we will rederive the factorization expression for the pure gauge theory case. Then in section 5 we will start investigating the matter contribution (27).

## 4 Orthogonal polynomials and $`_{\chi =2}`$

In this section we will use the method of the orthogonal polynomials to study thoroughly the one cut solution. A very nice introduction to this powerful method can be found in . We will show that all results obtained from the field theory analysis appear naturally in this setting from random matrix computations (compare ).

The orthogonal polynomials associated to the matrix model with potential $`\frac{N}{S}\text{tr}V(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ satisfy the recursion relation

$$sP_n(s)=P_{n+1}(s)+T_nP_n(s)+R_nP_{n1}(s)$$
(28)
In the large $`N`$ limit the recursion coefficients $`T_n`$, $`R_n`$ can be taken to be continous functions of $`u=S(n/N)Sx`$. In addition, the equations of motion of the matrix model with general potential $`W_{tree}(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ become purely algebraic :

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dz}{2\pi i}V^{}\left(z+\frac{R(Sx)}{z}+T(Sx)\right)}`$ $`=`$ $`Sx`$ (29)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dz}{2\pi i}\frac{1}{z}V^{}\left(z+\frac{R(Sx)}{z}+T(Sx)\right)}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (30)
When $`x=1`$ we will denote $`R(S)`$ by $`R`$ and $`T(S)`$ by $`T`$. These two variables are related to the endpoints $`a`$ and $`b`$ of the support of the matrix eigenvalue distribution through

$`T`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{a+b}{2}}`$ (31)
$`R`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(ab)^2}{16}}.`$ (32)
For a general matrix potential $`V(\mathrm{\Phi })=g_p\frac{1}{p}\mathrm{\Phi }^p`$, one obtains easily:

$`u`$ $``$ $`Sx={\displaystyle \underset{p2}{}}g_p{\displaystyle \underset{q=0}{\overset{[p/2]}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{q}{p}}(\begin{array}{c}p\\ 2q\end{array})(\begin{array}{c}2q\\ q\end{array})R(Sx)^qT(Sx)^{p2q}`$ (37)
$`v`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{p1}{}}g_p{\displaystyle \underset{q=0}{\overset{[p/2]}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{p2q}{p}}(\begin{array}{c}p\\ 2q\end{array})(\begin{array}{c}2q\\ q\end{array})R(Sx)^qT(Sx)^{p2q1}=0,`$ (42)
defining $`u`$ and $`v`$ for later convenience999Apart from the present section $`u`$ and $`v`$ are always taken at $`x=1`$.. In terms of these polynomials, the matrix model partition function takes a very elegant form:

$$Z=N!h_0^Ne^{N^2_0^1𝑑x(1x)\mathrm{ln}R(Sx)}.$$
(43)
where $`h_0`$ is the integral

$$h_0=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑se^{\frac{N}{S}V(s)}$$
(44)
From equation (43), one can easily extract the $`\chi =2`$ contribution (we will comment on the $`h_0`$ piece below)

$$_{\chi =2}=S^2_0^1𝑑x(1x)\mathrm{ln}R(Sx)$$
(45)
Performing an integration by parts leads to:

$$S_0^S𝑑u\mathrm{ln}R(u)+_0^S𝑑uu\mathrm{ln}R(u)$$
(46)
Following the Dijkgraaf-Vafa prescription, the contribution to the gauge theory effective potential is proportional to:

$$\frac{_{\chi =2}}{S}=S\mathrm{ln}R(S)+_{R(0)=0}^{R(S)}\frac{u(R,T)}{R}𝑑R$$
(47)
The remaining integral is rather tricky. The integrand is a function of two variables $`R`$ and $`T`$, tied together by the highly nonlinear constraint $`v=0`$. This complicates the integral, and moreover spoils the manifest linearity in the couplings $`g_p`$, appearing in the matrix potential. It is convenient, however, to treat the one-dimensional integral as an integral of a 1-form over the path $`\{v=0\}`$ in the two dimensional $`R`$-$`T`$ plane. Then one can rewrite the integral as an integral over a closed 1-form $`\omega `$, such that the original integral remains unchanged. One can then deform the contour $`v=0`$ into a piece with $`R=0`$, while integrating $`T`$ from $`T(0)`$ to $`T(S)`$ and another piece, keeping $`T`$ fixed at $`T(S)`$, and integrating $`R`$ from $`0`$ to $`R(S)`$ (see fig. 1):

$$_{R(0)=0}^{R(S)}\frac{u(R,T)}{R}𝑑R_{v=0}\frac{u(R,T)}{R}𝑑R=_{v=0}\omega =_{T=const}\omega +_{R=const}\omega $$
(48)
An extension of the integrand of (47) to a closed one-form can be found to be

$$\omega =\frac{u}{R}dR+vdT.$$
(49)
Note that the extra piece doesn’t give a contribution to the original integral, which is taken over $`v=0`$.

Performing the integral is now straightforward. The first piece, integrating over $`T`$ and constraining $`R`$ to $`0`$ gives:

$$_{T(0)}^{T(S)}v𝑑T=\underset{p1}{}\frac{g_p}{p}\left(T^p(S)T^p(0)\right).$$
(50)
The evaluation of the integral at $`T(0)`$, can be cancelled (at the saddle point) against the $`h_0^N`$, appearing in the partition fuction (43). For the second piece, one fixes $`T`$ at $`T(S)`$, and integrates over $`R`$:

$$_0^{R(S)}\frac{u}{R}𝑑R=\underset{p2}{}\frac{g_p}{p}\underset{q=1}{\overset{[p/2]}{}}(\begin{array}{c}p\\ 2q\end{array})(\begin{array}{c}2q\\ q\end{array})R^qT^{p2q}$$
(51)
From now on until the end of the paper we will denote by $`R`$ and $`T`$ the recursion coefficients defined at $`S`$. Bringing the two contributions together, leads to the following result:

$$W_{eff}=N_cS\mathrm{ln}R+N_c\underset{p1}{}\frac{g_p}{p}\underset{q=0}{\overset{[p/2]}{}}(\begin{array}{c}p\\ 2q\end{array})(\begin{array}{c}2q\\ q\end{array})R^qT^{p2q}$$
(52)
This is exactly, term by term, the field theory result for pure $`𝒩=2`$ $`U(N_c)`$ gauge theory ((12) and (10)), provided we identify field theory variables and matrix theory variables in the following way:

$$R=\mathrm{\Omega }^2,T=\frac{u_1}{N_c}$$
(53)
The first identification is extracted from the linear term in $`S`$, the second part follows from the term linear in $`g_1`$. As it should, the equations of motion for $`R`$ and $`T`$ (37)-(42), are mapped, under this identification, to the equations obtained from integrating out $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`u_1`$ (17)-(22).

