text:
# Localized 4𝑓 States and Dynamic Jahn-Teller Effect in PrO2

\[

## Abstract

Neutron spectroscopic measurements of the magnetic excitations in PrO2 reveal (1) sharp peaks characteristic of transitions between levels of the $`4f^1`$ configuration of Pr4+ split by the cubic crystal field, and (2) broad bands of scattering centred near 30 meV and 160 meV. We present a simple model based on a vibronic Hamiltonian that accounts for the main features of the data. The analysis shows that $`90\pm 10`$% of the Pr ions have a localized $`4f^1`$ configuration and provides strong evidence for a dynamic Jahn-Teller effect in the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_8`$ electronic ground state.

\]

Anomalous static and dynamic magnetic properties of rare earth and actinide compounds containing strongly correlated electrons are usually attributed to Kondo or valence fluctuations, or to the formation of heavy fermion states. If there are unquenched orbital degrees of freedom, however, then other mechanisms for anomalous behavior are possible. One such mechanism is the coupling of electronic charge fluctuations to phonons, and leads to magnetoelastic and Jahn-Teller phenomena. In the case of localized electrons the dynamic Jahn-Teller effect (DJTE) may quench electronic degrees of freedom, causing a reduction in the magnetic moment and forming states of mixed magnetic and phonon character .

Electron-lattice effects of this kind are of course well known but the absence of a clean reference system has undoubtedly hindered their identification among other anomalous properties, especially in Ce and U compounds. In this Letter we show that PrO2 represents such a model DJTE system. We find that magnetoelastic coupling has a dramatic influence on the static and dynamic properties of PrO2, and we provide the first direct measurements of the magnetovibrational spectrum in a rare earth DJTE system. We also show that the Pr ions exist almost entirely in a localized $`4f^1`$ configuration, in disagreement with an intermediate valence model for PrO2.

PrO2 is an insulator with the fluorite structure type. It exhibits type-I antiferromagnetic ordering below $`T_\mathrm{N}=14`$ K with an anomalously low ordered moment of $``$0.6 $`\mu _\mathrm{B}`$ . The electronic ground state of PrO2 has, together with CeO2 and TbO2, been controversial for many years . Core-level photoabsorption and photoemission spectra have been interpreted by some authors  in terms of an intermediate valence ground state comprised of a roughly 50:50 admixture of localized (i.e. atomic-like) $`4f^1`$ and $`4f^2`$ states. Others , however, believe in a localized $`4f^1`$ configuration with a degree of covalent mixing such that the oxygen $`2p`$ valence band contains some extended states of $`f`$ symmetry. Publication of an influential model  describing an intermediate valence state in the anomalous cuprate PrBa2Cu3O6+x (PrBCO) similar to that proposed for the lanthanide dioxides has increased interest in PrO2, making it a key reference compound in high energy spectroscopic studies of PrBCO  and related materials.

The aim of the present work was to clarify the electronic ground state of PrO2. Neutron spectroscopy probes electronic transitions within the ground state configuration both within and between the $`{}_{}{}^{2S+1}L_{J}^{}`$ terms, including splittings due to the crystalline electric field (CEF) or exchange fields. The low neutron energies ($`1`$ eV) and weak coupling to the electronic angular momentum ensure that final state effects are insignificant. The experiments were performed on the High Energy Transfer (HET) chopper spectrometer at the ISIS Facility. On HET neutrons of well-defined incident energy $`E_\mathrm{i}`$ are delivered to the sample in short pulses. Spectra are recorded as a function of flight time in banks of detectors surrounding the incident beam direction. Because the spectra are recorded at constant scattering angle $`\varphi `$ the scattering vector $`Q`$ varies with energy $`E`$ thus: $`\mathrm{}^2Q^2/2m=2E_\mathrm{i}E2\mathrm{cos}\varphi \sqrt{E_\mathrm{i}(E_\mathrm{i}E)}`$.

Polycrystalline samples of PrO2 were prepared by oxidation of commercially obtained Pr6O11. The starting material was baked in air at 1000 C for several hours and then annealed either in flowing O2 at 280 C for approximately 20 days or under 300–500 atm pressure of O2 at 350 C for 3–5 days. The products were checked by x-ray diffraction and no trace of residual Pr6O11 could be detected. From this, and a comparison of our neutron data with that of Pr6O11 , we estimate an upper limit of 1% on the amount of Pr6O11 impurity in our samples.

For the neutron measurements approximately 10 g of PrO2 was wrapped in aluminium foil and mounted in contact with the cold head of a closed-cyle refrigerator. Data were collected with $`E_\mathrm{i}=30`$, 180, 450, 750 and 1200 meV, and the scattering from vanadium was used to normalize the spectra and to convert them into units of absolute scattering cross-section. The presented spectra correspond to the partial differential cross-section $`\mathrm{d}^2\sigma /\mathrm{d}\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{d}E_\mathrm{f}`$ multiplied by the factor $`k_\mathrm{i}/k_\mathrm{f}`$ , where $`k_\mathrm{i}`$ and $`k_\mathrm{f}`$ are the initial and final neutron wavevectors and $`E_\mathrm{f}`$ is the final energy. Measurements were made under identical conditions on a 10 g sample of polycrystalline CeO2 in order to estimate the non-magnetic (phonon + multiple scattering) background in the PrO2 data. CeO2 is an almost ideal material for this purpose as it has the same structure as PrO2 and the scattering cross-sections of Pr and Ce differ by only 10%. The estimated transmission of the PrO2 and CeO2 samples was 93–97% (depending on $`E`$ and $`E_\mathrm{i}`$), and the spectra were corrected accordingly.

Fig. 1(a) shows spectra of PrO2 and CeO2 with $`E_\mathrm{i}=180`$ meV averaged over the angular ranges 9–19 ($`\varphi =14^{}`$) and 125–139 ($`\varphi =133^{}`$). At high angles the scattering is dominated by one-phonon processes, and so the $`133^{}`$ data measures the phonon density of states weighted by the neutron cross-section of the atoms. The $`133^{}`$ data for the two compounds are similar except that some PrO2 peaks are shifted to lower energies relative to CeO2, most noticeably below 30 meV. At low angles more marked differences are observed. The PrO2 data contains a sharp peak at 131 meV and a broad peak centred on $``$30 meV extending from 10 meV to 80 meV, whereas the CeO2 spectrum shows little structure and lies below the PrO2 spectrum at all energies. The 131 meV peak has been observed previously . Both the broad and sharp peaks in the PrO2 data decrease in intensity with increasing $`Q`$ consistent with a typical $`4f`$ magnetic form factor, and so we identify these features as magnetic in origin. Conversely, the CeO2 signal systematically increases in intensity with $`Q`$, and this implies that the CeO2 scattering is non-magnetic as expected for a $`4f^0`$ configuration with no admixture of localized $`4f^1`$ states.

Several other magnetic features were observed in the PrO2 data in addition to those already described. The runs with $`E_\mathrm{i}=750`$ meV and 1200 meV detected two more peaks. These are shown in Figs. 1(b) and (c). The peak centred near 350 meV in the 750 meV run is significantly broader than the resolution, whereas the peak centred at 730 meV in the 1200 meV run is resolution-limited. The 450 meV run revealed a shoulder of scattering above the 131 meV peak, centred at $``$160 meV. This feature is displayed in the inset to Fig. 1(d). Finally, the $`E_\mathrm{i}=30`$ meV run revealed a peak centred at 3 meV shown in Fig. 1(d). This peak shifted to lower energies as the temperature was raised, becoming quasielastic above $``$15 K. Given that $`T_\mathrm{N}=14`$ K we can confidently attribute this 3 meV peak to spin wave excitations of the antiferromagnetically ordered ground state. We found no evidence in our data for an excitation at 5.4 meV reported in a previous work , and so we conclude that this feature is not intrinsic to PrO2.

Fig. 1(d) shows data from several runs after correction for the non-magnetic scattering and for the calculated (see below) magnetic form factor. The form factor correction extrapolates the data to zero $`Q`$ and hence allows comparison of runs with different incident energies.

We begin our interpretation of the results by considering the effect of the CEF. The splitting of a localized $`4f^1`$ configuration in a cubic CEF is described by the spin-orbit coupling constant $`\zeta `$, which sets the $`{}_{}{}^{2}F_{5/2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}F_{7/2}^{}`$ separation, and the fourth and sixth order CEF parameters $`B_0^4`$ and $`B_0^6`$. Using the free ion value of $`\zeta `$ for Pr4+  Kern et al  have calculated the energy levels as a function of the ratio $`B_0^6/B_0^4`$. They assigned the 131 meV peak to the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_8\mathrm{\Gamma }_7`$ transition of $`{}_{}{}^{2}F_{5/2}^{}`$, and by estimating the ratio $`B_0^6/B_0^4`$ from a point charge model they arrived at a parameterization of the CEF. Kern et al’s model predicts the levels in the CEF-split $`{}_{}{}^{2}F_{7/2}^{}`$ term to be $``$320 meV ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }_6^{}`$), $``$390 meV ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }_8^{}`$) and $``$580 meV ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }_7^{}`$) above the ground state in rough accord with the peaks in Figs. 1(b) and (c). We conclude, therefore, that these high energy peaks arise from the $`{}_{}{}^{2}F_{5/2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}F_{7/2}^{}`$ intermultiplet transitions, the only proviso being that the signal in Fig. 1(b) must encompass both the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_6^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_8^{}`$ levels. Assuming this to be the case we refined the CEF model with the 14 states $`|J;m_J`$ of $`{}_{}{}^{2}F_{5/2}^{}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{2}F_{7/2}^{}`$ as a basis. With all 3 parameters allowed to vary independently the fitting procedure converged yielding $`B_0^4=(776\pm 8)`$ meV, $`B_0^6=(207\pm 5)`$ meV and $`\zeta =(100.5\pm 1)`$ meV  and gave excellent agreement with the observed energies.

With the eigenfunctions from the CEF refinement we can now evaluate the cross-sections for the observed transitions as a function of $`Q`$. The formulae  contain radial moments of the $`4f`$ wavefunction, and values for Pr4+ were taken from Ref. . The curve in Fig. 1(b) represents the calculated cross-sections for the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_8\mathrm{\Gamma }_6^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_8\mathrm{\Gamma }_8^{}`$ transitions, and the curve on Fig. 1(c) is likewise for the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_8\mathrm{\Gamma }_7^{}`$ transition. Considering that no additional parameters are needed to obtain the calculated cross-sections the level of agreement with the data is very good. The same cannot be said, however, when the cross-sections for the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_8\mathrm{\Gamma }_8`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_8\mathrm{\Gamma }_7`$ transitions are calculated. At zero $`Q`$ these are 182 and 99 mb sr-1Pr-1 respectively , considerably greater than the integrated spectral weights 47 and 48 mb sr-1Pr-1 in the 3 meV and 131 meV peaks shown in Fig. 1(d) .

We will now describe a model that both accounts for the puzzling intensities just mentioned and explains the origin of the 10–80 meV broad peak and the 160 meV shoulder. Our hypothesis is that these effects derive from a strong coupling between $`4f^1`$ electronic states and local dynamic lattice distortions. This coupling mixes electronic and phonon degrees of freedom and causes a dynamic Jahn-Teller effect in the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_8`$ ground state.

The existence of a DJTE in PrO2 was in fact suggested some time ago to explain the factor $``$2 reduction in ordered moment relative to a pure $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_8`$ ground state . An analogous moment reduction in UO2 had already been attributed to a DJTE , and so its occurrence in PrO2 would not be a surprise. Moreover, the neutron data in Fig. 1(a) showing substantial phonon shifts in PrO2 relative to CeO2 provide direct evidence for a significant magnetoelastic interaction. To find out how this interaction influences the magnetic excitation spectrum we describe a simple model for the coupling of a set of CEF levels with phonons. Group theory shows that the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_8`$ CEF ground state couples in first order to local distortions of either $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_3`$ or $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_5`$ symmetry, and point charge calculations indicate that the coupling strengths are comparable . For the sake of simplicity, however, we will restrict our model to three degenerate local distortions of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_5`$ symmetry with vibrational frequency $`\omega _{\mathrm{ph}}`$. We describe the magnetoelastic coupling with the Hamiltonian

$$H_{\mathrm{ME}}=g\underset{i}{}(a_i+a_i^{})O_i,$$
(1)
where $`g`$ is the coupling constant, $`a_i`$ and $`a_i^{}`$ are phonon annihilation and creation operators, and $`O_i`$ are the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_5`$ symmetry quadrupolar operators: $`O_1=(J_yJ_z+J_zJ_y)/2`$, $`O_2=(J_zJ_x+J_xJ_z)/2`$, and $`O_3=(J_xJ_y+J_yJ_x)/2`$. To investigate the ordered magnetic moment we also included a molecular exchange field interaction $`H_{\mathrm{Ex}}=𝐇𝐉`$. The magnitude of $`𝐇`$ was chosen so as to reproduce the observed 3 meV splitting of the ground state.

