text:
# LAPTH-833/01 DTP-MSU/01-03 Bertotti-Robinson type solutions to Dilaton-Axion Gravity

## 1 Introduction

The discovery of AdS/CFT dualities  (for a review see ) stimulated search for geometries containing AdS sectors. Recall that AdS geometry typically arises as the near horizon (throat) limit of static charged BPS black holes and/or p-branes in various dimensions. The known examples of ADS/CFT correspondence make use of geometries $`AdS_n\times K`$ with $`K`$ being some compact manifold. For rotating black holes/branes the near horizon limit generically is different: one finds a non-trivial mixing of $`AdS_n`$ and $`K`$. Nevertheless, the asymptotic geometry relevant for holography may remain unaffected by rotation for $`n3`$, so the ADS/CFT correspondence applies directly. This is not so in the case of $`AdS_2`$ . While for non-rotating extremal charged black holes the near-horizon geometry factorizes as $`AdS_2\times S^2`$, in the rotating case the azimuthal coordinates mixes with the time coordinate in such a way that the $`AdS_2\times S^2`$ geometry is not recovered asymptotically. Therefore, in higher dimensions the rotation parameter just adds a specific excitation mode in the dual theory , but in four dimensions it apparently leads to more seriours consequencies, whose nature is not clear yet. Additional problems in the four-dimensional case are related to the fact that the $`AdS_2`$ holography is less well understood than the higher-dimensional examples  (for some recent progress in this direction see ).

Bardeen and Horowitz  observed that violation of the direct product structure $`AdS_2\times K`$ due to rotation in $`D=4`$ is manifest already for vacuum Kerr black holes. In the throat geometry of the extreme Kerr (and Kerr-Newman)four-dimensional black hole one finds the mixing of azimuthal and time coordinates which does not disappear in the asymptotic region, but grows infinitely instead leading to the singular nature of the conformal boundary. Nevertheless, the geometry still share some important features with $`AdS_n\times K`$ spacetimes such as (partial) confinement of timelike geodesics and discreetness of the Klein-Gordon particle spectrum on the geodesically complete AdS patch. But, apart from the fact that the near-horizon spacetime is no longer the direct product of $`AdS_2`$ with something, the geometry is also plagued by cumbersome $`\theta `$-depending factors which modify the spectrum of the angular Laplacian. It turns out that the spectrum of the Klein-Gordon field contains a continuous sector which exhibits superradiance inherited from Kerr. All this substantially complicates the analysis and no definitive conclusion was gained in  about the possible relevance of such geometries in holography.

Here we present another geometry containing the $`AdS_2`$ sector mixed non-trivially with the rest of the spacetime which has the advantage of not being afflicted by $`\theta `$-factors. It can be obtained as the near-horizon limit of extremal rotating dilaton-axion black holes (solutions to the Einstein-Maxwell-dilaton-axion (EMDA) theory). This is therefore a non-vacuum solution which is supported by a homogeneous Maxwell field (similarly to the Bertotti-Robinson (BR) spacetime) and a linear axion. The rotation breaks the $`SO(3)`$ symmetry of BR so that the solution is only axially symmetric. Meanwhile, as in the Bardeen-Horowitz case, the $`SL(2,R)`$ symmetry of the AdS component still holds, so the full isometry group is $`SL(2,R)\times U(1)`$.

We show that this geometry has a non-trivial connection with BR via a non-local dimensional reduction mechanism  involving dualization of Kaluza-Klein two-forms in order to generate higher-rank antisymmetric forms. Starting with the dyonic $`D=4`$ BR with equal strengths of the electric and magnetic components one finds its purely vacuum $`D=5`$ counterpart (the KK dilaton is not excited in the symmetric dyon case). This solution can be smeared into the sixth dimension providing the ‘BR6’ vacuum geometry. Then one performs dimensional reduction back to five dimensions dualizing the Kaluza-Klein two-form and reinterpreting the resulting three-form as a NS-NS field. Finally going to four dimensions via the usual KK reduction one recovers the EMDA theory counterpart of the BR6 which coincides with our near-horizon limit of rotating EMDA black holes.

Using the same mechanism of generation of antisymmetric forms, we uplift the new solution into eleven-dimensional supergravity where it is supported by a non-trivial four-form. This is based on the correspondence between eight-dimensional vacuum gravity with two commuting Killing vector fields and a consistent $`2+3+6`$ three-block truncation of $`D=11`$ supergravity . To apply this technique one has first to smear BR6 in two additional dimensions and then use dualization of the KK two-form in six dimensions to get the four-form which is then used to reconstruct the four-form of $`D=11`$ supergravity. In doing this there are two options in the choice of the Killing vectors which lead to two supergravity solutions with different four-forms but the same metric.

Since rotation breaks the BPS condition for extremal dilaton-axion black holes, it can be expected that our rotating BR solution is not supersymmetric in the sense of $`D=4,𝒩=4`$ supergravity. To check this, we consider the purely algebraic equation for variation of dilatino and show that this variation is non-zero. We also check by a direct computation that the $`D=11`$ embedding of our solution is not supersymmetric in the sense of $`D=11`$ supergravity. Nevertheless we argue that the rotating BR geometry provides an interesting new arena for conformal mechanics and holography.

## 2 Near-horizon limit of rotating EMDA black holes

Consider the Einstein-Maxwell-Dilaton-Axion (EMDA) theory which is a truncated version of the bosonic sector of $`D=4,𝒩=4`$ supergravity. The action describes the gravity–coupled system of two scalar fields: dilaton $`\varphi `$ and (pseudoscalar) axion $`\kappa `$, and an Abelian vector field $`A_\mu `$ :

$$S=\frac{1}{16\pi }d^4x\sqrt{|g|}\left\{R+2_\mu \varphi ^\mu \varphi +\frac{1}{2}e^{4\varphi }_\mu \kappa ^\mu \kappa e^{2\varphi }F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }\kappa F_{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{F}^{\mu \nu }\right\},$$
(2.1)
where111Here $`E^{\mu \nu \lambda \tau }|g|^{1/2}\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \lambda \tau }`$, with $`\epsilon ^{1234}=+1`$, where $`x^4=t`$ is the time coordinate. $`\stackrel{~}{F}^{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{2}E^{\mu \nu \lambda \tau }F_{\lambda \tau },F=dA`$. The black hole solutions to this theory were extensively studied in the recent past . Thesedepend on six real parameters, the complex mass $`=M+iN`$ (where $`N`$ is the NUT parameter), electromagnetic charge $`𝒬=Q+iP`$ and axion-dilaton charge $`𝒟=D+iA`$ constrained by $`𝒟=𝒬^2/2`$, and the rotation parameter $`a`$. The general black hole metric is of the form

$$ds^2=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }a^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(dt\omega d\phi )^2\mathrm{\Sigma }\left(\frac{dr^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }}+d\theta ^2+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }{\mathrm{\Delta }a^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }d\phi ^2\right),$$
(2.2)
with

$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ $`=`$ $`(rr_{})(r2M)+a^2(NN_{})^2,`$
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ $`=`$ $`r(rr_{})+(a\mathrm{cos}\theta +N)^2N_{}^2,`$ (2.3)
$`\omega `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{a^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \mathrm{\Delta }}}[N\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{cos}\theta +a\mathrm{sin}^2\theta (M(rr_{})+N(NN_{}))],`$
and

$$r_{}=\frac{M|𝒬|^2}{||^2},N_{}=\frac{N}{2M}r_{}.$$
(2.4)
The vector field may be parametrized by two scalar electric ($`v`$) and magnetic ($`u`$) potentials defined by

$`F_{i0}`$ $`=`$ $`_iv/\sqrt{2},`$
$`e^{2\varphi }F^{ij}+\kappa \stackrel{~}{F}^{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`(\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{sin}\theta )^1ϵ^{ijk}_ku/\sqrt{2}.`$ (2.5)
The potentials $`v`$ and $`u`$ and the axion-dilaton field are given (after adapting the formulas of  to the conventions of ) by

$`v`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}{\displaystyle \frac{e^\varphi _{\mathrm{}}}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}}\mathrm{Re}[𝒬(rr_{}i\delta )],`$
$`u`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}{\displaystyle \frac{e^\varphi _{\mathrm{}}}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}}\mathrm{Re}[𝒬z_{\mathrm{}}(rr_{}i\delta )],`$
$`z`$ $``$ $`\kappa +ie^{2\varphi }={\displaystyle \frac{z_{\mathrm{}}\rho +𝒟^{}z_{\mathrm{}}^{}}{\rho +𝒟^{}}},`$ (2.6)
where

$$\delta =a\mathrm{cos}\theta +NN_{},\rho =r\frac{r_{}}{2M}i\delta ,$$
(2.7)
and the (physically irrelevant) asymptotic value of the axion-dilaton field $`z_{\mathrm{}}\kappa _{\mathrm{}}+ie^{2\varphi _{\mathrm{}}}`$ will be chosen later for convenience.

The metric (2.2) has two horizons located at the zeroes $`r=r_H^\pm `$ of the function $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$:

$$r_H^\pm =M+r_{}/2\pm \sqrt{(|||𝒟|)^2a^2}.$$
(2.8)
The extremal solutions correspond to the case

$$|𝒟|=||a$$
(2.9)
where these two horizons coincide, with $`\mathrm{\Sigma }>0`$ (without loss of generality we assume $`a>0`$). In this case, using

$$rr_{}=rr_H+a\frac{M}{||},$$
(2.10)
we can rewrite the metric as

$$ds^2=\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }{\mathrm{\Gamma }}dt^2\mathrm{\Sigma }(\frac{dr^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }}+d\theta ^2)\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}(d\phi \mathrm{\Omega }dt)^2$$
(2.11)
with

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }[(\eta +4\gamma )\mathrm{sin}^2\theta 4N^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta ]+4(\gamma aN\mathrm{cos}\theta )^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta ,`$
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ $`=`$ $`\eta +2\gamma ,\mathrm{\Omega }=2(N\eta \mathrm{cos}\theta +a\gamma \mathrm{sin}^2\theta )/\mathrm{\Gamma },`$ (2.12)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ $`=`$ $`(rr_H)^2,\eta =\mathrm{\Delta }a^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta ,\gamma =M(rr_H)+a(||+N\mathrm{cos}\theta ).`$
On the horizon $`r=r_H`$, the metric functions occurring in (2) simplify to

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_H`$ $`=`$ $`4a^2||^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta ,\mathrm{\Omega }_H=1/2||,`$
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_H`$ $`=`$ $`2a(||+N\mathrm{cos}\theta )a^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta .`$ (2.13)
It follows that in the static case $`a=0`$, the horizon reduces to a point, so that the question of near-horizon limit becomes meaningless.But for rotating extremal black holes $`a0`$ one finds a non-triviallimiting solution. In this case, before taking the near-horizon limit, let us first transform to a frame co-rotating with the horizon:

$$\overline{\phi }\phi \mathrm{\Omega }_Ht.$$
(2.14)
In this frame, the differential angular velocity is, near the horizon,

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}=\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }_H=\frac{2aM(rr_H)\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }{\mathrm{\Gamma }}+O(\mathrm{\Delta }).$$
(2.15)
Let us now put

$$rr_H\lambda x,\mathrm{cos}\theta y,t\frac{r_0^2}{\lambda }\overline{t}(r_0^2=2a||),$$
(2.16)
and take the limit $`\lambda 0`$. In this limit the extreme metric in the rotating frame reduces to

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`r_0^2[(\alpha +\nu y+\beta y^2)(x^2dt^2{\displaystyle \frac{dx^2}{x^2}})`$ (2.17)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha +\nu y+\beta y^2}{1y^2}}dy^2{\displaystyle \frac{1y^2}{\alpha +\nu y+\beta y^2}}(d\phi +\mu xdt)^2],`$
where $`\beta =a/2||`$, $`\alpha =1\beta `$, $`\mu =M/||`$, $`\nu =N/||`$ ($`\mu ^2+\nu ^2=1`$), and we have relabelled the coordinates $`(\overline{t},\overline{\phi })(t,\phi )`$.

