text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Ever since the remarkable discovery of the AdS-CFT duality  there has been a lot of interest in finding supergravity duals to 4 dimensional field theories with reduced supersymmetry, and to use these duals to understand real world phenomena like confinement or the generation of a mass gap.

In several cases the supergravity dual of the field theory is pure geometry , and the exact supergravity solution, although challenging, was found. In other cases, like the $`𝒩=1^{}`$ theory, the string/supergravity dual (found by Polchinski and Strassler in ) contains D3 branes polarized  into 5 branes, and the exact geometry is still not known.

This paper attempts to make one step in that direction. We find exact supergravity solutions with polarized branes and with 8 supercharges. These solutions describe D4 branes polarized into NS5 branes, and F1 strings polarized into D2 branes. They are very similar to the Polchinski-Strassler (PS) case, both because polarization takes place in the near horizon geometry of the branes, and because the fields inducing it are tensor harmonics on the transverse space.

In fact, by T and S duality, these solutions give Type IIB exact solutions containing D3 branes smeared along one direction, which polarize into cylindrical NS5 or D5 branes. These solutions are dual to a limit of the Coulomb phase of the $`𝒩=4`$ Super Yang Mills, which can have screening or confining vacua when the $`𝒩=4`$ supersymmetry is broken to $`𝒩=2`$. As we will see, the radius and orientation of the cylinders parameterize a moduli space of vacua, for each type of (p,q) 5-brane.

Outline

We first perform a perturbative investigation of the polarization of D4 branes into NS5 branes, along the lines of . As explained in , supergravity in the near-horizon geometry of D branes describes a certain strongly coupled regime of the field theory living on these branes. Both sides of this duality can be perturbed. Introducing an operator in the Lagrangian of the field theory side is dual to turning on a non-normalizable mode of the corresponding supergravity field in the bulk .

In the Polchinski-Strassler case, the 3+1 dimensional $`𝒩=4`$ Super Yang Mills theory was perturbed to the $`𝒩=1^{}`$ theory by giving mass to the 3 chiral multiplets. This was dual to perturbing the $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ geometry with RR and NSNS 3 forms along the space transverse to the branes. These forms were responsible for polarizing the D3 branes in (p,q) 5 branes. The resulting setups were dual to the different phases of the $`𝒩=1^{}`$ theory, and made visible many features of this theory.

In chapter 2, we similarly perturb the near horizon background of a large number of D4 branes with the operator corresponding to a mass term for the chiral multiplet in the 4+1 dimensional $`𝒩=1`$ theory on the branes. This operator preserves 8 of the original 16 supercharges, and transforms in the 10 of the $`SO(5)`$ R symmetry group. It corresponds in the supergravity dual to a non-normalizable mode of the RR 2-form and NSNS 3-form field strengths on the 5 dimensional space transverse to the branes.

We will find that $`N`$ D4 branes can polarize into $`k`$ NS5 branes only for a very specific value of transverse field perturbation: $`F_2\frac{k}{Ng_s\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}`$. For all other values no polarization happens. Moreover, our analysis shows that the polarization radius is a modulus. An identical phenomenon happens when F1 strings polarize into D2 branes 111This phenomenon was called in  “Aut Caesar aut Nihil”, and proved to be the key to unearthing the exact supergravity solutions describing polarized branes..

Since the radius is a modulus, it is natural to suspect that these configurations could descend from a Coulomb branch configuration of M5/M2 branes in M-theory. Moreover, all the fields present could descend from the fields of the M5/M2 brane supergravity solution by a twisted Melvin reduction. It is therefore not hard to see what the full picture is:

If we have for example $`N`$ M5 branes uniformly spaced on a circle, the angle between two of them is $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi =2\pi /N`$. If one compactifies with a twist of $`2\pi /N`$, the upper end of an M5 brane is joined with the lower end of its neighboring M5 brane. Thus, the whole Coulomb branch descends into a configuration of $`N`$ D4 branes polarized into one NS5 brane. If one increases the twist $`k`$ times, the upper end of an M5 brane is joined with the lower end of its $`k`$’th neighbor, and this gives $`k`$ chains of M5 branes, which descend into $`N`$ D4 branes polarized into $`k`$ NS5 branes.

For all values of the twist which do not match an M5 brane end with another, the descending configuration has no type IIA brane interpretation (it would be like $`N`$ D4 branes polarized into a configuration with a noninteger NS5 brane charge). Therefore, compactifications with twists that do not match the brane ends only give consistent type IIA solutions when all the 5 branes are coincident.

Since the perturbation fields are proportional to the twist, we can see that the above picture matches perfectly the one obtained via the Polchinski-Strassler analysis. The discrete set of values of the fields for which the D4 branes polarize corresponds to the discrete set of twists compatible with the M5 branes being on the Coulomb branch.

Moreover, the Killing vectors of the M-theory solution do not depend on the radius. Hence, a twist by $`2k\pi /N`$ will match the brane ends at any radius. This implies that the descending configuration will be a solution at any radius, and therefore the polarization radius is a modulus, exactly as the field theory analysis implies.

As a side note, if the Killing vectors had different radial dependence, the twist would match the ends of neighboring branes only at certain values of the radius. This would give the possible radii of polarization of D4 branes into one NS5 brane. At a different radius, the ends of “next of neighbor” branes would match, and this would give $`N`$ D4 branes polarized into two NS5 branes. It is possible that this intuitive picture of matching brane ends could be useful in attempting to find the full solution in situations where the radius is not a modulus.

The immediate bonus of the above picture is finding exact Polchinski-Strassler-like IIA solutions with polarized branes by simply reducing with a twist M-theory supergravity solutions with branes spread on a circle. In chapter 3 we will find these solution, and show that they reduce to the first order solution obtained in chapter 2. We will also link the boundary theory fermion mass parameters to the M-theory twists and show that the supergravity solution preserves 8-supercharges, just as expected from the gauge/gravity analysis.

One can also give an identical description to the polarization of F1 strings into D2 branes described in . In that case the M2 branes on the Coulomb branch are compactified with a twist which matches their ends. This gives a geometry with F1 strings polarized into D2 branes. The radius is again a modulus, and this is consistent with the Killing vectors for $`x_{11}`$ and $`\varphi `$ having no radial dependence. The compactification twist preserves 8 supercharges, and can be again related to the masses of the fermion bilinears turned on on the boundary theory to induce polarization. This exact solution is discussed in chapter 4.

In fact, both the twisted M2 and M5 supergravity backgrounds (without the branes being polarized) have recently been obtained by Figueroa O’Farill and Simon . These solutions are basically superpositions of the supersymmetric flux 5 brane with D4 branes and F1 strings respectively. The new feature of our supergravity solutions is that for certain values of the fluxes, the D4 branes/F1 strings can polarize into NS5/D2 branes, and that moreover, the polarization radius is a modulus. Thus, the most general $`𝒩=2`$ exact solution we can write contains several D4-NS5 (or F1-D2) concentric circles of different radii, and different orientations. One can also generate F1-D2 solutions with $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetry, which can have 2 different kinds of F1-D2 solitons, at various radii and orientations.

Using our methods it is also possible to obtain nonsupersymmetric exact solutions with polarized branes 222Such nonsupersymmetric solutions have been obtained in the past via Melvin reductions . Indeed, as long as the twist along the circle where the branes are spread matches their ends, one can twist along other directions by arbitrary amounts, and still obtain a good solution. Supersymmetry was necessary in PS-like setups to control the backreaction of the various fields on the metric. However, here we have the exact metric, with the polarized branes, and we know that our setup is a solution simply because it is the compactification of an M-theory solution along a Killing direction.

One of the hopes of the authors is that these exact solutions could be used to find the full geometry of the Polchinski-Strassler setup. Indeed, the equations for the fields have almost identical form, and the interplay of the different RR and NSNS fields is similar. One possible route would be to use a similar ansatz and to wrestle it through the full type IIB equations of motion. Another possible route would involve using Kaluza-Klein twisted reductions of similar spirit to ours, and combining them with dualities to try to obtain the metric without going through the IIB equations.

In chapter 5 we use T-duality to obtain exact Type IIB supergravity backgrounds containing D3 branes polarized into cylindrical (p,q) 5-branes. The origin of these solutions suggests that they are dual to the Coulomb branch of the $`𝒩=2^{}`$ theory in the limit when the number of D3 branes becomes infinite and the distance between them is kept fixed.

However, these solutions are not asymptotically AdS. The dual field theory cannot therefore be interpreted as a UV-finite deformation of the $`𝒩=4`$ Super Yang Mills. In a way this theory is similar to the one dual to the Klebanov-Strassler flow , in that the rank of the gauge group grows as one goes to higher and higher energies.

This theory has confining, screening, and oblique vacua, much like the one studied by Polchinski and Strassler. In fact, when one of the $`𝒩=1^{}`$ masses becomes much smaller than the others, the D3 branes polarize into a very elongated ellipsoid . In the limit when this mass goes to zero while the thickness of the ellipsoid is kept fixed, the ellipsoid degenerates into our cylinder.

As we will discuss in chapter 2, the background with D4 branes polarized into NS5 branes is dual to a 4+1 dimensional theory with 8 supercharges. Since when the branes are polarized supergravity is valid everywhere, the corresponding phases of the 4+1 dimensional theory have no weakly coupled field theory description. Thus, they can only be described by their supergravity dual, much like the (2,0) and little string theories. In chapter 6 we investigate the phase structure and the objects of this theory. We will find phases in which electric quarks are confined and “magnetic little strings” are screened. The exact supergravity dual allows us to find the tension of the confining flux tubes and the masses of the baryons. The theories dual to the nonsupersymmetric exact solutions can also be investigated, and exhibit similar phenomena.

## 2 Polarizing D4 branes into NS5 branes - the gauge theory/supergravity picture

As explained in , supergravity in the near-horizon geometry of a large number $`N`$ of D4 branes:

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`Z^{1/2}\eta _{\mu \nu }dx_{}^2+Z^{1/2}dx_{}^2`$
$`e^\mathrm{\Phi }`$ $`=`$ $`g_sZ^{1/4}`$ (1)
$`C_{01234}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g_sZ}}`$
describes a certain strongly coupled regime of the field theory living on these branes. When the branes are coincident, $`Z=\frac{\pi Ng_s\alpha ^{3/2}}{r^3}\frac{R^3}{r^3}`$.

Both sides of this duality can be perturbed. We can introduce a hypermultiplet mass in the Lagrangian of the field theory; this corresponds in the bulk to turning on a supergravity non-normalizable mode of the RR 2-form and NSNS 3-form field strengths on the directions transverse to the branes . Indeed, the boundary fermions transform in the 4 of the $`SO(5)`$ R symmetry group, and therefore the fermion mass in the 10 has the same representation as a 2 or 3 form on the 5-dimensional space transverse to the branes.