From (52) we may read off the coefficients of $`g_p`$:

$$𝒰_p^{pure}(R,T)=\frac{1}{p}\underset{q=0}{\overset{[p/2]}{}}(\begin{array}{c}p\\ 2q\end{array})(\begin{array}{c}2q\\ q\end{array})R^qT^{p2q}$$
(54)
Under the identification (53) and setting $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ these coincide exactly with the factorization solution (10) of Douglas and Shenker for pure $`𝒩=2`$ gauge theory. For theories with matter, (54) will be just a part of the final result, and an identification between $`R`$, $`T`$ and gauge theoretic quantities will have to be made only after the $`_{\chi =1}`$ contribution is evaluated in the following sections.

## 5 The $`_{\chi =1}`$ matter contribution

In the previous section we have rederived the result that the first piece in (23) can be recast in the form

$$N_c\frac{_{\chi =2}}{S}=N_c\left[S\mathrm{log}R+g_p𝒰_p^{pure}(R,T)\right]$$
(55)
and the equations of motion for $`R`$ and $`T`$ derived from (55) are exactly the random matrix saddle point equations

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`u{\displaystyle \underset{p2}{}}g_p{\displaystyle \underset{q=0}{\overset{[p/2]}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{q}{p}}(\begin{array}{c}p\\ 2q\end{array})(\begin{array}{c}2q\\ q\end{array})R^qT^{p2q}`$ (60)
$`0`$ $`=`$ $`v{\displaystyle \underset{p1}{}}g_p{\displaystyle \underset{q=0}{\overset{[p/2]}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{p2q}{p}}(\begin{array}{c}p\\ 2q\end{array})(\begin{array}{c}2q\\ q\end{array})R^qT^{p2q1}`$ (65)
The first of these can be interpreted as the formula for integrating in $`S`$. The linearity of (55) in the random matrix couplings is essential for identifying the $`𝒰_p^{pure}(R,T)`$ with the point in $`𝒩=2`$ moduli space where the Seiberg-Witten curve $`y^2=P_{N_c}(x,u_k)^24\mathrm{\Lambda }^{2N_c}`$ factorizes.

In the following section we will recast the random matrix expression (27) for $`_{\chi =1}`$ in the same way:

$$_{\chi =1}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N_f}{}}\left[S\mathrm{log}L(R,T,m_i)+g_p𝒰_p^{matter}(R,T,m_i)\right]$$
(66)
Let us comment on an ambiguity, leading to a unique determination of a crucial term to obtain the correct final result. Once we start interpret this expression for $`_{\chi =1}`$, as a part of the effective gauge theory potential, we should be able to integrate out $`R`$ and $`T`$. The equations of motion thus obtained, should be consistent with the random matrix saddle point equations. But, as explained in section 3, adding fundamental matter in the gauge theory does not modify the saddle point equations of the matrix model. So it is necessary to impose that the equations of motion for $`R`$ and $`T`$, derived from the effective potential, with the $`_{\chi =1}`$ contribution are consistent with (60) and (65). This fact is highly non-trivial and reveals an unexpected relation between the factorization of Seiberg-Witten curves with and without matter.

We will show that the addition of $`_{\chi =1}`$ to the superpotential does not change the equations of motion for $`R`$ and $`T`$ provided we add an extra term proportional to $`v`$. From the matrix model perspective nothing changes, while the extra term turns out to be crucial to obtain the correct gauge theoretical interpretation of our results. We stress that this does not alter the Dijkgraaf-Vafa prescription. It merely solves an ambiguity that arises when interpreting the matrix model variables directly in terms of gauge theoretical quantities.

Let us now focus on a single summand of (27). In this case it seems to be difficult to use the orthogonal polynomial method, which was the most straightforward way of deriving the $`_{\chi =2}`$ contribution. Here it is more convenient to use the saddle point expression for the eigenvalue density of the single-cut solution:

$$\rho (x)=\frac{1}{2\pi }M(x)\sqrt{(bx)(xa)}$$
(67)
where $`M(x)`$ is a polynomial which is expressible in terms of the random matrix potential through

$$M(x)=_C_{\mathrm{}}\frac{dw}{2\pi i}\frac{V^{}(w)}{(wx)\sqrt{(wa)(wb)}}$$
(68)
The features of interest of the above expression are (i) it is linear in the explicit dependence on the couplings $`g_p`$, (ii) the coefficients of $`g_p`$ are universal functions of the endpoints $`a`$, $`b`$ and hence of the variables $`R`$ and $`T`$, (iii) for given $`g_p`$, its coefficient is a polynomial in $`x`$ of order $`p2`$.

In order to obtain an explicit dependence on $`R`$ and $`T`$ let us perform the change of variables

$$x=\frac{1}{2}(a+b)+\frac{ba}{2}\psi T+2\sqrt{R}\psi $$
(69)
Then the contribution to $`_{\chi =1}`$ of a single flavour is given by

$$R\frac{2}{\pi }_1^1𝑑\psi \sqrt{1\psi ^2}M(\psi )\mathrm{log}\left(m+T+2\sqrt{R}\psi \right)+vf(R,T)$$
(70)
As noted before, one should take into account a possible addition of $`v`$ multiplied by any function $`f(R,T)`$ (since $`v=0`$ is an equation of motion of the random matrix model).

## 6 Factorization formulas

We will first derive the formulas involving $`g_1`$ and $`g_2`$, in particular this will allow us to fix uniquely the function $`f(R,T)`$. Also this will make the general structure more transparent. Then we will derive the results for arbitrary $`g_p`$.

#### Contribution of $`g_1`$, $`g_2`$

To this order $`M(\psi )=g_2`$ and the formula (70) gives

$$g_2R\left[\mathrm{log}(m+T)+\frac{2}{\pi }_1^1𝑑\psi \sqrt{1\psi ^2}\mathrm{log}\left(1+2\frac{\sqrt{R}}{m+T}\psi \right)\right]$$
(71)
This can be evaluated to give

$$g_2R\left[\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{m+T+\sqrt{(m+T)^24R}}{2}\right)+(m+T)\frac{m+T\sqrt{(m+T)^24R}}{4R}\frac{1}{2}\right]$$
(72)
At this stage we should identify the coefficient of the logarithm with $`S`$ (here this is trivial since to this order the equation of motion for $`R`$ is just $`S=g_2R`$, but later we will see that this property will hold in general). Thus we are left with

$$S\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{m+T+\sqrt{(m+T)^24R}}{2}\right)+g_2\left[\frac{m+T}{4}(m+T\sqrt{(m+T)^24R})\frac{R}{2}\right]$$
(73)
which indeed has the form of (66). Now we require that the saddle point equations remain consistent with the $`_{\chi =1}`$ equations of motion. This detemines uniquely the term

$$v(g_1,g_2,R,T)f(R,T)=(g_1+g_2T)f(R,T)$$
(74)
Indeed the requirement that integrating out $`T`$ from the sum of (73) and (74) gives $`v=g_1+g_2T=0`$ fixes $`f(R,T)`$ uniquely to be

$$f(R,T)=\frac{1}{2}\left(m+T\sqrt{(m+T)^24R}\right)$$
(75)
This extra term does not change the equation for $`R`$, which is consistent with the saddle point equations. This function will stay unchanged in the general case. We may now read off the final expressions for the mass dependent contributions to $`u_1`$ and $`u_2`$:

$`𝒰_1^{matter}(R,T,m)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(m+T\sqrt{(m+T)^24R}\right)`$ (76)
$`𝒰_2^{matter}(R,T,m)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m+T}{4}}(m+T\sqrt{(m+T)^24R}){\displaystyle \frac{R}{2}}+`$ (77)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{T}{2}}\left(m+T\sqrt{(m+T)^24R}\right)`$
#### Arbitrary $`g_p`$

We will now extend the previous considerations to the calculation of arbitrary $`𝒰_p^{matter}`$. The general structure will remain unchanged. The function $`f(R,T)`$ multiplying $`v`$ will remain unmodified (as it should). Also the coefficient of the logarithm will turn out to be exactly $`S`$.

