text:
# Classical mechanics on 𝐺𝐿(𝑛,ℝ) group and Euler-Calogero-Sutherland model

## 1 Introduction

In this contribution, we deal with two finite dimensional Hamiltonian systems. The first one is a generalization of the Calogero-Sutherland-Moser CSM  model by introducing the internal degrees of freedom GibbonsHermsen ; Wojciechowski  described by the Hamiltonian

$$H_{ECS}=\frac{1}{2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}p_i^2+\frac{1}{8}\underset{ij}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{l_{ij}^2}{\mathrm{sinh}^2(x_ix_j)}$$
(1)
with canonical pairs $`(x_i,p_i)`$ obeying the nonvanishing Poisson brackets

$$\{x_i,p_j\}=\delta _{ij},$$
(2)
and “internal” variables $`l_{ab}`$ satisfy the $`SO(n,)`$ Poisson bracket algebra

$$\{l_{ab},l_{cd}\}=\delta _{bc}l_{ad}+\delta _{ad}l_{bc}\delta _{ac}l_{bd}\delta _{bd}l_{ac}.$$
(3)
The dynamics of the second system is given in terms of geodesic motion on the $`GL(n,)`$ group manifold. The corresponding Lagrangian based on the bi-invariant metric on $`GL(n,)`$ is given by Arnold ; Marsden

$$L_{GL}=\frac{1}{2}\text{tr}\left(\dot{g}g^1\right)^2,$$
(4)
where $`gGL(n,)`$, and the dot over the symbols means differentiation with respect to time. Below we shall represent the Hamiltonian system corresponding to this Lagrangian (4) in terms of a special parameterization adapted to the action of the symmetry group of the system. We demonstrate that the resulting Hamiltonian is a generalization of the Euler-Calogero-Sutherland model (1) with two types of internal degrees of freedom. Performing the Hamiltonian reduction owing to two types of symmetry: continuous and discrete, we show how to arrive at the conventional Hamiltonian of the Euler-Calogero-Sutherland model (1).

## 2 Bi-invariant geodesic motion on the group manifold

### 2.1. Explicit integration of the classical equation of motion

The Euler-Lagrange equation following from the Lagrangian (4) can be represented as

$$\frac{d}{dt}\left(g^1\dot{g}\right)=0.$$
(5)
This form demonstrates their explicit integrability

$$g(t)=g(0)\mathrm{exp}(tJ)$$
(6)
with two arbitrary constant matrices $`g(0)`$ and $`J`$.

### 2.2. Hamiltonian in terms of special coordinates

The canonical Hamiltonian corresponding to the bi-invariant Lagrangian (4) reads

$$H_{GL}=\frac{1}{2}\text{tr}\left(\pi ^Tg\right)^2.$$
(7)
The nonvanishing Poisson brackets between the fundamental phase space variables are

$$\{g_{ab},\pi _{cd}\}=\delta _{ab}\delta _{cd}.$$
(8)
To find out the relation to the conventional Euler-Calogero-Sutherland model (1), it is convenient to use the polar decomposition Zelobenko  for an arbitrary element of $`GL(n,)`$. For the sake of technical simplicity we investigate in details the group $`GL(3,)`$ hereinafter, i.e.

$$g=OS,$$
(9)
where $`S`$ is a positive definite $`3\times 3`$ symmetric matrix, and $`O(\varphi _1,\varphi _2,\varphi _3)=e^{\varphi _1J_3}e^{\varphi _2J_1}e^{\varphi _3J_3}`$ is an orthogonal matrix with $`SO(3,)`$ generators $`(J_a)_{ik}=\epsilon _{iak}`$. Since the matrix $`g`$ represents an element of $`GL(n,)`$ group, we can treat the polar decomposition (9) as a uniquely invertible transformation from the configuration variables $`g`$ to a new set of six Lagrangian coordinates $`S_{ij}`$ and three coordinates $`\varphi _i`$. The induced transformation of momenta to new canonical pairs $`(S_{ab},P_{ab})`$ and $`(\varphi _a,P_a)`$ is

$$\pi =O\left(Pk_aJ_a\right),$$
(10)
where

$$k_a=\gamma _{ab}^1\left(\eta _b^L\epsilon _{bmn}\left(SP\right)_{mn}\right).$$
(11)
Here $`\eta _a^L`$ are three left-invariant vector fields on $`SO(3,)`$

$`\eta _1^L={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\varphi _3}{\mathrm{sin}\varphi _2}}P_1\mathrm{cos}\varphi _3P_2+\mathrm{cot}\varphi _2\mathrm{sin}\varphi _3P_3,`$
$`\eta _2^L={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}\varphi _3}{\mathrm{sin}\varphi _2}}P_1+\mathrm{sin}\varphi _3P_2+\mathrm{cot}\varphi _2\mathrm{cos}\varphi _3P_3,`$ (12)
$`\eta _3^L=P_3`$
and $`\gamma _{ik}=S_{ik}\delta _{ik}\text{tr}S.`$ In terms of the new variables, the canonical Hamiltonian takes the form

$$H_{GL}=\frac{1}{2}\text{tr}\left(PS\right)^2+\frac{1}{2}\text{tr}\left(J_aSJ_bS\right)k_ak_b.$$
(13)
#### 2.2.1. Restriction of the Hamiltonian to the Principal orbit

The system (13) is invariant under the orthogonal transformations $`S^{}=R^TSR`$, and the orbit space is given as a quotient space $`𝒮/SO(3,)`$. The quotient space $`𝒮/SO(3,)`$ is a stratified manifold; orbits with the same isotropy group are collected into strata and uniquely parameterized by the set of ordered eigenvalues of the matrix $`S`$ $`x_1x_2x_3`$. The strata are classified according to the isotropy groups which are determined by the degeneracies of the matrix eigenvalues:

1. Principal orbit-type stratum, when all eigenvalues are unequal $`x_1<x_2<x_3`$, with the smallest isotropy group $`Z_2Z_2`$ .
2. Singular orbit-type strata forming the boundaries of orbit space with

1. two coinciding eigenvalues (e.g. $`x_1=x_2`$), when the isotropy group is $`SO(2)Z_2`$ .
    2. all three eigenvalues are equal ($`x_1=x_2=x_3`$), here the isotropy group coincides with the isometry group $`SO(3,)`$.