In this chapter, we perturb the background (1) by transverse RR 2 form and NSNS 3 form field strengths, and find the supergravity solution to first order in the perturbation parameter. This solution is the dimensional reduction of the one used in  to explore the polarization of M5 branes into Kaluza Klein Monopoles, so many of the equations will be similar.

By expanding the IIA supergravity equations of motion:

$`dF_2=F_4H_3`$
$`2d(e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }}H_3)=F_4F_42d(F_4C_1)`$ (2)
around the background (1), we find that the first order perturbation fields satisfy:

$`d\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{Z}}(_5H_3+g_sF_2)\right)`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
$`d\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{Z}}(g_s_5F_2+H_3)\right)`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (3)
$`dF_2=0=dH_3,`$
where $`_5`$ is the flat Hodge operator on the transverse 5-dimensional space333These equations are very similar to the ones satisfied by the perturbation in  (Eqns. 25,27).. The metric, dilaton, and 6-form field strength (or its Hodge dual $`F_4`$) only receive 2’nd order corrections coming from the backreaction of $`F_2`$ and $`H_3`$.

We should notice that the form $`\frac{1}{Z}(_5H_3+g_sF_2)`$, is harmonic, and thus it is given by its value at infinity. In particular, if one changes $`Z`$, the form of $`F_2`$ and $`H_3`$ might change, but the combination $`\frac{1}{Z}(_5H_3+g_sF_2)`$ does not. Also, since $`F_4F_4=0`$, eq. (2) implies that the NSNS 6-form potential is:

$$dB_6=e^{2\varphi }H_3+F_4C_1$$
(4)
We must now relate the precise form of the supergravity perturbations with the fermion bilinears we turn on, by analyzing their $`R`$-symmetry properties. Luckily, this work has already been done in . By pairing the 4 worldvolume fermions and 4 of the transverse space coordinates into complex combinations

$`z_1=x^5+ix^6z_2=x^8+ix^9`$ (5)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1=\lambda _1+i\lambda _3\mathrm{\Lambda }_2=\lambda _2+i\lambda _4`$ (6)
we can see that under an $`SO(5)`$ rotation $`Z^ie^{i\varphi ^i}Z^i`$, the fermions transform as

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1e^{i(\varphi ^1\varphi ^2)/2}\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$ (7)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2e^{i(\varphi ^1+\varphi ^2)/2}\mathrm{\Lambda }_2`$ (8)
Thus, a fermion mass term behaves in the same way under SO(5) rotations as

$$T_2=\mathrm{Re}[mdz_1d\overline{z}_2+m^{}dz_1dz_2]\frac{1}{2}T_{ij}dx^idx^j$$
(9)
We are interested in giving mass to half of the worldvolume fermions (together with their corresponding scalars). This preserves $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetry in 4+1 dimension (8 supercharges), and corresponds to $`m^{}=0`$. For future reference, we should note that in this case the perturbation breaks the $`SO(5)`$ R symmetry to $`U(1)`$.

Besides $`T_2`$ there exists another 2-tensor with exactly the same SO(5) transformation properties:

$$V_2=\frac{1}{2!}(\frac{x^qx^i}{r^2}T_{qj}+\frac{x^qx^j}{r^2}T_{iq})dx^idx^j,$$
(10)
Thus, a general 2 form corresponding to the fermion mass will be a linear combination of $`T_2`$ and $`V_2`$, with $`r`$-dependent coefficients. Similarly, the 3 form will be a combination of the duals of these tensors 444Several useful identities involving these tensors are given in Appendix A.. In order to find the 1-form potentials that give the aforementioned 2-form field strength it is also useful to introduce the 1-form:

$$S_1=T_{mn}x^mdx^n$$
(11)
satisfying

$$d(S_1)=2T_2,d(r^pS_1)=r^p(2T_2+pV_2).$$
(12)
In order to obtain the first order perturbation corresponding to the fermion mass (9) one has to find the form which solves (3) and can be written as a combination of $`T_2`$ and $`V_2`$. The equations are identical to the ones in . They have 4 solutions, given in Eq.(2.22) of . These solutions are the normalizable and non-normalizable modes dual to a fermion mass, and to another irrelevant operator.

One can see both from the M-theory picture  or by direct analysis that the non-normalizable mode dual to a fermion mass operator is:

$`g_sF_2`$ $`=`$ $`Z(2T_23V_2)=d(ZS_1)`$
$`_5H_3`$ $`=`$ $`3ZV_2.`$ (13)
Note that the actual boundary fermion mass term is not the actual parameter $`m`$ appearing in this supergravity solution through $`T_2`$ (9), but is proportional to it through a constant . One can use these fields to compute the value of the 6-form NSNS field which couples electrically to NS5 branes:

$`d(B_6C_5C_1)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }}H_3+C_5F_2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{g_s^2Z}}(_5H_3+g_sF_2)dx^0dx^1dx^2dx^3dx^4`$ (14)
$`=`$ $`2g_s^2T_2dx^0dx^1dx^2dx^3dx^4`$
Since the expression $`B_6C_5C_1`$ only depends on the harmonic combination $`\frac{1}{Z}(_5H_3+g_sF_2)`$, its value is given by the boundary conditions only, and does not change when $`Z`$ changes.

To determine whether the solution (1),(13) allows the D4 branes to be polarized into NS5 branes, one must first find the potential of a probe NS5 brane with large D4 charge $`n`$ (such that $`nN`$) in the geometry created by the $`N`$ D4 branes. One can thereafter find the potential for all the $`N`$ D4 branes to be polarized into several NS5 brane shells by treating each shell as a probe in the geometry created by the others.

The action of type IIA NS5 branes is not an easy one to handle, and was found rather recently  by reducing the action of the M-theory M5 brane . Fortunately, the components responsible for the D4 charge have a rather simple form. If all the brane and bulk 3-form fields are turned off, the action becomes:

$`S_{BI}`$ $`=`$ $`\tau _5{\displaystyle d^6\xi e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }}\sqrt{\mathrm{det}(g_{ij}e^{2\varphi }_i_j)}}`$ (15)
$`S_{WZ}`$ $`=`$ $`\tau _5{\displaystyle B_6}C_5C_1+C_5_1,`$ (16)
where $`_1F_1+C_1`$, and $`F_1=da`$ is the field strength of the scalar living on the NS5 worldvolume. This scalar descends from the M5 brane scalar describing its position on the M-theory circle. Thus, it is no wonder that a nontrivial value of $`F^1`$ corresponds to a nonzero D4 charge. Moreover, we can see from (16) that to give a circular NS5 brane the D4 charge $`n`$, one needs to turn on an $`F^1`$ such that555The argument for $`F^1`$ being quantized (as opposed to $`^1`$) is similar to the one put forth in  for the D-brane worldvolume 2-form.:

$$_0^{2\pi }F_\varphi 𝑑\varphi =\frac{n\tau _4}{\tau _5}$$
(17)
which implies $`F_\varphi =\frac{n\tau _4}{2\pi \tau _5}=n\alpha ^{1/2}`$, where $`\tau _4`$ and $`\tau _5`$ are the D4 and NS5 brane tensions respectively. We assume our NS5 brane probe to have D4 charge $`n`$, and geometry $`S^1\times R^5`$, where the $`S^1`$ lies in the $`ij`$ plane, $`i`$ and $`j`$ being two of the transverse directions. The action per unit 4+1 volume in the geometry (1,13) has the Born-Infeld part:

$$V_{BI}=2\pi Z^{1/2}\tau _5g_s^2\sqrt{g_{}}\sqrt{g_{\varphi \varphi }+e^{2\mathrm{\Phi }}_\varphi _\varphi }=2\pi Z^{3/4}\tau _5g_s^2\sqrt{Z^{1/2}r^2+g_s^2Z^{1/2}\left(\frac{n\tau _4}{2\pi \tau _5}+C_\varphi \right)^2}.$$
(18)
As one can see, the first and the second terms under the square root represent respectively the NS5 and the D4 contribution to the mass of the probe. In the limit we are interested in, the D4 contribution dominates, and thus the Born Infeld action can be Taylor expanded as:

$$V_{BI}Z^1g_s^1(n\tau _4+2\pi \tau _5C_\varphi )+\frac{2\pi \tau _5r^2}{2ng_s^3\alpha ^{1/2}}$$
(19)
The first term represents the gravitational attraction between the $`N`$ D4 branes sourcing the geometry and the $`n`$ D4 branes in the probe. The second is the “left over” mass from the NS5 brane.

The Wess-Zumino action (16) similarly contains two terms, one representing the RR 3-form mediated repulsion between the D4 branes, and the second coming from the integral of $`B_6`$ (14) over the worldvolume:

$$V_{WZ}=\frac{Z^1(n\tau _4+2\pi \tau _5C_\varphi )}{g_s}\frac{2m\pi \tau _5r^2}{g_s^2}$$
(20)
As expected, the leading contributions in the WZ and BI actions coming from interactions between parallel D4 branes cancel each other. Thus, the probe action seems to be given by the 2 remaining terms in (19,20):

$$V_{\mathrm{naive}}=\frac{2\pi \tau _5r^2}{2ng_s^3\alpha ^{1/2}}\frac{2m\pi \tau _5r^2}{g_s^2}$$
(21)
Nevertheless, there exists another term in the action which comes from the interaction of the $`n`$ D4 branes with the backreaction of the first order fields (13) on the metric and dilaton. In the next chapter, we will find the exact form of the metric, which allows one to determine this term exactly. However, we can also determine this term using the fact that our setup is supersymmetric, and thus the effective potential for the probe comes from a superpotential. As we will see, the two procedures give the same result, which confirms the validity of our approach.

To obtain the superpotential, it is helpful to express the potential in terms of complex variables. We can also consider a more generic probe, by allowing the transverse circle to degenerate into an ellipse. If $`Z_1`$ and $`Z_2`$ (defined as in eq. (5)) give the length and orientation of the two semiaxes of the ellipse, then $`V_{\mathrm{naive}}`$ becomes

$$V_{\mathrm{naive}}=\frac{\pi \tau _5}{2ng_s^3\alpha ^{1/2}}\left(|Z_1|^2+|Z_2|^24mng_s\alpha ^{1/2}\mathrm{Re}(Z_1\overline{Z_2})\right)$$
(22)
and it is not hard to see that it contains two of the three terms coming from the superpotential:

$$WZ_1Z_2mng_s\alpha ^{1/2}\frac{(Z_1^2+Z_2^2)}{2}.$$
(23)
The full potential of the probe is then:

$$V_n=\frac{\pi \tau _5}{2ng_s^3\alpha ^{1/2}}\left(|Z_1Z_2mng_s\alpha ^{1/2}|^2+|Z_2Z_1mng_s\alpha ^{1/2}|^2\right)$$
(24)
and its minima are at:

$$Z_1=mng_s\alpha ^{1/2}Z_2,Z_2=mng_s\alpha ^{1/2}Z_1$$
(25)
Evidently the only nontrivial solutions are obtained for:

$$m=\pm \frac{1}{ng_s\alpha ^{1/2}}$$
(26)
This implies that for some special values of the parameter $`m`$, the radius and orientation of the polarization configuration combine to form a complex modulus. For all other values, the only solution is $`Z_1=Z_2=0`$, so there is no polarization.