In appendix A we derive the following expression for the polynomial $`M(\psi )`$:

$$M(\psi )=\underset{p2}{}g_p\underset{n=0}{\overset{p2}{}}c_{p,n}\psi ^n$$
(78)
where

$$c_{p,n}=2^nR^{\frac{n}{2}}\underset{k=0}{\overset{\left[\frac{pn2}{2}\right]}{}}(\begin{array}{c}2k\\ k\end{array})(\begin{array}{c}p1\\ 2k+n+1\end{array})R^kT^{pn22k}$$
(79)
So the integral (70) can be rewritten as

$`{\displaystyle \underset{p>2}{}}g_p{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{p2}{}}}c_{p,n}R[\mathrm{log}(m+T){\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _1^1}d\psi \sqrt{1\psi ^2}\psi ^n+`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _1^1}d\psi \sqrt{1\psi ^2}\psi ^n\mathrm{log}(1+2{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{R}}{m+T}}\psi )]`$ (80)
We now have to distinguish two cases.

$`n`$ odd: Then the first integral vanishes and we will denote the second integral by $`f_n(z)`$. As discussed in appendix B, $`f_n(z)`$ is essentially a polynomial in $`z`$ of order $`(n+1)/2`$ (divided by $`(z1)^{n/2+1}`$) when expressed in terms of the variable

$$z=\frac{m+T}{2R}\left(m+T+\sqrt{(m+T)^24R}\right)$$
(81)
Appendix B contains a general formula for $`f_n(z)`$. Explicit expressions for some specific cases are shown in table 1 in section 7.

$`n`$ even: In this case the first integral is nonvanishing. Moreover the second integral involves a logarithm with the same coefficient as $`\mathrm{log}(m+T)`$ in the first integral. Together they combine to give

$$\left\{\underset{p2}{}g_p\underset{l=0}{\overset{[\frac{p2}{2}]}{}}c_{p,2l}R\frac{2^{2l}}{l+1}(\begin{array}{c}2l\\ l\end{array})\right\}\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{m+T+\sqrt{(m+T)^24R}}{2}\right)$$
(82)
It is shown in appendix C that the coefficient in curly braces is exactly equal to $`S`$. The second integral with the logarithmic part subtracted out has again a simple polynomial structure (see appendix B for details).

At this stage we arrive to the analogue of (73):

$$S\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{m+T+\sqrt{(m+T)^24R}}{2}\right)+\underset{p>2}{}g_p\left[\underset{n=0}{\overset{p2}{}}c_{p,n}Rf_n(z)\right]$$
(83)
Again we have to add to this the correction term

$$vf(R,T)\underset{p1}{}g_pv_p\frac{1}{2}\left(m+T\sqrt{(m+T)^24R}\right)$$
(84)
We checked explicitly for some cases that this term together with (83) gives equations of motion consistent with the random matrix constraints.

The sum of (83) and (84) is now of the expected form (66), thus defining $`𝒰_p^{matter}(R,T,m_i)`$.

## 7 Final results

Putting all results together ((52), (83), (84)), and putting in the term $`S\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{2N_cN_f}`$ as required from the Dijkgraaf-Vafa prescription gives a prediction from the matrix model side for the quantum effective gauge potential:

$`W_{eff}(S,T,R,\mathrm{\Lambda })=S\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^{2N_cN_f}_{i=1}^{N_f}\frac{1}{2}\left(m_i+T+\sqrt{(m_i+T)^24R}\right)}{R^{N_c}}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{p1}{}}g_p\left[N_c𝒰_p^{pure}(R,T)+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N_f}{}}}𝒰_p^{matter}(R,T,m_i)\right].`$ (85)
This expression should be compared with the potential $`W_{eff}(S,u_1,\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ (see (12)), obtained from the field theory analysis. The relation between the parameters of the matrix model and the field theory is highly non-linear:

$`u_1=N_cT{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N_f}{}}}\left(m_i+T\sqrt{(m_i+T)^24R}\right)`$ (86)
$`\mathrm{\Omega }^{2N_cN_f}={\displaystyle \frac{R^{N_c}}{_{i=1}^{N_f}\frac{1}{2}\left(m_i+T+\sqrt{(m_i+T)^24R}\right)}}`$ (87)
In order to obtain the final factorization formulae we integrate out $`S`$ from $`W_{eff}(S,T,R,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ :

$$\mathrm{\Omega }^{2N_cN_f}=\mathrm{\Lambda }^{2N_cN_f},$$
(88)
Combined with (87) this gives an expression for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in terms of $`R`$ and $`T`$. The remaining part of (7) should then be compared with field theory result:

$$W_{eff}(\mathrm{\Lambda },u_1)=\underset{p1}{}g_pu_p^{fact.}(\mathrm{\Lambda },u_1),$$
(89)
where the $`u_p^{fact.}`$, is the one parameter solution, factorizing completely the Seiberg-Witten curve for $`U(N_c)`$ SYM with $`N_f`$ flavours ($`N_f<N_c`$):

$$y^2=P_{N_c}(x,u_k)^24\mathrm{\Lambda }^{2N_cN_f}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N_f}{}}(x+m_i)$$
(90)
Comparing with the results from matrix models gives an expression for the $`u_p^{fact.}`$’s,

$$u_p^{fact.}=N_c𝒰_p^{pure}(R,T)+\underset{i=1}{\overset{N_f}{}}𝒰_p^{matter}(R,T,m_i)$$
(91)
in terms of two parameters $`R`$ and $`T`$, tied together with the constraint:

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }^{2N_cN_f}=\frac{R^{N_c}}{_{i=1}^{N_f}\frac{1}{2}\left(m_i+T+\sqrt{(m_i+T)^24R}\right)}$$
(92)
For completeness, we recall the formulas

$`𝒰_p^{pure}(R,T)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p}}{\displaystyle \underset{q=0}{\overset{[p/2]}{}}}(\begin{array}{c}p\\ 2q\end{array})(\begin{array}{c}2q\\ q\end{array})R^qT^{p2q}`$ (97)
$`𝒰_1^{matter}(R,T,m)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(m+T\sqrt{(m+T)^24R}\right)`$ (98)
$`𝒰_{p2}^{matter}(R,T,m)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{p2}{}}}c_{p,n}Rf_n(z)v_p{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(m+T\sqrt{(m+T)^24R}\right)`$ (99)
In the above formula the coefficients $`c_{p,n}`$ are defined in (79), while $`v_p`$ is just the coefficient of $`g_p`$ in the constraint $`v=0`$ (see eq. (65)). Finally the functions $`f_n(z)`$ are computed in appendix B and depend on the variable $`z(R,T)`$, given by (81). In table 1 we present the explicit forms of the functions $`f_n(z)`$ for $`n7`$.

