text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The low energy effective theories of supersymmetric $`D`$-branes have been providing us with a tremendous amount of developments in string theory. The intuition based on the stingy pictures of $`D`$-branes illuminated not only various nonperturbative phenomena in supersymmetric gauge theories but also the statistical origin of the black hole entropy. This line of progress is highlighted by the duality between gravity and gauge theory such as the Matrix theory and the $`AdS/CFT`$ duality. The idea of the near horizon limit in the $`AdS/CFT`$ duality elucidated the precise correspondence of gauge theories and their supergravity duals. Although these dualities suggest conceivable conjectures for the nonperturbative definition of string theories by gauge theories, they would define at most certain corners of a vast moduli space of the whole string theories. So it would be anticipated to search for new ideas which might make further progress in the nonperturbative formulation of string theory.

A potentially attractive idea is that the unstable $`D9`$-brane systems would be so protean that they could reproduce all kinds of branes in superstring theories dynamically as kinks or lumps and even they could tell us about the closed string vacuum via the tachyon condensation. Actually some exact results that can make this idea realized more concretely have been provided by the boundary string field theories (BSFT) in  and also by the noncommutative tachyons in the wake of remarkable results of the cubic open string field theory in the level truncation. The BSFT gives the exact form of the tree level tachyon potential, and the exact solutions for the flat $`D`$-branes are found both in the BSFT and the noncommutative tachyon approach. The flat $`D`$-branes, however, are somewhat too simple to invoke the protean nature of the unstable $`D9`$-branes. So in this paper we will study nontrivial brane configurations explored in our previous paper in the two derivative truncation***up to a term which depends on the renormalization scheme , by making use of the BSFT action with the inclusion of the higher derivative corrections for the tachyon and the gauge fields. Remarkably, even for nontrival brane configurations, we find exact agreements with the expected superstring results. Our results show nontrivial metamorphoses of the tachyon profile of more involved kinks or lumps than those previously considered in the BSFT literatures, thus giving a little step further to push the protean nature of unstable $`D`$-branes.

As is quite different from the effective theory of supersymmetric $`D`$-branes, we cannot ignore the higher derivative corrections in the effective theory of unstable branes even in the low energy limit. When the energy scale gets much smaller than the string scale, the tachyon mass square becomes infinitely negative, indicating a violent destablization of the system, that is, a potential with an infinitely negative curvature. The tachyon field will be simply frozen at the deep bottom of the potential. To keep the nontrivial dynamics of this tachyonic system, the tachyon must be fluctuating wildely against the free fall in the tachyon potential. This implies significance of the higher derivative corrections for the tachyon in the low energy effectively theory of unstable $`D`$-branes. We can see it explicitly in the BSFT results. The solutions representing the flat $`D`$-branes have the linear profile, whose coefficient must be taken to infinity to give the minimum of the energy and to find the exact agreement with the expected results. Thus the higher the derivative corrections are, the more they give the dominant contributions in the low energy effective theory of unstable $`D`$-branes in the BSFT.

It seems somewhat awful and intractable to deal with the action that includes infinite number of the higher derivative corrections. However it is quite tractable, as we deduced several nontrivial exact results from the higher derivative corrected action of the BSFT, which suggests the usefullness of the effective theory of unstable $`D`$-branes, though it may not be as powerful as the low energy effective theory of supursymmetric $`D`$-branes. In particular we only worked out the classical analysis, that was sufficient in this paper, as we mostly focused on the BPS configurations which are believed not to be subject to quantum corrections, though out of nonsupersymmetric $`D9`$-branes. But in general we have to take into account the quantum corrections. It is very much so in particular in such a theory like the effective theory of unstable or nonsupersymmetric $`D`$-branes that we are working on. It, however, obviously seems quite hard to carry out the loop computations in the awfully higher derivative corrected action. This is a big drawback of the tachyon models. But we would like to emphasize that there are still so much things to be done even in the classical analysis of unstable $`D`$-branes. At least we are able to reproduce many other brane configurations found in the supersymmetric $`D`$-brane analysis, though we always have to keep in mind an important question whether the tachyon models could go beyond what we have already done.

The organization of our paper is as follows. In section 2, we start with the BSFT action and list a couple of special cases of the action which will be useful in the subsequent sections. Also we make general remarks on the equations of motion for the tachyon and the gauge fields. In section 3, we give a few examples of simple generalizations of a kink solution, including a $`D6`$-$`D8`$ and ($`F`$,$`D8`$) bound state. Also we discuss a trivial example of a description of the fundamental strings at the closed string vacuum. In section 4, we turn to nontrivial examples such as $`D6`$-branes ending on a $`D8`$-brane and its generalization to a ($`F`$,$`D6`$) bound state ending on a $`D8`$-brane that we could not construct in our previous paper. In section 5, we provide a noncommutative generalization of the configuration discussed in section 4. In section 6, we return to a configuration akin to the type discussed in section 3, that is, a junction configuration. In section 7 we study the Emparan-Myers’ effect as a nonsupersymmetric example which we did not discuss in our previous paper either. In section 8, we argue a nonabelian generalization of the configuration discussed in section 4, that is, a $`D6`$-brane suspended between two $`D8`$-branes. Finally we will close our paper with summary and discussions in section 9.

## 2 The action

We will employ the results of BSFT for superstring theories. When the tachyon $`T`$ takes the form of the linear profile $`T=qx`$ and the field strength of the gauge fields are constant, there is a complete result including the couplings of the gauge fields and the derivatives of the tachyon. So the action we are going to use will be valid up to the second derivatives such as $`^2T`$ and $`F`$. In this paper, however, we will assume that we could apply the BSFT action even for nontrivial configurations of the tachyon $`T`$ and the gauge fields $`A_\mu `$, though it would certainly go beyond the validity of the BSFT results. But we will mostly consider BPS configurations, so it is conceivable for the BSFT action to be still valid due to the nonrenormalization theorems of supersymmetric configurations. Now the BSFT action is given by

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`T_{D9}{\displaystyle }dtd^9x\text{Tr}(e^{2\pi \alpha ^{}T^2}det\sqrt{2\pi }`$ (2.1)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{_{r=1/2}^{\mathrm{}}det\left(\eta _{\mu \nu }+2\pi \alpha ^{}F_{\mu \nu }+4\pi (\alpha ^{})^2\frac{D_{(\mu }TD_{\nu )}T}{r}\right)}{_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}det\left(n\left(\eta _{\mu \nu }+2\pi \alpha ^{}F_{\mu \nu }\right)+4\pi (\alpha ^{})^2D_{(\mu }TD_{\nu )}T\right)}}),`$
where the $`\zeta `$-function regularization is implied. The quadratic term $`D_{(\mu }TD_{\nu )}T`$ of the covariant derivatives of the tachyon is symmetrized with respect to their spacetime indices, so that our generalized action will be consistent with the result in  for the tachyon configuration $`T=q\mathrm{\Gamma }^ix_i`$ of the higher codimension $`D`$-branes. There is a caveat concerning the ordering of $`U(N)`$ matrices inside the trace in the case of $`N`$ multiple $`D9`$-branes, which is the same problem as the one in the nonabelian Dirac-Born-Infeld (DBI) action. For the most part of our paper, we will only consider a single $`D9`$-brane, so this problem will not be in our concern. But we will discuss two $`D9`$-brane system only in section 8, where we will make an ansatz as for this ordering.

Now we will list the forms of the action (2.1) in a few special cases (only abelian cases) that we are going to consider in the most part of our paper. When the gauge fields are vanishing, the above action is simplified to

$`S=T_{D9}{\displaystyle 𝑑td^9xe^{2\pi \alpha ^{}T^2}F[4\pi (\alpha ^{})^2_\mu T^\mu T]},`$ (2.2)
where $`F[x]=\frac{x4^x\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }(x)\right)^2}{2\mathrm{\Gamma }(2x)}`$ .

Next let us consider nonvanishig gauge fields. When we turn on the field strengh $`F_{\mu \nu }`$ only in the directions orthogonal to those directions on which the tachyon depends nontrivially, the action factorizes to

$`S=T_{D9}{\displaystyle 𝑑td^9xe^{2\pi \alpha ^{}T^2}F[4\pi (\alpha ^{})^2_\mu T^\mu T]\sqrt{\text{det}\left(\eta _{\mu \nu }+2\pi \alpha ^{}F_{\mu \nu }\right)}}.`$ (2.3)
In a more specific case that the gauge fields in 3-dimensional space, labeled by the coordinates $`\{y_6,y_7,y_8\}`$, are turned on and the tachyon depends only on the coordinates $`\{y_6,y_7,y_8,x_9\}`$, we have a little more involved action

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`T_{D9}{\displaystyle 𝑑td^9xe^{2\pi \alpha ^{}T^2}\sqrt{det\left(\eta _{ab}+2\pi \alpha ^{}F_{ab}\right)}}`$ (2.4)
$`\times F\left[4\pi (\alpha ^{})^2\{(_9T)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\left((_iT)^2(2\pi \alpha ^{}ϵ_{ijk}E_j_kT)^2\right)+(2\pi \alpha ^{}B_i_iT)^2}{det\left(\eta _{ab}+2\pi \alpha ^{}F_{ab}\right)}}\}\right],`$
where $`a,b=0,6,7,8`$, whereas $`i,j=6,7,8`$, and $`det\left(\eta _{ab}+2\pi \alpha ^{}F_{ab}\right)=1+\frac{1}{2}(2\pi \alpha ^{}F_{ab})^2(2\pi \alpha ^{})^4(E_iB_i)^2`$.

The equations of motion

In the following sections we will give a variety of solutions of the equations of motion (EOM) derived from the above action (2.1). In all the solutions we will explore below, the tachyon $`T`$ is typically proportional to a constant $`q`$ which is taken to $`\mathrm{}`$. It means physically that the brane configurations described by these solutions are localized in space in certain ways, due to the tachyon potential $`e^{2\pi \alpha ^{}T^2}`$, an overall factor in the action. Now because of this specific property of the tachyon $`T`$, the EOM for the tachyon is simplified quite a bit. When $`q`$ goes to $`\mathrm{}`$, we can ignore the contributions of lower orders in $`q`$. Then the tachyon EOM boils down to

$`F_\mu T{\displaystyle \frac{\delta F}{\delta _\mu T}}=0,`$ (2.5)
where $`F`$ is the functional in particular of $`(T)^2`$ appearing in eqs. (2.2),(2.3) and (2.4). As we will see, when the tachyon EOM (2.5) is satisfied, it is tantamount to the identity

$$F[a]=2aF^{}[a]\text{for}a\mathrm{}.$$
(2.6)
As for the gauge fields, we only turn on the electric and magnetic fields, $`E_i`$ and $`B_i`$ ($`i=6,7,8`$), in (3+1)-dimensional subspace of the (9+1)-dimensional spacetime. Thus for later applications the gauge EOMs take the forms

$`ϵ_{ijk}_j{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta B_k}}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (2.7)
$`_i{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta E_i}}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (2.8)
where $``$ is the Lagrangian density of the above action.

The Chern-Simons couplings

We will also compute the RR-charges of our brane configurations. So we give a formula for the Chern-Simons (CS) coupling on the unstable $`D9`$-branes computed in :

$`S_{\mathrm{CS}}=T_{D9}{\displaystyle C}\text{Tr}e^{2\pi \alpha ^{}(FT^2+DT)}.`$ (2.9)
## 3 The warm-ups

We first discuss a couple of simple generalizations of a kink solution $`T=\frac{q}{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}x`$ with $`q\mathrm{}`$ which describes a single $`D8`$-brane sharply localized at $`x=0`$ in the 9th-direction.

$`D6`$-$`D8`$ bound stateThe $`D`$-brane bound state of this type was previously discussed in .