Just as the extreme Kerr or Kerr-Newman geometries in Einstein-Maxwell theory , the near-horizon geometry (2.21) admits four Killing vectors

$`L_1`$ $`=`$ $`x_xt_t,`$
$`L_2`$ $`=`$ $`xt_x{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(x^2+t^2)_t+\mu x^1_\phi ,`$
$`L_3`$ $`=`$ $`_t,`$ (2.18)
$`L_4`$ $`=`$ $`_\phi ,`$
generating the group $`SL(2,R)\times U(1)`$. Indeed, the metric (2.17) becomes, in the NUT-less case $`\nu =0`$,

$$ds^2=r_0^2[(\alpha +\beta y^2)(x^2dt^2\frac{dx^2}{x^2})\frac{\alpha +\beta y^2}{1y^2}dy^2\frac{1y^2}{\alpha +\beta y^2}(d\phi +xdt)^2].$$
(2.19)
This is similar in form to the extreme Kerr-Newman near-horizon metric

$`ds_{EM}^2`$ $`=`$ $`r_{0EM}^2[(\alpha _{EM}+\beta _{EM}y^2)(x^2dt^2{\displaystyle \frac{dx^2}{x^2}}){\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _{EM}+\beta _{EM}y^2}{1y^2}}dy^2`$ (2.20)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1y^2}{\alpha _{EM}+\beta _{EM}y^2}}(d\phi +\mu _{EM}xdt)^2]`$
with $`r_{0EM}^2=M^2+a^2`$, $`\beta _{EM}=a^2/(M^2+a^2)`$, $`\alpha _{EM}=1\beta _{EM}`$, $`\mu _{EM}=2aM/(M^2+a^2)`$, where $`M^2=a^2+𝒬^2`$. The two extreme geometries (2.19) and (2.20) become identical in the neutral case $`𝒬=0`$ ($`M=a`$) and reduce to the extreme Kerr geometry with $`\alpha =\beta =1/2`$.

Now let us take the limit $`a0`$ in the NUT-less near-horizon geometry (2.19), while keeping $`r_0^2=2aM`$ fixed. In this manner we arrive at the metric

$$ds^2=x^2dt^2\frac{dx^2}{x^2}\frac{dy^2}{1y^2}(1y^2)(d\phi +xdt)^2$$
(2.21)
(we have scaled $`r_0^2`$ to unity). This metric is remarkably similar in form to the Bertotti-Robinson metric (the near-horizon geometry of the extreme Reissner-Nordström black hole, i.e. the static limit $`a0`$ of (2.20)),

$$ds^2=x^2dt^2\frac{dx^2}{x^2}\frac{dy^2}{1y^2}(1y^2)d\phi ^2.$$
(2.22)
However, unlike the BR metric, the BREMDA metric (2.21) is non-static, and invariant only under the group $`SL(2,R)\times U(1)`$. The $`t,x`$ coordinates do not cover the full AdS hyperboloid. The geodesically complete manifold is covered by another coordinate patch in which case the metric reads (we preserve the same symbols for radial and azimuthal coordinates)

$$ds^2=(1+x^2)d\tau ^2\frac{dx^2}{1+x^2}\frac{dy^2}{1y^2}(1y^2)(d\phi +xd\tau )^2.$$
(2.23)
Another useful coordinate system (also incomplete) is given by

$$ds^2=(x^21)d\tau ^2\frac{dx^2}{x^21}d\theta ^2\frac{dy^2}{1y^2}(1y^2)(d\phi +xd\tau )^2.$$
(2.24)
Now proceed along the same lines with the matter fields. From the last Eq. (2), the dilaton and axion fields reduce on the horizon to

$`e^{2\varphi _H}`$ $`=`$ $`e^{2\varphi _{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{2a(||+Ny)a^2(1y^2)}{(M+D)^2+(N+A+ay)^2}},`$
$`\kappa _H`$ $`=`$ $`\kappa _{\mathrm{}}+2e^{2\varphi _{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{D(N+ay)AM}{(M+D)^2+(N+A+ay)^2}}.`$ (2.25)
For $`N=0`$ and in the limit $`a0`$, these become (after neglecting terms of order $`a^2`$)

$`e^{2\varphi _H}`$ $`=`$ $`e^{2\varphi _{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{aM}{P^2}},`$
$`\kappa _H`$ $`=`$ $`\kappa _{\mathrm{}}e^{2\varphi _{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{M}{P^2}}(Aay).`$ (2.26)
Now we choose for convenience

$$z_{\mathrm{}}=2P𝒬^{}/r_0^2$$
(2.27)
($`r_0^2=2aM`$), leading to the BREMDA dilaton and axion fields

$$\varphi _H=0,\kappa _H=\mathrm{cos}\theta ,$$
(2.28)
irrespective of the original values of $`Q`$ and $`P`$ (provided $`P0`$).

The determination of the near-horizon behavior of the gauge field is more involved. With the choice (2.27), the scalar potentials for the NUT-less extreme black hole are

$`v`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}{\displaystyle \frac{e^\varphi _{\mathrm{}}}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}}(Q(rr_H+a)+Pa\mathrm{cos}\theta ),`$
$`u`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2}{\displaystyle \frac{e^\varphi _{\mathrm{}}}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}}{\displaystyle \frac{2M(Ma)}{P}}(rr_H+a).`$ (2.29)
First, we must transform these to the rotating and rescaled coordinate frame ($`\overline{\phi },\overline{t}`$)

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}d\overline{\phi }\\ d\overline{t}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& \mathrm{\Omega }_H\\ 0& \lambda /r_0^2\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}d\phi \\ dt\end{array}\right).$$
(2.30)
From (2) we obtain the transformation laws

$`_i\overline{v}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{r_0^2/\lambda }{\mathrm{\Sigma }^2\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{sin}^2\theta /\mathrm{\Gamma }^2\mathrm{\Omega }^2}}\{({\displaystyle \frac{(\mathrm{\Sigma }^2\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}}\mathrm{\Omega }\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }})_iv`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_He^{2\varphi }\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{sin}\theta }{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}g_{ij}ϵ^{jk}(_ku\kappa _kv)\},`$
$`_i\overline{u}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{r_0^2/\lambda }{\mathrm{\Sigma }^2\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{sin}^2\theta /\mathrm{\Gamma }^2\mathrm{\Omega }^2}}\{({\displaystyle \frac{(\mathrm{\Sigma }^2\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}}\mathrm{\Omega }\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }})_iu`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_He^{2\varphi }\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{sin}\theta }{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}g_{ij}ϵ^{jk}((e^{4\varphi }+\kappa ^2)_kv\kappa _ku)\}`$
($`i,j=r,\theta `$). Then, using

$$_r\mathrm{\Sigma }2M,_\theta \mathrm{\Sigma }=2a^2\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta ,$$
(2.32)
we evaluate the derivatives in (2) near the horizon, keeping only the leading terms in $`a`$ (only the partial derivatives relative to $`\theta `$ contribute in this order):

$`_r\overline{v}_H`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{r_0}{\lambda }}\mathrm{cos}\theta ,`$ $`_\theta \overline{v}_H{\displaystyle \frac{r_0}{\lambda }}(rr_H)\mathrm{sin}\theta ,`$
$`_r\overline{u}_H`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{r_0}{\lambda }}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta ,`$ $`_\theta \overline{u}_H{\displaystyle \frac{r_0}{\lambda }}(rr_H)2\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta .`$ (2.33)
From these we obtain the near-horizon potentials

$`\overline{v}_H`$ $`=`$ $`r_0x\mathrm{cos}\theta ,`$
$`\overline{u}_H`$ $`=`$ $`r_0x\mathrm{sin}^2\theta ,`$ (2.34)
again irrespective of the original values of the electric and magnetic charges. We have checked that these, together with the near-horizon metric (2.21) and axion-dilaton fields (2.28) solve the field equations as given in  . From the potentials (2), after setting $`r_0`$ to unity, we recover the near-horizon gauge fields

$`F_{14}={\displaystyle \frac{y}{\sqrt{2}}},`$ $`F_{23}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}},`$ $`F_{24}={\displaystyle \frac{x}{\sqrt{2}}},`$
$`F^{13}={\displaystyle \frac{xy}{\sqrt{2}}},`$ $`F^{14}={\displaystyle \frac{y}{\sqrt{2}}},`$ $`F^{23}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}`$ (2.35)
(with $`x^1=x`$ and $`x^2=y=\mathrm{cos}\theta `$), deriving from the gauge potentials $`A_3=y/\sqrt{2}`$, $`A_4=xy/\sqrt{2}`$ .Finally, passing to more general coordinates containing a free parameter $`b`$, we can write the BREMDA solution as follows 222Let us here mention that in  the low-energy limit of a certain conformal field theory was shown to correspond to a formal near-horizon limit of Kerr-NUT solutions of EMDA, with metric and matter fields different from (2). However one can show that these fields (given in Eq. (3.4) of ) do not solve the field equations of dilaton-axion gravity.

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`(x^2+b)d\tau ^2{\displaystyle \frac{dx^2}{x^2+b}}d\theta ^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta (d\phi +xd\tau )^2,`$
$`A`$ $`=`$ $`A_\mu dx^\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}\theta }{\sqrt{2}}}(d\phi +xd\tau ),\kappa =\mathrm{cos}\theta .`$ (2.36)
For $`b=0`$ this coincides with the solution derived above by the limiting procedure (Poincaré coordinates on AdS sector), for positive non-zero $`b`$ (usually set to $`b=1`$) one has a coordinate patch covering the full AdS hyperboloid. For comparison consider the near-horizon limit of the Kerr solution . Setting in (2.19) $`r_0=1,\alpha =\beta =1/2`$ and passing to similar coordinates, we obtain

$$ds^2=\frac{1}{2}(1+\mathrm{cos}^2\theta )\left[(x^2+b)d\tau ^2\frac{dx^2}{(x^2+b)}d\theta ^2\right]\frac{2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }{1+\mathrm{cos}^2\theta }(d\varphi +xd\tau )^2.$$
(2.37)
In both cases the mixing of the azimuthal and time coordinates does not vanish as $`x\mathrm{}`$. Both metrics coincide in the equatorial plane, but differ for $`\theta \pi /2`$. The BREMDA geometry is simpler due to the absence of cumbersome angular factors, and apparently is more suitable for the search of a holographic dual. We return to this question in a separate publication , while here we discuss other geometrical aspects of the new solution related to its embeddings in higher dimensions.

## 3 $`D=4`$ EMDA from $`D=6`$ Einstein gravity

Let us now show how $`D=4`$ EMDA theory can be derived from the purely vacuum Einstein theory in six dimensions. This may be hinted from the following considerations. Dimensional reduction of stationary $`D=4`$ EMDA to three dimensions leads to a gravity coupled sigma-model with the target space isometry group $`Sp(4,R)`$ , while dimensional reduction of the 6D vacuum gravity to three dimensions gives a sigma model with the $`SL(4,R)`$ target space symmetry . It was shown in  that a consistent truncation of the $`SL(4,R)`$ sigma model to the $`Sp(4,R)`$ one exists, i.e. any stationary solution of $`D=4`$ EMDA gravity has a $`D=6`$ vacuum gravity counterpart and vice versa. Here we show that this holds not only for stationary, but for any solutions of two theories. This duality is essentially non-local: it involves dualization of the Kaluza-Klein two-form in the intermediate five dimensions.

Let us start with the action

$$S=d^6x\sqrt{|g_6|}R_6,$$
(3.1)
denoting the 6-dimensional coordinates as $`x^\mu ,\eta ,\chi `$, and make the assumption of two commuting spacelike Killing vectors $`_\eta `$, $`_\chi `$. In any number of dimensions, the Kaluza-Klein dimensional reduction

$$ds_{n+1}^2=e^{2c\widehat{\varphi }}ds_n^2e^{2(n2)c\widehat{\varphi }}(d\eta +\widehat{C}_\mu dx^\mu )^2$$
(3.2)
gives

$$\sqrt{|g_{n+1}|}R_{n+1}=\sqrt{|g_n|}[R_n(n1)(n2)c^2(\widehat{\varphi })^2+\frac{1}{4}e^{2(n1)c\widehat{\varphi }}F^2(\widehat{C})+2c^2\widehat{\varphi }].$$
(3.3)
For $`n=5`$, $`c=1/\sqrt{6}`$, this leads, after dualizing the 2-form $`F(\widehat{C})`$ to a 3-form $`\widehat{H}=d\widehat{K}`$,

$$F^{\mu \nu }(\widehat{C})=\frac{1}{6\sqrt{|g_5|}}e^{\alpha \widehat{\varphi }}ϵ^{\mu \nu \lambda \rho \sigma }\widehat{H}_{\lambda \rho \sigma },$$
(3.4)
to the reduced action for 6-dimensional sourceless gravity

$$S_5=d^5x\sqrt{|g_5|}[R_5+2(\widehat{\varphi })^2+\frac{1}{12}e^{\alpha \widehat{\varphi }}\widehat{H}^2],$$
(3.5)
with $`\alpha =4\sqrt{2/3}`$.

In (3.5) we recognize the action of 5-dimensional gravity coupled to a dilaton and a 3-form, as written down in . In this paper it was observed that, under the assumption of two commuting Killing vectors $`_4`$ and $`_5`$, this theory reduces to a 3-dimensional $`\sigma `$ model with the $`SL(4,R)`$ symmetry group. Here we see that this symmetry follows directly from the $`SL(4,R)`$ symmetry of sourceless $`D=6`$ gravity with 3 Killing vectors, which is a special case of sourceless n-dimensional gravity with $`(n3)`$ Killing vectors, as discussed by Maison .