In the final result (91) we see that both the $`N_c`$ and $`N_f`$ dependence is very simple. Moreover the contribution of each extra flavor enters additively the expression for the moduli. Another curious feature is the appearance of the original factorization solutions for the pure $`𝒩=2`$ $`U(N_c)`$ gauge theory. Increasing the number of colors does not change the expressions for $`𝒰_p^{matter}`$ in terms of $`R`$ and $`T`$. However the only nontrivial change is encoded in the expression for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in terms of $`R`$ and $`T`$.

If we wanted instead to obtain the effective potential $`W(S,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$, we would have to integrate out $`R`$ and $`T`$ from (7). On the field theory side it is very cumbersome how the structure of the Seiberg-Witten curve appears in the equations of motion for $`u_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. On the matrix model, on the other hand, the equations of motion for $`R`$ and $`T`$ appear naturally to be the same as ones obtained in the case without flavours. It seems that the particular combinations of $`u_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, embodied in $`R`$ and $`T`$, captures some nontrivial structure of the Seiberg-Witten curves.

## 8 Some examples

In this section we will study some examples to verify that the $`u_p^{fact.}`$ we obtained from random matrix models, do factorize the appropriate Seiberg-Witten curves with fundamental matter.

### $`U(2)`$ with 1 flavour

In this case we have

$`u_1^{fact.}`$ $`=`$ $`2T{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(m+T\sqrt{(m+T)^24R}\right)`$ (100)
$`u_2^{fact.}`$ $`=`$ $`2\left(R+{\displaystyle \frac{T^2}{2}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(m^22RT^2+(Tm)\sqrt{(m+T)^24R}\right)`$ (101)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }^3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2R^2}{m+T+\sqrt{(m+T)^24R}}}`$ (102)
We have verified that with the above choices, the discriminant of the Seiberg-Witten curve

$$y^2=\left(x^2u_1xu_2+\frac{1}{2}u_1^2\right)^24\mathrm{\Lambda }^3(x+m)$$
(103)
vanishes identically, which in the special case of 2 colours proves factorization. Note that for general $`N_c`$, complete factorization is a much stronger condition than the vanishing of the discriminant.

### $`SU(N_c)`$ with 1 flavour

In order to consider $`SU(N_c)`$ theory we have to impose the constraint that $`u_1=0`$. Then the parameter $`T`$ can be expressed in terms of $`R`$ and the mass $`m`$ of the additional flavour. Namely we have

$$u_1N_cT\frac{1}{2}\left(m+T\sqrt{(m+T)^24R}\right)=0$$
(104)
which gives

$$T=\frac{m\sqrt{m^24R+4\frac{R}{N_c}}}{2(N_c1)}$$
(105)
Now $`R`$ is linked directly to the scale of the gauge theory through

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }^{2N_c1}=\frac{R^{N_c}}{\left(m+T+\sqrt{(m+T)^24R}\right)/2}$$
(106)
where the expression (105) should be used. The remaining formulas remain however quite complicated functions of $`R`$, $`m`$ and $`N_c`$. This is in marked contrast to the case of pure gauge theory without fundamental matter where the passage from $`U(N_c)`$ to $`SU(N_c)`$ is very simple, and $`N_c`$ enters linearly.

It is interesting to look at the $`m\mathrm{}`$ limit. Then $`T0`$ as expected for a pure $`𝒩=2`$ $`SU(N_c)`$ theory, while (106) becomes $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{2N_c1}=R^{N_c}/m`$. Recall that in pure $`SU(N_c)`$ theory $`R`$ had the interpretation of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{pure}^2`$. Hence we obtained the correct field theoretic matching of scales

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }^{2N_c1}m=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{pure}^{2N_c}$$
(107)
Moreover it is easy to check that then the $`𝒰_p^{matter}(R,T,m)`$ give a vanishing contribution as the functions $`f_n(z)0`$ when $`z\mathrm{}`$ (see appendix B). The above behaviour is quite clear from the Seiberg-Witten curve perspective. It is reassuring that it could be also obtained in a simple way from the random matrix formulas.

### $`U(7)`$ with 3 flavours

As a final check of the formulas we considered $`U(7)`$ theory with 3 flavours with masses $`m_1=1`$, $`m_2=2`$, $`m_3=3`$. For the random choice of parameters $`T=0`$ and $`R=0.2`$ we find $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.31643`$, while the polynomial $`P_7(x)=x^7+0.45018x^61.3447x^50.5382x^4+0.5048x^3+0.16048x^20.045x0.00704`$. For the curve

$$y^2=P_7(x)^24\mathrm{\Lambda }^{11}(x+1)(x+2)(x+3)$$
(108)
we find single zeroes at $`x=\pm 0.8944`$ and a series of 6 double zeroes in between.

## 9 Discussion

In this paper we used the Dijkgraaf-Vafa proposal linking random matrix models with fundamental matter and superpotentials for obtaining explicit formulas for the complete factorization of Seiberg-Witten curves for $`U(N_c)`$ theories with $`N_f<N_c`$ flavours. These points in the moduli space, forming effectively a 1-parameter manifold, correspond to condensation of all species of monopoles. As a byproduct we obtained formulas for the solution of the random matrix model with matter with an arbitrary polynomial superpotential.

In order to identify the points in moduli space where the Seiberg-Witten curve factorizes we recast the random matrix solution in a way that exhibits (i) linearity in the couplings $`g_p`$ of the deforming tree level superpotential, (ii) the whole dependence on the glueball superfield $`S`$ could be written as a linear coupling of $`S`$ to a logarithmic expression. The first property allowed us to identify the moduli space parameters of the factorized curve $`u_p`$ as the coefficients of $`g_p`$, while the second property is exactly the one found in ‘integrating-in’ $`S`$ and thus gave the expression for the gauge theoretic scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in terms of random matrix model quantities.

The fact that the above procedure works is yet another argument for the Intriligator-Leigh-Seiberg linearity principle  and the validity of ‘integrating-in’. In addition it shows that the matrix model of the Dijkgraaf-Vafa proposal captures quite detailed properties of the field theoretical Seiberg-Witten curve. In fact we found it surprising that any analytical description of the very nonlinear complete factorization property could be found for the case with matter.

A curious feature of the random matrix formulas is that the solution for the $`u_p`$ for the pure $`𝒩=2`$ theory appears linearly in the complete expression for the theory with fundamental matter fields. The full ‘nonlinearity’ is encoded in the formula for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in terms of random matrix parameters. It would be interesting to understand this structure from the field-theoretical point of view. In addition the random matrix constraints expressed in terms of $`R`$ and $`T`$ don’t change when adding fundamental matter. They have precisely the form of equations of motion for the pure $`𝒩=2`$ theory. But now the mapping between $`R`$ and $`T`$ and field theoretical $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`u_1`$ becomes complicated. Nevertheless, the question why the pure $`𝒩=2`$ equations still arise in a disguised form for theories with fundamental matter poses an interesting question from the gauge theory perspective.