One should furthermore notice that the polarization potential does not depend on the specific form of the harmonic function $`Z`$. If the metric is of the form (1), the perturbation (13) is weaker then the background, and the energy of the probe comes predominantly from D4 branes, then $`Z`$ does not enter the first term of the potential. Moreover, Eq. (14) implies that $`Z`$ and does not influence $`B_6C_5C_1`$, which gives the second term of the potential. Since the third term is related to the first two by supersymmetry, it likewise has no $`Z`$ dependence. Thus, the probe potential is independent of the positions of the $`N`$ D4 branes which source the geometry. Therefore, we can find the full potential of the $`N`$ D4 branes polarized into several rings of NS5 branes by treating each ring as a probe in the geometry created by the others. The potential is just

$$V_{\mathrm{full}}=\underset{i}{}V_{n_i},$$
(27)
where $`n_i`$ is the D4 brane charge of the $`i`$’th tube. For a given $`m`$, only the tubes with $`n_i=\frac{1}{g_s\alpha ^{1/2}m}`$ can have a nonzero radius. It is also possible to superpose several of these tubes, and obtain tubes with $`k\times n_i`$ D4 branes polarized into $`k`$ NS5 branes. The energy of such a tube is $`k`$ times the energy of a simple tube. One can also extrapolate this formula to find that the potential for all $`N`$ D4 branes to be polarized into one NS5 brane is given by simply replacing $`n`$ by $`N`$ in (24).

We found a very interesting phenomenon. For certain values of the polarizing field strength the generic configuration consists of several rings of D4 branes polarized into NS5 branes, at generic radii and generic orientations in the 56 and 89 planes. For other values, no solution with polarized branes exists. In the next chapter we will see how this phenomenon beautifully emerges from M-theory.

## 3 The exact supergravity solution describing the D4 $``$ NS5 polarization

In this chapter we will find the M-theory description of the polarized D4 brane configuration found in the previous chapter. This enables us to find the exact type IIA supergravity solution containing these polarized branes. Moreover, this description provides an intuitive geometric explanation of the moduli space of polarization vacua we found perturbatively.

Let us consider the near horizon 11-dimensional supergravity background of $`N`$ parallel M5 branes:

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`Z^{1/3}dx_{}^2+Z^{2/3}dx_{}^2`$ (28)
$`F^7`$ $`=`$ $`d(Z^1)dx^0\mathrm{}dx^4dx^{11}.`$
where the branes are aligned along the $`0,1,2,3,4`$, and $`11`$ directions, and $`Z`$ is the harmonic function on the transverse space. When the branes are coincident

$`Z_0={\displaystyle \frac{R_{M5}^3}{r^3}},r^2=x^ix^i,R_{M5}^3=N\pi l_p^3,`$ (29)
where $`i`$ runs over the 5 transverse directions. For non-coincident branes, $`Z`$ is the superposition of the harmonic functions sourced by the individual branes. If the M5 branes are smeared on a circle of radius $`r_0`$ in the $`\rho \varphi `$ plane, $`Z`$ is given by:

$$Z=\frac{R_{M5}^3}{2\pi }_0^{2\pi }\frac{d\varphi }{(𝐱^2+\rho ^2+r_0^22r_0\rho \mathrm{cos}\varphi )^{3/2}},$$
(30)
where $`𝐱`$ denotes the other 3 transverse directions.

As we explained in the Introduction, the polarized state from the previous section can be obtained by uniformly distributing the $`N`$ M5 branes on a transverse circle of radius $`r_0`$ and performing a dimensional reduction along $`_{\stackrel{~}{11}}=_{11}+B_\varphi `$. This is the type of reduction which gives the usual Melvin background.

However, in our case only those twists which identify the upper end of one brane with the lower end of the other are consistent with the setup. These are twists by multiples of $`\frac{2\pi }{N}`$. The smallest twist joins neighboring M5 branes; the $`N`$ M5 branes join to form one “slinky-like” object, which when reduced to type IIA becomes a circular NS5 brane with D4 charge $`N`$. Larger twists join branes which are further apart, and thus give several slinkies. In general, if

$$B=\frac{1}{2\pi R^{11}}\left(\frac{2k\pi }{N}\right)$$
(31)
we obtain $`N`$ D4 branes polarized into $`k`$ NS5 branes.

To obtain a Type IIA background, one needs to smear the M5 branes along the circle. Naively, this seems to allow a twist by an arbitrary $`B`$. Nevertheless, this would give a configuration with a non-integer NS5 brane charge, which is non-physical. The condition that locally the NS5 charge be quantized is equivalent to the constraint (31) on the possible values of the shifts.

For large enough $`N`$, the discretely arrayed branes are seen in supergravity as smeared. Indeed, if the distance between two M5 branes on the slinky ($`\frac{2\pi r_0}{N}`$) is smaller than the radius where the curvature created by one brane becomes larger than the string length, supergravity is only valid away from the slinky. Therefore, the branes appear as effectively smeared.

The Killing vectors of interest in the 11 dimensional geometry sourced by the smeared branes (3),(30) are $`_{11}`$,$`_{\varphi _1}`$, and $`_{\varphi _2}`$, where $`\varphi _1`$ is the angular coordinate in the plane of smearing, and $`\varphi _2`$ is the angle in an orthogonal plane.

It is possible to obtain a polarized configuration by simply reducing with a twist along $`\varphi _1`$. Nevertheless, such a configuration would not be supersymmetric. To preserve some supersymmetry, we need two twists of equal magnitude. In the absence of M5 branes, such a reduction would give the supersymmetric flux 5-brane with 8 supercharges found in . As expected, adding the M5 branes does not spoil the supersymmetry .

For consistency with the previous chapter, let us choose the smearing plane to be $`x_5x_8`$, and call $`\rho _1`$ and $`\varphi _1`$ the polar coordinates in this plane. We can also denote by $`\rho _2`$ and $`\varphi _2`$ the polar coordinates in the orthogonal $`x_6x_9`$ plane.

Since the M5 branes are smeared at $`\rho _1=r_0`$ in the 58 plane, the harmonic function will only depend on $`\rho _1`$,$`\rho _2`$ and $`x_7`$. Reducing along the Killing vector $`l=_{11}+B_1_{\varphi _1}+B_2_{\varphi _2}`$ is consistent to performing the identifications:

$`x^{11}`$ $``$ $`x^{11}+2\pi R^{11}n_1`$
$`\varphi _1`$ $``$ $`\varphi _1+2\pi n_2+2\pi n_1R^{11}B_1`$
$`\varphi _2`$ $``$ $`\varphi _2+2\pi n_3+2\pi n_1R^{11}B_2.`$ (32)
Supersymmetry requires the $`\varphi _1`$ and $`\varphi _2`$ twists ($`B_1`$ and $`B_2`$) to be equal in magnitude .

The type IIA coordinates descend from 11 dimensional coordinates with standard periodicity, which are constant along orbits of the Killing vector $`l`$:

$$\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_1=\varphi _1B_1x^{11},\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_2=\varphi _2B_2x^{11},$$
(33)
By using the relation666We use Type IIA conventions in which the dilaton is $`e^\varphi `$. between the M-theory metric and the string frame metric, dilaton field and the RR 1-form potential:

$`ds_{11}^2=(g_se^\varphi )^{2/3}ds_{10}^2+(g_se^\varphi )^{4/3}(dx^{11}+g_sC_\mu dx^\mu )^2`$ (34)
we can determine:

$`g_s^{4/3}e^{4\varphi /3}`$ $`=`$ $`(Z)^{1/3}+(Z)^{2/3}(\rho _1^2B_1^2+\rho _2^2B_2^2)\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (35)
$`g_sC_{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_1}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^1\rho _1^2B_1Z^{2/3}`$ (36)
$`g_sC_{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_2}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^1\rho _2^2B_2Z^{2/3}`$
$`ds_{10}^2`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{1/2}(Z^{1/3}dx_{}^2+Z^{2/3}dx_{}^2)\mathrm{\Lambda }^{1/2}Z^{4/3}(\rho _1^2B_1d\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_1+\rho _2^2B_2d\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_2)^2,`$ (37)
The fields $`H_3`$ and $`F_4`$ descend from the 11 dimensional 4-form $`\widehat{F}_4`$:

$$\widehat{F}_4=g_sF_4+dx^{11}H_3,$$
(38)
and are given by:

$`g_sF_4`$ $`=`$ $`_5dZ`$ (39)
$`_5H_3`$ $`=`$ $`(B_1\rho _1^2d\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_1+B_2\rho _2^2d\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_2)dZ`$ (40)
where $`_5`$ is the flat Hodge dual on the 5-dimensional space transverse to the branes.

It is not hard to obtain from (3) and (40) the first order perturbations found in the previous chapter (13). The tensors $`S_1`$ and $`V_2`$ can be expressed in polar coordinates as:

$`S_1`$ $`=`$ $`m(\rho _1^2d\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_1+\rho _2^2d\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_2)`$ (41)
$`V_2`$ $`=`$ $`m(\rho _1^2d\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_1+\rho _2^2d\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_2)(dr/r),`$ (42)
where $`r^2=\rho _1^2+\rho _2^2+x_7^2`$. Identifying $`mB_1=B_2`$, we can see that to first order in $`B`$ the exact solution found in this chapter reproduces the one given in (1,13). Also, the discrete values of $`m`$ which allow polarization (26) are the same as the values of $`B`$ which match the brane ends (31).

## 4 The exact supergravity solution describing the F1 $``$ D2 polarization

In this chapter we find the M-theory description of the supersymmetric polarization of $`N`$ F1 strings into D2 branes. The perturbative analysis of this polarization was performed in . In that paper it was shown that a large number $`N`$ of parallel fundamental strings can polarize into cylindrical D2 branes in the presence of transverse RR 2-form and 6-form field strengths 777We use for convenience the conventions of , $`F_6\stackrel{~}{F}_4=(F_4C_1H_3)`$, and $`_8`$ is the flat Hodge dual on the transverse space.:

$`g_sF_2`$ $`=`$ $`Z(2T_26V_2)`$
$`g_s(_8F_6)`$ $`=`$ $`Z(6V_2)`$ (43)
where $`T_2`$ and $`V_2`$ are again antisymmetric tensors on the 8-dimensional space transverse to the strings. By grouping the 8 transverse coordinates into 4 complex coordinates:

$$z^1=x^2+ix^3,z^2=x^4+ix^5,z^3=x^6+ix^7,z^4=x^8+ix^9,$$
(44)
and by using the SO(8) R-symmetry transformation properties of the fields, it was argued that a perturbation with

$$T_2=m\mathrm{Re}(dz^2d\overline{z}^4)$$
(45)
preserves 4 supercharges.