The $`D6`$-branes parallel to $`D8`$-branes are unstable against $`D6`$-branes dissolving into $`D8`$-branes, and thus they are melting into $`D8`$-branes uniformly. From the $`D8`$-brane viewpoint, this non-marginal bound state can be described by a uniform magnetic field on the $`D8`$-branes, as is obvious from the CS couplings of the RR-fields. Let us turn on a constant magnetic field $`B_6`$, which represents $`D6`$-branes uniformly distributed over the (7,8)-plane on a $`D8`$-brane. It can be easily checked that

$`T`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{q}{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}}x,q\mathrm{}`$ (3.1)
$`B_6`$ $`=`$ $`\text{const.},`$ (3.2)
is a solution of the EOM derived from the action (2.3). The energy of the bound state is readily evaluated as

$`E=\sqrt{1+(2\pi \alpha ^{}B_6)^2}T_{D8}{\displaystyle d^8y},`$ (3.3)
where $`T_{D8}=T_{D9}\sqrt{2\pi ^2\alpha ^{}}`$ and we used the asymptotics of $`F[4\pi \alpha ^{}q^2]`$ at large $`q`$,

$$F[4\pi \alpha ^{}q^2]=\sqrt{4\pi ^2\alpha ^{}}q+\frac{1}{8}\frac{\sqrt{\pi }}{\sqrt{4\pi \alpha ^{}}q}+𝒪(q^3).$$
(3.4)
Also the $`D6`$-brane charge is computed as

$`T_{D9}{\displaystyle e^{2\pi \alpha ^{}T^2}(2\pi \alpha ^{})^2𝑑T}F`$ (3.5)
$`=`$ $`T_{D6}(B_6/2\pi ){\displaystyle 𝑑y_7𝑑y_8},`$
where $`T_{D6}=T_{D9}2(2\pi ^2\alpha ^{})^{3/2}`$, and $`B_6/2\pi `$ gives the number of $`D6`$-branes $`N_{D6}`$. Note that the energy (3.3) of the $`D6`$-$`D8`$ bound state has the correct value, as we can see that if the $`D8`$-brane were absent in the energy formula (3.3), we would correctly get the tension $`T_{D9}2(2\pi ^2\alpha ^{})^{3/2}N_{D6}`$ of $`N_{D6}`$ $`D6`$-branes.

($`F`$,$`D8`$) bound state

Similarly the fundamental string ($`F1`$) on $`Dp`$-branes can be described by an electric flux on them, as can be seem from the coupling of NS-NS 2-form $`B^{\mathrm{NS}}`$ with the invariant field strength $`=2\pi \alpha ^{}(B^{\mathrm{NS}}+F)`$. Let us trun on a constant electric field $`E_6`$, which represents the fundamental strings lying on the (0,6) plane. Again it is easy to check that

$`T`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{q}{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}}xq\mathrm{},`$ (3.6)
$`E_6`$ $`=`$ $`\text{const.},`$ (3.7)
is a solution of the EOM derived from the action (2.3).

Now let us compute the energy. The conjugate momentum $`\mathrm{\Pi }_A`$ of the gauge field $`A_6`$ is given by

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_A={\displaystyle \frac{(2\pi \alpha ^{})^2E_6}{\sqrt{1(2\pi \alpha ^{}E_6)^2}}}T_{D8}V_8,`$ (3.8)
where $`V_8`$ is the volume of a $`D8`$-brane. Note that the gauge fields are $`U(1)`$-valued and thus compact, so the conjugate momentum $`\mathrm{\Pi }_A`$ is quantized as $`Nl`$ where $`l`$ is the length of the fundamental strings. Then the Hamiltonian $`H`$ is computed as

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Pi }_AE_6L`$ (3.9)
$`=`$ $`\sqrt{(T_{D8}V_8)^2+\left(Nl/2\pi \alpha ^{}\right)^2}.`$ (3.10)
This gives the exact agreement.

A trivial example of the fundamental strings

It is one of the important issues in the tachyon models how to describe the fundamental strings at the closed string vacuum. Following Yi, there are several attempts to argue that the fundamental strings come about as confined fluxes on the unstable branes. Here we will give a trivial description of the fundamental strings, simply by turning on a constant electric field at the closed string vacuum. Thus they are given by

$`T`$ $`=`$ $`\pm \mathrm{},`$ (3.11)
$`E_9`$ $`=`$ $`\text{const.}.`$ (3.12)
This is obviously a solution of the EOMs. Now let us compute the energy of this configuration. The Lagrangian in this case is

$`L=T_{D9}V_9e^{2\pi \alpha ^{}T^2}\sqrt{1(2\pi \alpha ^{}E_9)^2},`$ (3.13)
where $`V_9`$ denotes the volume of the 9-dimensional space. So the Lagrangian is vanishing for this configuration. However the Hamiltonian has a finte value due to the quantization condition of the conjugate momentum $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ of the gauge field $`A_9`$, which is given by

$`\mathrm{\Pi }={\displaystyle \frac{L}{E_9}}=T_{D9}V_9e^{2\pi \alpha ^{}T^2}{\displaystyle \frac{(2\pi \alpha ^{})^2E_9}{\sqrt{1(2\pi \alpha ^{}E_9)^2}}}=Nl,`$ (3.14)
where $`l`$ is the length of the fundamental strings. Thus the Hamiltonian is computed as

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Pi }E_9L=\sqrt{\left(T_{D9}V_9e^{2\pi \alpha ^{}T^2}\right)^2+\left({\displaystyle \frac{Nl}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}}\right)^2}`$ (3.15)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Nl}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}},`$
that is exactly the energy of the $`N`$ fundamental strings.

## 4 Branes ending on branes

We move on to nontrivial examples where the gauge fields are not as simple as those discussed in the previous section, but they take nontrivial configurations such as monopoles and dyons. It is quite helpful to first consider the problem within a simple approximation and to guess the form of the solutions in the fullfledged treatment. It often happens for the BPS configurations that the linearized approximation will give the same result as even when the nonlinear couplings are included, as is actually the case for the BPS BIon of . The configuration we consider in this section is exactly of the type of BPS BIons, that is, $`D6`$-branes ending on a $`D8`$-brane and a ($`F`$,$`D6`$) bound state ending on a $`D8`$-brane. So we will first do the linearized approximation. The recipe for obtaining the solution goes as, (1) starting with a $`D8`$-brane solution, given by a kink on an unstable $`D9`$-brane, (2) computing the collective excitations about a kink, (3) assuming the massive collective modes will not contribute to the configuration we are looking for, (4) doing the linearized approximation for the zero modes, (5) solving the EOM for the zero modes and (6) checking if the solution obtained in the linearized approximation really satisfies the EOM of the fullfledged action. As we will see, happily it works.

### 4.1 $`D6`$-branes ending on a $`D8`$-brane

The linearized approximation

Now we are going to look at the collective excitations about a kink representing a $`D8`$-brane. The results are given by Minahan and Zweibach in eq.(6.8) and (2.29) in their paper . For the massless modes of the tachyon, denoting $`T=\frac{q}{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}x+\stackrel{~}{T}`$ (here $`\stackrel{~}{T}`$ is restricted to the zero modes for our purpose, but in general it denotes all the collective excitations), we have the linearlized action,

$`S_T=T_{D9}{\displaystyle 𝑑td^8y𝑑xe^{2\pi q^2x^2}\left[F[4\pi \alpha ^{}q^2]+4\pi (\alpha ^{})^2\frac{F[4\pi \alpha ^{}q^2]}{4\pi \alpha ^{}q^2}\frac{1}{2}(_\mu \stackrel{~}{T})^2\right]}.`$ (4.1)
For the massless modes of the gauge field collective excitations, we have

$`S_A=T_{D9}{\displaystyle 𝑑td^8y𝑑xe^{2\pi q^2x^2}F[4\pi \alpha ^{}q^2]\frac{1}{4}(2\pi \alpha ^{})^2F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }},`$ (4.2)
where the indices $`\mu ,\nu `$ denote the directions transverse to a $`D8`$-brane or $`y`$-directions. Therefore in the linearized approximation our problem reduces to that of BIons , and we can readily read off the solution of the EOM for zero modes. The result for large $`q`$ is

$`\stackrel{~}{T}`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi qNc_m{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}{r}},`$ (4.3)
$`B_i`$ $`=`$ $`Nc_m{\displaystyle \frac{y_i}{r^3}},`$ (4.4)
where $`B_i(i=6,7,8)`$ denotes a magnetic field on a $`D8`$-brane, and $`c_m`$ and $`N`$ is a numerical constant and the number of $`D6`$-branes respectively. Note that we chose the power of $`q`$ in the front coefficients from the normalizations of the tachyon and gauge kinetic terms.

In sum, our conjecture for the configuration, $`N`$ $`D6`$-branes ending on a $`D8`$-brane, is given by

$`T`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{q}{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}}\left(x+2\pi Nc_m{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^{}}{r}}\right),`$ (4.5)
$`B_i`$ $`=`$ $`Nc_m{\displaystyle \frac{y_i}{r^3}}(F=Nc_md\mathrm{\Omega }_2),`$
$`\text{with}q\mathrm{}`$
as is proposed in  in the two derivative truncation.

The energy

Now let us determine the value of a numerical constant $`c_m`$. To reproduce the energy of $`D6`$-brane correctly, it turns out that $`c_m=\frac{1}{2}`$, in the linearlized approximation. The energy is given by

$`E`$ $`=`$ $`T_{D9}{\displaystyle d^8y𝑑xe^{2\pi q^2x^2}F[4\pi (\alpha ^{})^2q^2]\left[1+(2\pi \alpha ^{})^2(Nc_m)^2\frac{1}{r^4}\right]}`$ (4.7)
$`=`$ $`T_{D9}\sqrt{2\pi ^2\alpha ^{}}{\displaystyle d^8y}+T_{D9}\sqrt{2\pi ^2\alpha ^{}}\mathrm{\Omega }_2(2\pi \alpha ^{})^2(Nc_m)^2{\displaystyle d^5y_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dr}{r^2}}.`$
Noting that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2=4\pi `$ and $`x=2\pi \alpha ^{}Nc_m/r`$, we find that, when $`c_m=\frac{1}{2}`$, we exactly reproduce the sum of the energies of a $`D8`$ and $`N`$ $`D6`$-branes:

$`E=T_{D9}\sqrt{2\pi ^2\alpha ^{}}{\displaystyle d^8y}+T_{D9}2(2\pi ^2\alpha ^{})^{3/2}N{\displaystyle d^5y_{\mathrm{}}^0𝑑x}.`$ (4.8)
Remark also that $`D6`$-branes are extended only on the half line in $`x`$-direction, as it should be, being emphasized in .

The RR-charge

Let us compute the RR-charges of our configuration. Recalling the CS coupling

$`S_{\mathrm{CS}}=T_{D9}{\displaystyle C}\text{Tr}e^{2\pi \alpha ^{}(FT^2+DT)}`$ (4.9)
on the unstable $`D9`$-branes,

(1) the $`D8`$-brane charge is given by

$`T_{D9}{\displaystyle C^{(9)}}e^{2\pi \alpha ^{}T^2}(2\pi \alpha ^{})dT`$ $`=`$ $`T_{D9}q{\displaystyle C^{(9)}}e^{2\pi q^2(x+\frac{\pi \alpha ^{}N}{r})^2}(2\pi \sqrt{\alpha ^{}})d(x+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi \alpha ^{}N}{r}})`$ (4.10)
$`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}\pi \sqrt{\alpha ^{}}T_{D9}{\displaystyle C^{(9)}}\delta (x+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi \alpha ^{}N}{r}})d(x+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi \alpha ^{}N}{r}})`$
$`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}\pi \sqrt{\alpha ^{}}T_{D9}{\displaystyle C^{(9)}}.`$
(2) The $`D6`$-brane charge is similarly evaluated asWe assumed a spherical symmetry of the 7-form $`C^{(7)}`$.

$`T_{D9}{\displaystyle C^{(7)}}e^{2\pi \alpha ^{}T^2}(2\pi \alpha ^{})^2dTF=T_{D9}2(2\pi ^2\alpha ^{})^{3/2}N{\displaystyle C^{(7)}}.`$ (4.11)
We find the exact agreement with the RR-charges.