There are numerous issues that one could investigate further. The factorization properties of the pure $`𝒩=2`$ curve are linked with the concept of master field. This has been investigated in the context of associated random matrix theory in . It would be interesting to study the factorization formulas obtained in this paper from a similar point of view, albeit it will surely be much more involved.

Another interesting question would be to explore the mathematical structure linking the random matrix model with matter with factorization properties of the associated curves. In this paper we relied heavily on recasting the random matrix expressions guided by field theoretic ingredients such as the ILS principle and integrating-in, for which there is no real direct proof. It would be very interesting to uncover the mathematical interrelation between such seemingly unconnected topics as the factorization of SW curves and random matrix models.

Finally we hope that the above results could be used for a more detailed investigation of the physics of $`U(N_c)`$ theories with $`N_f<N_c`$ flavours along the lines of .

Acknowledgments RJ was supported by the EU network on “Discrete Random Geometry” and KBN grant 2P03B09622. YD was supported by an EC Marie Curie Training site Fellowship at Nordita, under contract number HPMT-CT-2000-00010.

## Appendix A Formula for $`M(\psi )`$

Since we use explicitly the form of the eigenvalue density in the variable $`\psi `$, let us perform the changes of variables $`x=T+2\sqrt{R}\psi `$, $`w=T+2\sqrt{R}\varphi `$ in the definition (68) of $`M(x)`$:

$$M(\psi )=\frac{1}{2\sqrt{R}}\text{Res}_{\varphi =\mathrm{}}\frac{1}{\varphi \psi }\frac{V^{}(T+2\sqrt{R}\varphi )}{\sqrt{\varphi ^21}}$$
(109)
Using the power series expansion of the square root

$$\frac{1}{\sqrt{1\frac{1}{\varphi ^2}}}=\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_k\frac{1}{\varphi ^{2k}}\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}2^{2k}(\begin{array}{c}2k\\ k\end{array})\frac{1}{\varphi ^{2k}}$$
(110)
it is straightforward to obtain the Laurent expansion of the function in (109):

$$\underset{p2}{}g_p\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\psi ^n\frac{1}{\varphi ^{2k+n+2}}a_k\underset{l=0}{\overset{p1}{}}(\begin{array}{c}p1\\ l\end{array})\left(2\sqrt{R}\right)^{l1}T^{p1l}\varphi ^l$$
(111)
From this expression we may isolate the coefficient of $`1/\varphi `$ giving the result quoted in the text:

$`M(\psi )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{p2}{}}g_p{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{p2}{}}}c_{p,n}\psi ^n`$ (112)
$`c_{p,n}`$ $`=`$ $`2^nR^{\frac{n}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{\left[\frac{pn2}{2}\right]}{}}}(\begin{array}{c}2k\\ k\end{array})(\begin{array}{c}p1\\ 2k+n+1\end{array})R^kT^{pn22k}`$ (117)
## Appendix B Logarithmic integrals $`f_n(z)`$

Here we will derive the explicit form of the functions $`f_n(z)`$ related to the logarithmic integrals

$$I_n=\frac{2}{\pi }_1^1𝑑\psi \sqrt{1\psi ^2}\psi ^n\mathrm{log}\left(1+2x\psi \right)$$
(118)
where $`x=\sqrt{R}/(m+T)`$. In fact the results simplify significantly if one reexpresses everything in terms of the variable $`z`$

$$z=\frac{m+T}{2R}\left(m+T+\sqrt{(m+T)^24R}\right)$$
(119)
($`x`$ is expressed in terms of $`z`$ as $`\sqrt{z1}/z`$). We have to distinguish two cases:

#### $`n`$ odd

The integral (118) can be performed using a series expansion of the logarithm, integrating it term by term using

$$\frac{2}{\pi }_1^1𝑑\psi \sqrt{1\psi ^2}\psi ^{2n}=\frac{2^{2n+1}}{(2n+2)}(\begin{array}{c}2n\\ n\end{array})$$
(120)
and resumming. The result is

$$f_n^{odd}(z)=\frac{2\sqrt{z1}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(1+\frac{n}{2}\right)}{\sqrt{\pi }z\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{5+n}{2}\right)}{}_{3}{}^{}F_{2}^{}(\frac{1}{2},1,1+\frac{n}{2};\frac{3}{2},\frac{5+n}{2}|\frac{4(z1)}{z^2})$$
(121)
For odd $`n`$, $`f_n(z)`$ is expressed through elementary functions (see examples in section 7). It has the form of a polynomial in $`z`$ of order $`(n+1)/2`$ divided by $`(z1)^{\frac{n}{2}+1}`$.

#### $`n`$ even

The integral (118) can be again obtained using a resummation procedure. The result is

$$I_n^{even}=\frac{2(z1)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{3+n}{2}\right)}{\sqrt{\pi }z^2\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(3+\frac{n}{2}\right)}{}_{3}{}^{}F_{2}^{}(1,1,\frac{3+n}{2};2,3+\frac{n}{2}|\frac{4(z1)}{z^2})$$
(122)
In this case the integral (118) involves a logarithm, which together with the $`\mathrm{log}(m+T)`$ forms the logarithmic function multiplying $`S`$ in (83). Thus to define the function $`f_n(z)`$ for even $`n`$ we have to subtract from $`I_n^{even}`$ this logarithm:

$$f_n^{even}(z)I_n^{even}\frac{2^{n+1}}{n+2}(\begin{array}{c}n\\ \frac{n}{2}\end{array})\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{z1}{z}\right)$$
(123)
Its general form turns out to be a polynomial of order $`n/2`$ divided by
$`(z1)^{\frac{n}{2}+1}`$. In table 1 in section 7, for completeness we present the explicit forms of the functions $`f_n(z)`$ for $`n7`$.