We take as a basis the 24 states $`|\varphi _n`$, $`n=1,\mathrm{},24`$, represented by $`|\mathrm{\Gamma }_8;0`$, $`|\mathrm{\Gamma }_7;0`$, $`|\mathrm{\Gamma }_8;1^{(i)}`$, and $`|\mathrm{\Gamma }_7;1^{(i)}`$. These are products of the CEF eigenstates and the three $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_5`$ phonon modes ($`i=1`$, 2, 3) containing either 0 or 1 quanta $`\mathrm{}\omega _{\mathrm{ph}}`$. The energy separation $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ of $`|\mathrm{\Gamma }_8;0`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Gamma }_7;0`$ is chosen so as to reproduce the observed peak at 131 meV. The vibronic states are obtained by diagonalisation of the matrix $`\varphi _n^{}|H_{\mathrm{ME}}+H_{\mathrm{Ex}}|\varphi _n`$, and the magnetic part of the neutron cross-section is calculated from the matrix elements of $`𝐉`$.

We evaluated the model for a range of parameters. Small values of $`\mathrm{}\omega _{\mathrm{ph}}`$ are effective at mixing $`|\mathrm{\Gamma }_8;0`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Gamma }_8;1^{(i)}`$ states creating a DJTE. The consequences are a transfer of intensity from the ground state into the phonon-like states and a reduction in the ordered moment. A large $`\mathrm{}\omega _{\mathrm{ph}}`$ tends to create vibronic states involving the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_7`$ CEF excitation. To illustrate these effects we plot on Fig. 2 the zero-$`Q`$ energy spectrum for two parameter sets, one (I) with small and the other (II) large $`\mathrm{}\omega _{\mathrm{ph}}`$. In both cases new peaks appear between the 3 meV and 131 meV levels. With set I there is a factor 0.86 reduction in the ordered moment (independent of the direction of $`𝐇`$) and a similar decrease in the intensity of the 3 meV peak. Set II produces a smaller effect on the ordered moment and 3 meV peak, but a new feature is the signal above the 131 meV peak.

These results give us confidence that magnetoelastic coupling is responsible for the unusual energy spectrum and reduced moment of PrO2. Because of its simplicity we cannot expect a single-frequency model to match the data perfectly. In reality there will be coupling to local dynamic distortions with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_3`$ as well as $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_5`$ symmetry, and these distortions will exist over a range of frequencies due to dispersion. The extent of the observed broad scattering is indicative that many frequencies are actually involved. A realistic model would also need to include states with $`>`$1 phonons. Nevertheless, the qualitative agreement achieved with the present model is satisfying.

Before concluding we will address the nature of the $`f`$ states. Our analysis has assumed a localized $`4f^1`$ configuration. We can check this assumption two ways. Firstly, we can look for the signature of localized $`4f^2`$ states in the range 200–300 meV where the $`{}_{}{}^{3}H_{4}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}H_{5}^{}`$ transition occurs . No peaks are observed. Second, we can directly determine the number of $`4f^1`$ states per Pr from the neutron cross-section via the sum rule for transitions within a $`J`$ multiplet . The measured zero-$`Q`$ cross-section integrated up to 220 meV, including the elastic scattering , is 240 mb sr-1Pr-1. This compares with the calculated value of $`182+99=281`$ mb sr-1Pr-1 for the $`J=\frac{5}{2}`$ multiplet . Thus, by including the broad scattering in the integral we recover almost all the missing intensity. Allowing a 10% uncertainty in the absolute calibration we conclude that $`90\pm 10`$% of the Pr ions have a localized $`4f^1`$ configuration. The intermultiplet transitions shown in Figs. 1(b) and (c) provide further support for this conclusion since the calculated cross-sections for $`4f^1`$ are in good agreement with the measured intensities.

In summary, our findings support a tetravalent model for PrO2 with an almost fully occupied atomic $`4f`$ orbital. The neutron data allow the possibility of $``$10% under-occupancy relative to a pure $`4f^1`$ configuration, and this may indicate a degree of covalency. Any other occupied states of $`f`$ symmetry must then be extended states in the O $`2p`$ valence band. These results rule out the strongly intermediate valence model for PrO2, and we anticipate that a similar picture will apply to CeO2 and TbO2. We find compelling evidence that magnetoelastic coupling in PrO2 creates a ground state with mixed electronic and vibrational degrees of freedom by means of a DJTE. Being an insulator with a simple structure, localized $`f`$ electrons and a large CEF splitting, PrO2 would seem an ideal model system for further studies of the DJTE.

We thank Mike Hayward for help with sample preparation, and the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council of Great Britain for financial support. P.S. thanks the Swiss NSF for financial support.


format: text

text:
# Compactified D=11 Supermembranes and Symplectic Non-Commutative Gauge Theories

## I Introduction

Noncommutative geometry in string theory with a nonzero B-field  has recently been discussed by several authors -. The relation of noncommutative Yang-Mills to Born-Infeld lagrangian was considered in ,  and general aspects of non-commutative gauge theories have been discussed in -. In ,the change of variables from ordinary to noncommutative Yang-Mills was explicitly found and the equivalence between the Born-Infeld action for ordinary Yang-Mills in the presence of a B-field and of a noncommutative Yang-Mills was proven.

In this work, we follow a different approach. We relate the double compactified D=11 closed supermembrane  dual - to a symplectic noncommutative gauge theory on the world volume minimally coupled to seven scalar fields representing the transverse coordinates to the brane.

We first show that there is a natural symplectic structure for the double compactified supermembrane with non trivial wrapping on the target space. It is defined by the minimal configurations of the hamiltonian  ,. In fact, the solutions when interpreted in terms of connection 1-forms over principle bundles satisfy the global condition

$${}_{}{}^{}F(A)=n.$$
(1)
On the other hand, it is known that for a given a symplectic structure over a manifold there always exists a globally defined deformation of the Poisson bracket. Moreover, even for Poisson manifolds it is possible to globally define a Moyal bracket  which leads to a non commutative geometry. Having this idea in mind, we show that the hamiltonian for the dual of the the double compactified supermembrane corresponds exactly to a Super-Maxwell theory of a symplectic connection on a symplectic fibration. The fibre being the space generated by transverse coordinates and its conjugate momenta to the brane in the target phase space. It is noticed that a deformation of the given geometrical structure in this theory will lead in a straightforward way to a non commutative (à la Moyal) gauge theory. The reformulation of the compactified $`D=11`$ supermembrane dual in terms of noncommutative gauge theories provides a different point of view to analyze fundamental properties of the supermembrane as discussed in , .

The steps taken in our formulation are as follow: we first construct the Hamiltonian for the doubly compactified supermembrane dual. The Hamiltonian minima are smooth configurations corresponding to $`U(1)`$ connections globally defined over the brane world volume. The curvature of these connections is a non degenerate 2-form that give rise to a well defined symplectic structure. The second step in our construction is then to introduce symplectic connections with its covariant derivatives in the compactified directions. The Hamiltonian reduces then to an exact symplectic non commutative Super Maxwell theory interacting with scalar fields.

## II Hamiltonian Formulation of the Double Compactified $`D=11`$ Supermembrane Dual

We consider the compactified $`D=11`$ closed supermembrane dual obtained in  and . The bosonic part of its action is given by

$$S(\gamma ,X,A)=\frac{1}{2}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }xR}d^3\xi \sqrt{\gamma }\left(\gamma ^{ij}_iX^m_jX^n\eta _{mn}+\frac{1}{2}\gamma ^{ij}\gamma ^{kl}F_{ik}^rF_{jl}^r1\right)$$
(2)
where $`X^m`$, $`m=1,\mathrm{},Dq`$ denote the maps from the world volume $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$x$`R`$ to the target space $`M_{Dq}x\underset{q}{\underset{}{S^1x\mathrm{}xS^1}}`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ been a compact (closed) Riemann surface. $`A_i^r`$, $`r=1,\mathrm{},q`$ denotes the components of the $`qU(1)`$ connection 1-forms over $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$x$`R`$. $`\gamma ^{ij}`$ is the auxiliary metric. We will be interested in the cases $`q=1`$ and $`q=2`$ the single and the double compactified case. The case $`q=0`$ correspond to the supermembrane action over $`M_{11}`$. The action (2) for the $`q=1`$ case is dual to the supermembrane with target space $`M_{10}`$x$`S^1`$, while the action for $`q=2`$ is dual to the supermembrane with target space $`M_9`$x$`S^1`$x$`S^1`$. The equivalence between the actions under duality transformations is valid off-shell. The functional integral formulations may be proven to be formally equivalent in both cases.

To obtain the hamiltonian formulation of the theory, we consider in the usual way, the ADM decomposition of the metric

| $`\gamma _{ab}=\beta _{ab}\gamma ^{ab}=\beta ^{ab}N^aN^bN^2`$ |
| --- |
| $`\gamma ^{0a}=N^aN^2\gamma _{0a}=\beta _{ab}N^b`$ |
| $`\gamma _{00}=N^2+\beta _{ab}N^aN^b\gamma ^{00}=N^2`$ |

(3)
and define $`\beta ^{ab}`$ by $`\beta ^{ab}\beta _{bc}=\delta _c^a`$

The light-cone gauge fixing conditions are

$$X^+=P_0^+𝒯P^+=P_0^+\sqrt{W}$$
(4)
where $`𝒯`$ is the time coordinate on the world volume and $`W`$ the determinant of the metric over $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ introduced through the gauge fixing condition only.

After elimination of $`X^{}`$ and $`P^{}`$ one obtains  the hamiltonian density

$$=\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{\sqrt{W}}\left(P^MP_M+\beta +\frac{1}{2}\beta \beta ^{ac}\beta ^{bd}F_{ab}^rF_{cd}^r\right)A_0^r\varphi _r+\mathrm{\Lambda }\varphi $$
(5)
where $`A_0^r`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are the Lagrange multipliers associated to the first class constraints

$$\varphi _r_a\mathrm{\Pi }_r^a=0$$
(6)
$$\varphi ϵ^{ab}_b\left[\frac{_aX^MP_M+\mathrm{\Pi }_r^cF_{ac}^r}{\sqrt{W}}\right]=0$$
(7)
$`\varphi `$ being the generator of the area preserving diffeomorphism. There is also a global constraint arising from the elimination of $`X^{}`$, this is

$$_c\left(\frac{_aX^MP_M+\mathrm{\Pi }_r^bF_{ab}^r}{\sqrt{W}}\right)𝑑\xi ^a=2\pi n_c$$
(8)
where $`c`$ is a basis of homology of dimension one. $`n_c`$ are integers associated to $`c`$.

$`\beta _{ab}`$ is the auxiliarly metric satisfying

$$\beta _{ab}=\left(1\beta ^1\mathrm{\Pi }_r^a\mathrm{\Pi }_r^b\beta _{ab}\right)^1\left(_aX^M_bX_M\beta ^1\mathrm{\Pi }_r^c\mathrm{\Pi }_r^d\beta _{ca}\beta _{db}\right)$$
(9)
where $`\beta `$ is the determinant of the matrix $`\beta _{ab}`$.

$`P_M`$ are the conjugate momenta associated to $`X^M`$. The index $`M`$ refer to the transverse coordinates in the light-cone decomposition of the target space. (7) and (8) arise from the integrability condition on the resolution for $`X^{}`$ and the further assumption that $`X^{}`$, winds up over $`S^1`$ with winding numbers $`n_c`$.

It is interesting to notice that the hamiltonian density (5) depends on the auxiliarly metric only through its determinant $`\beta `$. In fact

$$\beta F_{ab}^rF_{cd}^r\beta ^{ac}\beta ^{bd}=\frac{1}{2}W(^{}F^r)^2$$
(10)
where

$${}_{}{}^{}F_{}^{r}\frac{ϵ^{ab}}{\sqrt{W}}F_{ab}^r$$
(11)
is the Hodge dual to the curvature 2-form $`F^r`$.

The determinant $`\beta `$ may be obtained from (9) after some calculations, it has the following expressions

$$\beta =det(_aX^M_bX_M);M=1,\mathrm{},9$$
(12)
for the $`q=0`$ case ,

$$\beta =det(_aX^M_bX_M)+(\mathrm{\Pi }^a_aX^M)^2;M=1,\mathrm{},8$$
(13)
for the $`q=1`$ case and

$$\beta =det(_aX^M_bX_M)+(\mathrm{\Pi }_r^a_aX^M)^2+\frac{1}{4}(\mathrm{\Pi }_r^a\mathrm{\Pi }_s^bϵ_{ab}ϵ^{rs})^2;r=1,2;M=1,\mathrm{},7$$
(14)
for the $`q=2`$ case.