Now we shall at first restrict ourselves to the investigation of dynamics which takes place on the principal orbits. To write down the Hamiltonian describing the motion on the principal orbit stratum, we introduce the coordinates along the slices $`x_i`$ and along the orbits $`\chi `$. Namely, since the matrix $`S`$ is positive definite and symmetric, we use the main-axes decomposition in the form

$$S=R^T(\chi )e^{2X}R(\chi ),$$
(14)
where $`R(\chi )SO(3,)`$ is an orthogonal matrix parameterized by three Euler angles $`\chi =(\chi _1,\chi _2,\chi _3)`$, and the matrix $`e^{2X}`$ is a diagonal $`e^{2X}=\text{diag}e^{2x_1},e^{2x_2},e^{2x_3}`$. The original physical momenta $`P_{ik}`$ are expressed in terms of the new canonical pairs $`(x_i,p_i)`$ and $`(\chi _i,p_{\chi _i})`$ as

$$P=R^Te^X\left(\underset{a=1}{\overset{3}{}}\overline{𝒫}_a\overline{\alpha }_a+\underset{a=1}{\overset{3}{}}𝒫_a\alpha _a\right)e^XR,$$
(15)
with

$`\overline{𝒫}_a={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}p_a,`$ (16)
$`𝒫_a={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\xi _a^R}{\mathrm{sinh}(x_bx_c)}},(\text{cyclic}\text{permutation}abc).`$ (17)
In the representation (15), we introduce the orthogonal basis for the symmetric $`3\times 3`$ matrices $`\alpha _A=(\overline{\alpha }_i,\alpha _i)i=1,2,3`$ with the scalar product

$`\text{tr}(\overline{\alpha }_a\overline{\alpha }_b)=\delta _{ab},\text{tr}(\alpha _a\alpha _b)=2\delta _{ab},\text{tr}(\overline{\alpha }_a\alpha _b)=0`$
and the $`SO(3,)`$ right-invariant Killing vectors

$`\xi _1^R=p_{\chi _1},`$ (18)
$`\xi _2^R=\mathrm{sin}\chi _1\mathrm{cot}\chi _2p_{\chi _1}\mathrm{cos}\chi _1p_{\chi _2}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\chi _1}{\mathrm{sin}\chi _2}}p_{\chi _3},`$ (19)
$`\xi _3^R=\mathrm{cos}\chi _1\mathrm{cot}\chi _2p_{\chi _1}\mathrm{sin}\chi _1p_{\chi _2}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}\chi _1}{\mathrm{sin}\chi _2}}p_{\chi _3}.`$ (20)
After passing to these main-axes variables, the canonical Hamiltonian reads

$$H_{GL}=\frac{1}{8}\underset{a=1}{\overset{3}{}}p_a^2+\frac{1}{16}\underset{(abc)}{}\frac{(\xi _a^R)^2}{\mathrm{sinh}^2(x_bx_c)}\frac{1}{4}\underset{(abc)}{}\frac{\left(R_{ab}\eta _b^L+\frac{1}{2}\xi _a^R\right)^2}{\mathrm{cosh}^2(x_bx_c)}.$$
(21)
Here $`(abc)`$ means cyclic permutations $`abc`$. Thus, the integrable dynamical system describing the free motion on principal orbits represents, in the adapted basis, the Generalized Euler-Calogero-Sutherland model. The generalization consists in the introduction of two types of internal dynamical variables $`\xi `$ and $`\eta `$ — “spin” and “isospin” degrees of freedom, interacting with each other. Below, the relations to the standard Euler-Calogero-Sutherland model (1) are demonstrated.

#### 2.2.2. Restriction of the Hamiltonian to the Singular orbit

The motion on the Singular orbit is modified due to the presence of a continuous isotropy group. In the case of $`GL(3,)`$, it is $`SO(2)Z_2`$. Applying the same machinery as for the Principal orbits to the two-dimensional orbit $`(x_1=x_2=x,x_3=y)`$ , one can derive the Hamiltonian

$$H_{GL}^{(2)}=\frac{1}{8}(p_x^2+p_y^2)+\frac{g^2}{\mathrm{sinh}^2(xy)}\frac{\overline{g}^2}{\mathrm{cosh}^2(xy)}$$
(22)
with two arbitrary constants $`g^2`$ and $`\overline{g}^2`$ related to the value of the spin $`\xi `$ and isospin $`\eta `$. Due to the translation invariance, the equations of motion are equivalent to the corresponding equations for a one-dimensional problem and thus the system (22) is integrable.

## 3 Reduction to Euler-Calogero-Sutherland model

### 3.1. Reduction using discrete symmetries

Now we shall demonstrate how the II$`A_3`$ Euler-Calogero-Sutherland model arises from the canonical Hamiltonian (7) after projection onto a certain invariant submanifold determined by discrete symmetries. Let us impose the condition of symmetry of the matrices $`gGL(n,)`$

$$\chi _a^{(1)}=\epsilon _{abc}g_{bc}=0.$$
(23)
In order to find an invariant submanifold, it is necessary to supplement the constraints (23) with the new ones

$$\chi _a^{(2)}=\epsilon _{abc}\pi _{bc}=0.$$
(24)
One can check that the surface defined by both constraints (23) and (24) represents an invariant submanifold in the $`GL(3,)`$ phase space, and the dynamics of the corresponding induced system is governed by the reduced Hamiltonian

$$H_{GL}|_{\chi _a^{(1)}=0,\chi _a^{(2)}=0}=\frac{1}{2}\text{tr}\left(PS\right)^2.$$
(25)
The matrices $`S`$ and $`P`$ are now symmetric nondegenerate matrices, and one can be convinced that this expression leads to the Hamiltonian of the II$`A_3`$ Euler-Calogero- Sutherland model. To verify this statement, it is necessary to note that after projection on the invariant submanifold, the canonical Poisson structure is changed. We have to deal with the new Dirac brackets

$$\{F,G\}_D=\{F,G\}_{PB}\{F,\chi _a\}C_{ab}^1\{\chi _b,G\}$$
(26)
for arbitrary functions on the phase space. In our case, because $`C_{ab}=\{\chi _a^{(1)},\chi _b^{(2)}\}=2\delta _{ab},`$ the fundamamental Dirac brackets between the main-axes variables are

$$\{x_a,p_b\}_D=\frac{1}{2}\delta _{ab},\{\chi _a,p_{\chi _b}\}_D=\frac{1}{2}\delta _{ab}$$

and the Dirac bracket algebra for the right-invariant vector fields on $`SO(3,)`$ reduces to

$$\{\xi _a^R,\xi _b^R\}_D=\frac{1}{2}\epsilon _{abc}\xi _c^R.$$

Thus, after rescaling of the canonical variables, one can be convinced that the reduction via discrete symmetry indeed leads to the II$`A_3`$ Euler-Calogero- Sutherland model.

