text:
# hep-th/0101145 D-brane Solutions in Non-Commutative Gauge Theory on Fuzzy Sphere

## 1 Introduction

In recent years, much of the progress of string theory was based on a study of statics and dynamics of D-branes in various situations. A particularly interesting recent development is the introduction of non-commutativity into the D-brane worldvolume theory . The non-commutativity makes transparent the relation between D-branes of different worldvolume dimensions through the construction of various solitons , which can be thought of as a manifestation of the “brane democracy” .

So far, most of the attention was given to the case of constant non-commutativity, which is what one has for the flat D-branes in a non-varying NS-NS 2-form field. Potentially interesting is the more general case of a non-vanishing field strength. Such backgrounds are necessarily curved, which makes the analysis more difficult. The potential payoff here is that one may be able to observe aspects of brane dynamics which are absent in the flat case.

One of the simplest backgrounds of this type is $`S^3\times M_7`$, where $`M_7`$ is some 7-dimensional manifold. This background can be realized in string theory as the near-horizon geometry of a stack of NS5-branes. There exists an exact description of D2-branes on $`S^3`$ in terms of $`\mathrm{SU}(2)`$ WZW model. One finds, see , that supersymmetric D2-branes wrap certain conjugacy classes in $`\mathrm{SU}(2)`$. These are certain integral spheres in $`S^3`$. For radii of the spherical D2-brane much smaller than the radius of curvature of $`S^3`$, and in the Seiberg-Witten (SW) limit $`\alpha ^{}0`$, the geometry of D2-brane worldvolume becomes  that of a fuzzy sphere . As was shown in , the low-energy dynamics in this case is described by a certain non-commutative gauge theory on fuzzy $`S^2`$. The action of this theory contains, apart from the usual Yang-Mills (YM) term, the Chern-Simons (CS) term. This is one of the examples in which YM-CS theory appears in string theory context .

A large set of solutions of this theory was obtained in . The solutions were interpreted as describing stacks of D2-branes of various radii. As we show in this paper, there is a particular interesting and simple subset of solutions of  that describe a single D2-brane together with a number of D0-branes. These solutions are exact analogs (in 2+1 dimensions) of the non-commutative monopole solution found in  and of the “unstable” solitons that were found in  for the case of a flat D2-brane. We describe this set of solutions, and confirm their D0-brane interpretation by comparing the energy obtained in the non-commutative gauge theory to that found in the ordinary Born-Infeld (BI) description.

The non-commutative solution describing co-centric D2-brane shells was argued to be stable in . In the present paper we extend the analysis of stability to the case of non-cocentric shells, considering the subset of solutions that have the D0-brane interpretation. We find that, when a D0-brane is located too close to the shell of the D2-brane, the system becomes unstable to forming a larger D2-brane. Furthermore, we completely diagonalize the set of 0-2 fluctuation modes. We find a discrete, finite set of massive modes. This gives a prediction for the spectrum of light modes of the 0-2 worldsheet CFT on $`S^3`$ in the SW limit.

Our results on stability of the configuration consisting of a single D2-brane together with a D0-brane have interesting applications for the phenomenon of gauge symmetry breaking. Consider D$`p`$-branes put on $`S^3\times M_7`$ in such a way that the directions along the branes are all in $`M_7`$. In the usual flat case D-brane Higgs mechanism the gauge symmetry on the D$`p`$-brane worldvolume is broken by separating the branes, and the masses of gauge bosons are proportional to the distance between them . In our case, the usual mechanism is valid for large enough separation of the branes in $`S^3`$. Thus, for two D$`p`$-branes that are separated in $`S^3`$ by a large enough distance the worldvolume gauge symmetry is broken from $`\mathrm{U}(2)`$ to $`\mathrm{U}(1)`$, as usual. However, when the branes are located too close, this usual mechanism is no longer valid. Indeed, as our analysis shows, two D0-branes in $`S^3`$ located too close will form a fuzzy sphere (of smallest non-trivial radius). This breaks the $`\mathrm{U}(2)`$ symmetry completely. Thus, as the separation between the branes decreases one gets a complete symmetry breaking, instead of the expected restoration of symmetry, as in the flat case. Therefore the phenomenon of polarization of branes  leads to a complete breaking of the worldvolume gauge symmetry and in particular prevents the symmetry restoration.

The organization of the paper is as follows. In the next section, for readers convenience, we review some known material. We first give, following  a brief account of the ordinary BI (Born-Infeld) description of spherical D2-brane in $`S^3`$ in the background $`b`$-field. The second part of this section reviews some facts about the non-commutative gauge theory of . Here we give the action and describe what is known about the solutions. In section 3 we fix the coefficient in front of the action of , which is left unspecified in that paper. We shall need the precise normalization of the action to compare the energy calculated in the commutative and non-commutative descriptions. Section 4 describes in detail the set of solutions in question and gives their interpretation in terms of D0-branes. In section 5 we study fluctuations about these solutions, analyze stability and obtain the mass spectrum of fluctuations. In section 6 we discuss our results in view of the phenomenon of symmetry breaking. We conclude with a discussion.

While writing this paper we received the paper , which also considers the non-commutative gauge theory on fuzzy sphere, and studies fluctuations around certain solutions (one describing a single D2-brane and one describing two D0-branes). Since no comments are made in that paper as to the stability of the later system, the overlap with the present paper is rather marginal.

## 2 Review: Ordinary BI Description, Non-Commutative Gauge Theory on Fuzzy Sphere and Solutions

A spherical D-brane tends to shrink to minimize its energy. However, in the presence of some background fields that couple to the brane, a stabilization mechanism is known to work . The simplest case is that of a D2-brane in the background of either a non-trivial R-R 3-form field, or NS-NS 2-form field with a non-vanishing field strength. The later situation is realized in the background $`S^3\times M_7`$, which appears as the near-horizon geometry of a stack of NS5-branes. Since there exists the NS-NS $`b`$-field flux on $`S^3`$, the D2-branes on it are possibly stabilized with a definite extent. D2-branes on $`S^3`$ were studied in the ordinary BI description in , and using a non-commutative worldvolume theory in . Here we review some of the facts that will be needed in the following.

### 2.1 Ordinary BI description

In this subsection, we shall review Ref.  briefly, which treats D2-branes in $`S^3`$ using BI theory (see also ). The metric on $`S^3`$ is given by

$$ds^2=k\alpha ^{}\left(d\psi ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\psi (d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\phi ^2)\right).$$
(2.1)
Here $`k`$ is the number of NS5-branes that were used to obtain the background. Then $`k\alpha ^{}`$ is the radius of $`S^3`$. The NS-NS 2-form field strength is proportional to the volume form of $`S^3`$ and is given by

$$H=2k\alpha ^{}\mathrm{sin}^2\psi \mathrm{sin}\theta d\psi d\theta d\phi .$$
(2.2)
The corresponding NS-NS 2-form potential $`b:db=H`$ is given by

$$2\pi \alpha ^{}b=k\alpha ^{}\left(\psi \frac{\mathrm{sin}2\psi }{2}\right)\mathrm{sin}\theta d\theta d\phi .$$
(2.3)
The D2-branes in this background are stabilized by the flux of the $`\mathrm{U}(1)`$ gauge field. This flux can take integral values corresponding to different $`\mathrm{U}(1)`$ bundles one can have over $`S^2`$. Thus,

$$F=\frac{n}{2}\mathrm{sin}\theta d\theta d\phi ,$$
(2.4)
so that

$$_{S^2}F=2\pi n.$$
(2.5)
The energy of a spherical D2-brane with $`n`$ units of flux on it located at $`\psi =\mathrm{const}`$ is then given by the BI action. Substituting (2.1), (2.3) and (2.4) into the D2-brane action, one gets for the energy

$$E_n(\psi )=k\alpha ^{}T_{(2)}𝑑\theta 𝑑\phi \mathrm{sin}\theta \sqrt{\mathrm{sin}^2\psi +\left(\psi \frac{\mathrm{sin}2\psi }{2}\frac{\pi n}{k}\right)^2}.$$
(2.6)
Here $`T_{(2)}`$ is the D2-brane tension. The energy is minimized by

$$\psi _n=\frac{\pi n}{k}.$$
(2.7)
The corresponding energy is

$$E_nE_n(\psi _n)=4\pi k\alpha ^{}T_{(2)}\mathrm{sin}\frac{\pi n}{k}.$$
(2.8)
Thus, the stable configuration, corresponding to the minimum of the energy, is a spherical D2-brane, whose radius depends on the amount of the $`\mathrm{U}(1)`$ flux on it. We will use this formula for the energy in section 4.

### 2.2 Non-commutative description

Here we review Ref.  in the amount we need for the following. According to this paper, the low energy effective theory on a stack of $`N`$ D2-branes of size $`n`$ is given, in the $`n/k1`$ limit, by a non-commutative $`\mathrm{U}(N)`$ gauge theory on a fuzzy sphere of “radius” $`n`$. The action, as proposed by , is given by the sum of the YM and the CS terms. The YM term reads

$$S_{\mathrm{YM}}=\frac{1}{4}(2\pi \alpha ^{})^2\frac{1}{\mathrm{Dim}}\mathrm{Tr}𝐅_{ab}𝐅^{ab}.$$
(2.9)
Here one raises and lowers indices using the metric $`𝐠^{ab}=(2/k)\delta ^{ab}`$. We have restored the factor of $`(2\pi \alpha ^{})^2`$ put to unity in , and explicitly specified that one uses the normalized trace. The curvature $`𝐅^{ab}`$ of a non-commutative $`\mathrm{U}(N)`$ connection $`𝐀^a`$ is most easily expressed in terms of the “covariant coordinates”  $`𝐁^a`$

$$𝐁^a=𝐘^a+𝐀^a.$$
(2.10)
Here $`𝐘^a=Y^a/\sqrt{2\alpha ^{}}`$, and $`Y^a`$ are the fuzzy sphere coordinates satisfying the usual $`\mathrm{SU}(2)`$ commutation relations

