text:
# Evolution of globular cluster systems in three galaxies of the Fornax cluster

## 1 Introduction

A lot of elliptical galaxies have globular cluster systems (hereafter GCSs) that are less concentrated to the galactic centre than the bulge-halo stars, thus showing radial distributions with larger core radii than those of the bulges. Two classical examples of this phenomenon are the two Virgo giants M87 and M49 (Grillmair et al., 1986, McLaughlin, 1995), to which our Galaxy and M31 have been added later (Capuzzo-Dolcetta & Vignola, 1997). The sample of galaxies that shows this particular feature has been recently enlarged thanks to 11 elliptical galaxies selected by Capuzzo-Dolcetta & Tesseri (1999) in a sample of 14 galaxies with kinematically distinct cores (Forbes et al.,1996) observed with the WFPC2 of the Hubble Space Telescope. Though we could not yet conclude that this phenomenon is common to all galaxies, we may say that there is no case where the halo stars are less concentrated than the GCS. Moreover there is a general agreement on that the difference between the two radial distributions is real and not due to a selective bias. Consequently, different hypotheses have been advanced with the purpose to explain this feature. Among these, two seem the most probable:

1. the difference between the two distributions reflects different formation ages of the two systems, as suggested by Harris & Racine (1979) and Racine (1991); in their opinion globular clusters originated earlier, when the density distribution was less peaked. However, this hypothesis cannot explain why the two distributions are very similar in the outer galactic regions.
2. another explanation is based on the simple and reasonable assumption of coeval birth of globular clusters and halo stars (McLaughlin, 1995), with a further evolution of the GCS radial distribution, while the collisionless halo stands almost unchanged.

The GCS evolution is due to

1. dynamical friction, that brings massive clusters very close to galactic centre,
2. tidal interaction with a compact nucleus (see for example Capuzzo-Dolcetta, 1993).

The combined effect of these dinamical mechanisms acts to deplete the GCSs in the central, denser regions, leaving almost unchanged the outer profile, that so remains similar to the halo stars’ one. The efficiency of the mentioned phenomena is higher in galactic triaxial potentials (see for example Ostriker et al., 1989, Pesce, Capuzzo-Dolcetta & Vietri, 1992), in which we find a family of orbits, the ‘box-like’, that do not conserve any component of their angular momentum and then well sample the central galactic regions. Pesce et al. (1992) showed as globular clusters moving on box orbits lose their orbital energy at a rate an order of magnitude larger than on loop orbits of comparable size and energy. These results showed as the previous evaluations of the dynamical friction efficiency, based on very simplified hypotheses on the globular cluster orbit distribution, led to an overstimate of the dynamical braking time scales. On the contrary, it has been ascertained that massive globular clusters in triaxial potentials could be braked during their motion so to reach the inner regions in a relatively short time(Capuzzo-Dolcetta, 1993). There they could have started a process of merging, giving origin to a central massive nucleus (eventually a black hole) or fed a preexistent one (Ostriker, Binney & Saha, 1989; Capuzzo-Dolcetta, 1993). Under the hypothesis that the initial GCS and halo-bulge radial distributions were the same, an accurate analysis of the observations allows an estimate of the number of “missing clusters” and therefore of the mass removed from the GCSs.

Actually, McLaughlin (1995), Capuzzo-Dolcetta & Vignola (1997) and Capuzzo-Dolcetta & Tesseri (1999), scaling the radial surface profiles of the halo stars of a galaxy to that its globular cluster system, estimated the number of missing globular clusters as the integral of the difference between the two radial profiles. A study like this led, for example, Capuzzo-Dolcetta & Vignola (1997) and Capuzzo-Dolcetta & Tesseri (1999) to suggest that the compact nuclei in our galaxy, M31 and M87 as well as in many other galaxies could have reasonably sucked a lot of decayed globular clusters in the first few Gyrs of life. The aim of this paper is an extension of previous (McLaughlin 1995; Capuzzo-Dolcetta & Vignola 1997; Capuzzo-Dolcetta & Tesseri, 1999) works to the globular cluster data of a sample of three elliptical galaxies in the Fornax cluster (NGC 1379, NGC 1399 and NGC 1404) whose HST data were taken by Forbes et al. 1998a,b, hereafter referred to F98a and F98b.

## 2 THE DATA AND THE RESULTS

In this Section we present and discuss our analysis of GCS radial distribution in the overmentioned galaxies in the Fornax cluster. The data come from recent HST WFPC2 observations (F98a, F98b) and, so, they take the advantage of the HST excellent resolution, which allows an accurate analysis of the crowded inner regions of galaxies at Virgo and Fornax cluster distance. Moreover it allows the subtraction of most of background galaxies. The available density data are, as we will see later, at a high level of completeness.

We have approximated the observed density profiles with a modified “core model”

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }(r)=\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }_0}{\left[1+\left(\frac{r}{r_c}\right)^2\right]^\gamma }$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0`$, $`\gamma `$ and $`r_c`$ are free parameters ($`r_c`$ is called core radius, but, to be precise, it corresponds to the usual definiton of being the distance from the centre where the surface distribution halves its central value just when $`\gamma =1`$. We have chosen the free parameters in (1) minimizing the r.m.s error, i.e.

$$\sigma =\frac{\left(f_if_{0i}\right)^2p_i}{f_{0i}^2p_i}$$
(2)
where $`f_i`$ e $`f_{0i}`$ are, respectively, the fitted and the observed values of the surface density. We have defined the weights $`p_i`$ as the inverse of the error bars of the surface density data. The modified core model approximates very well the GCS density data in the inner regions of the two galaxies NGC 1399 and NGC 1404 ($`\sigma 10^4),`$ while the $`\sigma `$ value results a little higher ($`10^3`$) for NGC 1379. As we will see in the following, this is justified by the somewhat peculiar behaviour of the light profile of the latter galaxy. By means of fitting formula (1) we estimated the number of “missing” clusters in a galaxy and the corresponding mass removed from its GCS. In fact, an approximated value of the mass fallen to the galactic centre is obtained through the two values, $`N_l`$ and $`m_l`$, of the number and of the mean mass of the missing (‘lost ’) globular clusters. A priori, the determination of $`m_l`$ needs a detailed evaluation of the effects of evolutionary processes on the original mass spectrum of the GCS. However, the most relevant phenomena (tidal shocking and dynamical friction) act on opposite sides of the initial mass function then – if the initial mass function is not too asymmetric – we expect that the mean value of the globular cluster mass has not changed very much in time (see Capuzzo-Dolcetta & Tesseri, 1997) . Hence we can assume the present mean value of the mass of globular clusters, $`m,`$ as a good reference value for $`m_l`$. To estimate $`m`$ it is thus necessary to assume a mass function that satisfactorily represents the present distributions of globular clusters in the three galaxies of our sample. On the basis of the observed similarity among the mass spectra of elliptical galaxies (Harris & Pudritz 1994; McLaughlin 1994), we have obtained a single mass spectrum for the Fornax galaxies normalizing the mass spectrum adopted by McLaughlin (1995) for the Virgo giant M87. We have made this normalization using a mass to light ratio $`\beta \left(M/L\right)_{V,}`$ equal to 1.5 for the GCS. The resulting mass spectrum is

$$N(m)m^s$$
(3)
with $`s`$ defined as

$$s=\{\begin{array}{cc}s_00.5\pm 0.2& m_{\mathrm{min}}m1.2\times 10^5M_{}\\ s_11.65\pm 0.10& 1.2\times 10^5M_\times m1.5\times 10^6M_{}\\ s_23.0\pm 0.3& 1.5\times 10^6M_{}mm_{\mathrm{max}}\end{array}$$
(4)
where $`m_{min}`$ and $`m_{max}`$ depend explicitly on $`\beta `$.Of course an error in the value of $`s`$ leads to an error in the evaluation of the mean mass $`m`$. Then we think important to check the degree of reliability of our method by estimating (in the way described in the Appendix A) the mean error made using the mass spectrum (3) to evaluate the mass.

### 2.1  NGC 1379

NGC 1379 is an EO galaxy in the Fornax cluster studied by, e.g., Harris & Hanes (1987), Kissler-Patig et al. (1997) and later F98b. Harris & Hanes (1987) compared the radial profile of the GCS in NGC 1379 with the surface brightness of the galaxy itself as given by Schombert (1986). Their study was limited to the radial range 5-35 kpc, and they did not detect any difference between the two profiles. This was confirmed by Kissler-Patig et al. (1997) that used ground-based data over the 3-10 kpc range. The recent analysis of F98b, based on data of the HST WFPC2, confirms the similarity between the two surface profiles in the outer regions but, at the same time, show as the two differ in the inner regions. Thanks to these latter data, that cover a radial range larger than previously available, we managed to make a comparative study between the halo stars’ surface profile and the GCS one.

#### 2.1.1 Observed data and the modified core model

In F98b detailed plots of the radial profile of the GCS of NGC 1379 are presented, thanks to the high resolution of HST. The profiles shown in the paper are two: one (containing GCs with B $`<25.5`$) is complete and uncontaminated and the other (composed by objects with B$`>26.5`$ and without correction for incompleteness) is expected to be composed mostly by background galaxies.

The radial profile of the brighter sample begins to decrease from $`10`$ to 80 arcsec ($`17`$ kpc); at 80 arcsec from the centre the profile is lost in the background (see F98b).

Fig.1 shows the radial profile of clusters with B $`<25.5`$ with a background of 2.7 objects per arcmin2 subtracted. The superposed dotted line represents the luminosity profile of the underlying galaxy as provided by Kissler-Patig et al. (1997), scaled vertically to match the GCS profile in the outer regions. In this way the two profiles agree well at $``$35-70 arcsec (3-6 kpc). The logarithmic slope of the GCS profile is $`2.4`$ at $`r\begin{array}{c}>\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}35`$ arcsec. Inwards of 30 arcsec it flattens out.

F98b estimated a core radius of 23$`\pm 6`$ arcsec (2.0$`\pm 0.5`$ kpc) assuming it as the distance from the centre where the surface density halves its central value. In its turn, the galaxy light seems to decline with a constant slope from $`10`$ to $`50`$ arcsec, where it seems to change slope slightly. To be sure of completeness, we have initially analysed only the brighter sample (B$`<25.5`$): in a second analysis, we added the clusters of the fainter sample. Fitting the GCS density data with the law (1), we have the best fit with $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0=220.62`$ arcmin$`^2,`$ $`\gamma =1`$ and $`r_c=23`$ arcsec (solid line in Fig.1). The modified core model approximates very well the density data in the outer regions, while it seems to be an overestimate in the inner regions. According to F98b the central dip of the observed GCS radial distribution is not an artefact of their analysis, but it represents a real drop in the volume density of clusters near the nucleus of galaxy. In fact they estimated a 97% completeness of the density data in the galactic region inwards of $``$10 arcsec.