### 3.2. Reduction due to the continuous symmetry

The integrals of motion corresponding to the geodesic motion with respect to the bi-invariant metric on $`GL(n,)`$ group are

$$J_{ab}=(\pi ^Tg)_{ab}.$$
(27)
The algebra of this integrals realizes on the symplectic level the $`GL(n,)`$ algebra

$$\{J_{ab},J_{cd}\}=\delta _{bc}J_{ad}\delta _{ad}J_{cb}.$$
(28)
After transformation to the scalar and rotational variables, the expressions for $`J`$ reads

$$J=\underset{a=1}{\overset{3}{}}R^T\left(p_a\overline{\alpha }_ai_a\alpha _aj_aJ_a\right)R,$$
(29)
where

$$i_a=\frac{1}{2}\xi _a^R\mathrm{coth}(x_bx_c)+\left(R_{ab}\eta _b^L+\frac{1}{2}\xi _a^R\right)\mathrm{tanh}(x_bx_c)$$
(30)
and

$$j_a=R_{ab}\eta _b^L+\xi _a^R.$$
(31)
When these integrals are used, there appear several ways to choose an invariant manifold and to derive the corresponding reduced system. Let us consider the surface on phase space defined by the constraints

$$\eta _a^R=0.$$
(32)
These constraints, in the Dirac’s terminology DiracL ; HenTeit  are first class constraints $`\{\eta _a^R,\eta _b^R\}=ϵ_{abc}\eta _c^R`$ , and the surface (32) is invariant under the evolution governed by the Hamiltonian

$$\{\eta _a^R,H_{GL}\}=0.$$

Using the relation between left and right-invariant Killing fields $`\eta _a^R=O_{ab}\eta _b^L`$ , we find out that after projection to the constraint surface (32), the Hamiltonian reduces to

$$H_{GL}(\eta _a^R=0)=\frac{1}{8}\underset{a}{\overset{3}{}}p_a^2+\frac{1}{4}\underset{(abc)}{}\frac{(\xi _a^R)^2}{\mathrm{sinh}^22(x_bx_c)}.$$
(33)
After rescaling of the variables $`2x_ax_a`$, one is convinced that the derived Hamiltonian coincides with the Euler-Calogero-Sutherland Hamiltonian (1), where the intrinsic spin variables are $`l_{ij}=ϵ_{ijk}\xi _k^R`$. Note that performing the reduction to the surface defined by the vanishing integrals $`j_a=0`$, we again arrive at the same Euler-Calogero-Sutherland system.

### 3.3. Lax-pair for Generalized Euler-Calogero-Sutherland model

The expressions (29) for the integrals of motion allow us to rewrite the classical equation of motion for the Generalized Euler-Calogero-Sutherland model in the Lax form

$$\dot{L}=[A,L],$$
(34)
where $`3\times 3`$ matrices are given explicitly as

$$\begin{array}{cc}L=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}p_1& L_3^+,& L_2^{}\\ L_3^{},& p_2& L_1^+\\ L_2^+,& L_1^{},& p_3\end{array}\right)\hfill & \end{array}$$

and

$$\begin{array}{cc}A=\frac{1}{4}e^{+X}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}p_1& A_3,& A_2\\ A_3,& p_2,& A_1\\ A_2,& A_1,& p_3\end{array}\right)e^X,\hfill & \end{array}$$

where

$`L_1^\pm ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\xi _1^R}{\mathrm{sinh}(x_2x_3)}}\pm {\displaystyle \frac{R_{1m}\eta _m^L+\frac{1}{2}\xi _1^R}{\mathrm{cosh}(x_2x_3)}},`$ (35)
$`L_2^\pm ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\xi _2^R}{\mathrm{sinh}(x_3x_1)}}\pm {\displaystyle \frac{R_{2m}\eta _m^L+\frac{1}{2}\xi _2^R}{\mathrm{cosh}(x_3x_1)}},`$ (36)
$`L_3^\pm ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\xi _3^R}{\mathrm{sinh}(x_1x_2)}}\pm {\displaystyle \frac{R_{3m}\eta _m^L+\frac{1}{2}\xi _3^R}{\mathrm{cosh}(x_1x_2)}}`$ (37)
and

$`A_1={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\xi _1^R}{\mathrm{sinh}^2(x_2x_3)}}{\displaystyle \frac{R_{1m}\eta _m^L+\frac{1}{2}\xi _1^R}{\mathrm{cosh}^2(x_2x_3)}},`$ (38)
$`A_2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\xi _2^R}{\mathrm{sinh}^2(x_3x_1)}}{\displaystyle \frac{R_{2m}\eta _m^L+\frac{1}{2}\xi _2^R}{\mathrm{cosh}^2(x_3x_1)}},`$ (39)
$`A_3={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\xi _3^R}{\mathrm{sinh}^2(x_1x_2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{R_{3m}\eta _m^L+\frac{1}{2}\xi _3^R}{\mathrm{cosh}^2(x_1x_2)}}.`$ (40)
## 4 Concluding Remarks

In this talk, we have discussed the generalization of the Euler-Calogero-Sutherland model by introducing two internal variables “spin” and “isospin”, using the integrable model based on the general matrix group $`GL(n,)`$. We outline its relation to the well-known integrable model. Our consideration confirms once more that the clue to an integrability of a model is often hidden in the possibility to connect it with a known higher-dimensional exactly solvable system by its symplectic reduction to its invariant submanifold Arnold ; Marsden . A rich spectrum of these types of finite-dimensional models, obtained by the generalized “momentum map” is well-known (see e.g. PerelBook ). Over the last decade it has been recognized that the same happens in the infinite-dimensional case. Integrable two-dimensional field theories have been found from the so-called WZNW theory applying the Hamiltonian reduction method FO'RRTW . An important class of finite-dimensional systems was discovered by the Hamiltonian reduction method from the so-called matrix models (for a recent review see e.g.Polychronakos ). The interest to this type of models has a long history starting with the Wigner study of the statistical theory of energy levels of complex nuclear system Mehta . Nowadays we have revival of the interest to a matrix models connected with the search of relations between the supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory and integrable systems (for a modern review see e.g. DPReview ). The relation between the Euler-Calogero-Moser model and the $`SU(2)`$ Yang-Mills theory in long-wavelength approximation was obtained in (ECM-YM ).

###### Acknowledgements.

It is a pleasure to thank the local organizers of the XXIII International Colloquium on Group Theoretical Methods in Physics and B. Dimitrov, V.I. Inozemtsev, A. Kvinikhidze, M.D. Mateev, and P. Sorba for illuminating discussions.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Recently there is a surge of interest in studying the effect of a constant background Neveu-Schwarz (NS) $`B`$ field on the decoupled theory of D-branes in superstring theory. It has been found that the worldvolume coordinates of Dp-branes can become noncommutative along the directions of a nonvanishing $`B`$-field. When the nonzero $`B`$ field is space-like, one can define a decoupling limit for a noncommutative Yang-Mills theory (NCYM), i.e., a noncommutative field theory . On the other hand, if the $`B`$ field is time-like, a so-called noncommutative open string (NCOS) theory can be achieved .

The counterpart of NS $`B`$ field in M-theory is a three-form $`C`$-field. Here we have an open M2 brane ending on M5-branes which plays a similar role as an open string ending on Dp-branes does in superstring theory. So a natural question is to ask whether there exists a decoupled theory in M-theory in which the $`C`$ field plays a similar role as the NS $`B`$ field does to the decoupled theories of D-branes in string theory . Indeed it has been found that a near-critical electric field $`C_{012}`$ defines a decoupled theory in M-theory, namely OM theory . The physical picture here is that the electric force due to the near-critical electric field $`C_{012}`$ balances the open membrane tension such that we end up with a finite proper tension in the decoupling from the bulk (i.e., sending the eleven-dimensional Planck length to zero). Furthermore the compactification of OM theory on a magnetic circle yields a (1 + 4)-dimensional noncommutative Yang-Mills theory (NCYM) with a space-space noncommutativity. Recall that the (1 + 4)-dimensional NCYM is not renormalizable and new degrees of freedom enter when the energy reaches around $`1/g_{\mathrm{YM}}^2`$. Thus the OM theory provides the high energy completion of the NCYM. On the other hand, the compactification of OM theory on an electric circle gives a (1 + 4)-dimensional NCOS theory with a space-time noncommutativity. Thus OM theory provides a description of the NCOS theory when its coupling is strong. Therefore the (1 + 4)-dimensional NCYM and NCOS have a unified origin in six dimensions: OM theory. The relation of OM theory to the NCOS is quite similar to that between M theory and IIA superstring theory.