The hamiltonian densities obtained after replacing (13) and (14) into (5) may also be constructed in a more direct way from the hamiltonian density of the supermembrane in the LCG by using duality in the canonical approach directly without starting from the covariant formulation. Let us analyze briefly this point. We consider the canonical action of the supermembrane in the LCG  with target space $`M_9`$x$`S^1`$x$`S^1`$, its bosonic part is

$$_{SM}=\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{\sqrt{W}}(P^MP_M+det(_aX^M_bX_M))+\mathrm{\Lambda }ϵ^{ab}_b\left(\frac{_aX^MP_M}{\sqrt{W}}\right);M=1,..,9$$
(15)
Consider, first, one of the compactified coordinates taking values over $`S^1`$. It must satisfy

$$_c𝑑X=2\pi n_c$$
(16)
The terms involving that map in the canonical action are

$$P\dot{X}\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{\sqrt{W}}\left(P^2+ϵ^{ac}ϵ^{bd}_aX_bX_cX^N_dX^N\right)+_b\mathrm{\Lambda }ϵ^{ab}_aX.\frac{P}{\sqrt{W}}$$
(17)
where $`X^N`$ is different from $`X`$. We may then construct an equivalent constrained term

$$PL_0\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{\sqrt{W}}\left(P^2+ϵ^{ac}ϵ^{bd}L_aL_b_cX^N_dX^N\right)+_b\mathrm{\Lambda }ϵ^{ab}L_a\frac{P}{\sqrt{W}}$$
(18)
subject to

$$ϵ^{ca}_cL_a=0;_aL_0_0L_a=0$$
(19)
We may introduce them into the action (17) through the use of Lagrange multipliers, which we will denote $`A_0`$ and $`ϵ^{ab}A_b`$ respectively. We then recognize that the conjugate momenta to $`A_b`$ is

$$\mathrm{\Pi }^bϵ^{ab}L_a$$
(20)
After the elimination of $`L_0`$ we get

$$p=ϵ^{ab}_aA_b$$
(21)
(17) subject to (19) reduces then to

$$\mathrm{\Pi }^b\dot{A}_b\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{\sqrt{W}}\left[(ϵ^{ab}_aA_b)^2+\mathrm{\Pi }^c\mathrm{\Pi }^d_cX^N_dX_N\right]A_0_c\mathrm{\Pi }^c\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Pi }^b_b\left(\frac{ϵ^{cd}_cA_d}{\sqrt{W}}\right)$$
(22)
The terms (22) contribute together with the terms independent of $`X`$ and $`P`$ in (15) to give exactly the same expression of the hamiltonian density (5) and (13):

$`_D=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{W}}}(P^MP_M+det(_aX^M_bX_M)+(\mathrm{\Pi }^a_aX^M)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}W(^{}F)^2)`$ (24)
$`A_0_c\mathrm{\Pi }^c+\mathrm{\Lambda }ϵ^{ab}_b\left({\displaystyle \frac{_aX^MP_M+\mathrm{\Pi }^cF_{ac}}{\sqrt{W}}}\right);M=1,\mathrm{},8`$
(24) is also the hamiltonian density arising from the canonical formulation of the Born-Infeld action , it describes then the $`D2`$brane in 10 dimensions in the case of open supermembranes. If we now repeat the above procedure for the second compactified coordinate we obtain the following hamiltonian density

$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{W}}}(P^MP_M+det(_aX^M_bX_M)+(\mathrm{\Pi }_r^a_aX^M)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(\mathrm{\Pi }_r^a\mathrm{\Pi }_s^bϵ_{ab}ϵ^{rs})^2`$ (26)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}W(^{}F^r)^2)A^r_0_c\mathrm{\Pi }^c_r+\mathrm{\Lambda }ϵ^{ab}_b({\displaystyle \frac{_aX^MP_M+\mathrm{\Pi }_r^cF_{ac}^r}{\sqrt{W}}})`$
in complete agreement with (5) and (14) which were obtained from the canonical analysis of the covariant formulation of the theory. The equivalence between $`_{SM}`$, $`_D`$ and $``$ may be then established from the duality equivalence between the covariant formulations of the theories, or more directly from the duality equivalence of the gauge fixed canonical formulations in the LCG. The relation becomes non-trivial because the procedure of going from the covariant formulation to the LCG one involves the elimination of the auxiliarly metric which is an on-shell step while the duality equivalence are off-shell ones, they can be formally performed on the functional integral.

## III  The Minimal Configurations of the Hamiltonian

We will now analyze more in detail (26). Its supersymmetric extension may be obtained in an straightforward way from the supermembrane hamiltonian in the LCG by the procedure described above, we will write the resulting expression at the end of the analysis. We may solve explicitly the constraints on $`\mathrm{\Pi }_r^c`$ obtaining

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_r^c=ϵ^{cb}_b\mathrm{\Pi }_r;r=1,2$$
(27)
Defining the 2-form $`\omega `$ in terms of $`\mathrm{\Pi }_r`$ as

$$\omega =_a\mathrm{\Pi }_r_b\mathrm{\Pi }_sϵ^{rs}d\xi d\xi ^{},$$
(28)
the condition of non trivial membrane winding imposes a restriction on it, namely

$$_\mathrm{\Sigma }\omega =2\pi n.$$
(29)
With this condition on $`\omega `$, Weil’s theorem ensures that there always exist an associated $`U(1)`$ principal bundle over $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and a connection on it such that $`\omega `$ is its curvature. The minimal configurations for the hamiltonian (26) may be expressed in terms of such connections.

In  the minimal configurations of the hamiltonian of the double compactified supermembrane were obtained. In spite of the fact that the explicit expression (26) was not then obtained, all the minimal configurations were found. They correspond to $`\mathrm{\Pi }_r`$ = $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_r`$ satisfying

$${}_{}{}^{}\widehat{\omega }=ϵ^{ab}_a\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_r_b\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_sϵ^{rs}=n\sqrt{W}n0$$
(30)
The explicit expressions for $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_r`$ were obtained in that paper . As mentioned before, they correspond to $`U(1)`$ connections on non trivial principle bundles over $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. The principle bundle is characterized by the integer $`n`$ corresponding to an irreducible winding of the supermembrane . Moreover the semiclassical approximation of the hamiltonian density around the minimal configuration, was shown to agree with the hamiltonian density of super Maxwell theory on the world sheet, minimally coupled to the seven scalar fields representing the coordinates transverse to the world volume of the super-brane.

## IV The Symplectic Non-Commutative Formulation

Let us now analyze the geometrical structure of the constructed hamiltonian. We notice that the minimal configurations of the hamiltonian introduce a natural symplectic structure in the theory through the non degenerate 2-form $`\widehat{\omega }`$,

$$\widehat{\omega }=_a\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_r_b\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_sϵ^{rs}d\xi d\xi ^{}$$
(31)
Also, that $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_r^a`$ is an invertible matrix. It allows to define the metric $`W_{ab}`$ on the world volume.

$$W_{ab}=2_a\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_r_b\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_r$$
(32)
Its determinant takes the value

$$detW_{ab}=n^2W,$$
(33)
and its inverse is given by

$$n^2W^{ab}=\frac{ϵ^{ac}}{\sqrt{W}}\frac{ϵ^{bd}}{\sqrt{W}}W_{cd}=\frac{2}{\sqrt{W}}\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_r^a\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_r^b$$
(34)
Furthermore, we introduce the covariant derivative $`D_a`$ with respect to this metric $`W_{ab}`$, it then follows that

$$D_aW=0;D_a\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_r^b=0$$
(35)
We now define the rotated covariant derivatives in terms of tangent space coordinates in the compactified directions:

$$D_r\frac{\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_r^a}{\sqrt{W}}D_a.$$
(36)
We may now perform a canonical transformation in order to introduce a symplectic connection $`𝒜_r`$in our formalism. The kinetic term

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_r^a\dot{A}_a^r$$
(37)
may then be rewritten as

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_r^a\dot{A}_a^r=ϵ^{ab}_bA_a^r\dot{\mathrm{\Pi }}_r=\Pi ^r\dot{𝒜}_r$$
(38)
where we have introduced

$$\Pi ^rϵ^{ab}_bA_a^r$$
(39)
$$𝒜_r\mathrm{\Pi }_r𝒞_r$$
(40)
where $`𝒞_r`$ is a time independent geometrical object, which will be defined shortly. They satisfy the following Poisson bracket relation

$$\{𝒜_r(\xi ),\Pi ^r(\xi ^{})\}_P=\delta (\xi ,\xi ^{}).$$
(41)
The symplectic non commutative derivative $`𝒟_r`$ may be defined now as

$$𝒟_rD_r+\{𝒜_r,\}$$
(42)
where the bracket $`\{,\}`$ is defined as follows

$$\{,\}\frac{2ϵ^{sr}}{n}D_rD_s=\frac{ϵ^{ba}}{\sqrt{W}}D_aD_b;n0$$
(43)
We remark that these symplectic non commutative derivatives behave as symplectic connections on a symplectic fibration over $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ with the phase space $`(X^M,P^M)(\xi )`$ being the fibre. The gauge transformations generated by the first class constraint (area preserving diffeomorphisms in the base manifold $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$) preserve the Poisson bracket in the fibre . The symplectic non commutative derivatives preserve, in turn, the same structure, i.e the symplectic non commutative derivatives of the fields transform under gauge transformations in the same way as the fields and the holonomies generated by the symplectic connections preserve the Poisson bracket in the fibre. These properties may be checked out by straightforward calculations. In particular, $`\delta 𝒜_r`$ = $`𝒟_r\xi `$ under infinitesimal gauge transformations with parameter $`\xi `$.

Without loss of generality we rewrite (40) as

$$\mathrm{\Pi }^r=𝒜_r+\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_r$$
(44)
We then have for the terms in (26),

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{W}}}\mathrm{\Pi }_r^a_aX^M=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{W}}}\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_r^a_aX^M+{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ^{ab}}{\sqrt{W}}}_b𝒜_r_aX^M`$ (45)
$`=`$ $`D_rX^M+\{𝒜_r,X^M\}=𝒟_rX^M,`$ (46)
$$det_aX^M_bX_M=\frac{1}{2}_aX^M_cX^N_bX_M_dX_Nϵ^{ac}ϵ^{bd}=\frac{1}{2}W\{X^M,X^N\}^2,$$
(47)
$`\mathrm{\Pi }_r^a\mathrm{\Pi }_s^bϵ_{ab}ϵ^{rs}=`$ $`n\sqrt{W}2\sqrt{W}D_r𝒜_sϵ^{rs}+ϵ^{bc}_b𝒜_r_c𝒜_sϵ^{rs}`$ (48)
$`=`$ $`n\sqrt{W}ϵ^{rs}\sqrt{W}\left(D_r𝒜_sD_s𝒜_r+\{𝒜_r,𝒜_s\}\right)`$ (49)
$`=`$ $`(n{}_{}{}^{})\sqrt{W},`$ (50)
where

$`{}_{}{}^{}`$ $`ϵ^{rs}_{rs}`$ (51)
$`_{rs}`$ $`D_r𝒜_sD_s𝒜_r+\{𝒜_r,𝒜_s\}`$ (52)
Finally, the generator of area preserving diffeomorphisms

$$\varphi ϵ^{ab}_b\left(\frac{_aX^MP_M+\mathrm{\Pi }_r^cF_{ac}^r}{\sqrt{W}}\right)$$
(53)
may be expressed as

$$\varphi =𝒟_r\Pi ^r+\{X^M,P_M\}$$
(54)
The hamiltonian density (26) may then be rewritten

$`H={\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Sigma }}={\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Sigma }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{W}}}[(P^M)^2+(\Pi ^r)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}W\{X^M,X^N\}^2+W(𝒟_rX^M)^2`$ (55)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}W(_{rs})^2]+{\displaystyle }_\mathrm{\Sigma }[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\sqrt{W}n^2\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝒟_r\Pi ^r+\{X^M,P_M\})]`$ (56)
where the following global condition has been imposed

$$_\mathrm{\Sigma }{}_{}{}^{}\sqrt{W}d^2\xi =0$$
(57)
The hamiltonian (56) may be extended to include the fermionic terms of the supersymmetric theory. They may be obtained from the hamiltonian of the supermembrane in  by the dual approach discussed previously. They are

$$_\mathrm{\Sigma }\sqrt{W}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\{\overline{\theta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{},\theta \}\overline{\theta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_r𝒟_r\theta +\overline{\theta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_M\{X^M,\theta \}\right)$$
(58)
where $`\theta `$ is the Majorana spinor of the original formulation of the supermembrane in the LCG in D=11 which may be decomposed in terms of a complex 8-component spinor of $`SO(7)`$x$`U(1)`$.