The fullfledged treatment: nonlinear

Having found the exact agreement of the energies and the RR-charges for the solution in the linearized approximation§§§The Chern-Simons coupling (4.9) given in  is exact in the full superstring theory., it is natural to suspect that it will be the exact solution of the whole nonlinear action (2.4), just like in the case of BPS BIons. We are going to show that it is indeed the case.

(1) The tachyon EOM:

As noted before, the tachyon EOM is simplified to eq. (2.5). Now the argument of the functional $`F`$ in this case is given by

$`4\pi (\alpha ^{})^2\left((_9T)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{(_iT)^2+(2\pi \alpha ^{}B_i_iT)^2}{1+(2\pi \alpha ^{}B_i)^2}}\right)`$ $`=4\pi (\alpha ^{})^2\left((_9T)^2+(_iT)^2\right)`$ (4.12)
$`=4\pi \alpha ^{}q^2\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{(\pi N\alpha ^{})^2}{r^4}}\right),`$
where the first equality is due to the Bogomol’nyi-like equation $`_iT=\frac{q}{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}2\pi \alpha ^{}B_i`$, which was indeed the Bogomol’nyi equation in the two derivative truncation. The tachyon EOM further reduces to the identity (2.6),

$`F[a]=2aF^{}[a],`$ (4.13)
$`\text{with}a=4\pi \alpha ^{}q^2\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{(\pi N\alpha ^{})^2}{r^4}}\right),`$ (4.14)
that indeed holds when $`a\mathrm{}`$ or equivalently $`q\mathrm{}`$.

(2) The gauge field EOM:

Again as we remarked before, the gauge EOM in this case is simply the one (2.7) for the magnetic field,

$`ϵ_{ijk}_j{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta B_k}}=0.`$ (4.15)
It can readily be seen that this EOM holds, as the l.h.s. is proportional to $`y_jy_ky_ky_j`$, which is identically zero.

The energy: in the fullfledged treatment

Now we will show the energy evaluated from the fullfledged nonlinear action (2.4) is exactly the same as the linearized one. Again noting the asymptotics (3.4) of the functional $`F`$, the energy (2.4) takes the form

$`E`$ $`=`$ $`T_{D9}{\displaystyle d^8y𝑑xe^{2\pi q^2(x+\frac{\pi \alpha ^{}N}{r})^2}\sqrt{4\pi ^2\alpha ^{}}q\sqrt{1+\frac{(\pi N\alpha ^{})^2}{r^4}}\times \sqrt{1+\frac{(\pi N\alpha ^{})^2}{r^4}}}.`$ (4.16)
Remarkably the square root becomes the perfect square, as it should be in the case of BPS configurations. Let us finish up the computation:

$`E`$ $`=`$ $`T_{D9}\sqrt{2}\pi \sqrt{\alpha ^{}}{\displaystyle d^8y}+T_{D9}\sqrt{2\pi ^2\alpha ^{}}4\pi (\pi N\alpha ^{})^2{\displaystyle d^5y𝑑x\frac{dr}{r^2}\delta (x+\frac{\pi N\alpha ^{}}{r})}`$ (4.17)
$`=`$ $`T_{D9}\sqrt{2}\pi \sqrt{\alpha ^{}}{\displaystyle d^8y}+T_{D9}2(2\pi ^2\alpha ^{})^{3/2}N{\displaystyle d^5y𝑑x\theta (x)}.`$
This is exactly the same as the energy computed in the linearized approximation and is in exact agreement with the expected result.

### 4.2 A ($`F`$,$`D6`$) bound state ending on a $`D8`$-brane

Now let us turn to a little more involved configuration. We will put the fundamental strings ($`F1`$) on the $`D6`$-branes ending on a $`D8`$-brane. Similarly to the previous example, the linearized approximation suggests that the solution in the fullfledged treatment may be

$`T`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{q}{\alpha ^{}}}\left(x+\mathrm{cosh}\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{\pi N\alpha ^{}}{r}}\right),`$ (4.18)
$`B_i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{y_i}{r^3}},`$ (4.19)
$`E_i`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sinh}\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{N}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{y_i}{r^3}}.`$ (4.20)
This could have been obtained by a Lorentz boost in the following way, though it is not totally clear why it should work in the fullfledged treatment. Let us think of the fluctuation $`\stackrel{~}{T}`$ of the tachyon $`T`$ in the linearized approximation as the 9th-component of the gauge field. Due to the normalization of the tachyon and gauge kinetic terms, the ‘9th’-component $`\stackrel{~}{T}`$ of the gauge field should be normalized as $`\frac{1}{q}\stackrel{~}{T}`$. Now we start with the configuration (4.5) and (4.1), and perform a Lorentz boost, characterized by an ‘angle’ $`\alpha `$, in the 9th-direction. Then it gives the solution (4.18), (4.19) and (4.20). In the linearized approximation we have actually this Lorentz invariance, so the solutions with nontrivial electric fields should have been generated in this wayThe zero mode of the fluctuation $`\stackrel{~}{T}`$ of the tachyon corresponds to the collective mode transverse to the $`D8`$-brane, which can indeed be thought of as the dimensional reduction of the 9th-component $`A_9`$ of the gauge fields.. However there is no apparent Lorentz invariance of this kind in the fullfledged action, so we are not really entitled to obtain the above solution. This might be related to the following subtlety concerning the gauge EOM (the Gauss’s law) for the electric fields. To see it, let us first compute the conjugate momentum $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{A_i}`$ of the gauge field $`A_i`$. It is given by

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{A_i}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta E_i}}=T_{D9}(2\pi \alpha ^{})e^{2\pi q^2\left(x+\mathrm{cosh}\alpha \frac{\pi N\alpha ^{}}{r}\right)^2}\sqrt{4\pi ^2\alpha ^{}}q\mathrm{sinh}\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{\pi N\alpha ^{}y_i}{r^3}},`$ (4.21)
where we used the relation $`F[x]=2xF^{}[x]`$ at $`x\mathrm{}`$. Thus it seems at first sight that the Gauss’s law (2.8) would imply There is a singularity at $`r=0`$ where a point charge is sitting.

$$_i\left(\delta \left(x+\mathrm{cosh}\alpha \frac{\pi N\alpha ^{}}{r}\right)\frac{y_i}{r^3}\right)=0.$$
(4.22)
But apparently this cannot be satisfied. There is, however, a point we missed, which gives a complete resolution of this problem. Even though the electric field $`E_x`$ in the $`x`$-direction transverse to the $`D8`$-brane were not turned on, its conjugate momentum $`\mathrm{\Pi }_x`$ would not be vanishing due to a particular coupling of the electric field to the derivative of the tachyon, as we will see below. Now when we include the electric field $`E_x`$ in the action (2.4), the action is modified to

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`T_{D9}{\displaystyle 𝑑td^9xe^{2\pi \alpha ^{}T^2}\sqrt{det\left(\eta _{ab}+2\pi \alpha ^{}F_{ab}\right)}}`$ (4.23)
$`F[4\pi (\alpha ^{})^2[(1+(2\pi \alpha ^{}B_i)^2)(_xT)^2+(_iT)^2(2\pi \alpha ^{}ϵ_{ijk}E_j_kT)^2`$
$`+(2\pi \alpha ^{}B_i_iT)^2\left\{2\pi \alpha ^{}B_i(2\pi \alpha ^{}E_i_xT2\pi \alpha ^{}E_x_iT)\right\}^2`$
$`(2\pi \alpha ^{}E_i_xT2\pi \alpha ^{}E_x_iT)^2]/(det(\eta _{ab}+2\pi \alpha ^{}F_{ab}))],`$
where $`a,b=0,6,7,8,x`$, whereas $`i,j=6,7,8`$, and $`det\left(\eta _{ab}+2\pi \alpha ^{}F_{ab}\right)=1+\frac{1}{2}(2\pi \alpha ^{}F_{ab})^2(2\pi \alpha ^{})^4(E_iB_i)^2(2\pi \alpha ^{})^4(B_iE_x)^2`$. Then one can find that the conjugate momentum $`\mathrm{\Pi }_x`$ of the gauge field $`A_x`$ is non-vanishing, even when the electric field $`E_x`$ is zero:

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_x`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta E_x}}=T_{D9}(2\pi \alpha ^{})e^{2\pi q^2\left(x+\mathrm{cosh}\alpha \frac{\pi N\alpha ^{}}{r}\right)^2}\sqrt{4\pi ^2\alpha ^{}}q\mathrm{cosh}\alpha \mathrm{sinh}\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{(\pi N\alpha ^{})^2}{r^4}}.`$ (4.24)
Thus the correct EOM for the electric field is

$`_i\mathrm{\Pi }_{A_i}+_x\mathrm{\Pi }_x=0,`$ (4.25)
which is indeed satisfied by our solution (4.18), (4.19) and (4.20), thanks to a source term provided by the conjugate momentum $`\mathrm{\Pi }_x`$.

The energy

Now let us evaluate the energy of this configuration. The Hamiltonian density $``$ is evaluated as

$``$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{A_i}E_i`$ (4.26)
$`=`$ $`T_{D9}e^{2\pi q^2\left(x+\mathrm{cosh}\alpha \frac{\pi N\alpha ^{}}{r}\right)^2}\sqrt{4\pi ^2\alpha ^{}}q\left(1+\mathrm{cosh}^2\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{(\pi N\alpha ^{})^2}{r^4}}\right),`$
This gives the energy

$`E`$ $`=`$ $`T_{D9}\sqrt{2}\pi \sqrt{\alpha ^{}}{\displaystyle d^8y}+T_{D9}2(2\pi ^2\alpha ^{})^{3/2}N\mathrm{cosh}\alpha {\displaystyle d^5y𝑑x\theta (x)}.`$ (4.27)
Note that $`\mathrm{cosh}\alpha =\sqrt{1+\mathrm{sinh}^2\alpha }`$ in that $`\mathrm{sinh}\alpha `$ is proportional to the number $`N_{F1}`$ of the fundamental strings and should be quantized as $`N_{F1}l/(2\pi \alpha ^{}NT_{D6}V_6)`$ where $`V_6`$ and $`l`$ is the volume of $`D6`$-branes and the length of the fundamental strings respectively. Indeed it can be easily checked that this is precisely the quantization condition of $`\mathrm{\Pi }_x`$. Again we find an exact agreement of the energy.

## 5 Turning on NS-NS $`B`$-fields

As a further generalization, let us turn on a constant NS-NS $`B`$-field on $`D`$-branes. Here we will focus on an interesting phenomenon found in  that $`D`$-branes could be tilted by an effect of turning on the constant NS-NS $`B`$-fields. We can convert constant NS-NS $`B`$-fields into constant magnetic fields on $`D`$-branes. As the simplest example, let us consider a $`D8`$-brane with a constant magnetic field, $`B_6`$, which is equivalent to turning on a constant NS-NS $`B`$-field, $`B_{78}^{NS}`$, in this case. The tilted $`D8`$-brane will be represented by

$`T`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{q}{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}}(x_92\pi \alpha ^{}B_6x_6),`$ (5.1)
as is obvious. Now we are going to check that this is indeed a solution of the EOMs. The gauge EOM (2.7) is trivially satisfied. In this case the argument of the functional $`F`$ is given by

$`4\pi (\alpha ^{})^2\left((_9T)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{(_iT)^2+(2\pi \alpha ^{}B_i_iT)^2}{1+(2\pi \alpha ^{}B_i)^2}}\right)=4\pi \alpha ^{}q^2\left(1+(2\pi \alpha ^{}B_6)^2\right).`$ (5.2)
One can easily find that the tachyon EOM (2.5) boils down to

$`F[a]=2aF^{}[a],`$ (5.3)
$`\text{with}a=4\pi \alpha ^{}q^2\left(1+(2\pi \alpha ^{}B_6)^2\right).`$ (5.4)
Actually this configuration is nothing but the $`D6`$-$`D8`$ bound state. As a check, again let us compute the energy of this configuration.