The observed decreasing behaviour toward the galactic centre of the GCS distribution of NGC 1379 seems to indicate that the dynamical depleting mechanisms are efficient, in this galaxy, up to significantly large radii.

#### 2.1.2  The “missing clusters” in NGC 1379

As we said in the Introduction, the estimate of the (potentially) missing clusters can be obtained as the integral of the difference between the GCS and halo stars’ surface density distribution, after this latter has been normalized. For this reason we have considered only the radial range where the two profiles differ, i.e. 1.77-37.58 arcsec (see Fig.1). The bulge–halo radial profile has an almost constant slope, -2.4, in the range 10 to 50 arcsec from the centre, but for our purpose it has been necessary to know the star profile also in the region within 10 arcsec.This has been made possible thanks to Grillmair, who gave us (1999, private communication) the model used to subtract the stellar light from globular clusters profile (99 % complete for $`B<25.5`$). We obtained a logarithmic slope of the stellar profile of about -1 in the radial range 1.77-10 arcsec (see Fig.1). In the annulus 1.77-37.58 arcsec, the number of stars is 512, on the other side, the modified core model fitting the globular cluster distribution gives 132 as number of clusters observed in the same annulus. Then, in the assumption that the normalized stellar profile gives the initial distribution of globular clusters, we find that the number of “missing clusters” is 380. Hence NGC 1379 could have lost about 74% of its initial population of globular clusters.

#### 2.1.3 Data completeness and the mass fallen to the galactic centre

The relevant number of clusters possibly missing in the inner region of NGC 1379 corresponds to a great amount of mass supposedly fallen close to the galactic centre. Remembering that the value obtained of $`N_l`$ is restricted to clusters with $`B<25.5,`$ we decided to provide two different evaluations of the mass removed from the GCS: one is the missing mass in the magnitude range of the observations, $`M_l,`$ and another is the missing mass in the “whole” magnitude range, $`\stackrel{~}{M}_l.`$ For this purpose it is useful to make some considerations on the GCS luminosity function.

F98b reported $`B`$ and $`I`$ photometry for $`300`$ globular clusters candidates in NGC 1379. This sample was detected with 4 WFPC2 chips covering a total area of 4.8 arcmin $`^2.`$ The sample with $`B26`$ is almost complete; at $`B>26`$ the completeness begins to decrease very sharply. . The principal source of contamination by foreground stars and background galaxies is due to compact, spherical galaxies and F98b provided a background-corrected luminosity function as a gaussian function with a peak magnitude of $`B=24.95\pm 0.30`$ and a width $`\sigma _B=1.55\pm 0.21.`$ This luminosity function is almost complete and uncontaminated in the range $`21<B<25.5`$. Since we want to estimate the mass lost by the GCS, we had to convert the magnitude range $`21<B<25.5`$ in a mass range. This was done assuming for the galaxy a distance modulus $`mM=31.32`$ for NGC 1379 (Madore, 1986) and , for the GCS, an average colour $`BV=0.7`$ and a mass to light ratio $`\left(M/L\right)_{V,}=1.5`$ , thus obtaining ($`5.2\times 10^4M_{}<m<3.27\times 10^6M_{}`$). Adopting the mass spectrum (3), the mean mass value of the clusters (over the told mass rangei) is $`m=3.5\times 10^5M_{},`$. This value, together with the number of the missing globular clusters (380), leads to $`M_l=1.3\times 10^8M_{}`$ as estimate of the mass fallen to the galactic centre.

A discussion of the error in $`M_l`$ induced by the error $`\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m}{m}`$ for this agalaxy, as well for NGC 1399 and NGC 1404, is postponed to Sect. 3. With regard to the value of the mass lost, we remind it represents an understimate of the mass removed from the GCS during its evolution because it is limited to the actual magnitude range of the observations. Hence to compute the “total” mass lost we set a minimum and a maximum mass, chosen as $`m_{\mathrm{min}}=10^4M_{}`$ and $`m_{\mathrm{max}}=10^7M_{}.`$ Actually, normalizing the complete mass spectrum to reproduce the number (132) of clusters in the observed range (21$`<B<25.5`$), we obtain $`N_{l,tot}`$ value of 179. Moreover, the averaged mass value over the whole magnitude range is 2.9$`\times 10^5M_{}`$ thus to give as estimate of the total missing mass $`M_{l,tot}=1.5\times 10^8M_{},i.e.`$15 % greater than the value obtained in the magnitude range of the observations.

### 2.2 NGC 1399

NGC 1399 is a giant elliptical galaxy lying about at the centre of the Fornax cluster. Among the galaxies around the cluster, NGC 1399 is the most populous in globular clusters. Its GCS was deeply studied in the past through ground-based observations. Among these studies we mention that by Kissler-Patig et al. (1997), who deduced a total number of globular clusters of $`5940\pm 570,`$ value that corresponds to the high specific frequency $`S_N=11\pm 4.`$

In F98a is presented the optical imaging of this galaxy obtained with the HST WFPC2 and the Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory 1.5m telescope. Combining these data they provided the spatial distribution of globular clusters used in the present study.

#### 2.2.1 The data and their fitting formulas

The imaging from HST led F98a to set as completeness limit $`B=26.5.`$ In order to avoid misleading revelations, they excluded also all the sources brighter than $`B=21,`$ since they would be more luminous than known normal globular clusters and so, probably, foreground stars. Moreover, these authors introduced a colour cut to the data:

only the sources with $`1.2<BI<2.5`$ have been incuded in their sample. We see that 95% of all sources lies inside this colour selection. F98a drawn a surface density profile for their sample of globular clusters. To do this, they introduced a small correction ($`1.5`$ %) to take into account the number of undetected globular clusters, that are expected to be at the faint end of the luminosity function ($`B26.5)`$. Next, they subtracted off the estimated background density of 2.9 objects per arcmin$`^2.`$ Excluding the innermost density points, they fitted the data with the function:

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }\left(r\right)=126r^{1.2\pm 0.2}$$
(5)
where $`r`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(r)`$ are expressed in arcmin and arcmin-2, respectively. It is clear from Fig.2 that the GCS surface density flattens out in the inner region. The estimate of the core radisu given in F98a is 40 arcsec ($`3.4`$ kpc). We note that this value of the core radius lies in the scatter of the relation found by Forbes et al. (1996) between the GCS core radius and the galaxy luminosity.

Assuming $`40`$ arcsec as core radius, our modified–core model best fit for NGC 1399 GCS is that with $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0=234.42`$ arcmin-2 and $`\gamma =0.61`$ (solid line in Fig.2). As done first by Hanes & Harris (1986) and later by F98a, we assumed 10 arcmin as limiting radius of the GCS. However it must be taken into account that an error on the limiting radius leads to an error in the evaluation of the globular cluster number. F98a estimated the error in the limiting radius $`\pm 1`$ arcmin; consequently, integrating our fit within 10 arcmin, we find that the total number of globular clusters in NGC 1399 is $`6100\pm 540`$. This value agrees well with the values found in previous studies (Kissler-Patig et al. 1997 gave $`5940\pm 570`$ and F98a obtained the value $`5700\pm 500,`$ adopting the profile (6) completed by the inner available data).

#### 2.2.2 Number of missing globular clusters in NGC 1399

The presumed flattening of the GCs distribution in NGC 1399 has been deeply discussed. While Bridges et al. (1991) stated that the GCS has the same slope of the halo stars, Wagner et al. (1991) and Kissler-Patig (1997), on the contrary, noticed a flattening of the GCS radial profile toward the galactic centre. A weighted average of the slopes provided by studies earlier than that of F98a brings to a value of $`1.47\pm 0.09`$ for the GCS and $`1.72\pm 0.06`$ for the halo stars.F98a found a difference of $`0.4\pm 0.22`$ in the slopes between their fitted GCS distribution profile and that of the stellar halo, concluding that the flattening of the GCS density profile is a real feature. To provide an estimate of ‘missing’ GCs in NGC 1399, we adopted for the stellar light the following profile

$$\mathrm{log}I(r)=1.6\mathrm{log}r+2.502,$$

obtained shifting the stellar halo density data (Forbes 1999, private communication) in the vertical direction, such to match the GCS profile in the outer regions. Extrapolating inward this profile to the galactic radius of 0.1 arcmin and integratig this surface density distribution in the galactic region where the GCS and the halo stars profiles differ, i.e. $`0.18.3`$ arcmin, we found a number of stars of about 9680. On the other side, in this radial range we find a number of GCs equal to 5165, which yields to an estimate of 4515 clusters lost, i.e. about 47% of the initial GC population.

#### 2.2.3 Data completeness and evaluation of the mass lost

The previous results are limited to the magnitude range $`21<B<26.5`$ and to the colour range $`1.2<BI<2.5`$. We now extend them to fainter magnitudes, obtaining two different evaluations of the mass lost in form of GCs. To this scope, it is necessary to make some considerations about the colour indices of the GCs in NGC 1399. Those in the outer region of the galaxy are bluer than those in the central region: $`BI=1.70`$ and 1.97, respectively (F98a). F98a made an estimate of the influence of the contamination of background galaxies to the globular cluster sample. In this way, they found 1.84 as an average value of $`BI`$. This allows us to find a value for $`BV`$, which is needed to transform the magnitude interval in a mass range. We have adopted the relation $`\left(BV\right)_0=0.347(BI)_0+0.163`$ (Grillmair et al. 1999), obtaining $`BV0.8`$.

Adopting a distance modulus $`mM=31.2`$ (Jacoby et al. 1992) and a colour index $`BV0.8`$ for NGC 1399, and a mass-luminosity ratio, for its GCs, equal to 1.5, we obtain that the interval $`21<B<26.5`$ transforms into the mass range $`2\times 10^4M_{}<m<3.2\times 10^6M_{}`$. The mean value of the GC mass is then $`m=2.86\times 10^5M_{}`$. Since the number of lost globulars is 4515, the mass loss is $`1.3\times 10^9M_{}`$.