In general, a constant $`C_{012}`$-field can be traded to a constant M5 brane worldvolume 3-form field strength111The non-linear self-duality relation implies the presence of $`H_{345}`$ as well. The same should be true for $`C_{345}`$. $`H_{012}`$. From the M5 brane worldvolume perspective, an M5 brane with a constant $`H_{012}`$ represents a non-threshold bound state of this M5 brane with delocalized M2 branes along two of the 5 spatial directions of the M5 brane. The gravity configuration for this (M5, M2) bound state was given in . Recently the gravity configuration of a more general non-threshold (M5, M2, M$`2^{}`$, MW) bound state has been constructed in  by uplifting the known (D4, D2, D$`2^{}`$, D0) bound state solution of the 10-dimensional type IIA supergravity  to 11-dimensions. This bound state preserves also 1/2 spacetime supersymmetries just as the (M5, M2) bound state does. Here MW stands for M-wave and M2 and M2’ denote the corresponding delocalized M2 branes, respectively, along directions orthogonal to each other on the M5 brane worldvolume.

Given that the asymptotic configuration of the (M5, M2, M$`2^{}`$, MW) bound state is related to that of the (M5, M2) bound state by a finite Lorentz boost and the two bound states preserve the same number of spacetime supersymmetry, one must be wondering if the two bound states are in general related to each other by such a boost. This is not obvious at all if one simply examines the corresponding gravity configurations of the two bound states. We will show in the following section that this is indeed true. Given this result, it is natural for us to test whether the recently proposed boost-related V-duality, first for NCOS in  and then elaborated and extended to more general cases in , works for OM theory as well. We will investigate this in the present paper and the answer is positive.

This paper is organized as follows: In section 2, we show that the (M5, M2, M$`2^{}`$, MW) bound state is indeed related to the (M5, M2) bound state by a finite Lorentz boost along a direction perpendicular to the M2 brane. In section 3, we show that insisting a decoupled OM theory allows only an infinitesimal Lorentz boost which appears to be a Galilean one for the decoupled OM theory. In other words, the allowed non-trivial spacetime boosts connecting a deformed OM theory to the original one are Galilean ones222There are some subtleties here when the boost is not perpendicular to the original M2 directions. We will discuss this in . The ‘non-trivial spacetime boost’ here means those which are not in the symmetry group $`SO(1,2)`$ of the original OM theory.; conjecturally they result in physically equivalent theories. We will discuss the V-duality for OM theory both from the gravity perspective and from the M5 brane worldvolume perspective. In section 4, we consider the compactification of the deformed OM theory on either an ‘electric’ circle or a ‘magnetic’ circle333 Here the ‘electric’ or ‘magnetic’ circle is defined with respect to the original OM theory without the boost. In other words, an ‘electric’ direction is either the $`x^1`$ or the $`x^2`$ direction while a ‘magnetic’ direction is any of the $`x^3,x^4,x^5`$ directions. Here the definition for either ‘electric’ or ‘magnetic’ direction is not perfect since we have nonvanishing $`C_{034}`$. But these are just convenient names which will be used later when we consider compactifications of the deformed OM theory.. We find that the V-duality for OM theory gives the corresponding known V-duality for either NCOS or NCYM discussed in . We conclude this paper in section 5.

## 2 The (M5, M2, M2, MW) bound state

In this section we show that the (M5, M2, M2, MW) bound state, recently constructed in  by uplifting the known (D4, D2, D$`2^{}`$, D0) bound state to 11-dimensions, can also be obtained from the (M5, M2) bound state by a finite Lorentz boost along a M5-brane direction perpendicular to the M2-brane. We start with the supergravity solution of the (M5, M2) bound state ,

$`ds^2=H^{1/3}h^{1/3}[dt^2+(dx^1)^2+(dx^2)^2+h((dx^3)^2+(dx^4)^2+(dx^5)^2)`$
$`+H(dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_4^2)],`$
$`l_p^3C=H^1\mathrm{sin}\alpha dtdx^1dx^2H^1h\mathrm{tan}\alpha dx^3dx^4dx^5`$
$`F_4=3\pi Nl_p^3ϵ_4,`$ (2.1)
where $`l_p`$ is the Planck constant in 11-dimensions, $`N`$ is the number of M5-branes in the bound state, $`ϵ_4`$ is the volume form of 4-sphere with a unit radius, and the function $`h`$ and the harmonic function $`H`$ are defined as

$$H=1+\frac{R^3}{\mathrm{cos}\alpha r^3},h^1=H^1\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha +\mathrm{cos}^2\alpha ,$$
(2.2)
with $`R^3=\pi Nl_p^3`$.

We now Lorentz boost this system along the $`x^5`$-direction with a boost parameter $`\gamma `$,

$$tt\mathrm{cosh}\gamma x^5\mathrm{sinh}\gamma ,x^5x^5\mathrm{cosh}\gamma t\mathrm{sinh}\gamma ,$$
(2.3)
and we end up with

$`ds^2=H^{1/3}h^{1/3}[dt^2+(dx^1)^2+(dx2)^2+(dx^5)^2+h((dx^3)^2+(dx^4)^2)`$
$`+(h1)(\mathrm{cosh}\gamma dx^5\mathrm{sinh}\gamma dt)^2+H(dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_4^2)],`$
$`l_p^3C=H^1(\mathrm{sin}\alpha \mathrm{cosh}\gamma dtdx^1dx^2\mathrm{sin}\alpha \mathrm{sinh}\gamma dx^1dx^2dx^5`$
$`+h\mathrm{tan}\alpha \mathrm{sinh}\gamma dtdx^3dx^4h\mathrm{tan}\alpha \mathrm{cosh}\gamma dx^3dx^4dx^5),`$ (2.4)
where the 4-form field strength $`F_4`$ as given in (2) remains the same. Defining

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\theta _2}{\mathrm{cos}\theta _1}}=\mathrm{sin}\alpha \mathrm{cosh}\gamma ,\mathrm{tan}\theta _1=\mathrm{sin}\alpha \mathrm{sinh}\gamma ,`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\theta _1}{\mathrm{cos}\theta _2}}=\mathrm{tan}\alpha \mathrm{sinh}\gamma ,\mathrm{tan}\theta _2=\mathrm{tan}\alpha \mathrm{cosh}\gamma ,`$ (2.5)
we then have444Here we obtain the boosted configuration only for $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _2\mathrm{cos}\theta _1`$. The case with $`\mathrm{cos}\theta _2>\mathrm{cos}\theta _1`$ can be obtained by the same boost but now on the (M5, M2) bound state with M2 branes along $`x^3x^4`$ directions.