$`E`$ $`=`$ $`T_{D8}\sqrt{1+(2\pi \alpha ^{}B_6)^2}{\displaystyle d^7yd\left(\frac{x_6+2\pi \alpha ^{}B_6x_9}{\sqrt{1+(2\pi \alpha ^{}B_6)^2}}\right)},`$ (5.5)
which is the expected result.

Now let us apply this result to a little more involved case, which is the tilting of the configuration of section 4.1, $`D6`$-branes ending on a $`D8`$-brane. It is easy to guess that the solution will be given by

$`T`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{q}{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}}\left(x2\pi \alpha ^{}B_6y_6+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi N\alpha ^{}}{r}}\right),`$ (5.6)
$`B_i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{y_i}{r^3}}+\delta _{i6}B_6.`$ (5.7)
One can easily find that the EOMs are satisfied, as can be seen from the above argument. An important property of the above solution is

$`_iT={\displaystyle \frac{q}{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}}2\pi \alpha ^{}B_i,`$ (5.8)
that is again reminiscent of a Bogomol’nyi equation derived in the two derivative truncation in . Due to this property the argument of the functional $`F`$ reduces to

$`4\pi \alpha ^{}q^2\left(1+(2\pi \alpha ^{}B_i)^2\right)=4\pi \alpha ^{}q^2\left(1+(2\pi \alpha ^{}B_6)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{(\pi N\alpha ^{})^2}{r^4}}+(2\pi \alpha ^{})^2NB_6{\displaystyle \frac{y_6}{r^3}}\right).`$ (5.9)
Then the square root in the fullfledged action becomes the perfect square once again, which is indicative of BPS. Hence the energy of this configuration is evaluated as

$`E`$ $`=`$ $`T_{D9}{\displaystyle d^9x\sqrt{4\pi ^2\alpha ^{}}qe^{2\pi q^2\left(x2\pi \alpha ^{}B_6y_6+\frac{\pi N\alpha ^{}}{r}\right)^2}}`$ (5.10)
$`\times \left(1+(2\pi \alpha ^{}B_6)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{(\pi N\alpha ^{})^2}{r^4}}+(2\pi \alpha ^{})^2NB_6{\displaystyle \frac{y_6}{r^3}}\right),`$
perfoming a change of variables, ($`\stackrel{~}{x}=\frac{x2\pi \alpha ^{}B_6y_6}{\sqrt{1+(2\pi \alpha ^{}B_6)^2}}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{y}=y_6`$), and adopting a polar coordinate $`(\stackrel{~}{y},y_7,y_8)=r(\mathrm{cos}\varphi ,\mathrm{sin}\varphi \mathrm{cos}\theta ,\mathrm{sin}\varphi \mathrm{sin}\theta )`$, we can finally find

$`E=T_{D8}\sqrt{1+(2\pi \alpha ^{}B_6)^2}{\displaystyle d^7yd\left(\frac{y_6+2\pi \alpha ^{}B_6x}{\sqrt{1+(2\pi \alpha ^{}B_6)^2}}\right)}+NT_{D6}{\displaystyle d^5y𝑑x\theta (x)}.`$ (5.11)
This is exactly the energy of $`D6`$-branes ending on a tilted $`D8`$-brane.

$`D8`$-$`D6`$-$`D4`$ bound state

As another example, we can also construct a $`D8`$-$`D4`$ bound state when the $`D8`$-brane has self-dual noncommutativity on a 4-dimensional subspace of its worldvolume. From the Chern-Simons coupling, $`D4`$-branes on $`D8`$-branes can be described by instantons on the $`D8`$-branes, as is well-known. Usually we have to work on multiple $`D8`$-branes in order to have the instantons on its worldvolume, for the $`U(1)`$ instantons are singular. However when we have self-dual noncommutativity on the worldvolume, we could have non-singular $`U(1)`$ instantons as in . So we will turn on a self-dual NS-NS $`B`$-field, $`B^+(=B_{56}^{NS}=B_{78}^{NS})`$, on a 4-dimensional subspace of a single $`D8`$-brane. Then it is easy to realize that the $`D8`$-$`D4`$ bound state with $`D6`$-branes on it can be constructed by

$`T`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{q}{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}}x_9,`$ (5.12)
$`A_i`$ $`=`$ $`B_{ij}^{NS}y_jh(r),`$ (5.13)
where the indices $`i,j`$ run from 5 to 8, and the function $`h(r)`$ of $`r=\sqrt{y_5^2+y_6^2+y_7^2+y_8^2}`$ satisfies the equation $`2h^2\left(1+1/(2\pi \alpha ^{}B^+)^2\right)h=4N/((B^+)^2r^4)`$ with $`N`$ being the number of instantons or $`D4`$-branes. The action relevant for this configuration factorizes to (2.3) with replacing the gauge field strength $`2\pi \alpha ^{}F`$ by the invarian field strength $`=2\pi \alpha ^{}(B^{NS}+F)`$. Thus the gauge EOMs in this case are tantamount to those of the DBI action and the gauge fields (5.13) given above are nothing but a slight generalization  of the noncommutative BI-instanton discussed in .

## 6 A junction

Let us work out another example, a three point junction. We are going to consider the three point junction of the type ($`N_{F1}F`$,$`D8`$)–($`N_{F1}F`$,$`0`$)–($`0`$,$`D8`$). The junction point could have been pulled away by three types of branes attached their ends at the junction point. To balance the force at the junction point, the force vector must be zero and its force balance is simply determined a la Pythagoras, as indicated in the above notation for the three point junction. This junction can be realized by ($`E_6>0`$ for convenience)\**\**\**The junction in this paper is slightly different from the one considered in our previous paper, where we used an untilted ($`F`$,$`D8`$) bound state instead of the tilted one we employ here.

(I) $`T={\displaystyle \frac{q}{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}}(x_9+2\pi \alpha ^{}E_6x_6),`$ $`E_6=\text{const.},(x_60),`$ (6.1)
(II) $`T={\displaystyle \frac{q}{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}}x_9,`$ $`E_6=0,(x_6>0).`$ (6.2)
We turn on a constant electric flux $`E_6`$ in the left half ($`x_60`$) of the (6,9)-plane by putting negative electric charges along the $`x_9`$-axis and positive charges at one side of the infinity, $`x_6=\mathrm{}`$. Our junction consists of a ($`F`$,$`D8`$) bound state in region (I) and a pure $`D8`$-brane in region (II). To balance the force at the junction point there must be the fundamental strings shooting off from the juction point, $`x_6=x_9=0`$, to the negative $`x_9`$-axis. But we cannot really see the fundamental strings in our junction solution, while we can observe the inflow of the fundamental string charges into the ($`F`$,$`D8`$) bound state, as we will see below. If we were working on the $`D8`$-brane effective theory, there would be no way to see the fundamental strings which were emanating from far away outside of the world and abruptly touched down to a point in the world. That was the case in  in which they worked on the $`D1`$-brane effectively theory to consider a three string junction. However we do not only have the $`D8`$-brane worldvolume, but also have the bulk of the spacetime, so we are to be able to see the fundamental strings manifestly, as is different from the case in . But we will leave this problem for future.

Let us check if the above configuration really satisfies the EOMs. The solution in region (II) is simply a pure $`D8`$-brane and thus trivially a solution of the EOMs, while the one in region (I) contains a subtle point concerning the EOM for the electric field, as noted in section 4.

Now starting with a pure $`D8`$-brane solution in region (II), from the continuity of the solution at the junction point, we can determine the coefficient $`\frac{q}{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}`$ of $`x_9`$ in the ($`F`$,$`D8`$) solution in region (I). So the remaning task is to see if the coefficient $`\frac{q}{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}2\pi \alpha ^{}E_6`$ of $`x_6`$ in region (I) is really consistent with the EOMs, though it is required physically from the balance of the force at the junction point. One can readily see that the tachyon EOM (2.5) is indeed satisfied. To look at the EOM for the electric field (the Gauss’s law), let us first compute the conjugate momentum densities $`\mathrm{\Pi }_6`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_9`$ of the gauge fields $`A_6`$ and $`A_9`$ respectively. They are given by

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_6`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta E_6}}=T_{D8}2\pi \alpha ^{}\delta (x_9+2\pi \alpha ^{}E_6x_6)(2\pi \alpha ^{}E_6),`$ (6.3)
$`\mathrm{\Pi }_9`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta E_9}}=T_{D8}2\pi \alpha ^{}\delta (x_9+2\pi \alpha ^{}E_6x_6)(2\pi \alpha ^{}E_6)^2,`$ (6.4)
where again the conjugate momentum density $`\mathrm{\Pi }_9`$ of $`A_9`$ is not vanishing, in spite of that the electic field $`E_9`$ is zero, as noted in section 4. The Gauss’s law is thus satisfied:

$$_6\mathrm{\Pi }_6+_9\mathrm{\Pi }_9=0.$$
(6.5)
Now we can see the inflow of the fundamental string charges into the ($`F`$,$`D8`$) bound state, though we cannot see the fundamental strings themselves that must be lying along the negative $`x_9`$-axis. Actually the charge inflow of the fundamental strings is given by

$`Q_9={\displaystyle d^7y_{\mathrm{}}^0𝑑x_6_0^+\mathrm{}𝑑x_9\mathrm{\Pi }_9}=2\pi \alpha ^{}(2\pi \alpha ^{}E_6)(T_{D8}V_8),`$ (6.6)
where $`V_8`$ is the volume of the $`D8`$-brane and this formula gives us the correct ratio $`2\pi \alpha ^{}E_6=(Q_9/2\pi \alpha ^{})/(T_{D8}V_8)`$ for the tensions of the fundamental strings and the $`D8`$-brane.

## 7 The Emparan-Myers’ effect

So far we have only dealt with BPS or supersymmetric configurations. In this section we turn to a nonsupersymmetric example. We will consider the dielectric $`D8`$-brane by employing the fullfledged action (2.4). The dielectric $`D8`$-brane in this case has the worldvolume of $`R^1\times R^6\times S^2`$, in which the attractive force due to the tension of the brane which would shrink the 2-sphere is cancelled by the flux of the RR 9-form and the magnetic flux on the $`D8`$-brane which gives the granular distribution of $`D6`$-branes on it. To have the shape of $`R^1\times R^6\times S^2`$, the tachyon $`T`$ may take the form

$`T={\displaystyle \frac{q}{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}}(rR),q\mathrm{},`$ (7.1)
where $`r`$ is a radial coordinate of the (6,7,8)-space, i.e., $`r=\sqrt{y_6^2+y_7^2+y_8^2}`$, while $`R`$ is the radius of the 2-sphere. Note that, as $`q`$ goes to infinity, one can see that the $`D8`$-brane is localized on the 2-sphere of radius $`R`$. Also as we have seen in the linearized approximation, the fluctuation of the tachyon describes the collective modes transverse to the $`D8`$-brane. Thus the dependence on the radius $`R`$ in the tachyon $`T`$ can actually be understood as the collective coordinate in the radial direction. On the other hand the gauge fields should give the granular distribution of $`D6`$-branes, so they may be

$`B_i=Nc_m{\displaystyle \frac{y_i}{r^3}}(F=Nc_md\mathrm{\Omega }_2).`$ (7.2)
Now the whole action includes the CS term in which we assume only the RR 9-form $`C^{(9)}`$ is turned on, as is in an exact analogy with the Emparan-Myers’s effect without tachyon. We give the RR 9-form $`C^{(9)}`$ as

$`C^{(9)}=cdtdV_{R^6}R^3d\mathrm{\Omega }_2,`$ (7.3)
where $`c`$ is a constant parameter. In this configuration the energy is given by