The hamiltonian (56) corresponds then exactly to a symplectic non-commutative super-Maxwell theory on the world volume minimally coupled to seven scalar fields $`X^M`$, $`M=1,\mathrm{},7`$. The generator of area preserving diffeomorphisms becomes the generator of gauge transformations. In distinction to the star product defined in  which depends on a constant large background antisymmetric field of the string which couples to the $`U(1)`$ gauge fields of the D-brane, the symplectic non commutative product here is intrinsically constructed from the minimal configurations of the hamiltonian density which are unique (up to closed 1-forms) for each given $`n`$ and related to the natural symplectic structure of the world volume Riemann surface. This theory may be interpreted geometrically as a symplectic fibration over a Riemann surface, with fibre given by the symplectic phase space manifold generated by the transverse coordinate to the brane in the target space. Its symplectic structure being preserved under symplectomorphism induced by the first class constraint of the theory. The connection $`𝒟_r`$ is a symplectic connection on this symplectic fibration, i.e. the associated holonomies preserve the symplectic structure in the fibres . Whether this symplectic fibration with a symplectic connection could be globally extended in a consistent manner to a type of Moyal non commutative gauge theory is an open question. As commented before, one can always globally deform the Poisson bracket in the fibration base space to a Moyal bracket, but it is not necessarily true that the symplectic structure on the fibre could be extended in the same way and, moreover, be preserved under holonomies.

## V Conclusions

We have formulated the double compactified $`D=11`$ supermembrane dual with non trivial irreducible winding as a symplectic non commutative Super Maxwell theory, i.e as an exact symplectic fibration over a compact Riemann Surface with a symplectic connection. The connection dynamics being governed by a hamiltonian that resembles that of a Maxwell theory. We emphasize that our construction is globally defined. Also, we remark that the symplectic non-commutative gauge theory we have introduced relies on the nonsingular minimal configuration of the hamiltonian (26), where the assumption $`n0`$ is essential. The minimal configuration obtained in  correspond to the monopole connection 1-forms over Riemann surfaces  which may also be obtained from a suitable pullback to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ of the connection 1-forms on the Hopf fibring over $`CP_n`$ . Its curvature is a non degenerate closed 2-form defining a natural symplectic structure over $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. The equivalence between the hamiltonian (26) of the double compactified D=11 supermembrane dual and the hamiltonian (56) of the symplectic non-commutative geometry is exact.

## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I. Martin and A. Restuccia thank the kind hospitality of the Imperial College’s Theoretical Group and the King’s College Mathematics Department, respectively, where part of this work was done.


text:
# New Tests of Macroscopic Local Realism using Continuous Variable Measurements

## I Introduction

In 1935 Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen  (EPR) formulated an argument, now experimentally realised , in an attempt to show that quantum mechanics is an incomplete theory. The EPR argument is based on the premise of local realism. Bell  in 1966 showed that the premise of local realism (local hidden variable theories) was incompatible quantum mechanics. “Local realism” has now been essentially disproved by experiments  based on Bell’s theorem or those of Greenberger, Horne and Zeilinger (GHZ) .

To date the EPR and Bell theorems and experimental efforts primarily focus on measurements intrinsically microscopic, in that one requires to clearly distinguish between results (eigenvalues of the appropriate quantum operator) which are microscopically distinct. (An exception to this is the work of Peres .) Previous results  have indicated failure of local realism for macroscopic systems, but the violations are still apparently only indicated where measurements must resolve microscopically different results, such as adjacent photon number or spin values. It is not clear whether one is testing a premise different to that tested in the microscopic experiments.

We propose a strategy for testing local realism at a macroscopic level, in the sense emphasised by Schrodinger  in his famous “cat” paradox and also by Leggett and Garg , where one considers macroscopically distinct outcomes. We define in section 2 the premise of “macroscopic local realism” , in such a way that it relates to the Schrodinger-cat example of macroscopically distinct states.

In section 3 we present an EPR argument based on the validity of “macroscopic local realism”, which has not yet been questioned. We suggest that modifications to an experiment already performed by Ou et al  would realise this macroscopic EPR argument and would leave no logical alternative except to deny the validity of macroscopic local realism or else to accept the incompleteness of quantum mechanics, in the sense proposed by EPR.

In section 4 we present a quantum state which allows a violation of a Bell-inequality even where all uncertainties in measurements are macroscopic, and show how this implies a predicted failure of macroscopic local realism.

## II Definition of Macroscopic Local Realism

In 1935 Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen  defined “local realism”. “Realism” implies that if one can predict with certainty the result of a measurement of a physical quantity at $`A`$, without disturbing the system $`A`$, then the results of the measurement were predetermined. One has an “element of reality” corresponding to this physical quantity. The element of reality is a variable which assumes one of a set of values which are the predicted results of the measurement. This value gives the result of the measurement, should it be performed. Locality states that events at $`A`$ cannot, instantaneously, disturb a second system at $`B`$ spatially separated from $`A`$. Taken together “local realism” implies that, if one can predict the result of a measurement of a physical quantity at $`A`$, by making a simultaneous measurement at $`B`$, then the result of the measurement at $`A`$ is described by an element of reality.

EPR assumed quantum mechanics to be correct in predicting the existence of two spatially separated particles with correlated positions, and also correlated momenta. The key quantity in establishing the EPR argument is the precision (call the associated error $`\mathrm{\Delta })`$ to which the result of the potential position measurement at $`A`$ can be inferred by the measurement at $`B`$. This specifies an associated indeterminacy (error $`\mathrm{\Delta })`$ in the “element of reality” $`x`$. In the original EPR gedanken example, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is zero. “Local realism” establishes two “elements of reality”, $`x`$ and $`p`$ which simultaneously exist to give precisely the result of a potential position or momentum measurement, respectively. No description of this nature exists within quantum mechanics, since any quantum wavefunction gives an indeterminacy $`\mathrm{\Delta }x`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }p`$ in position and momentum respectively, in accordance with the uncertainty relation $`\mathrm{\Delta }x\mathrm{\Delta }p\mathrm{}/2`$. In this way, the EPR argument, based on the validity of “local realism”, allows one to conclude that quantum mechanics is incomplete.

Macroscopic local realism  is defined as a premise stating the following. If one can predict the result of a measurement at $`A`$ by performing a simultaneous measurement on a spatially separated system $`B`$, then the result of the measurement at $`A`$ is predetermined but described by an element of reality which has an indeterminacy in each of its possible values, so that only values macroscopically different to those predicted are excluded.

Macroscopic local realism is based on a “macroscopic locality”, which states that measurements at a location $`B`$ cannot instantaneously induce macroscopic changes (for example the dead to alive state of a cat, or a change between macroscopically different photon numbers) in a second system $`A`$ spatially separated from $`B`$. Macroscopic local realism also incorporates a “macroscopic realism”, since it implies elements of reality with (up to) a macroscopic indeterminacy. Suppose our “Schrodinger’s cat ” is correlated with a second spatially separated system, for example a gun used to kill the cat. The strength of macroscopic local realism is understood when one realises that its rejection in this example means we cannot think of the cat as being either dead or alive, even though we can predict the dead or alive result of “measuring” the cat, without disturbing the cat, by measurement on the correlated spatially-separated second system.

## III An EPR Argument based on Macroscopic Local Realism

We consider a new EPR situation, depicted in Figure 1, where uncertainties in “elements of reality” become macroscopic. The $`\widehat{a}_\pm `$ and $`\widehat{b}_\pm `$ are boson operators for four fields, described by the quantum state $`|\psi `$. Fields $`\widehat{a}_\pm `$ and $`\widehat{b}_\pm `$ propagate towards the spatially separated locations $`A`$ and $`B`$ respectively. We measure simultaneously at $`A`$ and $`B`$ the Schwinger spin operators

$`\widehat{S}_\theta ^A`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{S}_x^A\mathrm{cos}\theta +\widehat{S}_y^A\mathrm{sin}\theta `$ (1)
$`=`$ $`(\widehat{a}_+^{}\widehat{a}_{}\mathrm{exp}(i\theta )+\widehat{a}_+\widehat{a}_{}^{}\mathrm{exp}(i\theta ))/2`$ (2)
and

$`\widehat{S}_\varphi ^B`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{S}_x^B\mathrm{cos}\varphi +\widehat{S}_y^B\mathrm{sin}\varphi `$ (3)
$`=`$ $`(\widehat{b}_+^{}\widehat{b}_{}\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi )+\widehat{b}_+\widehat{b}_{}^{}\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi ))/2`$ (4)
respectively, where $`\widehat{S}_x^A=(\widehat{a}_+^{}\widehat{a}_{}+\widehat{a}_{}^{}\widehat{a}_+)/2,\widehat{S}_y^A=(\widehat{a}_+^{}\widehat{a}_{}\widehat{a}_{}^{}\widehat{a}_+)/2i`$ and $`\widehat{S}_z^A=(\widehat{a}_+^{}\widehat{a}_+\widehat{a}_{}^{}\widehat{a}_{})/2`$, and similarly for the modes at $`B`$.

We propose to measure, at $`A`$, $`\widehat{S}_x^A`$ or $`\widehat{S}_y^A`$, by selecting $`\theta =0`$ or $`\theta =\pi /2`$. At $`B`$ the measurement is either $`S_x^B`$ or $`S_y^B`$. In Figure 1 the measurement at $`A`$ is performed by first mixing $`\widehat{a}_\pm `$ using phase shifts and beam splitters to give two new fields $`\widehat{a}_{}^{^{}}=(\widehat{a}_{}\widehat{a}_+)/\sqrt{2}`$ and $`\widehat{a}_+^{^{}}=i(\widehat{a}_{}+\widehat{a}_+)/\sqrt{2}`$. Similarly $`\widehat{b}_\pm `$ are mixed to give outputs $`\widehat{b}_\pm ^{^{}}`$. The fields $`a_+,b_+`$ are coherent states of large amplitude. The mixing is incorporated so that both fields, $`\widehat{a}_\pm ^{^{}}`$ say at $`A`$, incident on the measuring apparatus are macroscopic. The final measurements are made with the transformations (using polarisers or beam splitters with variable transmission) $`c_+=\widehat{a}_+^{^{}}\mathrm{cos}\theta /2+\widehat{a}_{}^{^{}}\mathrm{sin}\theta /2`$ and $`c_{}=\widehat{a}_+^{^{}}\mathrm{sin}\theta /2\widehat{a}_{}^{^{}}\mathrm{cos}\theta /2`$, at $`A`$, and $`d_+=\widehat{b}_+^{^{}}\mathrm{cos}\varphi /2+\widehat{b}_{}^{^{}}\mathrm{sin}\varphi /2`$ and $`d_{}=\widehat{b}_+^{^{}}\mathrm{sin}\varphi /2\widehat{b}_{}^{^{}}\mathrm{cos}\varphi /2`$, at $`B`$, followed by photodetection to give $`\widehat{S}_\theta ^A=(\widehat{c}_+^{}\widehat{c}_+\widehat{c}_{}^{}\widehat{c}_{})/2`$ and $`\widehat{S}_\varphi ^B=(\widehat{d}_+^{}\widehat{d}_+\widehat{d}_{}^{}\widehat{d}_{})/2`$. The measurement is one of photon number, and we define $`\widehat{n}_\theta ^A=2\widehat{S}_\theta ^A=\widehat{c}_+^{}\widehat{c}_+\widehat{c}_{}^{}\widehat{c}_{}`$ and $`\widehat{n}_\varphi =2\widehat{S}_\varphi ^B=\widehat{d}_+^{}\widehat{d}_+\widehat{d}_{}^{}\widehat{d}_{}`$.

In Figure 2 we demonstrate how the measurement $`\widehat{S}_\theta ^A`$ can be performed using an alternative arrangement, by introducing a relative phase shift $`\theta `$ and mixing with a $`50/50`$ beam splitter to produce $`\widehat{c}_\pm ^{^{}}=\left(\widehat{a}_+\pm \widehat{a}_{}\mathrm{exp}(i\theta )\right)/\sqrt{2}`$, followed by photodetection to give $`\widehat{S}_\theta ^A=(\widehat{c}_+^{{}_{}{}^{}}\widehat{c}_+^{^{}}\widehat{c}_{}^{{}_{}{}^{}}\widehat{c}_{}^{^{}})/2`$. It is to be clarified below that this measurement scheme corresponds to homodyne measurement  (used  to detect subshot noise, or “squeezed”, radiation) of the quadrature phase amplitudes of $`a_{}`$ and $`b_{}`$.

For certain systems the results for $`\widehat{S}_x^A`$ and $`\widehat{S}_x^B`$, and also $`\widehat{S}_y^A`$ and $`\widehat{S}_y^B`$, are predicted by quantum mechanics to be correlated, so that elements of reality may be deduced for the physical quantities $`S_x^A`$ and $`S_y^A`$ respectively. We consider the relevant uncertainty relation for $`\widehat{S}_x^A`$ and $`\widehat{S}_y^A`$ .