$`\mathrm{cos}\alpha ={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}\theta _2}{\mathrm{cos}\theta _1}},\mathrm{cosh}\gamma ={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\theta _2}{\mathrm{cos}\theta _1}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}\alpha }},\mathrm{sinh}\gamma ={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\theta _1}{\mathrm{cos}\theta _2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{tan}\alpha }}.`$ (2.6)
Further if we set

$$H^{}=1+\frac{R^3}{\mathrm{cos}\theta _1\mathrm{cos}\theta _2r^3},h_i^1=H^1\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _i+\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _i,i=1,2,$$
(2.7)
we can derive

$$H=H^{}h_1^1,h^1=h_1h_2^1.$$
(2.8)
Using the above relations, the solution (2) can be expressed as

$`ds^2=H^{1/3}h_1^{1/3}h_2^{1/3}[h_1dt^2+h_1((dx^1)^2+(dx^2)^2)+h_2((dx^3)^2+(dx^4)^2)`$
$`+(h_2h_1)(\mathrm{cosh}\gamma dx^5\mathrm{sinh}\gamma dt)^2+H^{}(dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_4^2)].`$ (2.9)
Using the following three identities,

$`h_1+(h_2h_1)\mathrm{sinh}^2\gamma =1+h_1h_2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _1\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _2(H^11)^2,`$
$`h_1+(h_2h_1)\mathrm{cosh}^2\gamma =h_1h_2,`$
$`2(h_2h_1)\mathrm{cosh}\gamma \mathrm{sinh}\gamma =2h_2h_1(H^11)\mathrm{sin}\theta _1\mathrm{sin}\theta _2,`$ (2.10)
we can re-express the boosted solution (2) as

$`ds^2=H^{1/3}h_1^{1/3}h_2^{1/3}[dt^2+h_1((dx^1)^2+(dx^2)^2)+h_2((dx^3)^2+(dx^4)^2)`$
$`+h_1h_2(dx^5+\mathrm{sin}\theta _1\mathrm{sin}\theta _2(H^11)dt)^2+H^{}(dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_4^2)],`$ (2.11)
and

$`l_p^3C=H^1({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\theta _2}{\mathrm{cos}\theta _1}}h_1dtdx^1dx^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\theta _1}{\mathrm{cos}\theta _2}}h_2dtdx^3dx^4`$
$`h_1\mathrm{tan}\theta _1dx^1dx^2dx^5h_2\mathrm{tan}\theta _2dx^3dx^4dx^5),`$
$`F_4=3\pi Nl_p^3ϵ_4.`$ (2.12)
Eqs.(2) and (2) together are nothing but the gravity configuration of the (M5, M2, M$`2^{}`$, MW) bound state that was recently constructed in  by uplifting the (D4, D2, D$`2^{}`$, D0) bound state solution  to 11-dimensions.

## 3 The Galilean nature of OM theory: V-duality

In this section we intend to study a possible OM theory decoupling limit for the boosted (M5,M2) system as given in (2). The usual OM theory decoupling limit as given in  is actually with respect to a static (M5, M2) system with non-vanishing asymptotic $`C_{012}`$ and $`C_{345}`$. The presence of $`C_{345}`$ originates from a non-linear self-duality relation on the M5 brane worldvolume 3-form field strength . This decoupling limit requires a near-critical electric field $`C_{012}`$ whose force almost balances the open membrane tension in a limit in which the bulk gravity decouples. As a result, the open membrane is confined within the M5 brane worldvolume with a finite tension which defines the scale for the OM theory.

For the boosted (M5,M2) system given in (2), one cannot blindly use the boosted electric component $`C_{012}`$ to define the near-critical field limit, since in this case the net force acting on the open membrane is not merely due to this $`C_{012}`$ and the other non-vanishing components of the background $`C`$-field such as $`C_{034}`$ contribute to the net force as well. What we should account for is the total net force acting on the open membrane. Given the fact that we are considering a boosted system from the original static one, we must conclude that the near-critical field limit obtained for the static case remains the same even for the present boosted system.

The above indicates that a near-critical field limit is independent of a Lorentz boost. This in turn seemingly implies that a Lorentz boost is allowed for a decoupled OM theory. Our investigation in  tells that except for a static configuration, a near-critical field limit itself is in general not enough to define a decoupled theory. In addition, either a well-defined decoupled gravity description or a proper open brane description (when available) is needed. In the following, we first discuss an OM theory decoupling limit for the boosted system in a gravity setup. We find that insisting a well-defined OM theory allows only infinitesimal Lorentz boost. This boost appears as a Galilean one to the decoupled theory. This indicates that the V-duality discussed recently in  holds for OM theory as well. We will check this using the proposed open membrane metric in  as well. The conclusion remains the same.

As mentioned above, the near-critical field limit for the boosted system remains the same as that for (M5, M2). In other words, we have now ($`ϵ0`$)

$$l_p=ϵl_{\mathrm{eff}},\mathrm{cos}\alpha =ϵ^{3/2}.$$
(3.1)
Note that the scalings for the asymptotic transverse coordinates should remain the same as for the case without boost. This gives $`r=ϵ^{3/2}u`$ with fixed $`u`$. With these, insisting the decoupling of a flat bulk region from that of the M5 branes requires further the following

$$x^{0,1,2}=\stackrel{~}{x}^{0,1,2},x^{3,4,5}=ϵ^{3/2}\stackrel{~}{x}^{3,4,5},\gamma =\stackrel{~}{v}ϵ^{3/2},$$
(3.2)
where $`\stackrel{~}{x}^\mu `$ with $`\mu =0,1,\mathrm{}5`$ (here $`x^0=t`$) and $`\stackrel{~}{v}`$ remain fixed. With the above, the gravity description of OM theory is now

$`ds^2=ϵ^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{u^3}{\pi Nl_{\mathrm{eff}}^3}}\right)^{1/3}\stackrel{~}{h}^{1/3}[d\stackrel{~}{t}^2+(d\stackrel{~}{x}^1)^2+(d\stackrel{~}{x}^2)^2+\stackrel{~}{h}((d\stackrel{~}{x}^3)^2+(d\stackrel{~}{x}^4)^2)`$
$`+\stackrel{~}{h}(d\stackrel{~}{x}^5\stackrel{~}{v}d\stackrel{~}{t})^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi Nl_{\mathrm{eff}}^3}{u^3}}(du^2+u^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_4^2)],`$
$`C={\displaystyle \frac{u^3}{\pi Nl_{\mathrm{eff}}^6}}d\stackrel{~}{t}d\stackrel{~}{x}^1d\stackrel{~}{x}^2{\displaystyle \frac{u^3}{\pi Nl_{\mathrm{eff}}^6}}\stackrel{~}{h}d\stackrel{~}{x}^3d\stackrel{~}{x}^4(d\stackrel{~}{x}^5\stackrel{~}{v}d\stackrel{~}{t}),`$ (3.3)
where $`\stackrel{~}{h}^1=1+u^3/\pi Nl_{\mathrm{eff}}^3`$. When $`\stackrel{~}{v}=0`$, the gravity dual reduces to one for the usual OM theory .