$`E`$ $`=`$ $`T_{D9}{\displaystyle d^6xr^2𝑑r𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }_2e^{2\pi q^2(rR)^2}\sqrt{1+\left(\frac{2\pi \alpha ^{}Nc_m}{r^2}\right)^2}}`$
$`\times F\left[4\pi (\alpha ^{})^2{\displaystyle \frac{(_iT)^2+(2\pi \alpha ^{}B_i_iT)^2}{1+\left(\frac{2\pi \alpha ^{}Nc_m}{r^2}\right)^2}}\right]`$
$``$ $`T_{D9}{\displaystyle e^{2\pi q^2(rR)^2}c𝑑V_{R^6}}R^3d\mathrm{\Omega }_2{\displaystyle \frac{q}{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}}d(rR),`$
where the last term is the CS term $`T_{D9}C^{(9)}e^{2\pi \alpha ^{}T^2}dT`$. Here one can easily find that the argument of the functional $`F`$ simply reduces to

$`4\pi (\alpha ^{})^2{\displaystyle \frac{(_iT)^2+(2\pi \alpha ^{}B_i_iT)^2}{1+\left(\frac{2\pi \alpha ^{}Nc_m}{r^2}\right)^2}}=4\pi \alpha ^{}q^2.`$ (7.5)
Thus the energy becomes

$`E=T_{D9}{\displaystyle d^6x\left[(4\pi )\sqrt{2\pi ^2\alpha ^{}}\sqrt{R^4+\left(2\pi \alpha ^{}Nc_m\right)^2}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\alpha ^{}}}(4\pi )cR^3\right]}`$ (7.6)
Indeed this is exactly the same as eq.(87) in . Now let us set $`c_m=\frac{1}{2}`$. Then when the radius $`R`$ is so small as $`R\sqrt{\pi \alpha ^{}N}`$, the energy is approximated by

$`E=T_{D9}2(2\pi ^2\alpha ^{})^{3/2}N{\displaystyle d^6x\left[1+\frac{1}{2(\pi \alpha ^{}N)^2}\left(R^4NcR^3\right)\right]}`$ (7.7)
There are two extrema, $`R=0`$ and $`R=\frac{3}{4}cN`$. The latter $`R=\frac{3}{4}cN`$ is the minimum, which indicates the stabilization of the 2-sphere. Note also that the first term in (7.7) is exactly the energy of $`N`$ $`D6`$-branes.

It is easy to check that the above configuration indeed satisfy the EOMs. However we would like to remark that the tachyon EOM does not really give severe restrictions on the form of the tachyon $`T`$, as long as the tachyon is of the order of $`q`$. In fact any tachyon of the form $`T=T(r)`$ is allowed. This is somewhat unsual from the viewpoint of the familiar dynamical systems such as the Abelian-Higgs model. But this arbitrariness of the tachyon configuration is not as arbitrary as it stands. Due to the tachyon potential $`e^{2\pi \alpha ^{}T^2}`$, when the tachyon is of the order of $`q`$, only the vicinity of zeros of $`T(r)`$ is giving its contribution. Thus we can expand the tachyon $`T(r)`$ about zeros $`r_0`$, which amounts to $`T(r)=T^{}(r_0)(rr_0)`$. Actually the coefficient $`T^{}(r_0)`$ can be absorbed in the normalization of $`q`$ and thus it is irrelevant. In this sense the tachyon configuration (7.1) is the ‘unique’ solution of the EOMs.

## 8 A nonabelian example

A $`D6`$-brane suspended between $`D8`$-branes

Finally we will study the $`D`$-brane bound states which require nonabelian extention of previous arguments. As an example we consider the configuration, a $`D6`$-brane suspended between two parallel $`D8`$-branes which was discussed in the two derivative truncation. Let us recall the action (2.1)

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`T_{D9}{\displaystyle }dtd^9x\text{Tr}(e^{2\pi \alpha ^{}T^2}det\sqrt{2\pi }`$ (8.1)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{_{r=1/2}^{\mathrm{}}det\left(\eta _{\mu \nu }+2\pi \alpha ^{}F_{\mu \nu }+4\pi (\alpha ^{})^2\frac{D_{(\mu }TD_{\nu )}T}{r}\right)}{_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}det\left(n\left(\eta _{\mu \nu }+2\pi \alpha ^{}F_{\mu \nu }\right)+4\pi (\alpha ^{})^2D_{(\mu }TD_{\nu )}T\right)}}).`$
As noted before, there is a problem of how to define the ordering of various $`U(N)`$ matrices inside the trace. In the two derivative truncation a certain symmetrized trace prescription appears to be favorable and we successfully worked out the suspended brane system. But here we are not trying to resolve this ordering problem, instead we will simply make an ansatz for the ordering prescription so that we could deduce a reasonable result. For the relevant configuration in our concern, we assume the ordering in such a way that

$`det\left(\eta _{\mu \nu }+2\pi \alpha ^{}F_{\mu \nu }+4\pi (\alpha ^{})^2{\displaystyle \frac{D_{(\mu }TD_{\nu )}T}{n}}\right)=`$
$`\left(1_{N\times N}+(2\pi \alpha ^{}B_i)^2(2\pi \alpha ^{}E_i)^2(2\pi \alpha ^{})^2(E_iB_i)^2\right)`$ (8.2)
$`\times \left[1_{N\times N}+{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi (\alpha ^{})^2}{n}}\left((D_9T)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{(D_iT)^2(2\pi \alpha ^{}ϵ_{ijk}E_jD_kT)^2+(2\pi \alpha ^{}B_iD_iT)^2}{1_{N\times N}+(2\pi \alpha ^{}B_i)^2(2\pi \alpha ^{}E_i)^2(2\pi \alpha ^{})^2(E_iB_i)^2}}\right)\right].`$
Then when $`E_i=0`$, $`D_9T=\frac{q}{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}`$ and $`D_iT=\frac{q}{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}2\pi \alpha ^{}B_i`$, the above determinant reduces to

$`\left(1_{N\times N}+(2\pi \alpha ^{}B_i)^2\right)\left[1_{N\times N}+{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi \alpha ^{}q^2}{n}}\left(1_{N\times N}+(2\pi \alpha ^{}B_i)^2\right)\right].`$ (8.3)
Further we shall assume the ordering of $`U(N)`$ matrices so that we will obtain the action

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`T_{D9}{\displaystyle 𝑑td^9x\text{Tr}\left[e^{2\pi \alpha ^{}T^2}\sqrt{4\pi ^2\alpha ^{}}q\left(1_{N\times N}+(2\pi \alpha ^{}B_i)^2\right)\right]},`$ (8.4)
which is quite natural, but this is merely an assumption.

Now let us look for a solution which describes a $`D6`$-brane suspended between two parallel $`D8`$-branes. We anticipate that a solution will be given by the ’tHooft-Polyakov monopole in $`SU(2)`$ gauge theory (embedded trivially in $`U(2)`$). Again it is helpful to invoke the linearized approximation. We start with a solution of two $`D8`$-branes, which takes the form

$`T={\displaystyle \frac{q}{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}}x1_{2\times 2}.`$ (8.5)
The linearized approximation provides us with a $`U(2)`$ gauge theory with an adjoint scalar that is the fluctuation $`\stackrel{~}{T}`$ of the tachyon. The potential of the adjoint scalar is absent in this approximation. So we can obtain the Prasad-Sommerfield limit of the ’tHooft-Polyakov monopole. Thus we conjecture the solution we are looking for will be given by††††††Here we are employing the convention $`F_{ij}=_iA_j_jA_ii[A_i,A_j]`$.

$`T`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{q}{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}}\left(x1_{2\times 2}+2\pi \sqrt{\alpha ^{}}{\displaystyle \frac{f(r/\sqrt{\alpha ^{}})}{2r}}x_i\sigma _i\right),`$ (8.6)
$`A_i`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{w(r/\sqrt{\alpha ^{}})}{2r}}x_j\sigma _{ij},`$ (8.7)
where the functions $`f(r)`$ and $`w(r)`$ take the form

$`f(r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{C}{\mathrm{tanh}(Cr)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}},`$ (8.8)
$`w(r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{C}{\mathrm{sinh}(Cr)}}.`$ (8.9)
Now let us evaluate the energy of this configuration. To do so, it is convenient to diagonalize the tachyon $`T`$, which in particular makes a $`\delta `$-function appearing in the energy computation simple and clarifies the physical picture of this configuration. The tachyon $`T`$ is diagonalized as

$`T={\displaystyle \frac{q}{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}x+\pi \sqrt{\alpha ^{}}f(r/\sqrt{\alpha ^{}})& 0\\ 0& x\pi \sqrt{\alpha ^{}}f(r/\sqrt{\alpha ^{}})\end{array}\right).`$ (8.12)
This offers quite a nice physical picture. The function $`f(r)`$ approaches to zero when $`r`$ goes to zero, while it monotonically increases to reach at a constant value $`C`$ when $`r`$ is taken to $`+\mathrm{}`$. Thus the top diagonal element corresponds to a $`D8`$-brane located at $`x=\pi \sqrt{\alpha ^{}}C`$, whereas the bottom one at $`x=+\pi \sqrt{\alpha ^{}}C`$. Each $`D8`$-brane has a spike. Two spikes are shooting off to the center of two $`D8`$-branes, and eventually terminate and meet at $`x=0`$ to compose a tunnel suspended between two $`D8`$-branes.

Now the energy takes the form

$`E`$ $`=`$ $`T_{D9}{\displaystyle }d^9x\text{Tr}[\left(\begin{array}{cc}\delta \left(x+\pi \sqrt{\alpha ^{}}f(r/\sqrt{\alpha ^{}})\right)& 0\\ 0& \delta \left(x\pi \sqrt{\alpha ^{}}f(r/\sqrt{\alpha ^{}})\right)\end{array}\right)`$ (8.16)
$`\times \sqrt{2\pi ^2\alpha ^{}}(1_{2\times 2}+(2\pi \alpha ^{}B_i)^2)].`$
The first term readily gives the energy of two $`D8`$-branes. So let us focus on the second term, that is, the energy of a suspended $`D6`$-brane. The magnetic energy density $`(2\pi \alpha ^{}B_i)^2`$ can be computed as

$`(2\pi \alpha ^{}B_i)^2`$ $`=`$ $`\pi ^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(r/\sqrt{\alpha ^{}})^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{(r/\sqrt{\alpha ^{}})^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{C^2}{\mathrm{sinh}^2(Cr/\sqrt{\alpha ^{}})}}\right)+G(r/\sqrt{\alpha ^{}})\right]1_{2\times 2},`$ (8.17)
where the function $`G(r/\sqrt{\alpha ^{}})`$ is given by

$`G(r/\sqrt{\alpha ^{}})`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{C^2}{\mathrm{sinh}^2(Cr/\sqrt{\alpha ^{}})}}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(r/\sqrt{\alpha ^{}})^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{C^2}{\mathrm{sinh}^2(Cr/\sqrt{\alpha ^{}})}}`$ (8.18)
$`+2({\displaystyle \frac{1}{r/\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{C}{\mathrm{tanh}(Cr/\sqrt{\alpha ^{}})}})^2].`$
Thus the energy of a suspended $`D6`$-brane is

$`E_{D6}`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi T_{D9}{\displaystyle }d^5y[drr^22G(r/\sqrt{\alpha ^{}})+dxd\left(\pi \sqrt{\alpha ^{}}f(r/\sqrt{\alpha ^{}})\right)\sqrt{2\pi ^2\alpha ^{}}\pi \alpha ^{}`$ (8.19)
$`\times \{\delta (x+\pi \sqrt{\alpha ^{}}f(r/\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}))+\delta (x\pi \sqrt{\alpha ^{}}f(r/\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}))\}].`$
Now there is an unwelcome contribution from the function $`G(r/\sqrt{\alpha ^{}})`$ in the above energy:

$`I[C]={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑r{\displaystyle \frac{C^2}{\mathrm{sinh}^2(Cr)}}\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{(Cr)^2}{\mathrm{sinh}^2(Cr)}}+2\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{Cr}{\mathrm{tanh}(Cr)}}\right)^2\right]C.`$ (8.20)
By a simple scaling argument, one can readily find that the integral $`I[C]`$ is proportional to $`C`$, as indicated above. It is also easy to see that $`I[C]=I[C]`$. Thus the unwelcome contribution $`I[C]`$ is identically zero, as we anticipated. Thus the energy amounts to

$`E_{D6}=T_{D6}{\displaystyle d^5y𝑑x\left(\theta \left(x+\pi \sqrt{\alpha ^{}}C\right)\theta \left(x\pi \sqrt{\alpha ^{}}C\right)\right)},`$ (8.21)
that is exactly the energy of a $`D6`$-brane suspended between two $`D8`$-branes located at $`x=\pi \sqrt{\alpha ^{}}C`$ and $`x=+\pi \sqrt{\alpha ^{}}C`$ respectively.