The M-theory picture of this polarization is very similar to the one found in the previous chapter. The only change comes from replacing the M5 branes with M2 branes.

Let us consider the 11 dimensional supergravity background describing the near horizon of a large number $`N`$ of coincident M2 branes:

$`ds_{11}^2`$ $`=`$ $`Z_2^{2/3}dx_{}^2+Z_2^{1/3}dx_{}^2`$
$`\widehat{F}_4`$ $`=`$ $`d(Z^1)dx^0dx^1dx^{11}`$
$`Z_0={\displaystyle \frac{R_{M2}^6}{r^6}},`$ $`r^2=x^ix^i,R_{M2}^6=32\pi ^2Nl_p^6`$ (46)
where the branes are aligned along $`0,1,11`$, and $`i=2,3,\mathrm{},9`$.

When the M2 branes are smeared on a circle of radius $`r_0`$, the only change in the metric above is the harmonic function:

$$Z=\frac{R_{M2}^6}{2\pi }_0^{2\pi }\frac{d\varphi }{(𝐱^2+\rho ^2+r_0^22r_0\rho \mathrm{cos}\varphi )^{6/2}}=R_{M2}^6\frac{(𝐱^2+\rho ^2+r_0^2)^2+2r_0^2\rho ^2}{(𝐱^2+(\rho r_0)^2)^{5/2}(𝐱^2+(\rho +r_0)^2)^{5/2}}$$
(47)
where $`𝐱`$ denotes the 6 transverse directions perpendicular to the smearing plane.

To obtain the polarized state we again distribute the M2 branes on a circle, and compactify with a twist, as in (32). Local D2 charge quantization implies that only certain values of the twist (given by Eq.(31)) give consistent backgrounds. Alternatively, one can see that only twists by multiples of $`\frac{2\pi }{N}`$ link an end of an M2 brane with the end of another, like in Figure 1.

We can assume without loss of generality that the M2 branes are distributed in the $`x_4x_8`$ plane, and introduce polar coordinates $`(\rho _1,\varphi _1)`$ for the $`(x_4x_8)`$ plane, and $`(\rho _2,\varphi _2)`$ for the $`(x_5x_9)`$ plane.

If the number of M2 branes is large, supergravity sees them as effectively smeared. We can therefore dimensionally reduce the background (46,47) along the Killing vector $`l=_{11}+B_1_{\varphi _1}+B_2_{\varphi _2}`$ as in section 3. If $`|B_1|=|B_2|`$ the resulting background preserves 8 supercharges.

For completeness, we should note that one can consider a more general reduction, involving twists in the $`x_2x_6`$ and $`x_3x_7`$ planes as well. For certain values of the twists these reductions can also give supersymmetric backgrounds with polarized branes. The comprehensive analysis done by  for coincident branes applies here without change.

Using the reduction formula (34), we can determine:

$`g_s^{4/3}e^{4\varphi /3}`$ $`=`$ $`(Z)^{2/3}+(Z)^{1/3}(\rho _1^2B_1^2+\rho _2^2B_2^2)\mathrm{\Lambda }`$
$`g_sC_{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_1}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^1\rho _1^2B_1Z^{1/3}`$
$`g_sC_{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_2}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^1\rho _2^2B_2Z^{1/3}`$ (48)
$`ds_{10}^2`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{1/2}(Z^{2/3}dx_{}^2+Z^{1/3}dx_{}^2)\mathrm{\Lambda }^{1/2}Z^{2/3}(\rho _1^2B_1d\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_1+\rho _2^2B_2d\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_2)^2`$
Also using (38) we obtain:

$`F_4`$ $`=`$ $`0=\stackrel{~}{F}_4+C_1H_3`$
$`H_3`$ $`=`$ $`d(Z^1)dx^0dx^1`$ (49)
Identifying $`mB_1=B_2`$ we can verify that to first order in $`B`$ this exact solution reproduces the perturbative one (43).

We should note that the background we found has 8 supercharges, twice the amount found in  by analyzing the 2 dimensional theory dual to this background. That analysis relied heavily on the study of the free limit of the dual theory, and on assuming the most general type of interactions consistent with the symmetries. Since the Lagrangian is not known, it is possible that it is less general than it was assumed in , which would explain the increased supersymmetry. One can turn also this observation backwards, and conclude that because its supergravity dual has 8 supercharges, the interactions of the 2 dimensional theory preserve the same amount of supersymmetry. It would be interesting to explore if this is indeed the case, and if it can be seen via a matrix string theory analysis of the type done in .

## 5 Towards the full Polchinski-Strassler solution

It is possible to obtain the exact Type IIB solution describing smeared D3 branes polarized into a cylindrical NS5 branes by simply T-dualizing the background (37) along one of the direction parallel to the D4 branes.

Indeed, the D4 branes become D3 branes smeared along the T-duality direction, while the NS5 branes remain the same. By an $`SL(2,Z)`$ transformation this configuration can give configurations with D3 branes polarized into (p,q) 5 branes.

These configurations have the same types of fields as in the PS solution. Nevertheless, they have $`𝒩=2`$ supersymmetry and have a different topology from the case discussed in . The NS5 branes we obtain have topology $`S^1\times R^5`$, while the ones in  have topology $`S^2\times R^4`$.

To our knowledge there seem to be two major difficulties in obtaining the full PS solution. The first one is finding the exact $`𝒩=1^{}`$ supergravity background without the polarized branes, and the second one is finding the modification of this background when the branes are polarized. Our solutions are insensitive to the exact form of $`Z`$, and seem to suggest that the second step only involves changing the harmonic function $`Z`$. It would be interesting to see if by applying this intuition to the solution obtained by lifting the 5-dimensional $`𝒩=1^{}`$ supergravity flow one could find the full PS solution888A related problem which might be easier to approach would be using an $`𝒩=2`$ $`AdS_4`$ flow  to find the full solution corresponding to M2 branes polarized into M5 branes ..

If we choose the T-duality direction $`y`$ to be $`x^4`$ the exact solution (37) becomes:

$`e^\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`g_s\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{1/2}`$ (50)
$`g_sC_2`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^1Z(S_1dy)`$ (51)
$`_6H_3`$ $`=`$ $`(S_1dy)dZ`$ (52)
$`d^2s_{10}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{1/2}\left(Z^{1/2}dx_{}^2+Z^{1/2}(dx_{}^2+dy^2)\right)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^{1/2}Z^{1/2}\left(Z(S_1)^2+(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}1)dy^2\right)`$ (53)
$`g_sF_5`$ $`=`$ $`_6dZ,`$ (54)
with

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}=1+Z(B_1^2\rho _1^2+B_2^2\rho _2^2)\mathrm{and}S_1=B_1\rho _1^2d\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_1+B_2\rho _2^2d\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_2,$$
(55)
where the parallel directions are $`0123`$, $`Z`$ is given by equation 30, and the Hodge dual $`_6`$ on the space transverse to the branes has flat indices.

As a side note we should note that this solution exists even for $`B_1B_2`$, when there is no supersymmetry. The exact type IIB solution for a circular D5 brane with large D3 brane charge can be easily obtained using S-duality.

By a chain of T and S dualities the solution describing polarized F1 strings can also be brought to describe an $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ geometry perturbed with metric and 5-form components which break the 3+1 dimensional Lorentz invariance of the boundary theory. These perturbations preserve 8 supercharges, and allow the D3 branes to develop dipole moments corresponding to D3 brane charge along directions transverse to the branes.

## 6  More about the theory on the D4 branes

As we explained in the previous chapters, the strongly coupled theory dual to the supergravity background with polarized branes is related to the 4+1 Super Yang Mills theory living on the D4 branes. As it is well known, this theory is not renormalizable, and becomes strongly coupled in the UV. In that regime it can be described by string theory on the background (37), which can be thought of as the dual of the UV completion of this theory.

By turning on the supergravity modes corresponding to fermion masses, the UV completion is modified, and can in some cases include polarized branes. In these cases, the supergravity solution valid everywhere, and thus there is no regime where the boundary theory is weakly coupled. When there are no polarized branes, the supergravity background becomes again singular, and the IR of the field theory becomes weakly coupled.

For fermion masses allowing brane polarization ($`m\frac{k}{Ng_s\alpha ^{1/2}}`$) one can pass from a phase where the theory has a weakly coupled field theory description (as a mass-deformed $`𝒩=1`$ Super Yang Mills theory in 4+1 dimensions) to a phase where there is no weakly coupled field theory description, by simply changing the polarization radius.

Note that such theories are not new. They are similar to the mysterious “little string theories”, or to the (2,0) theory, which can also be defined only via their weakly coupled supergravity duals. In the case of these theories however, one can also study them via DLCQ; it would be interesting to see if aspects of the 4+1 dimensional theories discussed here are amenable to a similar discussion.

The purpose of this chapter is to learn as much as possible about these theories by studying their supergravity duals. The first thing to notice is that these theories have 8 supercharges. One can see this both directly (a mass to a chiral superfield in 4+1 dimensions preserves $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetry) or by noticing that the exact supergravity dual of these theories has 8 supercharges .

Quarks and Little Strings

As in the case of D3 branes, the ends of objects ending on the branes are “states” in the boundary theory. As both F1 strings and D2 branes can end on a D4 brane, this theory will have both “quarks” and “little strings”.

Thus, an infinite F1 string ending on a D4 brane can be interpreted as a quark. In the confining phase, the energy of the flux tube between two such quarks is given by the energy of an F-string with its ends on the boundary, lowered into the bulk . Since the bulk contains only NS5 branes, the F string can never attach to them, and thus the string energy is proportional to the separation of its ends. This indicates that quarks are confined.

One can also see that the D2 brane “little strings”, are screened. The generalized Wilson surface which describes the properties of these strings is given by the energy of a D2 brane lowered in the bulk . Since this D2 brane can attach itself to the NS5 brane, there is no energy cost to move the two “little strings” apart. Therefore the little strings are screened. Since we are in a phase where the quarks are confined, it is appropriate to call the little strings “magnetic little strings”.

We should note that if we were in a phase with the D4 branes polarized into a D6 brane (such a state can only be obtained without supersymmetry ), the strings would be confined and the quarks would be screened. These two phases are very reminiscent of the ones in 3+1 dimensional theories. Nevertheless, if we insist on preserving 8 supercharges only the “magnetic” phase is present.

It is quite easy to find the tension of the confining flux tube. When the quarks are far apart, the bulk string joining them is composed of essentially two vertical segments, and one segment sitting near the polarized branes. The energy of the two vertical segments is essentially constant, and therefore the flux tube tension is given by the tension of an F1 string sitting near the shell.

It is possible to extract the components of the near-shell geometry from the exact solution. At $`\rho _1=r_0+ϵ`$, the harmonic form (30) becomes:

$$Z_{\mathrm{near}\mathrm{shell}}=\frac{R_{M5}^3}{\pi r_0ϵ^2},$$
(56)
and therefore $`g_{}=r_0B+O(ϵ)`$, and $`e^\varphi ϵ`$.