The above results confirm our expectation. A well-defined decoupled OM theory requires the boost $`\gamma =\stackrel{~}{v}ϵ^{3/2}`$ to be infinitesimally small. This appears to be a Galilean boost which relates the usual OM theory to the present one through

$$\stackrel{~}{t}\stackrel{~}{t},\stackrel{~}{x}^5\stackrel{~}{x}^5\stackrel{~}{v}\stackrel{~}{t}.$$
(3.4)
The background $`C`$-field (or the M5 brane worldvolume 3-form field strength $`H`$) is needed to define the OM theory. The presence of this field breaks the M5 brane worldvolume Lorentz symmetry. But this breaking is spontaneous. We therefore expect that the OM theories resulting from the respective decouplings in such related backgrounds are physically equivalent. Along the same line as discussed in , we have therefore V-duality holding true for OM theory.

For the rest of this section, we make an independent check of what has been achieved above using the effective open membrane metric555This metric was proposed to play a similar role as the effective open string metric given by Seiberg and Witten . However, unlike the open string metric, this metric cannot be derived directly due to our inability at present to quantize the membrane.(the one seen by the open membrane) recently proposed in . The nonlinear self-duality condition for the M5 brane worldvolume 3-form field strength $`H`$ reads

$$\frac{\sqrt{g}}{6}ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma \lambda \tau }H^{\sigma \lambda \tau }=\frac{1+K}{2}(G^1)_\mu ^\lambda H_{\nu \rho \lambda },$$
(3.5)
where $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ is the induced metric on the M5 brane, $`ϵ^{012345}=1`$ and the scalar $`K`$ and the tensor $`G`$ are given by

$`K=\sqrt{1+{\displaystyle \frac{l_p^6}{24}}H^2},`$
$`G_{\mu \nu }={\displaystyle \frac{1+K}{2K}}\left(g_{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{l_p^6}{4}}H_{\mu \nu }^2\right).`$ (3.6)
It is understood that the indices in the above equations are raised or lowered using the induced metric. It was argued in  that the symmetric tensor $`G_{\mu \nu }`$ is related to the effective open membrane metric up to a conformal factor. With an appropriate choice of the conformal factor, this proposed metric for OM theory was shown in  to reduce to the respective effective open string metric upon dimensional reductions.

For the boosted (M5,M2) given in (2), the asymptotic bulk metric and the $`C`$ field along the M5 brane directions are

$`ds^2=dt^2+g_1^2\left((d\stackrel{~}{x}^1)^2+(d\stackrel{~}{x}^2)^2\right)+g_2^2\left((d\stackrel{~}{x}^3)^2+(d\stackrel{~}{x}^4)^2\right)+g_3^2(d\stackrel{~}{x}^5)^2,`$
$`l_p^3C=g_1^2\mathrm{sin}\alpha \mathrm{cosh}\gamma dtd\stackrel{~}{x}^1d\stackrel{~}{x}^2g_1^2g_3\mathrm{sin}\alpha \mathrm{sinh}\gamma d\stackrel{~}{x}^1d\stackrel{~}{x}^2d\stackrel{~}{x}^5`$
$`g_2^2g_3\mathrm{tan}\alpha \mathrm{cosh}\gamma d\stackrel{~}{x}^3d\stackrel{~}{x}^4d\stackrel{~}{x}^5+g_2^2\mathrm{tan}\alpha \mathrm{sinh}\gamma dtd\stackrel{~}{x}^3d\stackrel{~}{x}^4,`$ (3.7)
where we have scaled the coordinates according to the symmetry of system under consideration.

Recall that the C-field can be traded for the H-field. With this in mind and from (3), we have

$$G_{\mu \nu }^{}g_{\mu \nu }+\frac{l_p^6}{4}H_{\mu \nu }^2=\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}𝒜& 0& 0& 0& 0& \\ 0& {\scriptscriptstyle \frac{g_1^2(3+\mathrm{cos}2\alpha )}{4}}& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& {\scriptscriptstyle \frac{g_1^2(3+\mathrm{cos}2\alpha )}{4}}& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& {\scriptscriptstyle \frac{g_2^2(2+\mathrm{tan}^2\alpha )}{2}}& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& {\scriptscriptstyle \frac{g_2^2(2+\mathrm{tan}^2\alpha )}{2}}& 0\\ & 0& 0& 0& 0& 𝒞\end{array}\right)$$
(3.8)
and

$$l_p^6H^2=6\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha \mathrm{tan}^2\alpha .$$
(3.9)
where

$`𝒜`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2+\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha \mathrm{cosh}^2\gamma +\mathrm{tan}^2\alpha \mathrm{sinh}^2\gamma }{2}},={\displaystyle \frac{g_3(3+\mathrm{cos}2\alpha )\mathrm{sinh}2\gamma \mathrm{tan}^2\alpha }{8}},`$
$`𝒞`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_3^2(2+\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha \mathrm{sinh}^2\gamma +\mathrm{cosh}^2\gamma \mathrm{tan}^2\alpha )}{2}}.`$ (3.10)
Following , we propose the tensor $`G_{\mu \nu }^{}`$ to be conformally related to the open membrane metric $`\stackrel{~}{G}_{\mu \nu }`$ as

$$\stackrel{~}{G}_{\mu \nu }=f(l_p^6H^2)G_{\mu \nu }^{},$$
(3.11)
where $`f`$ is a function of $`l_p^6H^2`$ and is introduced such that the open membrane metric is finite in units of $`l_p^2`$. However, the precise form for this function $`f`$ has not been determined. Fortunately, this does not prevent us from making the present discussion.

Since the tensor $`G_{\mu \nu }^{}`$ differs from the true open membrane metric only by a conformal factor, we expect that at least its diagonal elements should scale the same way since they survive when the boost is set to zero. Further inspecting the tensor $`G_{\mu \nu }^{}`$, we find that $`G_{11}^{},G_{22}^{},G_{33}^{},G_{44}^{}`$ are independent of the boost as they should be. With the near-critical field limit (3.1), we have now $`g_11,g_2ϵ^{3/2}`$. These further imply that the $`𝒜`$ and $`𝒞`$ should be fixed, too. The former determines that the boost must be $`\gamma =\stackrel{~}{v}ϵ^{3/2}`$ with fixed $`\stackrel{~}{v}`$, i.e., infinitesimally small. The latter determines $`g_3ϵ^{3/2}`$. These in turn imply that $``$ is also fixed. If we set from the above the following,

$$g_1=1,g_2=g_3=ϵ^{3/2},\gamma =\stackrel{~}{v}ϵ^{3/2},$$
(3.12)
we have

$$G_{\mu \nu }^{}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}1+\stackrel{~}{v}^2& 0& 0& 0& 0& \stackrel{~}{v}\\ 0& 1& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 1& 0\\ \stackrel{~}{v}& 0& 0& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right).$$
(3.13)
The above $`G_{\mu \nu }^{}`$ says that we can set $`f=2ϵ^2`$ such that

$$l_p^2\stackrel{~}{G}_{\mu \nu }=2l_{\mathrm{eff}}^2G_{\mu \nu }^{}.$$
(3.14)
Once again the constant $`l_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ sets the effective scale for the decoupled OM theory. The above open membrane metric $`\stackrel{~}{G}_{\mu \nu }`$ is related to the one without boost precisely by the Galilean boost (3.4) as expected.