$`[Y^a,Y^b]=iϵ^{abc}Y^c.`$ (2.11)
Here $`ϵ^{abc}`$ is the Levi-Civita symbol, and the contraction over the repeated index is $`c`$ assumed. Using the covariant coordinate $`𝐁^a`$, the field strength can be written as

$$𝐅^{ab}=i[𝐁^a,𝐁^b]+𝐟_c^{ab}𝐁^c,$$
(2.12)
where $`𝐟_c^{ab}=(2/k)ϵ_c^{ab}/\sqrt{2\alpha ^{}}`$. The Chern-Simons term is best written in terms of the covariant coordinate $`𝐁^a`$ and reads

$$S_{\mathrm{CS}}=\frac{i}{2}(2\pi \alpha ^{})^2\frac{1}{\mathrm{Dim}}\mathrm{Tr}\left(\frac{1}{3}𝐟^{abc}𝐁_a𝐁_b𝐁_c\frac{i}{\alpha ^{}k}𝐁_a𝐁^a+\frac{i}{3\alpha ^{}k}𝐘_a𝐘^a\right).$$
(2.13)
The full action, written in terms of the covariant coordinate $`𝐁^a`$, then takes the form

$$(2\pi \alpha ^{})^2\frac{1}{\mathrm{Dim}}\mathrm{Tr}\left(\frac{1}{4}[𝐁_a,𝐁_b][𝐁^a,𝐁^b]+\frac{i}{3}𝐟^{abc}𝐁_a[𝐁_b,𝐁_c]+\frac{1}{6\alpha ^{}k}𝐘_a𝐘^a\right).$$
(2.14)
Note that the last term is exactly such that the action takes zero value when $`𝐁^a`$ is an irreducible representation $`𝐁^a=𝐘^a`$, that is on the vanishing connection.

Having described the action for the non-commutative gauge theory in question, let us review what is known about its solutions. The equations of motion that one derives from (2.14) read

$$[𝐁^a,𝐅_{ab}]=0.$$
(2.15)
If one uses this gauge theory to describe a stack of $`N`$ D2-branes wrapping a fuzzy sphere of radius $`n`$, the “fields” entering the action and equations of motion are just matrices in $`\mathrm{Mat}_N\mathrm{Mat}_n`$, and $`Y^a=\mathrm{𝟏}_NY_n^a`$, where $`Y_n^a`$ are generators in the $`n`$-dimensional irreducible representation. Ref.  describes a large set of solutions to (2.15). These are configurations for which the gauge field $`𝐀`$ is constant $`𝐀_a=𝐒_a`$, that is, commutes with the fuzzy sphere coordinates: $`[𝐘_a,𝐒_b]=0`$. There are two types of such solutions: (i) $`𝐒_a`$ is any set of commuting matrices from $`\mathrm{Mat}_N\mathrm{𝟏}_n`$. These matrices can then be diagonalized; eigenvalues have the obvious meaning of the coordinates of the centers of $`N`$ fuzzy spheres in $`S^3`$. (ii) $`𝐒_a\mathrm{Mat}_N\mathrm{𝟏}_n`$ is any, not necessarily irreducible, representation of $`\mathrm{SU}(2)`$, so that it satisfies the usual commutation relation (2.11). Note that this type of solutions corresponds to flat connections $`𝐅_{ab}=0`$. According to , such a solution corresponds to a fixed point of an RG flow that takes one from the original configuration of $`N`$ branes of radius $`n`$ centered around the origin to a new configuration consisting of branes of various radii, also centered around the origin. These branes can all have different radii, or some of them can be stacked, or the new configuration can be just a single brane. For the precise recipe for determining the final configuration see , formula (5.4). We shall give a somewhat different, although equivalent, description of a subset of the above solutions in section 4. As a final remark of this section, let us note that solutions for which $`𝐁^a`$ is a representation (not necessarily irreducible), that is satisfy the commutation relation (2.11) are argued to be stable in . These solutions describe flat connections. We shall analyze the stability of certain interesting non-flat solutions in section 5.

## 3 Normalization of the Action

Before we describe a subset of solutions that has a simple interpretation in terms of D0-branes, let us discuss the normalization of the action (2.14). It is clear that some factor of the brane tension must be included in the front. To fix it, we shall compare the YM part (2.9) of the action with the Yang-Mills action that can be obtained from the non-commutative BI action.

Let us, however, first rescale the fields for future convenience. We introduce new gauge field $`A=\sqrt{2\alpha ^{}}𝐀`$ and the corresponding covariant coordinate field $`B`$ and curvature $`F`$. Let us also lower the indices of one of the $`F`$’s in the action using the $`𝐠`$ metric. We get

$$S_{\mathrm{YM}}=\frac{(2\pi \alpha ^{})^2}{(k\alpha ^{})^2}\frac{1}{4}\frac{1}{\mathrm{Dim}}\mathrm{Tr}F_{ab}F_{ab},$$
(3.1)
with the contraction over repeated indices assumed.

To fix the prefactor in front of this action, which, as we shall see, is proportional to a certain multiple of the $`T_{(2)}`$ (or $`T_{(0)}`$) brane tension, we would like to compare the above action with the one that can be obtained from the non-commutative BI action. The standard calculation gives

$$S_{\mathrm{YM}}=\widehat{T}_{(2)}(2\pi \alpha ^{})^2d^2x\sqrt{P(G)}\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{Tr}F_{ab}F^{ab}.$$
(3.2)
Here $`P(G)`$ is the determinant of the pullback of the open string metric $`G_{ab}`$ on $`S^2`$. We have also introduced the “non-commutative” D2-brane tension

$$\widehat{T}_{(2)}=\frac{1}{G_\mathrm{s}(2\pi )^2(\alpha ^{})^{3/2}},$$
(3.3)
where $`G_s`$ is the open string coupling constant. Let us relate it to the closed string coupling constant $`g_s`$. A simple comparison of the ordinary and non-commutative BI actions gives

$$G_\mathrm{s}=g_\mathrm{s}\left(\frac{\mathrm{det}P(G)}{\mathrm{det}P(g+2\pi \alpha ^{}(b+F))}\right)^{1/2},$$
(3.4)
where $`P`$ is the projection onto $`S^2`$, and $`G`$ is the open string metric. To calculate the right hand side we need to know $`G`$. This can be done using the formula for $`G`$ in terms of $`g,b+F`$. As is shown in , this relation is as follows

$$G^{ab}=\left(\frac{1}{g+2\pi \alpha ^{}(b+F)}\right)_\mathrm{S}^{ab},$$
(3.5)
where the subscript S denotes the symmetric part. Using the explicit expression for the closed string metric and the 2-form fields from section 2, one finds

$$\left(\frac{1}{g+2\pi \alpha ^{}(b+F)}\right)_{\psi =\psi _n}=\frac{1}{k\alpha ^{}}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& \frac{\mathrm{cos}\psi _n}{\mathrm{sin}\psi _n}\frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}\theta }\\ 0& \frac{\mathrm{cos}\psi _n}{\mathrm{sin}\psi _n}\frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}\theta }& \frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }\end{array}\right).$$
(3.6)
Thus, the restriction $`P(G)`$ of the open string metric on $`S^2`$ is $`k\alpha ^{}`$ times the canonical metric on $`S^2`$. Therefore, the quantities necessary for the computation of the action are obtained as

$$\sqrt{\mathrm{det}P(G)}=k\alpha ^{}\mathrm{sin}\theta ,$$
(3.7)
and

$$G_s=\frac{g_s}{\mathrm{sin}\frac{\pi n}{k}},$$
(3.8)
where we have substituted the expression for $`b+F`$ at $`\psi =\psi _n`$. We see that the relation between open and closed string coupling constants depends on the size $`n`$ of the fuzzy sphere. This is clearly due to the fact that the NS-NS 2-form field is varying in $`S^3`$. As is discussed in , the fuzzy sphere description is only valid in the limit $`n/k1`$. In this regime the relation between coupling constants becomes

$$G_s=\frac{g_sk}{\pi n}.$$
(3.9)
Having found the relation between the closed and open string coupling constants, it is easy to fix the coefficient in front of the action. To go from the integral over the $`S^2`$ to the trace of the fuzzy sphere we have to use the prescription

$$\frac{1}{4\pi k\alpha ^{}}\sqrt{P(G)}f\frac{1}{\mathrm{Dim}}\mathrm{Tr}\widehat{f}.$$
(3.10)
Here $`f`$ is a function on $`S^2`$ and $`\widehat{f}`$ is the corresponding matrix representation on the fuzzy sphere, and $`\mathrm{Dim}`$ is the dimension of the irreducible representation of $`\mathrm{SU}(2)`$ that is used to construct the fuzzy sphere. The map from the integral to the trace is normalized so that both sides coincide when $`f=1`$. Using this prescription we can write

$$S_{\mathrm{YM}}=4\pi k\alpha ^{}\widehat{T}_{(2)}(2\pi \alpha ^{})^2\frac{1}{\mathrm{Dim}}\mathrm{Tr}\frac{1}{4}F_{ab}F^{ab}.$$
(3.11)
Here the indices are raised and lowered using the open string metric $`G`$. Using (3.9), we can now rewrite the action in terms of the closed string coupling constant and the flat metric. We get

$$S_{\mathrm{YM}}=nT_{(0)}(2\pi \alpha ^{})^2\frac{1}{(k\alpha ^{})^2}\frac{1}{\mathrm{Dim}}\mathrm{Tr}\frac{1}{4}F_{ab}F_{ab}.$$
(3.12)
This is to be compared with (3.1). We see that what we have obtained is essentially the action (3.1), apart from the prefactor of $`nT_{(0)}`$. In fact, this prefactor could have been guessed even without the above derivation. Indeed, the $`n`$ cancels with the factor of $`1/\mathrm{Dim}`$ normalizing the trace, and what one is left with is just the action for matrix model of D0-branes, with the correct factor of $`T_{(0)}`$ in front.

Thus, adding the CS term with the same normalization coefficient, we obtain the full expression for the action as

$`S[B]=nT_{(0)}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{k}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{Dim}}}Tr\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}[B_a,B_b]^2+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{3}}ϵ_{abc}B_a[B_b,B_c]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}Y_a^2\right),`$ (3.13)
Here $`Y_a`$ satisfy the $`SU(2)`$ algebra (2.11).