In a second step, the 5-dimensional theory (3.5) with a spacelike Killing vector $`\chi `$ is further reduced by the Kaluza-Klein ansatz

$`ds_5^2`$ $`=`$ $`e^{2\sigma /\sqrt{3}}ds_4^2e^{4\sigma /\sqrt{3}}(d\chi +D_\mu dx^\mu )^2,`$
$`\widehat{K}`$ $`=`$ $`K_{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu +E_\mu d\chi dx^\mu ,`$ (3.6)
to the action

$`S_4`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^4x\sqrt{|g_4|}[R_4+2(\varphi )^2+(\psi )^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^{4\varphi }(\kappa )^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}e^{2(\psi \varphi )}F^2(D)`$ (3.7)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}e^{2(\psi +\varphi )}F^2(E){\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{4}}(F(D)\stackrel{~}{F}(E)+F(E)\stackrel{~}{F}(D))],`$
where

$$\varphi =\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}\widehat{\varphi }\sqrt{\frac{1}{3}}\sigma ,\psi =\sqrt{2}\left(\sqrt{\frac{1}{3}}\widehat{\varphi }+\sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}\sigma \right),$$
(3.8)
and $`\kappa `$ is the dual of the 3-form

$$HdKDF(E)=e^{4\varphi }d\kappa .$$
(3.9)
Remarkably, the equations of motion for the fields $`D`$, $`E`$ and $`\psi `$ deriving from the action (3.7)

$`_\mu (e^{2(\psi \varphi )}F^{\mu \nu }(D)+\kappa \stackrel{~}{F}^{\mu \nu }(E))`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`_\mu (e^{2(\psi +\varphi )}F^{\mu \nu }(E)+\kappa \stackrel{~}{F}^{\mu \nu }(D))`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (3.10)
$`^2\psi +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}e^{2\varphi }(e^{2\psi }F^2(D)e^{2\psi }F^2(E))`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
are consistent with the ansatz

$$\psi =0,D_\mu =E_\mu \sqrt{2}A_\mu ,$$
(3.11)
which reduces the action (3.7) to the action (2.1) of EMDA (this is similar to the reduction of five-dimensional Kaluza-Klein theory to self-dual Einstein-Maxwell theory).

This two-step reduction of 6-dimensional vacuum gravity can be summarized in a direct reduction from 6 to 4 dimensions. From (3.4),

$$F_{\mu 5}(\widehat{C})=_\mu \widehat{C}_5=e^{4\varphi }\stackrel{~}{H}_\mu =_\mu \kappa ,$$
(3.12)
where $`\mu =1,\mathrm{},4`$, so that the 5-dimensional 1-form $`\widehat{C}`$ reduces according to

$$\widehat{C}=C_\mu dx^\mu +\kappa d\chi .$$
(3.13)
The two successive Kaluza-Klein ansätze (3.2) (for $`n=5`$, $`c=1/\sqrt{6}`$) and (3) can be combined into

$$ds_6^2=e^\psi ds_4^2e^{\psi 2\varphi }(d\chi +D_\mu dx^\mu )^2e^{\psi +2\varphi }(d\eta +C_\mu dx^\mu +\kappa d\chi )^2.$$
(3.14)
Finally, we compute

$`F_{\mu \nu }(C)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{|g_5|}e^{\alpha \widehat{\varphi }}ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda \rho 5}\widehat{H}^{\lambda \rho 5}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{|g_4|}ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda \rho }(e^{2(\psi +\varphi )}F^{\lambda \rho }(E)e^{4\varphi }D_\tau H^{\tau \lambda \rho })`$
$`=`$ $`F_{\mu \nu }(B)+F_{\mu \nu }(\kappa D),`$
with the definition (solving the second equation (3))

$$F_{\mu \nu }(B)e^{2(\psi +\varphi )}\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu }(E)\kappa F_{\mu \nu }(D).$$
(3.16)
Accordingly we can rewrite the double Kaluza-Klein ansatz (3.14) as

$$ds_6^2=e^\psi ds_4^2e^{\psi 2\varphi }\theta ^2e^{\psi +2\varphi }(\zeta +\kappa \theta )^2,$$
(3.17)
with

$$\theta d\chi +D_\mu dx^\mu ,\zeta d\eta +B_\mu dx^\mu .$$
(3.18)
Taking into account (3.11), it follows that the ansatz for reducing 6-dimensional vacuum gravity to EMDA may be written

$$ds_6^2=ds_4^2e^{2\varphi }\theta ^2e^{2\varphi }(\zeta +\kappa \theta )^2,$$

$$\theta d\chi +\sqrt{2}A_\mu dx^\mu ,\zeta d\eta +B_\mu dx^\mu ,$$
(3.19)
$$F_{\mu \nu }(B)\sqrt{2}(e^{2\varphi }\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu }(A)\kappa F_{\mu \nu }(A)).$$

## 4 $`D=6`$ vacuum counterpart of BREMDA

Using the machinery of the preceding section, we can show that BREMDA is dual to the six-dimensional vacuum solution whose standard KK reduction gives the usual $`D=4`$ dyonic BR solution with equal electric and magnetic strengths. From (2.28) and (2) we obtain (note that the coordinate transformation $`t,x,y,\phi t,x,\theta ,\phi `$ reverses orientation, so that accordingly we must change the sign of the axion)

$$F_{14}(B)=1y^2,F_{23}(B)=2y,F_{24}(B)=2xy,$$
(4.1)
leading (in a suitable gauge) to the 1-form

$$B=y^2d\phi +x(1y^2)dt.$$
(4.2)
It follows that the 6-dimensional line element corresponding to (2) is (with $`b=c^2`$)

$`ds_6^2`$ $`=`$ $`(x^2c^2)dt^2{\displaystyle \frac{dx^2}{x^2c^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{dy^2}{1y^2}}(1y^2)(d\phi +xdt)^2`$ (4.3)
$`(d\chi xydtyd\phi )^2(d\eta +xdtyd\chi )^2.`$
This may be rearranged to the more compact form

$`ds_6^2`$ $`=`$ $`(x^2c^2)dt^2{\displaystyle \frac{dx^2}{x^2c^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{dy^2}{1y^2}}(1y^2)d\chi ^2`$ (4.4)
$`(d\phi +xdtyd\chi )^2(d\eta +xdtyd\chi )^2,`$
which is explicitly symmetric between the two Killing vectors $`_\phi `$ and $`_\eta `$, and enjoys the higher symmetry group $`SL(2,R)\times SO(3)\times U(1)\times U(1)`$.

Eq. (4.4) represents the Bertotti-Robinson solution of 6-dimensional vacuum gravity. A simpler form is achieved by making a $`\pi /4`$ rotation in the plane of the two Killing vectors $`(_\phi ,_\eta )`$ and relabelling the third spacelike Killing direction according to

$$d\phi =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(d\overline{\eta }+d\overline{\chi }),d\eta =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(d\overline{\eta }d\overline{\chi }),d\chi =d\overline{\phi }.$$
(4.5)
This leads to

$`ds_6^2`$ $`=`$ $`(x^2c^2)dt^2{\displaystyle \frac{dx^2}{x^2c^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{dy^2}{1y^2}}(1y^2)d\overline{\phi }^2`$ (4.6)
$`(d\overline{\chi }\sqrt{2}xdt+\sqrt{2}yd\overline{\phi })^2d\overline{\eta }^2,`$
which is the trivial 6-dimensional embedding of the 5-dimensional Bertotti-Robinson metric

$`ds_5^2`$ $`=`$ $`(x^2c^2)dt^2{\displaystyle \frac{dx^2}{x^2c^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{dy^2}{1y^2}}(1y^2)d\phi ^2`$ (4.7)
$`(d\chi \sqrt{2}xdt+\sqrt{2}yd\phi )^2.`$
Remarkably, this is exactly the solution whose four-dimensional Kaluza-Klein reduction is the Einstein-Maxwell Bertotti-Robinson solution (2.22), for more details see Appendix A.

The metric (4.3) may also be dimensionally reduced relatively to the Killing vectors $`_\eta `$ and $`_t`$ (instead of $`_\chi `$). Choosing $`c^2=1`$, rearranging (4.3) as

$`ds_6^2`$ $`=`$ $`(x^21)(d\phi yd\chi )^2{\displaystyle \frac{dx^2}{x^21}}{\displaystyle \frac{dy^2}{1y^2}}(1y^2)d\chi ^2`$ (4.8)
$`(dt+xd\phi xyd\chi )^2(d\eta +xdtyd\chi )^2,`$
and relabelling the Killing directions according to $`\phi t\chi \phi `$, one obtains the equivalent 6-dimensional metric

$`ds_6^2`$ $`=`$ $`(x^21)(dt+yd\phi )^2{\displaystyle \frac{dx^2}{x^21}}{\displaystyle \frac{dy^2}{1y^2}}(1y^2)d\phi ^2`$ (4.9)
$`(d\chi +xdt+xyd\phi )^2(d\eta +xd\chi +yd\phi )^2.`$
Following (3.19), this may be reduced to the solution of EMDA:

$`ds_4^2`$ $`=`$ $`(x^21)(dt+yd\phi )^2{\displaystyle \frac{dx^2}{x^21}}{\displaystyle \frac{dy^2}{1y^2}}(1y^2)d\phi ^2,`$
$`A`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{x}{\sqrt{2}}}(dt+yd\phi ),\varphi =0,\kappa =x,`$ (4.10)
with $`B=x^2dt(x^21)yd\phi `$ ($`\kappa `$ may for instance be obtained by solving the Maxwell equations $`dF(B)=0`$). This Bertotti-Robinson-NUT solution may be obtained from the BREMDA solution (2) by the correspondence (which is an isometry of the 5-dimensional Bertotti-Robinson metric (A.13))

$$ti\phi ,xy,ds^2ds^2,AiA.$$
(4.11)
The dimensional reduction of (4.4) to (4) breaks the full symmetry group of the 6-dimensional Bertotti-Robinson solution to $`SO(3)\times U(1)`$.

Remarkably, this BR-NUT solution may also be obtained as a near-horizon limit of near-extremal static black hole solutions of EMDA with NUT charge. Such near-extremal black holes are defined by the condition that

$$(|||𝒟|)^2||^2+|𝒟|^2|𝒬|^2\lambda ^2c^2$$
(4.12)
is small. Putting $`rMr_{}/2\lambda x`$, we obtain for the metric functions in (2.2)

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=\lambda ^2(x^2c^2),\mathrm{\Sigma }=2\lambda ||\left(\frac{M}{||}x+c\right)+\mathrm{\Delta }.$$
(4.13)
So the limit $`\lambda 0`$ will yield a Bertotti-Robinson-like metric only for $`M=0`$. In this case, rescaling times by $`t(r_0^2/\lambda )t`$ as in (2.16), with now

$$r_0^2=2\lambda N,$$
(4.14)
we obtain the limiting 4-dimensional metric

$$ds^2=r_0^2\left[\frac{x^2c^2}{c}(dt+yd\phi )^2\frac{c}{x^2c^2}(dx^2+(x^2c^2)d\mathrm{\Omega }^2)\right],$$
(4.15)
which is identical with (4) after scaling $`r_0^2`$ to unity and choosing without loss of generality $`c=1`$ (one can always rescale $`xcx`$ and $`ds^2cds^2`$), as this construction goes along only for $`c0`$. Likewise, choosing

$$z_{\mathrm{}}=2iQ𝒬^{}/cr_0^2,$$
(4.16)
we obtain from (2) (after reversing the signs of the pseudoscalars $`\kappa `$ and $`u`$ as explained above) the limiting (gauge transformed and rescaled) scalar potentials

$$\varphi =0,\kappa =\frac{x}{c},v=\frac{r_0}{\sqrt{c}}x,u=\frac{r_0}{\sqrt{c}}\frac{x^2c^2}{c},$$
(4.17)
in agreement with (4). Again, we note that this limit is independent of the original values of $`Q`$ and $`P`$, provided $`Q0`$.