## 4 Compactifications of the deformed OM theory

In this section, we will show that the V-duality for NCOS and NCYM discussed in  can be obtained from the V-duality for OM theory discussed in the previous section through compactifications and T-dualities. As mentioned in , the V-duality survives S-duality there. Since U-dualities for the big M-theory are believed to be inherited to the little m-theory without gravity, our study so far indicates that the U-duality related decoupled theory has V-duality if the original decoupled theory does. This further enforces our conclusion made in  and to be reported in a forthcoming paper  that V-duality holds in general in the little m-theory.

### 4.1 Compactification on an electric circle

In this subsection, we consider first the compactification of the deformed OM theory on an electric circle (on the direction $`\stackrel{~}{x}^2`$ for definiteness) following . This will give a family of (1 + 4)-dimensional NCOS theories related by V-duality. Further applying T-duality on, for definiteness, $`\stackrel{~}{x}^3`$, we end up with a family of (1 + 3)-dimensional NCOS related by V-duality which was discussed specifically in . In other words, the V-duality for OM theory is inherited to its descendant theories as well.

Consider M-theory on $`R^{10}\times S^1`$(the circle is in the $`x^2`$ direction) with M5-branes wrapping the circle. Scale all bulk moduli as in the previous section for OM theory666For convenience of the present discussion, we have replaced the scaling parameter $`ϵ`$ used in the previous section by $`ϵ^{1/3}`$. , i.e.,

$`l_p=ϵ^{1/3}l_{\mathrm{eff}},\mathrm{cos}\alpha =ϵ^{1/2},\gamma =\stackrel{~}{v}ϵ^{1/2},`$
$`g_{\mu \nu }=\eta _{\mu \nu }(\mu ,\nu =0,1,2),g_{ij}=ϵ\delta _{ij}(i,j=3,4,5),g_{mn}=ϵ\delta _{mn}(m,n=\mathrm{transverse}),`$
$`l_p^3C=\mathrm{sin}\alpha \mathrm{cosh}\gamma d\stackrel{~}{t}d\stackrel{~}{x}^1d\stackrel{~}{x}^2ϵ^{1/2}\mathrm{sin}\alpha \mathrm{sinh}\gamma d\stackrel{~}{x}^1d\stackrel{~}{x}^2d\stackrel{~}{x}^5`$
$`ϵ^{3/2}\mathrm{tan}\alpha \mathrm{cosh}\gamma d\stackrel{~}{x}^3d\stackrel{~}{x}^4d\stackrel{~}{x}^5+ϵ\mathrm{tan}\alpha \mathrm{sinh}\gamma d\stackrel{~}{t}d\stackrel{~}{x}^3d\stackrel{~}{x}^4,`$ (4.1)
where we have kept the cosines and sines as well as $`\mathrm{cosh}`$’s and $`\mathrm{sinh}`$’s in $`C`$ for later convenience.

The relation between M-theory and IIA implies that the above decoupled system is equivalent to a decoupled one of D4 branes in IIA theory with

$`\alpha ^{}=ϵ\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}^{},g_s={\displaystyle \frac{G_o^2}{\sqrt{ϵ}}},\mathrm{cos}\alpha =ϵ^{1/2},\gamma =\stackrel{~}{v}ϵ^{1/2},`$
$`g_{\mu \nu }=\eta _{\mu \nu }(\mu ,\nu =0,1),g_{ij}=ϵ\delta _{ij}(i,j=3,4,5),g_{mn}=ϵ\delta _{mn}(m,n=\mathrm{transverse}),`$
$`2\pi \alpha ^{}B=\mathrm{sin}\alpha \mathrm{cosh}\gamma d\stackrel{~}{t}d\stackrel{~}{x}^1+ϵ^{1/2}\mathrm{sin}\alpha \mathrm{sinh}\gamma d\stackrel{~}{x}^1d\stackrel{~}{x}^5,`$ (4.2)
where

$$\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}^{}=\frac{l_{\mathrm{eff}}^3}{R_2},G_o^2=\left(\frac{R_2}{l_{\mathrm{eff}}}\right)^{3/2},$$
(4.3)
with $`R_2`$ the proper (also the coordinate) radius of the circle.

The above is nothing but the scaling limit for (1 + 4)-dimensional NCOS. To see the V-duality, let us calculate the open string moduli using Seiberg-Witten relation  and we have for the open string metric

$$G_{\alpha \beta }=ϵ\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}(1\stackrel{~}{v}^2)& 0& 0& 0& \stackrel{~}{v}\\ 0& 1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1& 0\\ \stackrel{~}{v}& 0& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right),$$
(4.4)
and for the nonvanishing noncommutative parameters

$$\mathrm{\Theta }^{01}=2\pi \alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}^{},\mathrm{\Theta }^{15}=2\pi \alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}^{}\stackrel{~}{v}.$$
(4.5)
In the above, $`\alpha ,\beta =0,1,3,4,5`$.

The above describes a family of (1 + 4)-dimensional NCOS theories which are related to the one with $`\stackrel{~}{v}=0`$ by the following Galilean boost

$$\stackrel{~}{t}\stackrel{~}{t},\stackrel{~}{x}^5\stackrel{~}{x}^5\stackrel{~}{v}\stackrel{~}{t}.$$
(4.6)
In other words, we have the V-duality for (1 + 4)-dimensional NCOS as discussed in  which is now obtained from that for OM theory.

T-duality of the above along, say, the $`\stackrel{~}{x}^3`$ direction with the coordinate radius $`R_3`$, will give a family of (1 + 3)-dimensional NCOS theories which are related to the one with $`\stackrel{~}{v}=0`$ again by V-duality. The V-duality for this case was particularly studied in . Now we see that this V-duality can also be derived from that for OM theory. This T-duality leaves the noncommutative parameters intact and reduces trivially the open string metric in (4.4) to rank 4 through dropping $`G_{3\beta }`$ and $`G_{\alpha 3}`$. The changes are on the open string coupling and the T-dual radius (denoted as $`\overline{G}_o`$ and $`\overline{R}_3`$, respectively) as

$$\overline{R}_3=\frac{\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}^{}}{R_3},\overline{G}_o^2=\frac{G_o^2\sqrt{\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}^{}}}{R_3}=\frac{R_2}{R_3},$$
(4.7)
where we have used Eq. (4.3) for the last equality in the second equation. We will not address potential subtleties(for examples, see ) related to the T-dualities of decoupled theories here.