To estimate the mass lost in the whole GC magnitude range, we adopted as total range of globular cluster masses that between $`m_{\mathrm{min}}=10^4M_{}`$ and $`m_{\mathrm{max}}=10^7M_{}`$. Normalizing the mass distribution (3) to the number of globular clusters observed in the range $`21<B<26.5`$, we obtain a total number of 5686 clusters, to compare with the 5165 observed in the magnitude range covered by the observations. This leads to an estimate of the total mass lost of $`1.44\times 10^9M_{}`$, which differs of about 10% from that previously obtained.

### 2.3 NGC 1404

NGC 1404 is an E1 galaxy, about a magnitude fainter than NGC 1399, sited at about 10 arcmin south east of NGC 1399.

As for NGC 1399, much work has been done on the GCS of this galaxy. The estimates of the number of globular clusters of NGC 1404 are made difficult by its vicinity to NGC 1399. Grillmair et al. (1997) speculated that a great number of the NGC 1399 GCs (those of intermediate metallicity) have been tidally stripped by NGC 1404. The difficulties in distinguishing the two GCSs did not allow to obtain precise results from earlier studies, based on photographic plates (e.g., Hanes & Harris 1986 and Richtler et al. 1992). This problem seems to have been solved by the recent studies by F98a, based on data obtained by the HST WFPC2 and the 1.5 m CTIO telescope.

#### 2.3.1 The data and their fitting formulas

As for NGC 1399, the magnitude and colour intervals of the GC sample are $`21<B<26.5`$ and $`1.2<BI<2.5`$. About 90% of the observed clusters fall in these ranges. Since the number of background objects in the field is 14, F98a concluded that the completeness of the sample of clusters of NGC 1404 is $`93`$%. The GCS surface density profile of NGC 1404 has been obtained by subtracting both the background density and the density of those clusters which are expected to belong to NGC 1399. Excluding the innermost data point, F98a fitted the resulting data with the following surface density profile:

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }\left(r\right)=36r^{1.3\pm 0.2}$$

where $`r`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\left(r\right)`$ are in arcmin and arcmin-2, respectively. Fig.3 shows a central flattening of the GCS distribution, which allows F98a to define, also in this case, a ‘core’ for the system. Their estimate of the core radius is of about 30 arcsec (2.5 kpc). As for NGC 1399, this core radius lies in the scatter of the correlation found by Forbes et al. (1996). We fitted the GCS density distribution data with a modified core model, as we have done for the two other galaxies. The best fit is that with $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0=164.39`$ arcmin$`^2,`$ $`\gamma =0.85`$ and $`r_c=30`$ arcsec (solid line in Fig.3). To obtain an estimate of the total number of globular clusters in this galaxy, we have integrated our density law in the galactic region within 250 arcsec (about 4 arcmin), which is the limiting radius of the observed data. F98a, in fact, showed that in the direction of NGC 1399, the GCS surface density is clearly dominated by this galaxy beyond 250 arcsec.

The modified core model gives a number of globular clusters of 744 $`\pm 120`$ in this galactic region (the error in the GC number has been calculated adopting an error in the limiting radius equal to $`\pm 1`$ arcmin, as suggested by F98a). Our estimate of the GC total number is close to that of F98a; indeed, using the density profile (8) together with inner data points they obtained a number of GCs equal to 725$`\pm 142`$. Our value is between that estimated by Harris & Hanes (1986), 190$`\pm 80,`$ and that by Richtler et al. (1992), 880$`\pm 120.`$

#### 2.3.2 Number of missing clusters in NGC 1404

Also in this case, to compute the number of globular clusters lost to the galactic centre of NGC 1404 it is necessary to discuss the stellar halo profile. F98a determined a logarithmic slope of the star profile of -1.9 $`\pm 0.1`$. It is clear that the NGC 1404 GCS distribution is flatter than that of the halo. Thanks to data provided to us in private communication by Forbes (1999) we adopted the following halo star profile

$$\mathrm{log}I(r)=1.9\mathrm{log}r+1.76$$
(6)
where $`r`$ is in arcmin and $`I(r)`$ in arcmin-2, which, as usual, was obtained by a vertical normalization so to match the GCS profile in the outer regions (see dotted line in Fig.3). Extrapolating this profile inward to the galactic radius of 0.1 arcmin and integrating this surface density distribution in the region of difference with the GCS profile ($`0.12.32`$ arcmin), we get 1061 as “initial” GC number. Integrating our GCS density data fit in the same annulus, we find 508 presently observed clusters, then we conclude that 553 GCs disappeared, i.e. $`52\%`$ of its initial clusters population.

#### 2.3.3 Data completeness and evaluation of the number and mass of lost globular clusters

The data analysed are limited to the magnitude range 21$`<B<26.5,`$ transformed into a mass range in order to estimate the mass lost from the GCS of NGC 1404. For this aim let us do some considerations on the colour indices of the GCS. According to the analysis of F98a, the HST data show that NGC 1404 is dominated by red globular clusters, with a significant tail to the blue. Their colour distribution yields a mean value $`BI`$ =1.96, but F98a considered necessary to account for the background contamination. Using the CTIO data they found a bluer colour distribution, with a mean value $`BI=1.71`$. Now, thanks to the relation between $`BV`$ and $`BI`$ given by Grillmair et al. (1999) we transformed $`BI`$ into $`BV,`$ obtaining a $`BV`$ value of about 0.75. This value for $`BV`$ together with a distance modulus $`mM=31.2`$ maps the magnitude range 21$`<B<26.5`$ onto the mass range $`1.95\times 10^4M_{}<m<3\times 10^6M_{}`$. This allows to estimate a GC mean mass $`m=2.48\times 10^5M_{}`$ and, being the number of missing clusters equal to 553, we deduce an amount of the mass lost by GCS of 1.37$`\times 10^8M_{}.`$

With regard to the total mass lost we have again adopted the mass range $`10^4M_{}<`$ $`m<10^7M_{}`$ as total mass range of globular clusters. Again, normalizing the mass spectrum (3) to reproduce the number of globular clusters actually observed in the magnitude range $`21<B<26.5,`$ we find 556 as “total” number of GCs. This number, together with our estimate of the mean mass value in this range (2.9$`\times 10^5M_{})`$, gives a total mass lost of 1.75$`\times 10^8M_{},`$ value 27% greater than the previous one.

## 3 The error on the mean mass value

Using the expressions deduced in Appendix A we can give the error in the estimate of the average value of the mass, $`\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m}{m}`$, of the GCs in the 3 galaxies studied.

We get

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m}{m}=0.05\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }s_0}{s_0}1.48\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }s_1}{s_1}0.21\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }s_2}{s_2}+0.45\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\beta }{\beta },$$
(7)
$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m}{m}=0.15\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }s_0}{s_0}1.63\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }s_1}{s_1}0.19\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }s_2}{s_2}+0.37\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\beta }{\beta },$$
(8)
$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m}{m}=0.58\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }s_0}{s_0}1.95\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }s_1}{s_1}0.19\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }s_2}{s_2}+0.36\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\beta }{\beta },$$
(9)
for NGC 1379, NGC 1399 and NGC 1404, respectively. From these expressions it is clear that the greatest source of indetermination is due to $`s_1`$, i.e. to the parameter of the mass spectrum that characterizes the intermediate mass range. However it is important to underline that the abundance of the GCs sample in these ranges allows an accurate determination of $`s_1`$. Assuming an error of 10% in the parameters $`s_0,`$ $`s_2`$ and $`\beta \left(M/L\right)_{V,}`$, we obtain, as resulting errors in $`m`$ 22%, 23% and 30%, for NGC 1379, NGC 1399 and NGC 1404, respectively.

## 4 The correlation between the mass lost by GCS and the central galactic black hole mass

Even if theoretical arguments and observational data are clearly compatible with the explanation of the difference between the GCS and stellar bulge radial distributions as a result of dynamical evolution, we still cannot firmly state it. By the way it is interesting, and surely constitutes an argument in favour of this interpretation, to see how our results for the (supposed) mass loss in form of glbobular cluster correlates with the galactic central black hole mass, at least for the set of seven galaxies for which these data are available (our galaxy, M 31, M 87, NGC 1399, NGC 4365, NGC 4589, IC 1459).

Sources of data in Fig. 4 are: for $`M_l`$ this paper and Capuzzo–Dolcetta & Vignola, 1997, while the black hole masses are from Magorrian et al. (1998) except for our Galaxy and IC 1459 taken from Gebhardt et al. (2000). A recent estimate by Saglia et al. (2000) gives as compatible with kinematic data of the inner 5 arcsec of NGC 1399 a black hole mass $`5\times 10^8M_{}`$, i.e. about a factor of 10 less than the value estimated by Magorrian et al. (1998) and reported in Fig. 4.

Fig. 4 shows, even in the paucity of data available, a clear increasing trend of $`M_l`$ as function of $`M_{bh}`$. Actually, the least square straight line fitting the data relative to galaxies with black hole masses heavier than $`10^8`$ M has slope $`0.99`$, i.e. the $`M_l`$ \- $`M_{bh}`$ relation is remarkably linear, while the straight line connecting the 2 low mass points has slope $`0.08`$. The best simple fit to the whole set of data is given by $`LogM_l=a+bexp(LogM_{bh})`$ with $`a=7.158`$ and $`b=1.194\times 10^4`$, giving $`r^2=0.76`$ and standard error $`=0.44`$ (the least square straight line fitting the whole data set yields $`r^2=0.61`$ and standard error $`=0.56`$). Incidentally, we note that the steeper slope of the $`M_l`$ \- $`M_{bh}`$ relation for high values of the nucleus mass is what expected when the black hole is very massive and it acts as powerful engine of GCS evolution.

## 5 Conclusions

We used data taken with the WFPC2 of the Hubble Space Telescope to compare the globular cluster system distribution to that of bulge–halo stars in a sample of three elliptical galaxies in the Fornax cluster.

The first relevant outcome of this study is that the radial distributions of the globular cluster systems in NGC 1379, NGC 1399 and NGC 1404 confirm that the GCSs in elliptical galaxies are less concentrated to the inner regions than the halo stars. Following the scheme of previous works (McLaughlin 1995, Capuzzo-Dolcetta & Vignola 1997, Capuzzo-Dolcetta & Tesseri 1999), i.e. assuming that the globular clusters and halo star distributions were initially the same and the present difference is due to evolutionary effects acting on the GCS, we computed the number of globular clusters lost as the integral of the difference between the two surface distributions (suitably normalized).

In this way we have found that the GCSs of NGC 1379, NGC 1399 and NGC 1404 could have lost the 74%, 47% and 53% of their initial populations, respectively. These results are, obviously, limited to the magnitude range of the observations within which the data reach a sufficiently high level of completeness.