## 5 Eleven-dimensional supergravity

The idea to generate higher rank antisymmetric forms by dualizing the KK two-forms was generalized to $`D=11`$ supergravity as follows . Starting with the lagrangian

$$S_{(11)}=d^{11}x\sqrt{\widehat{g}}\left\{\widehat{R}_{(11)}\frac{1}{2\times 4!}\widehat{F}_{[4]}^2\right\}\frac{1}{6}\widehat{F}_{[4]}\widehat{F}_{[4]}\widehat{A}_{[3]},$$
(5.1)
we use the following three-block ansatz for the $`D=11`$ metric

$$d\widehat{s}_{(11)}^2=g_2^{\frac{1}{2}}\delta _{ab}dz^adz^b+g_3^{\frac{1}{3}}\delta _{ij}dy^idy^j+(g_2g_3)^{\frac{1}{4}}g_{(6)\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu ,$$
(5.2)
where all variables depend only on the six coordinates $`x^\mu `$ and $`a,b=1,2;i,j=1,2,3;\mu ,\nu =0,\mathrm{},5`$. The three-form potential $`A_{[3]}`$ is reduced to its six-dimensional pull-back $`B_{[3]}(x)`$, the one-form $`A_{[1]}=A_\mu dx^\mu `$ and the scalar scalar $`\kappa (x)`$, with

$$\widehat{A}_{\mu z^1z^2}=A_\mu (x),\widehat{A}_{y^1y^2y^3}=\kappa (x).$$
(5.3)
For the four-form one has

$$\widehat{F}_{[4]}=G_{[4]}+F_{[2]}^2Vol(2)+d\kappa Vol(3),$$
(5.4)
where $`G_{[4]}=dB_{[3]},F_{[2]}=dA_{[1]}`$. After reduction to six dimensions we obtain the theory governed by the action

$`S_{(6)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^6x\sqrt{|g_{(6)}|}\{R_{(6)}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{2\varphi }}{2}}(\kappa )^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\varphi )^2{\displaystyle \frac{3}{16}}(\psi )^2`$ (5.5)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^\varphi [{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2!}}e^{\frac{3}{4}\psi }F_{[2]}^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4!}}e^{\frac{3}{4}\psi }G_{[4]}^2]\}+\text{ Chern-Simons terms,}`$
where two new scalar fields are introduced via

$$\mathrm{ln}g_2=\frac{2}{3}\varphi \psi ,\mathrm{ln}g_3=2\varphi .$$
(5.6)
It is easy to see that $`\kappa ,\varphi `$ form a coset $`SL(2,R)/SO(1,1)`$, while $`F_{[2]}`$ and the six-dimensional dual $`\stackrel{~}{G}_{[2]}=G_{[4]}`$ (which is also a two-form) can be combined into the $`SL(2,R)`$ doublet

$$_{[2]}=e^{\psi /2}F_{[2]}+ie^{\psi /2}\stackrel{~}{G}_{[2]},$$
(5.7)
transforming under $`SL(2,R)`$ as follows

$`z{\displaystyle \frac{az+b}{cz+d}},z=\kappa +ie^\varphi ,adbc=1,`$
$`_{[2]}(cz+d)_{[2]},\psi \psi +\text{const.}`$ (5.8)
The multiplet of matter fields in the $`D=6`$ action is the same as that which may be obtained from compactification of $`D=8`$ vacuum gravity. Moreover, the action which follows from the $`D=8`$ Einstein action with the metric ansatz

$`ds_{(8)}^2`$ $`=`$ $`g_{mn}\left(d\zeta ^m+A_\mu ^mdx^\mu \right)\left(d\zeta ^n+A_\nu ^ndx^\nu \right)+e^{\frac{1}{4}\psi }g_{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu ,`$
$`e^\psi `$ $`=`$ $`detg_{mn},`$ (5.9)
($`m,n=1,2`$) leads exactly to the theory (5.5) after the identification of variables

$`g_{mn}`$ $`=`$ $`e^{\psi /2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}e^\varphi & \kappa e^\varphi \\ \kappa e^\varphi & e^\varphi +\kappa ^2e^\varphi \end{array}\right),`$ (5.12)
$`dA_{[1]}^m`$ $`=`$ $`F_{[2]}^m,`$
$`F_{[2]}^1+\kappa F_{[2]}^2`$ $`=`$ $`e^{\varphi \frac{3\psi }{4}}\stackrel{~}{G}_{[2]}.`$ (5.13)
More precisely, the field equation for $`B_{[3]}`$ becomes a Bianchi identity for $`A_{[1]}^1`$ and vice versa. Note, that interchanging the $`D=8`$ Killing vectors, i.e. relabelling $`A_\mu ^1A_\mu ^2`$ we will get different $`D=11`$ field configurations.

Now we can construct a solution to $`D=11`$ supergravity which is dual to the eight-dimensional vacuum metric obtained from BR6(4.6) smeared in two flat extra dimensions

$`ds_8^2`$ $`=`$ $`(x^2c^2)dt^2{\displaystyle \frac{dx^2}{x^2c^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{dy^2}{1y^2}}(1y^2)d\phi ^2`$ (5.14)
$`(d\chi \sqrt{2}xdt+\sqrt{2}yd\phi )^2d\overline{\eta }^2dz_1^2dz_2^2.`$
This solution possesses several commuting Killing vectors, from which one can choose any pair to be used in KK reduction back to six dimensions.

Choosing $`\zeta _1=\chi ,\zeta _2=\eta `$,we have

$$A^1=\sqrt{2}(yd\phi xdt),A^2=0.$$
(5.15)
Transforming to the $`D=11`$ variables we obtain

$$g_2=g_3=1,\varphi =\psi =\kappa =0,F_{[4]}=\sqrt{2}Vol(2)(dyd\phi dxdt).$$
(5.16)
For the different order of vector fields $`\zeta _1=\eta ,\zeta _2=\chi `$ one obtains the same $`g_2,g_3`$ and zero scalars $`\varphi ,\psi ,\kappa `$ but a different four-form:

$$F_{[4]}=\sqrt{2}(dyd\phi dxdt),$$
(5.17)
where a star denotes the $`D=6`$ Hodge dual. In both cases the $`D=11`$ metric is a trivial smearing of the $`D=6`$ metric:

$$ds_{11}^2=ds_6^2dx_6^2\mathrm{}dx_{10}^2.$$
(5.18)
## 6 Breaking of supersymmetry

Now let us discuss the issue of supersymmetry. As it is well-known, the Bertotti-Robinson solution preserves all the supersymmetries of $`D=4,𝒩=2`$ supergravity . The Bardeen-Horowitz solution (2.37) is a vacuum one, so it can be probed for $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetry. The result is negative: no geometric Killing spinors exist. Our solution (2.23) should be tested in the context of $`D=4,𝒩=4`$ supergravity, the relevant equations coming from the supersymmetric variation of the dilatino and gravitino. The variation of the dilatino leads to a purely algebraic equation, which in the case of a vanishing dilaton reads

$$(\gamma ^\mu _\mu \kappa +i\sqrt{2}\sigma ^{\overline{\mu }\overline{\nu }}F_{\overline{\mu }\overline{\nu }}^{})ϵ=0,$$
(6.1)
where $`F^{}`$ is the anti-self-dual part of the Maxwell tensor.

Substituting here $`\kappa =\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ and the Maxwell tensor (2) one obtains the equation

$$M(\theta )ϵ=0,M=\gamma ^{\overline{\theta }}\mathrm{sin}\theta (\mathrm{cos}\theta +i)(\sigma ^{\overline{\theta }\overline{\phi }}i\sigma ^{\overline{t}\overline{x}}).$$
(6.2)
The determinant $`|detM|=\mathrm{sin}^4\theta `$, so that there is no non-trivial solution to Eq. (6.1), i.e. the BREMDA bosonic solution breaks all the supersymmetries of $`D=4,𝒩=4`$ supergravity. Similarly, one can show that the Bertotti-Robinson endowed with NUT (4) is not supersymmetric either.

Now discuss the $`D=11`$ embedding. Our $`D=11`$ solution is related to the four-dimensional BREMDA in a non-local way, since it is obtained using dualizations in the intermediate dimensions. So a priori it is not clear whether it is non-supersymmetric in the supergravity sense.

It was shown  that the $`D=11`$ Killing spinor equation for the 32-component Majorana spinor $`ϵ_{(11)}`$ ensuring the vanishing of the supersymmetry variation of the gravitino

$$\widehat{D}_Mϵ_{(11)}+\frac{1}{288}\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_M{}_{}{}^{\overline{N}\overline{P}\overline{Q}\overline{R}}8\delta _M^{\overline{N}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\overline{P}\overline{Q}\overline{R}}\right)\widehat{F}_{\overline{N}\overline{P}\overline{Q}\overline{R}}ϵ_{(11)}=0$$
(6.3)
for the $`2+3+6`$ block truncation considered above corresponds to the purely geometric equation for the eight-dimensional dual:

$$(_{\overline{\mu }}\frac{1}{4}\omega _{\overline{\mu }}^{ab}\sigma _{ab})ϵ_8=0$$
(6.4)
We will use the flat gamma-matrices, and $`a,b,\overline{\mu }`$ are the tetrad and coordinate indices respectively. Here the spin-connection $`\omega _{\overline{\mu }}^{ab}`$ has to be calculated for the spacetime (5.2). Therefore to explore the supersymmetry in the $`D=11`$ supergravity sense we have to check whether the corresponding $`D=8`$ solution admits covariantly constant spinors.

The non-zero spin-connection one-forms for the metric (5.14) read (we use tetrad indices and numbering $`0,1,2,3,4`$ for $`t,\xi ,\theta ,\phi ,\chi )`$:

$`\omega _{01}=\mathrm{cos}\theta d\phi +d\chi /\sqrt{2},\omega _{04}=d\xi /\sqrt{2},\omega _{14}=\mathrm{sinh}\xi dt/\sqrt{2},`$
$`\omega _{23}=\mathrm{cosh}\xi dtd\chi /\sqrt{2},\omega _{24}=\mathrm{sin}\theta d\phi /\sqrt{2},\omega _{34}=d\theta /\sqrt{2}.`$ (6.5)
For the gamma matrices in eight dimensions one can use suitably defined tensor products of Pauli matrices. Since the spin-connection lies entirely in the $`D=6`$ sector, one can suppress spinor indices relating to the transition from six to eight dimensions and use $`8\times 8`$ gamma matrices and $`D=6`$ spinors. A convenient choice is

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^0=i\sigma _111,\mathrm{\Gamma }^1=\sigma _211,`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^2=\sigma _3\sigma _11,\mathrm{\Gamma }^3=\sigma _3\sigma _21,`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^4=\sigma _3\sigma _3\sigma _1,\mathrm{\Gamma }^5=\sigma _3\sigma _3\sigma _2.`$ (6.6)
The corresponding Lorentz generators are:

$`\sigma ^{01}=\sigma _311,\sigma ^{04}=\sigma _2\sigma _3\sigma _1,`$
$`\sigma ^{14}=i\sigma _1\sigma _2\sigma _1,\sigma ^{23}=i1\sigma _31,`$
$`\sigma ^{24}=i1\sigma _2\sigma _1,\sigma ^{34}=i1\sigma _1\sigma _1.`$ (6.7)
A direct substitution in the Eq.(6.4) gives a system of matrix equations which should satisfy the integrability conditions

$$R^{ab\mu \nu }\sigma _{ab}ϵ_6=0$$
(6.8)
where the mixed coordinate-tetrad components of the $`D=6`$ Riemann tensor are introduced. Writing them as curvature two-forms $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{ab}=R_{\mu \nu }^{ab}dx^\mu dx^\nu `$, one finds the following non-zero quantities

$`\mathrm{\Omega }^{01}=\mathrm{sin}\theta d\theta d\phi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{sinh}\xi dtd\xi ,\mathrm{\Omega }^{02}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{sin}\theta d\xi d\phi ,`$
$`\mathrm{\Omega }^{03}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}d\theta d\xi ,\mathrm{\Omega }^{04}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{sinh}\xi dtd\phi +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{sinh}\xi dtd\chi ,`$
$`\mathrm{\Omega }^{12}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sinh}\xi dtd\phi ,\mathrm{\Omega }^{13}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{sinh}\xi d\theta dt,`$
$`\mathrm{\Omega }^{14}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\mathrm{cosh}\xi dtd\xi +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\mathrm{cos}\theta d\xi d\phi +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}d\xi d\chi ,`$
$`\mathrm{\Omega }^{23}=\mathrm{sinh}\xi dtd\xi +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{sin}\theta d\theta d\phi ,`$
$`\mathrm{\Omega }^{24}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\mathrm{cosh}\xi dtd\theta {\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\mathrm{cos}\theta d\theta d\phi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}d\theta d\chi ,`$
$`\mathrm{\Omega }^{34}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cosh}\xi dtd\phi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{sin}\theta d\phi d\chi .`$ (6.9)
All ten two-forms are independent, so one obtains ten integrability conditions:

$`\sigma ^{03}ϵ_6=\sigma ^{14}ϵ_6=\sigma ^{24}ϵ_6=\sigma ^{34}ϵ_6=0,`$ (6.10)
$`(\mathrm{tanh}\xi \sigma ^{01}+\sqrt{2}\sigma ^{14})ϵ_6=0,(\mathrm{tanh}\xi \sigma ^{13}+\sqrt{2}\sigma ^{24})ϵ_6=0,`$
$`(\mathrm{cot}\theta \sigma ^{04}\mathrm{coth}\xi \sigma ^{04}+\sqrt{2}\sigma ^{12})ϵ_6=0,`$
$`(\sigma ^{04}+2\sigma ^{23})ϵ_6=0,(\mathrm{tan}\theta \sigma ^{02}\sqrt{2}\sigma ^{14})ϵ_6=0,`$
$`(2\sigma ^{01}\sigma ^{23}+\sqrt{2}\mathrm{cot}\theta \sigma ^{24})ϵ_6=0.`$ (6.11)
These are clearly inconsistent (inconsistent are already conditions (6.10), since sigma-matrices do not have kernels). Therefore the BREMDA geometry is not supersymmetric in the sense of $`D=11`$ supergravity either.