## Appendix C Coefficient of the logarithmic term in (82)

In this appendix, we identify the coefficient of the logarithmic piece of the $`\chi =1`$ contribution with $`S`$, as expected from field theory. From (70) one can easily read off the coefficient of $`\mathrm{log}(m+T)`$:

$$4R_1^1\frac{d\psi }{2\pi }\sqrt{1\psi ^2}M(\psi )$$
(124)
Using the elementary integral (120) one obtains the expression:

$$4R\underset{p2}{}g_p\underset{2l=0}{\overset{p2}{}}(\begin{array}{c}2l\\ l\end{array})c_{p,2l}\frac{2^{2l2}}{l+1}$$
(125)
Inserting the explicit expression for the coefficient $`c_{p,2l}`$, leads to:

$$\underset{p2}{}g_p\underset{l=0}{\overset{[\frac{p2}{2}]}{}}\underset{k=0}{\overset{[\frac{p2l2}{2}]}{}}(\begin{array}{c}2k\\ k\end{array})(\begin{array}{c}2l\\ l\end{array})(\begin{array}{c}p1\\ 2l+2k+1\end{array})\frac{1}{l+1}R^{l+k+1}T^{p2k2l2}.$$
(126)
Changing to a new summation variable $`m=k+l+1`$ gives the expression:

$$\underset{p2}{}g_p\underset{m=1}{\overset{[\frac{p}{2}]}{}}\underset{l=0}{\overset{m1}{}}\frac{2m}{p(l+1)}(\begin{array}{c}p\\ 2m\end{array})(\begin{array}{c}2l\\ l\end{array})(\begin{array}{c}2m2l2\\ ml1\end{array})R^mT^{p2m}.$$
(127)
This is exactly the expression for $`S`$, provided that:

$$2\underset{l=0}{\overset{m1}{}}\frac{1}{l+1}(\begin{array}{c}2l\\ l\end{array})(\begin{array}{c}2m2l2\\ ml1\end{array})=(\begin{array}{c}2m\\ m\end{array})$$
(128)
which can be verified.


text:
# Integrating ∂{∂̄}

## 1. Jensen’s formula

Recall that for a suitably regular function $`\phi `$ on the unit disc $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ we can apply integration by parts/Stoke’s formula twice to obtain for $`r<1`$,

$$_0^r\frac{dt}{t}_{\mathrm{\Delta }(t)}𝑑d^c\phi =_{\mathrm{\Delta }(r)}\phi \phi (0)$$
$`(1.1)`$
where $`d^c=\frac{1}{4\pi i}(\overline{})`$ so actually we’re integrating $`\frac{1}{2\pi i}\overline{}`$. In the presence of singularities things continue to work. For example suppose $`f:\mathrm{\Delta }X`$ is a holomorphic map of complex spaces and $`\overline{D}`$ a metricised effective Cartier divisor on $`X`$, with $`f(0)D`$, and $`\phi =\mathrm{log}f^{}1\mathrm{I}_D`$, where $`1\mathrm{I}_D𝒪_X(D)`$ is the tautological section, then we obtain,

$$\begin{array}{ccc}_0^r\frac{dt}{t}_{\mathrm{\Delta }(t)}f^{}c_1(\overline{D})& =& _{\mathrm{\Delta }(r)}\mathrm{log}f^{}1\mathrm{I}_D+\mathrm{log}f^{}1\mathrm{I}_D(0)\\ \\ \\ & +& \underset{0<|z|<r}{}\mathrm{ord}_z(f^{}D)\mathrm{log}\left|\frac{r}{z}\right|.\end{array}$$
$`(1.2)`$
Obviously it’s not difficult to write down similar formulae for not necessarily effective Cartier divisors, meromorphic functions, drop the condition that $`f(0)D`$ provided $`f(\mathrm{\Delta })D`$, extend to ramified covers $`p:Y\mathrm{\Delta }`$, etc., but in all cases what is clear is,

Facts 1.3. (a) If $`X`$ is compact then $`_0^r\frac{dt}{t}_{\mathrm{\Delta }(t)}f^{}c_1(\overline{D})`$ is very close to being positive if $`f(\mathrm{\Delta })D`$, e.g. in the particular hypothesis preceding (1.2),

$$_0^r\frac{dt}{t}_{\mathrm{\Delta }(t)}f^{}c_1(\overline{D})\mathrm{log}f^{}1\mathrm{I}_D(0)+O_{\overline{D}}(1)$$

(b) There is no such principle for the usual area function $`_{\mathrm{\Delta }(r)}f^{}c_1(\overline{D})`$ except in extremely special cases such as $`D`$ ample.

Equally the essence of the study of curves on higher dimensional varieties lies in understanding their intersection with divisors, and, of course, the principle that a curve not lying in a divisor intersects it positively is paramount to the discussion. Consequently the right notion of intersection number for non-compact curves is the so-called characteristic function defined by either side of the identity (1.2). On the other hand intersection number and integration are interchangeable in algebraic geometry, and whence we will write,

Notation 1.4. Let $`\omega `$ be a $`(1,1)`$ form on $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ then for $`r<1`$,

$$_{\mathrm{\Delta }(r)}\omega :=_0^r\frac{dt}{t}_{\mathrm{\Delta }(t)}\omega .$$

The more traditional characteristic function notation is reserved for the current associated to a map, i.e.

Definition 1.5. Let $`f:\mathrm{\Delta }X`$ be a map of complex spaces then for $`r<1`$, we define,

$$T_f(r):A^{1,1}(X)C:\omega _{\mathrm{\Delta }(r)}f^{}\omega .$$

Evidently in many cases one works with forms which are not quite smooth, so there are variations on the definition. In any case in order to motivate our intersection formalism let us pause to consider,

## 2. Convergence

The basic theorem in the study of subvarieties of a projective variety is Grothendieck’s existence and properness of the Hilbert scheme, or if one prefers a sequence of subvarieties of bounded degree has a convergent subsequence. Of course families of smooth curves do not in general limit on smooth curves but rather semi-stable ones, and as such we must necessarily understand convergence of discs in the sense of Gromov \[G\], i.e.

Definition 2.1. A disc with bubbles $`\mathrm{\Delta }^b`$ is a connected $`1`$-dimensional complex space with singularities at worst nodes exactly one of whose components is a disc $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and such that every connected component of $`\mathrm{\Delta }^b\backslash \{\mathrm{\Delta }\backslash \mathrm{sing}(\mathrm{\Delta }^b)\}`$ is a tree of smooth rational curves.

For $`z\mathrm{sing}(\mathrm{\Delta }^b)\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`R_z`$ the corresponding tree of rational curves, and provided $`0\mathrm{sing}(\mathrm{\Delta }^b)`$ we can extend our integral (1.4) to this more general situation by way of,

$$_{\mathrm{\Delta }^b(r)}\omega :=_{\mathrm{\Delta }(r)}\omega +\underset{z\mathrm{\Delta }(r)\mathrm{sing}(\mathrm{\Delta }^b)}{}\mathrm{log}\frac{r}{|z|}_{R_z}\omega $$

while if $`f:\mathrm{\Delta }^bX`$ is a map then we have a graph,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_f:=(\mathrm{id}\times f)(\mathrm{\Delta })\underset{z\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{sing}(\mathrm{\Delta }^b)}{}z\times f(R_z)\mathrm{\Delta }\times X.$$

An appropriate formulation of Gromov’s compactness theorem is then,

Fact 2.2. Let $`\overline{\mathrm{Hom}}(\mathrm{\Delta },X)`$ be the space of maps from discs with bubbles into a projective variety $`X`$ topologised by way of the Hausdorff metric on the graphs then for $`C:(0,1)R_+`$ any function and $`K\mathrm{Aut}(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ compact the set,

$$\{f\overline{\mathrm{Hom}}(\mathrm{\Delta },X):\alpha K,_{\mathrm{\Delta }(r)}\alpha ^{}f^{}c_1(\overline{H})C(r)\}$$

where $`\overline{H}`$ is a metricised ample divisor, is compact.