The large number of ‘missing’ globular clusters obtained reveals that a significant amount of mass could have reached the galactic centre, too. An estimate of the mass fallen to the galactic center needs the assumption of a value for the initial mean mass of globular clusters, $`m.`$ It is reliable (see Capuzzo-Dolcetta & Tesseri 1997) to assume for $`m`$ the mean mass value of the presently observed globular clusters. This quantity can be estimated assuming a mass spectrum, that we took as a piece-wise power law for it seems to represent one of the best approximations for elliptical galaxies globular cluster systems (McLaughlin 1994; Harris & Pudritz 1994). In particular, we adopted as unique mass spectrum for the three galaxies of the Fornax cluster that obtained by normalization of the luminosity function adopted by McLaughlin (1995) for the Virgo elliptical giant M87, and assuming a mass to light ratio $`\left(M/L\right)_{V,}`$ =1.5. We provided two different estimates of the mass lost in form of globular clusters: the first is that due to clusters in the magnitude range of the observations and the other refers the “presumed” whole magnitude range. The first estimate, $`M_l,`$ is simply obtained as the product of the mean mass and the number, $`N_l`$, of the missing globular clusters. With regard to the second estimate we made the, quite reasonable, assumption that the total number of missing globular clusters scales with the total number of the clusters present in the galaxy. Hence we computed this total number of globular clusters assuming $`10^4M_{}<m<10^7M_{}`$ as whole mass range, so to include the contribution to $`N_l`$ coming from unobserved clusters. The lower limit of the mass range has not a big influence on the total mass; with regard to the upper limit, the large decreasing slope ($`3`$) of the MF at large masses ensures a high level of convergence of the total mass reached when assuming $`10^7M_{}`$ as maximum mass. The values of the total mass lost, $`\stackrel{~}{M}_l,`$ obtained in this way for the three galaxies NGC 1379, NGC 1399 and NGC 1404 are not too different from those estimated in the mass ranges of the observations (the difference is about 15 %, 10 % and 27 %, respectively; see Table 1). This is explained by that the range of magnitude covered by the observations is close enough to the whole magnitude range, thanks to the high power of HST.

It is relevant noting the positive correlation we found, for the available set of 7 galaxies in Fig. 4, between our evaluated mass lost from the GCS system and the central black hole mass of the parent galaxy: this is what expected on the basis of globular cluster-black hole tidal interaction because the more massive the central black hole the greater its influence on the GCS population.

To conclude, we remark how the values of the mass lost in form of decayed and destroyed globular clusters is significant and so it should have been played a role in the central region activity of their parent galaxies.

## Acknowledgments

We warmly thank D.A. Forbes for giving us some unpublished data useful for the determination of the stellar profile in NGC 1404. We are grateful to D.A. Forbes and C.J. Grillmair for important discussions and comments about the data used in this work.

## Appendix A

A significant source of error on the evaluation of the mass removed from the GCS is due to the assumption of the exponent $`s`$ of the mass spectrum and of the value of the mass-light ratio $`\left(M/L\right)_{}`$ (hereafter $`\beta `$). Infact, an error on these parameters leads to the relative error on $`m`$

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m}{m}=\frac{m}{s}\frac{s}{m}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }s}{s}+\frac{m}{\beta }\frac{\beta }{m}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\beta }{\beta }$$
(10)
Before giving an explicit expression of (A1), we note that, if we use the mass spectrum as in (3), $`m`$ is so defined:

$$m=\beta L=\beta L=\beta \frac{_{L_{\mathrm{min}}}^{L_{\mathrm{max}}}k(L)L^{s+1}𝑑L}{_{L_{\mathrm{min}}}^{L_{\mathrm{max}}}k(L)L^s𝑑L}$$
(11)
that is, in terms of mass

$$m=\frac{_{m_{\mathrm{min}}}^{m_{\mathrm{max}}}k(m)m^{s+1}𝑑m}{_{m_{\mathrm{min}}}^{m_{\mathrm{max}}}k(m)m^s𝑑m}$$
(12)
where $`k(m)`$ is obtained by the proper tranformation of the McLaughlin (1994) normalizing factor $`k(L)`$, i.e.

$$k(m)=\{\begin{array}{cc}A\hfill & m_{\mathrm{min}}mm_1\hfill \\ Am_1^{s_1s_0}\hfill & m_1mm_2\hfill \\ Am_1^{s_1s_0}m_2^{s_2s_1}\hfill & m_2mm_{\mathrm{max}}\hfill \end{array}.$$
(13)
where, of course, $`m_{min}`$, $`m_{max}`$, $`m_1`$ and $`m_2`$ depend linearly on $`\beta `$. To give (A1) a more compact form, we have put

$`m_0m_{\mathrm{min}}`$ and $`m_3m_{\mathrm{max}},`$

$`k_0A,`$ $`k_1Am_1^{s_1s_0},`$ $`k_2Am_1^{s_1s_0}m_2^{s_2s_1},`$

$`N_{tot}=_{m_{\mathrm{min}}}^{m_{\mathrm{max}}}k(m)m^s𝑑m.`$

Remembering that $`s=(s_0,s_1,s_2)`$ (A1) becomes

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }m}{m}=\underset{i=0}{\overset{2}{}}\frac{m}{s_i}\frac{s_i}{m}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }s_i}{s_i}+\frac{m}{\beta }\frac{\beta }{m}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\beta }{\beta }$$
(14)
where $`\frac{m}{s_i},`$ $`\frac{m}{\beta }`$ are so defined:

$$\frac{m}{s_i}=\frac{1}{N_{tot}}\underset{j=0}{\overset{2}{}}\left[\begin{array}{c}\left(\phi _i^j(j+1,2)\phi _i^j(j,2)\right)+\\ m\left(\phi _i^j(j+1,1)\phi _i^j(j,1)\right)\end{array}\right]$$
(15)
with $`\phi _i^j(r,s)=\frac{k_j}{s_i}\frac{m_r^{s_j+s}}{s_j+s}+\delta _i^j\frac{m_r^{s_j+s}}{s_j+s}k_j\left(\frac{1}{s_j+s}\mathrm{ln}m_r\right),`$and

$$\frac{m}{\beta }=\frac{1}{N_{tot}}\underset{j=0}{\overset{2}{}}\frac{k_j}{\beta }\left[\begin{array}{c}\left(m_{j+1}^{s^j+2}m_j^{s^j+2}\right)+\\ m\left(m_{j+1}^{s^j+1}m_j^{s^j+1}\right)\end{array}\right].$$
(16)


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Field theories on noncommutative spaces possess a surprisingly rich dynamical structure (see for instance -.) Recently, soliton solutions of scalar field theory on noncommutative $`^n`$ ($`n`$D NCFT) have been found in the limit of large noncommutativity . The results of  have been extended to gauge theories in -.

These results are particularly exciting in light of the application to D-branes in string theory -.

In this paper we will study the fluctuations of a two-dimensional soliton (2-brane) in scalar 4D noncommutative field theory and begin the study of intersecting 2-branes in this theory. On the geometrical level, a plane in four dimensions can be deformed into a curved minimal area surface, and two intersecting planes can be deformed into a single smooth minimal area surface. In string theory, the latter phenomenon is related to a zero-mode which appears at the intersection of two D-branes .

The purpose of these notes is to:

1. Study the small deformations of planar 2-branes.
2. Identify the classical solutions corresponding to intersecting 2-branes.
3. Identify the zero-mode corresponding to a deformation into a smooth surface.

In principle, the zero mode at the intersection of two 2-branes might not correspond to an exact flat direction because of the existence of a quartic (or higher) potential. We will not explore this issue directly but we will study deviations from the linear equations of motions in the case of small fluctuations of a flat 2-brane.

Following , we will work in the large noncommutativity limit but include the kinetic energy to first order.

The paper is organized as follows. In section (2) we review the geometry of the deformation of intersecting planes. In section (3) we review the constructions of  and study the deformation modes of a single 2-brane in 4D scalar NCFT. We will show that half of the deformation modes correspond to deformations of the flat 2-brane into a holomorphic curve embedded in $`^4`$. The other half correspond to anti-holomorphic fluctuations. In section (4) we will study the holomorphic and anti-holomorphic fluctuations to higher order. In particular cases, we obtain deviations from pure holomorphicity at $`7^{th}`$ order! In section (5) we describe the solution corresponding to two intersecting branes and study the zero-modes that correspond to their deformations. In section (6) some extensions to the case of multiple branes and more dimensions are discussed. We also briefly comment on the situation with $`U(\mathrm{})`$ gauge fields.

## 2 Classical Geometry

We will consider surfaces in $`^4`$ that can be described by a holomorphic equation when $`^4`$ is identified with $`^2`$. Such surfaces have a minimal area in the sense that small deformations of the surface, keeping the boundary conditions at infinity intact, never decrease the area. Let the coordinates be:

$$z_kx_k+iy_k,k=1,2.$$

Consider first a surface that spans the $`z_2`$-direction and is given by the equation $`z_1=0`$. Small holomorphic deformations are described by $`z_1=ϵf(z_2)`$ with $`f(z)=_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}c_nz^n`$ a holomorphic function.

Now consider adding a second surface spanning the $`z_1`$ direction, with the equation $`z_2=0`$. The two surfaces can be represented together by the equation $`z_1z_2=0`$. This reducible surface can be deformed into a smooth irreducible surface given by $`z_1z_2=\zeta `$ where $`\zeta `$ is a complex number. This is the only holomorphic deformation of the singular surface $`z_1z_2=0`$ that preserves the boundary conditions $`z_10`$ as $`|z_2|\mathrm{}`$ and $`z_20`$ as $`|z_1|\mathrm{}`$.

In this case, we see that the possible deformations are given by $`z_1=ϵf(z_2)`$ where $`f(z)=_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}c_nz^n`$ is allowed to have a simple pole at $`z=0`$. More generally, if we add $`r`$ surfaces given by the planes $`z_2=\xi _j`$ ($`j=1\mathrm{}r`$), we can have deformations $`z_1=ϵf(z_2)`$ where $`f`$ is a meromorphic function that is allowed to have simple poles at $`\xi _1,\mathrm{},\xi _r`$. If we add a surface $`z_2=0`$ with multiplicity $`k`$, then $`f(z)`$ is allowed to have a pole of $`k^{th}`$ order at the origin.

## 3 A Single Brane and its Fluctuations

In this section we will construct solitons of noncommutative scalar field theory along the lines of .