## 4 Solutions and their D-brane Interpretation

We are now ready to describe the subset of solutions that have an interpretation in terms of D0-branes.

### 4.1 Subset of solutions

From now on, we will use the action (3.13) written in terms of rescaled covariant coordinates $`B_a`$ and with all indices contracted with the help of the usual flat metric in $`^3`$. The equations of motion that one derives from this action read

$`[B_b,F_{ab}]=0,`$ (4.1)
where the field strength is

$`F_{ab}=i[B_a,B_b]+ϵ_{abc}B_c.`$ (4.2)
A large set of solutions was described in  and reviewed in section 2 above. As we said in the introduction, in this paper we would like to consider a particular subset of solutions, which will later receive the interpretation as describing a single spherical D2-brane together with a number of D0-branes. Restriction to a single D2-brane is for simplicity only and can be lifted in a straightforward way. The set of solutions of interest can be constructed by first constructing the one describing branes centered at the origin and then modifying it to shift the branes. A configuration with all branes located at the origin preserves the $`\mathrm{SU}(2)`$ rotational symmetry and, thus, must have the vanishing field strength

$`F_{ab}=0.`$ (4.3)
The definition (4.2) of the field strength shows that this is equivalent to the requirement that $`B_a`$ are generators of some (not necessarily irreducible) representation of $`\mathrm{SU}(2)`$. The case of $`B`$ generating an irreducible representation clearly corresponds to a single spherical D2-brane. The case of $`B`$ splitting into several irreducible components corresponds to several spherical D2-branes all centered at the origin. Among these irreducible components one can have the trivial representation. It describes D2-branes of zero size, or, equivalently, D0-branes, as we shall demonstrate below.

Hence, a solution describing a single D2-brane plus a number of D0-branes, all centered at the origin is simply

$$B^a=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& \mathrm{}& 0& 0\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{}& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& Y_n^a\end{array}\right).$$
(4.4)
Here $`Y_n^a`$ are generators in the irreducible representation of dimension $`(n+1)`$. To get a more general solution with arbitrary brane locations we need to shift their positions. We can shift both the D2-brane and D0-branes, but this is not necessary since we are only interested in relative configuration of the branes. Thus, we will always keep the D2-brane centered at the origin. Then the shifting of D0-branes amounts to replacing zero’s on the diagonal with numbers that receive the interpretation of coordinates of D0-branes in $`S^3`$:

$$B^a=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}c_1^a& \mathrm{}& 0& 0\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{}& c_l^a& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& Y_n^a\end{array}\right).$$
(4.5)
The number of D0-branes described is equal to $`l`$. It is easy to see that the field strength (4.2) on (4.5) is non-zero and is equal to

$$F_{ab}=ϵ_{abc}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}c_1^c& \mathrm{}& 0& 0\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{}& c_l^c& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right).$$
(4.6)
This clearly satisfies the field equations, for $`F_{ab}`$ commutes with $`B^a`$. Thus, (4.5) is indeed a solution.

Before we proceed with the discussion as to the properties of this solution, several comments are in order. First of all, let us note that, unlike the discussion in , we choose to describe the solution directly in terms of the covariant coordinates $`B^a`$, not in terms of the gauge field $`A^a`$. This is more convenient, for the components of the covariant coordinates $`B^a`$ receive the direct interpretation of coordinates in $`S^3`$, in the case when $`B`$ can be (at least partially) diagonalized. In addition, this description in terms of $`B^a`$ is rather natural, because it makes transparent the relation to T-dualities in Matrix theory . Second, the set of solutions that is obtainable from D-branes centered at the origin by shifts by commuting matrices is, probably, not the most general set. This way one can only obtain configurations solving (4.1) rather trivially, in the sense that $`F`$ commutes with $`B`$. It would be interesting to find examples of solutions, if any, for which this is not the case.

The solution (4.5) is the direct analog of the “unstable” solitons found in the context of flat D2-branes, see . As is explained in , in non-commutative gauge theory on flat D2-brane, the requirement of finiteness of energy only allows configurations in which the covariant derivative $`D`$ (and its conjugate $`\overline{D}`$) generates a reducible representation of the Heisenberg algebra. The covariant derivative $`D`$, or, in the terminology of  covariant coordinate, is an infinite rank matrix. The requirement of finite energy fixes it to be of a block diagonal form, in which the first block is diagonal, with numbers on the diagonal having the interpretation of positions of solitons, and the second block filling the usual infinite dimensional representation of the Heisenberg algebra. Our solution (4.5) falls into the same general scheme: it forms a reducible representation of the symmetry algebra in question, splitting into a single irreducible and several trivial components. Like in the flat case, the irreducible component describes the D2-brane itself, and trivial representations correspond to D0-branes. The main difference with the flat case is that the D2-brane is represented by a finite dimensional matrix. Note that one can add other non-trivial irreducible representations. This means that we can have small spherical D2-branes as “solitons” of the large mother D2-brane, although we do not consider this case in the present paper. Note that the distinction of which D2-brane is a “soliton” and which provides a “background” becomes relative. Any D2-brane can be viewed as the “mother” on whose worldvolume the non-commutative gauge theory lives. This serves as a good illustration of the “brane democracy”  in string theory.

Therefore, our solution is the analog of the one found in , and thus should also describe D0-branes. We shall directly confirm this interpretation by comparing the energy found in the ordinary BI and non-commutative descriptions. However, before we proceed with this comparison of energies, let us make one more remark. As we have seen, the configuration corresponding to a single D2-brane has vanishing field strength $`F_{ab}`$ (this also follows from its spherical symmetry). This is a little puzzling, for the integral of this two form over the D2-brane has the interpretation of the number of D0-branes. Indeed, the intuition based on the Myers effect  is that the fuzzy D2-brane worldvolume is “made out” of a number of D0-branes. However, by simply integrating the non-commutative field strength over the D2-brane, which in non-commutative description is replaced by the operation of taking the trace, we get zero. The resolution of this puzzle is that in non-commutative description the number of D0-branes is no longer given by the integral (trace) of $`F`$. This interpretation comes in the commutative case from the CS term

$$T_pd^{p+1}x\left(C\right)e^{2\pi \alpha ^{}(b+F)}.$$
(4.7)
As it has been discussed in the literature, see, e.g., , in the non-commutative description the quantity $`2\pi \alpha ^{}(b+F)`$ in the exponential must be replaced by its Seiberg-Witten map  image, which is the matrix that was denoted by $`Q^1`$ in . One also gets a factor of $`\mathrm{Pf}Q`$ under the trace, see . As one can easily check, this gives that the number of D0-branes is given in non-commutative description by the trace of the identity operator, or by the dimension of the Hilbert space. This is of course consistent with what we expect from the Myers effect interpretation of the fuzzy D2-brane, for the D2-brane made out of $`n`$ D0-branes is described by matrices of rank $`n`$. In the flat case, the non-commutative D2-brane can be thought of as made of an infinite number of D0-branes, and the operator $`\mathrm{Tr}F`$ measures only the number of not yet dissolved D0-branes, not the total number in the system. It is instructive to compare the discussion of this paragraph to the discussion on the quantization of D0-brane charge appeared recently in the literature, see, e.g., .

### 4.2 Comparison of the energy

In order to confirm that the solution (4.5) actually corresponds to a set of the D0-branes and a spherical D2-brane we compare the energy of this solution to the energy that can be obtained in the ordinary BI description of section 2. First, let us obtain the prediction of the ordinary BI theory.

We would like to understand the $`n`$ dependence of the energy of the spherical D2-brane (2.8) in the region $`n/k1`$. Physically, this corresponds to D2-branes of radius much smaller than the radius of curvature of $`S^3`$. It is for such branes that the our description in terms of the gauge theory on a fuzzy sphere is applicable. We have

$$E_n=4\pi k\alpha ^{}T_{(2)}\left[\left(\frac{\pi n}{k}\right)\frac{1}{3!}\left(\frac{\pi n}{k}\right)^3\right]+𝒪\left((n/k)^5\right)=T_{(0)}n\left[1\frac{1}{3!}\left(\frac{\pi n}{k}\right)^2\right]+𝒪\left((n/k)^5\right),$$
(4.8)
where we have used the fact that $`4\pi ^2\alpha ^{}T_{(2)}=T_{(0)}`$. The first term has an obvious interpretation as the energy of $`n`$ D0-branes. The second term can be interpreted as the binding energy which is released when the $`n`$ D0-branes form a single D2-brane. Thus, in the limit $`n/k1`$ we can write

$$E_{n\mathrm{D0}}E_n=T_{(0)}n\frac{1}{3!}\left(\frac{\pi n}{k}\right)^2.$$
(4.9)
As we shall see in a moment, this energy difference is reproduced by the non-commutative description.

Another quantity that we need is the binding energy of a single D0-brane and a D2-brane. This can be derived analogously to what was done in Ref. . One expands the BI action in the limit of large $`b+F`$ field. The binding energy is then read from the variation of the total energy when $`b+F`$ changes so that

$$\delta (b+F)=2\pi ,$$
(4.10)
which corresponds to the emission of a single D0-brane. Completely analogously to the flat case, we get

$$E_{\mathrm{bind}}=\frac{T_{(0)}}{2}\left(\frac{\sqrt{g}}{2\pi \alpha ^{}(b+F)}\right).$$
(4.11)
Here $`\sqrt{g}`$ is the square root of the determinant of the induced (closed string) metric on the D2-brane, and $`b+F`$ is the $`(\theta \phi )`$-component of the $`b+F`$ two-form. Substituting the values of these quantities at $`\psi _n`$ we get

$$E_{\mathrm{bind}}=\frac{T_{(0)}}{2}\mathrm{tan}^2\frac{\pi n}{k}\frac{T_{(0)}}{2}\left(\frac{\pi n}{k}\right)^2,$$
(4.12)
where the last quantity is in the limit $`n/k1`$.