Thus, the flux tube tension is:

$$T_{\mathrm{flux}\mathrm{tube}}=\sqrt{g_{00}g_{11}}|_{\mathrm{near}\mathrm{shell}}=r_0B,$$
(57)
independent of the ’t Hooft coupling of the boundary theory. Note that as $`r_00`$ the weakly coupled infrared region is recovered, there is no confinement, and the string tension becomes zero as expected.

One can also see that the magnetic little strings are screened, by estimating the energy of a D2 brane in the near shell limit:

$$V_{\mathrm{D2}}=e^\mathrm{\Phi }\sqrt{g_{00}g_{11}g_{22}}|_{\mathrm{near}\mathrm{shell}}ϵ0$$
(58)
This confirms the string theory intuition outlined above.

Baryons

Since the weakly coupled theory has an $`SU(N)`$ gauge symmetry, one expects that in the confining phase a baryon made of $`N`$ quarks is a free object. One can easily see that bulk dual of a baryon in the unperturbed field theory is a D4 brane wrapping the warped 4-sphere transverse to the D4 branes. Nevertheless, unlike its 3+1 dimensional “cousin” , this baryon is not stable because of the lack of conformal invariance. It tends to slide off towards the infrared and self-annihilate.

Nevertheless, when the D4 branes are polarized, the D4 brane baryon sliding towards the infrared crosses the polarized configuration at a finite radius. Via the Hanany-Witten effect, the resulting baryon is a D2 brane ending on the NS5-D4 shell, and filling the 2-ball whose boundary is the polarization circle. It is not hard to see that $`N`$ fundamental strings can end on the junction between the D2 brane and the NS5-D4 shell.

Indeed, by investigating the NS5 brane action  (formulas 54,55), we can see that the D2 brane ends source a nonzero NS5 worldvolume 3-form $`db_2`$, and the dissolved D4 branes create a nonzero worldvolume 1-form $`_1`$. The anomaly given by the term

$$db_2B_2$$
(59)
under the gauge transformation $`\delta B_2=d\chi _1`$ is proportional to the number of dissolved D4 branes ($`N`$), and can only cancel if $`N`$ F1 strings end on the NS5-D2 junction. Therefore, the D2 brane filling the 2-ball inside the polarization circle is indeed the baryon of this theory.

One can also estimate the dependence of the mass of this baryon on the parameters of the theory. Assuming the order of magnitude of $`Z`$ to be $`R^3/r_0^3`$, we find the tension of the D2 brane to be:

$$M_{\mathrm{baryon}}=\tau _{D2}_0^{r_0}𝑑\rho _1𝑑\varphi _1e^\mathrm{\Phi }\sqrt{g_{00}g_{\rho _1\rho _1}g_{\varphi _1\varphi _1}}\sqrt{N^3r_0g_s}.$$
(60)
Domain Walls

As we have seen, our theory has a moduli space of polarization vacua, and one would expect two different vacua to be separated by a domain wall. Nevertheless, these domain walls do not exist. The easiest way to see this is to remember that the tension of a domain wall is given by the difference of the superpotentials in the two vacua it separates. Nevertheless, since the superpotentials are zero in all vacua (23), the domain wall tension is zero.

Condensates

One can find the value of normalizable modes of supergravity fields by simply expanding the exact solution for large $`r`$. These normalizable modes correspond to vacuum expectation values of certain operators in the boundary theory . Knowing the bulk-boundary dictionary allows one to find all these expectation values with minimal effort.

## 7 Conclusions

We have investigated the polarization of D4 branes into NS5 branes both by perturbing their near-horizon geometry and performing a Polchinski-Strassler type analysis, and by investigating the M-theory origin of this polarization.

This enabled us to obtain the exact supergravity solutions describing this polarization, to our knowledge the first exact solution which contains polarized branes and has a field theory dual. We also obtained the exact solution describing the polarization of F1 strings into D2 branes. A generic such solution contains several concentric polarized configurations, of arbitrary radii, and arbitrary orientations.

We then used T-duality to obtain type IIB solutions with 8 supercharges describing smeared D3 branes polarized into concentric cylindrical (p,q) 5 branes. By a chain of T and S dualities it is also possible to obtain asymptotically AdS solutions where the D3 branes develop a transverse D3 dipole moment. These solutions are the first exact IIB supersymmetric solutions with polarized branes and a field theory dual.

In the last chapter we investigated some of the properties of the supersymmetric 4+1 dimensional theory dual to the D4-NS5 exact background, and gave string theory descriptions of the objects this theory contains: quarks, magnetic little strings, baryons, domain walls, etc.

The solutions found in this paper belong to the same universality class as the exact Polchinski-Strassler solution, and we hope that the ideas presented here will be useful steps towards finding this solution.

Acknowledgments We would like to thank Joe Polchinski, John Schwarz, Per Kraus, Roberto Emparan, Nick Warner, Anton Kapustin, and Radu Roiban for useful discussions and suggestions. The work of I.B. was supported in part by the the NSF Grant PHY00-99590. The work of C.C. was supported in part by the DOE Grant DE-FG03-92-ER40701.

## 8 Appendix A - Tensor Spherical Harmonics

We give several useful relations between the transverse space tensors used in this paper. If the transverse space is 5-dimensional, and we are interested in describing antisymmetric 2-form and 3-form harmonics, they depend on the tensors

$`T_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2!}}T_{mn}dx^mdx^n`$ (61)
$`V_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2!}}({\displaystyle \frac{x^qx^i}{r^2}}T_{qj}+{\displaystyle \frac{x^qx^j}{r^2}}T_{iq})dx^idx^j`$ (62)
$`T_3`$ $`=`$ $`_5T_2`$ (63)
$`V_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3!}}({\displaystyle \frac{x^qx^m}{r^2}}T_{qnp}+2\mathrm{more})dx^mdx^ndx^p`$ (64)
which satisfy:

$`T_2V_2`$ $`=`$ $`_5V_3`$ (65)
$`d(\mathrm{ln}r)V_3`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (66)
$`d(\mathrm{ln}r)_5V_3`$ $`=`$ $`d(\mathrm{ln}r)_5T_3`$ (67)
$`d(V_3)`$ $`=`$ $`3d(\mathrm{ln}r)T_3`$ (68)
$`d(_5V_3)`$ $`=`$ $`2\mathrm{ln}r_5T_3`$ (69)
In order to express the 1-form potential it is also useful to introduce the transverse space 1-form:

$$S_1=T_{mn}x^mdx^n$$
(70)
satisfying

$`d(S_1)`$ $`=`$ $`2T_2`$ (71)
$`d(r^pS_1)`$ $`=`$ $`r^p(2T_2+pV_2)`$ (72)
If the transverse space is 8 dimensional one can similarly introduce 2-form and 6-form tensors. 999For the precise formulas see the Appendix in . We give all the fields in terms of $`T_2,V_2`$ and $`S_1`$, and equations (61,62,70,72) are the only ones needed.

## 9 Appendix B - Consistency Checks

As explained in  in the case of a large $`N`$ number of D4 branes there exists a decoupling limit, $`\alpha ^{}0`$, keeping $`g_s(\alpha ^{})^{1/2}`$ fixed, where the field theory on the branes decouples from the theory in the bulk.

The type II A supergravity solution can be trusted  in the region: $`\frac{\alpha ^{}}{N}rN^{1/3}\alpha ^{}`$. For smaller $`r`$ the curvature becomes too large, and the weakly coupled description of the physics is provided by the 4+1 dimensional Super Yang Mills theory. For larger $`r`$ the dilaton becomes too large, and weakly coupled description of the physics is provided by 11 dimensional supergravity.

The condition for the validity of the perturbative calculations done in the first 2 sections is: $`\frac{|F_2|^2}{|F_6|^2}1`$:

$`|F_2|^2`$ $`=`$ $`F_{ij}F_{ij}g^{ii}g^{jj}g_s^2m^2Z{\displaystyle \frac{m^2Ng_s^1\alpha ^{3/2}}{r^3}}`$ (73)
$`|F_6|^2`$ $`=`$ $`F_{01234r}F_{01234r}g^{00}\mathrm{}g^{44}g^{rr}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^2}}`$
Thus the perturbation is small if $`m^2Ng_s^1\alpha ^{3/2}r`$. For the smallest mass which allows for a moduli space this is equivalent(in the decoupling limit) to $`\frac{\alpha ^{}}{g_s^2N}r`$, which is trivially satisfied. For the other masses which allow polarization the perturbative calculation are valid for $`\frac{k^2\alpha ^{}}{g_s^2N}r`$.

Finally let us consider the regime where the M5 branes become effectively smeared. The curvature near a single M5 brane is large in string units for distances of order $`\alpha ^{}`$. Therefore the smearing approximation is justified for $`\frac{2\pi r_0}{N}\alpha ^{}`$ . This constraint is satisfied in the energy region of interest.

The regime where the M5 branes are seen as smeared is the same as the regime where the D4 contribution to the energy of the polarized configuration is dominant (19). Outside this region, both the supergravity perturbative approach in chapter 2 and of the exact solution in chapter 3 stop being valid. Nevertheless, it is quite likely that a solution with polarized branes still exists. Indeed, the radius and orientation of these solutions parameterize the moduli space of a 4+1 dimensional theory with 8 supercharges. It is quite unlikely that by taking the branes further away the moduli space would go away. It would be interesting to investigate if this is indeed the case, and to see what the D4-NS5 soliton becomes in this regime.


format: text

text:
# Asymmetric optical radiation pressure effects on liquid interfaces under intense illumination

## I INTRODUCTION

Since the seminal work of Ashkin and Dziedzic Ash2  on the deformation of transparent liquid free-surfaces induced by laser waves, the optical radiation pressure has been recognized as very appealing to locally manipulate liquid interfaces. The first developments exploited essentially the interface bending for optical applications in adaptative lensing kats , formation of surface relief holographic gratings komissa87 , or control of morphology-dependent resonances changmdr . Recently, radiation pressure effects have received renewed interest in connection with nano/bio-technologies, as a non-intrusive tool to probe microscopic surface properties of soft materials including cell stretching kasprl ; kasbiophys  or membrane and interface viscoelasticity wangol ; wang01 ; sakai01 ; sakai02 . However, the bending of a fluid interface by the optical radiation pressure is generally weak, and all these experiments were thus essentially limited to the investigation of the linear regime in deformation.