### 3.1 The Soliton

Let us review the construction of  for a single codimension-2 brane in the theory with action:

$$[(_\mu \mathrm{\Phi })^2+V(\mathrm{\Phi })].$$

Here:

$$V(\lambda )=\underset{n=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_n\lambda ^n,V(\mathrm{\Phi })=a_2\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }+a_3\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }+\mathrm{}$$

We take spacetime to be commutative and define the $``$-product as:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Phi }e^{\frac{i\theta }{2}\frac{\stackrel{}{}}{x_1}\frac{\stackrel{}{}}{y_1}\frac{i\theta }{2}\frac{\stackrel{}{}}{y_1}\frac{\stackrel{}{}}{x_1}}\mathrm{\Psi }$$

So that:

$$x_1y_1y_1x_1=i\theta .$$

We take the limit $`\theta \mathrm{}`$. After a rescaling of the coordinates, the kinetic term is of order $`1/\theta `$ and can be neglected. For now, the $`x_2,y_2`$ coordinates are still commutative.

We set $`z_1=x_1+iy_1`$ and define a Hilbert space $`_1`$ with the harmonic oscillator basis, $`|n`$ for $`n=0,1,\mathrm{}`$, such that $`\widehat{a}_1^{}|n=\sqrt{n+1}|n+1`$ and $`\widehat{a}_1|n=\sqrt{n}|n1`$. If $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a function of $`x_1`$ and $`y_1`$, the Weyl formula transforms it into an operator on this Hilbert space:

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}\frac{1}{2\pi }d^2\zeta \mathrm{\Phi }(z_1,\overline{z}_1)e^{i\zeta \overline{z}_1i\overline{\zeta }z_1}.$$

Then $`z_1\sqrt{2\theta }\widehat{a}_1`$ and $`\overline{z}_1\sqrt{2\theta }\widehat{a}_1^{}`$. From now on, $`\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Psi },\mathrm{}`$ will denote ordinary functions and $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }},\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }},\mathrm{}`$ will denote the corresponding operators.

Let us assume that $`V(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ has a minimum at $`\lambda 0`$. One can then construct a soliton by setting:

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}=\lambda \widehat{P},\widehat{P}^2=\widehat{P}.$$

The operator $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ satisfies $`V(\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }})=V(\lambda )\widehat{P}`$ and hence $`V^{}(\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }})=0`$. The corresponding (Weyl transformed) solution, $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, is constant in the $`z_2`$ direction. For any unitary operator, $`\widehat{U}`$, V’($`\widehat{U}^{}\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}\widehat{U}`$) is also zero.

If we now include the kinetic term, only the operators of the form

$$\widehat{P}=|\alpha \alpha |,|\alpha e^{\alpha \widehat{a}_1^{}\overline{\alpha }\widehat{a}_1}|0,$$

corresponding to projections onto a coherent state of the harmonic oscillator, remain as good solitons. To see this we can write the kinetic energy as

$$K=\frac{1}{2\theta ^2}\text{tr}\{[\widehat{x}_1,\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}]^2+[\widehat{y}_1,\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}]^2\},\widehat{x}_1\sqrt{\frac{\theta }{2}}(\widehat{a}_1+\widehat{a}_1^{}),\widehat{y}_1i\sqrt{\frac{\theta }{2}}(\widehat{a}_1\widehat{a}_1^{}).$$

For $`\widehat{P}=|\varphi \varphi |`$, we find

$$\frac{\theta ^2}{\lambda ^2}K=\mathrm{\Delta }x_1^2+\mathrm{\Delta }y_1^2$$

where

$$\mathrm{\Delta }x_1^2=\varphi |\widehat{x}_1^2|\varphi \varphi |\widehat{x}_1|\varphi ^2,\mathrm{\Delta }y_1^2=\varphi |\widehat{y}_1^2|\varphi \varphi |\widehat{y}_1|\varphi ^2$$

are the uncertainties in $`\widehat{x}_1`$ and $`\widehat{y}_1`$. Now we can see that the coherent states, $`|\alpha `$, minimize the kinetic energy. This is because:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }x_1^2+\mathrm{\Delta }y_1^22\mathrm{\Delta }x_1\mathrm{\Delta }y_11,$$

and the equalities hold only for a coherent state. Thus, in the space of all possible unitary transformations, $`\widehat{U}`$, acting on $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$, the kinetic energy has flat directions corresponding to translating the brane rigidly in the $`z_1`$ direction.

Now, let us add two extra noncommutative directions:

$$x_1y_1y_1x_1=x_2y_2y_2x_2=i\theta .$$

As with $`z_1`$, $`z_2`$ corresponds to an operator on a Hilbert space $`_2`$. $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, as a function of $`x_1,y_1,x_2`$ and $`y_2`$, corresponds to an operator on the Hilbert space $`=_1_2`$. $``$ has a basis $`|N,n`$ defined by $`\widehat{a}_1^{}|N,n=\sqrt{N+1}|N+1,n,`$ $`\widehat{a}_1|N,n=\sqrt{N}|N1,n,`$ $`\widehat{a}_2^{}|N,n=\sqrt{n+1}|N,n+1`$ and $`\widehat{a}_2|N,n=\sqrt{n}|N,n1.`$ This is just the tensor product of the harmonic oscillator eigenstates in each Hilbert space. The soliton described above, corresponding to a codimension-2 brane with $`z_1=0`$, is now described by $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}=\lambda \widehat{P}_1`$, where $`\widehat{P}_1`$ is given by

$$\widehat{P}_1=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}|0,n0,n|.$$
(1)
The codimension-2 brane with $`z_2=0`$ is similarly given by $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}=\lambda \widehat{P}_2`$,

$$\widehat{P}_2=\underset{N=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}|N,0N,0|.$$
(2)
### 3.2 Unitary Fluctuations

We now consider the soliton given by $`\widehat{U}^{}\widehat{P}_1\widehat{U}`$, where $`\widehat{U}`$ is some unitary operator on $`=_1_2.`$ We are interested in the kinetic energy as a function of $`\widehat{U}`$. This is more involved than before, so we will work only to second order with

$$\widehat{U}=e^{iϵ\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}=1+iϵ\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}+\frac{1}{2}ϵ^2\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^2+𝒪(ϵ^3)$$

for $`ϵ`$ real and small and $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ Hermitian. Define

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}|0,j=\underset{I,i}{}b_{Ii}^j|I,i.$$

Following , we now obtain the effective Hamiltonian for small fluctuations of the brane. In the operator language, the kinetic energy is:

$`K`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\theta ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{2}{}}}\text{tr}\{[\widehat{x}_k,\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}]^2+[\widehat{y}_k,\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}]^2\}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\theta ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{2}{}}}\text{tr}\{[\widehat{a}_k,\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}][\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }},\widehat{a}_k^{}]\}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\theta }}\text{tr}\{\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}\widehat{H}\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{2}{}}}(\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}\widehat{a}_k\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }})(\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}\widehat{a}_k^{}\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }})\}`$
where $`\widehat{H}`$ is the harmonic oscillator Hamiltonian,

$$\widehat{H}\underset{k=1}{\overset{2}{}}\left(\widehat{a}_k^{}\widehat{a}_k+\frac{1}{2}\right).$$

Any projection operator, $`\widehat{A}`$, such as our soliton, projects onto a subspace, $`_A`$, of the Hilbert space $``$. Let $`|i`$, $`i𝒮`$, be a basis for $`_A`$. Then we can write the kinetic energy as

$$K=\frac{\lambda ^2}{\theta ^2}\left(\underset{i𝒮;k=1,2}{}i|\widehat{a}_k^{}\widehat{a}_k+\widehat{a}_k\widehat{a}_k^{}|i2\underset{i,j𝒮;k=1,2}{}|i|\widehat{a}_k^{}|j|^2\right)$$
(3)
This form is sometimes more useful for calculation.

For fluctuations about $`P_1`$, to second order in $`ϵ`$ we obtain:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{2\lambda ^2}}K`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}(2k+2)+2ϵ^2[{\displaystyle \underset{I2,j,k0}{}}(I+kj)|b_{Ii}^k|^2{\displaystyle \underset{j,k0}{}}|b_{1j}^k|^2`$ (4)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j0}{}}(j+1)\left(1{\displaystyle \underset{I1,i0}{}}|b_{Ii}^j|^2{\displaystyle \underset{I1,i0}{}}|b_{Ii}^{j+1}|^2\right)`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{I,i,j1}{}}\sqrt{i(j+1)}(\overline{b}_{I,i1}^jb_{I,i}^{j+1}+b_{I,i1}^j\overline{b}_{I,i}^{j+1})].`$
This can be rearranged to the positive definite form:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{2\lambda ^2}}K=T+2ϵ^2[{\displaystyle \underset{I2;i,k0}{}}I|b_{Ii}^k|^2+{\displaystyle \underset{I1;i0}{}}i|b_{Ii}^0|^2`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{I1;j,k0}{}}|\sqrt{k+1}b_{Ij}^k\sqrt{j+1}b_{I,j+1}^{k+1}|^2].`$ (5)
Here, $`T`$ is an infinite constant corresponding to the zero-point energy of the infinite brane. The massless modes must satisfy

$`b_{Ii}^m=0(\text{for }I2),`$
$`b_{1,i}^0=0(\text{for }i1),`$ (6)
$`\sqrt{m+1}b_{1,n}^m=\sqrt{n+1}b_{1,n+1}^{m+1}.`$ (7)
The solution to these constraints is

$$b_{1,n}^m=\{\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & \text{for }m<n\hfill \\ \sqrt{\frac{m!}{n!}}c_{mn}\hfill & \text{for }mn\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`c_m`$ ($`m=0,1,\mathrm{}`$) are arbitrary constants. Note that when looking at the original form of the kinetic energy (5), we are cancelling two divergent sums. If we demand that all sums converge, the following solution is not legitimate. Throwing caution to the wind, we define the entire holomorphic function $`f(\zeta )=_mc_m\zeta ^m`$. $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ can then be written as:

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}=\widehat{a}_1^{}f(\widehat{a}_2)+\widehat{a}_1f(\widehat{a}_2)^{}+𝒪(ϵ^2),$$

and the transformed soliton is:

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}=\lambda \widehat{U}^{}\widehat{P}_1\widehat{U},\widehat{U}=e^{iϵ(\widehat{a}_1^{}f(\widehat{a}_2)+\widehat{a}_1f(\widehat{a}_2)^{})}+𝒪(ϵ^2).$$

Physically, this is interpreted as a deformation of the brane from $`z_1=0`$ to $`z_1=\sqrt{2\theta }ϵf(\frac{z_2}{\sqrt{2\theta }})`$. We can now understand the divergences in this solution as stemming from the fact that a nonconstant entire function cannot be bounded and, as such, these are infinitely large deformations of the brane. If we cut off the sums to force them to be finite, we can still understand these as local approximate zero modes. Another way to understand local behavior is to begin with the equations of motion which follow from the above kinetic energy. This allows us to directly study localized fluctuations. We will examine this further in section (4).