Let us now calculate the same quantities in the non-commutative description. First the energy of $`n`$ D0-branes not yet forming a D2-brane can be obtained by evaluating the action on $`B_a=0`$ and is given by

$$nT_{(0)}\frac{(2\pi \alpha ^{})^2}{(k\alpha ^{})^2}\frac{1}{\mathrm{Dim}}\mathrm{Tr}\frac{1}{6}(Y)^2.$$
(4.13)
In the $`n`$-dimensional irreducible representation that we work with, one can replace $`(Y)^2`$ with the value of the Casimir $`(n^21)/4`$. We get

$$nT_{(0)}\frac{1}{6}\frac{\pi ^2(n^21)}{k^2}.$$
(4.14)
The energy of a single D2-brane formed out of $`n`$ D0-branes can be obtained by evaluating the action on $`B^a=Y_{n1}^a`$, where $`Y_{n1}^a`$ are generators in the $`n`$-dimensional irreducible representation. This gives zero. Thus, in the non-commutative description the zero of energy is taken to be at the bound state of $`n`$ D0-branes forming a D2-brane. The quantity (4.14) is then to be compared with the energy difference (4.9). In the limit $`n/k1`$ and $`n1`$ ensuring that the ordinary BI description is acceptable, the two agree. Note that the factor of $`1/6`$ in the non-commutative action receives the interpretation of $`1/3!`$ coming from the $`\mathrm{sin}`$ in the ordinary BI result.

The second quantity that must be calculated is the binding energy. It is to be compared to the binding energy (4.12). Let us however calculate a more general quantity, namely the energy of the solution (4.5) describing $`l`$ D0-branes. We have

$`(n+l)T_{(0)}{\displaystyle \frac{(2\pi \alpha ^{})^2}{(k\alpha ^{})^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n+l}}\mathrm{Tr}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\left((Y_{n+l1})^2(Y_{n1})^2\right)`$ (4.15)
$`=(n+l)T_{(0)}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{k^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\left((n+l)^21(n^21){\displaystyle \frac{n}{n+l}}\right)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{lT_{(0)}}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi n}{k}}\right)^2,`$
which is exactly the number of D0-branes $`l`$ times the BI result (4.12) for the binding energy, as one expects. We thus showed the perfect matching between the energies computed in the non-commutative description and the expectations from the BI theory.

## 5 Fluctuations and Stability

As we argued in the previous section, the solutions considered have the interpretation in terms of D0-branes. In the flat space, a D0-brane located close enough to a (flat) D2-brane is known to be unstable which is manifested by the presence of a tachyonic mode in the string spectrum. The final stable configuration in this case is the D0-brane absorbed by the D2-brane, that is, the D0-D2 bound state. We expect a similar phenomenon to be present in our case. One can see whether or not a tachyonic mode is present by studying small fluctuations around the solution in question. Such a study was performed in the flat case in , and here we present a similar analysis for our case.

To study fluctuations, we need an expression for the second variation of the action. A simple computation shows that it is given by

$$\delta ^2S=\mathrm{Tr}\left([\delta B_a,B_b][\delta B_a,B_b]+([\delta B_a,B_a])^2+2i[\delta B_a,\delta B_b]F_{ab}\right).$$
(5.1)
This expression generalizes the one given in  to the case of $`F0`$.

We would like to study fluctuations around the soliton describing a single D0-brane plus a spherical D2-brane. One can always put the center of the D2-brane to the origin of $`S^3`$. The corresponding solution then is given by

$`B_a=\left(\begin{array}{cc}c_a& \stackrel{}{0}^T\\ \stackrel{}{0}& Y_a\end{array}\right)`$ (5.4)
in the matrix notation. Here $`Y_a`$ are $`\mathrm{SU}(2)`$ generators in the $`n+1`$-dimensional irreducible representation, that is, the representation of spin $`n/2`$. Thus, we are describing a D2-brane made out of $`(n+1)`$ D0-branes here. The constant $`c_a`$ parameterizes the moduli of the solution, and has the interpretation of a position of the D0-brane. Note that $`c_a`$ is a real vector due to the Hermiticity of the matrix $`B^a`$. The spherical D2-brane, represented by the part $`Y_a`$ in the above matrix, is a spherical shell of a definite radius, depending on $`n`$. We expect that the above soliton has a tachyonic fluctuation in a certain limited region of moduli space of $`c_a`$. This region should corresponds to the situation that the D0-brane sits very close to the shell of the D2-brane.

Experience with the flat case teaches us that the tachyonic mode comes from the excitations of the string connecting the D0-brane and D2-branes. As in the works  on the spectrum of fluctuations around non-commutative solitons in flat case, the 0-2 string modes are described by the off-diagonal elements of the matrix representing the soliton. Hoping that the same is true in our case, let us turn on only the off-diagonal fluctuations. Thus, we consider the following perturbation of the solution

$`\delta B_a=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& v_a^{}\\ v_a& 0\end{array}\right)`$ (5.7)
where $`v_a`$ is a complex vectors (column) of dimension $`n+1`$. Substituting this fluctuation mode into the action, we get

$`\delta ^2S=v_a^{}(Y_bc_b\text{ }\text{ ̵})(Y_bc_b\text{ }\text{ ̵})v_av_a^{}(Y_ac_a\text{ }\text{ ̵})(Y_bc_b\text{ }\text{ ̵})v_b+iϵ_{abc}c_a(v_b^{}v_cv_c^{}v_b)`$ (5.8)
We can use the rotation symmetry on $`S^3`$ to fix the value of $`c_a`$ as $`c_a=\delta _{a3}c`$, without losing generality. The above expression is a Hermitian quadratic form in the complex vector space of dimension $`3(n+1)`$ (3 complex vectors $`v_a`$). To facilitate its diagonalization, let us define the following complex linear combinations of these 3 vectors

$$𝐯=v_3,𝐯_+=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(v_1+iv_2),𝐯_{}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(v_1iv_2).$$
(5.9)
The minus in front of the expression for $`𝐯_{}`$ is for uniformity with the similar definition of $`Y_{}`$, see Appendix. Let us at the same time introduce the usual complex linear combinations of $`\mathrm{SU}(2)`$ generators, see the Appendix for our conventions on normalization. We shall denote these “raising and lowering” operators by $`Y,Y_\pm `$. The action, written in terms of these quantities, becomes

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\delta ^2S`$ $`=`$ $`\left(𝐯^{}𝐯+𝐯_+^{}𝐯_++𝐯_{}^{}𝐯_{}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{n}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{n}{2}}+1\right)+c^2\right)2c\left(𝐯^{}Y𝐯+𝐯_+^{}Y𝐯_++𝐯_{}^{}Y𝐯_{}\right)`$
$``$ $`\left(𝐯^{}Y+𝐯_+^{}Y_++𝐯_{}^{}Y_{}\right)\left(Y𝐯Y_+𝐯_{}Y_{}𝐯_+\right)`$
$`+`$ $`c\left(𝐯^{}Y+𝐯_+^{}Y_++𝐯_{}^{}Y_{}\right)𝐯+c𝐯^{}\left(Y𝐯Y_+𝐯_{}Y_{}𝐯_+\right)c^2𝐯^{}𝐯`$
$`+`$ $`2c\left(𝐯_+^{}𝐯_+𝐯_{}^{}𝐯_{}\right).`$
Here, to write the first term, we have used the fact that the $`(n+1)`$-dimensional complex vector space that the vectors $`𝐯,𝐯_\pm `$ are elements of can be thought of as the irreducible representation space. Thus, the operator $`Y_aY_a`$ can be replaced by the value of the Casimir times the identity operator. To diagonalize this quadratic form, let us introduce the basis of eigenvectors $`|m`$ of the operator $`Y`$, and decompose the vectors $`𝐯,𝐯_\pm `$ with respect to this basis. Using conjugation of generators $`Y,Y_\pm `$ by elements of $`\mathrm{U}(n+1)`$ we can always choose the highest vector $`|n/2`$ to point along $`𝐯`$. The decomposition then becomes:

$$𝐯=v|n/2,𝐯_+=\underset{m}{}v_+^m|m,𝐯_{}=\underset{m}{}v_{}^m|m.$$
(5.11)
Substituting these decompositions into (5), and using the standard expressions for the action of $`Y_\pm `$ on vectors $`|m`$, see Appendix, one can diagonalize the quadratic form in question rather straightforwardly. The action takes a block diagonal form consisting of blocks not larger than $`2\times 2`$. The coupling of the modes to each other is as follows. The mode $`v`$ gets coupled only to $`v_{}^{n/21}`$. This part of the action is

$$|v|^2\left(\frac{n}{2}\right)+\overline{v}v_{}^{n/21}\sqrt{\frac{n}{2}}\left(\frac{n}{2}c\right)+c.c.+|v_{}^{n/21}|^2\left(\frac{n}{2}c\right)^2.$$
(5.12)
This quadratic form can be easily diagonalized with the eigenvalues being

$$\lambda _0=0,\lambda _+^{n/2}=c^2nc+\frac{n}{2}\left(\frac{n}{2}+1\right).$$
(5.13)
The notation for the last eigenvalue will become clear when we consider the other modes. The modes $`v_{}^{n/2}`$ and $`v_+^{n/2},v_+^{n/2+1}`$ do not couple to other modes. We get for each of these modes correspondingly

$`|v_{}^{n/2}|^2\left(c^22c\left({\displaystyle \frac{n}{2}}+1\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{n}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{n}{2}}+1\right)\right),`$ (5.14)
$`|v_+^{n/2}|^2\left(c^2+2c\left({\displaystyle \frac{n}{2}}+1\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{n}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{n}{2}}+1\right)\right),`$ (5.15)
$`|v_+^{n/2+1}|^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{n}{2}}+c\right)^2.`$ (5.16)
Thus, the corresponding eigenvalues are

$`\lambda _t`$ $`=`$ $`c^22c\left({\displaystyle \frac{n}{2}}+1\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{n}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{n}{2}}+1\right),`$ (5.17)
$`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_t`$ $`=`$ $`c^2+2c\left({\displaystyle \frac{n}{2}}+1\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{n}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{n}{2}}+1\right),`$ (5.18)
$`\lambda _{}^{n/2}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{n}{2}}+c\right)^2.`$ (5.19)
We have introduced a special notation for the first two eigenvalues because, as we shall see, they correspond to tachyonic modes. The remainder of the action couples, in pairs, the modes $`v_+^{m+1}`$ and $`v_{}^{m1}`$, with $`m=(n/21),(n/22),\mathrm{},(n/2+1)`$:

$`|v_+^{m+1}|^2\left(c^22cm+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m(m+1)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{n}{2}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{n}{2}}+1\right)\right)`$
$`+\overline{v}_+^{m+1}v_{}^{m1}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{\left(\left({\displaystyle \frac{n}{2}}+1\right)^2m^2\right)\left(\left({\displaystyle \frac{n}{2}}\right)^2m^2\right)}+c.c.`$
$`+|v_{}^{m1}|^2\left(c^22cm+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m(m1)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{n}{2}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{n}{2}}+1\right)\right).`$
The corresponding eigenvalues are

$$\lambda _{}^m=(cm)^2,\lambda _+^m=c^22mc+\frac{n}{2}\left(\frac{n}{2}+1\right).$$
(5.21)
Here we have introduced the notation $`\lambda _\pm `$ for two different sets of eigenvalues. To summarize, the set of eigenvalues consists of: (i) $`\lambda _t,\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_t`$ which correspond to tachyonic modes; (ii) zero mode $`\lambda _0`$; (iii) two sets $`\lambda _\pm ^m`$, with $`m=n/2,n/21,\mathrm{},n/2+1`$ for $`\lambda _+^m`$ (no $`m=n/2`$) and $`m=n/21,\mathrm{},n/2+1,n/2`$ for $`\lambda _{}^m`$ (no $`m=n/2`$).

As we have said, the eigenvalues $`\lambda _t,\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_t`$ correspond to tachyonic modes. Indeed, in the region of the moduli space

$$c(\frac{n}{2}+1\sqrt{\frac{n}{2}+1},\frac{n}{2}+1+\sqrt{\frac{n}{2}+1})$$
(5.22)
the eigenvalue $`\lambda _t`$ is negative, and in the region

$$c(\left(\frac{n}{2}+1\right)\sqrt{\frac{n}{2}+1},\left(\frac{n}{2}+1\right)+\sqrt{\frac{n}{2}+1})$$
(5.23)
the eigenvalue $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_t`$ is negative. These values of $`c`$ correspond, as expected, to two intervals on the $`z`$-axes, near the intersection of the axes with the spherical D2-brane shell. Indeed, let us convert the distances measured by $`c`$ into physical distances measured with respect to the closed string metric $`g`$. The conversion is

$$(\mathrm{distance})=2\pi \alpha ^{}\frac{c}{\sqrt{k\alpha ^{}}}.$$
(5.24)
The region of instability is then centered around the value $`c=\pm (n/2+1)`$, which corresponds, in physical units, to the points the distance

$$R=\pi (n+2)\sqrt{\frac{\alpha ^{}}{k}}$$
(5.25)
away from the origin. This is the correct radius of the fuzzy D2-brane, as predicted by the commutative description

$$R=\sqrt{\alpha ^{}k}\mathrm{sin}\frac{\pi n}{k}\pi n\sqrt{\frac{\alpha ^{}}{k}}.$$
(5.26)
As far as the instability is concerned, it appears at the physical distance of

$$L_{\mathrm{instab}}=(2\pi R)^{1/2}\left(\frac{\alpha ^{}}{k}\right)^{1/4}$$
(5.27)
away from the shell. Here we have used the radius of the shell $`R`$ so as to eliminate the $`n`$ dependence. One would like to compare this with the flat case result $`L_{\mathrm{instab}}\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}`$. We see that the result (5.27) is different from the flat result in the regime $`R\sqrt{k\alpha ^{}}`$ where one can neglect the curvature of $`S^3`$ and the fuzzy sphere description is valid. If, for some reason, the result (5.27) can be extrapolated beyond its region of validity into the region $`R\sqrt{k\alpha ^{}}`$ of radii of $`S^2`$ being of the order of the radius of curvature of $`S^3`$, than $`L_{instab}`$ equals to the flat case quantity for $`R=\sqrt{k\alpha ^{}}`$.

Note that each tachyonic eigenvalue $`\lambda _t`$ or $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_t`$ represents one complex, or equivalently two real tachyonic modes. These have the interpretation of coming from the two different orientations of the 0-2 string.

Let us now discuss the interpretation of other eigenvalues. The zero mode appears because some symmetry is left unbroken in the solution under consideration. Indeed, we still have a $`\mathrm{U}(1)`$ subgroup of the global $`\mathrm{SU}(2)`$ rotating the generators. This subgroup generates rotations about the axes of symmetry ($`z`$) of our solution. There is, in addition, another $`\mathrm{U}(1)`$, which is a subgroup of $`\mathrm{U}(n+2)`$ acting on our matrices by conjugation. This $`\mathrm{U}(1)`$ multiplies the rank $`1`$ and $`(n+1)`$ blocks of the solution by the complex conjugate phase factors. These two $`\mathrm{U}(1)`$ correspond to two real zero modes in the fluctuation spectrum.

All other eigenvalues are positive for any $`c`$, as can be easily checked. The corresponding masses thus constitute a prediction for the low energy spectrum of 0-2 worldsheet CFT on $`S^3`$ in the SW limit. In the flat case, these spectrum can be easily calculated on the CFT side, see , and one finds an exact agreement with the non-commutative prediction. It would be somewhat harder to do a similar CFT calculation in our case of $`S^3`$, and we shall not attempt it here.

## 6 Higgs Mechanism

Our results on stability have potentially interesting implications as to scenarios of gauge symmetry breaking. Let us assume that the manifold $`M_7`$, which is transverse to $`S^3`$, contains some flat directions, i.e., is of the type $`^{p+1}\times \stackrel{~}{M}_{6p}`$. Let us have a stack of $`N`$ D$`p`$-branes, such that the directions along the branes are in $`^p`$. One can then get an unusual gauge symmetry breaking mechanism by separating the branes in $`S^3`$.

The low energy excitations of a stack of D$`p`$-branes in $`^{10}`$ are described by the usual action

$`S=T_{(p)}(2\pi \alpha ^{})^2{\displaystyle d^{p+1}x\mathrm{Tr}\left(\frac{1}{4}f_{\mu \nu }^2+\frac{1}{2}(D_\mu X_a)^2\frac{1}{4}[X_a,X_b]^2\right)}.`$ (6.1)
Here $`f_{\mu \nu }`$ is the curvature of the connection $`a_\mu `$, with Greek indices corresponding to directions along the branes, and $`X_a`$ are transverse scalars. When one puts the branes on $`S^3\times ^{p+1}\times \stackrel{~}{M}_{6p}`$ as described, the last term in this action must be replaced by the action (3.13) of the gauge theory on fuzzy sphere, with the identification

$`X_a=B_a/\sqrt{k\alpha ^{}}.`$ (6.2)
There is also the commutator term for other transverse coordinates when $`p<6`$, but we will not consider it. We thus get

$`S=T_{(p)}(2\pi \alpha ^{})^2{\displaystyle d^{p+1}x\mathrm{Tr}\left(\frac{1}{4}f_{\mu \nu }^2+\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{k\alpha ^{}}(D_\mu B_a)^2\right)}+{\displaystyle d^{p+1}xS[B]},`$ (6.3)
where $`T_{(0)}`$ in $`S[B]`$ must be replaced with $`T_{(p)}`$.

Let us first analyze the case of two D$`p`$-branes, when all fields are $`2\times 2`$ matrices. As we know, there are two main configurations which locally minimizes $`S[B]`$ in this case: one corresponding to branes simply separated in $`S^3`$ (commuting $`B^a`$), and the other corresponding to a fuzzy sphere. In the first case one can take only $`B_3`$ to be non-zero, and given by $`B_3=c\sigma _3/2`$. This gives the usual D-brane Higgs mechanism. For such $`B_a`$, the second term in the action breaks symmetry down to $`\mathrm{U}(1)`$. Decomposing $`a_\mu =_ia_\mu ^i\sigma _i/\sqrt{2}`$ we get the masses of the off-diagonal gauge bosons $`a_\mu ^1,a_\mu ^2`$ to be

$$m=\frac{c}{\sqrt{k\alpha ^{}}}.$$
(6.4)
Converting $`c`$ into the physical distance between the D0-branes as measured with respect to the closed string metric $`L=2\pi \alpha ^{}c/\sqrt{k\alpha ^{}}`$, we get

$$m=\frac{L}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}.$$
(6.5)
This is, of course, just the energy of a fundamental string of length $`L`$, as expected.

However, for small $`L`$ this mechanism should be modified. Indeed, as D0-branes become too close to each other, the configuration becomes unstable, and the fuzzy sphere forms. The value of $`c`$ for which this happens can be found from the results of the previous section. For this one must substitute $`n=0`$ in the formula for the tachyonic eigenvalues. This corresponds to a system of two D0-branes. We then get that the distance between the D0-branes (in the unphysical metric) when the instability occurs is $`2`$. Thus, one must take $`c=2`$ in (6.4). This corresponds to the physical distance between the branes

$$L_{\mathrm{instab}}=\frac{4\pi \alpha ^{}}{\sqrt{k\alpha ^{}}}$$
(6.6)
and the mass

$$m_{\mathrm{instab}}=\frac{2}{\sqrt{k\alpha ^{}}}.$$
(6.7)
This is the smallest mass of the off-diagonal gauge bosons that the $`a_\mu ^3`$ boson is still massless. As one further decreases the distance between the branes the fuzzy sphere forms which breaks the gauge symmetry completely. It is easy to find the masses of gauge bosons after the symmetry is broken. They are again obtained from the second term in the action (6.3), evaluated on the configuration $`B_a=Y_a=\sigma _a/2`$. Using the same decomposition of the connection into Pauli matrices as above, we get all three masses to be equal to

$$m=\frac{\sqrt{2}}{\sqrt{k\alpha ^{}}}.$$
(6.8)
This is by $`\sqrt{2}`$ smaller than the smallest mass $`m_{\mathrm{instab}}`$ that can be achieved in the usual Higgs mechanism. One can say that some of the mass of $`a^1,a^2`$ went into $`a^3`$.