We have not checked if the above solution really satisfy the EOMs due to the ordering problem in the fullfledged treatment, though remarkably in the two derivative truncation it was successfully done. The exact agreement of the energy, however, strongly suggests that it will indeed be a solution of the EOMs. But we will leave it for future problem.

## 9 Summary and discussions

We extended our previous results in  to the inclusion of the infinite number of higher derivative corrections for the tachyon and the gauge fields computed in the BSFT. We find the exact solutions of the EOM in the fullfledged action (2.1) for various BPS brane configurations found in , giving remarkable exact agreements of the energies and the RR-charges with the expected superstring results. Among others, we constructed a ($`F`$,$`D6`$) bound state ending on a $`D8`$-brane which we could not find in the two derivative truncation. Indeed it turned out that the existence of this configuration is due to a higher derivative effect in a rather subtle way. We further discussed the Emparan-Myers’ effect via the tachyon condensation as a nonsupersymmetric example and find again an exact agreement with the original result of  discussed from the effective theory of supersymmetric $`D`$-branes.

Although we mostly explored the BPS brane configurations, we have not really looked at the supersymmetries left unbroken by these configurations. However it seems quite possible at least to count fermionic zero modes about our BPS configurations following the fluctuation analysis of Minahan and Zwiebach.

We have not considered metamorphoses of the tachyon profile of higher codimension $`D`$-branes whose original linear profiles are given by the ABS construction $`T=\frac{q}{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^ix_i`$. As is apparent from the form of the solution, we need to consider multiple $`D9`$-branes in this case and thus we are again facing with the ordering problem. So the generalization to this case does not seem as straightforward as one might think. We will leave this problem for future.

Putting aside the ordering problem, there is a straightforward generalization of the brane configuration studied in section 8, by simply replacing a suspended $`D6`$-brane with a ($`F`$,$`D6`$) bound state. It will be done by adopting the Julia-Zee dyon instead of the ’tHooft-Polyakov monopole. One might think it easy to further extend this configuration to $`1/4`$ BPS configurations that are multi-pronged $`D1`$-branes and ($`F`$,$`D1`$) bound states suspended between parallel $`D3`$-branes. In our application it may be the simplest case to perform a T-duality in three of four directions orthogonal to this configuration, and consider multi-pronged $`D4`$-branes and ($`F`$,$`D4`$) bound states suspended between parallel $`D6`$-branes. This is, however, still quite involved, as we need to prepare at least two $`D9`$-branes for each $`D6`$-brane and further to copy a pair of two $`D9`$-branes as many as the number of $`D6`$-branes. So it is not so easy as one might expect.

Finally we make a comment on the construction of multiple $`D8`$-branes out of a single $`D9`$-brane. As noted in the discussion of the Emparan-Myers’ effect, the tachyon EOM allows us to have rather arbitrary form of the tachyon $`T`$. Here we will consider the simplest example in which only nontrivial field is the tachyon of the form $`T=\frac{q}{\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}}T(x)`$ with $`q\mathrm{}`$. It can be easily checked that arbitrary function $`T(x)`$ of $`x`$ satisfies the tachyon EOM. We will argue that this fact actually makes it possible to construct multiple $`D8`$-branes out of a single $`D9`$-brane. Let us assume that $`T(x)`$ has $`N`$ zeros $`x=x_i`$ ($`i=1,\mathrm{},N`$). The energy is readily evaluated as

$`E`$ $`=`$ $`T_{D9}{\displaystyle d^8y𝑑xe^{2\pi q^2(T(x))^2}F[4\pi \alpha ^{}q^2(T^{}(x))^2]}`$ (9.1)
$`=`$ $`T_{D9}\sqrt{2\pi ^2\alpha ^{}}{\displaystyle d^8y_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}\delta (T(x))|T^{}(x)|𝑑x}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}T_{D9}\sqrt{2\pi ^2\alpha ^{}}{\displaystyle d^8y_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}\delta (xx_i)𝑑x}`$
$`=`$ $`NT_{D8}{\displaystyle d^8y},`$
that is exactly the energy of $`N`$ $`D8`$-branes. From the CS coupling, however, it is easy to see that the sign of $`T^{}(x_i)`$ corresponds to that of the $`D8`$-brane charge, so the above configuration is either $`N/2`$ $`D8`$-$`N/2`$ anti$`D8`$ pairs or $`(N1)/2`$ $`D8`$-$`(N1)/2`$ anti$`D8`$ pairs with leaving a single $`D8`$ (or anti$`D8`$) unpaired, when $`T(x)`$ is a polynomial function. More interesting solution is of nonpolynomial types, for instance, $`T(x)=\mathrm{tan}x`$. Then we could have multiple $`D8`$-branes without having multiple numbers of $`D9`$-branes.

## Acknowledgements

S. H. is indebted to N. Sasakura for discussions. K. H. and S. H. were supported in part by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science. This research was supported in part by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. PHY99-07949.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1  Introduction

Accretion powered X–ray pulsars were among the first sources observed in X–ray astronomy and, thanks to their characteristic timing signatures, could be quite soon correctly interpreted as rotating, magnetized neutron stars (Pringle & Rees 1972, Davidson & Ostriker 1973). Since then, the observation and study of X–ray pulsars has provided a wealth of important information on the physics of neutron stars and on the evolution of stars in binary systems.

The designation of “X-ray” pulsars has traditionally been used to indicate the objects powered by accretion of matter from a companion star in a close, interacting binary (such as, e.g., Her X-1 and Cen X-3), in contrast to the “radio” pulsars, consisting of (in general) isolated neutron stars, the emission of which is powered by the loss of rotational energy. In fact only a few of the youngest and more powerful (in terms of Erot) radio pulsars were observed at X-ray energies (e.g. the Crab and Vela pulsars). Nowadays it appears more appropriate to distinguish between *accretion powered* and *rotation powered* pulsars, since the better sensitivity of current satellites has allowed the detection of X-rays from $``$40 of the more than 1000 radio pulsars.

Here we concentrate only on accretion powered pulsars (see Becker 2000 for a review of the X-ray properties of rotation powered pulsars).

The current census of accretion powered X–ray pulsars lists $``$95 objects. 28 of them are located in the Magellanic Clouds (see Table 1) and three possible pulsars have also been reported in more distant galaxies (M31 and M33, Israel et al. 1995, Dubus et al. 1999). The observed spin periods are in the range from 2.5 ms to about 3 hours, but most of them are between $``$1 and 1000 s. This is shown in Figure 1, where also the maximum observed luminosities are plotted. The X–ray pulsars are generally divided into different classes, based on the spectral type classification of the mass donor companion star. Several excellent reviews describe the properties of accretion powered pulsars (Nagase 1989, White et al. 1995, Bildsten et al. 1997). Here I will only comment on a few recent developments in this field.

## 2 SAX J1808.4$``$3658 : The Missing Link

Most X–ray pulsars have massive companions, either OB supergiants or Be stars. On the other hand the more numerous X–ray sources in Low Mass binary systems, display a variety of interesting phenomena indicating the presence of an accreting neutron star, but are characterized by the lack of periodic coherent signals identifiable as the neutron star spin. Numerous searches for periodicities have been carried out in Low Mass X-ray Binaries (LMXRB) without success for more than 15 years, until the recent discovery of pulsations at 2.5 ms in the transient source SAX J1808.4$``$3658 (Wijnands & van der Klis 1998).

This finding is of extreme importance, since the LMXRB are thought to be the progenitors of the millisecond radio pulsars (see, e.g., Bhattacharya 1995). It is believed that the weakly magnetized neutron stars in LMXRB are spun-up to rotation periods of a few millisecond due to their interaction with the rapidly rotating inner part of the accretion disk. Once accretion terminates, the X-ray emission stops and the neutron star can shine again in the radio band as a recycled rotation powered pulsar. The detection of a very rapidly rotating neutron star in SAX J1808.4$``$3658 finally provided a clear evidence supporting this evolutionary scenario.

However, this finding also raises the puzzling question of why coherent pulsations have been seen only in one system, out of several tens of objects in which a similar signal could have been detected. It is possible that this is due to an orientation effect that makes the periodic modulation visible in SAX J1808.4$``$3658 . In fact, pulse arrival time measurements in this source yielded an orbital period of $``$2 hours, a projected semimajor axis of 63 light-ms and a very small mass function of $``$3.8$`\times `$10-5 $`M_{}`$ (Chakrabarty & Morgan 1988). This indicates that SAX J1808.4$``$3658 has a light companion ($`<`$ 0.2 $`M_{}`$) and probably a very low inclination ($`<`$20).

Interestingly, SAX J1808.4$``$3658 is a transient system, i.e. a source that spends most of the time in a state of low luminosity. Although the mechanism responsible for the mass accretion variations that cause the transient behavior of these systems is still unclear, transient X–ray binaries give the possibility to study the physics of the accretion and of the interaction of the matter with the neutron star magnetosphere over a wide interval of accretion rates (Campana et al. 1998). A recent observation, carried out with the BeppoSAX satellite, has provided a measurement of the quiescent emission from SAX J1808.4$``$3658 at a luminosity level of only $``$2-3$`\times `$1032 erg s-1 (Stella et al. 2000). This luminosity is too high to be due to the coronal emission from the companion star. Different possibilities to explain the observed X–ray flux have been considered, but the observational data, at the limit of the BeppoSAX capabilities, did not provide enough statistics for a spectral study that could discriminate among the different models. It is possible that, as observed in other soft X–ray transients, the quiescent spectrum of SAX J1808.4$``$3658 contain also a power law tail, in addition to the softer component due to the thermal emission from the neutron star atmosphere. Stella et al. (2000) discussed the constraints that can be derived on two possible models for the power law spectral component: accretion stopped at the magnetospheric radius or shock emission from the interaction between the relativistic wind of the neutron star and the wind from the companion.

Detailed spectral and timing studies of SAX J1808.4$``$3658 will be possible with the new, more sensitive X-ray satellites, such as XMM Newton. Thus, future observations of the “missing link” SAX J1808.4$``$3658 , exploiting the knowledge of a well determined spin period (so far not available for other soft X–ray transients), will greatly help to understand the nature of the quiescent emission from X–ray transient sources.

## 3 X-ray Pulsars in the Magellanic Clouds

With an angular size of a few square degrees, the Magellanic Clouds are ideal targets for imaging X–ray telescopes. They offer the advantage of providing a population of sources at the same, known distance (respectively $``$54 and $``$60 kpc, for the Large and Small Magellanic Cloud).

The current list of all the known Magellanic Clouds X–ray pulsars is reported in Table 1. Most of the X–ray pulsars in the Magellanic Clouds have been discovered only in the last few years, thanks to observations with the ASCA and BeppoSAX satellites.

It seems that such a large number of newly discovered sources cannot simply be due to the fact that these satellites have devoted much more time to observe our satellite galaxies than previous X–ray missions. Especially in the Small Cloud, the pulsars in neutron star/Be systems seem to be more abundant than in our Galaxy. The total mass of the Small Magellanic Cloud is about 100 times smaller than that of our Galaxy. Scaling the observed number of SMC Be pulsars by this factor we should see $``$2000 such objects in our Galaxy, compared to the $``$40 actually observed.