Under more general hypothesis on $`X`$, 2.2 continues to hold, but in the special projective case one has an essentially trivial proof thanks to the ubiquitous Jensen formula, cf. \[M\] V.3.1. Equally although the appearance of automorphisms looks like an unwarranted complication they are necessitated by,

Remarks 2.3. (a) The possibility of bubbling at the origin.

(b) The defect of positivity for the intersection number as per (1.3)(a).

Observe moreover that the introduction of $`\overline{\mathrm{Hom}}(\mathrm{\Delta },X)`$ and its precise relation to $`\mathrm{Hom}(\mathrm{\Delta },X)`$ are both necessary, and easy respectively, i.e.

Fact 2.4. (\[M\] V.3.5) Let $`T\mathrm{Hom}(\mathrm{\Delta },X)`$ be such that the bounded subsets in the sense of $`2.2`$ are relatively compact then $`T\overline{\mathrm{Hom}}(\mathrm{\Delta },X)`$. Moreover assuming that $`X`$ is not absurdly singular then $`\mathrm{Hom}(\mathrm{\Delta },X)=\overline{\mathrm{Hom}}(\mathrm{\Delta },X)`$ iff $`X`$ contains no rational curves.

One can equally generalise this to a log, or quasi-projective situation by introducing a divisor $`D`$, whose components $`D_i`$ should be $`Q`$-Cartier at which point the appropriate variation thanks to a lemma of Mark Green, \[Gr\], is,

Fact 2.5. $`\overline{\mathrm{Hom}}(\mathrm{\Delta },X\backslash D)\mathrm{Hom}(\mathrm{\Delta },X)`$ iff $`X\backslash D`$ and $`D_i\backslash \underset{ji}{}D_j`$ do not contain any affine lines.

In particular $`\mathrm{Hom}(\mathrm{\Delta },X\backslash D)`$ is relatively compact in $`\mathrm{Hom}(\mathrm{\Delta },X)`$ if and only if $`\overline{\mathrm{Hom}}(\mathrm{\Delta },X\backslash D)`$ is compact and the boundary is mildly hyperbolic in the sense that $`D_i\backslash \underset{ji}{}D_j`$ does not contain affine lines. The latter question is purely algebraic and closely related to the log minimal model programme. In the case of foliations by curves an even more delicate result holds since as Brunella has observed, \[B\], the equivalence of $`\overline{\mathrm{Hom}}`$ with Hom for invariant maps into the orbifold smooth part of a foliated variety is itself equivalent to the said foliated variety being a minimal model.

## 3. The Bloch principle

Bloch’s famous dictum, “Nihil est in infinito quod non fuerit prius in finito”, might thus be translated as,

Question 3.1. Suppose for a projective variety $`X`$, or more generally a log variety $`(X,D)`$ there is a Zariski subset $`Z`$ of $`X\backslash D`$ through which every non-trivial map $`f:CX\backslash D`$ must factor then do we have hyperbolicity modulo $`Z`$, i.e. is it the case that a sequence $`f_n`$ in $`\mathrm{Hom}(\mathrm{\Delta },X)`$ not affording a convergent subsequence in $`\overline{\mathrm{Hom}}`$ must be arbitrarily close (in the compact open sense) to $`ZD`$.

In the particular case that 2.5 is satisfied we can replace $`ZD`$ by $`\overline{Z}`$ and ask for complete hyperbolicity modulo $`Z`$, but outside of surfaces (2.5) seems difficult to guarantee. Regardless in his thesis Brody, \[Br\], provided an affirmative answer for both $`Z`$ and $`D`$ empty by way of his reparameterisation lemma which was subsequently extended by Green to the case of $`Z`$ empty and every $`D_i\backslash \underset{ji}{}D_j`$ not containing holomorphic lines.

Bearing in mind the singular variant of Green’s lemma implicit in 2.5, which for example makes it applicable to stable families of curves, it would appear that the unique known case not covered by the methods of Brody and Green was a theorem of Bloch himself, \[Bl\], i.e. $`P^2\backslash \{`$4 planes in general position$`\}`$, and its subsequent extension by Cartan to $`P^n`$, \[C\]. However, even here, a moment’s inspection shows that 2.5 holds, so one knows a priori that there can be no bubbling, and whence complete hyperbolicity in the sense of 3.1 trivially implies so-called normal convergence modulo the diagonal hyperplanes, and the correct structure is obscured.

Now an extension of the reparameterisation lemma to cover 3.1 would be by far the most preferable way forward, since the non-existence of holomorphic lines is an essentially useless qualitative statement without the quantitative information provided by the convergence of discs. Nevertheless we can vaguely approximate a reparameterisation lemma thanks as ever to Jensen’s formula. Specifically consider as given,

Data 3.2.

* A $`Q`$-Cartier divisor $``$ on a log-variety $`(X,D)`$.
* A sequence $`f_n\mathrm{Hom}(\mathrm{\Delta },X\backslash D)`$ which neither affords a convergent subsequence nor is arbitrarily close to $`D`$.

In light of (b) we can choose convergent automorphisms $`\alpha _n\mathrm{Aut}(\mathrm{\Delta })`$, such that $`\alpha _n^{}f_n(0)`$ is bounded away from $`D`$, and given, modulo subsequencing, the convergence of the $`\alpha _n`$ we may as well suppose this. Moreover for each $`0<r<1`$ we can normalise the current $`T_{f_n}(r)`$ of 1.5 by its degree with respect to an ample divisor $`H`$, which we’ll denote by $`T_{f_n}^H(r)`$ and take a weak limit for a suitable subset $`𝒩`$ of $`N`$ to obtain a current $`T_𝒩^H(r)`$. In addition 3.2(b) also tells us that for some fixed $`0<s<1`$, the degrees of the $`f_n`$ at $`s`$ go to infinity, and whence by (1.1) and (1.2)

Pre-Fact 3.3. For $`rs`$, $`T_𝒩^H(r)`$ is a positive harmonic current such that, $`T_𝒩^H(r)F0`$ for all effective divisors $`F`$ supported in $`D`$.

What is somewhat less trivial, but once more the key is Jensen’s formula, is,

Fact 3.3(bis). (\[M\] V.2.4) Subsequencing in $`𝒩`$ as necessary, then for $`rs`$ outside of a set of finite hyperbolic measure (i.e. $`(1r^2)^1dr`$) $`T_𝒩^H(r)`$ is closed.

Obviously there are various choices involved but whenever we’re dealing in the context of countably many projective varieties they can all be rendered functorial, up to a constant, with respect to push forward. The constant itself only causes a problem should it be zero which is usually what one wants to prove anyway, and as such the notation $`T(r)`$ is relatively unambiguous, and represents in a vague sense a parabolic limit of the sequence $`f_n`$.