Thus, there is the smallest mass (6.7) that can be achieved by the usual Higgs mechanism. When one tries to further decrease it decreasing the separation between the D0-branes the system becomes unstable and forms the fuzzy sphere, which breaks the gauge symmetry completely. All three gauge bosons become massive with the mass given by (6.8). Note interestingly, while the local gauge symmetry is broken completely, the global symmetry is enhanced to the full $`\mathrm{SU}(2)`$ as compared to the global symmetry of $`\mathrm{U}(1)`$ in the usual Higgs breaking mechanism. Thus, summarizing, if the transverse coordinates form $`S^3`$, there is no usual restoration of gauge symmetry by decreasing the separation between the branes. The only way to restore the gauge symmetry is to take the flat space limit $`\sqrt{k\alpha ^{}}\mathrm{}`$.

Other symmetry breaking patters can be obtained by considering a fuzzy sphere of size $`n`$ plus a single D0-brane. When the D0-brane is far enough from the shell, the $`\mathrm{U}(n+1)`$ symmetry of the system is broken to $`\mathrm{U}(1)`$. As one decreases the distance between the shell and the D0-brane, the system becomes unstable and the fuzzy sphere of larger radius forms. The gauge symmetry is then broken completely. Masses of gauge bosons before and after the formation of the fuzzy sphere can be found similarly to the above calculation.

## 7 Conclusions and Discussion

In this paper we identified a simple subset of solutions of gauge theory on fuzzy sphere and gave their interpretation in terms of D0-branes located off a D2-brane. We confirmed this interpretation by comparing the energy obtained in non-commutative and commutative descriptions. We also looked at the spectrum of fluctuations about the simplest solution containing a single D2-brane and D0-branes. We have found a tachyonic mode when the D0-brane is located close enough to the shell of the D2-brane. This is similar to the flat case, although the expression for the distance when the instability occurs depends on the radius of the D2-brane shell and the radius of $`S^3`$ and is thus different from the flat case result. We have also discussed how this instability modifies the usual Higgs mechanism for small separation between the branes.

Since the instability occurs when D0-brane is too close to the shell of D2-brane, it is natural to expect that a similar instability is present in a system of several non-cocentric D2-branes, in the case when the shells are too close to each other. However, this case would be much harder to analyze quantitatively, and we did not consider it in this paper.

Considering the fluctuations we have analyzed only the 0-2 part of the spectrum, which is the most interesting because it is this part that contains the tachyonic modes. It would be interesting to compare our prediction for the 0-2 spectrum with a direct CFT calculation for 0-2 string in $`S^3`$ in the SW limit. Another possible calculation is to consider 0-0 and 2-2 modes. For the later case there is a prediction from the usual BI theory in . These fluctuations in the non-commutative description were recently studied in , but no diagonalization was given. Thus, it is still an open problem to match the non-commutative spectrum of 2-2 fluctuations to the BI prediction of .

As is discussed in , and more recently in , the non-commutative gauge theory action we considered is a bosonic part of certain supersymmetric theory on the fuzzy sphere. Although the SUSY transformation law for fermions was not given in , it can be guessed by using the fact that the action is the sum of YM and CS terms. Indeed, for the case of commutative (but not necessarily Abelian) YM CS gauge theory, the supersymmetry transformation for the gaugino is

$`\delta \lambda ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}F_{ab}\gamma ^{ab}\eta `$ (7.1)
where $`\eta `$ is an infinitesimal Dirac spinor parameter, $`F_{ab}`$ are the field strength, and $`\gamma ^{ab}`$ are the usual commutators of 3D $`\gamma `$-matrices. A natural way to generalize it to the non-commutative case is to replace the field strength $`F`$ by its non-commutative version (4.2). This would be consistent with the claim of  that spherical D2-branes constitute supersymmetric configurations, for the field strength for them vanishes, and the gaugino is SUSY invariant<sup>*</sup><sup>*</sup>* Although the translation of the spherical D2-brane in $`S^3`$ shifts $`F`$ to a non-zero value and thus seems to break the supersymmetry, this could be restored by introducing non-linearly realized supersymmetries that are usually present in the D-brane actions . . However, the transformation law (7.1) with $`F`$ given by (4.2) is not what is claimed in  to be the correct law for SUSY gauge theory on the fuzzy sphere. There, the authors had proposed a SUSY extension of the bosonic action with the transformation law using the usual $`F_{ab}=_aA_b_bA_a+[A_a,A_b]`$. This field strength does not vanish for a fuzzy sphere, which makes it not a SUSY configuration. A possible resolution of this apparent contradiction might be that there are several different SUSY extensions of the bosonic action (3.13), and in the context of D-branes the one with the transformation law (7.1) with $`F`$ given by (4.2) should be used. Such a SUSY extension is not the one given in , and it remains to be seen whether it exists.

## Appendix A $`\mathrm{SU}(2)`$ operators

We use the following definition of “raising and lowering” $`\mathrm{SU}(2)`$ operators:

$$Y=Y_3,Y_+=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(Y_1+iY_2),Y_{}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(Y_1iY_2).$$
(A.1)
Our conventions are the same as those of . The action of $`Y_\pm `$ on eigenvectors of $`Y`$, in the $`(n+1)`$-dimensional irreducible representation, is

$`Y_+|m`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{n}{2}}m\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{n}{2}}+m+1\right)}|m+1,`$ (A.2)
$`Y_{}|m`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{n}{2}}+m\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{n}{2}}m+1\right)}|m1.`$ (A.3)
Acknowledgments

K. K. would like to thank J. David and G. Horowitz for discussions. K. H. was supported in part by Japan Society for the Promotion of Science under the Postdoctoral Research Program (# 02482). K. K. was supported by the NSF grant PHY95-07065.


format: text

text:
# Luminosity Function of Gamma-Ray Bursts Derived Without Benefit of Redshifts

## 1 Introduction

Since there are only a small number of gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) with observed redshifts at the present time, the derivation of their luminosity function has presented a difficult problem. A well established GRB luminosity function would allow predictions of the distributions of flux and of redshift for planned GRB surveys. The space densities and luminosities of GRBs would be useful in discussing their relation to other objects and in understanding the physics of these fascinating objects. Usually, the luminosity function of extragalactic objects is derived from a set of samples of the objects with observed redshifts to well defined flux limits. Within a given cosmological model, such observations allow a derivation of the luminosity function, including its dependence on redshift.

The Burst and Transient Source Experiment (BATSE) (Fishman et al., 1989) on board the Compton Gamma-Ray Observatory has made possible the collection of large well defined GRB samples, such as the BATSE catalog111The BATSE catalog (C. A. Meegan et al. 1999) is available at http://gammaray.msfc.nasa.gov/batse/grb/ catalog/current/. based on on-board triggers, and the BD2 sample (Schmidt, 1999a, b) based on BATSE DISCLA data (see Sec. 2). Redshifts are available for a relatively small number of GRBs. At the present time no well defined sample of GRBs can be formed in which all or a substantial fraction of the objects has an observed redshift. As a consequence various other methods have been used to derive the GRB luminosity function.

The observed $`\mathrm{log}N\mathrm{log}P`$ relation in a survey carries information about the luminosity of the survey objects. For a given cosmological model, the flux at which the $`\mathrm{log}N\mathrm{log}P`$ relation starts to fall below the Euclidean slope of $`3/2`$ allows derivation of the corresponding luminosity. Generally, the analyses assumed that GRBs were standard candles (Cohen & Piran, 1995; Pendleton et al., 1996; Wijers et al., 1998; Totani, 1999) and derived the maximum redshift or the standard candle luminosity by fitting the observed $`\mathrm{log}N\mathrm{log}P`$ distribution for a given cosmological model and an assumed GRB density distribution.

A different method to derive the luminosity function makes use of a luminosity indicator, i.e., an observable property that correlates with luminosity. Several luminosity indicators have been proposed, such as the spectral lag derived from cross-correlation of two spectral channels (Norris, Marani & Bonnell, 2000), and the variability in the time profile (Fenimore & Ramirez-Ruiz, 2000). The correlations of these properties with luminosity have been discovered and calibrated from a relatively small number of GRBs with redshifts, e.g., the variability correlation is based on seven redshifts (Fenimore & Ramirez-Ruiz, 2000).

We have previously explored a reverse approach, in which we made assumptions about the shape and extent of the luminosity function, and then used the Euclidean $`<V/V_{\mathrm{max}}>`$ value of the BD2 sample (see Sec. 2) to derive the characteristic luminosity $`L^{}`$ and the local GRB space density, again for a given cosmological model and GRB space distribution (Schmidt, 1999b). Varying the assumptions about the shape of the luminosity function allowed an evaluation of the sensitivity of $`L^{}`$ and the space density to the various input parameters.

The deviation of the Euclidean $`<V/V_{\mathrm{max}}>`$ of cosmological objects in a well defined sample from the value 0.5 reflects to first order the effect of using Euclidean geometry in its derivation rather than an appropriate relativistic cosmological model. These effects increase with distance and therefore the Euclidean $`<V/V_{\mathrm{max}}>`$ is a distance indicator for the sample objects. We illustrate this in Figure 1, where we plot the maximum redshift of a sample of bursts versus the Euclidean $`<V/V_{\mathrm{max}}>`$ for standard candle GRBs with a photon spectrum $`E^2`$. The curves show the relation for two different scenarios for the comoving space distribution. Clearly, the Euclidean value of $`<V/V_{\mathrm{max}}>`$ is a cosmological distance indicator that can be used to determine a distance scale for cosmological objects for which no redshifts are available.

In this paper, we will demonstrate a correlation between the Euclidean value of $`<V/V_{\mathrm{max}}>`$ and the spectral hardness of GRBs. We interpret this correlation in terms of a luminosity-hardness correlation but are initally unable to show the correlation explicitly. We use the $`<V/V_{\mathrm{max}}>`$ \- hardness correlation to derive the GRB luminosity function, as well as predicted counts as a function of flux and redshift. Finally, we show the results of a simulation producing the luminosity-hardness correlation.