The ”linear regime” concept here ought to be defined more precisely, as there are actually two kinds of nonlinearities to be recognized. First, hydrodynamic nonlinearity occurs if the slope of the liquid surface bulge is large. In this context it is instructive to consider the Zhang-Chang droplet experiment zhang . These authors presented impressive pictures of the surface shape distortions in the front and in the rear region of a micrometer-sized water drop. When illuminated with a strong laser pulse, droplet disruption was observed at the rear. If the equilibrium radius of the droplet is $`a`$ and the surface elevation is $`h`$, linear hydrodynamic wave theory is known to apply if the transverse gradient of $`h`$ is much less than one. In the case of a 100 mJ pulse, the calculation of the Zhang-Chang experiment (Fig. 2 in Ref. 12) gave under typical conditions $`h/a=0.02`$ at the front and $`h/a=0.3`$ at the rear. Accordingly, hydrodynamic linear theory should be expected to apply at the front but is obviously not valid at the rear.

The other kind of nonlinearity that may occur is of electromagnetic nature, caused by a large value of the field strength. Generally, the ratio between the third-order and the first-order susceptibilities is written as $`\chi ^{(3)}/\chi ^{(1)}=E_0^2`$, where $`E_0`$ is for most materials of order of $`10^{11}`$ V/m (see Ref. 13). Consider again the Zhang-Chang experiment. In case of the 100 mJ pulse the incident intensity at the centerline of the beam was $`0.29\mathrm{GW}/\mathrm{cm}^2`$, which corresponds to an electric field of about $`10^7`$ V/m. As the droplet acts as a lens, the field in the rear region is higher, perhaps by a factor of 2 or more. However, on the whole we find it unlikely that the field strength was strong enough to affect the susceptibility significantly in the Zhang-Chang experiment. We will consider similar conditions here. To be precise: we will assume hydrodynamic nonlinearity, but electrodynamic linearity.

The background for the present work is the following. Whereas the linear regime is well understood and also delineated experimentally prlgiant , the nonlinear behavior at strong laser illumination is still at an early stage. Some success has so far been achieved in the theoretical description of the weakly nonlinear regime of deformation lai ; brevikdrop . However such a scheme, based as it is on linear wave theory, is clearly insufficient to explain the very large asymmetry observed. This brings us to the primary aim of the present research, namely to show the existence of these large deformations experimentally, to explore the physical reason for the asymmetry, and finally to present a simple theoretical model whereby the essence of the phenomenon can be described. To the best of our knowledge, this effect is observed for the first time at steady state under cw laser excitation, i.e. in a situation particularly favorable for quantitative investigations. Even if the asymmetry as such is not novel, we think that the very large magnitude of it, is.

We choose to work experimentally with liquid surfaces that are initially flat. Considering a laser beam coming either from above or from below on the meniscus we are thus able to analyze the surface deformations without entering into the complications arising from the lens effect in the case of curved surface - cf. the striking demonstration of the last-mentioned effect in the Zhang-Chang experiment.

We point out that the distortion of the liquid surface depends in general on the combined effect of gravity and surface tension. The equation of motion for the height $`h(r)`$, where $`r`$ is the radius in cylindrical coordinates, is given at steady state by:

$$(\rho _1\rho _2)gh(r)\sigma \frac{1}{r}\frac{d}{dr}\left(\frac{rh^{^{}}(r)}{\sqrt{1+h^{^{}}(r)^2}}\right)=\mathrm{\Pi }(r)$$
(1)
where $`\rho _1,\rho _2`$ are the densities of the two liquids, $`\sigma `$ the surface tension and $`\mathrm{\Pi }(r)`$ the optical radiation pressure. In the linear regime of deformation, $`h^{^{}}(r)1`$ and the radiation pressure value is taken at normal incidence (see for instance Eq. (1) in Ref. 14). Then for an exciting beam in the $`TEM_{00}`$ mode, the solution for $`h(r)`$ can be calculated using a Fourier-Bessel transform and contains the capillary gravity wave frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }(k)=\sqrt{\frac{\rho _1\rho _2}{\rho _1+\rho _2}gk+\sigma \frac{k^3}{\rho _1+\rho _2}}`$ as a central parameter (cf. also p. 171 in Ref. 16). However by comparing the relative effect of gravity (buoyancy) to surface tension, one defines an optical Bond number Bo as $`Bo=(\omega _0/l_C)^2`$, where $`\omega _0`$ is the beam waist and $`l_C=\sqrt{\sigma /(\rho _1\rho _2)g}`$ is the capillary length of the interface. When $`Bo1`$, and it will be the case in the following experiments, then gravity turns out to be negligible for the surface distortion. The centerline height is in this case inversely proportional to the surface tension $`\sigma `$, and is thus considerably enhanced when $`\sigma `$ is a small quantity. A closer discussion on this point is given in Ref. 14.

## II EXPERIMENTS

### II.1 Set-up

Experiments were performed in a water-in-oil microemulsion (stable suspension of surfactant-coated water nano-droplets, called micelles, dispersed in an oil-rich continuum). Its composition and some of its characteristics have already been described previously prlgiant . For a temperature $`T>T_C`$, where $`T_C308K`$ is a critical temperature, the mixture separates in two micellar phases $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$ of different concentrations. Since the density (resp. index of refraction) of water is larger (resp. smaller) than that of oil, the micellar phase $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$ of larger concentration is located below the low micellar concentration phase $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$ while its refractive index $`n_1`$ is smaller than $`n_2`$ of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$. The main advantages of our medium are the extremely weak surface tension of the liquid meniscus separating the two phases (typically $`10^6`$ times smaller at $`TT_C=3K`$ than that of the water/air free surface) and its very low residual absorption at the wavelength used. As a consequence interface deformations can easily be monitored by continuous laser waves without disturbing thermal couplings or non-linear bulk effects ol01lens . Moreover the vicinity of a critical point ensures the universality of the observed phenomena, because our mixture belongs to the universality class (d=3, n=1) of the Ising model prlgiant . It allows also us to evaluate the experimental parameters of our system according to the following scaling laws for the surface tension $`\sigma `$ and the density contrast of the two phases : $`\sigma =\sigma _0\left(\frac{TT_C}{T_C}\right)^{2\nu }`$, with $`2\nu =1.26`$ and $`\sigma _0=10^4J.m^2`$; $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho =\rho _1\rho _2=\mathrm{\Delta }\rho _0\left(\frac{TT_C}{T_C}\right)^\beta `$, with $`\beta =0.325`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho _0=285kg.m^3`$. For the refractive index contrast $`\mathrm{\Delta }n=n_1n_2`$, as the two phases $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$ are of very close composition, we assume the Clausius-Mossotti relation to be valid prlgiant : $`\mathrm{\Delta }n\left(\frac{n}{\rho }\right)_T\mathrm{\Delta }\rho `$ with $`\left(\frac{n}{\rho }\right)_T=\mathrm{1.22\hspace{0.33em}10}^4m^3.kg^1`$. The Table 1 gives the values of these parameters, together with the values of the absorption and thermal coefficients of our medium.

The experimental set-up is shown in Fig.1. The mixture is enclosed in a thermoregulated spectroscopic cell and the temperature is chosen above $`T_C`$ to reach the two-phase equilibrium state. The bending of the liquid-liquid meniscus is driven by a linearly polarized $`TEM_{00}`$ cw $`Ar^+`$ laser (wavelength in vacuum, $`\lambda _0=514`$ nm) propagating either upward or downward along the vertical axis. The beam is focused on the interface by an objective lens (Leitz 10X, N.A. 0.25). In the following $`P`$ is the beam power and the beam-waist $`\omega _0`$, evaluated at $`\frac{1}{e^2}`$, is adjusted by changing the distance between a first lens L (focal length f=1 m) and the focusing objective.

### II.2 Results

Typical interface deformations induced for identical experimental conditions ($`TT_C=3K`$ and $`\omega _0=5.3\mu m`$) are presented on Fig. 2 for upward and downward directed beams. Since $`n_1<n_2`$, the radiation pressure acts downwards toward the less refractive medium, regardless of the direction of propagation of the laser brevik79 ; sakai02 . Fig. 3 shows the variation of the centerline height $`h_0=h(r=0)`$ versus beam power $`P`$ in both cases. As expected and already observed in experiments prlgiant , $`h_0`$ is linear in $`P`$ at low beam power. This regime corresponds respectively to $`P225\text{mW}`$ and $`P300\text{mW}`$ in the two examples presented. Then when $`P`$ increases, $`h_0`$ gradually deviates from linearity. The deformation switches from the classical bell shape to a stable tether shape in the upward case (see the last four pictures on Fig. 2a)). The behavior is radically different in the downward excitation case. The deformation suddenly looses stability and $`h_0`$ diverges above a well-defined onset power $`P_S`$ (see for instance the two last pictures at $`P=P_S=400mW`$ on Fig. 2b)). This instability gives birth to a liquid jet that self-traps the beam and emits droplets at its end (Fig. 2c).

## III THEORETICAL DISCUSSION

### III.1 The Importance of Total Reflection; scaling relation for the onset power $`P_S`$

Actually, the reasons for this symmetry breaking can be understood from a very simple physical argument. As the beam propagates from the large to the low refractive phase in the downward case, total reflection of light at the interface can be reached. When this occurs, there is a dramatic concentration of light energy towards the tip of the bulge which consequently becomes unstable. We have already demonstrated that, under a wide range of scaling conditions, the measured onset power of the instability leading to the liquid jet is in complete accordance with the onset power $`P_S`$ defined by the condition of total reflection jets :

$$P_S=\frac{1.121\pi }{0.715\sqrt{2}}\frac{n_1}{n_2}\left(1+\frac{n_1}{n_2}\right)\frac{\sigma c}{n_2n_1}\omega _0,$$
(2)
where $`\sigma `$ as before is the meniscus surface tension and c is the light velocity in vacuum. The advantage of working with critical fluids is another time obvious here, as $`P_S`$ scales as $`\frac{\sigma }{n_2n_1}(TT_C)^{0.93}`$ and therefore vanishes close to $`TT_C`$.

For the opposite direction of propagation, the induced tethers (up to 60 $`\mu m`$ on Fig. 2a)) are surprising. A coupling still exists between the laser propagation and the deformation because the bulge acts as a soft lens ol01lens . However, in this case the beam is focused inside the deformation and no amplification mechanism therefore occurs for the intensity experienced by the tip of the bulge. These unusual nonlinear shapes deserve further theoretical investigations. To our knowledge, they remain so far unexplained.

### III.2 A Simple Two-dimensional Geometrical Optics Model

We find it worthwhile to point out that it is possible to get a physical picture of the essence of the asymmetry in the downward/upward cases of the laser beam, without having to take into account the complex circular geometry of the tether. Before embarking on calculations, one may ask to what extent an approximate picture in terms of geometrical optics could be adequate. The important parameter distinguishing between wave optics and geometrical optics is, for a sphere of radius $`a`$,

$$\alpha =2\pi a/\lambda _0.$$

The distinction between the two cases is not sharp, but in practice it is usually safe to work in terms of geometrical optics if $`\alpha 80`$, as discussed, for instance, in Ref. 12. Assuming the highly curved region at the tip of the distortion to correspond roughly to a sphere of radius $`a=10\mu `$m we obtain $`\alpha `$ 120 for $`\lambda _0=514`$ nm. The geometrical optics picture should according to this estimate be quite safe. Even if the radius becomes halved, the resulting value $`\alpha 60`$ is most likely to be sufficient to justify the use of geometrical optics in our case.