We can rearrange the terms in the kinetic energy into the following (also positive definite) form:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{2\lambda ^2}}K=T+2ϵ^2[{\displaystyle \underset{I2,i,k0}{}}I|b_{Ii}^k|^2+{\displaystyle \underset{I1,k0}{}}k|b_{I0}^k|^2`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{I1,j,k0}{}}|\sqrt{j+1}b_{Ij}^k\sqrt{k+1}b_{I,j+1}^{k+1}|^2].`$ (8)
Repeating the above analysis, we find that the massless modes for this form of the kinetic energy are

$$b_{1,n}^m=\{\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & \text{for }m>n\hfill \\ \sqrt{\frac{n!}{m!}}c_{nm}\hfill & \text{for }mn\hfill \end{array}.$$

Taking again $`f(\zeta )=_mc_m\zeta ^m`$, we obtain

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=z_1^{}f(z_2^{})z_1f(z_2^{})^{}.$$

This corresponds to a deformation of the brane from $`z_1=0`$ to $`z_1=\sqrt{2\theta }ϵf(\frac{\overline{z}_2}{\sqrt{2\theta }})`$, an antiholomorphic deformation.

## 4 Small fluctuations of a flat brane at higher orders

What happens to the zero modes that describe the holomorphic and anti-holomorphic fluctuations at higher orders?

A “classical” 2D (static) membrane in $`^4`$ is described by the equation of motion that states that the area should be minimal under local deformations. At large distances, the solitons in noncommutative field theory also look like 2D membranes, and we will assume that the curvature, $`R`$, of these solitonic membranes is much smaller than the scale set by the noncommutativity, $`R\theta ^2`$. In this section we will set $`\theta =\frac{1}{2}`$.

These noncommutative solitons differ from the classical membrane in two major ways:

* The antisymmetric 2-form that determines the noncommutativity specifies a preferred complex structure. Thus the $`SO(4)`$ symmetry of $`^4`$ is broken to $`U(2)`$. This suggests that deforming a flat soliton by an anti-holomorphic deformation into a curve of the form $`z_1=ϵf(\overline{z}_2)`$ might not be an exact solution.
* The effective action of the soliton might receive curvature dependent corrections even for a holomorphic deformation $`z_1=ϵf(z_2)`$.

In this section we will study both these questions. We set

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}e^{i\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}\widehat{P}_1e^{i\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}},\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}ϵ\widehat{a}_1^{}\widehat{f}(\widehat{a}_2,\widehat{a}_2^{})+ϵ\widehat{a}_1\widehat{f}(\widehat{a}_2,\widehat{a}_2^{})^{},$$

and study the corrections to the equations of motion. We continue to work in the approximation that $`\theta `$ is large.

After we find the corrections to the operator $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ in an $`ϵ`$ expansion, we will translate the operator $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ into a function $`\mathrm{\Phi }(z_1,z_2,\overline{z}_1,\overline{z}_2)`$ via the Weyl transformation:

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(z_1,z_2,\overline{z}_1,\overline{z}_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{2}{}}d^2\zeta _ke^{i_{k=1}^2\zeta _k\overline{z}_k+i_{k=1}^2\overline{\zeta }_kz_k}\text{tr}\{e^{i_{k=1}^2\zeta _k\widehat{a}_k^{}i_{k=1}^2\overline{\zeta }_k\widehat{a}_k}\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}\}}.`$
We will then solve for the maximum of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ for a given $`z_2`$ so as to find the equation for the curve that is the approximate macroscopic description of the soliton. This is an equation of the form $`z_1=\phi (z_2,\overline{z}_2)`$. To lowest order in $`ϵ`$ we always obtain $`\phi =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}ϵf+𝒪(ϵ^2)`$, where $`f`$ is the Weyl transform of $`\widehat{f}`$. We will be interested in the higher order corrections.

### 4.1 The equations of motion

We now describe this procedure in greater detail. We begin by examining the equations of motion. Instead of writing the equations of motion for $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$, it will be more convenient to write the equations for $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ directly. Starting with

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_0=2e^{|z_1|^2}\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_0=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}|0,n0,n|,$$

we take the unitary operator $`\widehat{U}e^{i\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}`$ and define $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}=\widehat{U}^{}\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_0\widehat{U}`$. The equations of motion are obtained by minimizing the kinetic energy that is proportional to:

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}\text{tr}\{[\widehat{a}_i,\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}][\widehat{a}_i^{},\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}]\}$$

with respect to $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$. However, it will turn out to be more convenient to write an equation of motion for $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$. We must minimize $`K`$ under the condition $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}=\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$, so we insert a Lagrange multiplier, $`\chi `$, to enforce the constraint. This gives:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}=\chi \widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}+\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}\chi \chi $$
(9)
where

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}\underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}[\widehat{a}_i,[\widehat{a}_i^{},\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}]].$$

In general, a Hermitian operator, $`\widehat{O}`$, that can be written as

$$\widehat{O}=\chi \widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}+\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}\chi \chi $$

satisfies

$$\widehat{O}\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}=\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}\widehat{O}.$$

Alternatively, given an operator, $`\widehat{O}`$, that commutes with $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ we can satisfy (9) by choosing

$$\chi =2\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}\widehat{O}\widehat{O}.$$

Thus the equations of motion are equivalent to:

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}=\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }},[\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }},\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}]=0.$$
(10)
### 4.2 Anti-holomorphic fluctuations

In order to further study anti-holomorphic fluctuations, we take:

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}=\rho e^{i\varphi }\widehat{a}_1^{}\widehat{a}_2^{}+\rho e^{i\varphi }\widehat{a}_1\widehat{a}_2,$$

where $`\rho `$ and $`\varphi `$ are real. The Weyl transform of $`e^{i\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}\widehat{P}_1e^{i\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}`$ is

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=2e^{|z_1\mathrm{cosh}\rho i\overline{z}_2e^{i\varphi }\mathrm{sinh}\rho |^2}.$$
(11)
The operator, $`e^{i\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}`$, generates an $`SO(4)`$ rotation of $`^4`$ that is not in $`U(2)SO(4)`$. Therefore, the maxima of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ correspond to a plane that is not a holomorphic curve in the preferred complex structure that is determined by the noncommutativity. However, it is easy to see that $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ is still a solution of the equations of motion (10). This is because the Laplacian operator, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, is $`SO(4)`$ invariant and not just $`U(2)`$ invariant.

The kinetic energy density along the soliton given by (11) is independent of $`\rho `$. However, the “width” of the soliton is proportional to $`1/\mathrm{cosh}2\rho `$. So, microscopically, the solitons that correspond to non holomorphic curves differ from the holomorphic ones in that they are “thinner”. It is amusing to note that for $`\rho =\mathrm{}`$, the curve is $`z_1=e^{i\varphi }\overline{z}_2`$, and the width of the soliton is zero. However, macroscopically, all the planar solitons have the same energy density and the microscopic distinction between different directions probably disappears because the $`SO(4)`$ symmetry is restored. It would be interesting to confirm this with scattering calculations.

### 4.3 Curvature

Finally, we would like to study higher order corrections to a holomorphic deformation. For this, we take:

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_1=ϵ(\beta \widehat{a}_1^{}\widehat{a}_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\overline{\beta }\widehat{a}_1\widehat{a}_2^2)$$

and define $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}=e^{i\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}\widehat{P}_1e^{i\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}`$. This corresponds to placing the brane along the curve $`z_1=ϵ\beta \zeta _2^2`$. We wish to calculate:

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Xi }}_1[\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }},\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}].$$

For these values, we have:

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Xi }}_1=4ϵ^3(\beta ^2\overline{\beta }\widehat{a}_1^{}\widehat{P}_1\widehat{a}_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\beta \overline{\beta }^2\widehat{P}_1\widehat{a}_1\widehat{a}_2^2)+𝒪(ϵ^4).$$

In order to satisfy the equations of motion, this should be zero. Towards that end, we can cancel the $`ϵ^3`$ term by augmenting $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_1`$ to:

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_2ϵ(\beta \widehat{a}_1^{}\widehat{a}_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\overline{\beta }\widehat{a}_1\widehat{a}_2^2)\frac{4}{3}ϵ^3(\beta ^2\overline{\beta }\widehat{a}_1^{}\widehat{a}_2^{}\widehat{a}_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}+\overline{\beta }^2\beta \widehat{a}_1\widehat{a}_2^3\widehat{a}_2).$$

This should not be considered a modification of the equation of motion for the fluctuation $`f(\widehat{a}_2,\widehat{a}_2^{})`$ because, at the current order of approximation in $`ϵ`$, near $`z_2=0`$, the maximum of the Weyl transform of $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ still defines the curve $`z_1=ϵ\beta z_2^2`$, as we will soon see.

We can continue this procedure to higher orders. At the $`n^{th}`$ order we will have an approximate $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_n`$ that is correct up to (but not including) $`𝒪(ϵ^{n+2})`$. We can then calculate $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}=e^{i\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_n}\widehat{P}_1e^{i\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_n}`$ and define $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Xi }}_n[\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }},\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}]`$ which will be of order $`𝒪(ϵ^{n+3})`$. We can then try to correct $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_n`$ by a Hermitian operator that will cancel $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Xi }}_n`$ up to the $`(n+3)^{rd}`$ order. To find this we set $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_{n+1}=\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_n+\delta \widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$. We then write the linearized equation for $`\delta \widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}i[\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_0,\delta \widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}]+𝒪(ϵ^{n+4})`$. It is:

$$[\mathrm{\Delta }\delta \widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }},\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_0]+[\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_0,\delta \widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}]=\mathrm{\Xi }_n.$$
(12)
Here we can set:

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_0=\widehat{P}_1,\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_0=\widehat{a}_1^{}\widehat{P}_1\widehat{a}_1\widehat{P}_1.$$

The equation (12) has solutions that are unique up to the zero modes found above. These are:

$$\delta \widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}C_n\widehat{a}_1^{}\widehat{a}_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{n}+\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\overline{C}_n\widehat{a}_1\widehat{a}_2^n+\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}C_n^{}\widehat{a}_1^{}\widehat{a}_2^n+\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\overline{C}_n^{}\widehat{a}_1\widehat{a}_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{n}.$$

We make sure that $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ does not contain these terms except for the term $`ϵ\beta \widehat{a}_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$ that we began with.