In reality the discrepancy is not as large as these numbers would suggest, due to the presence of selection effects that make more difficult to observe X-ray sources in our Galaxy. In fact, the galactic Be/neutron star pulsars have a rather flat distribution in galactic longitude. This indicates that their average distance is only a few kiloparsecs, i.e. we are not sampling the whole galactic volume: we can only see the closest systems. Another selection effect is related to the transient nature of the majority of these systems. Dim transients in the galactic plane are difficult to discover, due to the limited coverage with sensitive instrument (all sky monitors have relatively high flux thresholds and are often confusion limited at low galactic latitudes) and to the effect of interstellar absorption.

However, although these selection effects are difficult to quantify, they are probably not large enough to completely explain the overabundance of massive X–ray binaries in the Small Magellanic Cloud, that is probably related to the different star formation history in our satellite galaxies. In fact another related evidence is the paucity of Low Mass X–ray binaries in the Magellanic Clouds. Despite all the recent observations only a few bright LMXB are known, in striking difference with the corresponding galactic population.

## 4 The Anomalous X-ray Pulsars

In the last few years it has been recognized (Mereghetti & Stella 1995, van Paradijs et al. 1995) that there is a class of X–ray pulsars with properties clearly different from those of the more common pulsars accreting from high mass companions. These objects have been called Anomalous X–ray Pulsars (AXP, see Mereghetti (2000) for a detailed review of their properties). Six AXP are currently known, three of which are clearly associated with Supernova Remnants (see Table 2).

AXP have spin periods in a narrow range ($``$6-12 s), compared to the much broader one (0.069 - $``$104 s) observed in HMXRB pulsars (see Fig. 1). Their periods are monotonically increasing, on timescales of $``$104 \- 4$`\times `$105 years, again at variance with the typical behavior of the majority of accreting pulsars that are either spinning-up or display an erratic period evolution. While their P and $`\dot{P}`$ values strongly suggest that AXP are neutron stars, it is clear that the corresponding rotational energy loss ($``$1045 $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ $`\dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ erg s-1) is not sufficient to power the luminosities of these objects, that are typically in the range 1034 \- 1036 erg s-1.

The optical counterparts of AXP are not known (with the possible exception of 4U 0142$`+`$61 , see below). On the basis of the limits in the optical and IR bands, the presence of a massive companion star (OB super giants and/or Be stars) can be excluded in most AXP. Furthermore, there are no signatures of orbital motion in their X-ray light curves (i.e. no periodic modulations/eclipses nor Doppler shifts in the spin frequency induced by an orbital motion of the source).

The AXP are characterized by soft X-ray spectra, clearly different from those of the pulsars in HMXRB. The latter have relatively hard spectra in the 2-10 keV range (power law photon index $`\alpha _{ph}`$1) that steepen with an exponential cut-off above $``$20 keV. Observations with the ASCA and BeppoSAX satellites, have shown that in most cases a single power law is not sufficient to describe the spectra of AXP. All the AXP for which good quality observations are available (White et al. 1996, Parmar et al. 1998, Oosterbroek et al.1998, Israel et al. 1999a) require the combination of a blackbody-like component with kT$``$0.5 keV, accounting up to $``$40-50% of the observed luminosity, and a steep ($`\alpha _{ph}`$3–4) power law (see Table 2). The emitting area inferred from the blackbody components (R$`{}_{BB}{}^{}`$ 1-4 km) corresponds to a large fraction of the neutron star surface.

Though the absence of a massive companion and the presence of a neutron star are well established, the AXP remain one of the more enigmatic classes of galactic X–ray sources: the mechanism responsible for the observed X–ray luminosity is still unclear. As mentioned above, models powered by the rotational energy loss of isolated neutron stars can be excluded on energetic grounds. The models based on neutron stars proposed for the AXP involve either accretion (with or without a binary companion of very low mass) or the decay of a very strong magnetic field. Also more exotic possibilities involving quark stars have been discussed (Dar & De Rujula 2000).

### 4.1 Accretion based models for the AXP

Binary models have the advantage of naturally providing accretion as a source of energy. However, the tight limits on the possible companion stars have also led to interpretations based on accretion on isolated neutron stars.

Mereghetti & Stella (1995) originally proposed that the AXP are weakly magnetized neutron stars (B$``$1011 G) rotating close to their equilibrium period. This requires accretion rates of the order of a few 1015 g s-1, consistent with the AXP luminosities.

The possible nature of the companion stars is constrained directly by the optical/IR limits on the AXP counterparts and indirectly by the absence of orbital Doppler modulations of the pulses. The first method allows to exclude bright massive companions, while the limits on the Doppler modulations are now beginning to exclude also main sequence stars for large regions of the orbital parameter space. Except for the unlikely possibility that these systems are seen face-on, main sequence companions can be ruled out in the three best studied AXP (1E 2259$`+`$586 , 1E 1048.1$``$5937 , 4U 0142$`+`$61 ; Mereghetti, Israel & Stella 1998, Wilson et al. 1998). Helium burning stars with M $`\stackrel{<}{}0.8M_{}`$ cannot be excluded, but the accretion rate resulting from Roche lobe overflow would produce a much greater luminosity than the observed one. A possibility is that the He companion underfill its Roche lobe thus giving a smaller accretion rate by a stellar wind. White dwarf companion stars are compatible with the a$`{}_{x}{}^{}\mathrm{sin}i`$ limits and yield consistent values of accretion. For example, a white dwarf of $`0.02M_{}`$ and P$`{}_{orb}{}^{}`$ 30 min would give the $`\dot{M}`$ of a few $`\times 10^{11}M_{}`$ yr-1 required by the observed luminosity of 1E 2259+586.

Accretion from the interstellar medium (ISM) cannot provide the luminosities observed in AXP for typical ISM parameters and neutron star velocities. The accretion luminosity is given by L$`{}_{acc}{}^{}`$1032 v$`{}_{}{}^{3}{}_{50}{}^{}`$ n100 erg s-1, where v50 is the relative velocity between the neutron star and the ISM in units of 50 km s-1 and n100 is the gas density in units of 100 atoms cm-3. Unless all the AXP lie within nearby ($``$100 pc) molecular clouds, which seems very unlikely considered their distribution in the galactic plane, the accretion rate is clearly insufficient to produce the observed luminosities.

An alternative possibility involving isolated neutron stars fed from a residual accretion disk was first advanced by Corbet et al. (1995) for 1E 2259$`+`$586 , and developed in more detail by van Paradijs et al. (1995) and Ghosh et al. (1997). These authors proposed that AXP result from the common envelope evolution of close massive X-ray binary systems. The connection with massive binaries is supported by the fact that the AXP seem to be relatively young objects, being located at small distances from the galactic plane and, in at least 50% of the cases, at the center of SNRs. A residual accretion disk could be formed after the complete spiral-in of a neutron star in the envelope of a giant companion (a Thorne-Zytkow object, TZO, Thorne & Zytkow 1977). According to Ghosh et al. (1997), a massive binary undergoing common envelope evolution can produce two kinds of objects, depending on the (poorly known) efficiency with which the envelope of the massive star is lost. Relatively wide systems have enough orbital energy to lead to the complete expulsion of the envelope before the settling of the neutron star at the center of the massive companion. This results in the formation of binaries composed of a neutron star and a helium star, like 4U 1626–67 and Cyg X–3. Closer HMXRB, on the other hand, produce TZO, due to the complete spiral in of the neutron star in the common envelope phase, and then evolve into AXP.

According to Ghosh et al. (1997), this model can also explain the two component X–ray spectra of AXP, as well as their secular spin-down. The accretion flow is supposed to consist of two distinct components: one forming a disk and one spherically symmetric, resulting from the part of the envelope with less angular momentum. The hot (kT$``$1 keV) and ionized spherically symmetric flow forms a shock at the magnetospheric boundary, cools, and enters into the magnetosphere through a Rayleigh-Taylor instability. This results in accretion over a large fraction of the neutron star surface, producing the observed blackbody emission. The power law spectral component is instead produced by the conventional, field-aligned accretion onto the polar caps resulting from the disk component. The AXP are supposed to rotate close to their equilibrium periods, which increase due to the decreasing mass accretion rate (see, however, Li (1999) for a criticism to this model).

Another possibility for the formation of a disk around an isolated neutron star is through fallback of some material from the progenitor star after the supernova explosion (Chatterjee et al. 2000). For appropriate values of the neutron star magnetic field, initial spin period, and mass of the residual disk, these systems can evolve into AXP with luminosities, periods and lifetimes consistent with the observed values. Due to the steadily declining mass accretion rate, the rotating neutron star evolves through different states. During an initial “propeller” phase, lasting a few thousand years, the spin period increases up to values close to those observed in AXP. In this phase, the AXP progenitors are very faint, undetectable X–ray sources, since accretion down to the neutron star surface is inhibited (or greatly reduced) by the magnetospheric centrifugal barrier. In the following phase, the spin frequency approaches the Keplerian frequency at the inner edge of the disk $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$(rm), most of the mass flow is accreted, and the star becomes visible as an AXP. During this quasi-equilibrium phase, the neutron star spins down trying to match $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$(rm), which decreases with the declining mass accretion rate in the disk. To explain the narrow range of spin periods observed in AXP, Chatterjee et al. (2000) propose that an advection-dominated accretion flow (ADAF) ensues when the accretion rate further decreases. This causes a very small X–ray luminosity, thus explaining the lack of old AXP ($`\stackrel{>}{}`$5 104 yrs) with long spin periods.

### 4.2 Strongly magnetized neutron stars (Magnetars)

Models based on strongly magnetized (B$``$1014–1015 G) neutron stars, or “magnetars” (Duncan & Thompson 1992; Thompson & Duncan 1995, 1996), were originally developed to explain the Soft Gamma-ray Repeaters (SGR). SGRs are remarkable transient events characterized by brief ($`<`$ 1 s) and relatively soft (peak photon energy $``$20-30 keV) bursts of super-Eddington luminosity. Only four (or possibly five) SGRs are currently known (see Hurley 2000 for a review). Several authors pointed out some analogies between the prototype AXP 1E 2259$`+`$586 and the soft repeater SGR 0526–66, located in the Large Magellanic Cloud SNR N49 and for which pulsations at 8 s were reported during the famous super-burst of March 5, 1979.

The possible connection between AXP and SGR, received renewed attention after the discovery of periodicities also in SGR 1806–20 (Kouveliotou et al. 1998) and SGR 1900+14 (Hurley et al. 1999, Kouveliotou et al. 1999). The values of P and $`\dot{P}`$ ($``$ (5-15) 10-11 s s-1) observed in SGRs are very similar to those of AXP. Other similarities with the AXP are the luminosity of their quiescent counterparts, (LX $``$1034-1035 erg s-1) and the fact that all of them appear to be associated with SNRs.

If the spin-down in AXP and SGR is interpreted as due to magnetic dipole radiation losses, the neutron star magnetic field can be estimated as B $``$ 3.2$`\times `$1019 ($`P\dot{P}`$)1/2 G. The observed values of P and $`\dot{P}`$ lead to values of B$`\stackrel{>}{}`$1014-1015 G. In the magnetar model the magnetic field is the main energy source, powering both the persistent X–ray (and particle) emission and the soft gamma-ray bursting activity. This involves internal heating, due to the magnetic field dissipation, and the generation of seismic activity. The latter is responsible for the soft $`\gamma `$-ray bursts, when the magnetic stresses in the neutron star crust shake the magnetosphere and accelerate particles.

Heyl & Hernquist (1997) showed that, if the magnetic fields in AXP are $`\stackrel{>}{}`$1015 G, their residual thermal energy can be sufficient to power for a few thousand years the observed X–ray luminosity. This requires the presence of an envelope of hydrogen and helium (an iron envelope is much more efficient in insulating the core, resulting in a lower luminosity and effective temperature at the neutron star surface). The envelope of light elements, with a required mass of $``$10-11-10-8 $`M_{}`$, could be due to fallback material after the supernova explosion and/or to accretion from the interstellar medium if the neutron star is born in a sufficiently dense environment ($`\stackrel{>}{}`$104 cm-3).