## 7 Conclusion

We have presented a new solution to dilaton-axion gravity in four dimensions whichis a rotating version of the Bertotti-Robinson metric. It breaks the $`SO(3)`$ symmetry of the latter but preserves the $`SL(2,R)`$ symmetry of the anti-de Sitter sector. The metric arises as the near-horizon limit of the charged rotating axion-dilaton black hole (in the theory with one vector field) and is supported by non-trivial vector and axion fields. It looks simpler than the near-horizon Kerr (or Kerr-Newman) metric due to the absence of additional angular factors, while preserving the same mixing of the azimuthal and time coordinates induced by rotation. It is important to note that the AdS sector does not factor out even asymptotically. Moreover, in contrast to the case of $`AdS_2\times S^2`$, the conformal boundary is now a singular $`1+2`$ space.

The new metric was shown to be related to the usual dyonic BR solution with equal electric and magnetic charges after uplifting it to six dimensions and then coming back along a different reduction scheme. In this procedure the axion emerges via dualization of one of the Kaluza-Klein two-forms. Using a similar reasoning, we were able to find two solutions of $`D=11`$ supergravity with non-trivial four-form fields whose dimensional reduction (including dualizations at intermediate steps) gives our solution.

This solution is not supersymmetric, whether in the sense of the original $`D=4,𝒩=4`$ supergravity, or in the sense of higher dimensional embeddings. But it still looks promising from the point of view of holography. Indeed, it preserves some features of $`AdS_2\times S^2`$ found also for the Kerr throat , and it is not plagued by superradiance as the latter. Preliminary considerations show that, in spite of the singular nature of the boundary, the asymptotic symmetry contains the Virasoro algebra . Also it is likely to provide a new version of conformal mechanics of the type studied recently . We will discuss these issues in a separate publication.

## Acknowledgements

We would like to thank K. Bronnikov, J. Fabris, L. Palacios, and S. Solodukhin for discussions. DG is grateful to LAPTH Annecy for hospitality and to CNRS for support which made possible this collaboration. His work was also supported in part by the RFBR grant 00-02-16306.

## Appendix A

In this Appendix we discuss the near-horizon limit to static black hole solutions of 5-dimensional sourceless Kaluza-Klein theory, i.e. 5-dimensional vacuum Einstein gravity

$$S=d^5x\sqrt{|g_5|}R_5,$$
(A.1)
together with the assumption of a spacelike Killing vector $`/x^5`$. The 5-dimensional metric may be reduced to 4 dimensions by the Kaluza-Klein dimensional reduction

$$ds_5^2=e^{2\sigma /\sqrt{3}}ds_4^2e^{4\sigma /\sqrt{3}}(dx^5+2A_\mu dx^\mu )^2,$$
(A.2)
with the reduced action

$$S=d^4x\sqrt{|g_4|}\left\{R_4+2_\mu \sigma ^\mu \sigma e^{2\sigma /\sqrt{3}}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }\right\}.$$
(A.3)
The general static, NUT-less black hole solution of Kaluza-Klein theory was derived by Gibbons and Wiltshire , and generalized to rotating black hole solutions by Rasheed . We will consider only static black holes, which depend on 3 parameters $`M`$ (mass), $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ (scalar charge), $`Q`$ and $`P`$ (“electric” and “magnetic” charge) constrained by

$$\frac{Q^2}{\mathrm{\Sigma }+M/\sqrt{3}}+\frac{P^2}{\mathrm{\Sigma }M/\sqrt{3}}=\frac{2\mathrm{\Sigma }}{3}.$$
(A.4)
The corresponding 5-dimensional metrics, as well as their 4-dimensional reductions, have two regular horizons provided $`M^2+\mathrm{\Sigma }^2P^2Q^20`$. The condition of extremality is therefore $`M^2+\mathrm{\Sigma }^2=P^2+Q^2`$. However for more generality we shall consider near-extremal black holes, with

$$M^2+\mathrm{\Sigma }^2P^2Q^2\lambda ^2c^2$$
(A.5)
small.

The black hole solutions are

$`ds_5^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f^2}{B}}dt^2A({\displaystyle \frac{dr^2}{f^2}}+d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\phi ^2)`$ (A.6)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{B}{A}}(dx^5+{\displaystyle \frac{2Q}{B}}(rM+M_{})dt+2P\mathrm{cos}\theta d\phi )^2,`$
where the metric functions $`f`$, $`A`$, $`B`$ are given by

$`f^2`$ $`=`$ $`(rM)^2\lambda ^2c^2,`$
$`A`$ $`=`$ $`f^2+2M_{}(rM)+{\displaystyle \frac{M_{}}{M}}(M_+M_{}+\lambda ^2c^2),`$ (A.7)
$`B`$ $`=`$ $`f^2+2M_+(rM)+{\displaystyle \frac{M_+}{M}}(M_+M_{}+\lambda ^2c^2),`$
and

$$M_\pm M\pm \frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }}{\sqrt{3}},Q^2=\frac{M_+(M_+^2\lambda ^2c^2)}{2M},P^2=\frac{M_{}(M_{}^2\lambda ^2c^2)}{2M}.$$
(A.8)
Putting $`rM\lambda x`$, we shall take the near-extremal, near-horizon limit $`\lambda 0`$ such that the two horizons $`r=r_\pm M\pm \lambda c`$ approach each other while the radial coordinate approaches the event horizon $`r_+`$. Four-dimensional sections $`\phi =`$ const. of the 5-dimensional metric (A.6) being similar in form to the rotating metric (2.11), with the electric potential $`A_4`$ playing the part of the angular velocity, to obtain a finite limit we again must first transform to a frame “nearly co-rotating” with the horizon, through a gauge transformation

$$d\overline{x}^5=dx^5+\frac{2QM_{}}{B(0)}dt,$$
(A.9)
with $`B(0)B(rM=0)`$, leading to the “electric” field in the new gauge

$$\overline{A}_4=\frac{QM_{}}{B(0)B}(rM)(\frac{M_+M_{}}{M}+rM+O(\lambda ^2c^2)),$$
(A.10)
and rescale both time and the fifth coordinate, through the transformations

$$rM\lambda x,\mathrm{cos}\theta y,t\frac{\sqrt{A_0B_0}}{\lambda }\overline{t},\overline{x}^5\sqrt{2}P\chi ,$$
(A.11)
where $`(A_0,B_0)=lim_{(\lambda 0)}(A,B)`$. Taking the limit $`\lambda 0`$, using the identities

$$\frac{2B_0P^2}{A_0^2}=\frac{Q^2}{P^2}\frac{A_0}{B_0}\frac{M_{}^2}{M_+^2}=1,$$
(A.12)
and relabelling the time coordinate $`\overline{t}t`$, we finally obtain the 5-dimensional near-horizon metric

$$A_0^2ds_5^2=(x^2c^2)dt^2\frac{dx^2}{x^2c^2}\frac{dy^2}{1y^2}(1y^2)d\phi ^2(d\chi \sqrt{2}xdt+\sqrt{2}yd\phi )^2.$$
(A.13)
Again, as in the case of EMDA, all the static Kaluza-Klein black holes have the same near-horizon limit, independently of the values of the electric and magnetic charges $`Q0`$ and $`P0`$.

In (A.13) we recognize the Kaluza-Klein version of the dyonic Bertotti-Robinson solution with equal electric and magnetic charges. The vanishing of the Kaluza-Klein scalar field $`\sigma `$ is due to the fact that the electric and magnetic fields

$$F_{14}=F_{23}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}$$
(A.14)
being equal in magnitude, the source term in the scalar field equation

$$^2\sigma =\frac{1}{2\sqrt{3}}e^{2\sqrt{3}\sigma }F^{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }$$
(A.15)
vanishes. Accordingly the isometry group is the direct product of that of the Bertotti-Robinson spacetime with the Klein circle, i.e. $`SL(2,R)\times SO(3)\times U(1)`$.


format: text

text:
# Relativistic Quantum Dynamics of Many-Body Systems

## 1 Introduction

The superposition principle and the space-time symmetry are realized in relativistic quantum mechanics by a Hilbert space of states with a unitary representation of the inhomogeneous Lorentz group (Poincaré group). Various representations of single particle states are well known. Since the components of the four-momentum $`p`$ are constrained by the mass, $`p^2=m^2`$, there is a choice of convenient independent momentum variables in the wave function: For instance the components $`\stackrel{}{p}`$ orthogonal to some fixed time-like vector, or the components $`p^+,p_{}`$ orthogonal to some null-vector. For particles with spin the functions representing state vectors are functions of spin variables undergoing Wigner rotations. All these representations are equivalent. States of noninteracting particles are represented by tensor products of single particle states.

In quantum mechanics the Hilbert space of state vectors is the same for free and interacting particles. The interactions are implemented by modifications of the Poincaré generators. Following Bakamjian and Thomas this has been done modifying the mass operator, leaving the spin operator independent of interactions. The Poincaré generators obtain as functions of kinematic components of the four momentum operator and canonically conjugate positions, the mass operator, the spin operator. The choice of these kinematic components determines the “form of dynamics”. The principal difficulty in this approach is the realization of cluster separability. The properties of any isolated cluster of particles should not depend on the presence or absence of other clusters. The solution involves the recursive construction of appropriate many-body interactions in the many-body mass operators. There are no theorems defining minimal many-body interactions.

Alternatively, single-particle states can be represented by equivalence classes of covariant functions of the four-momentum with the positive semi-definite inner product measure $`d\mu (p):=d^4p\delta (p^2+m^2)\theta (p^0)`$. For particles with spin the functions representing state vectors are Lorentz covariant functions of spinor indices with a semi-definite inner product measure. Starting from kinematically covariant functions representing multi-particle states, interactions can be introduced modifying the semi-definite inner product measure.

For free fields (free particles) Poincaré generators obtain by integration of the energy-momentum tensor over a three-dimensional manifold in the Minkowski space. Interactions in the energy-momentum tensor require local commutation relations and infinitely many degrees of freedom. The action of these Poincaré generators on Fock-space vectors produces linear functionals over the Fock space, not vectors in Fock-space. The Hilbert spaces of free and interacting fields are necessarily inequivalent.

Minkowski-Green functions are defined by vacuum expectation values of time-ordered products of local renormalized Heisenberg fields. Using assumed spectral properties of the intermediate states and the asymptotic properties of the field operators there are simple relations to observable bound-state masses, scattering amplitudes and form factors. The principal problem is to establish a quantitative relation of “approximations” to a theory local operators.

A central feature in the formulation of relativistic quantum theory is the absence of finite-dimensional unitary representations of the Lorentz group, $`O(1,3)`$. This is the reason the representation of states by Lorentz covariant functions requires a semidefinite inner product measure. However, the Lorentz group is related, by complexification, to the orthogonal group in four dimensions, $`O(4)`$ which does have finite dimensional unitary representations. The unitary representations of the real Euclidean group $`E(4)`$ together with invariant Green operators are useful in the formulation of Poincaré invariant dynamics. This connection has been exploited extensively in quantum field theory. The equivalence of the Wightman axioms with the Osterwalder-Schrader axioms establishes that Euclidean Green functions (Schwinger functions) satisfying the Osterwalder-Schrader axioms imply the existence of field operators. In the context of Lagrangean field theory the Schwinger functions obtain as moments of the functional measure defined by the Lagrangean. In the Euclidean formulation the locality axiom is independent of the axioms which establish unitary Poincaré representations with the appropriate spectral properties. This feature is essential for the formulation of Poincaré covariant dynamics finite many-body systems.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the formulation of relativistic quantum dynamics based on Euclidean invariant Green functions. Ordinary quantum mechanics provides some heuristic indications. The Hilbert space, $``$ of states of $`N`$ particles is independent of the dynamics. It is the same for free and interacting particles. The dynamics is specified by the invariant Casimir Hamiltonian, $`𝗁:=H\stackrel{}{P}^2/2M`$ or the resolvent operator $`G(𝖤):=1/(𝗁i𝖤)`$. Interactions are introduced by invariant additions to the Casimir Hamiltonian $`𝗁=𝗁_0+V,`$ or $`G(𝖤)^1=G_0(𝖤)^1+V.`$ While the approach explored here should be applicable to many qualitatively different physical systems and illuminate relations to quantum field theory the focus of this exploratory study is limited systems with a fixed number of particles, for instance nucleons. The abstract framework of the dynamics to be explored is formulated in Section 2. Section 3 provides a realization for single particles. Two-body interactions are formulated in Section 4. The many-body dynamics with the realization of cluster separability is discussed in Sec. 5.

## 2 The Abstract Framework

### 2.1 The Auxiliary Hilbert Space.

Since there are no finite dimensional unitary representations of the Lorentz group $`SO(1,3)`$ we assume the representatives of physical states to be a subset of a larger space, subject to the following assumptions.

H1. Physical states are a linear subset of vectors $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ in an auxiliary Hilbert space $`_a`$ with the norm $`\mathrm{\Psi }_a^2=\mathrm{\Psi },\mathrm{\Psi }`$.