Consider then the following simple model. Replace the tether with a symmetrical two-dimensional wedge, with an opening angle $`2\beta `$ facing upwards. Assume that an incident vertical ray in the downward direction falls from the optical dense medium (2) towards one of the wedge surfaces, gets reflected towards the second surface, and is thereafter reflected back in the upward vertical direction (see Fig. 4). This symmetric ray pattern becomes accomplished if we choose $`\beta =45^0`$, and assign the same value to the angle of incidence $`\theta _2`$. The surface pressure $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ caused by one single reflection/refraction is given by the generic formula borzdov :

$$\mathrm{\Pi }(\theta _i)=\frac{n_iI}{c}\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _i\left\{1+R\frac{\mathrm{tan}\theta _i}{\mathrm{tan}\theta _t}T\right\},$$
(3)
where the index i refers to incidence and t to transmission, $`I`$ being the incident intensity. This formula can be derived either by integration of the normal component of the volume force density $`𝐟=\frac{1}{2}E^2\epsilon `$ across the boundary region of the dielectric, or alternatively by considering the normal component of Maxwell’s stress tensor directly brevik79 . The coefficients of reflection and transmission, $`R`$ and $`T`$, satisfy the condition $`R+T=1`$. They can be found, for instance, on p. 496 in Stratton’s book stratton41 . The expression Eq. (3) holds regardless of the state of polarization of the beam. In practice, we usually insert the expressions for $`R`$ and $`T`$ corresponding to the TM or TE polarizations.

Consider first the downward incident ray, for which $`\theta _i=\theta _2`$ and $`n_i=n_2`$. Without losing the essence of the problem we can make the simplifying assumption that this ray corresponds to the onset of total reflection. Then from Snell’s law, $`n_2/n_1=\sqrt{2}`$. (We are thus choosing refractive indices different from those actually used in our experiment; this only to make the argument as simple as possible.) The two reflections from the wedge surfaces contribute with equal weight to the pressure, since in this case $`R=1,T=0`$. We calculate the vertical force coming from $`\mathrm{\Pi }(\theta _2)`$ over a length $`l`$ of the surface ($`l`$ reckoned from the cusp), multiply by 2 because of the two surfaces, and define a mean vertical pressure $`\overline{\mathrm{\Pi }}_z()`$ by dividing with the effective cross section $`l\sqrt{2}`$ for the considered part of the beam:

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Pi }}_z()=\frac{n_2I}{c}.$$
(4)
For the reverse case of an upward directed incident ray, assumed to have the same intensity $`I`$, there is no total reflection to be taken into account. The angle of incidence, now called $`\theta _1`$, is $`45^0`$ as before, whereas now $`n_i=n_1`$. Assuming for definiteness the polarization to be in the plane of incidence (TM wave), we calculate $`R=0.005,T=0.995`$, and find that $`\mathrm{\Pi }(\theta _1)=0.359n_1I/c`$. The corresponding mean vertical pressure becomes

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Pi }}_z()=\frac{0.359n_1I}{c}.$$
(5)
The pressure ratio is

$$\frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Pi }}_z()}{\overline{\mathrm{\Pi }}_z()}4,$$
(6)
showing that the present crude model is able to predict a significant higher radiation pressure when the beam is downward directed. It is therefore physically understandable that strong-field effects like the emission of droplets occur in the downward case, i.e. when incidence occurs from the optically denser medium.

### III.3 Axially Symmetric Wave-Theoretical Model

Quite justifiably, one may argue that the above model gives an over-simplified description of what happens physically. The real situation is after all axially symmetric. To give a detailed wave-optical description of the free surface displacement as a function of radius in cylindrical coordinates, would be rather complicated. Even the description of the simple case of a monochromatic wave propagating inside a cylindrical medium of infinite length is quite complicated (cf., for instance, Section 9.15 in Stratton’s book stratton41 ). However, it is possible to get a grasp on the real physics by utilizing the known theory for a plane laser beam interacting with a dielectric sphere, whose refractive index relative to the surroundings is greater than unity. Light becomes concentrated at the rear region of the sphere as a consequence of the lens effect, resulting in an enhanced electromagnetic energy density, and thus an enhanced surface force density, at the rear.

To illustrate this phenomenon mathematically, let us consider the simplified case of an isolated isotropic sphere of radius $`a`$ and refractive index $`n_2`$ situated in an ambient medium of refractive index $`n_1`$, illuminated by a plane wave incident from above, along the $`z`$ axis. Taking the wave to be polarized in the $`x`$ direction, we can represent it in complex notation as

$$𝐄^{(i)}=E_0𝐞_xe^{ik_1z},𝐁^{(i)}=\frac{n_1E_0}{c}𝐞_ye^{ik_1z},$$
(7)
where $`E_0`$ is the amplitude and $`k_1=n_1\omega /c`$ the incident wave number. The time factor $`\mathrm{exp}(i\omega t)`$ has been omitted. We shall need the electric field components on the interior surface of the sphere (superscript $`w`$), at $`r=a^{}`$. In standard notation the components can be written brevikdrop

$$E_r^{(w)}(a)=\frac{E_0\mathrm{cos}\varphi }{(k_2a)^2}\underset{l=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}i^{l+1}(2l+1)a_l^{(w)}\psi _l(k_2a)P_l^1,$$
(8)
$$E_\theta ^{(w)}(a)=\frac{E_0\mathrm{cos}\varphi }{k_2a}\underset{l=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{i^l(2l+1)}{l(l+1)}\left[b_l^{(w)}\psi _l(k_2a)\frac{P_l^1}{\mathrm{sin}\theta }ia_l^{(w)}\psi _l^{}(k_2a)\frac{dP_l^1}{d\theta }\right],$$
(9)
$$E_\varphi ^{(w)}(a)=\frac{E_0\mathrm{sin}\varphi }{k_2a}\underset{l=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{i^l(2l+1)}{l(l+1)}\left[b_l^{(w)}\psi _l(k_2a)\frac{dP_l^1}{d\theta }ia_l^{(w)}\psi _l^{}(k_2a)\frac{P_l^1}{\mathrm{sin}\theta }\right],$$
(10)
where $`\psi _l(x)=xj_l(x)`$ is one of the Riccati-Bessel functions, $`k_2=n_2\omega /c`$, and $`a_l^{(w)},b_l^{(w)}`$ are coefficients to be determined from the boundary conditions at $`r=a`$. These expressions are complicated and will not be reproduced here. The local surface force density, repulsive when $`n_2>n_1`$, becomes

$$\mathrm{\Pi }(\theta ,\varphi )=\frac{ϵ_0}{2}(n_2^2n_1^2)\left(E_{t}^{(w)}{}_{}{}^{2}+\frac{n_2^2}{n_1^2}E_{r}^{(w)}{}_{}{}^{2}\right)_a^{},$$
(11)
with $`E_{t}^{(w)}{}_{}{}^{2}=E_{\theta }^{(w)}{}_{}{}^{2}+E_{\varphi }^{(w)}{}_{}{}^{2}`$. By means of the expansions (8) - (10) we can calculate $`\mathrm{\Pi }(\theta ,\varphi )`$ explicitly. It is convenient to write the force in the form of a series:

$$\mathrm{\Pi }(\theta ,\varphi )=\frac{ϵ_0}{2}(n_2^2n_1^2)E_0^2\underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{m=l}{\overset{l}{}}F_{lm}P_l^m(\mathrm{cos}\theta )e^{im\varphi },$$
(12)
where the constant coefficients $`F_{lm}`$ can be calculated after inversion of the series. (The $`l=0`$ term descibes a uniform pressure balance within the sphere.)

As one should expect from the form of the series (12), the surface force density becomes most pronounced for small or moderate values of the polar angle $`\theta `$ (the backward direction corresponds to $`\theta =0`$). Actually, one can make the local surface force effect visible in practice, if one goes one step further and calculates the hydrodynamic displacement of the spherical surface. This calculation was performed in full in Ref. brevikdrop , for the case of a water sphere situated in air, and was shown to lead to a considerable displacement at the rear end. The experiment of Zhang and Chang zhang  clearly showed the reality of the effect. Beautiful computer-generated illustrations of the concentration of radiation energy at the rear of the sphere can be found in the paper of Barton et al. barton88 .

Thus, to summarize, we have in the previous subsection, and in the present one, analyzed two different simple models intending to give a rough description of the physics of our experiment. The first, 2D geometrical-optics ray-tracing model, attributed the increased surface force in the tip region (in the case of downward illumination) to the presence of total internal reflection (Fig. 4). The second, cylindrically symmetric wave-optical model, attributed the increased surface force to the lens effect for a sphere, together with the diffraction at the rear end. Neither of these models are complete. However, they share the following important property in common with the real experiment when illumination is taking place from above: Light incident along the symmetry axis in an optically dense medium is refracted or diffracted into an outer optically thin medium through a convex surface. This leads in all cases to an increased surface force, and is the essential physics of the effect.

### III.4 Dependence on Polarization, and on Angle of Incidence

Another remark is called for, as regards the effect of different states of polarizations of the incident beam. Usually, when dealing with this kind of situations one tacitly assumes that the incident beam itself, as well as the surface distortion, are azimuthally symmetrical. This is evidently true, if the beam is either nonpolarized or circularly polarized. However, if the beam is linearly polarized, the azimuthal symmetry becomes lost. To what extent does then the lack of symmetry in the case of linear polarization influence the distortion of the surface?

To illustrate this point, we show in Fig. 5 the normalized radiation pressure $`\frac{\mathrm{\Pi }(\theta _1)}{\mathrm{\Pi }(0)}`$ on a flat surface versus the angle of incidence $`\theta _1`$, when the beam falls from an optically thin ($`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$ in our experiment) against an optically thick medium ($`\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$). The curves, calculated separately for the TM and TE polarizations, follow from Eq. (3) and the Fresnel relations. We see that the sensitivity with respect to shift in polarizations is only moderate, the curves being in fact coincident. For sake of comparison, we show in Inset of Fig 5 the case of a water/air interface, light being incident from air ($`n_1=1`$) to water ($`n_2=1.33`$). The dependence on polarization is more visible: in the TM case, there is a small enhancement of the pressure near the Brewster angle.

On the other hand, Fig. 6 shows how the optical radiation pressure varies with the angle of incidence, here called now $`\theta _2`$, when the ray is reversed and falls from $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$ to $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$. Once again, the dependence upon shift in polarizations is seen to be very small for our experimental conditions, compared to the case of a water/air interface (see Inset). The most notable feature of the curves is the pronounced directional effect: near the angle of total reflection, the pressure becomes enhanced by a factor of $`(1+n_1/n_2)^2`$, as compared with the case of normal incidence. This effect is of course the same as that discussed in Secs. III.A and B, but now regarded from a somewhat different angle, as being a direct consequence of Fresnel’s equations. It should be noticed that this enhancement of the optical radiation pressure under total reflection condition was exploited by Komissarova et al. in their experiments komissa87 , and also in Ref. 22. Let us note that in our situation $`n_1`$ and $`n_2`$ are very close, due to the vicinity of the critical point. Then, while the total reflection angle is shifted towards larger values, the sensitivity to polarization is even smaller.