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{S}_x^A\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{S}_y^A\left|\widehat{S}_z^A\right|/2=(\widehat{a}_+^{}\widehat{a}_+\widehat{a}_{}^{}\widehat{a}_{})/4$$
(5)
Fields $`\widehat{a}_+`$ and $`\widehat{b}_+`$ are coherent states $`|\alpha >`$ and $`|\beta >`$ respectively with $`\alpha =\beta =E`$ real and large, so that $`\widehat{a}_+`$ is replaced by c-number $`E`$ giving

$`\widehat{S}_x^A`$ $`=`$ $`E\left(\widehat{a}_{}+\widehat{a}_{}^{}\right)/2=E\widehat{X}_0^A/2`$ (6)
$`\widehat{S}_y^A`$ $`=`$ $`E\left(\widehat{a}_{}\widehat{a}_{}^{}\right)/2i=E\widehat{X}_{\pi /2}^A/2`$ (7)
where $`\widehat{X}_0^A=\widehat{a}_{}+\widehat{a}_{}^{}`$ and $`\widehat{X}_{\pi /2}^A=\left(\widehat{a}_{}\widehat{a}_{}^{}\right)/i`$ are quadrature phase amplitudes. We denote the indeterminacy in the “element of reality” $`s_x^A`$ by $`\mathrm{\Delta }_x`$, and in the “element of reality” $`s_y^A`$ by $`\mathrm{\Delta }_y`$. In order to exclude the possibility that the “elements of reality” cannot be described by a quantum wavefunction, it is sufficient to establish (here $`\widehat{a}_+^{}\widehat{a}_+>>\widehat{a}_{}^{}\widehat{a}_{}`$)

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_x\mathrm{\Delta }_y<\left|\widehat{S}_z^A\right|/2=E^2/4$$
(8)
The new feature of this EPR situation is the macroscopic nature of the minimum uncertainty product: $`2\left|\widehat{S}_z^A\right|=E^2`$ is a macroscopic (photon) number. The implication is that one need only use the premise of “macroscopic local realism”, rather than local realism in its entirety, to arrive at the conclusion that quantum mechanics is incomplete. With “macroscopic local realism”, one can only exclude the possibility of macroscopic changes to the system at $`A`$, as a result of measurements made at $`B`$. One can predict with some error ($`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$ say for the $`x`$ and $`y`$ spin components respectively) the result of the spin measurement at $`A`$. By macroscopic local realism, the spin is predetermined, but only to a precision which excludes values macroscopically different to those in the range predicted. The “element of reality” for the $`x`$ component of spin has a range of possible values, given by $`\pm \mathrm{\Delta }_x`$ where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_x=\mathrm{\Delta }_1+\delta `$ and $`\delta `$ is microscopic or mesoscopic. The “element of reality” for the $`y`$ component has an indeterminacy $`\pm \mathrm{\Delta }_y`$ where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_y=\mathrm{\Delta }_2+\delta `$. This can still be sufficient to imply the EPR criterion (5) since the uncertainty limit $`E^2`$ is a macroscopic number. We only require for example the differences $`E/2\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$ and $`E/2\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$ to be macroscopic numbers and we satisfy (5).

To meet the situation of a macroscopic EPR experiment, where macroscopic local realism is used in the EPR conclusions, one needs $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1\mathrm{\Delta }_2<\left|\widehat{S}_z^A\right|/2=E^2/4`$ satisfied, but where $`2\left|\widehat{S}_z^A\right|=E^2`$, and $`2(E/2\mathrm{\Delta }_1)`$ and $`2(E/2\mathrm{\Delta }_2)`$ are macroscopic photon numbers. From the point of view of performing an experiment which is convincingly macroscopic, the preference would be to satisfy these criteria where measurement errors, and therefore also $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$, are also large (photon) numbers.

So far we have assumed the existence of the required correlations for the spin operators. Such correlated fields are predicted when $`a_{},b_{}`$ are fields with “EPR correlations” for quadrature phase amplitudes, and $`a_+,b_+`$ are strong coherent fields. EPR correlations for quadrature phase amplitudes were defined in , and have received much interest as fields enabling quantum teleportation for continuous variables . EPR fields may be generated by the parametric interaction $`H=i\mathrm{}\kappa \left(\widehat{a}_{}^{}\widehat{b}_{}^{}\widehat{a}_{}\widehat{b}_{}\right)`$, where here $`\kappa `$ represents the strength of nonlinear interaction. This two-mode squeezed light represents the logical choice for the quantum state $`|\varphi >`$ in figure 1. (It is possible to generate the required EPR correlations from a single-mode squeezed state passed using a $`50/50`$ beam splitter .)

Using the parametric example, we consider the quadrature phase amplitudes $`\widehat{X}_0^A,\widehat{X}_{\pi /2}^A`$, and $`\widehat{X}_0^B`$, $`\widehat{X}_{\pi /2}^B`$ where $`\widehat{X}_0^B=b_{}+b_{}^{}`$ and $`\widehat{X}_{\pi /2}^B=\left(\widehat{b}_{}\widehat{b}_{}^{}\right)/i`$. With vacuum inputs, the output solutions after a time $`t`$, for $`\kappa t\mathrm{}`$, satisfy $`\widehat{X}_0^A\left(t\right)=\widehat{X}_0^B\left(t\right)`$ and $`\widehat{X}_{\pi /2}^A\left(t\right)=\widehat{X}_{\pi /2}^B\left(t\right)`$, indicating a maximum correlation between the results of measurements $`\widehat{X}_0^A\left(t\right)`$ and $`\widehat{X}_0^B\left(t\right)`$, and also $`\widehat{X}_{\pi /2}^A\left(t\right)`$ and $`\widehat{X}_{\pi /2}^B\left(t\right).`$ The $`\widehat{a}_+,\widehat{b}_+`$ fields are coherent states $`|\alpha `$ and $`|\beta `$ of large intensity so that $`\widehat{S}_x^A=\alpha \widehat{X}_0^A(t)/2`$, $`\widehat{S}_x^B=\beta \widehat{X}_0^B(t)/2`$, $`\widehat{S}_y^A=\alpha \widehat{X}_{\pi /2}^A(t)/2`$ and $`\widehat{S}_y^B=\beta \widehat{X}_{\pi /2}^B(t)/2`$, and we have the required correlations. The reader is referred to articles  for information on the evaluation of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$.

The macroscopic EPR experiment performed with results in accordance with quantum mechanics would logically lead to the conclusion that: either macroscopic local realism is invalid; or that quantum mechanics is incomplete. EPR experiments have perhaps not yet been widely considered important in their own right, since previously they have been based on local realism, a premise dismissed by Bell inequality experiments. (Actually this is not quite correct, since detector inefficiencies have prevented a true violation of a Bell inequality. Proposed EPR quadrature experiments do not suffer this problem). In our macroscopic example this is not correct. The validity of macroscopic local realism has not been tested.

The macroscopic EPR experiment has been performed in a partly satisfactory way by Ou et al , with the arrangement of Figure 2. For a conclusive result the arrangement of Figure 1 is preferred. The experimental scheme of Ou et al suffers the disadvantage that fields $`a_{},b_{}`$ are microscopic. This is irrelevant in that the quantity measured, and to which the elements of reality relate, is not $`\widehat{X}_\theta ^A`$ but $`\widehat{S}_\theta ^A`$. Nevertheless, the microscopic nature of $`\widehat{a}_{},\widehat{b}_{}`$ incident on the measurement apparatus gives the impression of a microscopic experiment. The scheme of Figure 1 where both fields incident on the measurement apparatus are macroscopic is more transparent, making it clear that the “local oscillator” fields $`a_+,b_+`$ form part of the system. It is also essential to ensure measurement events (the selection of $`\theta `$ or $`\varphi `$) at $`A`$ and $`B`$ causally separated, as in delayed-choice Bell inequality experiments . Since a wide variety of squeezing experiments have been performed, including squeezing in pulsed fields, an experimental realisation of the macroscopic EPR experiment would seem very feasible.

## IV A Direct Test of Macroscopic Local Realism: Bell Inequalities based on Macroscopic Local Realism

We prove that for coarse measurements with macroscopic uncertainties, Bell inequalities can be derived using only the premise of macroscopic local realism . Our proposed experiment is again depicted in Figure 1,, except that the quantum state $`|\varphi >`$ will be chosen differently. The parametric interaction used as a source for EPR correlations in the Ou et al experiment is not directly siutable for this experiment, as in this case a positive Wigner function exists. This positive Wigner function can act as a local hidden variable theory to describe the quantum predictions , and thus prevent a violation of a Bell inequality as we derive here. With an appropriate choice of quantum state then, we measure simultaneously.

We measure simultaneously at $`A`$ and $`B`$ the Schwinger operators $`\widehat{S}_\theta ^A`$ and $`\widehat{S}_\varphi ^B`$. The result for the photon number differences $`\widehat{n}_\theta ^A`$ and $`\widehat{n}_\varphi ^B`$ is of the form $`n+noise`$, where $`n`$ is the result in the absence of the noise. We introduce a random noise function (gaussian distribution of standard deviation $`\sigma `$) at each of $`A`$ and $`B`$, and define probabilities such as $`P^A(noisex)`$, that the $`noise`$ at $`A`$ is greater than or equal to the value $`x`$.

The results of measurements are classified as $`+1`$ if the photon number difference is positive or zero, and $`1`$ otherwise. We determine the following probability distributions: $`P_+^A(\theta )`$ for obtaining $`+`$ at $`A`$; $`P_+^B(\varphi )`$ for obtaining $`+`$ at $`B`$; and $`P_{++}^{AB}(\theta ,\varphi )`$ the joint probability of $`+`$ at both $`A`$ and $`B`$.

We define the probability $`P_{ij}^{0,AB}(\theta ,\varphi )`$ for obtaining results $`i`$ and $`j`$ respectively upon joint measurement of $`\widehat{n}_\theta ^A`$ at $`A`$, and $`\widehat{n}_\varphi ^B`$ at $`B`$, in the absence of the applied noise $`\sigma `$. With noise present, measured probabilities become

$$P_{++}^{AB}(\theta ,\varphi )=\underset{i,j=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}P_{ij}^{0,AB}(\theta ,\varphi )P^A(noisei)P^B(noisej)$$
(9)
Local realism as defined by Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen, Bell and Clauser-Horne  implies the well known expression.

$$P_{ij}^{0,AB}(\theta ,\varphi )=\rho (\lambda )p_i^A(\theta ,\lambda )p_j^B(\varphi ,\lambda )d\lambda $$
(10)
Local realism implies a set of elements of reality, or hidden variables $`\lambda `$ (with probability distribution $`\rho (\lambda )`$), not specified by quantum theory. For our experiment, a precise prediction of $`\widehat{n}_\theta ^A`$ is not possible given a measurement at $`B`$, for any choice $`\varphi `$ at $`B`$. The elements of reality then do not take on definite values and local realism is only sufficient to imply a probability $`p_i^A(\theta ,\lambda )`$ for the result $`i`$ of the measurement $`\widehat{n}_\theta ^A`$, for a given $`\lambda `$. The independence of $`p_i^A(\theta ,\lambda )`$ on $`\varphi `$ is based on the locality assumption.