H2. There is a unitary representation $`U(,a)`$ of the Euclidean group $`E(4)`$ with $`O(4)`$ on the Hilbert space $`_a`$. The self-adjoint generators of $`E(4)`$ are denoted by $`𝖯^\mu `$ and $`𝖩^{\mu \nu }=𝖩^{\nu \mu }`$.

H3. There is a self-adjoint, unitary operator $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$, on $`_a`$, which is invariant under the 3-dimensional Euclidean subgroup

$$[\mathrm{\Theta },𝖯^k]=0,[\mathrm{\Theta },𝖩^{ik}]=0,$$
(1)
and satisfies

$$\mathrm{\Theta }𝖯^0=𝖯^0\mathrm{\Theta },\mathrm{\Theta }𝖩^{0k}=𝖩^{0k}\mathrm{\Theta }.$$
(2)
The two Casimir operators $`\stackrel{}{j}_\pm ^2`$ of $`O(4)`$ are functions of the generators $`𝖩^{\mu \nu }`$,

$$j_\pm ^k:=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\underset{\mu <\nu }{}ϵ^{0k\mu \nu }𝖩^{\mu \nu }\pm 𝖩^{0k}\right).$$
(3)
The spectra of the Casimir operators are $`\sigma (\stackrel{}{j}_\pm ^2)=s_\pm (s_\pm +1)`$ with non-negative integer or half-odd integer values of $`s_\pm `$.

The operators

$$P^0:=i𝖯^0,P^k:=𝖯^k,J^{0k}:=i𝖩^{0k},J^{ik}:=𝖩^{ik}$$
(4)
satisfy the Poincaré Lie algebra, and the spectrum of $`P^2`$ is the real line,
$`\mathrm{}<\sigma (P^2)<\mathrm{}`$. The operators

$$\mathrm{exp}(iP^0t)\mathrm{exp}(𝖯^0t)\text{and}\mathrm{exp}(iJ^{0k}\chi )\mathrm{exp}(𝖩^{0k}\chi )$$
(5)
are self-adjoint. Together with the unitary representations of the 3-dimensional Euclidean group they define a non-unitary representation of the Poincaré group. The inner product $`(\mathrm{\Psi },\mathrm{\Psi }):=\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Psi },\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi },\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Psi }`$ defines a pseudo-Hilbert space of the vectors in $`_a`$. The inner product $`(\mathrm{\Psi },\mathrm{\Psi })`$ of the pseudo-Hilbert space is Poincaré invariant, $`(U(\mathrm{\Lambda },a)\mathrm{\Psi },U(\mathrm{\Lambda },a)\mathrm{\Psi })=(\mathrm{\Psi },\mathrm{\Psi }).`$

### 2.2 Green Operators and the Physical Hilbert Space.

The representation of physical states and the dynamical properties of the system are specified by a Green operator, $`G`$, with the following properties.

G1. The Green operator $`G`$ is a bounded normal operator on $`_a`$ with an inverse defined on a dense set.

G2. The Green operator $`G`$ commutes with $`𝖯^\mu `$ and $`𝖩^{\mu \nu }`$ and hence with $`P^\mu ,J^{\mu \nu }`$.

G3. The operator $`\mathrm{\Theta }G`$ is Hermitean, $`\mathrm{\Theta }G=G^{}\mathrm{\Theta }.`$

G4. There is a Poincaré invariant linear manifold $`𝒮`$ of vectors $`\mathrm{\Psi }_a`$ that all $`\mathrm{\Psi }𝒮`$ satisfy the inequalities

$$0(e^{i𝖯^0\tau }\mathrm{\Psi },Ge^{i𝖯^0\tau }\mathrm{\Psi })(\mathrm{\Psi },Ge^{2P^0\tau }\mathrm{\Psi })(\mathrm{\Psi },G\mathrm{\Psi }),\tau 0.$$
(6)
By assumption G4 the inner product $`(\mathrm{\Psi },G\mathrm{\Psi })`$ of vectors in this manifold is positive semi-definite. Physical states are represented by equivalence classes of vectors. Two vectors $`\mathrm{\Psi }_a`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_b`$ are equivalent, $`\mathrm{\Psi }_a\mathrm{\Psi }_b`$ iff

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_a\mathrm{\Psi }_b^2:=([\mathrm{\Psi }_a\mathrm{\Psi }_b],G[\mathrm{\Psi }_a\mathrm{\Psi }_b)])=0.$$
(7)
The physical Hilbert space $``$ is equipped with a unitary representation of the Poincaré group. Single-particle states $`\mathrm{\Psi }_M`$ of mass $`M`$, elementary or composite, satisfy $`(P^2+M^2)\mathrm{\Psi }_M0`$.

### 2.3  Perturbations of Green Operators

A perturbation $`G_0G`$ may be defined by

$$G^1:=G_0^1+𝒰,$$
(8)
where $`𝒰`$ is an $`E(4)`$ invariant, pseudo-Hermitean operator with domain
$`D(𝒰)D(G_0^1)`$ By assumption $`𝒰`$ is bounded relative to $`G_0^1`$,

$$𝒰\mathrm{\Psi }_aaG_0^1\mathrm{\Psi }_a+b\mathrm{\Psi }_a,$$
(9)
with $`0a<1`$ and $`0b`$. The operators $`𝒰G_0`$, $`G_0𝒰`$ and are bounded with a bound less than 1. It follows that $`G^1G_0`$, and $`G_0G^1`$ are bounded operators with bounded inverses.

## 3 Realization for Single Particles

The auxiliary Hilbert space $`_a`$ of a spin-zero single particle is realized by square integrable functions $`\mathrm{\Psi }(𝗑)`$ with $`𝗑:=\{𝗑^0,𝗑^1,𝗑^2,𝗑^3\}`$ with the inner product

$$\mathrm{\Psi },\mathrm{\Psi }=d^4𝗑|\mathrm{\Psi }(𝗑)|^2.$$
(10)
Schwartz functions $`f(𝗑)`$ are dense in this Hilbert space. The involution operator $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is defined by

$$\mathrm{\Theta }\mathrm{\Psi }(𝗑):=\mathrm{\Psi }(𝗑^0,\stackrel{}{𝗑}).$$
(11)
The self-adjoint generators of the real Euclidean group $`E(4)`$ are

$$𝖯^\mu :=\frac{1}{i}\frac{}{𝗑^\mu },𝖩^{\mu \nu }:=\frac{1}{i}\left(𝗑^\mu \frac{}{𝗑^\nu }𝗑^\nu \frac{}{𝗑^\mu }\right).$$
(12)
The associated Poincaré generators are then defined by eq. (4). The Green operator is represented by the Green function $`G(𝗑𝗑^{})`$

$`G(𝗑𝗑^{})`$ $`:=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}\right)^4{\displaystyle d^4𝗉\frac{\mathrm{exp}[i𝗉(𝗑𝗑^{})]}{𝗉^2+m^2}}`$ (13)
$`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}\right)^3{\displaystyle d^3\stackrel{}{p}\frac{\mathrm{exp}\left(i\stackrel{}{p}(\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{x}^{})\omega (p)|𝗑_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{0}𝗑^0|\right)}{2\omega (p)}},`$ (15)
where $`\omega (p):=\sqrt{m^2+\stackrel{}{p}^2}`$. Schwartz functions $`f(𝗑)`$ with support restricted to positive values of $`𝗑^0`$ represent a linear manifold of vectors in $`_a`$ which satisfies the the requirement G4. With the support restriction it follows that

$$(f,Gf)=\stackrel{~}{f},\stackrel{~}{f}:=\frac{d^3p}{2\omega (p)}|\stackrel{~}{f}(\stackrel{}{p})|^2=d^4𝗑|\stackrel{~}{f}(𝗑)|^2,$$
(16)
where

$`\stackrel{~}{f}(\stackrel{}{p})`$ $`:=`$ $`(2\pi )^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{3}{2}}}{\displaystyle d^4𝗑e^{i\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{x}}e^{\omega (p)𝗑^0}f(𝗑)},`$ (17)
$`\stackrel{~}{f}(𝗑)`$ $`:=`$ $`(2\pi )^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{3}{2}}}{\displaystyle d^3pe^{i\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{x}\omega (p)𝗑^0}\theta (𝗑^0)\stackrel{~}{f}(\stackrel{}{p})}.`$ (19)
The Hilbert space $``$ is constructed by the usual procedure of moding out zero-norm vectors and adding Cauchy sequences. The equivalence classes of Schwartz functions are dense in $``$. Two functions $`f_1`$ and $`f_2`$ are equivalent, $`f_1f_2`$ iff

$$f_1f_2=0.$$
(20)
It follows that two functions $`f_1`$ and $`f_2`$ are in the same equivalence class, $`f_1f_2`$,
iff $`\stackrel{~}{f}_1=\stackrel{~}{f}_2`$.

Since

$$\theta (𝗑_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{0})\mathrm{\Theta }G(𝗑^{}𝗑)\theta (𝗑^0)=\theta (𝗑_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{0})\theta (𝗑^0)\left(\frac{1}{2\pi }\right)^3d^3p\frac{e^{\omega (p)(𝗑_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{0}+𝗑^0)}e^{i\stackrel{}{p}(\stackrel{}{x}^{}\stackrel{}{x})}}{2\omega (p)}.$$
(21)
it follows that the inner product $`(f_a,Gf_b)`$ of functions satisfying the support condition is manifestly Lorentz invariant,

$$(f_b,Gf_a)=\frac{d^3p}{\omega (p)}\stackrel{~}{f}_b(\stackrel{}{p})^{}\stackrel{~}{f}_a(\stackrel{}{p})=d^4p\delta (p^2+m^2)\theta (p^0)f_b(p)^{}f_a(p)$$
(22)
with

$$f(p):=d^4𝗑\mathrm{exp}\left(i\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{𝗑}p^0𝗑^0\right)f(𝗑).$$
(23)
The time evolution evolution $`f_a(t):=e^{iP^0t}f_a`$ is given explicitly by

$$(f_b,Ge^{iP^0t}f_a)=\stackrel{~}{f}_b,\stackrel{~}{f}_a(t),$$
(24)
with $`\stackrel{~}{f}_a(t,p):=e^{i\omega (p)t}\stackrel{~}{f}_a(\stackrel{}{p})`$.

For a single spin $`1/2`$ particle the Green function is

$$G(𝗑𝗒):=\frac{1}{(2\pi )^4}d^4𝗉e^{i𝗉(𝗑𝗒)}\left(\frac{𝗉\gamma _e+m}{𝗉^2+m^2}\right),$$
(25)
where the spinor matrices $`\gamma _e:=i\beta ,\beta \stackrel{}{\alpha }`$ with $`\stackrel{}{\alpha }:=\gamma _5\stackrel{}{\sigma }`$ satisfy

$$\frac{1}{2}\{\gamma _{e\mu },\gamma _{e\nu }\}=\delta _{\mu \nu }.$$
(26)
The involution operator $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ must also act on the spinor indices,

$$(\mathrm{\Theta }f)(𝗑):=\beta f(𝗑^0,\stackrel{}{𝗑}).$$
(27)
As in the case of spin $`0`$ it is easy to verify positivity of the inner product $`(f,Gf)`$ for Schwartz functions with support restricted to positive values of $`𝗑^0`$.