The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. 2, we present the observed correlation between spectral hardness and $`<V/V_{\mathrm{max}}>`$ . The methodology used to derive the luminosity function is discussed in Sec. 3. The resulting luminosity functions are shown in Sec. 4, together with predicted distributions of flux and redshift. We show the results of a simulation producing the luminosity-hardness correlation in Sec. 5, followed by the discussion in Sec. 6. Throughout this paper, we will be using a flat cosmological model with $`H_0=65`$km s-1 Mpc-1, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M=0.3`$, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$ (Bahcall et al., 1999).

## 2 Spectral Hardness as a Luminosity Indicator

### 2.1 Data

In this paper we use a large homogeneous sample, the BD2 sample, derived from BATSE DISCLA data consisting of the continuous data stream from the eight BATSE LAD detectors in four energy channels on a timescale of 1024 ms (Fishman et al., 1989). The sample was derived using a software trigger algorithm that interpolated the background between given times before and after the onset of the burst and required an excess of at least 5$`\sigma `$ over background in at least two detectors in the energy range $`50300`$ keV (Schmidt, 1999a). The first version (the BD1 sample) was described in Schmidt (1999a). A revision discussed in Sec. 2 of Schmidt (1999b) produced the BD2 sample.

The BD2 sample covers a period of 5.9 y from TJD $`836510528`$. It contains 1391 GRBs, of which 1013 are also listed in the BATSE catalog. The median photon flux limit of the BD2 sample over the energy range $`50300`$ keV is 0.31 ph cm-2 s-1. The average Euclidean $`V/V_{\mathrm{max}}`$ is $`0.336\pm 0.008`$. The sample of 1391 GRBs effectively represents 2.003 y of full sky coverage.

In studying the correlation of spectral hardness of GRBs with other properties, we have to choose a relevant part of the light curve since the spectral hardness of GRBs generally varies while the burst is going on. The Euclidean values of $`V/V_{\mathrm{max}}`$ in the BD2 sample have been derived from simulations in which the GRB is moved out until the detection algorithm fails to trigger (Schmidt, 1999a). In most cases, the final detection is on the peak of the GRB time profile. Therefore, we use the 1024 ms interval containing the peak flux to derive the hardness ratio HR32 as the ratio of the burst counts in BATSE channels 3 ($`100300`$ keV) and 2 ($`50100`$ keV) for the brightest illuminated detector. From HR32, the illumination angle and the BATSE detector response matrix, we then derive the photon spectrum slope $`\alpha _{23}`$ .

In Figure 2, we plot the Euclidean value of $`V/V_{\mathrm{max}}`$ versus $`\alpha _{23}`$ for all 1391 GRBs in the BD2 sample. We also show $`<V/V_{\mathrm{max}}>`$ for 4 spectral classes of $`348`$ GRBs each (see Table 1). The $`<V/V_{\mathrm{max}}>`$ values range from $`0.47`$ for the softest bursts to $`0.27`$ for the hard ones. The mean errors of the $`<V/V_{\mathrm{max}}>`$ values are around $`\pm 0.016`$.

Before we use this correlation between $`<V/V_{\mathrm{max}}>`$ and $`<`$$`\alpha _{23}`$ $`>`$, we evaluate the effect of statistical errors in the counts used to derive $`\alpha _{23}`$ . The detection of GRBs in the BD2 sample was based on the sum of the counts in channels 2 and 3, without regard to their ratio HR32. The statistical error in HR32, determined by the burst counts and the background counts in each of the two channels, will be larger for weaker GRBs, which have larger values of $`V/V_{\mathrm{max}}`$ . We see in Figure 2 a strong concentration of $`\alpha _{23}`$ around $`1.5`$ at low $`V/V_{\mathrm{max}}`$ where errors are small. As we move upward in Figure 2, the statistical errors will scatter $`\alpha _{23}`$ horizontally, causing the concentration at $`\alpha _{23}`$ $`1.5`$ to widen. There will be a net movement of points to the left and to the right and this effect will increase toward the top of the diagram. This causes $`<V/V_{\mathrm{max}}>`$ to be too large for $`\alpha _{23}`$ values well below and above $`1.5`$.

We have carried out simulations to estimate the systematic effect on $`<V/V_{\mathrm{max}}>`$ . We used actually measured background counts in channels 2 and 3 for each of the 1391 GRBs and took the errors to be gaussian. We assumed that the actual distribution of $`\alpha _{23}`$ is represented by the brightest quartile of 348 GRBs, which are confined to $`V/V_{\mathrm{max}}`$ $`<0.069`$ at the very bottom of Figure 2. We ensured that in the input sample there was no correlation between $`<V/V_{\mathrm{max}}>`$ and $`\alpha _{23}`$ by associating each $`V/V_{\mathrm{max}}`$ with each $`\alpha _{23}`$ , so that the input set of bright bursts consisted of $`348\times 348`$ objects.

This hypothetical bright set was then used to simulate $`V/V_{\mathrm{max}}`$ and $`\alpha _{23}`$ values for the 1043 objects with $`V/V_{\mathrm{max}}`$ $`>0.069`$. The results are exhibited in Table 1 and Figure 2, where we show both observed values of $`<`$$`\alpha _{23}`$ $`>`$ and $`<V/V_{\mathrm{max}}>`$ , and values corrected for the systematic errors resulting from the simulations. For the softest and the hardest classes, the errors caused $`\alpha _{23}`$ to move away from the center and $`<V/V_{\mathrm{max}}>`$ to increase. For the classes in the middle, $`<V/V_{\mathrm{max}}>`$ decreased because high values of $`V/V_{\mathrm{max}}`$ scattered away in $`\alpha _{23}`$ . We are not showing mean errors for the corrected values of $`<V/V_{\mathrm{max}}>`$ . They will be at least $`\pm 0.016`$ but are likely dominated by systematic errors in the simulations or in the statistical behavior of the observed counts that we cannot judge.

### 2.2 Interpretation as Luminosity-Hardness Correlation

Given that the Euclidean value of $`<V/V_{\mathrm{max}}>`$ is a distance indicator (see Fig. 1), the hard bursts in the sample on the average must be at larger distances and the softer bursts nearer. With the density distribution SF2 (see Sec. 3) and the assumption of standard candles used for the illustration in Figure 1, one would estimate a maximum redshift of $`1.4`$ for the softest bursts and $`3.4`$ for the hardest bursts. With the given flux limit of the BD2 sample, the soft bursts are therefore of lower luminosity and the hard bursts of higher luminosity. We conclude that the spectral index $`\alpha _{23}`$ is a luminosity indicator and that there exists a luminosity-hardness correlation.

At this stage we cannot show the luminosity-hardness correlation explicitly due to the dearth of observed redshifts. Once we have derived the GRB luminosity function, we will produce an explicit luminosity-hardness correlation through simulation, see Sec. 5.

Could the correlation of $`<V/V_{\mathrm{max}}>`$ on $`\alpha _{23}`$ be a consequence of the shape of the spectrum of GRBs? The typical GRB photon spectrum is often characterized as the Band spectrum (Band et al., 1993), with low energy slope $`1`$, high energy slope $`2`$ and break energy near 150 keV. At low redshift, this spectrum will have an observed $`\alpha _{23}`$ between $`1`$ and $`2`$, while at high redshift it will be $`2`$. Thus more distant bursts will have softer spectra, which is the opposite of our finding above.

Previous studies of the correlation between hardness and global GRB properties have been based on the $`\mathrm{log}N\mathrm{log}P`$ relation or on $`V/V_{\mathrm{max}}`$ , often involving duration-hardness classes (Belli, 1992, 1996; Kouveliotou, et al., 1993, 1996; Pendleton et al., 1998; Tavani, 1998). Among the three classes considered by Tavani (1998), classes B and C contained GRBs with $`T_{90}>2.5`$ s similar to the BD2 GRBs detected at a time scale of 1024 ms. The hard bursts in class B had $`<V/V_{\mathrm{max}}>`$ $`=0.29`$ while the soft bursts in class C had $`<V/V_{\mathrm{max}}>`$ $`=0.42`$, showing the same trend as seen in Figure 2. Also of interest is the study by Pendleton et al. (1998) who defined NHE bursts as those that have a marked lack of high-energy flux ($`E>300`$ keV), in contrast to HE bursts that have a strong high-energy flux. Using the $`\mathrm{log}N\mathrm{log}P`$ relations for both types they concluded that HE bursts are eight times more luminous than NHE bursts. This agrees qualitatively with our finding that hard bursts are more luminous than soft bursts.

We have not used the durations or the duration-hardness classification of GRBs for the following reason. In the BD2 sample we define the duration of a GRB as the total time elapsed between the time of trigger and the last time the burst flux exceeded the limiting flux for triggering. In our simulations in which we move a burst out in distance to derive its $`V/V_{\mathrm{max}}`$ , we find that the duration decreases to around 1 or 2 seconds when last detected. Clearly, our definition of ’duration’ does not produce an absolute property of the burst. Therefore, we have not considered duration-hardness classes for the BD2 GRBs. The BATSE $`T_{90}`$ and $`T_{50}`$ durations also suffer from a “fluence-duration” bias according to Hakkila et al. (2000). If the derived duration of a given burst depends on its flux, then the $`V/V_{\mathrm{max}}`$ values for bursts with a minimum observed duration have to be derived using two simultaneous limits (Schmidt, 1968), i.e. the flux limit and the duration limit. Ignoring this requirement will give rise to systematic errors in $`V/V_{\mathrm{max}}`$ .

## 3 Deriving the GRB Luminosity Function From $`<V/V_{\mathrm{max}}>`$

In the next section, we will find that the central luminosities of the 4 spectral classes (see Table 1) range over a factor of around $`1050`$. This makes it possible to construct the luminosity function of GRBs. The derivation for each of the spectral classes is similar to that employed previously in Schmidt (1999b) for the entire luminosity function. We use the cosmological parameters $`H_0=65`$km s-1 Mpc-1, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M=0.3`$, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$.