As a conclusion, it is justified to consider for our experiment that the force is cylindrically symmetric, even for a linearly polarized incident beam. This moderate sensitivity with respect to shift in local polarizations (the local states of polarizations are of course different if we move around in the azimuthal direction on the distorted surface), can be compared with what is observed if the refractive medium is not a dielectric but instead a metal. In the latter case, there is no polarization dependence at all. We refer the reader to the accurate measurement of Jones and Leslie jones78  and to the comprehensive treatment given in Jones’ monograph jones88 . This experiment has been discussed theoretically also in Ref. 16, Appendix. The dependence upon polarization is thus entirely associated with the dielectric property of the medium and is absent if its permittivity goes to infinity.

## IV Comparison with the Zhang-Chang experiment

First of all, it ought to be emphasized that the use of a laser pulse instead of a continuous beam in this experiment does not make any difference in principle. The surface forces act in the same way in the two cases. It was observed that the deflections of the free surface took place well after the passage of the pulse, but the reason for this is the long hydrodynamic response time. The basic time scale is in fact determined by the transit time of sound, across the dimensions of the medium brevik79 . Now, for a sphere of radius $`a=50\mu `$m this is not very long, less than 0.1 $`\mu `$s. However, the complete displacement of the surface involves a series of multiple internal reflections of sound at the surface, responsible for a longer delay. In the experiment, the surface velocity was found to be appreciable for 10 $`\mu `$s or more.

This point being specified, as universality is ensured by the criticality of our experimental medium, Eq. (2) should of course be applicable to a flat water/air interface also ($`\sigma \mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}70}mN/m`$ at room temperature). Then, despite the presence of curved surfaces, the formation of a liquid fountain at the rear face of the droplet in the experiment of Zhang and Chang zhang  should be at least roughly explainable in terms of the same instability mechanism. From Eq. (2) we find $`P_S`$=29 kW when $`\omega _0=100\mu `$m. Now, it turns out that both the 100 mJ and the 200 mJ laser pulses used in the Zhang-Chang experiment overshoot this limit. They correspond respectively to $`P=125`$ kW and 250 kW (see Ref. 12).

When taken at face value, these numbers indicate that there is a considerable discrepancy between theory and experiment in the Zhang-Chang case. However, some care ought to be taken here, in view of the fact that Zhang and Chang made use of short laser pulses. Let us for definiteness consider the 100 mJ pulse, distributed over a cross-sectional disk of radius 100 $`\mu `$m. It is physically most appropriate to discuss the time-dependent centerline intensity $`I(t)`$, rather than the total power $`P`$. The pulse can be modeled as $`I(t)=(I_0t/\tau )\mathrm{exp}(t/\tau )`$, where $`\tau =0.40\mu `$s brevikdrop . When the pulse is plane, $`I_0`$ is constant. With $`A=\pi \times 10^4\mathrm{cm}^2`$, we obtain $`I_0=0.80\mathrm{GW}/\mathrm{cm}^2`$. The maximum intensity, $`I_{max}=I_0/e=0.29\mathrm{GW}/\mathrm{cm}^2`$, occurs at $`t=\tau `$. Taking the effective duration of the pulse to be $`3\tau `$ ($`I(3\tau )=0.12\mathrm{GW}/\mathrm{cm}^2`$), the time-averaged intensity becomes $`\overline{I}=0.21\mathrm{GW}/\mathrm{cm}^2`$. When this is compared with the intensity of a stationary plane wave with power $`P=`$ 29 kW distributed over the same area (this corresponds to $`I=0.09\mathrm{GW}/\mathrm{cm}^2`$), we see that the Zhang-Chang measurements yield a factor of about 2 times the value predicted by Eq. (2). One might here argue, however, that it is physically more appropriate to compare the Zhang-Chang mean power of 0.21 GW/$`\mathrm{cm}^2`$ not with the case of a plane wave, but instead with a Gaussian beam at a point located off the symmetry axis by a distance corresponding to one half of the centerline intensity maximum. A Gaussian beam can be modeled, in the waist plane, as $`I(r,t)=I(r)T(t)`$, where

$$I(r)=\frac{2P}{\pi \omega _0^2}\mathrm{exp}(2r^2/\omega _0^2),T(t)=\frac{t}{\tau }\mathrm{exp}(t/\tau ).$$
(13)
(The half-maximum intensity is seen to correspond to $`r=0.59\omega _0`$.) According to this the Gaussian centerline value should be doubled, from 0.09 to about 0.20 GW/$`\mathrm{cm}^2`$, and the agreement with the Zhang-Chang experiment becomes quite good.

The above estimate illustrates to what level we can expect agreement between theory and experiment. There are at least three reasons why we cannot expect large accuracy. First, there is the roughness of the calculation. Secondly, there is the fact that the original undisturbed surface in the Zhang-Chang experiment was already curved. Total internal reflections could thus occur in that case. In the present case, without any distortion caused by the beam itself, there will not be any total internal reflections. Finally, it is to be recalled that Eq. (2) is dealing with the limiting case of onset of total reflection only. It is conceivable that some more power is required before the large displacement of the surface develops in full. This is confirmed by dynamical investigations of the temporal development of the instability unpub . The last-mentioned point becomes applicable here because Zhang and Chang reported the instability to occur in the region between 100 and 200 mJ.

## V Final remarks and conclusions

### V.1 On the Influence from Electrostriction

When considering the electromagnetic forces above, we neglected the effect from electrostriction. To see the legitimacy of this neglect more closely, let us briefly consider the expression for the full electromagnetic force density in a nonmagnetic fluid (except from the fluctuating Abraham term)

$$𝐟=\frac{1}{2}E^2\epsilon +\frac{1}{2}\left(E^2\rho \frac{d\epsilon }{d\rho }\right),$$
(14)
where $`\rho `$ is the mass density (cf., for instance, Refs. 12,16,20). Here the second term represents electrostriction. Calculating this term by means of the Clausius-Mossotti equation, we get

$$𝐟=\frac{\epsilon _0}{2}E^2\kappa +\frac{\epsilon _0}{6}[E^2(\kappa 1)(\kappa +2)],$$
(15)
$`\kappa =\epsilon /\epsilon _0`$ being the relative permittivity. The electrostriction pressure is always compressive. The reason why it usually is left out in practical calculations, is that it does not contribute to the total force on a test body. When this kind of force compresses the body, there is quickly established a counterbalancing elastic pressure in the interior, so that the net influence on the body vanishes. The relevant time scale for the establishment of this counterbalancing pressure is the time that sound needs to traverse the illuminated region. For instance, if we estimate the transverse scale to be 10 $`\mu `$m we see, when taking the velocity of sound to be 1500 m/s, that the relevant time scale becomes about 7 ns. Figure 9 in Ref. 16 shows, as a result of a detailed calculation, how the elastic compensation in water becomes established in a very few nanoseconds. The thesis of Poon poon90  may also be consulted for a very detailed analysis of these effects. Our conclusion is thus that the electrostriction effect can safely be left out in the present case, as we are dealing with stationary deformations.

### V.2 Conclusion

The main purpose of the present work has been to experimentally show that Laser-Induced-Surface-Deformations become asymmetric at high field strength. This asymmetry is characterized for the first time by using near-critical liquid-liquid interfaces to strongly enhance optical radiation pressure effects. The mechanisms at the origin of this asymmetry are presented and illustrated with very simple arguments. In particular, we demonstrate that the dependence of optical radiation pressure versus the angle of incidence (Eq. (3)) should be taken into account. This point, which is generally neglected in the case of classical liquid interfaces, could be a first step to explain the surprising tether shapes observed. Some preliminary calculations seem to confirm it mythesis , even if the numerical scheme used need to be refined.

In the case leading to interface instability, we also compare our experimental results with those obtained by Zhang and Chang for water droplets under laser pulses excitation. This comparison is theoretically justified because near-criticality leads to an universal description of radiation pressure effects. The predicted power onset turn out to be of the same order than that observed with pulsed excitation.

Finally, since the laser light propagates under total reflection condition inside the induced filament, this one provides, to the best of our knowledge, the first example of non-permanent self-written liquid waveguide.

###### Acknowledgements.

We are grateful to Max Winckert and Jöel Plantard for technical assistance. This work was partly supported by the CNRS and the Conseil Régional d’Aquitaine.

## Table

## List of Figure Captions

Fig. 1
Experimental set-up. BS: beam splitter, L: lens, M1,M2,M3: dielectric mirrors, $`\frac{\lambda }{2}`$: $`\frac{\lambda }{2}`$ plate, C: thermoregulated spectroscopic cell.
Fig. 2
Interface deformations induced at $`(TT_C)=3K`$ by a laser beam of waist $`\omega _0=5.3\mu m`$.(a) Laser propagating upwards from $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$ to $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$ as indicated by the white arrow. $`P`$ increases from top to bottom and is successively equal to 210, 270, 300, 410, 530, 590 and 830 mW. (b) Downward direction of propagation. $`P`$ = 190, 250, 280, 310, 340, 370, 400 and 400 mW. The two last pictures are snapshots showing the destabilization of the interface at $`P_S`$ leading to the formation of a stationary jet similar to that illustrated in (c) for $`(TT_C)=6K`$, $`\omega _0=3.5\mu m`$ and $`P`$ = 700 mW. $`P_S=490\text{mW}`$ in this last case. The total height of picture (c) is 1 mm.
Fig. 3

Evolution of the centerline height of the deformation $`h_0=h(r=0)`$ versus $`P`$ corresponding to the pictures of Fig. 2a) ($`\mathrm{}`$) and Fig 2b) ($`\mathrm{}`$). Broken line indicates the onset $`P_S`$ above which the interface becomes unstable when the laser is propagating downward.
Fig.4

Sketch of symmetric ray track when the beam is incident from above. Angle of incidence $`\theta _2=\beta =45^0`$; $`n_2/n_1=\sqrt{2}`$.
Fig.5
Normalized radiation pressure on flat surface versus angle of incidence $`\theta _1`$ for the TM and TE polarizations, when $`TT_C=3K`$ as in experiment. The light right is incident from $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$ to $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$. Inset: same curves drawn for an air/water interface, ray incident from air ($`n_1=1`$) to water ($`n_2=1.33`$).
Fig. 6
Same as Fig. 5, but with direction of ray reversed, from $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$ to $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$, or for the Inset from water to air. Angle of incidence is now denoted by $`\theta _2`$.

Fig. 1

Fig. 2

Fig. 3

Fig. 4

Fig. 5

Fig. 6