$`(f,Gf)`$ $`:=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^4𝗑d^4𝗒f^{}(𝗑)\mathrm{\Theta }G(𝗑𝗒)f(𝗒)}={\displaystyle d^4𝗑d^4𝗒f^{}(𝗑)\beta G(𝗑^0𝗒^0,\stackrel{}{𝗑}\stackrel{}{𝗒})f(𝗒)}`$ (28)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^3p\stackrel{~}{f}^{}(p)\frac{\omega (p)+\stackrel{}{\alpha }\stackrel{}{p}+\beta m}{2\omega (p)}\stackrel{~}{f}(p)}={\displaystyle d^4𝗑\stackrel{~}{f}^{}(𝗑)\stackrel{~}{f}(𝗑)}0,`$ (30)
where

$$\stackrel{~}{f}(𝗑):=(2\pi )^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{3}{2}}}d^3pe^{i\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{x}\omega (p)𝗑^0}\theta (𝗑^0)\frac{\omega (p)+\stackrel{}{\alpha }\stackrel{}{p}+\beta m}{2\omega (p)}\stackrel{~}{f}(\stackrel{}{p}).$$
(31)
## 4 Two-Body Dynamics

The auxiliary Hilbert space $`_a`$ is the tensor product of the single-particle auxiliary Hilbert spaces. The involution operator $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is the tensor product of single particle involution operators. Schwartz functions $`f(𝗑_1,𝗑_2)f(𝖷,𝗑)`$ with $`𝖷:=\frac{1}{2}(𝗑_1+𝗑_2)`$ and $`𝗑:=𝗑_1𝗑_2`$ are dense in this Hilbert space. For spin $`1/2`$ particles these functions depend on spinor variables as well. The $`E(4)`$ generators are additive,

$$𝖯^\mu =\frac{1}{i}\underset{n=1}{\overset{2}{}}\frac{}{𝗑_n^\mu },𝖩^{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{i}\underset{n=1}{\overset{2}{}}\left(𝗑_n^\mu \frac{}{𝗑_n^\nu }𝗑_n^\nu \frac{}{𝗑_n^\mu }+\frac{1}{4}[\gamma _{ne}^\mu ,\gamma _{ne}^\nu ]\right).$$
(32)
In general Green operators are realized by $`E(4)`$ invariant tempered distributions $`G(𝗑_1,𝗑_2;𝗑_2^{},𝗑_1^{})`$. For free particles the Green function is the product of single particle Green functions, Interactions are added according to eq. (8). A simple example of a nucleon-nucleon interaction is of the form

$`𝒰\mathrm{\Psi }(𝖷,𝗑)`$ $`=`$ $`\{𝖵_S(𝗑)+\gamma _5^{(1)}\gamma _5^{(2)}𝖵_P(𝗑)+{\displaystyle \underset{\mu ,\nu }{}}[\gamma _{e\mu }^{(1)},\gamma _{e\nu }^{(1)}][\gamma _{e\mu }^{(2)},\gamma _{e\nu }^{(2)}]𝖵_T(𝗑)`$ (33)
$`+`$ $`(\gamma _e^{(1)}\gamma _e^{(2)})𝖵_V(𝗑)+(\gamma _5^{(1)}\gamma _e^{(1)}\gamma _e^{(2)}\gamma _5^{(2)})𝖵_A(𝗑)\}\mathrm{\Psi }(𝖷,𝗑).`$ (35)
Scattering wave functions obtain by the weak time limits

$$(\mathrm{\Psi }_b,G\mathrm{\Omega }_{a\pm })=\underset{t=\pm \mathrm{}}{lim}(\mathrm{\Psi }_b,Ge^{iP^0t}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_a(t))$$
(36)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_a(t):=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_a^{(1)}(t)\times \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_a^{(2)}(t)`$ is the tensor product of single particle states.  The $`S`$-matrix obtains in the limit

$$S_{ba}=\underset{t^{}=+\mathrm{}}{lim}\underset{t=\mathrm{}}{lim}(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_b(t^{}),Ge^{iP^0(tt^{})}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_a(t)).$$
(37)
## 5 Many-Body Dynamics

The auxiliary Hilbert space $`_a`$ is the N-fold tensor product of the single-particle auxiliary Hilbert spaces. The involution operator $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is the outer product of single particle involution operators. Schwartz functions, $`f(𝗑_1,\mathrm{},𝗑_N)`$, of $`N`$points and N spinor indices are dense in this Hilbert space. The $`E(4)`$ generators are additive,

$$𝖯^\mu =\frac{1}{i}\underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{}{𝗑_n^\mu },𝖩^{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{i}\underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}\left(𝗑_n^\mu \frac{}{𝗑_n^\nu }𝗑_n^\nu \frac{}{𝗑_n^\mu }+\frac{1}{4}[\gamma _{ne}^\mu ,\gamma _{ne}^\nu ]\right).$$
(38)
In general Green operators are realized by $`E(4)`$ invariant tempered distributions $`G_N(𝗑_1,\mathrm{}𝗑_N;𝗒_N,\mathrm{},𝗒_1)`$. The cluster properties can be conveniently realized using formal annihilation operators $`a(𝗑),b(𝗑)`$ and creation operators $`a^{}(𝗑),b^{}(𝗑)`$ which satisfy the commutation relations

$`\{a(𝗑),a^{}(𝗒)\}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta ^{(4)}(𝗑𝗒),\{b(𝗑),b^{}(𝗒)\}=\delta ^{(4)}(𝗑𝗒)`$ (39)
$`\{a(𝗑),b(𝗒)\}`$ $`=`$ $`\{a(𝗑),b^{}(𝗒)\}=0.`$ (41)
The Green function of $`N`$ free particles is related to the single-particle Green function $`G(𝗑𝗒)`$ by the expression

$$G_{0N}(𝗑_1,\mathrm{},𝗑_n;𝗒_n,\mathrm{},𝗒_1)=0|a(𝗑_1)\mathrm{}a(𝗑_N)b(𝗒_N)\mathrm{}b(𝗒_1)e^{𝐒_\mathrm{𝟏}}|0.$$
(42)
where

$$𝐒_\mathrm{𝟏}:=d^4𝗑d^4𝗒a^{}(𝗑)b^{}(𝗒)G(𝗑𝗒).$$
(43)
and $`|0`$ is the cyclic vector that is annihilated by $`a(𝗑)`$, $`b(𝗑)`$. With the definition

$`\psi (𝗑)`$ $`:=`$ $`e^{𝐒_\mathrm{𝟏}}a(𝗑)e^{𝐒_\mathrm{𝟏}}=a(𝗑){\displaystyle d^{(4)}𝗒G(𝗑𝗒)b^{}(𝗒)},`$ (44)
$`\overline{\psi }(𝗑)`$ $`:=`$ $`e^{𝐒_\mathrm{𝟏}}b(𝗑)e^{𝐒_\mathrm{𝟏}}=b(𝗑)+{\displaystyle d^{(4)}𝗒a^{}(y)G(𝗒𝗑)}`$ (46)
it follows that

$$G_{0N}=0|\psi (𝗑_1)\mathrm{}\psi (𝗑_N)\overline{\psi }(𝗒_N)\mathrm{}\overline{\psi }(𝗒_1)|0.$$
(47)
The cluster structure of the general $`N`$-particle Green functions is realized by the expression

$$G_N(𝗑_1,\mathrm{},𝗑_N;𝗒_N,\mathrm{},𝗒_1)=0|a(𝗑_1)\mathrm{}a(𝗑_N)b(𝗒_N)\mathrm{}b(𝗒_1)\mathrm{exp}\left(\underset{n}{}𝐒_𝐧\right)|0,$$
(48)
if the functions $`S_n(𝗑_1,\mathrm{},𝗑_n;𝗒_n,\mathrm{},𝗒_1)`$ in

$`𝐒_𝐧`$ $`:=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n!^2}}{\displaystyle d^4𝗑_1\mathrm{}d^4𝗒_1\mathrm{}}`$ (49)
$`\times `$ $`a^{}(𝗑_n)\mathrm{}a^{}(𝗑_1)b^{}(𝗒_1)\mathrm{}b^{}(𝗒_n)S_n(𝗑_1,\mathrm{},𝗑_n;𝗒_n,\mathrm{},𝗒_1)`$ (51)
vanish for separation of the points into widely separated clusters. The cluster structure of the the Green operator is realized imposing this structure on the inverse Green operator,

$$𝐆^1=\mathrm{exp}\left[d^4𝗑d^4𝗒a^{}(𝗑)b^{}(𝗒)S^1(𝗑𝗒)+\underset{n2}{}𝐔_n\right].$$
(52)
The interaction operators $`𝐔_n`$ for different $`n`$ are independent. In particular we may assume $`𝐔_n0`$ for $`n>2`$.

$$𝐔_2=\frac{1}{4}d^4𝗑_1d^4𝗑_2d^4𝗒_1d^4𝗒_2a^{}(𝗑_1)a^{}(𝗑_2)b^{}(𝗒_2)b^{}(𝗒_1)U(𝗑_1,𝗑_2;𝗒_2,𝗒_1),$$
(53)
where $`U(𝗑_1,𝗑_2;𝗒_2,𝗒_1)`$ may for instance be given by eq. (35).

The full Green function satisfying cluster separability is then given for any $`N`$ by

$$G(𝗑_1,\mathrm{},𝗑_N;𝗒_N,\mathrm{},𝗒_1)=0|\psi (𝗑_1)\mathrm{}\psi (𝗑_n)\overline{\psi }(𝗒_n)\mathrm{}\overline{\psi }(𝗒_1)e^𝐀|0,$$
(54)
with

$$𝐀:=\frac{1}{4}d^4𝗑_1d^4𝗑_2d^4𝗒_1d^4𝗒_2\psi (𝗑_1)\psi (𝗑_2)\overline{\psi }^{}(𝗒_2)\overline{\psi }^{}(𝗒_1)U(𝗑_1,𝗑_2;𝗒_2,𝗒_1).$$
(55)
## 6 Conclusions

Kinematic Poincaré covariance of state vectors of many-body systems requires a dynamically determined semi-definite inner product measure. An effective realization is based on an auxiliary Hilbert space endowed with a unitary representation of the four-dimensional Euclidean group. A self-adjoint unitary involution operator provides a Poincaré invariant indefinite inner product. The Euclidean invariant Green operator specifies the Poincaré invariant semi-definite inner product of the subspace of physical states. In this framework two-body Green operators are sufficient to determine many-body Green functions satisfying cluster separability.

## Acknowledgments

This work was supported in part by the Department of Energy, Nuclear Physics Division, under contracts W-31-109-ENG-38 and DE-FG02-86ER40286.


text:
# Phenomenology of Neutrino Mass Matrix 11footnote 1Invited Talk at NOON 2000 in December 2000 at Tokyo

## 1 Introduction

The Super-Kamiokande experiment has confirmed the neutrino oscillation in atmospheric neutrinos, which favors the $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ process with a large mixing angle $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{atm}}0.88`$ and a mass-squared difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{\mathrm{atm}}^2=(1.64)\times 10^3`$ eV2 . On the other hand, the recent data of Super-Kamiokande favors the large mixing angle (LMA) MSW solution  for the solar neutrinos problem, but there are still four solutions allowed; the small mixing angle (SMA) MSW , the LMA-MSW, the low $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ (LOW), and the vacuum oscillation (VO) solutions . As a result, the neutrino mixing matrix (MNS matrix ) has two possibilities: one is the matrix with single maximal mixing, which gives the SMA-MSW solution for the solar neutrino problem, and the other with bi-maximal mixing , which corresponds to the LMA-MSW, LOW, and VO solutions.

Assuming that the neutrino oscillations only account for the solar and atmospheric neutrino data, one can consider prototypes of the MNS mixing matrix $`U_{\mathrm{MNS}}`$ with single maximal mixing, and with bi-maximal mixing. Where is the origin of the above nearly maximal mixings? This is one of the most important problems in the lepton mixing. In almost all models for the fermion masses and mixing, there are some preferred bases given by underlying theories of the models. The maximal mixing angles generally follow from both the charged-lepton and neutrino mass matrices. The search for possible mixing patterns of charged leptons and neutrinos is therefore important for constructing models with maximal lepton mixings. We systematically investigate the mixing patterns where at least one of the mixing matrices has sources of maximal mixings . Our analysis is not concerned with any particular structures of lepton mass matrices and hence with the mass spectrum of neutrinos.

## 2 Phenomenology of Mixing Matrices

When the charged-lepton and neutrino mass matrices are given, the MNS matrix is defined as

$$U_{\mathrm{MNS}}=V_E^{}V_\nu ,$$
(1)
where $`V`$’s are the mixing matrices which rotate the left-handed fields so that the mass matrices are diagonalized. The mixing matrices $`V_E`$ and $`V_\nu `$ are generally parameterized as follows:

$`V_E=PU(23)P^{}U(13)U(12)P^{\prime \prime },V_\nu =\overline{P}\overline{U}(23)\overline{P}^{}\overline{U}(13)\overline{U}(12)\overline{P}^{\prime \prime }.`$ (2)
Here $`U(ij)`$ are the rotation matrices,

$$U\left(23\right)=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& c_{23}& s_{23}\\ 0& s_{23}& c_{23}\end{array}\right),U\left(13\right)=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}c_{13}& 0& s_{13}\\ 0& 1& 0\\ s_{13}& 0& c_{13}\end{array}\right),U\left(12\right)=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}c_{12}& s_{12}& 0\\ s_{12}& c_{12}& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right)$$
(3)
in which $`s_{ij}=\mathrm{sin}\theta _{ij}`$ and $`c_{ij}=\mathrm{cos}\theta _{ij}`$, and $`P`$’s are the phase matrices; $`P=\mathrm{diag}(1,e^{ia},e^{ib})`$, $`P^{}=\mathrm{diag}(1,1,e^{i\delta })`$, and $`P^{\prime \prime }=\mathrm{diag}(e^{ip},e^{iq},e^{ir})`$. The matrices $`\overline{U}(ij)`$, $`\overline{P}`$, $`\overline{P}^{}`$, and $`\overline{P}^{\prime \prime }`$ in the neutrino side take the same forms as above. Since there are six mixing angles in $`V_E`$ and $`V_\nu `$, it is meaningful to raise a query which angles are responsible for the observed maximal mixings in $`U_{\mathrm{MNS}}`$. In order to answer this, we analyze the mixing patterns in a model-independent way.