With macroscopic local realism the locality condition is relaxed, but only up to the level of $`M`$ photons, where $`M`$ is not macroscopic, by maintaining that the measurement at $`B`$ cannot instantaneously change the result at $`A`$ by an amount exceeding $`M`$ photons. Where our predicted result at $`A`$ is $`i^{^{}}`$ using local realism, macroscopic local realism allows the result to be $`i=i^{^{}}+m_A`$ where $`m_A`$ can be any number not macroscopic. Importantly, while $`i^{^{}}`$ is not dependent on the choice $`\varphi `$ at $`B`$, the value $`m_A`$ which is not macroscopic can be. The macroscopic local realism assumption is that the conditional probability $`p_i^A(\theta ,\lambda )`$ in equation (7) is expressible as the convolution:

$$p_i^A(\theta ,\varphi ,\lambda )=\underset{m_A=M}{\overset{+M}{}}p_{m_A}^A(i^{^{}},\theta ,\varphi ,\lambda )p_{i^{}=im_A}^A(\theta ,\lambda ).$$
(11)
The original local probability $`p_i^{}^A(\theta ,\lambda )`$ can be convolved with a microscopic nonlocal probability function $`p_{m_A}^A(i^{^{}},\theta ,\varphi ,\lambda )`$, the only restriction being that the nonlocal distribution does not provide macroscopic perturbations, so that the probability of getting a nonlocal change outside the range $`m_A=M,\mathrm{},+M`$ is zero. Equivalently we must have

$$\underset{m_A=M}{\overset{M}{}}p_{m_A}^A(i^{^{}},\theta ,\varphi ,\lambda )=1.$$
(12)
We substitute the macroscopic locality assumption (8) into (7) to obtain the prediction for the measured probabilities (6). Recalling $`i=i^{}+m_A`$, $`j=j^{}+m_B`$ we change the $`i`$, $`j`$ summation to one over $`i^{}`$, $`j^{}`$ to get

$`P_{++}^{AB}(\theta ,\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i^{},j^{}=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \rho (\lambda )p_i^{}^A(\theta ,\lambda )}`$ (13)
$`\times `$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \underset{m_A=M}{\overset{M}{}}}p_{m_A}^A(i^{^{}},\theta ,\varphi ,\lambda )p_j^{}^B(\varphi ,\lambda )P^A(noise(i^{}+m_A))\right].`$ (14)
$`\times `$ $`[{\displaystyle \underset{m_B=M}{\overset{M}{}}}.p_{m_B}^B(j^{^{}},\varphi ,\theta ,\lambda )P^B(noise(j^{}+m_B))]d\lambda `$ (15)
We assume that the noise function $`noise`$ is slowly varying over the microscopic (or mesoscopic) range $`m_A,..+m_A`$ for which nonlocal perturbations are possible according to macroscopic local realism:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{m_A=M}{\overset{M}{}}}p_{m_A}^A(i^{^{}},\theta ,\varphi ,\lambda )P^A(noise(i^{}+m_A))`$ (16)
$`P^A(noisei^{}){\displaystyle \underset{m_A=M}{\overset{M}{}}}p_{m_A}^A(i^{^{}},\theta ,\varphi ,\lambda ).`$ (17)
This is only valid if $`\sigma `$ is macroscopic. Using (11), one simplifies to get the final form $`P_{++}^{AB}(\theta ,\varphi )=_{i^{},j^{}}\rho (\lambda )p_i^{}^A(\theta ,\lambda )p_j^{}^B(\varphi ,\lambda )𝑑\lambda \times P^A(noisei^{})P^B(noisej^{})`$. This prediction of the hidden variable theory is now given in a (local) form like that of (7), from which Bell- Clauser-Horne inequalities  follow, for example:

$$S=\frac{P_{++}^{AB}(\theta ,\varphi )P_{++}^{AB}(\theta ,\varphi ^{})+P_{++}^{AB}(\theta ^{},\varphi )+P_{++}^{AB}(\theta ^{},\varphi ^{})}{P_+^A(\theta ^{})+P_+^B(\varphi )}1.$$
(18)
Violation of Bell inequalities (12) with macroscopic noise terms ($`\sigma `$ macroscopic) is evidence of a failure of macroscopic local realism. We propose a quantum state with this property ($`I_0`$ is a modified Bessel function, $`r_0=1.1`$).

$$|\psi =[I_0(2r_0^2)]^{1/2}|\alpha >_{a_+}|\beta >_{b_+}\left(\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(r_0^2)^n}{n!}|n>_a_{}|n>_b_{}\right).$$
(19)
$`|\alpha >_{a_+}`$ and $`|\beta >_{b_+}`$ are coherent states with $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$ real and large. $`|n>_k`$ is a Fock state for field $`k`$. The fields $`\widehat{a}_{}`$ and $`\widehat{b}_{}`$ are microscopic and are generated in a pair-coherent state . The quantum prediction for (13) is shown in Figure 3. Violations of the Bell inequality (12) in the absence of $`noise`$ are shown in curve (a). Violations are still possible (curve (b)) in the presence of increasingly larger absolute noise $`\sigma `$, simply by increasing $`\alpha =\beta =E`$. This violation of the Bell inequality (12) with macroscopic noise $`\sigma `$ implies the failure of macroscopic local realism.

The large $`\alpha `$,$`\beta `$ limit is crucial in determining whether the violation of macroscopic local realism will occur. We see from (1) and (2) that (letting $`\alpha =\beta =E`$) $`\widehat{S}_\theta ^A=E\widehat{X}_\theta ^A/2`$ and $`\widehat{S}_\varphi ^B=E\widehat{X}_\varphi ^B/2`$, where $`\widehat{X}_\theta ^A=\widehat{a}_{}exp(i\theta )+\widehat{a}_{}^{}exp(i\theta )`$ and $`\widehat{X}_\varphi ^B=\widehat{b}_{}exp(i\varphi )+\widehat{b}_{}^{}exp(i\varphi )`$ are the quadrature phase amplitudes of fields $`\widehat{a}_{}`$ and $`\widehat{b}_{}`$. Violations of Bell inequalities for measurements $`\widehat{X}_\theta ^A`$, $`\widehat{X}_\varphi ^B`$ on state (13) have recently been predicted , confirming Figure 3(a). It is always the case that such violations of a Bell inequality will vanish when gaussian noise of sufficiently large standard deviation $`\sigma _0`$ is added to the measurements $`\widehat{X}_\theta ^A,\widehat{X}_\varphi ^B`$. With $`\alpha =E`$ sufficiently large, this corresponds to a macroscopic noise value of $`E\sigma _0`$ in the photon number measurement $`\widehat{n}_\theta ^A`$. Therefore any state $`|\psi `$ which shows a failure of local realism for measurements $`\widehat{X}_\theta ^A`$ and $`\widehat{X}_\varphi ^B`$ will also indicate a violation of macroscopic local realism, provided $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$ are large. This is relevant since other such states have been recently predicted , such as an odd or even coherent state passed through a beam splitter and parametric interaction .

This Bell inequality test is logically more straightforward than the EPR test, and is stronger, potentially leading to the rejection of macroscopic local realism outright. Appropriate states however are likely to be difficult to prepare. Unlike the EPR test it becomes strictly necessary to ensure the measurement uncertainty in photon number is macroscopic in absolute terms, because of assumption (11).


text:
# Extended Lambda-Maxwell duality and related large class of dyonic and neutral exactly solvable 4D Einstein-Maxwell-dilaton models discovered

## Abstract

We report the discovered class of exact static solutions of several 4D Einstein-Maxwell-dilaton systems: string-induced, Liouville, trigonometric, polynomial, etc., for three basic topologies (spherical, hyperbolical and flat) being uniformly treated. In addition to the usual electric-magnetic duality this class obeys a certain extended duality between Maxwell-dilaton coupling and dilaton mass. Though major solutions we obtain are dyonic, the class also comprises interesting neutral models. As a by-product, we significantly succeded in resolving of the two important problems, one of which has been standing more than a decade (system with the string-inspired exponential Maxwell-dilaton coupling and non-vanishing dilaton mass) and another one - gravity coupled to massive neutral scalar field: generalized Liouville, Sin(h), Cos(h) - is about fifty years old. Finally, we demonstrate the full separability of the static EMD system and publicize the simple procedure of how to generate new integrability classes.

Changes in arXiv versions: v3 - fixed misprint in eq. (25); v4 - slightly generalized eq. (5), added suggested refs; v5,6 - updated ref.  and added important paragraph emphasizing full separability and explaining how new integrability classes can be easily generated.

Definitely, nowadays the Einstein-Maxwell-dilaton system, described by the action

$$2k_D^2S=d^Dx\sqrt{g}Z\left[R+B(\varphi )^2+\mathrm{\Xi }F^2+\mathrm{\Lambda }\right],$$
(1)
with $`Z`$, $`B`$, $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ being functions of $`\varphi `$, $`F_{\mu \nu }=_\mu 𝒜_\nu _\nu 𝒜_\mu `$, is the most important field-theoretical model, e.g., it appears in low-energy limit of string theory. In general, the arena of such systems is the microworld where averaged charges cannot be made negligible. In neutral case $`\mathrm{\Xi }0`$ this system is primarily used in cosmology  beginning from the (Jordan-Thirry-)Brans-Dicke models or when studying fundamental aspects of black hole physics. Anyway, theorists are highly interested in exact solutions (1) because no satisfactory perturbation theory has been constructed for it and numerical solutions can be regarded only as additional arguments. To settle all the conventions let us first extract field equations from the action above:

$`G_{\mu \nu }g_{\mu \nu }\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{B}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{Z_{,\varphi \varphi }}{Z}}\right)(\varphi )^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Xi }F^2+\mathrm{\Lambda }}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{Z_{,\varphi }}{Z}}\varphi \right]`$ (2)
$`+\left(B{\displaystyle \frac{Z_{,\varphi \varphi }}{Z}}\right)_\mu \varphi _\nu \varphi +2\mathrm{\Xi }F_{\mu \alpha }F_\nu ^\alpha ={\displaystyle \frac{Z_{,\varphi }}{Z}}_\mu _\nu \varphi ,`$ (3)
$`2ZB\varphi +(ZB)_{,\varphi }(\varphi )^2Z_{,\varphi }R(Z\mathrm{\Xi })_{,\varphi }F^2=(Z\mathrm{\Lambda })_{,\varphi },`$ (4)
$`Z\mathrm{\Xi }^\mu F_{\mu \nu }+(Z\mathrm{\Xi })_{,\varphi }^\mu \varphi F_{\mu \nu }=0,`$ (5)
where $`G`$ is the Einstein tensor, the subscript “$`,\varphi `$” stands for the derivative with respect to scalar field. Without loss of generality we can assume $`Z(\varphi )=1`$ (that can be always achieved in $`D>2`$) and $`B(\varphi )=\beta /2`$, $`\beta `$ is a constant - we wish to keep it unfixed as a regulator of the dilaton’s rescaling which may involve the imaginary unit. We are interested in 4D static solutions hence further we will work with the metric ansatz

$`ds^2=e^{U(r)}dt^2+e^{U(r)}dr^2+e^{A(r)}d\mathrm{\Omega }_{(k)}^2,`$ (6)
$`d\mathrm{\Omega }_{(k)}^2\{\begin{array}{cc}d\theta ^2+\text{sin}^2\theta d\phi ^2,\hfill & k=1,\hfill \\ d\theta ^2+\theta ^2d\phi ^2,\hfill & k=0,\hfill \\ d\theta ^2+\text{sinh}^2\theta d\phi ^2,\hfill & k=1,\hfill \end{array}`$ (10)
thus $`k`$ enumerates these three topologies - spherical, flat and hyperbolic - we will work with all of them simultaneously and uniformly. Similarly, the electromagnetic potential 1-form is assumed as

$$𝒜=\{\begin{array}{cc}\omega (r)dtP\text{cos}\theta d\phi ,\hfill & k=1,\hfill \\ \omega (r)dt\frac{1}{2}P\theta ^2d\phi ,\hfill & k=0,\hfill \\ \omega (r)dtP\text{cosh}\theta d\phi ,\hfill & k=1,\hfill \end{array}$$
(11)
with constant $`P`$ being the magnetic charge. With all this in hand the field equations above take the form (we adopt curvature conventions from Appendix of Ref. ):

$`A^{\prime \prime }+A^{}(A^{}+U^{})\widehat{\mathrm{\Xi }}e^{2AU}=\mathrm{\Lambda }e^U+2ke^{AU},`$ (12)
$`U^{\prime \prime }+U^{}(A^{}+U^{})+\widehat{\mathrm{\Xi }}e^{2AU}=\mathrm{\Lambda }e^U,`$ (13)
$`\beta \varphi ^{\prime \prime }+\beta \varphi ^{}(A^{}+U^{})+\widehat{\mathrm{\Xi }}_{,\varphi }e^{2AU}+\mathrm{\Lambda }_{,\varphi }e^U=0,`$ (14)
$`2A^{\prime \prime }+A^2+\beta \varphi ^2=0,`$ (15)
$`\mathrm{\Xi }\omega ^{}=Qe^A,`$ (16)
where $`{}_{}{}^{}_r`$, $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Xi }}2(Q^2\mathrm{\Xi }^1+P^2\mathrm{\Xi })`$, integration constant $`Q`$ stands for electric charge up to a coefficient.

Now we are in position to present the promised class of solutions which was obtained using the approach . Thus, if $`\mathrm{\Xi }(\varphi )`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(\varphi )`$ obey the linear ODE which is invariant under extended duality transformations $`\{\mathrm{\Lambda }\widehat{\mathrm{\Xi }},d_21/d_2,d_1d_1,\beta \beta \},`$ in addition to the usual electric-magnetic $`\{\mathrm{\Xi }1/\mathrm{\Xi },QP\}`$ duality ones,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{d_1\varphi }}{d_2}}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }+{\displaystyle \frac{d_1}{\beta }}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{,\varphi }\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{d_2}{e^{d_1\varphi }}}\left(\widehat{\mathrm{\Xi }}+{\displaystyle \frac{d_1}{\beta }}\widehat{\mathrm{\Xi }}_{,\varphi }\right)=2k,`$ (17)
where $`d_1,d_2e^{d_1\varphi _0}`$ are arbitrary constants, then

$$e^A=r^{\frac{2d_1^2}{\beta +d_1^2}}/d_2,e^\varphi =r^{\frac{2d_1}{\beta +d_1^2}},$$
(18)
as for $`U`$ and $`\omega `$ then their problem is trivial . Here we will not address the separate good issue - does the extended Lambda-Maxwell duality above play any special physical role, especially in $`D=10`$ and $`11`$ . It may happen that such dualities can be not only the abstract generators of classes of integrability but also can shed light upon the fundamental nature of the cosmological (dilaton mass) term $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ which is precisely known neither in string theory nor in cosmology.