We assume that the GRB luminosity function $`\mathrm{\Phi }(L,z,sp)`$ of the spectral class $`sp`$ can be written as

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(L,z,sp)=\mathrm{\Phi }_0(L,sp)R_{\mathrm{GRB}}(z),$$
(1)
where $`sp`$ refers to the four spectral classes (see Table 1), $`L`$ is the peak luminosity in the given energy band, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0(L,sp)`$ is the $`z=0`$ luminosity function of class $`sp`$, and $`R_{\mathrm{GRB}}(z)`$ the comoving GRB density distribution normalized at $`z=0`$. We assume that each $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0(L,sp)`$ has a gaussian distribution of $`\mathrm{log}L`$ with a dispersion $`\sigma _{\mathrm{log}L}`$ around a central peak luminosity $`L_c`$. The GRB luminosity function $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0(L)`$ is the sum of the spectral luminosity functions $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0(L,sp)`$ .

We assume that the photon spectrum is proportional to $`E^{\alpha _{23}}`$. The peak flux $`P(L,z)`$ observed for a GRB of luminosity $`L`$ at redshift $`z`$ is

$$P(L,z)=\frac{L}{4\pi A^2(z)}(1+z)^{(2+\alpha _{23})},$$
(2)
where $`A(z)`$ is the bolometric luminosity distance for the cosmological model. The peak flux $`\mathrm{log}N\mathrm{log}P`$ distribution for GRBs of spectral class $`sp`$ is,

$$N(>P,sp)=\mathrm{\Phi }_o(L,sp)d\mathrm{log}L_0^{z(L,P,sp)}R_{GRB}(z)(1+z)^1(dV(z)/dz)dz$$
(3)
where $`z(L,P,sp)`$ is derived from equation (2), $`V(z)`$ is the comoving volume and the term $`(1+z)^1`$ represents the time dilation (Totani, 1999). With the known distribution of flux limits $`P_{lim}`$ in the BD2 sample, we can derive the Euclidean value of $`<V/V_{\mathrm{max}}>`$ from the individual values $`V/V_{\mathrm{max}}`$ $`=(P/P_{lim})^{3/2}`$. The central peak luminosity $`L_c`$ of each spectral class is iterated until $`<V/V_{\mathrm{max}}>`$ agrees with the observed value.

The limiting peak flux $`P_{lim}`$ depends on the GRB spectrum. Based on the BATSE detector response matrix, log $`P_{lim}`$ increases by $`0.11`$ from the softest to the hardest class. This does not affect the $`V/V_{\mathrm{max}}`$ derivation described above since $`P`$ is equally affected. The luminosity $`L_c`$ derived for spectral class $`sp`$ scales as $`P_{lim}`$.

The comoving GRB density distribution $`R_{\mathrm{GRB}}(z)`$ is often referred to as the ’star formation rate’ based on the expectation that GRBs are caused by massive stars. Porciani & Madau (2000) have parametrized various models for the evolution of the cosmic star formation rate (SFR) with redshift. In model SF1, based on Madau & Pozetti (2000), the SFR rises rapidly by an order of magnitude between $`z=0`$ and $`z=1`$, peaks between $`z=1`$ and $`z=2`$ and declines gently at higher redshifts. In model SF2, based on Steidel et al. (1999), it rises similarly but then remains roughly constant for $`z>2`$. Model SF3, reflecting the possibility that extinction has been underestimated (Blaine et al., 1999), has an SFR continuing to rise beyond $`z=2`$. For the cosmological model used in this paper ($`H_0=65`$km s-1 Mpc-1, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M=0.3`$, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$), the star formation rates for $`z=1,3,5`$ are 9.5, 7.7, 3.4 (SF1), 8.3, 12.8, 12.7 (SF2), and 6.2, 12.8, 16.1 (SF3), respectively. We use these three models to characterize $`R_{\mathrm{GRB}}(z)`$ in the derivation of the luminosity function.

## 4 The GRB Luminosity Function

As descibed in the preceding section, we derive the luminosity function at $`z=0`$ for each of the 4 spectral classes separately. We set the gaussian dispersion of each $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0(L,sp)`$ at $`\sigma _{\mathrm{log}L}=0.4`$. The central peak luminosities $`L_c`$ of the spectral classes were determined from the corrected values of $`<`$$`\alpha _{23}`$ $`>`$ and $`<V/V_{\mathrm{max}}>`$ given in Table 1. The resulting luminosity functions at $`z=0`$ for each of the four spectral classes for the SF2 model are shown in Figure 3.

The sum of the spectral luminosity functions constitutes the overall luminosity function. Figure 4 shows the resulting luminosity functions for density distributions SF1, SF2, and SF3. The central peak luminosities $`\mathrm{log}L_c`$ range from $`50.3251.29`$, $`50.2751.57`$, and $`50.1851.88`$, respectively. The luminosity function generally appears to be a power law from $`10^{50.5}`$ erg s-1 to $`10^{51.5}`$ erg s-1, and then to decline more steeply. The total $`z=0`$ GRB densities are 0.48, 0.51, and 0.72 Gpc-3 y-1 for SF1, SF2, and SF3, respectively. The luminosities and densities quoted are ’isotropic-equivalent’ values. If all GRBs are beamed into, say, $`\omega `$ steradians, then luminosities require multiplication by $`\omega /4\pi `$ and densities by $`4\pi /\omega `$. If the luminosity-hardness correlation represents the distribution of luminosities within a GRB beam, the situation would be more complex and the corrections to luminosity and density would be a function of luminosity.

The cumulative distribution of peak fluxes observed in the BD2 sample is shown in Figure 5. The predicted $`\mathrm{log}N\mathrm{log}P`$ distributions are in excellent to good agreement with the observations. Compared to an annual all-sky rate of 694 GRBs based on the BD2 sample, we expect above 0.1 (0.01) ph cm-2 s-1 annual rates of 2560 (5090), 2720 (6810), and 2830 (8460) for cases SF1, SF2, and SF3, respectively.

In Figure 6, we show histograms of the expected redshift distribution in the BD2 sample. The fraction of high redshifts increases from SF1 to SF2 to SF3: the expected fractions with $`z>4`$ are 1, 5, and 12%, respectively. The largest single redshift that may be expected in the BD2 sample of 1391 GRBs on the basis of these three models is around 6, 13, or 19, respectively. These, however, may be overestimates for SF2 and SF3, since in these cases the star formation rate remains high at large redshift, with no provision for the onset of star formation.

In the derivation of the luminosity function, we assumed that the spectrum of the GRBs in each spectral classes was a simple power law of slope $`\alpha _{23}`$. Belli (2000) has compiled GRB spectra as a function of a fluence hardness ratio, based on the four BATSE LAD channels. Most of the spectra appear to be broken power laws. The dependence on the hardness ratio seems to be a general change in slopes with little change in break energy. We have tested the effect of using these systematics by adopting instead of the simple power law a Band spectrum (Band et al., 1993) with $`\alpha =\alpha _{23}+1.0`$, $`\beta =\alpha _{23}`$ and $`E_0=150`$ keV. The resulting luminosity function and predicted distributions of flux and redshift were virtually identical to that from the simple power law with slope $`\alpha _{23}`$.

## 5 Luminosity-Hardness Correlation

Now that we have derived the GRB luminosity function, we are in a position to generate the luminosity-hardness correlation through a simulation. In order to reduce the effect of the counting errors on $`\alpha _{23}`$ discussed in Sec. 2.1, we use the $`\alpha _{23}`$ values of the brightest quartile, consisting of 348 GRBs with $`<V/V_{\mathrm{max}}>`$ $`<0.069`$. We assigned each of these GRBs a random luminosity from its spectral luminosity function $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0(L,sp)`$ . The resulting plot of peak luminosity versus $`\alpha _{23}`$ is shown in Figure 7. For $`\alpha _{23}`$ $`>2.4`$, we see clear evidence of the luminosity-hardness correlation, with a slope $`d\mathrm{log}L/d\alpha _{23}1.1`$. The dozen GRBs with a large range of spectral indices below $`\alpha _{23}`$ $`<2.4`$ belong to the softest spectral class and therefore based on the present study cannot show any correlation between luminosity and hardness.

None of the GRBs observed by BATSE with redshifts listed by Lamb & Reichart (2000) belong to the softest quartile in the BATSE catalog. Therefore, we cannot at the present time check the main trend from soft to hard bursts in Figure 7. The total range in luminosity of a factor of 50 in the Lamb & Reichart (2000) list is compatible with the range shown by the hard GRBs in Figure 7. This may indicate post facto that the adopted value of $`\sigma _{\mathrm{log}L}=0.4`$ is a reasonable one.

## 6 Discussion

We have shown that there exists for GRBs in the BD2 sample a $`<V/V_{max}>`$-hardness correlation, see Figure 2. Since the BD2 sample was selected from BATSE DISCLA data on a timescale of 1024 ms, the correlation applies to GRBs with durations larger than 1 s. Based on the realization that the Euclidean value of $`<V/V_{\mathrm{max}}>`$ is a cosmological distance indicator, we concluded that there exists a luminosity-hardness correlation, but could only demonstrate it after we had derived the luminosity function.

With the $`<V/V_{max}>`$-hardness correlation we were able to derive the luminosity function without having to make assumptions about its overall shape, as had been required till now (Schmidt, 1999b). We assumed a width for the luminosity function of each spectral class that was sufficient to produce a reasonably smooth overall luminosity function. The entire excercise of deriving the luminosity function was carried out without using any redshifts. We did have to make assumptions about the cosmological evolution or density distribution of GRBs for which we chose various star formation rate models.

This study has only been possible due to the power of the Euclidean value of $`<V/V_{\mathrm{max}}>`$ as an independent cosmological distance indicator. Major progress beyond this work can be expected once systematic redshift surveys of GRBs become available. The luminosity-hardness correlation should become directly observable. From samples with observed redshifts complete to given flux limits the GRB luminosity function can be derived without having to make assumptions about the density distribution. And while the Euclidean $`<V/V_{\mathrm{max}}>`$ cannot compete with the redshift as a distance indicator, the luminosity function should be compatible with the observed $`<V/V_{\mathrm{max}}>`$ values of the samples.

It is a pleasure to thank J. Brainerd, M. Finger and G. Pendleton for information about the calibration of the BATSE detectors, J. Trümper for useful discussions and A. Iyudin for raising questions about the statistical errors of the spectral index.