At the next order we define $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}=e^{i\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_1}\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_0e^{i\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_1}`$ and calculate $`\mathrm{\Xi }_2[\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }},\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}]`$. We find:

$$\mathrm{\Xi }_2=\frac{2}{3}ϵ^4(\beta ^3\overline{\beta }\widehat{a}_1^2\widehat{P}_1\widehat{a}_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}\beta \overline{\beta }^3\widehat{P}_1\widehat{a}_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\widehat{a}_2^4)+𝒪(ϵ^5).$$

We can correct this by augmenting $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ to:

$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_3`$ $``$ $`ϵ(\beta \widehat{a}_1^{}\widehat{a}_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\overline{\beta }\widehat{a}_1\widehat{a}_2^2){\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}ϵ^3(\beta ^2\overline{\beta }\widehat{a}_1^{}\widehat{a}_2^{}\widehat{a}_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}+\overline{\beta }^2\beta \widehat{a}_1\widehat{a}_2^3\widehat{a}_2)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{3}}ϵ^4(\beta ^3\overline{\beta }\widehat{a}_1^2\widehat{a}_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}\overline{\beta }^3\beta \widehat{a}_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\widehat{a}_2^4).`$
Continuing this procedure we find that, up to $`𝒪(ϵ^8)`$ terms, the following is a solution of the equations of motion:

$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ\beta \widehat{a}_1^{}\widehat{a}_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+ϵ\overline{\beta }\widehat{a}_1\widehat{a}_2^2`$
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}ϵ^3\beta ^2\overline{\beta }{\displaystyle \frac{56}{15}}ϵ^5\beta ^3\overline{\beta }^2+{\displaystyle \frac{3872}{315}}ϵ^7\beta ^4\overline{\beta }^3\right)\widehat{a}_1^{}\widehat{a}_2^{}\widehat{a}_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}`$
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}ϵ^3\beta \overline{\beta }^2{\displaystyle \frac{56}{15}}ϵ^5\beta ^2\overline{\beta }^3+{\displaystyle \frac{3872}{315}}ϵ^7\beta ^3\overline{\beta }^4\right)\widehat{a}_1\widehat{a}_2^3\widehat{a}_2`$
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{i}{3}}ϵ^4\beta ^3\overline{\beta }{\displaystyle \frac{139i}{45}}ϵ^6\beta ^4\overline{\beta }^2\right)\widehat{a}_1^2\widehat{a}_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{i}{3}}ϵ^4\beta \overline{\beta }^3{\displaystyle \frac{139i}{45}}ϵ^6\beta ^2\overline{\beta }^4\right)\widehat{a}_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\widehat{a}_2^4`$
$`+\left({\displaystyle \frac{191}{45}}ϵ^5\beta ^3\overline{\beta }^2{\displaystyle \frac{40121}{945}}ϵ^7\beta ^4\overline{\beta }^3\right)\widehat{a}_1^{}\widehat{a}_2^2\widehat{a}_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}`$
$`+\left({\displaystyle \frac{191}{45}}ϵ^5\beta ^2\overline{\beta }^3{\displaystyle \frac{40121}{945}}ϵ^7\beta ^3\overline{\beta }^4\right)\widehat{a}_1\widehat{a}_2^4\widehat{a}_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{142i}{45}}ϵ^6\beta ^4\overline{\beta }^2\widehat{a}_1^2\widehat{a}_2^{}\widehat{a}_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{5}{\displaystyle \frac{142i}{45}}ϵ^6\beta ^2\overline{\beta }^4\widehat{a}_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\widehat{a}_2^5\widehat{a}_2`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{176}{945}}ϵ^7\beta ^5\overline{\beta }^2\widehat{a}_1^3\widehat{a}_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{6}{\displaystyle \frac{176}{945}}ϵ^7\beta ^2\overline{\beta }^5\widehat{a}_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\widehat{a}_2^6`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{17162}{945}}ϵ^7\beta ^4\overline{\beta }^3\widehat{a}_1^{}\widehat{a}_2^3\widehat{a}_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{5}{\displaystyle \frac{17162}{945}}ϵ^7\beta ^3\overline{\beta }^4\widehat{a}_1\widehat{a}_2^5\widehat{a}_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}+𝒪(ϵ^8).`$
Substituting this into $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ and performing a Weyl transformation, we can find the expression for the field $`\mathrm{\Phi }(z_1,z_2,\overline{z}_1,\overline{z}_2)`$. Since the expression is rather long, we will only present the leading terms below:

$`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ $`=`$ $`2e^{|z_1|^2+\psi },`$
$`\psi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}}iϵ(\beta z_2^2\overline{z}_1\overline{\beta }z_1\overline{z}_2^2)+ϵ^2(|\beta |^2+|\beta |^2z_1\overline{z}_1+2|\beta |^2z_1z_2\overline{z}_1\overline{z}_2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}|\beta |^2z_2^2\overline{z}_2^2)`$ (13)
$`+i\sqrt{2}ϵ^3({\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\beta |\beta |^2z_2^2\overline{z}_1+\beta |\beta |^2z_1z_2^2\overline{z}_1^2\beta |\beta |^2z_2^3\overline{z}_1\overline{z}_2`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\overline{\beta }|\beta |^2z_1\overline{z}_2^2\overline{\beta }|\beta |^2z_1^2\overline{z}_1\overline{z}_2^2+\overline{\beta }|\beta |^2z_1z_2\overline{z}_2^3)`$
$`+ϵ^4(\beta ^2|\beta |^2z_2^4\overline{z}_1^2+\overline{\beta }^2|\beta |^2z_1^2\overline{z}_2^4{\displaystyle \frac{17}{6}}|\beta |^4+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}|\beta |^2z_1\overline{z}_1`$
$`+|\beta |^2|z_1|^4+6|\beta |^2|z_2|^2{\displaystyle \frac{16}{3}}|\beta |^4|z_1|^2|z_2|^2+4|\beta |^4|z_1|^4|z_2|^2`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}|\beta |^4|z_2|^48|\beta |^4|z_1|^2|z_2|^4+|\beta |^4|\overline{z}_2|^6)+𝒪(ϵ^5).`$
We can now look for the maximum of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. This will approximately outline the curve that a macroscopic observer would see as a 2-brane. The minimum of the exponent is at:

$`z_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}}ϵ\beta z_2^2(1+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}ϵ^2|\beta |^2+{\displaystyle \frac{188}{15}}ϵ^4|\beta |^4+{\displaystyle \frac{8956}{315}}ϵ^6|\beta |^696ϵ^6|\beta |^6|z_2|^2)+𝒪(ϵ^8).`$ (14)
We see that up to order $`𝒪(ϵ^6)`$, all the corrections can be interpreted as a renormalization of $`\beta `$. At large scale there are no corrections to the parabolic shape of the graph of the brane. In particular, the curve is still analytic. The first deviation from analyticity occurs at order $`𝒪(ϵ^7)`$ because of the appearance of the $`z_2^2|z_2|^2`$ term. To this order $`\phi `$ is no longer harmonic and instead satisfies:

$$z_1=\phi (z_2,\overline{z}_2),\overline{}\phi =18(\phi )^2(^2\phi )^2(\overline{}^2\overline{\phi })^3.$$

### 4.4 Region of Validity of the Approximation

We have started to construct, order by order, a solution that looks macroscopically near the origin like the curve $`z_1=ϵ\beta z_2^2`$. By “macroscopically” we mean that distances are larger than the noncommutativity scale. We have set the noncommutativity scale to $`1`$ here, so we require that the solution be valid not only for $`z_1,z_20`$ but also for $`|z_1|,|z_2|1`$! On the other hand, we wish to assume that the curvature of the curve is small at the origin and, as far as the geometry of the curve goes, we are in the vicinity of the origin. Quantitatively, this requires that $`|ϵ\beta z_2|1`$. Looking at the solution, (13), we see that the order of magnitude of the $`𝒪(ϵ^{2n})`$ in $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ is smaller by a factor of $`ϵ\beta z_1`$ from the $`𝒪(ϵ^{2n1})`$ terms and the $`𝒪(ϵ^{2n+1})`$ terms are smaller by a factor of $`ϵ^2|\beta |^2|z_2|^2`$ from the $`𝒪(ϵ^{2n1})`$ terms. So, the approximation is within the required region of validity.

Note, however, that in the region of validity of the calculation, ie, $`ϵ|\beta z_2|1`$, the correction to $`z_1`$ in (14) is smaller than $`1`$, and thus is actually microscopic.

## 5 Intersecting D2-Branes

### 5.1 Construction of the Intersecting Soliton

In the previous section, we constructed a D2-brane at $`z_1=0`$ as $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_1=\lambda \widehat{P}_1`$ and a D2-brane at $`z_2=0`$ as $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_2=\lambda \widehat{P}_2.`$ We now wish to find a soliton $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}=\lambda \widehat{P}`$ which asymptotically looks like $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_1+\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_2`$. This is straightforward. We define

$$\widehat{P}_\eta =\widehat{P}_1+\widehat{P}_2\eta \widehat{P}_1\widehat{P}_2,\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_\eta =\lambda \widehat{P}_\eta $$

This will be a projection operator for $`\eta =1`$ or $`\eta =2`$. To distinguish between the two solutions, we need to calculate their kinetic energy, (3). While each solution has an infinite kinetic energy because of its infinite extent, the difference is finite and easy to calculate:

$$K(\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{\eta =2})K(\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{\eta =1})=\frac{4\lambda ^2}{\theta }.$$

Thus, $`\eta =1`$ corresponds to the solution with the lower kinetic energy. We propose that this solution corresponds to two intersecting branes. The $`\eta =2`$ solution is similar, but it has a ‘hole’ attached at the intersection:

$$\widehat{P}_{\eta =2}=\widehat{P}_{\eta =1}\widehat{P}_1\widehat{P}_2.$$

In a sense, it is as if a 0-brane (represented by $`\widehat{P}_1\widehat{P}_2`$) had been removed. This solution will turn out to be unstable to small unitary perturbations.