The class (17), (18) has a singular sub-branch if $`\beta +d_1^2=0`$. If we choose the plus root then Eq. (17) holds with $`d_1=i\sqrt{\beta }`$ but instead of (18) we have

$$A=i\chi r\mathrm{ln}d_2,\varphi =\chi r/\sqrt{\beta },$$
(19)
where $`\chi `$ is another arbitrary constant. Thus, the expressions (17) and (18) or (17) and (19) (with the recipe  kept in mind) yield a complete general-in-class solution. Now, to demonstrate how useful and large this class is, let us consider its most key or important specimens. At the same time we will resolve some problems that harassed theorists for decades.

(a) Gravity coupled to neutral scalar field: $`\mathrm{\Xi }0`$.

Historically the neutral scalar field is the oldest system (massless neutral scalar field was considered by Fisher in 1948  and rediscovered afterwards by JNW ) so let us see what is the mass term our class yields. Integrating of Eq. (17) at $`Q=P=0`$ reveals the following three cases:

(a.1) $`\beta d_1^20`$.
We obtain the (generalized) Liouville model

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=a_2e^{\frac{\beta \varphi }{d_1}}\frac{2k\beta d_2}{\beta d_1^2}e^{d_1\varphi },$$
(20)
where $`a_2`$ is another arbitrary constant, and from Eq. (18) and Ref.  we have the two following subcases:

(a.1.1) $`\beta 3d_1^20`$. Here $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is as above whereas the solution is given precisely by Eq. (30) at $`Q=P=0`$.

(a.1.2) $`\beta 3d_1^2=0`$. Choosing for definiteness the root $`d_1=\sqrt{\beta /3}`$ we have

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }=e^{\sqrt{3\beta }\varphi }\left(a_23kd_2e^{2\sqrt{\beta /3}\varphi }\right),`$ (21)
so this is special case $`Q=P=0`$ of the solution (33).

(a.2) $`\beta +d_1^2=0`$.
The $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in this case is a special case of Eq. (20) but we want to treat it separately because this is the only way to combine exponents into trigonometric functions, and this is an example where the usefulness of the sub-class (19) becomes evident. Using Eq. (19) and  we obtain

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=a_2e^{i\sqrt{\beta }\varphi }\frac{kd_2}{e^{i\sqrt{\beta }\varphi }},e^U=\frac{kd_2r+c}{i\chi e^{i\chi r}}\frac{a_2e^{i\chi r}}{2\chi ^2},$$
(22)
where $`c`$ is another arbitrary constant and $`A`$ and $`\varphi `$ are given by Eq. (19). The complete story is that at $`k0`$ this solution contains the simplest trigonometric potentials. If we assume $`a_2=kd_2,`$ then we come to the Cosine-Einstein model and similarly for Sine-Einstein ($`a_2=kd_2`$, $`d_2=i\overline{d}_2`$):

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=2kd_2\mathrm{cos}(\sqrt{\beta }\varphi ),\mathrm{\Lambda }=2k\overline{d}_2\mathrm{sin}(\sqrt{\beta }\varphi ),$$
(23)
and for Sinh and Cosh just by Wick rotation. The solutions of such models on flat or fixed background geometry (Sine-Gordon, etc.) have been got long ago but to our knowledge so far nobody has managed to obtain any self-gravitating solution despite tremendous efforts were made in view of evident importance of the subject.

(a.3) $`\beta d_1^2=0`$.
Choosing for definiteness a positive root we obtain the Liouville model coupled to a linear term

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=e^{\sqrt{\beta }\varphi }\left(a_22k\sqrt{\beta }d_2\varphi \right),$$
(24)
its solution is given by Eq. (38) at zero charges, and with this model the neutral case is exhausted.

(b) String-inspired coupling: $`\mathrm{\Xi }=a_1e^{b_1\varphi }`$.

The physically interesting cases are as follows (but not limited to). If one assumes in action (1) that ($`D=4`$): $`\beta =16/(D2)`$, $`a_1=k_D^2/2`$, $`b_1=4g_2/(D2)`$ then: $`g_2=1`$ corresponds to field theory limit of superstring model (more precisely, compactified effective theory if $`D=4`$), $`g_2=\sqrt{1+\frac{D2}{n}}`$ corresponds to the toroidal $`T^n`$ reduction of ($`D+n`$)-spacetime to $`D`$-spacetime, $`g_2=0`$ is a usual Einstein-Maxwell system. The previously done work is: Gibbons and Maeda  received the single-charged solutions for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ and arbitrary $`D`$ and $`g_2`$, Dobiasch and Maison  discovered the dyonic solutions for $`g_2=\sqrt{3}`$, see also Refs. , several solutions for potentials of special type were obtained in works . Also a lot of qualitative and numerical work has been done . Summarizing what has been achieved one must say that major solutions were received when $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ (except Refs. ) and in single-charged cases whereas $`\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$ and dyonic ones still remain a terra incognita. Such a situation does not seem to be satisfactory because in string-induced theories $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is not negligible as a rule (though unknown). Let us turn to our class. Integrating of Eq. (17) reveals the following cases.

(b.1) $`\beta d_1^20`$, $`\beta \pm b_1d_12d_1^20`$.
Then the dilaton mass term is given by

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }=a_2e^{\frac{\beta }{d_1}\varphi }{\displaystyle \frac{2k\beta d_2}{\beta d_1^2}}e^{d_1\varphi }{\displaystyle \frac{2a_1d_2^2P^2(\beta +b_1d_1)}{\beta +b_1d_12d_1^2}}`$ (25)
$`\times e^{(b_12d_1)\varphi }{\displaystyle \frac{2d_2^2Q^2(\beta b_1d_1)}{a_1(\beta b_1d_12d_1^2)}}e^{(b_1+2d_1)\varphi }.`$ (26)
One should not be concerned with appearance of $`Q`$ and $`P`$ \- it simply means that these charges are not arbitrary but depend on constants in front of corresponding exponents (for the sake of uniformity we do not make additional redefinitions of newborn arbitrary constants $`a_2,d_1,d_2`$, etc.). Incidentally, note that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is essentially exponential hence it can be either large or incredibly small value - the former takes place in microworld whereas the latter does in cosmology. Further, when obtaining $`U`$ we reveal a number of additional subcases generalizing Ref. :

(b.1.1) $`\beta 3d_1^20`$, $`\beta +d_1^20`$, $`\beta \pm 2b_1d_1d_1^20`$. Then $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is given by Eq. (26) whereas the complete solution is

$`e^U={\displaystyle \frac{(\beta +d_1^2)^2}{2d_1^2}}[cr^{1\frac{2d_1^2}{\beta +d_1^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{2kd_1^2d_2r^{\frac{2\beta }{\beta +d_1^2}}}{\beta ^2d_1^4}}`$ (27)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{a_2r^{\frac{2d_1^2}{\beta +d_1^2}}}{\beta 3d_1^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{4P^2a_1d_1^2d_2^2r^{\frac{2\left(\beta +b_1d_1d_1^2\right)}{\beta +d_1^2}}}{(\beta +b_1d_12d_1^2)(\beta +2b_1d_1d_1^2)}}`$ (28)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{4Q^2d_1^2d_2^2r^{\frac{2\left(\beta b_1d_1d_1^2\right)}{\beta +d_1^2}}}{a_1(\beta b_1d_12d_1^2)(\beta 2b_1d_1d_1^2)}}],`$ (29)
$`\omega \omega _0={\displaystyle \frac{Qd_2\left(\beta +d_1^2\right)}{a_1\left(\beta 2b_1d_1d_1^2\right)}}r^{1\frac{2d_1\left(b_1+d_1\right)}{\beta +d_1^2}},`$ (30)
and $`A`$ and $`\varphi `$ are given precisely by Eq. (18).

(b.1.2) $`\beta 3d_1^2=0`$, $`\beta +d_1^20`$, $`\beta \pm 2b_1d_1d_1^20`$. Choose the positive root then $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is given by Eq. (26) at $`d_1=\sqrt{\beta /3}`$ and the solution is

$`e^U=2\sqrt{r}[c+a_2\mathrm{ln}rkd_2r{\displaystyle \frac{8\beta d_2^2Q^2r^{\frac{1}{2}\left(1\sqrt{\frac{3}{\beta }}b_1\right)}}{a_1\left(\sqrt{\beta }\sqrt{3}b_1\right)^2}}`$ (31)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{8\beta a_1d_2^2P^2r^{\frac{1}{2}\left(1+\sqrt{\frac{3}{\beta }}b_1\right)}}{\left(\sqrt{\beta }+\sqrt{3}b_1\right)^2}}],e^A={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{r}}{d_2}},`$ (32)
$`e^{2\varphi }=r^{\sqrt{\frac{3}{\beta }}},\omega \omega _0={\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{\beta }d_2Q/a_1}{\sqrt{\beta }\sqrt{3}b_1}}r^{\frac{1}{2}\left(1\sqrt{\frac{3}{\beta }}b_1\right)}.`$ (33)
Other (b.1)’s subcases when expressions (30) but not (26) become singular can be treated similarly using Ref.  and either Eq. (18) or (19). Their general feature is the appearance of logarithm in $`e^U`$.

(b.2) $`\beta d_1^2=0`$, $`\beta \pm b_1d_12d_1^20`$.
We choose the root $`d_1=\sqrt{\beta }`$ then following Eq. (17) the dilaton mass term is given by

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }=(a_22k\sqrt{\beta }d_2\varphi )e^{\sqrt{\beta }\varphi }+2d_2^2e^{2\sqrt{\beta }\varphi }`$ (34)
$`\times \left[{\displaystyle \frac{a_1P^2(\sqrt{\beta }+b_1)}{\sqrt{\beta }b_1}}e^{b_1\varphi }+{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2(\sqrt{\beta }b_1)}{a_1(\sqrt{\beta }+b_1)}}e^{b_1\varphi }\right],`$ (35)
and the only solution (no subcases) is

$`e^U=c2kd_2r(\mathrm{ln}r2)+{\displaystyle \frac{4\beta d_2^2}{b_1}}[{\displaystyle \frac{a_1P^2}{\sqrt{\beta }b_1}}r^{\frac{b_1}{\sqrt{\beta }}}`$ (36)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2/a_1}{\sqrt{\beta }+b_1}}r^{\frac{b_1}{\sqrt{\beta }}}]+a_2r,e^A=r/d_2,`$ (37)
$`e^{\sqrt{\beta }\varphi }=r,\omega \omega _0={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\beta }d_2Q}{a_1b_1}}r^{\frac{b_1}{\sqrt{\beta }}}.`$ (38)
(b.3) $`\beta d_1^20`$, $`\beta +b_1d_12d_1^2=0`$, $`\beta b_1d_12d_1^20`$.
To avoid wearisome square-root branches let us impose $`b_1=2d_1\beta /d_1,`$ and work with $`d_1`$ bearing in mind its relation to the given parameter $`b_1`$. We have

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\left(a_24a_1d_1d_2^2P^2\varphi \right)e^{\frac{\beta }{d_1}\varphi }{\displaystyle \frac{2k\beta d_2}{\beta d_1^2}}e^{d_1\varphi }`$ (39)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2d_2^2Q^2(\beta d_1^2)}{a_1(\beta 2d_1^2)}}e^{\frac{\beta 4d_1^2}{d_1}\varphi },`$ (40)
whereas the solution (at $`3\beta 5d_1^20`$) is expressed as

$`e^U=(\beta +d_1^2)[fr^{\frac{2d_1^2}{\beta +d_1^2}}+cr^{1\frac{2d_1^2}{\beta +d_1^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{kd_2r^{\frac{2\beta }{\beta +d_1^2}}}{\beta d_1^2}}`$ (41)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d_2^2(\beta +d_1^2)Q^2r^{\frac{4\beta 6d_1^2}{\beta +d_1^2}}}{a_1(3\beta 5d_1^2)(\beta 2d_1^2)}}],\omega ={\displaystyle \frac{d_2Q(\beta +d_1^2)}{a_1(3\beta 5d_1^2)}}r^{\frac{3\beta 5d_1^2}{\beta +d_1^2}},`$ (42)
with $`A`$ and $`\varphi `$ given by Eq. (18), where we have denoted

$`f{\displaystyle \frac{\beta +d_1^2}{d_1^2(\beta 3d_1^2)}}[{\displaystyle \frac{a_2}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{a_1d_2^2P^2}{(\beta +d_1^2)(\beta 3d_1^2)}}`$ (43)
$`\times (\beta ^22\beta d_1^2(2\mathrm{ln}r+3)+d_1^4(12\mathrm{ln}r7))].`$ (44)
The subcase $`3\beta 5d_1^2=0`$, i.e., $`\{b_1,d_1\}=\{\pm \sqrt{\beta /15},`$ $`\pm \sqrt{3\beta /5}\}`$, can be treated similarly (nothing special with it except that $`\omega `$ turns out to be a linear function of $`\mathrm{ln}r`$).