Actually, the AXP magnetic fields derived through the dipole radiation formula are very likely overestimated. In fact, the particle wind outflow, either continuous or in the form of strong episodic outbursts, also contributes significantly to the spin-down (Thompson & Blaes 1998). Harding et al. (2000) estimated magnetic field and spin-down age as a function of the particle wind duty cycle and luminosity. They found that, in the case of continuous particle outflows, the AXP and SGR magnetic fields can be in the same range as those of conventional radio pulsars.

Colpi et al. (2000) noted that, in the context of the magnetar scenario, the period clustering of AXP can be explained only if the magnetic field decays on a timescale of $``$104 years. Models without a significant field decay would lead to the presence of AXP with longer periods, which have not been observed.

### 4.3 Discriminating between AXP models

Different authors discussed the kind of spin-down irregularities expected in the magnetar model. Melatos (1999) described the oscillation in $`\dot{P}`$ caused by radiative precession, an effect due to the star asphericity induced by the very strong magnetic field. He fitted the observed evolution of rotation frequency of the AXP 1E 2259$`+`$586 and 1E 1048.1$``$5937 in terms of the periodic ($``$5-10 yrs) behavior of $`\dot{P}`$ resulting from this effect. Unfortunately, the sparse period measurements available for AXP do not allow, for the moment, to discriminate against alternative possibilities.

For instance, Heyl & Hernquist (1999) fitted the same data with a constant spin-down interrupted by a few glitches. The magnitude of these glitches is similar to that observed in radio pulsars. Earlier analysis of the same 1E 2259$`+`$586 data showed that the level of $`\dot{P}`$ fluctuations was similar to that of accreting X–ray pulsars (Baykal & Swank 1996), and was therefore taken as support to accretion based models. More recently, Kaspi et al. (1999) could obtain for 1E 2259$`+`$586 a phase-coherent timing solution, thanks to RXTE observations spanning 2.6 years. These data show a very low level of timing noise, contrary to the previous results based on sparse observations that could not be phase related. Also 1RXS J170849$``$400910 , monitored with RXTE for 1.4 yrs, was found to have a low level of timing noise (Kaspi et al. 1999), until the detection of a sudden spin-up event with all the characeristics of a glitch (Kaspi et al. 2000).

In conclusion it seems that timing studies can certainly help to understand AXP, but the emerging picture is still unclear. The low level of timing noise observed in the pulsars mentioned above (and in 1E 1841$``$045 , Gotthelf et al. 1999) contrasts with the more irregular behavior of 1E 1048.1$``$5937 (Paul et al. 2000).

The other promising way to discriminate between different AXP models is through deep optical observations. Recently Hulleman et al. (2000) reported the discovery of a faint (R$``$25) blue object in the error box of 4U 0142$`+`$61 . According to these authors, the faintness of the proposed optical counterpart rules out the presence of an accretion disk, thus favoring the magnetar interpretation. Unfortunately, detailed estimates of the expected optical brightness from disks around isolated neutron stars are very uncertain and depends on several factors, like the disk inclination, dimensions, amount of X–ray reprocessing, etc… (Perna et al. 2000). It seems therefore premature to draw firm conclusions based on the single case of 4U 0142$`+`$61 . The search for the optical/IR counterparts of other AXP is complicated by the large reddening and by the fact that their error boxes are not small enough to search for counterparts at such faint magnitude levels (see, e.g. the case of 1E 1841$``$045 , Mereghetti et al. (2001)). In this respect, more accurate positions for the AXP are expected from the on-going program of observations with the Chandra and XMM Newton satellites, which will also provide high quality spectral information, possibly allowing to discriminate between different X–ray emission mechanisms.

## 5  References

Baykal A. & Swank J.H. 1996, ApJ 460, 470.

Becker W. 2000, Advances in Space Research 25, 647.

Bhattacharya D. 1995, in X–ray Binaries, eds. W.H.G. Lewin, J. van Paradijs & E.P.J. van den Heuvel, (Cambridge Cambridge Univ. Press, 233.

Bildsten L. et al. 1997, ApJS 113, 367.

Campana S., Colpi M., Mereghetti S., Stella L., Tavani M. 1998, A&AR 8, 269.

Chakrabarty D. & Morgan E.H. 1998, Nature 394, 346.

Chakrabarty D. et al. 1998, IAU Circ. 7048.

Chatterjee P., Hernquist L., & Narayan R. 2000, ApJ 534, 373.

Colpi M., Geppert U., & Page D. 2000, ApJ 529, L29.

Corbet R.H.D, Smale A.P., Ozaki M. et al. 1995, ApJ 443, 786.

Corbet R., Marshall F.E. 2000, IAU Circ 7402.

Corbet R. et al. 1998, IAU Circ. 6803.

Corbet R. et al. 2001, IAU Circ. 7562.

Cusumano G., Israel G.L., Mannucci F., Masetti N., Mineo T., Nicastro L. 1998, A&A 337, 772.

Dar A. & De Rujula A. 2000, astro-ph/0002104

Davidson K. & Ostriker J. 1973, ApJ 179, 585.

Dennerl K., Haberl F., Pietsch W. 1996, Proc. WuMPE Report 263, 131.

Dubus G., et al. 1999, MNRAS 302, 731.

Duncan R.C. & Thompson C. 1992, ApJ 392, L9.

Fahlman G.G. & Gregory, P.C. 1981, Nature 293, 202.

Gaensler B.M., Gotthelf E.V. & Vasisht G. 1999, ApJ 526, L37.

Ghosh P., Angelini L. & White N.E. 1997, ApJ 478, 713.

Gotthelf E.V. & Vasisht G. 1997, ApJ 486, L133.

Gotthelf E.V., Vasisht G. & Dotani 1999, ApJ 522, L49.

Haberl F., Dennerl K., Pietsch W., Reinsch K. 1997, A&A 318, 490.

Harding A.K., Contopoulos I., & Kazanas D. 2000, ApJ 525, L125.

Helfand D. et al. 1994, ApJ 434, 627.

Heyl J.S. & Hernquist L. 1997, ApJ 489, L67.

Heyl J.S. & Hernquist L. 1999, MNRAS 304, L37.

Hughes V.A. et al. 1984, ApJ 283, 147.

Hughes J.P. 1994, ApJ 427, L25.

Hulleman F., van Kerkwijk M.H. & Kulkarni S.R., 2000, Nature, 408, 689.

Hurley K. et al. 1999, ApJ 510, L111.

Hurley K. 2000, Proceedings 5th Huntsville GRB Symposium, AIP 526, 763.

Imanishi K. et al. 1998, IAU Circ. 7040.

Imanishi K., Yokogawa J., Tsujimoto M., Koyama K. 1999, PASJ 51, L15.

Israel G.L., Mereghetti, S., Stella L. 1994, ApJ 433, L25.

Israel G.L., et al. 1995, IAU Circ. 6156.

Israel G.L., Stella L., Angelini L., White N.E., Giommi P., Covino S. 1997, ApJ 484, L141.

Israel G.L., et al. 1999a, A&A 346, 929.

Israel G.L., et al. 1999b, ApJ 518, L107.

Israel G.L., Campana S., Covino S., Dal Fiume D., Gaetz T.J., Mereghetti S., Oosterbroek T. 2000, ApJ 531, L131.

Kaspi V.M., Chakrabarty D. & Steinberger J. 1999, ApJ 525, L33.

Kaspi V.M., Lackey J.R. & Chakrabarty D. 2000, ApJ 537, L31.

Kelley R.L., Jernigan J.G., Levine A., Petro L.D., Rappaport S. 1983, ApJ 264, 568.

Kouveliotou C. et al. 1998, Nature 393, 235.

Kouveliotou C. et al. 1999, ApJ 510, L115.

Lamb R.C. et al. 1999, IAU Circ. 7081.

Li X.-D. 1999, ApJ 520, 271.

Lochner J.C. et al. 1998, IAU Circ. 6814.

Lucke R., Yentis D., Friedman H., Fritz G., Shulman S. 1976, ApJ 206, L25.

Macomb D.J., Finger M.H., Harmon B.A., Lamb R.C., Prince T.A. 1999, ApJ 518, L99.

Marshall F.E., Lochner J.C. 1998, IAU Circ. 6818.

Melatos A. 1999, ApJ 519, L77.

Mereghetti S. 1995, ApJ 455, 598.

Mereghetti S. & Stella L. 1995, ApJ 442, L17.

Mereghetti S., Israel G.L. & Stella L. 1998, MNRAS 296, 689.

Mereghetti S. 2000, Proceedings NATO ASI ”The Neutron Star - Black Hole Connection”, in press, astro-ph/9911252

Mereghetti S. et al. 2001, MNRAS, 321, 143.

Nagase F. 1989, PASJ 41, 1.

Oosterbroek T., Parmar A.N., Mereghetti S. & Israel G.L. 1998, A&A 334, 925.

Parmar A. et al. 1998, A&A 330, 175.

Paul B., Kawasaki M., Dotani T. & Nagase F. 2000, ApJ 537, 319.

Perna R., Hernquist L. & Narayan R. 2000, ApJ 541, 344.

Pringle J.E. & Rees M.J. 1972, A&A 21, 1.

Rho J. & Petre R. 1997, ApJ 484, 828.

Sanbonmatsu K.Y. & Helfand D.J. 1992, AJ 104, 2189.

Schmidtke P.C., Cowley A.P., McGrath T.K., Anderson A.L. 1995, PASP 107, 450.

Seward F., Charles, P.A., Smale, A.P. 1986, ApJ 305, 814.

Skinner G.K., Bedford D.K., Elsner R.F., Leahy D., Weisskopf M.C., Grindlay J. 1982, Nature 297, 568.

Stella L., Campana S., Mereghetti S., Ricci D., Israel G.L. 2000, ApJ 537, L11.

Sugizaki M. et al. 1997, PASJ 49, L25.

Thompson C. & Duncan R.C. 1995, MNRAS 275, 255.

Thompson C. & Duncan R.C. 1996, ApJ 473, 322.

Thompson, C. & Blaes O. 1998, Phys. Rev. D 57, 3219.

Thorne K.S. & Zytkow A.N. 1977, ApJ 212, 832.

Torii K. et al. 1998, ApJ 503, 843.

Torii K. et al. 2000, IAU Circ. 7441.

Tsujimoto M., Imanishi K., Yokogawa J., Koyama K. 1999, PASJ 51, L21.

van Paradijs J., Taam R.E. & van den Heuvel E.P.J. 1995, A&A 299, L41.

Vasisht G. & Gotthelf E.V. 1997, ApJ 486, L129.

Vrtilek S.D., Boroson B., Cheng F.H., McCray R., Nagase F. 1997, ApJ 490, 377.

White N.E. et al. 1996, ApJ 463, L83.

White N.E., Nagase, F, & Parmar, A.N. 1995, in “X–ray Binaries”, eds. W.H.G. Lewin, J. van Paradijs & E.P.J. van den Heuvel (Cambridge Cambridge Univ. Press), 1.

Wijnands R. & van der Klis M. 1998, Nature 394, 344.

Wilson C.A., Dieters S., Finger M.H., Scott D.M. & van Paradijs J. 1998, ApJ 513, 464.

Yokogawa J., Koyama K. 1998, IAU Circ. 7028.

Yokogawa J., Imanishi K., Tsujimoto M., Kohno M., Koyama K. 1999, PASJ 51, 547.

Yokogawa J., Koyama K. 2000, IAU Circ. 7361.

Yokogawa J., Paul B., Ozaki M., Nagase F., Chakrabarty D., Takeshima T. 2000a, ApJ 539, 191.

Yokogawa J., Torii K., Imanishi K., Koyama K. 2000b, PASJ 52, L37.

Yokogawa J., Imanishi K., Ueno M., Koyama K. 2000c, PASJ, in press