### 5.2 Fluctuations

We now wish to repeat the calculation of the effective Hamiltonian for small fluctuations of the two intersecting branes. Consider the fluctuation given by $`\widehat{U}^{}\widehat{P}_\eta \widehat{U}`$, where $`\widehat{U}`$ is again a unitary operator on $`=_1_2.`$ As before, let

$$\widehat{U}=e^{iϵ\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}=1+iϵ\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\frac{1}{2}ϵ^2\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}^2+𝒪(ϵ^3)$$
(15)
with $`ϵ`$ real and small and $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ hermitian. One can calculate the kinetic energy for this soliton to second order in $`ϵ`$. This is most conveniently done from equation (3).

In the $`\eta =1`$ case, we define

$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}|0,j`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{I,i}{}}b_{Ii}^j|I,i,I,i,j1,`$
$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}|J,0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{I,i}{}}c_{Ii}^J|I,i,I,i,J1`$
$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}|0,0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{I,i}{}}d_{Ii}|I,i.I,i1`$ (16)
After consolidation of terms, (3) becomes:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{2\lambda ^2}}K_{\eta =1}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{2\lambda ^2}}K(\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{\eta =1})+2ϵ^2[{\displaystyle \underset{J2,j,k1}{}}J|b_{Jj}^k|^2+{\displaystyle \underset{j2,J,K1}{}}j|c_{Jj}^K|^2`$ (17)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{J,j,k1}{}}\left|\sqrt{k+1}b_{Jj}^k\sqrt{j+1}b_{J,j+1}^{k+1}\right|^2+{\displaystyle \underset{J,j,K1}{}}\left|\sqrt{K+1}c_{Jj}^k\sqrt{J+1}c_{J+1,j}^{K+1}\right|^2`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{J2,j1}{}}J|d_{Jj}|^2+{\displaystyle \underset{j2,J1}{}}j|d_{Jj}|^2`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{J,j1}{}}|d_{Jj}\sqrt{j+1}b_{J,j+1}^1|^2+{\displaystyle \underset{J,j1}{}}|d_{Jj}\sqrt{J+1}c_{J+1,j}^1|^2]`$
where $`K(\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{\eta =1})`$ is the (infinite) energy of an undistorted soliton discussed in previous subsection.

Using the same procedure as before, we obtain the following zero modes:

$$b_{1,n}^m=\{\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & \text{for }m+1<n\hfill \\ \frac{d_{11}}{\sqrt{n}}\hfill & \text{for }m+1=n\hfill \\ d_{10}\hfill & \text{for }m=n\hfill \\ \sqrt{\frac{m!}{n!}}p_{mn}\hfill & \text{for }m>n\hfill \end{array}$$

and

$$c_{N,1}^M=\{\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & \text{for }M+1<N\hfill \\ \frac{d_{11}}{\sqrt{N}}\hfill & \text{for }M+1=N\hfill \\ d_{01}\hfill & \text{for }M=N\hfill \\ \sqrt{\frac{M!}{N!}}q_{MN}\hfill & \text{for }M>N\hfill \end{array}$$

with $`d_{Jj}`$ for all $`J,j2`$ equal to zero. The $`p`$’s and $`q`$’s are arbitrary constants. These can be used to define two entire holomorphic functions $`f_1(\zeta )=_mp_m\zeta ^m`$ and $`f_2(\zeta )=_Mq_M\zeta ^M.`$ These zero modes, just as for a single brane, correspond to deformations of the two branes: $`z_1^{}=ϵf_1(z_2)`$ and $`z_2^{}=ϵf_2(z_1).`$ As in the case of a single brane, the terms in the kinetic energy can be rearranged to make apparent the antiholomorphic deformations.

A new phenomenon is the mode corresponding to a non-zero $`d_{11}`$ together with $`b_{1,k+1}^k=d_{11}(k+1)^{1/2}`$ and $`c_{K+1,1}^K=d_{11}(K+1)^{1/2}`$ so that the terms in kinetic energy that are differences vanish. This mode might be thought of as

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{\alpha }{z_1z_2}+\frac{\overline{\alpha }}{z_1^{}z_2^{}}.$$

This is a complex mode (two real modes) corresponding to the extra degrees of freedom living on the intersection of the two branes.

We now consider the case of $`\eta =2`$. Here, (3) reduces to

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{2\lambda ^2}}K_{\eta =1}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{2\lambda ^2}}K(\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{\eta =1})+2ϵ^2[{\displaystyle \underset{J2,j,k1}{}}J|b_{Jj}^k|^2+{\displaystyle \underset{j2,J,K1}{}}j|c_{Jj}^K|^2`$ (18)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{J,j,k1}{}}\left|\sqrt{k+1}b_{Jj}^k\sqrt{j+1}b_{J,j+1}^{k+1}\right|^2+{\displaystyle \underset{J,j,K1}{}}\left|\sqrt{K+1}c_{Jj}^k\sqrt{J+1}c_{J+1,j}^{K+1}\right|^2`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{J,k2}{}}(J+k1)|b_{Jk}^1|^2+{\displaystyle \underset{J2}{}}(J1)|b_{J+1,1}^1|^2+{\displaystyle \underset{k2}{}}(k1)|b_{1,k}^1|^2`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j,K2}{}}(j+K1)|c_{Kj}^1|^2+{\displaystyle \underset{j2}{}}(j1)|c_{1,j+1}^1|^2+{\displaystyle \underset{K2}{}}(K1)|c_{K,1}^1|^2`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k2}{}}k|b_{00}^{k+1}|^2+{\displaystyle \underset{K2}{}}K|c_{00}^{K+1}|^2+{\displaystyle \underset{K2}{}}|b_{K1}^1+\overline{c}_{00}^K|^2+{\displaystyle \underset{k2}{}}|c_{1k}^1+\overline{b}_{00}^k|^2`$
$``$ $`|b_{11}^1+\overline{c}_{00}^1|^2|c_{11}^1+\overline{b}_{00}^1|^2].`$
The zero modes, which we will not write out explicitly, include our familiar entire holomorphic and anti-holomorphic deformations of the branes. More importantly, we now have unstable modes given by $`b_{11}^1+\overline{c}_{00}^10`$ and $`c_{11}^1+\overline{b}_{00}^10`$ together with extra elements so that the terms that are differences are zero. These two modes correspond to moving the aforementioned ‘hole’ away from the intersection along either of the two branes. We also note that the above effective Hamiltonian has an additional zero mode given by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\alpha (\widehat{a}_1^{})^2+\overline{\alpha }(\widehat{a}_1)^2`$ (and similarly for $`\widehat{a}_2`$), which corresponds to distorting the shape of the hole from the gaussian ground state of a harmonic oscillator into a squeezed state.

## 6 Extensions and Discussion

### 6.1 Multiple Branes

Our construction for two intersecting D2-branes can easily be extended to a larger number of branes.

For example, let $`\widehat{P}_1^K`$ be a projection operator corresponding to a stack of K branes at $`z_1=0`$ and $`\widehat{P}_2^L`$ be a projection operator corresponding to a stack of L branes at $`z_2=0`$. This means that $`\widehat{P}_1^K`$ can be written as a sum of $`K`$ projection operators

$$\widehat{P}_1^K=\underset{i=1}{\overset{K}{}}\widehat{p}_1^i$$

with $`\widehat{p}_1^i\widehat{p}_1^j=\delta ^{ij}\widehat{p}_1^i`$, each $`\widehat{p}_1^i`$ being a projection operator for a single brane. Similarly,

$$\widehat{P}_2^L=\underset{i=1}{\overset{L}{}}\widehat{p}_2^i.$$

Now, any operator of the form

$$\widehat{P}_1^K+\widehat{P}_2^L\underset{i=1}{\overset{K}{}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{L}{}}\eta _{ij}\widehat{p}_1^i\widehat{p}_2^j$$

for $`\eta _{ij}=1,2`$ corresponds to an intersection of these two stacks.

As another example, let us take $`^6`$, i.e. three complex dimensions. Let $`\widehat{P}_{12}`$ correspond to a codimension-2 brane at $`z_3=0`$, $`\widehat{P}_{23}`$ correspond to a codimension-2 brane at $`z_1=0`$ and $`\widehat{P}_{31}`$ correspond to a codimension-2 brane at $`z_2=0`$. Then it can be checked that

$$\widehat{P}_{12}+\widehat{P}_{23}+\widehat{P}_{31}\eta _{12}\widehat{P}_{23}\widehat{P}_{31}\eta _{23}\widehat{P}_{12}\widehat{P}_{31}\eta _{31}\widehat{P}_{12}\widehat{P}_{23}+(\eta _{12}+\eta _{23}+\eta _{31}\eta 1)\widehat{P}_{12}\widehat{P}_{23}\widehat{P}_{31}$$

is a projection operator corresponding to the intersection of all three branes at a point, provided we set $`\eta _{12},\eta _{23},\eta _{31},\eta \{1,2\}`$. It is straightforward, if a bit tedious, to extend this to any number of branes.

### 6.2 Discussion

In this paper we have found a solution that describes two intersecting 2-brane solitons in a field theory on a noncommutative $`^4`$ in the large noncommutativity limit. We studied the zero modes of the solution. We found a zero mode that is reminiscent of the zero mode of two intersecting D2-branes that corresponds to a deformation into an irreducible curve. It would be interesting to examine whether this zero mode receives a potential at higher orders or whether it is an exact flat direction. Because we have seen that simple holomorphic deformations are no longer flat at sufficiently high orders, the latter possibility seems unlikely. Here “higher-order” could have several meanings. First there is the expansion of the classical action, still in the large noncommutativity limit. This expansion parameter is the $`ϵ`$ in equation (15). On top of that, there are the expansions in the noncommutativity parameter and the quantum fluctuations. In these notes we have not attempted to include either of those.

It has recently been shown  that, in the situation of a noncommutative $`U(\mathrm{})`$ gauge theory, one can cancel the kinetic term in the action through a suitable configuration of the gauge fields. The soliton configurations discussed in this paper are easily realizable in the schemes of the referenced papers. It might be interesting to compute the actions for perturbations of the fields as in . However, because one can always find a gauge field to cancel the kinetic term of a given soliton and because the projection operators here are halving projections<sup>4</sup><sup>4</sup>4Both $`\widehat{P}`$ and $`1\widehat{P}`$ have infinite rank. All such projection operators are unitarily equivalent., it should be possible to continuously interpolate through conjugation with unitary operators between these soliton configurations and other configurations that are described by halving projections. This includes, in the case of four noncommutative directions, any number of branes in any given direction. It is not immediately clear to us what this means.

## Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Keshav Dasgupta, Govindan Rajesh and Leonardo Rastelli for helpful discussions. We also wish to thank Natalia Saulina for participating in early stages of this project. This research is supported by NSF grant number PHY-9802498. The research of JLK is in part supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.