(b.4) $`\beta d_1^20`$, $`\beta +b_1d_12d_1^20`$, $`\beta b_1d_12d_1^2=0`$.
This case is in some sense a counterpart of the previous one (b.3) but the roles of $`Q`$ and $`P`$ are interchanged. It can be treated absolutely similarly as well as other cases when expressions $`\beta d_1^2`$, $`\beta \pm b_1d_12d_1^2`$, are equal zero pairwise (the case when they are zeros all together is inconsistent). In all these cases $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$’s resemble that from (b.3), i.e., are the combinations of exponents of dilaton coupled to linear functions of dilaton.

(b.5) $`\beta +d_1^2=0`$.
We choose the plus root then $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is given by Eq. (26) at $`d_1=i\sqrt{\beta }`$ whereas the solution is (provided $`b_1\pm 3i\sqrt{\beta }`$)

$`\chi ^2e^U={\displaystyle \frac{a_2}{2}}e^{i\chi r}+{\displaystyle \frac{i\chi (c+kd_2r)}{e^{i\chi r}}}{\displaystyle \frac{4\beta d_2^2e^{2i\chi r}}{a_1}}`$ (45)
$`\times \left[{\displaystyle \frac{a_1^2P^2e^{\frac{b_1\chi }{\sqrt{\beta }}r}}{(\sqrt{\beta }+ib_1)(3\sqrt{\beta }+ib_1)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2e^{\frac{b_1\chi }{\sqrt{\beta }}r}}{(\sqrt{\beta }ib_1)(3\sqrt{\beta }ib_1)}}\right],`$ (46)
$`\omega \omega _0={\displaystyle \frac{i\sqrt{\beta }d_2Q}{a_1\chi (\sqrt{\beta }ib_1)}}e^{\chi r\left(i+\frac{b_1}{\sqrt{\beta }}\right)},`$ (47)
and $`A`$ and $`\varphi `$ are given by Eq. (19). The subcases $`b_1=\pm i\sqrt{\beta }`$, $`\pm 3i\sqrt{\beta }`$ can be done by analogy. Instead of handling it let us outline some other interesting $`\mathrm{\Xi }\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ pairs that belong to the class. If thereby we do not list $`U`$’s and $`\omega `$’s then a reader is referred to Ref. .

(c) Massless dilaton: $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$.

As was mentioned above recently this is the most studied case if $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ is a single exponent. What about $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$’s for our class? We have from Eq. (17) the two cases

$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Xi }}=a_1e^{\frac{\beta }{d_1}\varphi }{\displaystyle \frac{2k\beta /d_2}{\beta +d_1^2}}e^{d_1\varphi },\beta +d_1^20,`$ (48)
$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Xi }}=2e^{i\sqrt{\beta }\varphi }\left(a_1+{\displaystyle \frac{ik\sqrt{\beta }}{d_2}}\varphi \right),d_1=i\sqrt{\beta }.`$ (49)
Note, if one assumes $`d_1=\pm \sqrt{\beta }`$ then the first from these equations might generate several trigonometric Maxwell-dilaton couplings if one adjusts $`a_1`$ ($`d_2`$), $`Q`$ and $`P`$. Its solution for $`d_1=\sqrt{\beta }`$ is ($`f\frac{a_1}{r}\frac{kr}{d_2}`$):

$$e^U=cd_2^2f,\frac{\omega \omega _0}{4d_2QP^2}=\frac{dr/r}{f\pm \sqrt{f^2(4PQ)^2}},$$
(50)
and $`A,\varphi `$ are exactly as in Eq.(38). Note that in single-charged cases the square root in $`\omega `$ disappears so the latter can be resolved in ordinary functions.

(d) $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=a_2\mathrm{sinh}^2\varphi `$.

This potential is also of interest for string theory though as a trial one. Its qualitative study was done in Ref.  hence an exact solution is just in time. First consider the singular subclass (19). Choosing $`d_1=i\sqrt{\beta }`$ we have two subcases (here $`f2i\mathrm{cosh}\varphi +\sqrt{\beta }\mathrm{sinh}\varphi `$):

$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Xi }}={\displaystyle \frac{a_2f^2e^{2i\sqrt{\beta }\varphi }}{d_2^2(\beta +4)}}+e^{i\sqrt{\beta }\varphi }\left(a_1+{\displaystyle \frac{2ik\sqrt{\beta }}{d_2}}\varphi \right),`$ (51)
$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Xi }}=e^{2\varphi }\left[a_1{\displaystyle \frac{a_2+4kd_2}{d_2^2}}\varphi {\displaystyle \frac{a_2}{2d_2^2}}e^{2\varphi }\right],\beta =4.`$ (52)
Further, at arbitrary $`d_1\pm i\sqrt{\beta }`$ the equation (17) produces so ugly $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Xi }}`$ that there is no sense to present it here. Instead we tried to find some simple case more or less resembling the string model of Ref.  $`\mathrm{\Xi }e^{2\varphi }`$, $`\beta =4`$. For instance, if we assume the purely magnetic case and impose $`d_1=\sqrt{\beta }`$, $`\beta =4`$ we obtain the model which approximates the string one at large $`P`$ or $`d_2`$

$`\mathrm{\Xi }=a_1e^{2\varphi }+{\displaystyle \frac{a_2e^{4\varphi }(43e^{2\varphi })}{48d_2^2P^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{ke^{2\varphi }}{2d_2P^2}},e^{2\varphi }=r,`$ (53)
$`e^U=c+kd_2r+{\displaystyle \frac{a_2r}{24}}(r^24r+6){\displaystyle \frac{2d_2^2P^2a_1}{r}},`$ (54)
and $`A`$ is exactly as in Eq. (38).

(e) Quadratic potential: $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=a_2\varphi ^2`$.

This classical potential (whose study in gravity can be traced back as far as Ref. ) nowadays has been revived as a test one in string theory , but all the studies so far were conducted at numerical or qualitative level only. For the sake of brevity we consider only the case $`\beta +d_1^20`$ then Eq. (17) yields

$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Xi }}={\displaystyle \frac{a_1}{e^{\frac{\beta }{d_1}\varphi }}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(\varphi \varphi _+)(\varphi \varphi _{})}{\alpha ^3d_2^2/a_2}}e^{2d_1\varphi }{\displaystyle \frac{2k\beta /d_2}{\beta +d_1^2}}e^{d_1\varphi },`$ (55)
where $`\alpha \beta +2d_1^20`$, $`\varphi _\pm =\frac{2d_1^2}{\alpha \beta }(\pm \sqrt{\beta +d_1^2}d_1)`$. Again, the solution is unnecessary bulky so it is better to assume $`d_1=\sqrt{\beta }`$, $`\beta =1`$ (we still have rescaling freedom due to $`a_2`$), then we obtain:

$`e^U=c+kd_2r+{\displaystyle \frac{a_2r^2}{54}}\left(19+6\mathrm{ln}r(3\mathrm{ln}r5)\right){\displaystyle \frac{a_1d_2^2}{r}},`$ (56)
with $`A`$ and $`\varphi `$ being given by Eq. (38), and $`\omega `$ is as in Eq. (50) if $`f\frac{a_1}{r}\frac{kr}{d_2}\frac{a_2}{27d_2^2}r^2(9\mathrm{ln}^2r+12\mathrm{ln}r4)`$.

Of course, we have mentioned just a few examples. Other $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ or $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ that might appear from a concrete problem can be paired up within our class in a similar manner. Despite this pairing is artificial procedure the generated exact solutions are better than numerical studies from scratch, besides ones can verify or falsify qualitative approaches and results.

Moreover: new classes and full separability. The class discussed above is not the only one - other integrability classes of the EMD system can be generated even without any use of  if we switch the independent variable from $`r`$ to $`\varphi `$ (due to dilaton being an invertible function of $`r`$) and relax the ansatz $`A\varphi `$ (18). Suppose $`A(r)\stackrel{~}{A}(\varphi (r))`$ then by linear rearrangement it can be shown that the essential system (12), (14) and (15) is equivalent to the following one

$`2k(p1)+{\displaystyle \frac{2e^{\stackrel{~}{A}}}{p}}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }+e^{p\stackrel{~}{A}}\widehat{\mathrm{\Xi }}\right)+e^{\stackrel{~}{U}+2Y}`$ (57)
$`\times ({\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{p\stackrel{~}{A}_{,\varphi }^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{U}_{,\varphi }}{\stackrel{~}{A}_{,\varphi }}}{\displaystyle \frac{p1}{2}})=0,`$ (58)
$`2k(p1)+{\displaystyle \frac{2e^{\stackrel{~}{A}}}{p}}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }+{\displaystyle \frac{p}{2\beta }}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{,\varphi }\stackrel{~}{A}_{,\varphi }\right)+e^{\stackrel{~}{U}+2Y}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{A}_{,\varphi }}}\right)_{,\varphi }`$ (59)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2e^{(p1)\stackrel{~}{A}}}{p}}\left(\widehat{\mathrm{\Xi }}+{\displaystyle \frac{p}{2\beta }}\widehat{\mathrm{\Xi }}_{,\varphi }\stackrel{~}{A}_{,\varphi }\right)=0,`$ (60)
$`\varphi ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{Y\stackrel{~}{A}/2}}{\stackrel{~}{A}_{,\varphi }}}=0,Y(\varphi )={\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{p}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\varphi }{\stackrel{~}{A}_{,\varphi }}}+Y_0,`$ (61)
where $`U(r)\stackrel{~}{U}(\varphi (r))`$ and $`pD2=2`$ (everything in this section is applicable for arbitrary $`D`$ provided $`P0`$ at $`D4`$). Consider the first two equations which are perfect both for obtaining $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ at given $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ and for the inverse problem, i.e., for obtaining the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-$`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ pairs corresponding to a concrete $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$. Note, if $`\stackrel{~}{A}\varphi `$ $`(=d_1\varphi \mathrm{ln}d_2)`$ then Eq. (60) immediately reduces to (17) otherwise one must proceed in the following way. First step: customize $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ being any function of $`\varphi `$, e.g., $`\mathrm{ln}(a\varphi ^b)`$ or $`\mathrm{ln}(a\mathrm{sin}\varphi )`$. Second, eliminate $`\stackrel{~}{U}`$ from the first two equations using the rest ones to obtain the class equation,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{H_{,\varphi }}{\stackrel{~}{A}_{,\varphi }}}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{p\stackrel{~}{A}_{,\varphi }^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{p1}{2}}\right)H+k(p1)`$ (62)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\stackrel{~}{A}}}{p}}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }+e^{p\stackrel{~}{A}}\widehat{\mathrm{\Xi }}\right)=0,`$ (63)
where $`H\frac{1}{p(1/\stackrel{~}{A}_{,\varphi })_{,\varphi }}\left[kp(p1)+e^{\stackrel{~}{A}}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }+\frac{p}{2\beta }\mathrm{\Lambda }_{,\varphi }\stackrel{~}{A}_{,\varphi }\right)+e^{(p1)\stackrel{~}{A}}\left(\widehat{\mathrm{\Xi }}+\frac{p}{2\beta }\widehat{\mathrm{\Xi }}_{,\varphi }\stackrel{~}{A}_{,\varphi }\right)\right],`$ that does not contain $`Y`$ as well so at fixed $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ it becomes a linear second-order ODE with respect to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Xi }}`$. Final step: choose either $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ or $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ then the class equation recovers the missing partner of the pair; $`U(\varphi )`$ is algebraically given by (60); other equations readily yield $`\varphi (r)`$ hence $`U(r)`$, $`A(r)`$, $`\omega (r)`$.

Someone doing the direct task (solving $`A`$ at given $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$) appreciates the fact that the static EMD system has been thus completely separated: Eqs. (12) - (16) are equivalent to the mutually non-involved ODEs (63), (60), (61) and (16) yielding, respectively, $`A`$, $`U`$, $`\varphi `$ and $`\omega `$. Unfortunately, the most important first one is a non-linear third-order ODE so the direct task is still hard to be accomplished without supplementary symmetries or assumptions.