## 4. Applications

Applications of course require some knowledge of intersection numbers, and quite generally even for a compact curve $`f:CX`$ there is very little that one can say in general beyond,

Observation 4.1. Let $`f^{}:CP(T_X)`$ be the derivative $`(P(\mathrm{\Omega }_X)`$ in the notation of EGA) with $`L`$ the tautological bundle then,

$$L__f^{}C=(2g2)\mathrm{Ram}_f.$$

This is of course the Riemann-Hurwitz formula if $`dimX=1`$, and there’s an equally trivially log-variant where on the right hand side we have to throw in the number of points in the intersection with the boundary $`D`$ counted without multiplicity the special case of $`P^1\backslash \{0,1,\mathrm{}\}`$ being Mason’s “$`a,b,c`$” theorem for polynomials. The correct generality for best possible applications is to work with log-smooth Deligne-Mumford stacks (or alternatively just orbifolds since the inertia tends to be irrelevant), however for simplicity let’s stick with log-smooth varieties and metricise $`T_X(\mathrm{log}D)`$ by way of a complete metric $`_{\mathrm{log}}`$ on $`(X,D)`$, which in turn leads to a mildly singular metricisation $`\overline{L}`$ of the tautological bundle. Supposing for simplicity that $`f(0)D`$ with $`f`$ unramified at the origin then Jensen’s formula yields,

Observation 4.2(bis). Notations as above,

$$\begin{array}{ccc}_{\mathrm{\Delta }(r)}f^{}c_1(\overline{L})& =& \mathrm{log}f_{}\left(\frac{}{z}\right)_{\mathrm{log}}(0)+_{\mathrm{\Delta }(r)}\mathrm{log}f_{}\left(\frac{}{z}\right)_{\mathrm{log}}\\ \\ \\ & +& \underset{0<|z|<r}{}\mathrm{min}\{1,\mathrm{ord}_z(f^{}D)\}\mathrm{log}\frac{r}{|z|}\\ \\ \\ & & \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{0<|z|<r}{f(z)D}}{}\mathrm{ord}_z(R_f)\mathrm{log}\frac{r}{|z|}.\end{array}$$

Combining the concavity of the logarithm and once more Jensen’s formula, but this time for $`dd^c\mathrm{log}\mathrm{log}^21\mathrm{I}_D`$ for any norm on the boundary divisor $`D`$, immediately yields in the notations of 3.3,

Fact 4.3. Let $`T^{}(r)`$ be the current associated to the logarithmic derivative of a sequence $`f_n\mathrm{Hom}(\mathrm{\Delta },X\backslash D)`$ with $`f_n(0)`$ not arbitrarily close to $`D`$ and which does not afford a convergent subsequence then outwith a set of finite hyperbolic measure,

$$L_{}T^{}(r)0.$$

The so-called tautological inequality 4.3 is well adapted for applications to convergence of discs (note incidentally that it’s implicit to the formulation that a smooth metric on the bundle $`T_X(\mathrm{log}D)`$ is being employed). Nevertheless for more delicate questions such as quantifying degenerate/non-convergent behaviour. etc. there is a wealth of information in (4.2) that is lost in the coarser corollary. Indeed even using the concavity of the logarithm distorts a very delicate term measuring the ‘ramification at $`\mathrm{}`$’, i.e. the distorsion of the boundary from it’s length in the Poincaré metric, which is closely related to the difficulty of extracting an isoperimetric inequality from a knowledge of hyperbolicity in the sense of 3.1. While from the still deeper curvature point of view, 4.2 is simply a doubly integrated tautological Schwarz lemma, since by definition metricising $`T_X(\mathrm{log}D)`$ by way of a metric $`\omega `$ of curvature $`K`$ is equivalent to a lower bound of the left hand side of the form,

$$K_{\mathrm{\Delta }(r)}\omega $$

for all infinitely small, and whence all in the large, possible discs. While on the subject of curvature and isoperimetric inequalities, a variant specific to dimension 1 replaces the current $`\delta _D`$ implicitly hidden in (4.2) by the current associated to the boundary of a simply connected region, i.e.

Variant 4.4. Suppose $`dimX=1`$, let $`U_iX`$ be simply connected, $`h_i:\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{}{}U_i`$ isomorphisms and put

$$\delta _{\mathrm{\Gamma }_i}:A^0(X)C:\phi _\mathrm{\Delta }h_i^{}\phi .$$

Then specific to dimension 1, $`\delta _{\mathrm{\Gamma }_i}`$ is closed and may be written, $`c_1(H)+dd^c\gamma _i`$ for $`H`$ an ample divisor of degree 1. Now apply Jensen’s formula to recover an integrated form of Ahlfor’s isoperimetric inequality, and the Five Island’s Theorem.

Returning to varieties and divisors it’s still possible to employ (4.2) to get integrated isoperimetric inequalities for more general situations that preserve some 1-dimensional flavour, i.e. discs which are invariant by foliations by curves, with canonical foliation singularities (with the obvious definition of that notion which is functorial with respect to the ideas) and which do not pass through the singularities. The latter hypothesis which is reasonable for the study of the leafwise variation of the Poincaré metric is however somewhat restrictive for other applications, and is probably unnecessary as suggested by the essentially optimal inequality of \[M\] V.4.4 for foliations on surfaces which employs (4.2) to a very large number of monoidal transformations in the foliation singularities. Regardless here is a genuinely 2-dimensional theorem,

Theorem 4.5. (\[M\] V.5) Let $`(X,D)`$ be a smooth logarithmic surface with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_X(\mathrm{log}D)`$ big (e.g. log-general type, and $`s_2(\mathrm{\Omega }_X(\mathrm{log}D))>0`$) then there is a proper Zariski subset $`Z`$ of $`X\backslash D`$ such that $`X\backslash D`$ is complete hyperbolic (in the sense of $`3.1`$ et sequel) modulo $`Z`$.

Indeed one can even optimally quantify (cf. op. cit.) the degeneration of the Kobayashi metric (which is evidently continuous and non-zero off $`Z`$) around $`Z`$. Amusingly the theorem only covers $`P^2\backslash \{`$5 planes in general position$`\}`$, although it’s a good exercise in the techniques (cf. op. cit. V.4) to prove Bloch’s theorem too, at which point a rather small sequence of blow ups replaces all of the original estimation. In any case (4.5) should only be seen as a stepping stone which in order of ascending difficulty leaves open the following questions, viz,

Concluding Remarks 4.6. For concreteness take a smooth algebraic surface $`X`$ of general type with $`c_1^2>c_2`$ (otherwise the following should be understood in terms of higher jets, but not for anything more general than a surface) then,

* Do we have an isoperimetric inequality with appropriate degeneration along the subset $`Z`$ of (4.5).
* Is the Kobayashi metric negatively curved.
* For each $`xZ`$ and $`t`$ a tangent direction at $`x`$, is there a unique up to the usual action of $`\mathrm{SL}_2(R)`$ pointed disc with maximal tangent in the direction $`t`$, and if so does it continue to be so along its image, i.e. is there a continuous (off $`Z`$) connection whose geodesics are the discs defining the Kobayashi metric.

## 5. Thanks

In closing it is a pleasure to thank M. Brunella for introducing me to the unit disc and bubbling, together with M. Gromov for continuing this education, but above all Cécile without whom the reader could never have got this far.