### 4.2 Compactification on a magnetic circle

The compactification of the deformed OM theory on a magnetic circle777The compactification along $`x^5`$-direction seems to give the usual (1 + 4)-dimensional NCYM. The boost is now an internal momentum and appears to be invisible to the NCYM. For this reason, we consider here only the compactification along either the $`x^3`$ or $`x^4`$ direction. (say, a circle along the $`x^3`$ direction) follows the usual story to give a (1 + 4)-dimensional NCYM with a rank-2 noncommutative matrix. A further T-duality, say, along the $`x^2`$ direction gives (1 + 3)-dimensional NCYM with again a rank-2 noncommutative matrix. The V-duality for either (1 + 4)-dimensional or (1 + 3)-dimensional NCYM as discussed in , as we will see, follows from that for OM theory.

To begin with, consider M-theory again on $`R^{10}\times S^1`$ (but now the circle is along the $`x^3`$ direction) with M5 branes wrapping on this circle. The scaling limits for the bulk moduli for OM theory is again given by Eq. (4.1). The relation between M-theory and IIA now implies that the above OM theory is equivalent to a decoupled theory of IIA theory as

$`\alpha ^{}=ϵ^{}\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}^{},g_s=ϵ^{1/2}\left({\displaystyle \frac{R_3}{l_{\mathrm{eff}}}}\right)^{3/2},\mathrm{cos}\alpha =ϵ^{},\gamma =\stackrel{~}{v}ϵ^{},`$
$`g_{\mu \nu }=\eta _{\mu \nu }(\mu ,\nu =0,1,2),g_{ij}=ϵ^2\delta _{ij}(i,j=4,5),g_{mn}=ϵ^2\delta _{mn}(m,n=\mathrm{transverse}),`$
$`2\pi \alpha ^{}B=ϵ^{}\mathrm{tan}\alpha \mathrm{sinh}\gamma d\stackrel{~}{t}d\stackrel{~}{x}^4,ϵ^2\mathrm{tan}\alpha \mathrm{cosh}\gamma d\stackrel{~}{x}^4d\stackrel{~}{x}^5,`$ (4.8)
where we have set the new scaling parameter $`ϵ^{}=ϵ^{1/2}`$ and

$$\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}^{}=\frac{l_{\mathrm{eff}}^3}{R_3}.$$
(4.9)
The above scaling limit is the one just for (1 + 4)-dimensional NCYM as expected. We actually have a family of (1 + 4)-dimensional NCYM theories which are related to the one corresponding to $`\stackrel{~}{v}=0`$ by a Galilean boost given in (4.6). We can see this easily by computing the Seiberg-Witten open string moduli, for the metric,

$$G_{\alpha \beta }=\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}(1\stackrel{~}{v}^2)& 0& 0& 0& \stackrel{~}{v}\\ 0& 1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1& 0\\ \stackrel{~}{v}& 0& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right),$$
(4.10)
and for the nonvanishing noncommutative parameter

$$\mathrm{\Theta }^{45}=2\pi \alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}^{}.$$
(4.11)
In the above, $`\alpha ,\beta =0,1,2,4,5`$.

The above open string metric is related to the one with $`\stackrel{~}{v}=0`$ by the Galilean boost (4.6) and the noncommutative parameter remains intact under this boost as it should be. We therefore shows that the V-duality for NCYM as discussed in  can also be obtained from that for OM theory. A T-duality of the above along, say, the $`\stackrel{~}{x}^2`$-direction will give a family of (1 + 3)-dimensional NCYM theories which are again related to the one with $`\stackrel{~}{v}=0`$ by the V-duality discussed in . But we have it here from that for OM theory. This T-duality does not touch the noncommutative parameter but reduces trivially the open string metric to a rank-4 one through dropping $`G_{2\beta }`$ and $`G_{\alpha 2}`$. The changes are on the closed string coupling, the gauge coupling and the radius of circle in the T-dual, i.e., the $`x^2`$-direction. If we denote the T-dual closed string coupling, coordinate radius and the gauge coupling as $`\overline{g}_s,\overline{R}_2`$ and $`\overline{g}_{\mathrm{YM}}^2`$, respectively (the original ones as $`g_s,R_2,g_{\mathrm{YM}}^2`$), we have first

$$\overline{R}_2=\frac{\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}^{}}{R_2},\overline{g}_s=g_sϵ^{1/2}\frac{\sqrt{\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}^{}}}{R_2}=ϵ^{}\frac{R_3}{R_2},$$
(4.12)
where we have used $`g_s`$ and $`\alpha _{\mathrm{eff}}^{}`$ given in Eqs. (4.8) and (4.9) in the last equality of the second equation above. The Yang-Mills coupling for the (1 + 4)-dimensional NCYM can be calculated as

$$g_{\mathrm{YM}}^2=(2\pi )^2g_s\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}\left(\frac{detG}{det(g+2\pi \alpha ^{}B)}\right)^{1/2}=4\pi ^2R_3.$$
(4.13)
The Yang-Mills coupling for the (1 + 3)-dimensional NCYM is related to the above as

$$\overline{g}_{\mathrm{YM}}^2=\frac{\overline{g}_s}{2\pi g_s\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}g_{\mathrm{YM}}^2=2\pi \frac{R_3}{R_2},$$
(4.14)
where we have used the relation between $`\overline{g}_s`$ and $`g_s`$ as given above.

## 5 Conclusion

We show in this paper that the (M5, M2, M$`2^{}`$, MW) bound state of M theory constructed recently in  through uplifting the (D4, D2, D$`2^{}`$, D0) bound state of IIA theory to eleven dimensions is actually related to the (M5, M2) bound state of M-theory by a finite Lorentz boost along a M5 brane direction perpendicular to the M2-brane. This motivates us to consider the V-duality for OM theory. We find indeed that the V-duality holds for OM theory. The meaning of this is that the allowed non-trivial 888By ’non-trivial’, we mean that the boost does not belong to the symmetry group of the original decoupled OM theory. For example, we don’t consider the boost along $`x^1`$ or $`x^2`$ directions. spacetime boost on a given OM theory is a Galilean one, and such related OM theories are also physically equivalent. Everything here goes along the same line as what has been discussed in  for NCOS and NCYM.

We further show that upon compactification on either an electric or a magnetic circle (as well as T-dualities), the V-duality for OM theory gives that for either NCOS or NCYM. This enforces our conclusion made in  and to be reported in detail in a forthcoming paper  that V-duality holds in general for little m-theory without gravity. It is also interesting to seek connections between V-duality discussed here and the recent work on the non-relativistic closed string theory (NRCS) and its strong coupling dual, i.e., the Galilean membrane theory999By definition, the NCRS and its strong coupling dual require the directions of the respective background field to be compactified but not the presence of the corresponding background brane. . We wish to report this in .

## Acknowledgements

The work of RGC and NO was supported in part by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science and in part by Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research Nos. 99020 and 12640270, and by a Grant-in-Aid on the Priority Area: Supersymmetry and Unified Theory of Elementary Particles. JXL acknowledges the support of U.S. Department of Energy. The research of YSW was supported in part by National Science Foundation under Grant No. PHY-9907701.