Now, the MNS mixing matrix is written as

$`U_{\mathrm{MNS}}=\{U(23)P^{}U(13)U(12)\}^{}Q\overline{U}(23)\overline{P}^{}\overline{U}(13)\overline{U}(12)U_E^{}QU_\nu ,`$ (4)
in which $`Q=P^{}\overline{P}diag(1,e^{i\alpha },e^{i\beta })`$. As will be seen below, in our analysis, the phase factors in the matrix $`Q`$ sometimes play important roles to have phenomenologically viable mixing angles. The mixing matrix $`U(ij)`$ and $`\overline{U}(ij)`$ are determined if the mass matrices of charged leptons and neutrinos are given. In the first approximation, we assume that these mixing angles are zeros or maximal ones, and then examine possible combinations of $`U_E`$ and $`U_\nu `$ combined with indications of Super-Kamiokande and long baseline neutrino experiments.

Let us consider 9 types of mixing matrices for $`U_E`$ and $`U_\nu `$. The first three types of matrices are given by taking one of mixing angles being maximal and the others being zero:

$`A=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\\ 0& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\end{array}\right),S=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}& 0\\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right),L=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}& 0& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\\ 0& 1& 0\\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}& 0& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\end{array}\right)`$ (5)
where we use the notation $`A`$, $`S`$, and $`L`$ for three type mixing matrices of $`U_E`$ and $`U_\nu `$. The second three types of matrices are given by taking one of mixing angles being zero and the others being maximal:

$`B=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}& 0\\ \frac{1}{2}& \frac{1}{2}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\\ \frac{1}{2}& \frac{1}{2}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\end{array}\right),H=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{1}{2}& \frac{1}{2}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}& 0\\ \frac{1}{2}& \frac{1}{2}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\end{array}\right),N=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}& 0& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\\ \frac{1}{2}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}& \frac{1}{2}\\ \frac{1}{2}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}& \frac{1}{2}\end{array}\right).`$ (6)
The threefold maximal mixing  and the unit matrix are also added in our analyses:

$`T=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}e^{i\delta }\\ \frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2\sqrt{3}}e^{i\delta }& \frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2\sqrt{3}}e^{i\delta }& \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\\ \frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2\sqrt{3}}e^{i\delta }& \frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2\sqrt{3}}e^{i\delta }& \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\end{array}\right),I`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right).`$ (7)
In addition to these, one specific mixing, which is the so-called democratic type mixing , is examined because this mixing is different from the above ones and may be derived from well-motivated underlying theories:

$`D`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\\ 0& \frac{2}{\sqrt{6}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\end{array}\right).\begin{array}{c}s_{12}=1/2\\ s_{13}=1/\sqrt{3}\\ s_{23}=1/\sqrt{2}\end{array}`$ (8)
By using the above types of mixing matrices, we have 81 ($`=9\times 9`$) combinations of matrices for the MNS matrix $`U_{\mathrm{MNS}}`$, in which the phases $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$, $`\delta _E`$, and $`\delta _\nu `$ are free parameters. Note that if at least one of the matrix elements is zero in $`U_E`$ ($`U_\nu `$), we can take $`P^{}`$ ($`\overline{P}^{}`$) as a unit matrix without loss of generality. The phase $`\delta _E`$ ($`\delta _\nu `$) can be absorbed into the matrices $`P^{\prime \prime }`$ ($`\overline{P}^{\prime \prime }`$) and/or $`Q`$.

We examine the MNS matrices according to phenomenological constraints coming from the atmospheric neutrino experiments. The Chooz experiment  also provides a useful guide for the classification of mixing matrices, in particular, for the $`(U_{\mathrm{MNS}})_{e3}`$ element. The solar neutrino problem can be solved with both large and small mixing angle solutions, which are now predictions of our systematic search of taking 81 combinations of $`U_E`$ and $`U_\nu `$. We here take a convention where the mixing between the labels 2 and 3 is relevant to atmospheric neutrinos and the mixing between the labels 1 and 2 to the solar neutrino problem. We find that the 81 mixing patterns are classified into the following five categories:

* class 1: small mixing for atmospheric neutrinos
* class 2: large value of $`(U_{\mathrm{MNS}})_{e3}`$
* class 3: small mixing for atmospheric neutrinos when $`(U_{\mathrm{MNS}})_{e3}1`$ by tuning phase values
* class 4: consistent with experiments by tuning phase values
* class 5: consistent with experiments independently of phase values

The classes 4 and 5 are consistent with the experimental data. We have also checked the “stability” of our classification numerically by taking the fluctuations of all mixing angles in the region of $`\theta _{ij}=\theta _{ij}\pm 5^{}`$ both in the charged-lepton and neutrino sectors. Due to a constraint from the Chooz experiment, one may usually assume that a bi-maximal mixing matrix takes the form of type $`B`$. It is, however, found here that the matrix $`N`$, which has a large 1-3 mixing, gives exactly the same results as the matrix $`B`$ does. (The predictions for 1-2 mixing angles are also the same.) This would give a new possibility of model-building for the fermion masses and mixings.

In the category of class 5, there are the following 6 mixing patterns:

$$(U_E,U_\nu )=(A,S),(A,I),(I,A),(I,B),(D,S),(D,I).$$
(9)
An interesting fact we find in (9) is that without tuning of phase parameters (i.e., in class 5), a large 1-2 mixing relevant to the solar neutrino problem must come from the neutrino side (except for the cases of democratic-type mixing). This may be a natural result in view of the charged-lepton mass matrix and commonly discussed in the literature. That is, in the charged-lepton sector, the mass hierarchy between the first and second generations may be too large for the large angle solar solutions. It is, however, noted that the same result can be obtained only from a viewpoint of mixing matrices.

Class 4 contains the other 31 patterns of mixing matrices. These patterns require suitable choices of phase values to be consistent with the experimental data. The result is summarized in Table 1, which shows the values of mixing angle for atmospheric neutrinos ($`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{atm}}`$) and for solar neutrinos ($`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{}`$) in cases that the values of $`(U_{\mathrm{MNS}})_{e3}`$ are fixed to be minimum. For each combination, we also present the relevant phases which are tuned to obtain the minimum value of $`(U_{\mathrm{MNS}})_{e3}`$. In some cases, the mixing angles of $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{atm}}`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{}`$ have some uncertainties in their predictions. It is because there are remaining phase degrees of freedom even with fixed values of $`(U_{\mathrm{MNS}})_{e3}`$. The mixing patterns in class 4 have different numbers of phase tuning to obtain experimentally suitable MNS matrices. For example, the types $`(U_E,U_\nu )=(A,A)`$ and $`(A,B)`$, which are often seen in the literature, requires only one tuning of phase values to fix all the mixing angles in $`U_{\mathrm{MNS}}`$ (see also the next section). These combinations have not been discussed so far in the literature and would provide new possibilities for constructing models where fermion masses and mixing angles are properly reproduced.

## 3 Texture of Lepton Mass Matrices

Let us begin with discussing the patterns in class 5. As noted in the previous section, these mixing patterns are well known in the literature, in other words, there are a lot of models of mass matrices which lead to these mixing patterns. We summarize the 6 patterns briefly assuming that neutrinos are Majorana.

The first pattern is the case $`(U_E,U_\nu )=(A,S)`$, which predicts bi-maximal mixing for the MNS matrix. Such a type of texture is at first derived in SO(10) grand unified models . The next one is the case $`(U_E,U_\nu )=(A,I)`$, which predicts single maximal mixing for the MNS matrix. These mass matrices are indeed obtained in $`E_7`$, $`E_6`$, and $`SO(10)`$ grand unified theories . The third one is $`(U_E,U_\nu )=(I,A)`$, which gives single maximal mixing for the MNS matrix. This texture can be given by, for example, $`R`$-parity violating models . The fourth one is $`(U_E,U_\nu )=(I,B)`$, which gives bi-maximal mixing for the MNS matrix. This texture follows from radiative generation mechanisms for neutrino masses . The fifth and sixth patterns are specific ones because they depend on the democratic lepton mass matrix . All the above mixing patterns are allowed by the experimental data without any tuning of phases, $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$, $`\delta _{E,\nu }`$.

Next let us discuss the mixing patterns in class 4, where the presence of phase factors is essential in the MNS matrix to have right values of mixing angles. There are 31 patterns classified into this category, but only a few mass matrix models with these mixing patterns have been proposed. These patterns thus provide potentially useful textures of lepton mass matrices.

At first, we discuss a well-known example $`(U_E,U_\nu )=(A,A)`$ which is derived from the mass matrices,

$`M_E\left(\begin{array}{ccc}& & \\ & \lambda ^2& 1\\ & \lambda ^2& 1\end{array}\right),M_\nu \left(\begin{array}{ccc}& & \\ & 1& 1\\ & 1& 1\end{array}\right),`$ (10)
obtained in the models with $`U(1)`$ flavor symmetries . The mixing angles at leading order become

$`\theta _{\mathrm{atm}}={\displaystyle \frac{\beta \alpha }{2}},\theta _{}=(U_{\mathrm{MNS}})_{e3}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},`$ (11)
that gives a SMA solution for the solar neutrino problem. The experimental constraint, $`(U_{\mathrm{MNS}})_{e3}1`$, is satisfied, but for atmospheric neutrinos, tuning of phase values for $`\beta \alpha `$ must be involved. In the presence of the phase matrix $`Q`$, a cancellation of two large mixing angles from $`U_E`$ and $`U_\nu `$ can be avoided.

Another pattern for which concrete models have been constructed is the case of $`(U_E,U_\nu )=(A,B)`$, which can be derived from the mass matrices,

$`M_E\left(\begin{array}{ccc}& & \\ & \lambda ^2& 1\\ & \lambda ^2& 1\end{array}\right),M_\nu \left(\begin{array}{ccc}& 1& 1\\ 1& & ϵ\\ 1& ϵ& \end{array}\right).`$ (12)
These textures have been discussed in Ref. . It is pointed out in Ref.  that this combination of the mixing matrices is also derived from the mass matrices in Eq. (11). The mixing angle $`\theta _{\mathrm{atm}}`$ is the same as Eq. (11), and a phase value, $`\beta \alpha \pi /2`$ must be chosen to get maximal mixing of atmospheric neutrinos.

We here comment on the models  which introduce the following type of mass matrices:

$`M_E\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\lambda ^3& \lambda ^2& 1\\ \lambda ^3& \lambda ^2& 1\\ \lambda ^3& \lambda ^2& 1\end{array}\right),M_\nu \left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 1& 1\\ 1& 1& 1\\ 1& 1& 1\end{array}\right).`$ (13)
This corresponds to $`(U_E,U_\nu )=(T,T)`$, or to a special case $`(U_E,U_\nu )=(D,D)`$, where suitable MNS matrices can also be obtained by phase tuning.

As noted in the previous section, in class 4, there are several new mixing patterns which have not yet been discussed. Let us show an example of the case $`(U_E,U_\nu )=(S,N)`$. This mixing pattern could be derived from

$`M_E\left(\begin{array}{ccc}& \lambda ^4& \lambda ^2\\ & \lambda ^4& \lambda ^2\\ & \lambda ^2& 1\end{array}\right),M_\nu \left(\begin{array}{ccc}2& \sqrt{2}& \sqrt{2}\\ \sqrt{2}& 1+ϵ& 1ϵ\\ \sqrt{2}& 1ϵ& 1+ϵ\end{array}\right).`$ (14)
In this case, we have

$`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{\mathrm{atm}}=\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{}=\left|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}}e^{i\alpha }\right|^2,(U_{\mathrm{MNS}})_{e3}=\left|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}}e^{i\alpha }\right|.`$ (15)
Here we would like to emphasis that a single phase tuning of $`\alpha `$ can ensure all the mixing angles to be consistent with experiments. Since the $`(U_{\mathrm{MNS}})_{e3}`$ mixing in (15) is close to the Chooz bound, this pattern will be tested in the near future. Including the above example, we find several possible mixing patterns which no one has discussed so far (see Table 1). Model-construction utilizing such types of textures may be worth being performed.

## 4 Summary and Discussion

We have found that there are many allowed mixing patterns of charged leptons and neutrinos for the MNS matrix with bi-maximal or single maximal mixing. Among them, only 6 mixing patterns are allowed without any tuning of phase values. Interestingly, these patterns are indeed derived from the concrete models which have been proposed to account for the fermion mass hierarchy problem. The other patterns can give solutions of the observed neutrino anomalies depending on the choices of phase values. In this class, physically significant mixing patterns might be the ones which need a fewer numbers of phase tuning to have definite predictions consistent with experiments. We have found that 9 combinations satisfy this criterion, a single phase tuning required. They have not been studied enough in mass matrix models and would give new possibilities of model-construction. The phases to be tuned are not completely unphysical unlike the quark sector, but some of them could be connected to Majorana phases and $`CP`$ violation in the lepton sector. Combined with these effects, the measurements of mixing angles $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{}`$ and $`(U_{\mathrm{MNS}})_{e3}`$ will be important to select possible mixing patterns.

### Acknowledgments

We would like to thank T. Yanagida for useful discussions and comments. We also thank the organizers and participants of Summer Institute 2000 held at Yamanashi, Japan, where a portion of this work was carried out. This work is supported by the Grant-in-Aid for Science Research, Ministry of Education, Science and Culture, Japan (No. 10640274, No. 12047220, No. 12740146, No. 12014208).

## References